ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
February
21,
1974
ALL
STEEL
EQUIPMENT
CO.
)
PETITIONER
)
V.
)
PCB
73—544
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
RESPONDENT
~1R.
R.
J.
CARLSON,
CORPORATE
OFFICER,
in
behalf
of
ALL
STEEL
EQUIPMENT
COMPANY
MS.
K.
S.
NESBURG,
DIVISION
OF
AIR
POLLUTION
CONTROL,
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Marder)
This action involves a variance request filed on December 20,
1973,
by All Steel Equipment Company
(Petitioner).
Relief is sought from
Rule 205
(f)
for one year to allow operation of Petitioner’s paint
spray operation.
In its
recommendation filed on February
8,
1974,
the
Environmental Protection Agency recommends
a grant subject to certain
conditions.
Petitioner owns and operates, in Montgomery,
Illinois, a facility
for the manufacture of office equipment.
The operation in question
is the painting lines which consist of six separate emission sources.
Petitioner is presently using photochemically reactive solvents in its
painting operation, the amounts of which are given as follows:
Total steel parts
17,475.4 lbs/hr
Paint
-
solids
311.0 lbs/hr
Paint
-
solvents
577.6 lbs/hr
Theoretically all solvents evaporate into the atmosphere and Petit-
ioner’s discharges are thus
577.6
lbs/hr.
Rule 205
(f) sets a maximum
allowable discharge of eight
(8)
lbs/hr.
Review of Rule 205
(f):
There have been numerous requests from var-
ious manufacturers for variance from Rule
205
(f)
.
The logical question
is “Why have all users waited until the last minute to file these re-
quests?”
To best answer this question a review of the rationale behind
the original regulation
is in order.
Rule
205
(f)
reads
as
follows:
11 —349
—2—
(f)
Use of Organic Material.
No person shall cause or allow the dis-
charge of more than 8 pounds per hour of organic material into
the atmosphere from any emission source, except as provided in
paragraphs
(f)
(1)
and
(f)
(2)
of this
Rule 205 and the following:
Exception:
If no odor nuisance exists the limitation of this Rule
205
(f)
shall apply only to photochemically reactive material.
(1)
Alternative Standard. Emissions of organic material in excess
of those permitted by Rule 205
(f)
are allowable if such em-
issions are controlled by one of the following methods:
(A)
flame, thermal or catalytic incineration so
as either
to reduce such emissions to
10 ppm equivalent methane
(molecular weight
16)
or less, or to convert
85 per
cent of the hydrocarbons
to carbon dioxide and water; or,
(B)
a vapor recovery system which adsorbs and/or absorbs
and/or condenses
at least
85 per cent of the total un-
controlled organic material that would otherwise be
emitted to the atmosphere; or,
(C)
any other air pollution control equipment approved by
the Agency capable of reducing by
85 per cent or more
the uncontrolled organic material that would be other-
wise emitted to the atmosphere.
(2)
Exceptions.
The provisions of Rule 205
(f)
shall not apply
to:
(A)
the spraying or use of insecticides, herbicides, or
other pesticides;
(B)
fuel combustion emission sources;
(C)
the application of paving asphalt and pavement marking
paint from sunrise to sunset and when air pollution
watch, alert or emergency conditions are not declared;
(D)
any
owner, operator, user or manufacturer of paint,
varnish, lacquer, coatings or printing ink whose Com-
pliance Program and Project Completion Schedule,
as
required by Part I of this Chapter, provides for the
reduction of organic
material
used in such process to
20 per
cent
or less of total volume by May 30,
1975.
In its opinion on The Matter of Emission Standards R-7l-23,
the Board
took notice of the unique problems encountered by facilities engaged in
this type of operatiom.
The Board stated in part:
“The sources affected by Rules
205
Ce)
and
(f)
,
however, are neither
so certain to be offensive nor so economical
to
control.
Consequently
in both paragraphs the emphasis
is
placed on limiting the use of photo-
chemically reactive material.
Where no active odor nuisance is shown,
11 —350
—3-.
compliance
with
these provisions
can be achieved by switching to a less
reactive substitute, which was a principal means of compliance
in Los
Angeles and which can be accomplished without significant hardship.”
“However, the evidence establishes that for certain industries, such
as paint spraying, some printing processes,
and dry cleaning with stan-
dard solvents, the large volume of exhaust gas or the low value of the
product to be recovered render the costs of control very considerable
indeed.
Moreover, incineration, the only established emission reduction
method in some cases,
requires large volumes of scarce natural gas or
distillate oil that might be put to good use in reducing particulates
and sulphur emissions.1’
“Consequently, while we will not hesitate to require that such em-
ission controls be undertaken upon a showing that a nuisance exists, we
have refrained from requiring them uniformly across the State.
ifl
the
absence
of
such
a
showing
a
shift
to
less
reactive
materials,
or
to
materials
such
as
high
solids
coatings
or
inks
containing
substantially
less
total
organic
matter
will
suffice.”
The intent of the above was to allow time to switch to a non-photo—
reactive system.
In the instant
case
Petitioner
has
shown good faith
in att~mptingto do so.
The
shortages
of
chemicals
and other commodi-
ties which have struck
the
nation
in the last year have dealt a severe
blow
to
those
who
depended
on
such
commodities
for
their
compliance
plans.
In making a determination in an
action
of
this
type
the
Board
must
review not only the regulation, but the rationale behind
said
requla—
tion,
In
this
case
205
(f)
(2)
(0)
was
spec~fically
instituted
to
allow
a
user
adequate
time
to
formulate
a
different
paint.
The
answer
to
the
above
question
then
is:
Many
users
have
indeed
attempted,
and
many
have
succeeded,
in
deriving
new
formulations,
The
sudden
shortage
of
needed
raw
materials
has
generated
their
need
for
a
variance
not a
lack
of
good
faith.
In
actions
such
as
this
then
the
Board
will
look
at
Petitioner’s
efforts
to
compiv~
in
the
event
that
a
good
faith
effort
~ias
made
the
Board
will
look favorably upon such
a
variance
request.
it
is also important to
note
that
a
variance
is
merely
a
stopgap,
or
temporary protection from
enforcement,
The
Regulation
(205
f)
was
instituted
because
emissions
of
hydrocarbons,
if
left
uncontrolled,
do
present
a
danger
to
the
health
and
well-being
of
the
community
This
fact
mandates
that
the
Board
must
require
compliance.
While
a
situation
beyond
Petitioner’s
control
(lack
of
raw
material)
is
a
viable
grounds
for
a
temporary
variance,
it
is
not
grounds
for
a
permanent
stay.
Users
affected
by
this
shortage
should
be
vigorously
investigating
alternate
abatement
technology
while
awaiting
the
arrival
of
permissible
paint
formulations.
Compliance
Plan
in
the
Instant
Case~ In
the
instant
case
Petitioner
has
shown~ii~t a
good
faith
effort
to
comply
has
been
made,
Petitioner
alleges
that
they
initiated
a
reformulation
program
in
December
of
1972,
Said
reformulation
was
accomplished
and
ready
for
use
in
September
1973.
Ii—3~~
—4—
On November 12, 1973, Petitioner informed the Environmental Protection
Agency that its compliance plan was
in jeopardy because
its suppliers
could not obtain sufficient non—photochemically reactive solvents.
This
fact precipitated the instant variance petition.
Petitioner can use
whatever non—photochemically reactive paint it can secure; however,
it
will not obtain enough for its operations.
Petitioner has told the Agen-
cy that it is in the process of investigating alternate compliance meth-
ods, but that said investigations are only in the feasibility stage, and
a commitment to comply at this time
is impossible
(Agency Rec.
Pg.
2).
Agency contacts with Petitioner’s suppliers bore out the fact that Pet-
itioner cannot obtain the newly formulated paints, and that the end of
the shortage cannot be predicted.
Hardship:
Petitioner alleges that forced compliance would mandate
a
complete shutdown of its facilities.
The Board has stated that this
is not the case (Forty—Eight Insulations,
Inc.,
v. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, PCB 73-478; E.I. du Pont de Nemours
v.
Environmental
Protection Agency, P~B73-533).
A variance is not equivalent
to ashut-
down order, but rather a shield from prosecution.
However,
a shutdown
is a possible alternate open to Petitioner, and in this event
the
follow-
ing
hardship
is
alleged:
1.
The
potential
layoff
of
about
2000
persons.
2.
LOSS
of
total
plant
output.
Environmental
Impact:
The
data
in
this
case
is
sparse.
Petitioner
alleges
that
it
is
not in
a
position
to
judge
the
effects
of
its
emiss-
ions.
The Agency contends that hydrocarbon emission data in the area
have not been taken.
The Agency also reports that its investigations
have not turned up any complaints from citizens in
the
area.
This in-
formation
tells
the
Board
only
that
the
emissions
do
not
constitute
a
nuisance, but nothing about its smog-producing tendencies.
If a future
variance
is
requested,
more
detailed
environmental
impact
data
will
be
re-
guired.
Petitioner requests
a one—year variance; the Agency recommends six
months.
The Agency further recommends
that
compliance
plan
be
f
urn—
ished within the above six—months period.
A onc-year variance will be
granted,
subject
to the order that Petitioner continue to pursue its in-
vestigations
of alternate technology.
This will allot Petitioner ample
time
to
both
reevaluate
the
exempt
solvent
mar~ce: and
also
formulate
its
plans
on alternate technology.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of facc and conclusions of law
of
the
Board.
ORDER
IT ISTHE ORDER of the Pollution
tcj±.
ul
~onrd
that
PoL:i~toner
t~
11—352
—5—
granted a variance from Rule 205
(f)
until February 21
,
1975,
subject
to
the
following
conditions:
I.
Petitioner utilize
as much exempt solvent formulations
as
can be furnished by its suppliers.
2.
Petitioner shall vigorously pursue its efforts to achieve
compliance, and its investigations
into alternate technology.
3,
Petitioner shall submit monthly progress reports to:
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Division
of
Air
Pollution
Control
Control Program Coordinator
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
Said reports shall
contain:
a)
The usage of exempt and non—exempt formula-
tions during the period.
b)
Steps taken to achieve compliance either by
use of exempt solvents or use of alternate
technology.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board, certify that the abov
Opnion and Order was adopted by the
Boar on the
~
day of
1974, by
a vote of
~
to
H
—363