ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 25, 1973

BARRETT VARNISH COMPANY

)

PETITIONER

v.

)

PCB 73—341

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESPONDENT

N. J. FELLER, JR., EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT AND TREASURER, on

behalf of BARRETT VARNISH COMPANY

LEE

A. CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, on behalf of the

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Marder)

This action

involves a variance petition filed by Barrett

Varnish Company. Petitioner seeks relief from Rule 203 (b)

re-

lating to particulate emissions.

Barrett Varnish Company owns and operates a facility for

the manufacture of specialty paints, varnishes, and other sur-

face coatings. The reactants (alkid resins) are prepared in

gas-heated covered kettles. Heating, cooling, mass transfer

and thinning are among the u~itoperations employed by Petition-

er. The facility is located in Cicero, Illinois.

The Agency recommends a grant, but points out that compli-

ance with 203 (a) rather than 203 (b) is required. Petitioner’s

compliance plan will allow compliance with 203 (a).

Contaminants emitted into the atmosphere are typically part-

iculate matter (primarily sublimed phthalic anhydride)

,

water,

and oil. Petitioner claims a ratio of 40, 40, and 20. Stack

tests performed yield the following results:

Particulate emissions 7.3 lbs/hr.

Hydrocarbons

3.6 lbs/hr.

These emissions are per reactor.

—

665

---

—2—

Petitioner operates no more than two reactors at any one

time. Rule 207

(f)

calls for an allowable emission rate of eight

pounds per hour, so Petitioner is clearly in compliance in this

respect.

Rule 203 (a)

,

based on Petitioner’s charge of 1400 pounds

and a process time of 7 hours, allows an emission rate of 0.77

lbs/hr. Therefore a reduction of 91 is required for compliance.

Petitioner proposes to install a high energy air filter

(HEAF)

(manufactured by Johns-Nanville Corporation) on its dis-

charge air stream. This filter has been shown to be 95 effic-

ient and will thus allow compliance with 203 (a)

Hardship: Petitioner claims that an unreasonable and arbi-

trary hardship will be imposed if this variance is not granted.

Failure to grant said variance will result in the forced shutdown

of Petitioner~s operation, resulting in several thousand dollars

of loss and a potential layoff of personnel. It is also claimed

that compliance could not have come sooner in that the high en-

ergy air filter has only become available in the past few months.

Environmental Impact: Cicero is a fairly highly polluted

section of the state. The Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency air monitoring network report of August 16, 1973, states

that the 24 hour max. was found to be 180 ug/m3, with a primary

respectively.and

secondary air quality standard of 260 ug/m3 and 150 ug/m3

p~titionerhas calculated that the contribution would be

10 ug/m~. This is equivalent to 6.3 percent of the 24 hour max.

of 180 found in the area. For a facility as small as Barrett

thas contribution is exceedingly high. Furthermore, Petitioner’s

figures rcfleot only

one reactors emissions, while in

fact

two

reactors were running at~the

same

time.

This

fact would double

the emissions to

20

uq/m~, Petitioner~s; own calculations use a

dilution ratio

of

10.000 at the discharge of the

stank. This

ratio seems ver7

low, and it is evident that the 6 5 percent fig-

ure

used. auove is

cut of proportion (very hiqh) in, relationsh:lin

whilh.

Petocioner’

s

d:Lsrbaroe.

rlowever,, due to roe spersity of

data avaoiaO~Le we must o’rocet~i on the ass

em t~on

tint the

e~:iss—

ions qenera1:eC~ are

:Lecieec, a

soqnificant

amount

Pan:

t inns

feel:: to

at toe Gti’j:LO r.

fe

10

:nr~chi

ance ~

C

-

(000

_i

~

L~

:::000,ELLCO.!e0’

(00

:~~:ehi~foo

se—morn:: ::~erfohf:o:::

—

I

‘—‘

t/

c

Or’ elO’e

rio:

---

—3—

A shortened variance will be granted to denonstrate the Board’s

concern in the matter. Although it will not be an explicit

order,

Petitioner is reminded that all efforts should be employed to expe-

dite the installation of the high energy air filter.

This should in-

clude the

use

of

overtime and

Saturday work.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that a variance

be granted to Barrett Vanish

Company

from

Rule

203 (a) until Jan-

A) This variance shall terminate in 10 days fol-

lowing installation of a 95 efficient high

energy air filter or

January

15, 1974, which-

ever occurs first.

B) Petitioner shall

submit

writing to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Division of

Air

Variance Section

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

Said reports shall be

submitted

on the last

day of each month until expiration of said

variance, with a final report

due upon

com-

pletion

and

testing of installation.

Said

reports

shall contain as a minimum:

1) Progress made

towards

completion

of the proposed control program.

2) Estimated completion date.

D) Respondent shall, within 35 days from the date

of this order, post a performance bond in a

form satisfactory to the Agency in the

amount

of $4,000, guaranteeing compliance with the

IT IS SO ORDERED.

---

—4—

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, certify that the above Opini n and Order was adopt~

ed by the Board on the

“s’)

day of

______________,

1973, by

avoteof

______

to

p

—