ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

8,

1976

UNARCO INDUSTRIES,

INC.

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 75—289

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Duinelle):

On July

25,

1975 Unarco Industries,

Inc.

(Unarco)

filed

a petition for variance from Rule 203(a)

of the Air Pollution

Control Regulations.

On September

8,

1975 the Environmental

Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed its Recommendation.

The

Board issued an Interim Order on October

9,

1975 requiring

tinarco

to submit additional information.

On October

30,

Unarco waived,

for 90 days,

the 90-day decision requirement.

tJnarco filed

its Supplemental Petition before this Board on

December

18,

1975,

and further waived the decisional date

on January

9,

1976.

On January

28, 1976 the Agency filed

an Amended Recommendation

in which the Agency recommended

that a variance be granted.

The facility

in question

is a porcelain-on-steel

manufacturing plant located west of Paris, Illinois,

in

Edgar County.

The plant employs 35-hourly and five salaried

personnel,

manufacturing procelain—on-steel

sinks for the

housing industry and certain porcelain component parts.

The

specific portion of this process that occasioned the instant

petition is the spray application of finely milled porcelain

enamel onto steel.

During the spraying operation some of

these particles are emitted from the spray booths into the

atmosphere, via stacks 32 feet high,

in violation of the

particulate limits of Rule 203(a).

21—45

---

—2—

Unarco

is presently

in the process of installing a system

designed to collect,

at

a 99.9

efficiency, particles above

1/2 micron in size.

(Page

4 of Exhibit II)

The projected cost

is $178,091.00.

As Unarco states that the emitted dust consists

only of particles of 3.75 microns and above

(page

3 of Petition),

there can be no doubt that the completed system would bring

Unarco into compliance with particulate regulations.

In fact,

the processed air is

to be recirculated back into the plant

(Page

1, Exhibit

1).

Unarco shows that its emissions are not causing or contributing

to a violation of Ambient Air Quality Standards

in Bloomington

or Champaign,

Illinois

(Page

5 of Petition).

While these data

are not conclusive as to the air quality near Unarco’s plant,

the small amount of the emissions

(2.1 lbs/hr.

from each of

3

spray booth assemblies)

and the absence of any citizen complaints

indicate no reason to suspect any significant adverse impact on

ambient air quality according to the Agency

(See page

5 of

Recommendation)

The remaining issue is whether Unarco’s delay in compliance

(the regulation was effective as of December 31,

1973)

has been

self—imposed so as to negate Unarco’s claim of unreasonable or

arbitrary hardship.

On page

8 of its Supplemental Petition

Unarco comments:

“This has not been

a situation of a manufacturer

claiming a necessity to choose between either increased

corporate profits or the spending of extra profits on

pollution control devices.

Instead,

it is

a manufacturer

struggling

to get an operation off the ground, while

at the same time attempting to meet the various environmental

requirements.”

Unarco has asserted facts which would tend to support this

generous language.

Indeed, Unarco speaks of several crisis

situations,

since it obtained the plant

in February 1973, which

required serious evaluation and justification for keeping the

plant open.

In early summer of 1974 Unarco became aware that

it

would lose its prime customer.

During May,

1975, Unarco

was ordered by its home office to evaluate the effects of

a

natural gas cutback.

However,

from the period of February, 1973

to early summer

of 1974 Unarco states that its failure to act on the problem

in question was due

to the allocation of its financial and

manpower resources to three other environmental projects which

were of greater consequence.

Knowing that it was

in violation

of Rule 203(a), Unarco decided to:

1) not remedy the problem,

and

2)

not apply for

a variance.

Unarco has certainly not

demonstrated that it could not have afforded the cost of

21

—~46

---

—3—

preparing and filing

a petition for variance.

The evidence submitted,

voluminous

as

it

is, does not satisfactorily explain Unarco’s

failure to petition for a variance until July of 1975.

However,

Unarco appears to have been otherwise earnest in its attempts

to comply with the Board’s regulations.

It

is arguable that,

given the lack of funds to accomplish compliance,

the delay

did not cause substantial additional environmental damage.

Further, the loss of Unarco’s prime customer and decisions

on

the economic viability of this recently purchased plant do explain

substantial parts of the lengthy delay.

On balance,

the Board finds that compliance with Rule 203(a)

would have caused an unreasonable hardship for Unarco,

and

that Unarco’s delay was substantially explained.

However,

it

is not the loss of a customer or the allocation of funds

to other

projects which the Board views

in mitigation of Unarco’s failure

to take steps necessary

to obtain compliance with Rule 203(a).

The mitigating factor

is the economic hardship which was caused

by these occurrences,

These other hardships combine

to make

compliance with Rule 203 a sufficiently arbitrary and unreasonable

hardship to outweigh even Unarco’s lengthy delays.

Yet even

that finding could have been outweighed

in this case had Unarco’s

emissions constituted a more significant threat to the environment.

The Board finds that

a variance until May 15, 1976 should

allow Unarco adequate time

to diligently complete the construction

of its frit particulate collection system.

Due to the nearness

of Unarco’s completion date for the collection system,

no

performance bond will be required.

This Opinion constitutes

the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of

law.

ORDER

1.

Petitioner Unarco Industries,

Inc.,

is hereby granted

variance from Rule 203(a)

of the Air Pollution Control Regulations

from July

25,

1975 until May 15,

1976.

2.

Petitioner Unarco Industries,

Inc.,

shall, as a condition

of

this variance,

submit monthly reports to the Agency detailing

its progress towards completion of its compliance program.

These

progress reports shall begin on the first day of the month

following the Board Order and shall be submitted on the first

day of each month thereafter until the project

is completed.

The

21-—47

---

—4—

progress reports will be submitted to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Control Program Coordinator

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

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

Boa~d,hereby certify the above Opinion a d Order were adopted on the

~‘__day

of April 1976 by a vote of

-

Christan L.

Moffett,

k

Illinois Pollution C

ol Board