ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
October 9, 1975
UNARCO INDUSTRIES,
INC.
Petitioner,
v.
PCB 75—289
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
INTERIM
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Dumelle):
Unarco Industries
(Petitioner),
filed a variance petition
on July 25, 1975 seeking relief from Rule 203(a) of the Board’s
Air Pollution Control Regulations, Chapter 2
(Air Rules) until
May 15,
1976.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
filed its Recommendation proposing a variance grant, on
September 8, 1975.
No hearing was held.
Petitioner engages in the manufacture of porcelain steel
sinks and their porcelain component parts.
Its facility is
located approximately one—half mile west of the City of
Paris, in Edgar County.
New
residential housing is located
approximately 1/8 mile east of Petitioner’s facility.
Petitioner’s basic sink operation consists of the
stamping of carbon
and
coil steel into sink basins, welding
the basins together in pairs, welding in necessary auxiliary
components, spray coating the units with porcelain frits, and
firing the porcelain to achieve a finished surface.
It is
the porcelain spraying operation which fails to conform to
Rule 203(a) of the Air Rules.
During this operation, particulate
discharge resulting front overspraying escapes the spray
booth
baffles and vestibule and enters the atmosphere via the
booth’s
stack, 32 feet above ground level.
19—57
—2—
Petitioner states that the disch~rgefrom the spray booth
unit occurs at
a rate of 2.1 pounds per hour.
The Agency notes
in its Recommendation that as three units are normally
in operation,
the actual emission rate is 6.3 pounds per hour.
The standard
under Rule 203(a),
is
.53 pounds per hour.
rfhe
contaminant from Petitioner’s stack
is
a finely
milled porcelain enamel particulate.
Petitioner contends
that the particulate
is quite heavy, with a specific gravity
of
2.5, and therefore mostly remains near the point of
emission in the center of the facility’s roof.
The Agency,
however,
states that a micron analysis reveals that 67
of the
particulate is comprised of particles under
40 microns in
size.
The Agency indicates that particles of this size tend
to remain airborne for longer periods of time and for
greater distances than larger particles and hence will not
remain very near the emission point.
The Agency further
notes that during an August
1,
1975 inspection,
an Agency
engineer observed porcelain enamel particulate emissions
drifting from two booth stacks across and beyond the plant
roof.
Petitioner states that it provides emission control on
porcelain emissions by the use of the baffles and vestibule arrange-
ment incorporated into the booth assemblies.
Petitioner proposes
to reduce its emissions to comply with the Rule 203(a)
standard by installing a filtration system capable of capturing
96
to 99
of the particulate matter.
Petitioner proposes to
use either a multicyclone or baghouse collector.
The program
would clean approximately 90,000 standard cubic feet per
minute, which would then be returned to the in-plant atmosphere.
The Agency Recommendation indicates that both of the alternative
filtration systems proposed by Petitioner are capable of producing
compliance with Rule 203(c) assuming little or no porcelain
frit fracture upon induction to the filters.
Petitioner has also supplied regional ambient air quality
data for 1974, which indicates that
the
grant of a variance would not
pose a hazard to either primary or secondary particulate standards.
The Agency Recommendation notes that this data comes
from sampling sites at Bloomington and Champaign and is not
conclusive as to the ambient air quality near Petitioner’s
plant
in
Paris.
However,
the Agency also states that given
the small size of Petitioner’s emissions and the general
nature of the area,
it agrees with Petitioner’s assessment
that a variance would not affect the air quality standards
in
the area around Petitioner’s facility.
19
—
58
—3—
Both Petitioner and the Agency state that there have
been no citizen complaints regarding Petitioner’s emissions.
Petitioner alleges that a denial of a variance would make it such to
an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.
Petitioner alleges
that if required to comply immediately with Rule 203(a)
it
would be forced to cease
its porcelain application and consequently
close
its facility until control equipment will be installed.
Petitioner alleges this would result in a layoff,
a loss
of approximately $1,000,000
in income, and a possible decision
not to reopen the plant.
However,
as the Agency notes
in its
Recommendation,
Petitioner has not substantiated these allegations
with any data.
Furthermore,
the Board has consistently held,
that
denial of a variance does not constitute
a shutdown.
The Petitioner
can still operate although subjecting itself to possible
enforcement action
(ABC Great States
v.EPA,
PCB 72—39;
Flintkote
C~y~EP~,
PCB 71—68; Commonwealth Edison v.
EPA,
PCB 72—91,
72—150)
The Agency states
in its Recommendation that there is
no reason why
Petitioner could not have achieved compliance earlier.
Petitioner now has all of its required permits other than those
pertaining
to the porcelain sink manufacturing process.
However,
Petitioner
did not begin
to submit any of its permit applications
until two years after the applicable compliance date for the
facility.
It appears then, that any hardship to the Petitioner
at
this point is self—imposed.
Petitioner also failed to advance any arguments as to
unavailability of controls or financial inability to install
such controls prior
to the mandated compliance date.
The
Board has held that a hardship imposed by denying
a variance
is
“not unreasonable and arbitrary”,
if it was
earlier
within the power of the Respondent to remedy,
and is
thus
self-imposed
(City
of Danville
v.
EPA,
PCB 72-335;
GAF Corporation
v,
EPA, PCB 71-Il.
Title
9,
Section
35, of the Act provides that the Board
may grant
a
variance whenever
it
is found,
“.,.upon presentation
of adequate
proof...”, that compliance will impose an arbitrary
or
unreasonable hardship.
The Board could
find, based upon this record,
that Petitioner
has failed
to establish beyond a mere assertion that the denial
of
a variance would impose such an arbitrary and unreasonable
hardship and that
it has not justified its failure to bring its
facility into timely compliance.
The Petitioner shall be granted 60 days within which to submit
additional materials,
if any, bearing upon the hardship question
and the apparent self-imposed delay.
A waiver of the 90—day
aeci~on
period
set by
statt.~te
shall
ha executed and filed with
the
Board
on or before Octoier
22,
1975.
Failure to timely file
the
waiver
shall result in
the dismissal of
this case and the
denial of the variance because of the grounds already stated.
19
—
59
—4—
The Board notes
in conclusion, that the Agency has
stated in its Recommendation that it informed Petitioner on
August
8,
1975 that Petitioner need not wait until the Board
decision in the variance to begin its compliance program.
The Agency indicates that based on the Agency modification of
Petitioner’s proposed compliance schedule, allowing adequate
time for determination of supplier and costs, delivery,
installation, and testing, Petitioner can be
in compliance
with Rule 203(a) by March 15,
1976.
ORDER
1.
Petitioner shall have a
60-day period from the date
of this Order to file additional material with the Board and
Agency bearing upon the hardship and delay questions discussed
in this Interim Opinion.
2.
Petitioner shall on or before October 22,
1975 file
with
the Board a waiver of the 90-day decision period for an
additional
90 days.
Failure
to timely file the waiver shall
result in the denial of the variance for the reasons stated.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Interim Opinion and Order were adopted
on the
44~
day of October, 1975 by
a vote of
4-a
Illinois
Board
19—
60