ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 31, 1973
)
JOHNSON ~ JOHNSON
)
•1
)
v.
PCB 73-71
)
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCI
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
Mr. Dumelle)
This
is
a petition for variance
from
Rule
203 of the Air Regulations
concerning particulate emission standards
and
limitations,
Hearing
was held on April
13,
1973.
Johnson operates
a film coating line
at its plant
in Bedford Park,
The operation consists of applying a liquid coating to carrier paper
and then curing
it in an oven.
They filed an operating permit appli-
cation with the Agency on November 30,
1972.
In the application,
Johnson calculated the process weight rates by including the weight
of
the carrier paper because they believed that the definition
of that
rate
in Rule
201 included all but liquid and gaseous fuel
and combus-
tion
air.
On January
8,
1973, Johnson received a letter from the Agency
stating that
it should recalculate the process weight rates
excluding
the weight of the carrier paper.
On January
17,
in reply to further
inquiries
seeking clarification, Johnson received a letter from the
Permit Division of the Agency stating again that carrier paper could
not be included in the calculation of process weight rate.
Excluding
the carrier paper
from the process weight reduces Johnson~sallowable
emissions from
2.31 pounds/hour to 1,45 pounds/hour.
Since stack
te5ts have shown the particulate emissions
from this source to be
2.07
pounds/hour, exclusion of the carrier paper places the process
in
violation of Rule
203.
Rule
201 defines process weight rate as
“the actual weight or
engineering approximation thereof of all materials except liquid and
gaseous
fuels
and combustion air, introduced into any process per
hour”.
Thus,
the only materials which are not to be included in the
weight are liquid and gaseous fuels
and combustion air.
We cannot accept
8— ~42
-2-
the Agency’s interpretation so
as
to exclude any other materials,
We interpret the Rule to exclude only what
is expressly excludes.
We find nothing before us
to support any other definition.
Consequently,
there
is no need
for a variance
in this
case since
Johnson
is in compliance with the regulation.
We do, however, commend
Johnson for its good faith and diligence in upgrading
the quality of
their emissions by installing additional control equipment.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings
of fact and
conclusions of
law.
ORDER
The petition for variance is
dismissed.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on
the
~
day
of
May,
1973
by
a
vote
of
‘f—
:~
4.~
Y ~
Christan
L. Moffett, ‘Cl~r~
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
8
—
150