ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
October 16, 1975
DEERE AND
COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 75—257
)
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Gooebnan):
This
matter
comes
before
the Board upon petition of
Deere
and
Company
(Deere)
for
variance
from
Rule
203(g)
(1)
(B)
of
Chapter
2
of
the
Air
Pollution Control Regulations (Regu-
lations)
for its Boiler No. 9 located at Deere’s Harvester
works in East Moline, Rock Island Couty, Illinois.
Deere is in the midst of constructing an electrostatic
precipitator to control particulate emissions from Boiler
No.
9 so that it can be operated as a coal-fired unit.
Deere alleges that Boiler No. 9 will be operated as a coal-
fired boiler for approximately three days during September
and nine days during October, consuming a total of 350 tons
of coal and emitting particulate in excess of Air Regulation
requirements.
Deere
predicts
that
the
electrostatic
pre-
cipitator of Boiler No.
9
will
be
in operation by November
1, 1975.
This particular boiler is under a permit prohibi-
tion from using coal as a fuel until such time as the emis-
sions are controlled in compliance with Rule 203(g) (1) (B) of
the Regulations.
Deere’s compliance plan for this unit called for com-
pletion of the electrostatic precipitator by September 15,
1975, but due to the
May
1,
1975, Ironworker strike, six
weeks were lost from the proposed schedule.
The Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
in its recoimnen—
dation of September 25,
1975, indicates that Deere
has
substantiated the fact that the delays incurred in the
compliance
schedule
were
unavoidable
and
were
beyond
the
control
of
Deere.
On July 28, 1975, Deere filed its response to the
Interim Order of the Board of July 10, 1975,
concerning
the issue of whether the ambient air quality of the area
19—89
—2—
effected by the variance meets
the. National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
in referring
to the emission
sources’
apparent lack of effect upon the East Moline Sampling Sta-
tion, Deere makes the following statement:
“This leads to
the
conclusion that there is no correlation between coal
combustion
in the No.
9 Boiler and total suspended particles
as monitored at the East Moline Sampling Station.
There-
fore,
the No.
9 Boiler is not a significant factor con-
tributing to the East Moline’s Sampling Station’s failure
to
meet the annual geometric mean at total suspended particle
standard.”
The foregoing excerpt is representative of Deere’s
presentation, indicating that Deere did not understand the
import of the Board Order.
The Board is concerned with the
effect of No.
9 Boiler upon the ambient air quality of the
area rather than its effect upon any particular East Moline
Sampling Station.
The fact that the boiler does not effect
the station that is showing violation of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards does not meet the requirement of the
Order.
It
follows that Deere has not met the requirements
of
Train
v.
NRDC,
43 USLW 4467,
and,
therefore,
the Board must
deny Deere’s variance petition.
With regard to Deere’s petition for relief from the
prohibition
contained
in
the
operating
permit
for
No.
9
Boiler
concerning
Rule
203(g) (1)
(B)
of
the
Air Regulations,
the
Board feels that
no relief
is necessary as Deere has
shown good faith in pursuing their compliance schedule for
No.
9 Boiler and
any
delay
in
the
implementation
of
such
schedule has been
shown to be beyond Deere’s control.
This Opinion constitutes the
findings
of fact
and
conclusions
of
law of the
Board
in this matter.
ORDER
It
is
the
Order
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
that
Deere
and Company’s petition for variance from Rules
203(g) (1) (B)
for Boiler No.
9 located
at the company’s Harvester Works
be
and
hereby
is
denied.
Mr.
Young
abstained.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above OpiniQn and
Order
were
adopted on the
_____________
day of
~
1975
by a vote of
~
GL~L~L~
/~)~2~
c:-~ristan
i.
~ffe~~/~/Clerk
iiinois
20
ution~ontrol
Board
19
—
90