ILLINOIS POLLUTION
    CON’JROL BOARD
    July 19, 1973
    )
    JOHNSON AND JOHNSON
    )
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 73-71
    )
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    )
    OPINION OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Duinelle)
    This opinion is in support of an order entered June 28,
    1973, denying the Agency’s Motion for Reconsideration filed
    with the Board on June 19, 1973. The Petitioner filed an
    answer asking denial on June 26.
    The major issue of the motion deals with the Board
    op~inionof May 31, 1973, which interprets the definition of
    “process weighttt as found in Rule 201 of the Air Regulations
    to include the carrier paper used by Johnson and Johnson.
    The Agency argues that the carrier paper is not introduced
    into the process, but merely is “an implement” to transport
    ~
    materials through a process and as such goes into
    the process and come out identically the sameT’ (Para. 18(f)
    of Motion). The precedent of the instant case is unique to the
    facts of this case.
    The Agency lists a great many examples to show that its
    proposed definition is correct. It cites painting, pickling,
    caustic cleaning, plating, roller coating of cans, and foundry
    shakeout as examples where the weight of the object to be
    painted or cleaned or plated, etc. is not computed in the
    process weight.
    However, the essential link is not made between the Agency
    definition of process weight and the Board enactment of the
    regulation. The Board opinion in R70-15 is silent, The
    affidavits, by Dr. John Roberts of the Agency, formerly at
    Argonne National Laboratory, and William Zenisek, also of the
    Agency, attempt to show that the Agency interpretations of
    process weight are necessary in order to meet Federal ambient
    air quality standards. They may both be correct, but that
    does not show that the Board had their definition
    in mind
    when it enacted Rule 201 and 203(a), (b) and (c).
    8—541
    -2-
    Since these Rules grew out of the older Rule 3-3.111 of
    the 1967 Illinois Air Regulations, which in turn came from the
    Bay Area (San Francisco) Code, some connection should be shown
    that the Agency-desired definition has been in fact followed
    in these predecessor codes.
    The Board has looked in vain for such a connection. The.
    authoritative work by Stern, Air Pollution, Vol. III, Second
    Edition, does not define “process weight” beyond listing the
    usual exclusions for non-solid fuels and combustion air (p. 625).
    The Air Pollution Engineering Manual of the Los Angeles County
    Air Pollution Control DistrictCT~7) lists Rule 2(j) as follows:
    Process Weight Per Hour. “Process Weight” is the
    total weight of all materials introduced into any
    specific process which process may cause any dis-
    charge into the atmosphere. Solid fuels charged
    will be considered as part of the process weight,
    but liquid and gaseous fuels and combustion air
    will not... (p. 831).
    The testimony of Dr. L.R. Babcock in R70-15 on March 10,
    1971 has been examined, but also does not shed light upon what
    is and what is not “process weight”.
    Thus, in this case, we deny the Motion to Reconsider, in the
    belief that the carrier paper has been “introduced into’~ the
    process. We apply the interpretation to this case only at this
    time. The Agency, within 90 days, shall examine the actual
    application of the “process weight” definition in the Bay Area
    and LAAPCD jurisdictions and provide that experience to the
    Board in a brief. Further action as to the regulation can be
    taken by the Board after this additional material is furnished.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify the above Opinion was adopted on the
    I’?~
    day
    of July, 1973 by a vote of
    q—o
    C ristan L. Moffett,
    C1e~)’
    Illinois Pollution Cont~’d.I Board
    8
    —
    542

    Back to top