Illino

March 17. 1971

Glenbrook Laboratories

vs.

)

PCB 70—46

Environmental Protection Agency

Opinion of the Board (By Mr. Kissel)

On December 18, 1970, Glenbrook Laboratories (Olenbrook) filed

a petition with the Pollution Control Board askin~ for a variance

from the existing Ringelmann standards found in Rule 3-3.120, Olenbrook

asks for the variance until the summer o~1971 until they can install

a new boiler to replace two coal-fired boilers which are causinu the

smoke emission problem.

A hearing was held on this matter in Monticello on February 11,

1971. At that time, the Environmental °rotection Agency (“Agency”)

filed its recommendation with the hearing officer, Essentially, the

recommendation, which was made a part of the record, asks that the

Board grant the variance requested by Glenbrook but limit the time

of the variance to May 31, 1971, Further the Anency requests that

Glenbrook post a performance bend in the amount or $10,000 which would

be forfeited if it is found that Glenbrook is in violation of the Act

or the Regulations after the date of expiration of the variance.

Glenbrook Laboratories is a Division of the OterAinu Drug

Comoany, At the plant located in Monticello (which is the subject of

this hearing) Glenbrook manufactures and nackaqes a number of oroorietary

drug products, including Fletcher’s Castoria, ZBT Baby Powder, and

others. Glenbrook emoloys 90 neople, all of whom cone from the local

area of Monticello and has a current monthly navroll of 053,000, There

are presently two coal-fired boilers onerated by Olenhrook. One is

a low pressure boiler which is used for comfort heatinu of the giant

and the other is a high oressure boiler which is used to erovide steam

for sterilization

needed in manufacturing and eackaqine the pronrietary

medicines.

In determining whether a variance should be granted to Glenbrook

this Board must determine that failure to grant the variance would

impose an “arbitrary or unreasonable hardshio”, In makinq that

determination, the Board must, as we have nreviously said, decide 

whether

operation of the plant at the levels of collution indicated

in the

record and for the time requested would substantially outweigh any

detriment to the

public in allowing the continual operation of the giant.

We

find in this case that the variance should

be

granted

on

certain

con-

ditions outlined below, because not to do so would imnose an arbitrary

or unreasonable hardshio on Glenbrook. The facts indicate that

~Glenbrook has a smoke emission problem, but no one in the community

1

~—

331

is disturbed by it. In fact, there were five letters introduced into

the record which comolimented Glenhrook on its operations in Monticello,

In addition, the City of Monticello passed a resolution on January 26,

1971, requesting us to allow the operation of the Glenbrook plant under

present conditions until July 31, 1971. One witness testified that

Glenbrook was immaculately clean, Further, not to allow the variance

under the imposed conditions would mean a substantial economic loss

to the comm~~~unityas well as to Glenbrook, As was stated, Glenbrook

contributes $53,000 to the economy of Monticello, Most of the employees

(80) liye in Monticello itself. If we were to require that the

boilers not be allowed to ooerate, this would mean, according to

Clenbrook, that the plant would have to be closed, and 90 people would

be out of work, Also, Glenhrook would lose the sales of the product

it might have produced during that time, and the inventory of

Fletcher’s Castoria which has to be stored under elevated temperature

conditions. In balance then, we feel that the neople of the State of

Illinois are better served in allowing the variance.

In its recommendation, the Agency requests that the variance be

granted until May 31, 1971, The testimony of Mr. Walters would indi-

cate that that date, at least as to the high pressure boiler, is not

a realistic one. We feel that based upon the record the variance

granted by this Board should allow the oneration of the low pressure

boiler until Ma~~31, 1971, and the operation of the high pressure boiler

until July 31, 1971,

One other Agency recommendation made by the Agency was the

oostinq of a performance bond by Glenbrook. We feel that not only

is this a sound recommendation, but is required by the Environmental

Drotection Act. Section 36(a) provides in part:

“If the hardshio complained of consists solely of the need for

a reasonable delay in which to correct a violation of this

Act or of the Board regulations, the Board shall condition the

grant of such variance upon the posting of sufficient performance

bond or other security to assure the correction of such violation

within the time prescribed.” (Emphasis supplied)

Under the circumstances of this case, this Board feels that a $10,000

bond will assure compliance with the order and completion of the

installation of the new boilers.

This oninion of the Board constitutes its findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

ORDER

After due consideration of the record, it is the order of the

Board that the request of Gienbrook Laboratories for a variance be

granted subject to the following conditions:

1

— 332

1. The high pressure furnace may emit smoke in excess of the

regulations until July 31, 1971.

2. The low pressure boiler may emit smoke in excess of the

regulations until May 31, 1971.

3.

Glenbrook shall post with

the Environmental Protection Agency

by March 31, 1971, in a form agreeable to the latter, a bond

or other security in the amount of $10,000, to assure corn—

oliance with this order,

4. Failure to comply with the conditions of this order shall

terminate this variance.

I, Regina E. Ryan, Clerk of

the Pollution 

Control Board,

certify that the Board adooted

the above oninion and order this

~

day of 

____________________

1971.

1

—

333