ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
2,
1978
OwE~S—ILLINOIS, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 77—288
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
DISSENTING STATEMENT
(by Mr. Werner):
owens—Illinois,
Inc.
owns and
operates a
plant
in Streator,
Illinois which manufactures glass containers.
The firm’s manufacturing process includes the application
of surface treatment to hot glass containers innine
furnaces.
In 1973,
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
issued Operating Permits for all of these furnaces.
In
1977,
the company submitted applications for renewal
of ~he Operating Permits which contained information identical
to the original applications and stated that all previously
submitted information remained current.
The Agency then denied the renewal applications for 7 out
of the 9 furnaces on the grounds that the furnaces violated
the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations by emitting particulate
matter into the atmosphere
in
excess of
.55 pounds per hour.
The premise on which the Agency incorrectly based
its
mntltemnLicai
sLanclard
rests
on
the
assumpLion
that. the
substrate
(i.e.,
the glass containers)
to which the stannic
chloride is applied
is not includible
in the computation of
the process weight.
Rule 203(b)
for existing furnaces reads in pertinent part,
as follows:
No person shall cause or allow the emission of
particulate matter into the atmosphere in any one
hour period from any existing process emission source
which, either alone or
in
combination with the emission
of particulate matter from all other similar new or
existing process emission sources at a plant or premises,
exceeds the allowable emission rates specified
in
Table
2~2and in Figure
2.2
29
—
177
—2—
~e “process weight rate”
is defined
in Rule 201
as
tie actual weight or engineering approximation thereof of
~l1
-
~terials
except the fuels and the combustion air for
same,
introduced into any process per hour.
his process charge
in pounds per hour must,
from the
above Rule and definition,
include the substrate which is
the ~~ass container weight in pounds per hour, plus the
weigh~ in pounds per hour of the surface treatment.
o this writer,
there can be no other interpretation
of pr cess weight rate,
It must include, by definition,
all msterials charged, with the exception of the fuel and the
~r
f r combustion,
he Agency,
on page
2 of their letters
of September
20, 1977
so Oweis—Illinois,
has arbitrarily, without explanation,
clam
ited
one
part of the process weight
(the glass
con-
tame
s)
and used only the surface treatment material which
as
or
—thousandth of the actual process weight in pounds per
hour
Jven for each of these furnaces by Owens—Illinois.
~parently,
the Agency accepted the Owens-Illinois data
~or a
I of the furnaces,
since they divided the process
weigh
given by 1,000,
n order to clarify the process weight rate in pounds
per b
ar and the allowable emission rate in pounds per hour
for e isting process emissions, we submit tabulation
#1
in th
appendix to this statement.
It will be noted that the
parni~ilatematter emitted in pounds per hour,
also shown
on this tabulation,
is well below the allowable emission
rate
stablished by the definition and by Rule 203(b).
~he Agency throughout their correspondence
referred
to
Ru
a
203 (a)
,
Since these furnaces are existing process
emission
~
ICC
~s, th~dp~1i’I1~ rulC
mu:;)
be
21)) (h)
te Agency denied permits for
7 of these furnaces and
allow d permits for 2 of them,
The writer’s question is:
WIy d~dthey do this
in light of the technical data submitted
1erei~~ In a counterclaim at a later date,
the Agency, without
expla
stion, requested the Board to revoke the permits which
yore 2’reviously issued for these
2 furnaces.
WFat mental processes initially separated
these
2
furnaces
from
tI-~eother
7 furnaces?
Who made this decision?
What
went or
in the mind of the Agency evaluater who examined this
data?
How
did
he differentiate between the
various
furnaces?
What fecision—making criteria were used?
If, as the Agency
contends,
the “mental process” rule forbids such inquiry
into the facts, we would never know what circuitous route
led
to su’~hdeterminations,
We
cannot follow this line of reasoning.
29— 178
1~
a
heaxirc
Ottteer
to alice
neuter-
n
Agency
Its’-
fes~ts
crncerninr
Ut
“tie
Acienc”
01
inquii. ~ into
the
‘.
react.
r g
the
perm
Agency
asserte~
U.
peruC
danials
reco
.
Accoti
i~.
recorc~~
consists
)t
corrc.”nndence
b
any
c
‘ier
wrlttei
r
its
decision.’
Ic
of
tie
mental
prc~c-
upon
ie
type
of
-
which
.onsiders
tic,
may
be
subjected
to
conr’
~.ing
its
cia
proc~.s.c
are
tn
r
Ireaver,
~
cases
nave
been
to
u
rule.”
No
pres
is
are
.‘en’ioned
or
C
its
..c’jal
posi...iun
by
the
Federal
c
misp~aad,
and
-
ithy
shoua
t
-
-
c
rgued
that
rc
SL501no!
ji-
z.
-Dbemacle
The
-
c
zeview
~:
a-
en
“adnins0
native
i~
nistrative
xe..
ated
~ons, aid
Agency in reaching
‘-..
)Jt the protection
ire limitation
~
the Agency,
)
.0
ions each yeai.
r
zig questionino
‘
±
the decisional
~xobed in depth?
•
a-
‘no IJ..rol3
0-
t.
ti
procesbes
a a, to this tale
0upport Ct
-
-
~
on cases
aecic.ed
appears to L.
Lair and
,
e
c
:‘
asked
the
He
it
Lng
c
cc1
tot
the
cit
the zelevatc.
0
b
Fedeza~newt
osor why Boazd
C~.ysimited
e
be necessary
-it
truth
My
c-
ve
fi..
~
.o dcci to
0
~.rn
In
fact,
‘-her
reviqw
u.f permit
~t
to written docur’az
c
to
c1~
Jryond cha
r’icu)”
tact
Boa
Sts11
-i?ickct
,
indz’suaal case.
£
equi-a.~e
manne
-
Christan
Con’..~-’ 3oard,
h—’..~
was
•~.~ttedan
-
-
card
iaois Pollution
flING
STAPEMEIT
-
ett’,/y3erk
n
TABULATION NO.
1
Furnace
Process
Allowable
Particulate
Designation
Weight,Rate
Emission Rate
Matter Emitted
#/hr.
if/hr.
#/hr.
1.
A
16,230
16,67
2
2.
B*
14,010
15.11
2
3,
C
16,230
16.67
4
4.
D
14,750
15,64
4
5.
E
15,490
16.16
4
F
withdrawn by Owens-Illinois,
Inc.
6.
G
21,340
20.03
8
7.
H
21,340
20.03
4
8,
I
23,560
21.40
8
9.
J~
22,980
21.05
2
*B&J
Furnaces
were
approved
by
the
Agency
at
the
time
that
the
Agency
denied
permits
for
A,C,
D, E,
G, H, and
I Furnaces.
29
—
180