ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 30, 

l97~

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORP.,   

)

J.

BRACH

& SONS DIVISION,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 75—233

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION 

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Zeitlin):

Petitioner 

American

Home Products Corp., (American),

filed

a Petition for Variance on 

June

1975. 

June 13,

1975, the Board entered an Interim Order requiring that

American submit further information in an Amended Petition

regarding the effect of American~s emissions on the attainment

or maintenance of national ambient air quality standards.

American

thereafter filed an Amended Petition on August 11,

1975. The

Recommendation of the Environmental Protection

Agency,

(Agency) 

was filed on September 25, 1975. No

hearing

was held in this matter.

American’s E.

J. Brach & 

Sons

Division, 

confectionary

plant,

is located 

Chicago, Illinois. American has four

boi:Lers for

the

generation of steam at its Brach division.

Boiler No,

1, a coal-fired boiler constructed in 1925, has

not

been 

used

for several years. Boilers No. 2 and 3, also

coal-fired,

were constructed in 

1939

and 1948, respectively.

Boiler No. 4

uses either oil or natural gas as a fuel; it

was

constructed in 1962.

American

seeks a Variance for Boilers No. 2 and 3 from

Rule 203 (g) (1) (A)

of Chapter 2: Air Pollution, of the

Pollution Control Board (Board) Rules and Regulations, until

December 31,

1976,

or until the installation of a new

gas/oil-fired boiler, whichever is sooner. American also

seeks VccianceS from

Rules 103(b)2 and 104 for boilers No. 2

and 3, for the

same period. Finally, American seeks a

Variance from

Rule l03(b)2 for boiler No. 4, (the existing

gas/oil—fired

boiler), until November 15, 1975.

~3rach

does 

not

presently have permits from the Agency

lur inc

operation of any of 

ti-is

boilers at its plant. In

sdill:icn, American states that boilers No. 2 and

3, (the

b~es~L-itiVused coal—fired

boii~rs)

ate

ifl

violation of the

board’s ~articulate

emission 

regulations

under Rule 203(g) (1) (A).

—

154

—2—

American

originally intended to replace the coal—fired

boilers 

at.

its Brach plant by purchasin; steam from a proposed

City

of Chicago garbage incinerator to be located near the

Brach plant, (Petition Ex, A). Because of difficulties with

the reliability

of steam supply from the city incinerator,

American decided in 1973 that such a plan was not feasible,

(Petition, 4)

American’s

Petition 

also rules

out the use of particulate

controls with its present coal-fired boilers, and proposes

as a compliance plan the replacement of those boilers with a

gas/oil-fired

boiler to be constructed in the future.

However, American

qualifies its compliance plan for the

Brach plant

by stating 

that the installation of a proposed

gas/oil—fsred

boiler remains subject to “corporate approval.”

Thus,

American 

has no firm plan for compliance with the

applicable particulate emission regulations.

This Petition for Variance would normally be dismissed solely

for lack of a firm compliance plan, without further consideration.

Wesi mply will not grant a Variance

where Petitioner has

condstioned its future compliance on vague and unexplained

decisions 

to be reached internally by Petitioner.

In this

case, however, there is an additional reason for dismissing

the Variance Petition.

Petitioner’s 

Amended Petition does not

indicate that

rontinued operation

of Americanbs coal-fI~d 

boilers

at

the

i3rach plant will not contribute to a violation of national

ambsent air quality standards.

On the contrary, American’s

Pehition indicates clearly that its particulate emissions

contribute to present violations of the national ambient air

quality standards.

Araerican~s 

Amended Petition includes Agency figures for

annual and 24—hour particulate readings at four locations

near the Brach plant; those figures are taken from the

Agency s 1973 Illinois air sampling network report.

Of the

four locations chosen by American as being affected by its

emissions, three are in violation of the annual ambient

air quality standards; two are in violation of the 24—hour

standard.

Amerscan

attempts to show that the contributions of the

Brach plant to

the readings at the four locations, (chosen

by

American),

are small. However, while contributions

from the

Brach plant may be small on an absolute scale,

and

would not alone constitute a violation, they nonetheless

ccsr.orlse siernificant contributions to the violations which

snist. Based on these facts, we cannot grant a Variance

here, under

the test of Train_v~ 

NROC,

43 U.S.L.W. 4467

/J~S, 

April 16, 1975). There ~/TTEe so

c~uestion, based on

American’ C OWfl

figures, 

that is

contrsbutes to

violations of

tue national

ambient 

air

quaisty 

standards,

19 — 156

—3—

should also be noted that the Petitioner claimed

that

figures in the Agency’s 1973 air onality report indicate

a downward trend in particulate concentration in the area

affected by Erach’s emissions. While such a trend could not

alone provide the basis for a grant of this Variance, we

should also note that 1974 data from the Agency did not

:Lndicate such a trend. On the contrary, particulate concen-

tration readings on both an annual and 24—hour basis at some

of

the

sampling stations chosen by American indicate that

particulate concentrations have actually increased.

As rec~ardsAmerican’s Petition for Variance from the

operatsng

permit requirement for its existing gas/oil—fired

toiler,

American has shown no hardship which would result if

this

Variance were not granted. American has, by its own

admission,

failed for several years to obtain the required

permits, 

and

does not in its Petition set out any acceptable

reasons for that failure. The 1973 decision by American

tnat 

could. not use steam from the city incinerator will

not justify a Variance from the permit requirement in 1975.

Finally,

American’s Response to the Agency Recommendation

cites

a recent Illinois Institute of Technology Research

Institute study to the effect that 

“. . .

Chicago’s stationary

source

emissions of particles seem to be well controlled,

and contribute insignificant amounts to the filter catch.

Chicago’s

TSP

total suspended particulatesj problem 

due solely ~sic to vehicular traffic 

. . .

IITRI Study

C9914-COl 

p.

The inclusion of this study in the

snstant

record will not support the grant of a Variance

tor two reasons: First, without supporting testimony, we

do

not

feel that all the questions raised by the study are

adequately

answered, or that the broad conclusions reached

in the

study have been adequately supported; Second, the

modeling and information previously submitted by Petitioner

still

indscate that, whatever the principal source of the

violation, Petitioner makes a significant contribution to

such 

violation of the national ambient air quality standards

for

particulates.

American is invited to resubmit a Petition for Variance

for its B.

J. Brach & Sons Division plant. Any such Petition,

however,

should more adequately address the issues raised in

this

Opinion.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

Mr.

Young abstains.

19— 156

—4—

ORDER

~rn

thE

ORDER 

OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THAT the

Petition for 

Variance and

Amended Petition for 

Variance in

this matter are 

dismissed without prejudice.

ControlI,

ChristanBoard,

herebyL.

Moffett,certify 

Clerk of

the Illinois 

Pollution

Opinion and Order were

adopted on the 

3~~’

day of 

______________,

1975 by a vote of

‘3-p

Board

19— 157