ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 18 

1975

ELECTRIC WHEEL COMPANY,      

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 75—335

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Young):

Electric Wheel Company (Petitioner) filed a variance petition

on August 27, 1975, seeking relief from Rule 203(g) (1) (B) of the

Board’s Air Pollution Control Regulations, Chapter 2, until Septem-

ber 1, 1976.

On August 28, 1975, the Board found the petition to be in-

adequate in that it failed to include information pertaining to

the criteria required by Train v. NRDC, Inc., 43 USLW 4467 (Su-

preme Court No. 73—1742, April 16, 1975).

An amended petition for variance was subsequently filed on

October 21, 1975, containing supplemental information.

Electric Wheel Company is a major domestic producer of

agricultural and industrial rims and wheels. The plant is lo-

cated at 1120 North 28th Street, Quincy, Illinois and includes

a plant power house equipped with four boilers which produce

steam for its manufacturing processes and also for space heating.

Petitioner states that natural gas has been the primary fuel

source, but shortages in recent years have forced dependency upon

alternate fuels for the majority of the time. At present, boiler

#1 is being fired with natural gas, boiler #2 is being fired with

fuel oil, boiler #3 is out of service, and boiler #4 is being

fired with coal. It is boiler #4 which is the subject of this

petition. A stack test performed during April and May of 1974

showed compliance with regulations in effect at that time.

However, the average particulate emission was 0.644 pound per

million Btu of heat input, a particulate emission which exceeds

the limitation which became effective May 30, 1975. Present

control equipment on boiler #4 is a Research—Cottrel Multiclone

which has an estimated collection efficiency of 85 (Rec. p. 2).

Petitioner states that variou~ equipment manufacturers are pre-

paring quotations on supplemental air control equipment and that

delivery of such equipment could require as much as one year.

494

—2—

Petitioner alleges that a denial of this variance petition

would force a major curtailment in production at the Quincy

plant and would jeopardize the employment of nearly 1200

employees. Petitioner further alleges that the resulting loss

in production would drastically affect both the agricultural

and construction industries, as these industries could not find

other suppliers to replace this loss in production.

Petitioner also alleges that the grant of the variance will

not prevent attainment of the national ambient air quality stan-

dards for particulates. In data supplied by Petitioner, the

particulate standards were not exceeded at the nearest Quincy

monitoring station. However, in data supplied by the Agency, a

second monitoring station located three miles to the southwest

had an Annual Geometric Mean of 81 micrograms per cubic meter

in 1974, exceeding the standard of 75 micrograms per cubic

meter (Rec. p. 7).

Petitioner has not met the burden imposed on those seeking

a variance. Firstly, Petitioner has not established to the

satisfaction of the Board that particulate emissions from boiler

#4 will not contribute to an air quality violation in the sur-

rounding area. Secondly, although Petitioner alleges a denial

of this variance petition would force a major curtailment in

production jeopardizing the employment of 1200 persons, the

allegation is unfounded. The Board has consistently held that

a denial of a variance does not constitute a shutdown order.

The Petitioner can still operate although subjecting itself to

possible enforcement action (ABC Great States v EPA, PCB 72-39;

Commonwealth Edison v. EPA, PCB 72-91, 72-150; Unarco v. EPA,

PCB 75-289). Thirdly, Petitioner’s variance petition does not

satisfy Rule 40l(viii) of the Procedural Rules of the Illinois

Pollution Control Board which requires that the petition for

variance must include a detailed description of the program to

be undertaken to achieve compliance. Petitioner alleges that it

is considering various equipment and that equipment manufacturers

are preparing quotations on this control equipment. Rule 401 (viii)

requires the compliance program to have progressed much beyond

the management consideration stage. The Board will not grant a

variance based on such a speculative compliance program as is

presently proposed by Petitioner. Finally, Petitioner alleges

that it has acted in good faith in attempting to bring boiler

#4 into compliance and to deny the variance would impose an

unreasonable and arbitrary hardship. Stack tests performed in

April and May of 1974 revealed boiler #4 could not be coal fired

in compliance with particulate limitations which were to be

effective May 30, 1975. Yet, Petitioner has not taken positive

action to resolve the problem. Indeed, as of November 17, 1975,

Petitioner was still in the reviewing stage and had not yet

instituted a positive plan. The Board has consistently stated

that any hardship that results from a refusal to take the necessary

steps toward compliance is self-imposed, and that the hardship

495

—3—

imposed by denying a variance is not unreasonable or arbitrary

if it was earlier within the power of Petitioner to remedy.

(City of Danville v. EPA, PCB 72-335; Unarco v. EPA, PCB 75-289).

For the foregoing reasons the Board denies Electric Wheel’s

petition for variance.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

1. It is the Order of the Board that petition of Electric

Wheel Company be and is hereby dismissed.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order

were adopted on the 

day of 1O~4t4~W1J~j 

1975

byavoteof4..p

Christan L. Mof t, ~er

Illinois Pollution Control Board

496