ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 10, 1974
WESTERN ACADIA, INC.
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 74—268
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss):
Western Acadia, Inc. filed its Petition for Variance seeking
relief from Rule 203(b) of the Air Pollution Control Regulations
until March 1, 1975. The Company wishes to continue use of
curing oven *2 pending completion of a building program which
includes installation of a baghouse.
Petitioner operates a manufacturing facility at 4115 W. Ogden
Avenue in Chicago, Illinois for the production of metal inserts,
organic rubber valves, silicone rubber tubes, polyacrylic rubber
seals and felt products. Petitioner’s Elastomer Division molds
polyacrylic rubber into seals and then cures the seals in three
walk-in type natural gas fired ovens. Particulate and organic
emissions are presently vented from these ovens to the atmosphere
through three separate stacks. Stack tests conducted in February
1973 show Petitioner’s emissions to be as follows:
Particulates
Total Organics
Process Weight
Stack
lb/hr.
lb./hr.
Tons/hr.
1
0.193
0.497
0.0248
2
1.634
1.792
0.0169
3
0.127
0.138
0.0193
Petitioner admits that it is not in compliance with Rule 203(b)
and fails to show that it was in compliance with that Rule on
April 14, 1972, the date of adoption of the Air Pollution Control
Regulations. Therefore, as the Agency notes, Petitioner is required
to comply with the provisions of Rule 203(a). In general, this
would mean that Petitioner would have to meet more stringent
emission limitations but, as the table below shows, in this case
Petitioner is actually allowed slightly more particulate emissions
than that allowed under Rule 203(b)
14
—
139
—2—
Present
Allowable Emissions
Particulate Emissions
Under
Under
Stack
lb./hr.
203(a) lbs/hr. 203(b) lbs./hr.
1
0.193
0.352
0.344
2
1.634
0.288
0.266
3
0.127
0.310
0.292
Although Petitioner admits to excessive total organic emissions
in violation of Rule 203(b), we find such admission to be erroneous
since that Rule pertains solely to particulate emissions, and the
organic emission rates provided do not indicate a violation of Rule
205. This matter shall then be dealt with solely as a request for
variance from the provisions of Rule 203(a).
Petitioner sought permits for its curing ovens, but the permits
were denied because of a delay in installing the baghouse. The
three curing ovens will be moved to a new addition presently under
construction at the plant. This construction and moving is expected
to be completed by February 1975 after which the baghouse will be
installed. Baghouse installation is expected to take about one
month after the new addition is completed and production equipment
moved. The baghouse, which is already on site, is expected to
reduce particulate emissions from the curing ovens by 95.
Neither Petitioner nor the Agency informed the Board of the
date the Company filed for operating permits or the date on which
the Agency denied the permits. The record dOes show that Petitioner’s
plant was on strike from June 15, 1973 to September 1973 and that the
bid on the baghouse was received in July 1973. Nothing in the record
explains Petitioner’s long delay in filing for this variance.
Petitioner claims that an excessive and necessary expense of
about $8200 would be imposed if they were required to install the
baghouse immediately and then dismantle and reinstall when the new
addition is completed. Petitioner believes that the granting of
this variance would not impose any injury on the public because of
the minimal amount of emissions and the distance from the stacks to
the nearest residence, some 170 feet. The plant is located in an
industrial/residential area. No complaints ab~ut the operation or
the granting of variance have been received by the Agency.
Were it not for other matters in this case, the Board would be
inclined to deny this variance because:
1) Petitioner did, without any explanation, wait some
27 months after the effective date of the Regulation
to seek a variance. For 17 of those months
Petitioner knew of its violation.
14
—
140
—3—
2) The statement that some cost would be involved
in bringing the plant into compliance immediately,
is simply insufficient when Petitioner’s economic
condition is not revealed.
The Agency recommends denial of this variance or, in the
alternative, granting of the variance subject to certain conditions
relating to bond, progress reports and acquisition of necessary
permits. The only purpose to be served b~the granting of this
variance, according to the Agency, would be to give the Agency a
mechanism by which it could monitor Petitioner’s compliance pro-
gram.
The Board does not agree with the Agency’s reading of the
effects of a variance. This or any other variance, as the Agency
well knows, grants the recipient immunity from prosecution under
the Rule or Statute for which the variance is granted. In deciding
whether a person should have such immunity from prosecution the Board
is bound
under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act to
consider such factors as type and degree
of injury caused by the
uncontrolled
operation, social and economic value of the source,
suitability of the source to the area in which it is located in-
cluding priority of location and technical and economic reasonableness
of reducing emissions. The burden is clearly on Petitioner to prove
that compliance with the Regulation or Statute would cause an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
Having considered the above factors, the Board grants this
variance for a limited time for several reasons. The cost of
compliance for Petitioner appears to be wholly disproportionate to
the benefits to be derived. No complaints have been made about
emissions from the plant. This is understandable in view of the
fact that particulate emissions from the three stacks are less than
2 lbs./hr. Control equipment is already on site and Petitioner needs
only 5 months to have it operating. To order the baghouse installed
immediately would not, in our opinion, be reasonable at this late
date. The impact on the environment arising from the granting of
this variance will be relatively insignificant.
Petiitoner*s delay in seeking this variance without satis-
factory explanation. does hot merit protection from prosecution
for the period prior to the filing for variance. Therefore, this
variance will be allowed only for the period from July 15, 1974
to March 1, 1975. We shall also require Petitioner to expedite
the construction program to the fullest extent possible.
14
—
141
—4—
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Western
Acadia, Inc be granted a variance from Rule 203(a) of the Air
Pollution Control Regulations from July 15, 1974 until March 1,
1975 in order to continue operating curing oven #2 at its Chicago
plant pending installation and operation of a baghouse designed
to achieve compliance with Rule 203(a). This variance is subject
to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall apply for and obtain all necessary
permits for the installation of the baghouse.
2. Petitioner shall make all reasonable efforts to
expedite construction of the new plant addition
and installation of the baghouse.
3. Petitioner shall submit monthly progress reports
to the Environmental Protection Agency. Said
progress reports shall commence on November 1, 1974
and shall provide details of Petitioner’s progress
towards completion of the new plant addition and
baghouse installation. Said progress report shall
also detail results of Petitioner’s efforts to
expedite completion of construction.
4. Petitioner shall, by November 22, 1974 post a bond
in the amount of $8200 in a form acceptable to the
Environmental Protection Agency, ~such bond to be
forfeited in the event Petitioner fails to install
and operate the baghouse. Bond shall be mailed to:
Fiscal Services Division, Illinois EPA, 2200 Churchill
Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify e above Opinion and Order was adopted
this j~day of
_______
1974 by a vote of
~S
to ~
14—
142