~TROMBECK
M2~NUFACTURING CO.
PETITIONER
)
v.
)
PCB
74—71
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
)
RESPONDENT
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Marder)
This case comes
to the Board on Petition of Strombeck Ma.nufactur-
ing Co.
for variance from unnamed Rules and Regulations
of the Board,
in order to use a wood-fired boiler for an indefinite period.
The
Petition was filed February 25,
1974.
The Agency filed its recommendation March
25, 1974.
In it, the
Agency suggested that Petitioner was requesting variance from Rule
202
(b)
of Chapter 2 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, and Rule
3-3.112 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air
Pollution.
The Agency then goes on to recommend that this variance
request be denied.
Hearing was held May 17,
1974, in Moline,
Illinois.
Petitioner operates
a woodworking plant, producing wood products
such as hand-tool handles, toys, models, and flatware,
Its plant
is
located at 51st Street and 4th Avenue in Moline.
Petitioner has three boilers at its plant for heating
and
for oper-
ating
air
compressors.
Boiler
#1 is gas-fired, while
Boilers
2
and
3
are
wo~.-fired.
This
requested
relief
is
for
Boiler
~2.
?etitioner
has
about
410
tons
of
waste
material
per
annum,
in
the
form
of
wood
chips,
sawdust,
and
shavings.
Presently,
the
majority
of
its
material
is
being
taken
to
a
landfill
for
disposal
(Agency
Rec.
p.
2).
If the variance were granted, the Agency estimates emissions
from
the
plant as
follows:
(from Agency Rec. p.
2)
Pounds
Per
Hour
Particulates
1.35
Sulfur Oxides
0.16
Carbon Monoxide
0,11
Hydrocarbons
0.
Ii
Nitrogen Oxides
0.54
Carbonyls
0.03
12
—
519
—2—
The Agency comments that it feels only the particulates will exceed
the standards.
The standard under Rule 3-3.112 is 0.324
lbs/hr.
The
Agency also feels there will be black smoke emitted with an opacity
range of 50-75
(Agency Rec. P.
2).
Environmental Impact:
The Agency notes that the plant
is located in a primarily industrial
area with residences located “within at least 200 feet to the south.”
(Agency Rec.
P.
2)
The Agency further states that no citizens interviewed object to the
granting of this variance, and that other than the black smoke emiss-
ions,
there
is little likelihood of
9
(a)
violations.
Hardship:
The Petitioner states
as its hardship that burning of gas during the
energy crisis would be unreasonable.
It further states that pollution
control equipment is beyond the ability of the company to finance.
Also, Petitioner contends that burning scrap would be an energy—conservin
technique.
At hearing, the parties entered into
a stipulation agreement as fol-
lows:
1)
The Agency will change its recommendation to recommend the grant
of a 30-day variance.
If at the end of the
30 days,
it is found that
Petitioner is in compliance, then Petitioner shall apply for an opera-
ting permit.
If the facility is not in compliance, then Petitioner shall file for
a variance, subject to the following conditions, and the Board shall
grant such variance.
2)
The charge rate shall not exceed the furnace design rating.
3)
The charge shall be
at an even rate so as not to dampen the
temperatures.
4)
All wood charge shall be sawdust or hogged wood.
5)
The boiler grate shall be shaken twice each shift.
6)
Only sawdust and hogged wood shall be charged to the boiler.
7)
A log of malfunctions, breakdowns, and startups shall be kept
during the period when the boiler is used.
8)
If a 30-day surveillance period shows visible emissions in ex-
cess of the requirements of Rule 202, Petitioner shall file for
a var-
iance within a reasonable time stating the corrective measures it will
be taking
(R. 1-2).
Mr. Linick of the Agency states that the Agency feels that this is
12
—
520
—3—
a just and equitable settlement in this matter, and is in the public
interest
(R.
1).
He also stated the Agency’s belief that Petitioner’s plant will
be in compliance with all applicable Board Rules, save Rule 202
(b)
(visual emissions)
(R.
1).
The Board hereby accepts this agreement and incorporates it as
part of its Order, save that the Board will not automatically grant
a new variance.
A new variance proceeding must be initiated by Pet-
itioner,
and that proceeding shall be determined on that record.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclucions of
law of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE
ORDER
of the Pollution Control Board that variance is
granted Petitioner from Rule 202
(b)
of Chapter
2 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations
until July 13,
1974,
subject to conditions
agreed to by the parties and enumerated above, with the exception
that
the Board will not automatically grant
a continuation of
the
variance, but will only act upon
a new petition for variance.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify th4t the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the
Board
on
the
/J
~
day of
_________,
1974, by a vote of
______