ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 11, 1973
    BELL
    AND
    HOWELL COMPANY
    )
    PETITIONER
    v.
    )
    PCB 73—253
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    RESPONDENT
    RICHARD
    0. BECKER, GROUP COUNSEL,
    on behalf of
    BELL
    AND HOWELL
    COMPANY
    JOHN E. SLATTERY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR THE ENVIRON-
    MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Marder)
    This case involves a petition for a variance from Rules
    204 (f) (2) of Part II, Chapter 2, Air Pollution Control Regulations.
    The Agency recommends a six-months variance.
    Petitioner operates a plant in Chicago, Illinois, which manu-
    factures photographic equipment. An integral part of their opera-
    tions is an anodizing line utilizing sulphuric acid. Emissions
    from this line (consisting of among other tankage four anodizing
    tanks) are vented to the atmosphere through a stack.
    Rule 204 (f) (2) states:
    “No person shall cause or allow the emission into
    the atmosphere from any process emission source to
    exceed 0.15 pounds of acid mist per ton of acid used
    or manufactured.”
    Petitioner has contracted for a stack test, and the results
    showed 0.0056 lbs/hr. or approximately 11.0 lbs/yr. emission rate.
    Petitioner is a small user of sulphuric acid using only 4300 lbs/
    yr. of sulphuric acid. This would calculate out to an allowable
    emission rate of 0.00016 lbs/hr. or 0.323 lbs/yr. Therefore Petit-
    ioner is in violation of Rule 204 (f). (2).
    Petitioner has filed (R-73--2) on February 13, 1973, a petition
    requesting review of Rule 204 (f) (2)
    ,
    and cites said petition as
    9
    —
    459
    —2—
    one reason for grant of variance. This reason must be struck in that
    it would open up a host of variance requests based on frivolous review
    petitions.
    Petitioner has, however, shown good faith, both in conducting
    independent stack tests and evaluations into mist suppressants.
    The granting of a variance must be supported by a statement as
    to unreasonable hardships and insurance that the grant would impose
    no health hazard on the public. The Board finds that the following
    statements support a variance grant.
    A) Anodized finishes are critical to Petitioner’s
    overall operations,
    and serious hardship would be
    imposed if it were forced to shut down the anodiz-
    ing line.
    B) Discharges of eleven pounds of sulphuric acid per
    year would not cause a serious health hazard, as
    this amount is below many other specified contaminants,
    and would certainly be below allowable emissions for
    a major user.
    The only point that is troublesome to the Board is that the Pet-
    itioner presents no clear compliance program,
    but
    rather relies on
    the outcome of its petition for review of R-73-2. The Board feels
    that until and if a review and amendment is adopted, it is the burden
    of the Petitioner to comply with existing rules.
    Petitioner claims that it has investigated methods to control acid
    mist, but has found none to be nitechnically or economically feasible.”
    There is no evidence presented to back up this statement. Removal of
    sulphuric acid mist from an exiting gas stream does not seem to be an
    extremely difficult operation, and the burden of proof pertaining to
    the above statement clearly rests on Petitioner.
    The compliance date for Rule 204 (f) is December 31, 1973. As
    such the Board will not grant a variance from this rule. It is hoped
    that Petitioner can be in~mp1iance by the December 31, 1973, date.
    A variance will be granted to Rule 104 to allow Petitioner to file a
    compliance plan and project completion schedule by December 31, 1973.
    If Petitioner finds that its compliance plan will not allow compliance
    by December 31, 1973, it may apply for a variance to Rule
    204
    (f) (2)
    at that time.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
    law of the Board.
    9— 460
    —3—
    ORDER
    IT IS THE ORDER of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that a
    variance be granted from Rule
    104 until December 31, 1973, subject
    to the following conditions:
    1.
    Petitioner shall continue to maintain present lev-
    els
    of mist suppressants to control emissions of
    sulphuric acid mist and increase such level to the
    extent that such increase does not change anodic
    finishes to an unacceptable quality level.
    2. Petitioner continues to research all possible con-
    trol techniques for sulphuric acid mist.
    3. Petitioner reports to the Agency every two months
    as to its progress in conditions (1) and (2)
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, certify that the above Opi ion and Order was adopted by the
    Board on the II~
    day of
    _____________,
    1973, by a vote of
    ____
    to
    ~
    Q4d~~477/~
    9
    —
    461
    .
    .

    Back to top