ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 14, 1972

JOHNS-NANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION

(WAUKEGAN PLANT)

#72—444

V.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION

AND ORDER OF THE

BOARD (BY SAMUEL T. LAWTON, JR.)

On September 26, 1972, in case Johns-Manville Products Corpora-

tion (Waukegan Plant) v. Environmental Protection Agency, #72-272,

5 PCB

,

we entered an Opinion and Order granting a variance

program to Johns-Manville Products Corporation enabling the installa-

tion of abatement equipment to control asbestos emissions from various

emission sources located in its Waukegan plant. Paragraph 3 of our

Order provided as follows:

“Where compliance is to be achieved by the installation

of air pollution control equipment, within 30 days of the

completed installation of such equipment, Petitioner shall

submit to the Agency for its approval results of stack tests

performed on such equipment. Testing shall be done in accordance

with Rule 651 by an independent testing organization accentable

to the Agency, and the Agency shall be notified 7 days in ad-

vance of testing so that Agency personnel may witness the

tests.”

We have received a communication from Johns—Manville Products

Corporation stating in part as follows:

“The purpose of this letter is to enter a recuest for your

consideration of an amendment to Condition 3; specifically

that portion which stipulates ‘testing shall be done in accor-

dance with Rule 651 by an independent testing organization.’

We propose, instead, that these tests of new control facilities

be conducted by thoroughly qualified personnel within our

Industrial Hygiene Laboratory at Waukegan and that all aspects

of the testing work be totally open to field observation and

check by inspectors

and technicians

of your Agency.

The reasons

for this request are as follows:

Accurate fiber

counts are not commonly obtained by conven—

tional stack testing

techniques

that have been designed to

yield particulate

concentrations

and bulk particulate

emission

rate data.

We have perfected an alternate

test method which

~ 2t~i

---

makes use of personal air sampling devices which are mounted

on the clean—air side of fabric filter control equipment.

The samples then are examined according to standard microscopic

procedures to determine the amount and size of fibers present.

Based upon our experience in this specific type of

testing work, we offer this service to others in our industry

on a national scale. Our Industrial Hygiene Laboratory

Technicians in the Corporate Laboratory at Waukegan are well

qualified to perform this type of testing and analysis. We

have routinely used and evaluated this method of analyzing

fabric filter emission conditions for a period of approximate-

ly four years at our many asbestos using locations. Present-

ly we are submitting formal reports of test data to your

agency for your assessment regarding existing emission points.

We believe that it is preferable to have the fiber counting

work performed as near to the sampling site as practical to

avoid any risk of errors that might result due to handling

of the collected samples during transport. The use of our

laboratory would eliminate the possibility of such a risk.

We are confident that the objective of unbiased test data

can be achieved through the surveillance of our sampling and

counting procedure by your Agency.’

Rather than consider this as a request for modification of our

original Order, we have docketed the request as a variance petition.

Our reason for proceeding by this method is to comply with the Statute

and Regulations enabling Agency response, public comment and hearing,

if necessary. What petitioner is seeking is, in fact, a variance

of our original Order and the proceedings should be so characterized.

As we said in Chicago-Dubuque Foundry Corp. v. Environmental Protec-

tion Agency, #71—309, 5 PCB

,

(July 18, 1972)

,

where a stipulation

was submitted to enable extension of a previously granted variance:

.‘Reflection

persuades us that such a procedure is not

consistent with the careful procedural requirements set up

by the Environmental Protection Act for purposes of en-

couraging citizen participation. We express no doubts as

to the good faith of either the company or the Agency in

attempting to avoid unnecessary complexity in passing upon

what appears to be a routine request, but we think it impor-

tant that

the statutory procedures be followed.

The requests

before us are neither more nor less than petitions for

additional variances. When such a

petition is filed, the

statute requires certain public notices to be given and the

opportunity for public comment afforded.

A new number should

be assigned to the requests for extension and modification,

the proper notices given and our action postponed pending

—2—

6

—

262

---

possible public comment in the 21-day period provided for

by statute. Cf. Marquette Cement Mfg. Co. v. EPA,

#71-296

(Dec. 21, 1971); John T. LaForge Co. v. EPA, #71-286

(Dec. 21, 1971).”

The Agency Is directed to give public notice as required by law

and file its recommendation within 21 days from the date of this

Order, upon receipt of which the Board will enter such further

Order as is appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Mr. Henss and Mr. Dumelle dissented believing the variance

procedure unnecessary.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Bo;rd,

daycertifyof November,that

the

A.aboveD.

Opinion1972,

byanda voteOrderofwas3 toadopted2.

on the

/~J’~

.•.

—3—

6

—

263

---