COMPLIANCE INFO_PRE 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a review of the evaluations of the emissions control systems indicated that additional data was needed to verify t!at t,.:o of the emission sources were operating in full compliance with the District's emissions standards. Spreckels tested the systems to generate the needed emission date in December of 1970. The tests showed that one of the sources in question was in compliance but that the carbon kiln was in violation of the District's particulate matter concentration standard, Pule 404. Spreckels petitioned the Hearing Board for a variance which was granted on February 17, 1977. The variance allowed S-jreckels an extension of time until March 30, 1978 to bring the carbon kiln into compliance. On May 25, 1977 the District received an application for an Authority to Construct an emission control system which Spreckels installed on an experimental basis to abate the carbon kiln emission violation. The application was evaluated and accepted as an adequate means of abating the vicia-ion, and the requested Authority to Construct was issued on May 27, 1977. On April 20, 1977 the District was notified by the Air Resources Board (ARB) that Assemblyman Carmen Perino had met with Mr. James tlorgester, ARB Chief of Enforcement, to discuss odors emanating from Spreckels Sugar's Manteca plant. Mr. Morgester stated that Assemblyman Perino complained about the odors from Spreckels Sugar and requested that the ARB take action at the state level to abate the odor problem. Mr. Morgester further stated that he informed Mr. Perino that the local District has prima..y responsibility for controlling pollution from stationary sources in San Joaquin County and that the local District would have to fail to fulfill its statuatorj obliga— tion before the ARB could take action on the matter. However, in response to Mr. Perino's complaint, the ARB scheduled an investigation for April 27, 1977. (8)