ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January20,
1972
THE MINERVA OIL COMPANY
v.
)
PCB
71—265
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Joseph
R.
Hale, Attorney for The Minerva Company
Frederick
C.
Hopper and Wayne Golomb, Attorneys
for the Environmental Protection Agency
Opinion and Order
of the Board
(by Samuel
R. Aldrich):
A petition for variance was filed by The Minerva Company
(“Minerva”)
on September
2,
1971.
Petitioner requests
a variance
to exceed
the
allowable emission rate of Rule 3-3.111 of
the Rules and Regulations
Governing The Control of Air Pollution
(“Air Rules”),
on its No.
1
plant in Hardin County,
Illinois.
Petitioner’s principal business is the mining
and milling of fluorspar
(calcium fluciride)ores
to produce
a concentrate that
is consumed, or
further processed,
in several basic industries.
In addition,
the
mineral sphalerite
(zinc
sulfide)
is recovered
as a co—product
in the
milling process and sold to
zinc smelters for further processing.
At
the present time, Minerva is operating
four underground mines,
a
pre-concentrating plant and
a concentrating plant
(mill)
at Mine
1.
Approximately 1000 tons of ore are processed daily.
The plant
employs from 180
to 200 people from the counties of Hardin and Pope.
About 60
of Minerva’s total fluorspar production
is shipped as dry
material.
The drying process
is accomplished
in two rotary dryers
(kilns).
Kiln
1
is
a counterflow dryer and is equipped with
a
cyclone collector, followed by
a Type W Rotoclone collector.
This
kiln is claimed to emit practically no dust
(R.
28,
60).
Kiln
2 is
a parallel-flow kiln and is followed by three collectors:
(1)
a large
diameter cyclone,
(2)
an Amerclone and
(3)
a Type W Rotoclone.
George
Musson,
an engineer
for Minerva,
estimated that without the use
of
dust collectors,
at least 15 percent of the dry product would be
lost
(R.
46).
It is Kiln
2 for which Minerva seeks
a variance.
Petitioner estimates
dust emissions from Kiln
2
to be 15.0 lbs/hr or
1.4 lbs/hr above the
allowable limit specified in Rule 3—3.111 of the Air Rules
for the
process weight rate characteristic of Minerva.
The record indicates that
the final collector on Kiln
2,
a Type W
Rotoclone, was ordered
in March of 1971
(R.
47).
On May
4,
1971,
Minerva applied to the Agency for
a permit to install the new
equipment.
According to George Musson,
the delay
in applying for
a
3
493
permit was because Minerva had assumed that no permit was necessary
in view of the fact that the same type of collector was already
operating effectively on Kiln 1
(R.
49).
The Company was informed
of the necessity for
a permit by Paul Schmierbach,
an engineer
for
the Agency.
A denial of the permit was received on June
14.
Minerva
subsequently restated its
case to the Agency but again, notice was
received July
23 that a permit had been denied.
At that time the
Agency recommended that Minerva apply for a variance
(Pet.
Ex.
7).
The new collector was delivered in June of 1971
(R.
48).
Despite
the Agency’s refusal to issue an installation permit, Minerva pro-
ceeded to install the collector and began operating the device in
September, 1971
(R.
48)
.
In defense of this action, George Musson
stated that the alternative would have been
to allow dust emissions
to continue pending
a decision on the variance request.
The
collector was operated in order
to reduce emissions and to prevent
losses of product worth perhaps $100 per day
(R.
52).
In making its case for a variance, Minerva contends that the
environmental impact of 1.4 lbs of dust per hour would be of no
significance.
The Company notes that flucrspar is an inert mineral
with no chemical effect on the environment and its ingestion in
moderate amounts is not considered harmful to human health.
More-
over, Mine 1 is located in a very remote area.
The nearest residence
is about 1/4 mile from the plant and the nearest town is about
5
miles distance.
The Company has never received any complaints about
dust emissions from the
Mine
1 Mill in its
27 years of operation.
The amount by which the estimated emissions from Kiln
2 exceed the
standard is less than 10 percent.
Indeed, George Musson expressed
doubt that emissions could be estimated to an accuracy of
10 per-
cent
(R.
53).
Thus the Company is in fact uncertain as
to whether
its emissions actually exceed the standard.
Conversely, denial of
a
variance would impose considerable economic hardship on Minerva and
would result in loss of work for
many
of its employees.
We are convinced from the facts in this case that a variance is
clearly merited.
However, in granting
a variance we will impose a
number of conditions.
The record indicates that emissions from Kiln
2
could be further reduced by installing
a wet spray chamber ahead of
the Type W Rotoclone
(R.
63).
The device is of modest cost and
could be installed within a few weeks.
Minerva is agreeable to
installing it
(R.
91).
Although the effectiveness of such a chamber
cannot be predicted with precision,
we feel that installation of
the device is warranted.
We will therefore require Minerva
to
install and operate a wet spray chamber.
We leave to Minerva any
decisions regarding the most appropriate construction materials and
other technical details.
It will of course be necessary for the
Company to apply for an installation permit from the Agency.
We
will also require that once the chamber is in operation, Minerva
submit a report indicating the estimated rate of dust emission from
Kiln
2.
As
a final condition on the granting of a variance, we
will order Minerva not to increase the process weight rate of
Kiln
2 without prior notice
to the Agency.
3
—
494
Minerva
is hereby granted
a variance until April
15,
1972,
in order
to install and test the wet spray
chamber.
If tests indicate
that
emissions from Kiln
2 still exceed the standard we will require
Minerva to submit new plans
for achieving compliance.
Such plans
will form the basis for consideration of an extension of
the
variance granted here.
ORDER
1.
The Minerva Company
is hereby granted
a variance from Rule
3-3.111 of the Rules and Regulations Governing
the Control
of Air Pollution until April 15,
1972,
for Kiln
2 of its No.
1
plant
in Hardin County,
Illinois.
2.
By March
31,
1972, The Minerva Company shall install and place
in operation a wet spray chamber on Kiln
2 of its No.
1 plant.
3.
By April
15,
1972,
The Minerva Company shall submit to the
Pollution Control Board and to the Environmental Protection
Agency
a report indicating the estimated rate of dust emission
from Kiln
2.
On the’ basis of the report,
the Board will decide
whether any further action is needed.
4.
The Minerva Company shall not increase the process weight rate
of Kiln
2 above the present rate without prior notification of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
I, Christan Moffett,
Clerk
of
the. Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify t at the Board adopted the abov
opinion and order
this
~O
day of
______
1972,
by
a vote of
—0
/
~4t~
~
3
—
495
.
.