ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October

28,

1971

FREEMAN

COAL

COMPANY

#71—78

V.

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

MR.

RICHARD

ELLEDGE,

ATTORNEY

FOR

PETITIONER,

FREEMAN

COAL

COMPANY

MR.

JOHN

EcCREERY,

ATTORNEY

FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

OPINION

OF

THE

BOARD

(BY

MR.

DUMELLE)

Petitioner, Freeman Coal Company

(“Freeman”)

,

seeks ~ variance

to

continue

operating

a

coal

processing

plant

at

its

Orient

#3

Mine

near

Waltonville,

Illinois,

in

violation

of

Rule

3—3.111

of

the

Rules

and

Reculations

Governino

the

Control

of

Air

Pollution.

This

~ine

r:coduces

3

million

tons

of

low

sulphur

coal

annually

(20

of

the

Illinois

total)

emplcp~s 630

rersons

and

has

an

annual

payroll

in

of

$5,000,000.00.

Each

of

four

air

cleaning

tables

in

the

mine

s

processing

plant

oorts

an

estimated

110

pounds

of

particulate

matter

per

hour

(R,287)

The

allowable

limit

is

46,3

pounds

per

hour

from

each

table.

In

April

of

1971, Freeman

shut

down

three

air

tables

and

a

heat

drier

which

had

beer.

emission

sources

of

an

estimated

420

pounds

of

particulate

per

The processing olant separates

12,000

tons

of

raw

coal

daily

into

~:m~nus

7/16””

(“fine coal”)

and

“plus

7/16””

.

60

of the

coal is~

se~

orated

and

is

cleaned of

impurities

by

using

wet

methods

which

pose

00

emission

~rohlan.

40

of

the coal

(“fine

coal”)

is

separated

and

ciean~d

by

confine

it

across

fluidized air

beds

which

are the subject

at

this variance oroceecing.

Freeman proposes

to

replace thas methon

cicaniric

the “f~aecoal”

witir

a new facility emoioyinp

a

wet

crocess,

which will include flotation

and

heavy

media cyclones,

and

a

new

drier

controlled

by

a

hich

enerov

wet

scrubber

(R.242—246)

,

and which will

briny

the

olant

into

comoliance

with

the Regulations.

Freeman states

that

at:

will

require

18

to

20

months

for

installation

of

this plant.

Tar

the

follc-einc reasons and subject

to several conditions,

we

crane

a

variance

to

operate the

four air cleaning tables for one year.

---

The

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(Agency

Recommendation

asks

that

we

deny

the

variance,

or,

in

the

alternative,

that

we grant

it with

the requirement that Freeman pay

a penalty and begin immediate

installation of facilities and equipment necessary for compliance~

The Agency further attempted

to show that Freeman could feasibly cur-

sue several interim steps designed to reduce the emissions from the

processing plant pending completion of the new facility.

With

the exception of the penalty, we

find no merit in the

Recommendation.

The Agency failed to establish that construction of

the new facility could be done more quickly than 18 to

20 months.

Petitioner satisfactorily rejected each of several suggestions

for

interim control measures.

Free~iancannot sell

the

minus

7/16” coal

in

an

uncleaned

state;

the

raw

coal

has

too

high

an ash content and

no market for it exists

(R.9,

15 and

17)

.

The company cannot stock-

pile 40

of

its production to be cleaned when

the new facility

has been

completed

because

space

is unavailable and

because

stock-

piling

in any event poses

a fire hazard

(R.32-35,

73)

.

Nor

can

Freeman ship coal from Orient

#3 Mine to

a recently completed pro-

cessing plant at Orient

#6 Mine,

several miles

away,

in order for

such coal to be cleaned there pending completion

of the new plant at

Orient

#3

Mine.

Facilities

do not exist

for shipping coal

in such

amounts or

for receiving

and processing

it at Orient

#6

(P.90-91)

Finally,

the Agency has failed to lend substance to its Recommen-

dation that we

deny

the variance petition.

Freeman has established

on

the

one

hand

that

it

will

need

considerable

time

for

construction

of

the

new

plant

and

that

to

deny

the

variance

would

pose

a

severe

economic hardship for63O e:aployees who would have

to be

laid

off

for

eighteen

to

twenty

months,

and

would

deprive

Freembn

customers

of

much needed low sulphur coal.

On

the

other

hand,

Freeman

has

demonstrated

that

there

is

only

a

slight

public

nuisance

from

the

plant~s

emissions

at

present

(oer~

haps reduced by as

much

as

54

by

the

recent

shut-down

of

three

air tables

(P.193,

194,

232,

235)

.

Air cjualitv data compiled

by

Freeman shows air

in

the vicinity of the niant

to be in concliance

with

National

Primary

and

Secondary

Ambient

Air

Quality

Staniards

(P.334)

.

The

Agency

failed

to

produce

any

local

complainant,

and

no

public

testimony

in

protest

of

granting

the

variance

was

heard

(the

possibility

that,

as

one

witness

testified,

the

emissions

from

the

plant

may

be

inadvertently

recirculated

by

draft

fans

into

the

mine,

thus

affecting

mine

air

quality,is

a

consideration

of

industria

hygiene

beyond

our

jurisdiction

absent

a

shnwing

that

“in-~c1ant”

air

contaminates

the

amth ant

air)

In

light

of

the

company~s

voluntary

54

reduction

in

processing

operations,

the

absence

of

any

significant

showing

of public

harm

and the economic burden

imposed upon many workers by

a

plant

lay—oil

are adequate reasons

for

granting

this

variance.

---

But Freeman failed

to submit

an Air Contaminant Emission

Reduction Program

(Acerp)

as required by law in 1968.

The timely

submission

of an Acerp could have

led to closer scrutiny of Free—

manes efforts

to control

its emission problem, would have put

Freeman

under

a specific compliance deadline

(which not unreason-

ably could have been considerably sooner)

,

and conceivably

could

nave resulted in an outright denial of

a request for more time

(as

what

the company wants

to do today was technically and economically

feasible

in

1968.)

(R,44,

109) ,Freeman contends

that there were

significant technical reasons requiring Orient

#6 processing plant

to be built before the Orient

#3 olant

(R.45)

;

that

the company

wanted to avoid spending

funds

simultaneously

on

the

two

plants

(R,7l)

;

and that an adequate supply

of mining engineers was un-

available

to supervise simultaneous construction

(R,268)

.

No

sionificant

technical

reason

is

shown requiring Orient #6

plant

to

be

built

orior to Orient

#3

plant.

The plants are basically

similar and while

some problems have been encountered in the opera-

tion of Orient

#6

plant,

this plant

is not

a prototype

to the

mining

industry

(R,l2,

45)

.

In

addition,

Freeman~s parent

corpora-

tion,

General

Dynamics, made

a profit of $57,000,000.00

in

1967

and $38,000,000.00

in 1968

(R.l09)

.

While

the supply of mining

engineers may have been inadequate to permit simultaneous construc-

tion of the

two plants,

it is just such questions

as these and

other considerations

raised

by scrutinizing

a

concrete control

program

which

the Acerp hearing was designed to answer.

In

its

Letter

of Intent submitted

in

1967, Petitioner stated

that

it would, unan completion

of

a new processing plant at Orient

#6

Mine,

close

down Orient

#3 Mine while rebuilding its processing

olant,

Freeman

s

need

aooarently

was

to

permit

Orient

#6

Mine

to

be

finished

in

ardor

to

use

it

for

meeting

buyer

demands

for

low

ash

coal

from

Orient

#3

Mine.

Now

Freeman

states

that

it

wishes

to

continue

oceratino

Orient

#3

Mine.

even

though

Orient

#6

Mine

is

prepared

to

omerate,

endan

the

cociriction

of

the

new

processing

plant

at

Orient

#3

Mine,

(Variance

Petition

and

.R,292)

.

Thus,

it

appears

that

while

the

carrot

of

lower

cnliut~on

levels

was

offered

in

a

statement

of

good

intentions,

ahe

comPany’s

vague

plan

has

changed,

resulting

in

more

emissions

than

would

have

otherwise

been

the

case.

This

has

occurred

without

an

initial

opportunity

for

pollution

contrdl

author-

i-ties

to

analyze,

to

aacroae,

or

to

disapprove

a

concrete

abatement

crooosat.

In

any

event,

the

Regulations

are

designed

to

produce

a

clean

environment

as

roicke

ac

possible

in

accordance

with

technological

reasabil~ty

ana

economic

reasonabaeness.

If

tney

are

to

have

meaning,

they

must

be

enforced.

The

fact

that

the

Company’s

pollution

impact(as

duced)

may

be

nal

nrnimal,

is

merely

a

mitigating

consideration,

To

carry

not

the

roroose

of

compliance

with

the

Regulations,

we

imrrse

a

token

eena~t

of

$5,000.00,

Malibu

Village

Land

Trust

v.

Environmental

Pratectaon

Agency,

#PCE7O-45.

2

711

---

Finally, pursuant to Pollution Control Board Rule No. 107,

Petitioner has moved for non—disclosure of pages

50 through 61

of the transcript.

In support of this motion, Petitioner states

that disclosure of the price of the new processing plant, which

is discussed in these pages, would harm the company’s relation-

ship with contractors and would impair Freeman’s competitive

position in the coal industry because part of the cost basis

for

coal sold from Orient #3 Nine would thereby be revealed to other

mining companies.

Neither argument is impressive.

Reason may exist for non-

disclosure of a bid prior to its acceptance by a company, but

Freeman, subsequent to the hearing, awarded a contract to one

of

the

several bidders.

Nor has petititioner submitted evidence

that public knowledge of the cost of its new processing plant

would injure Freeman’s competitive position.

Such an inference

is not obvious

and we will not block public access to our records

Mr. Lawton took no part in these proceedings.

This Opinion constitutes

the

findings of fact and conclusions

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1,

Variance is granted Petitioner until October 27,

1972 to operate the four air cleaning

tables

which are

the subject of this hearing, in violation of Section

3-3.111 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the

Control of Air Pollution,

subject to the following

conditions:

2.

Petitioner shall, within 90 days of receipt of this

Order,

submit to the Agency

a schedule outlining

the interim stages

of construction and installation

of

the new processing plant at Orient #3 Nine,

and

specifying the date by which it is anticipated each

stage will be completed.

3.

Petitioner shall petition this Board 90 days

in

advance of said expiration date for an extension of

this variance, demonstrating that

it has diligently

pursued the goal of total installation by April

30,

1973 of its new coal preparation plant and that it

has complied with the interim stages of said installa-

tion as required in Paragraph

2 of this Order.

-

---

4.

Petitioner shall, within 35 days of receipt of this

Order, post with

the Agency

a bond or other security

in the amount of $125,000.00 in

a form satisfactory

to the Agency which

sum

shall be forfeited

to the

State

of

Illinois

in

the

event

that

the

conditions

of this Order are not met or the air tables in question

are operated in violation of the Rules and Regulations

Governing the Control of Air Pollution after October

27,

1972 without

a variance.

5.

Petitioner shall pay

a money penalty in the amount

of $5,000.00 for failing to submit an Air Contaminant

Emission Reduction Program as required by Section

2-2.41 of the Rules

and Regulations Governing the

Control of Air Pollution.

6.

Petitioner’s motion for non-disclosure of paaes

50

to 61 of the transcript herein is denied.

I, Regina E.

Ryan, Clerk of

the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

certify

that

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

was

adopted

by

the

Board

on the

28

day of October,

1971.

2

—

713