ILLI ~ DI S
?OLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
January
31,
1974
FORTY-EIGHT
INSULATIONS,
INC.
PETITIONER
)
PCB
73—478
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
RESPONDENT
VICTOR VON SCHLEGELL,
PRESIDENT,
in
behalf
of
FORTY-EIGHT INSULATIONS
INC
JAMES
K.
JENKS,
II,
ATTORNEY,
in
behalf
of
the
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECT-
ION
AGENCY
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Marder)
This
action
involves
a
request
for
variance
from
a
Board
Order
dated
March
22,
1973,
in
PCB
72-52,
Relief
is
requested
for
six
months
to
allow
compliance
with
said
Ord~r and
to
permit
continued
operations
of
WoOl
Room
#1.
The
Agency
in
its
recommendation
filed
January
14,
1974,
recommends
a
denial.
Petitioner
owns
and
operates
in
the
Village
of
North
Aurora
a
fac-
ility for the production of mineral wool for the construction industry.
Wool Room
#1
consists
of
a cupola, wool collection char~er,curing oven,
cooler, and cutting and packing equipment.
Said facility processes
5,055 lbs/hr.
of mineral wool fiber and 115 lbs/hr. of binder solids
from slags and other mineral raw materials~
Petitioner alleges that its emissions range from 6.5 to
22 lbs/hr.,
and equipment installed to date has been very beneficial
in reduction
of emissions.
History:
On March
22,
1973,
the Board found Forty-Eight Insulations to be in
violation of Rules 2-2.11, 3-3~00Oand 3~3.l1lof the Rules
and Regula~
tions Governing the Control of Air Pollution.
The Order of the Board
read in part:
“1)
Respondent
(shall)
submit a program for abatement of
the poilutional discharges
from
its
#1 Wool
Room
with~
11
—
109
in
60 days from the date hereof
and cease and
desist
violation of
the particulate regulations
with respect
thereto within 120 days from
the
receipt of this Order.”
Petitioner alleges
that “immediately upon
receipt of the Board~sOr-
der,
Petitioner commenced investigation, research, and engineering
to
comply
with the Board~sOrder.”
An application for
construction permit
was
filed
on May 11,
1973,
to allow installation
of a custom spray scrub-
ber.
Petitioner proposes
the following timetable for
construction and
installation:
Phase
I:
Extension and
improvement of helix
plus
first stage
skimmers
in the
helix shroud
-
Decem-
ber
1,
1973.
Phase
II:
Second stage skimmers
above Phase
I
skim-
mers.
Design contingent on
results of Phase
I
February 15,
1974,
Phase
III:
If required, mechanical driven moisture
separator
March
15,
1974,
The Board~sOrder required completion of abatement facilities by
July 20, 1973;
therefore Petitioner proposes that
a
complete
abatement
program
•would
take
eigbt
months
.ionger
or
a
total
of
about
one
year
from
the
date
of
the
original
Or•der
of
PUB
72-5•2,
Th.e
Agency
contends
1.±at Petitioner
has
not
been
diligent
in
its
attempts,
pointing
out
that
two
instant..
variance
was
not
filed
until
November
13,
1973,
or
almost
1..our
months
after
the
deadline
in
PUB
72—
52.
Petitioner
had,
however,
pursued
its
proq.ram,
and
on
Septoi~3e~2i,
TU73,
had
conducted
a
stack
~ost
to
ascertain
the
results
of
its
init-
ial
abatement
attempt1
that
being
a
custom
spray
scrubber,
Said
test
stowed
that
wniee
the
scrubber
was
~verv
effebuive,
it
still
JiC
not
bring
Pet~t~oner Into
con
liance~.
Aitnough
the
toard
feels
that
Pet-
itioner
could
have
filed
the
instant
variance
Petition
earlier, we
feel
that
Petitioner
s
attevpts
to
comply
coupled
with
Petitioner
s
allega-
tions
that
delay
was
caused
by
unanticipated
design
and
construction
delays,
are a significant showing of good faith,
In
ordering
compliance
within
120
days,
the
Board
had
no insight
as
to
what
type
of
abatement
would
be
chosen
or
the
complexity
of
in-
stallation.
One
of
the
main
objectives
of
such
an
order
is
to
mbv~ an
emitter
into
action
—
the
possibi1it~
of
an
extension
is
always
there,
and
should
be
considered
on
its
mer,its
In
the
instant
case
the
Board
feels
that
a
total
of
one
year
is
not
an
unreasor
able
time
allotment
to
bring
about
compliance,
when
one
consIders
the
type
of
proj oct
to
quired.
Petitioner alleges
that denial of
a variance world necessitat.e
a
shutdown of
the faciialies
~e
B
two
I
~ar~
s
In
shield from prosecution.
However,
a shutdown is an option open to Pet-
itioner.
In the event of
a shutdown Petitioner alleges that
a number
of its
employees
would he laid off, and
that its product is insulation
and
is
thus
important
as
an
energy
conservation
medium.
The
Board
finds
that
while
those
reasons
are
at
best
a
very
weak
hardship
argu-
ment,
in
light
of
the
short
duration
of
the
variance
it
will
suffice.
Environmental
Impact:
The
Agency
contends
that
it
has
had
“numerous”
complaints
from
citi-
zens
living
in
the
area and that
many
have
opposed
the
granting
of
a
variance.
The
Board
feels
that Petitioner~sreductions
to date
should
sufficidntly curtail aomplaints, and
that
the nature of Petitioner~s
emissions are not of
a toxic type.
The Board further notes thAi in the
original enforcement
action,
PCB 72-52,
the Agency
conceded
that it
had offered no evidence in support of a
9
(a)
violation
(Opinion PUB
72—52,
Pg.
1)
This Opinion constitutes the findings of
fact
and conclusions of law
of the Board.
IT
IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
Petitioner be granted
a variance from Board Order
(1)
of PUB
72-52
subject
to
the
following
conditions:
I)
Time for comoliance with Board Order
#1 of PCB 72-52
stall be extended until March 15, 1974.
—
2)
Petitioner
shall
send
monthly
reports
to
the
Environ-
mental
Protection
Agency
detailing
its
progress
in
meeting
the compliance plan, and a final report upon
completion
of its abatement project.
IT IS SO
ORDERED.
1~Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
bard,
certify
th~t
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
by
the
~rdon
the
~3/~
day
of,
1974,
by
a
vote
of
~
to
11—111