ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 17, 1971

MARBLEHEAD LIME COMPANY

)

#PCB 70-52

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Opinion of the Board (by Mr.

Dumelle);

Marblehead Lime Company filed a petition for variance on December 28,

IJ)70 ~vith respect to Kiln No, 6 at its Thornton Plant. It filed a supplemental

petition on January 28, 1971. After a hearing

we

grant the request of the

petition subject to the conditions detailed below.

Kiln No,

operates 

24 hours a day, seven days a week processing

dolomite (limestone), The end product is lime which is used in the steel

industry as a fluxing agent, and is also used

water treatment and other

industrial processes (B. 27—29),

In its petition the company was seeking a variance from the particulate

standards as set forth in the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of

Air Pollution enacted by this Board~s predecessor, the Air Pollution Control

Board, The variance was requested

only 

for Kiln No, 6 and not any

of

the

other three kilns, The variance was requested until March 15, 1971, a

date now passed. The company filed a

~letterof intentH on 

July 20, 1967

which indicated that Kiln No, 6 was not

compliance and further said that

a firm program (ACERP) for bringing the kiln into compliance would be

filed 

by April 15, 1968, In April 1968 the company proposed that the~control

equipment would he installed during 1970. The Technical Secretary of the

Air Pollution Control Board in May of 1968 advised the company that

its

program was 

not acceptable because

it was 

stretched too far into the

future, After the petitioner explained its proposed timetable,

the program

was

approved. The company

submitted 

a progress report in December,

1968,

July

1969,

and September 1969, Very little progress was reported, One reason

for the lack of progress at this point appears to

that the company was observing

and evaluating 

another producer~s

use

of an electrostatic precipitator. The

installation

which the petitioner planned

to make 

its decision experienced a

fire

and

thus proved to be unsatisfactory because of the explosion and fire

hazard which it represented (R. 18-20). On January 5, 1970 the company

applied for a permit to install a baghouse. The permit was granted on

April 21, 1970. On December 3, 1970 the company advised the Environmental

Protection Agency that its contemplated completion date of December 31, 1970

could not be met, The letter requested an extension of the compliance date

to March 15, 1971, The instant petition followed.

Although the companyt s program to abate air pollution emissions was

approved by the old Air Pollution Control Board in July of 1968, nothing

tangible was accomplished until *ell into~l970, Such a delay appears to be

unnecessarily excessive and were the petitioner seeking a substantial further

delay and was not at the present acting in good faith, this factor would no

doubt weigh heavily against the grant of such a request. The company did,

however, seek a delay of very short duration and has stated that its installation

was probably 96

complete as of the date of the hearing (R. 41), The baghouse sys-

tem was to be completed by March

15,

1971 and Kiln No, 6 was not to be operated

without a baghouse after that date (R. 42). These facts point to the conclusion

that the pollutional problem

with

Kiln

No,

6 is very nearly solved.

We have been notified by letter, dated

March 15,

1971, that the petitioner

has shut down its operation of Kiln

No,

6, Apparently the baghouse

is cou:pletely

functional and ready to be put on

line

(R.

41-42),

With its baghouse abatement

system the company has stated that they will be controlling their emissions

from Kiln No. 6 with an efficiency

of 99,

9 (R.

42).

If the .kiln

were operating

with no abatement of emissions

it would

setting

airborne 2, 000

lbs

per

hour

of lime dust,

With the

use of the

baghouse the company anticipates that the

emissions

will be on the

order

of 2 lbs. per hour (B. 42-43), Before the

installation of the baghouse system

the emissions were estimated to cc 354

lbs. per hour

with the approximate 80 collection efficiency being effected by

a dry cyclone collection system (H.

43),

There

evidence

in this

record that

the company sought to interpose

the

non-delivery of the

abatement system both as a defense in a lawsuit

and

as proof

in the instant case of the existence of an arbitrary hardship,

The petitioner here has

met his

burden inasJnuch as

he has demonstrated

that

undertook reasonable measures to

insure delivery including the

dispatching of

expediter to

various subcontractors to examine the

contractorts work

and schedule (R. 22).

Other petitioners should,

however,

be on notice that

lack

of delivery,

when no efforts are made to effectuate

timely delivery, will not he looked

upon favorably by this Board. It would be

a foolish precedent for

this Board to establish that a variance petitioner

1 — 336

after having done little or nothing to effect delivery may simply transfer the onus

for non-completion of the job to his vendor.

That the company has been acting in good faith in recent months is beyond

question.

This is demonstrated by the program which the company’s chief

engineer,

Mr.

Charles Norton, outlined at our hearing and is demonstrated

from the record of the lawsuit styled People of the State of Illinois cx rel

William J. Scott vs. Marblehead Lime Company, No. 70 CH4443 in the

Circuit Court of Cook County, illinois which was introduced as an exhibit

in the instant hearing. Judge Nathan M. Cohen in fashioning an order at

the conclusion of the hearing in that case specifically found that the company

“is not guilty of any lack of good faith or willfulness in its failure to complete

the system’1.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of

law.

ORDER

The Board, having considered the pleadings, transcript and exhibits

in this proceeding hereby grants the petition of Marblehead Lime Company

for a variance subject to the conditions detailed in the order entered by

Judge Nathan Cohen on March 15, 1971 in case No. 70 CH4443 captioned

People of the State of illinois cx rd William J. Scott vs. Marblehead

Lime Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

I, Regina E. Ryan, Clerk of the illinois Pollution Control Board, certify

that the Board adopted the above opinion and order on~1_/7~f’dayof March, 1971.

I dissent:

Control Board

337