ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 14, 1971

MISSOURI PORTLAND CEMENT CO.

V.

)

#71—5

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Opinion and Order of the Board (By Mr. Currie)

Missouri Portland is a substantial interstate operation with

sales

of thirty million dollars a year (R. 57—59), which operates,

amona other ventures, a cement production plant in Joppa, Illinois

(R. 38)

.

The kiln at this plant is equipped with a precipitator

of 95 efficiency CR. 39), and recent work done by the company

is estimated by its engineer to have increased collection efficiency

to 97 CR. 50-51). This falls considerably short of what is

required by the regulations: Rule 3-3.222 of the Rules and

Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution, made applicable

to existing plants by Rule 2-2.21, requires cement plants to be

equinped with devices of not less than 99.7 efficiency and to

emit particulates not in excess of 0.1 grain per standard cubic

foot of flue gas. Thus even with the improved efficiency claimed

the efficiency of the present control equipment is ten times less

than the law requires.

The comPany filed an air contaminant emission reduction program

(ACERP) in which it agreed to upgrade its precipitator to meet

the standard (P. 76—77), and to do so by April 15, 1971 CR. 56).

The equipment has been ourchased and is on the premises (R. 55)

Installation work, which is expected to take 42 days CR. 83),

was

tc have begun March

1, 1971, during the annual maintenance

shutdown (R. 43). In January, however, the company experienced

mechanical and power failures that necessitated a premature plant

shutdown (P. 43). Efforts to have the precipitator installed

during this period were unsuccessful because of an

alleged shortage

of skilled labor CR. 44, 107). The breakdowns in no way interfered

with the comoanv~s ability to install the precipitator on schedule

(R~ 61-62, 66-67). Yet the company seeks a variance to allow it

to wait until January, 1972 to begin installing its control equipment

(R. 103,109), on the ground that a second shutdown to install it now

would cause a loss of profits (P. 52).

1

—

439

---

The variance is denied. Whether or not in this case the

alkalinity of the recovered cement particles (R. 135—36) creates

an exception to the general rule that emission control in the

cement industry is a profitable method of product recovery (P.

124—25), the cost of pollution control is one that must be borne

by the polluter and not by his innocent neighbors. The record

includes serious objections from citizens to the grant of this

variance (H. 119). It is clear that the emission of some 780

pounds per hour of cement dust (H, 73)——even if reduced somewhat

by recent actions——although posing so far~as the record shows no

health danger (R. 53—54), is a rather considerable nuisance. There

is no sufficient showing of hardship to justify the continuation of

this nuisance. The equipment to stop it has already been ordered

and delivered. It is ready to be installed, and there is no ex-

cuse for delay. As the Agency says in its recommendation, the

unfortun~~tepremature shutdown “is no more related to compliance with

Rule 3—3.222 than is the fact that Eve ate the apple.” One cannot

avoid paying the rent on the ground that he has had a bad day on

the stock market.

Under the statute (section 36(b)) a variance may be extended

(and an ACERP is

~.

variance, see EPA v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,

# 70—4 (Feb. 17, 1971)) only upon a showing that staisfactory progress

ha~ been made. This provision makes clear the statutory policy that

variances are for those who are working as fast as they can to

control emissions, not for those who simply prefer to postpone

compliance for their own convenience so they can make an extra

buck. To allow continued pollution while abatement work goes

on is one thing; to stop working on abatement so that one may

go on polluting is quite another.

Missouri Portland has missed its deadline without excuse.

It stands in violation of the Environmental Protection Act and

of the regulations. It shall cease and desist from such violations

at once and proceed to install the required control equipment

forthwith. Any further violations shall be subject

tO

severe

money penalties.

The variance is denied,

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact,

conclusions of law, and order,

I, Regina E. Ryan, certify that the Board has approved the

above Opinion and Order of the Board this

~

~

of April

,

1971

~

I

—~

440