ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 24, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

#72—48

v.

GREAT 

LAKES

CARBON CORPORATION

GREAT LAKES CARBON CORPORATION

)

#72-431

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

)

JAMES I. RUBIN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RONALD BUTLER AND EUGENE W. BEELER OF

WINSTON & 

STRAWN, APPEARED ON

BEHALF OF GREAT LAKES CARBON CORPORATION

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (BY SAMUEL T. LAWTON, JR.):

The above-captioned proceeding is a consolidated enforcement and

variance 

action. 

#72—48 is an enforcement action in which the Agency

contends that Great Lakes Carbon Corporation, in the operation of its

Chicago plant, has violated Sections 9(a) and 9(b) of the Environmental

Protection Act and Rule 3-3.111 of the Rules and Regulations Governing

the Control of Air Pollution. #72-431 is a variance proceeding pursuant

to which petitioner seeks variance from the relevant regulations appli-

cable to the operation of its kilns, material handling system, storage

piles and permit application requirements.

A stipulation and proposal for settlement was entered into between

the parties, which is dispositive of both proceedings and which we

approve.

Great Lakes Carbon Corporation (hereinafter referred to as petition-

er) is engaged in calcining anthracite coal and petroleum coke at its

Chicago plant. The plant facilities consist of the following: four

rotary calcining kilns; four rotary cooling drums; covered conveyors

for handling raw and calcined coke and coal; enclosed calcined coke

storage silos and seven enclosed raw coke silos and open storage piles

of raw coal and coke. Particulate matter is emitted from the kiln

stacks, cooler stacks and transfer points on material handling conveyors.

8—67

The Agency has alleged that emissions from these sources violate

Rule 3-3.111 of the Rules and Regulations Governing .the Control of

Air Pollution and Chapter 2, Part II, Rule 203(b) of the Rules and

Regulations of the Board (Air Pollution) which contentions Great Lakes

Carbon Corporation disagrees with.

In addition to particulate emissions, sulphur dioxide (SO2) and

nitrogen oxide (NO~) are emitted from the kiln stacks and cooler

stacks. Petitioner estimates that SO2 emissions do not exceed 330 ppm

and that NOx emissions do not exceed .55 lbs/m btu.During unusual

weather conditions, petitioner’s storage piles emit fugitive particulate

matter. Approximately six complaints were received by the Agency

during the summer and fall of 1971 and the 

summer

of 1972, regarding

fugitive particulate emissions allegedly emanating from petitioner’s

storage piles. Complaining witnesses were located downwind from peti-

tioner’s premises. The stipulation recites that petitioner contests

all factual allegations and legal contentions set forth in the Agency’s

complaint.

Petitioner has been engaged in the calcining operation since 1942

and has been unaware of any citizens’ complaints concerning its

operation until the filing of the Agency enforcement action. The

stipulation further sets forth the equipment installed by the petitioner

to control particulate emissions on its kiln #1 cooler stack, pursuant

to its Chicago permits and that

it was unaware of the necessity for

the obtaining of State permits, pursuant to Section 9(b) of the Act,

but that upon the filing of the present enforcement action, it did

file for and obtain the permits for the operation of its inulticlone

and wet scrubber, as set forth in the variance petition and Exhibits

“E” and “F” appended thereto.

In settlement of the pending proceedings, petitioner will under-

take to backfit one or more of its four calcining kilns and correspond-

ing cooling drums or will discontinue operation of any or all of these

kilns and respective cooling drums in order to comply with the State

particulate emission standards. The stipulation sets forth the back-

fitting program to be pursued as follows:

(a) Testing. Petitioner will arrange to conduct source and

sample testing at each of the kilns to be backfitted. Petitioner

will arrange to source test to obtain samples at two locations 

—

the

inlet to the settling chamber, and the breech or outlet from the

chamber. The tests will be conducted at each location to determine

(i) gas flow rate and temperature, (ii) gas analysis, (iii) particulate

flow rate, (iv) particulate analysis and (v) particulate specific

gravity. Petitioner will arrange to sample test by obtaining (i)

isokinetic samples of particulate, (ii) Anderson Cascade Impactor

tests run isokinetically and (iii) ash assays. The testing will

be completed in approximately one month.

—2—

8—68

(b) Preliminary Engineering. Petitioner will conduct a

preliminary engineering review program. for the purpose of selecting

the design of the backfitting technology to be employed at its

Chicago facilities. Such program will consist of the following:

(1) an in-depth engineering review of all backfit technology

previously installed at Petitioner’s other calcining

plants;

(2) an in-depth engineering analysis of all new research

and development abatement technology in terms of

adaptability for the Chicago facilities;

(3) calibration and adjustment of tentative backfit technology

by source and sample test results;

(4) engineering design and scheduling to relocate material

handling conveyors in order to minimize interference with

production;

(5) engineering redesign of feed systems for backfitted kilns

to accomodate annular feeding and other modifications;

(6) review feasibility of diverting of cooling drum exhaust

through settling chamber versus retention of multiclone

and wet scrubber technology.

The preliminary engineering phase will be completed in approximately

2-3 months.

Cc) Engineering and Design. At the completion of the preliminary

engineering phase, Petitioner will contract a consulting engineer to

provide final drawings, plans and specifications for installation of

abatement technology. Such work will include:

(1) layout and design of new settling chamber and stack,

including general arrangements, piling, foundations,

structural steel, mechanical chutes, stack refractory and

supporting steel for the arch and walls of the settling

chamber;

(2) layout and design of a raw coke conveyor and calcined

coke conveyor systems;

(3) investigation of existing soil test reports, existing

piling, pile caps and foundations;

(4) adaptation of existing structural steel shop details

from other similar installations, where applicable,

and preparation of additional steel shop detail drawings

as required.

—3—

8—69

The engineering and design phase will be completed in approximately

4 months.

Cd) Bids and Procurement through Completion of Construction.

Immediately upon completion of the various stages of the engineering

and design phase, Petitioner will solicit bids, let contracts and pro-

ceed on a phased construction schedule to achieve completion in

accordance with the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit E and made

a part hereof. The details of this particular phase, including cost

analysis, will be tested in greater depth in the statement and exhibits

submitted by C. R. Binner, Vice President and Chief Engineer for

Petitioner.

(e) Schedule. Immediately upon approval by the Board, the

above-described backfitting program will commence as follows:

(1) all four kilns will be available for operation during

the first 8 months following approval, such period

representing the time necessary to complete testing,

preliminary engineering and engineering and design for

kiln #1;

(2) beginning 8 months from approval, kiln #1 will shut down

for backfitting, and kilns ##2, 3 and 4 will remain in

operation while undergoing testing, preliminary engineering,

engineering and design;

(3) beginning 16 months from approval, backfitted kiln l will

start up and kilns ##2, 3 and 4 will shut down for back-

fitting or phase—out.

It is estimated that the cost of this program will be approximately

$1,000,000 for each kiln so backfitted. The backfitting schedule is

graphically depicted on Exhibit “H” appended to the variance petition.

Subject to final customer acceptance,this term refers to the accept-

ance by customers of petitioner’s finished product,Jwhich is anticipated

no later than this month (May, 1973) petitioner will backfit all calcined

coal and coke material handling conveyors from kiln #1 to be retained

after kiln backfitting with a newly-developed system whereby light

oil is applied to minimize dust emissions from calcine coal and coke.

In the absence of customer approval, petitioner will install a dust

collection system consisting of baghouses, ducts and blowers described

on page 11 of the variance petition and depicted on Exhibit “G”.

Either collection system will be completed within one year from this

date. Cost of this backfitting is estimated to be approximately

$1,000,000.

—4—

8—70

In addition, petitioner will purchase a spray truck and control

fugitive particulate emissions by spraying inactive piles with

latex spray and spray open or working piles with water. All back-

fitting schedules will be initiated immediately upon the entry of

this Order. Petitioner has already purchased the spray truck above-

described and has initiated preliminary engineering for backfitting

of kiln #1. Kiln #1 backfitting and the shutdown of kilns ##2, 3 and

4 will proceed to completion within 16 months from this date with the

understanding that kiln #1 will remain operable for a period of eight

months from this date.

So long as petitioner pursues its backfitting program, alternate

technology may be employed. Petitioner likewise reserves the right to

discontinue the backfitting program upon condition that petitioner

will likewise discontinue the operation of all calcining kilns and

cooling drums. The parties to the stipulation represent that upon

completion of the backfitting program, kiln emissions will be in com-

pliance with current applicable particulate standards. The stipulation

contains the further provision:

“Ce) In the event of a fuel shortage beyond Petitioner’s control,

which shortage to Petitioner shall be reported to the Pollution

Control Board and to the Pgency with supporting affidavits, kilns

##2, 

and

may operate at current emission levels beyond the scheduled

16-month shutdown date, provided that such shortage has prevented Peti-

tioner from operating at 50 production capacity during said 16-month

period, and 

provided, further

that Petitioner may operate Kilns ##2, 3

and 4 beyond said scheduled shutdown date only to recover said loss

of production capacity attributable to said shortage; nothing in this

subsection shall allow operation of Kilns ##2, 3 and 4 at current emission

levels beyond the date of May 30, 1975, even if the 50 production capa-

city schedule during the original 16-month period was not recaptured.”

Petitioner agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $25,000.

The Board retains jurisdiction of all matters arising out of this pro-

posal and the proposal will not be subject to alteration or modifica-

tion without approval of the Board. Petitioner shall apply for and

obtain all necessary permits to enable installation and operation of

the backfit programs aforesaid, and sub~jectto such conditions that

are not inconsistent with the terms of the Stipulation and the recommen-

dation of the Agency. It is agreed that the variance granted to peti-

tioner will be subject to the following provisions set forth in the

Agency’s amended recommendation, which will be operative with respect

to all kilns after December 31, 1973 until shutdown. The amended

recommendation provides as follows:

“1. Variance from Regulation 203 be granted to allow continued

operation of Kiln #1 during a scfleduled 16 months program,

pursuant to the provisions of ~ragraph 12(a) (2) of the

Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement, subject to the

following conditions:

—5—

8—71

(a) Within 30 days of approval of said Stipulation by the

Board, Petitioner shall execute a corporate bond in

the amount of $900,000 subject to the terms and con-

ditions of a performance bond previously agreed upon

by the parties and attached to the Stipulation. The

bond shall be mailed to: Fiscal Services, Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois 62706.

(b) That within 30 days of the stipulated agreement,

Petitioner shall cause a stack test to be conducted

on the Kiln #1 cooler by an independent testing firm.

The Agancy shall be informed at least five (5) days

before the test is performed as to the date and time,

and shall be allowed to witness said test.

(c) That Petitioner shall obtain all necessary Agency

permits required under the present Statute and

Regulations of the Pollution Control Board and State

of Illinois prior to construction of control equipment

for kiln #1.

2. That the variance from Re~ulation203 be granted for

the operation of Kilns #2,3 and 4 during the scheduled

16-month program described in the Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement.

3. That the variance be granted for the proposed emission

controls for the material handling system subject to the

following conditions:

(a) Within 30 days of approval by the Board of the aforementioned

Stipulation, Petitioner shall execute a corporate bond in

the amount of $100,000, subject to the terms and conditions

of a performance bond previously agreed upon by the parties

and attached to the Stipulation. The bond shall be mailed

to: Fiscal Services, Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

(b) That Petitioner obtain all necessary Agency permits required

under the present Statute and Regulations of the Pollution

Control Board and State of Illinois prior to construction

of said emission control system.

4. That the variance is granted for the latex and water spraying

system to control emissions from storage piles.

5. Such variance, as described in 1 through 4 above, shall cover

a period of one year, commencing from the Board Order date.

Any request for variance extensions shall be filed with the

Agency at least 90 days prior to the variance expiration date.

—6—

8—fl

6. Progress reports on all aspects of the compliance

program, as applicable, shall be submitted to the Agency

at two-month intervals, beginning 30 days after the

stipulated agreement between Petitioner and the

Agency, and continuing until the compliance program is

completed.”

The stipulation and settlement are approved.

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

law of the Board.

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

Stipulation and proposal for settlement entered into

between the parties are hereby approved and incorporated

herein. Said approval is subject to the conditions of

the amended recommendation filed by the Environmental

Protection Agency, as set forth above in this Opinion.

2. Variance from Regulation 203 is granted to petitioner

until May 24, 1974 to allow continued operation of

Kiln #1 during a scheduled 16 months program, pursuant

to the provisions of paragraph 12(a) (2) of the Stipulation

and Proposal for Settlement, subject to the following

conditions:

(a) Within 30 days from the date hereof, Petitioner

shall execute a corporate bond in the amount of 

$900 ,000,

subject to the terms and conditions of a performance bond

previously agreed upon by the parties and attached to the

Stipulation. The bond shall be mailed to: Fiscal Services

Division, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2200

Churchill Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

(b) Within 30 days from the date hereof, Petitioner shall

cause a stack test to be conducted on the Kiln #1 cooler by

an independent testing firm. The Agency shall be informed

at least five (5) days before the test is performed as to

the date and time, and shall be allowed to witness said

test.

(c) That Petitioner shall obtain all necessary Agency permits

required under the present Statute and Regulations of the

Pollution Control Board and State of Illinois prior to

construction of control equipment for Kiln #1.

(d) This variance maybe extended subsequent to May 24,

1973, upon a demonstration by petitioner of satisfactory

progress. Petition for said extension of variance shall

be filed with the Board no less than 90 days prior to May 24,

1974.

—7—

—

3. The variance from Regulation 203 is granted to May 24,

1974 for the operation of Kilns ##2, 3 and 4 during the

scheduled 16-month program described in the Stipulation

and Proposal for Settlement, This variance may be extended

subsequent to May 24, 1973 upon a demonstration by petitioner

of satisfactory progress. Petition for said extension of

variance shall be filed with the Board no less than 90

days prior to May 24, 1974.

4. Variance is granted for the proposed emission controls

for the material handling system subject to the following

conditions:

(a) Within 30 days from the date hereof, Petitioner

shall execute a corporate bond in the amount of $100,000,

subject to the terms and conditions of a performance bond

previously agreed upon by the parties and attached to the

Stipulation. The bond shall be mailed to: Fiscal ~rvices

Division, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency~ 2200

Churchill Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

(b~ That Petitioner obta~inall ~xeco~sary 7~qencypermits

required under the present statute and Regulations of the

Pollution Control Board and State of Illinois prior to con-

struction of said emission control system.

5. Variance is granted for the latex and water spraying system

to control emissions from storage piles.

6. All variances described shall be for a period of one year,

commencing from this date. Any request for variance exten-

sions shall be filed with the Board and the Agency at

least 90 days prior to the variance expiration date.

7, Progress reports on all aspects of the compliance program,

as applicable, shall be submitted to the Agency at two-month

intervals, beginning 30 days after the stipulated agreement

between Petitioner and the Agency and continuing until the

compliance program is completed.

8. Civil penalty in the amount of $25,000 is assessed against

Great Lakes Carbon Corporation, pursuant to the provisions

of paragraph 12(f) of the stipulation and proposal for

settlement~ Payment shall be made by cash or certified

check payable to the State of Illinois and sent to:

Fiscal Services Division, Bnvironmerital Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

—8—

8—74

9. Approval by the Board of the Stipulation and Pro-

posal for Settlement constitutes total disposition

of all matters raised by the enforcement action

filed by the Agency herein.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Boa~d, certify

that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the ~4j’~’dayof May,

1973, by a vote of 

to ~

,.,~

—9 

8—75