ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 30
,
1973
MARQUETTE CEMENT MANUFACTURING CO.,
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 72—397
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
Charles M. Jirauch, Attorney for Petitioner
Douglas T. Moring, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)
On October 5, 1972, Petitioner filed a recuest for extension
of a variance from the Air Pollution Control Regulations pre-
viously granted by this Board in PCB 70-23 and extended in
PCB 71—296.
Marquette is engaged in a modernization program to eliminate
eight out-dated and uncontrolled
kilns and associated equipment,
and to install a new controlled kiln at Oglesby, Illinois. About
99 of the mechanical and structural work was completed through
mid—September 1972 and the program was on schedule. The program
had a capital outlay of $16.5 million of which $3.25 million was
for air pollution control equipment. As part of the program, the
prime contractor, Macdonald Engineering Company, had sublet a
contract to Dietz Electrical Manufacturing Company of Milwaukee
for panel boards and electrical control cabinets. Dietz was to
have the equipment completed and on site during the first week
of September 1972. Visits to the Dietz plant by Macdonald
engineers, as late as August 23, 1972 indicated that Dietz was
on schedule. It was subsequently learned on
September 13, 1972
that Dietz had filed for bankruptcy on August 23, 1972 and all
work on the Marquette equipment had ceased on that date.
Monetary subsidies and issuance of Macdonald purchase orders
brought the resumption of work on the control equipment. The
controls were finally received by Marquette on October 30, 1972,
almost two months late, This two-month delay has caused a sub-
stantial upset in Marquette’s construction schedule and is the
reason for the variance request.
6
—
659
—2—
Since filing the request for extension, Marquette has
decided, of its own volition, to completely shut down the
eight old uncontrolled kLlns upon completion of the new kiln.
The completion date was estimated to be December 17 or 22,
1972. Since the old kilns were putting out 6 tons of particu-
late matter per hour this decision will result in a substantial
reduction of contaminants to the atmosphere.
During the public hearing on November 22, 1972, Petitioner
appeared to waive the requirement that this Board rule on its
variance request in 90 days. The waiver was made upon the
condition that it would “not reflect upon Marquette or in any
way interfere with their ability to continue their program.
..‘
CR. 3). Although this form of waiver is not entirely satis-
factory we believe it was effective to waive the 90 day require-
ment and in any event our decision to grant the variance removes
the language of this waiver as an issue in the case.
Marcuette was not at fault in its failure to meet the
construction deadline and we will grant the variance extension.
It is the Order of this Board that Marquette be granted an
extension of the variance granted in PCB 71-296 until April 6,
1973 subject to the following conditions: a) Marquette shall
submit monthly progress reports to the Agency showing progress
made toward the completion of the new #3 kiln, b) Marquette
shall cause a stack test to be performed on kilns #1 and #2 by
an approved independent testing service within 30 days of this
Order. The Environmental Protection Agency shall be given 5
days notice so that it may witness the stack test. Results of
the stack test shall be forwarded to the Environmental Protection
Agency as soon as available. In the event that kilns 1 through
8 have not been shut down as estimated on December 17 or 22,
1972, Marquette shall continue in full force and effect the
bond established by condition #4 as stated in PCB 70—23. Such
bond shall be forfeited to the State of Illinois in the event
that kilns 1 through 8 are operated in violation after April 6,
1973.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was
adopted this
30t1-day
of
January,
1973 by a vote of 3 to__0
.. .rn
.............
.
6— 660