ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 3, 1973
AMERICAN
LIMESTONE DIVISION, AMERICAN
)
SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY,
Petitioner,
VS.
PCB 73—98
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr~ Henss)
Petitioner operates a
quarry located
south of Jonesboro in
Union
County, Illinois.
At the
present
time
emissions from
its
limestone crushing operation exceed the levels permitted
under
Rule 3~-3.111 of the Rules
and Regulations Governing the Control
of Air Pollution and Rule
203
(a)
and 203(0) Chapter
2, Part II
of the Pollution Control Board
Regulations
In order to achieve
compliance with the latter Rules
Petitioner
woula apparently
have to:
reduce emissions from one of its cleaning, conveying
and handling
points
from :L60 lbs. per hour to
26
3
lbs per
hour; reduce emissions from the fines miii from 720 lbs.
per
hour to :32.5 lbs. per hour; and reduce emiss:Lons from a third
point involving screening, conveying and handling from 240
lbs.
per
hour to 32
5
lbs
per
hour.
Petitioner plans to
install
encLosures with water sprays as its control
devices
and
has
received a construction permit from the EPA for this installation.
The variance is requeste.d until July 15, 1973
The limestone company gives the following reasons
for
requestinq the variance:
I) It
was not until February 1973 that a decision had
been
made on types of
materials
and equipment
to
standardize dust. controls in the various
plants
operated by Petitioner
2) Procurement of the materials necessary
for
the
dust control
facilities
would not
be
completed
until April
or
May
1973.
—2—
3) The slack period at the Jonesboro quarry is be-
tween late May and late August and it would be
most convenient and save a considerable amount
of lost production and money if the construction
could take place between late May and July 15, 1973.
The EPA investigation indicated that emissions currently are
minimal since the stone contained 6 to 8 moisture caused by
recent rains. The EPA had received no complaints from residents
living near the quarry. Nevertheless, the Agency has recommended
that the variance be denied on the grounds that Petitioner has
failed to prove that immediate installation of control equipment
would cause an unreasonable hardship.
What this amounts to is a request for a 2 1/2 month delay in
the start of construction. We do not feel that is a serious delay
especially in this exceptionally wet spring when emissions are
reduced by natural precipitation. The Petitioner has shown a
good faith effort to proceed ahead with the installation of control
devices. On balance, it. seems reasonable to accept a slight, delay
when ‘this will facilitate the standardization of control equipment
among the various plants, reduce the amount of lost production and
save money. Let it be said that we do not grant variances for
the “convenience” of Petitioners, but that in this particular case
Petitioner’s case is based upon more than an inconvenience.
ORDER
It is ordered that:
Petitioner is granted a variance from Rule 3-3.111
of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control
of Air Pollution and from Rule 203(a) and 203(c) of
Chapter 2, Part II Pollution Control Board Regulations
until July 15, 1973. During the period of the
variance Petitioner shall proceed with the installation
of control equipment and control facilities for the
purpose of complying with the emission standards by
July 15, 1973.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted on this 3rd
day of May, 1973 by a vote of 4 to 0
7
—
708