ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 27, 1975

MARBLEHEAD LIME

)

Petitioner?

vs.

)

PCB 74—146

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Richard Elledge, Attorney for Marblehead Lime Company

Tom Casper and John Palincsar7 Attorneys for the Agency

~OPINION AND ORDER OF THE

BOARD (by Mr. Henss):

Marblehead Lime Company filed its Petition for 

Variance 

on

April 24, 1974 seeIçing relief from Rule 203 (particulates) of

the Air Pollution Control Regulations pending installation and

operation of air pollution control equipment, The parties

engaged in a number of pre—hearing procedures, including

discovery. Marblehead waived its right, which exists under

Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act, to have its

Variance Petition decided in 90 days. The matter finally went

to hearing on September 23, 1974. During this hearing Marblehead

sought to introduce testimony dealing with the economic feasi-

bility of alternative control systems. This testimony was not

allowed by the Hearing Officer. Marblehead also sought a

continuance in order to prepare rebuttal testimony. This Motion

was also denied.

On October 2, 1974 Marblehead filed a Motion to Reconvene

the hearing alleging that the Hearing Officer had erred in

excluding testimony on the economic feasibility of alternative

control systems. Over Agency objection the, Board ordered that

one additional hearing be held at a time convenient to both

parties but no later than December 1, 197.4. For some reason the

additional hearing was not held, but the Agency requested and

the Hearing Officer ordered additional discovery.

On December 18, 1974 Marblehead filed a ~‘Moticnfor Leave to

Amend and for Consideration of the Merits of Said Petitionu. We

infer that the company wished to avoid the rather extensive

discovery then being sought by the Agency. The Marblehead motion

15

—567

—2—

was in substance a request that the Board decide the case on the

basis of the record which had already been established. It was

in effect an abandonment of the company’s request for additional

hearing and the abandonment of further opportunity to introduce

evidence regarding economic feasibility of alternative control

systems. The Board granted the Marblehead request and will now

consider the Amended Variance Petition and the record which was

presented.

Marblehead operates a calcimatic kiln in Meirose Township,

Adams County, Illinois for the production of pebble lime. The

facility, also known as the “Quincy operation”, is situated on

Illinois Route 57 approximately 1 1/2 miles south of Quiricy.

Marblehead sold its entire Quincy operation to Calcium Carbonate

Company while this action was pending. Under terms of the sale,

Marblehead has leased the calcirnatic kiln from Calcium Carbonate

for an initial term of five years with the option to extend the

lease for two successive five—year periods. Calcium Carbonate

has agreed to provide Marblehead with sized limestone for the

kiln.

Terms of the sale also provide that Marblehead shall indenmify

Calcium Carbonate ag~install expenses, liabilities, losses,

damages, injunction suits, fines, penalties, claims and misdemeano~

arising out of violation of any law, ordinance or regulation.

In the Amended Petition for Variance Marblehead seeks relief

from Rules 203(a) and 203(b) in order to operate the kiln pending

installation of control equipment and for an indeterminate period

of time after installation of the control equipment.

This petition seeks relief from two mutually exclusive regulations

for an indefinite period of time. 

Two

problems are immediately

apparent. Petitioner’s operation is governed either by Rule 203(a)

or Rule 203(b) but not both. Further, the Board is not authorized

by the Environmental Protection Act to grant indefinite variances

(See: Environmental Protection Act, Section 36).

Stipulated facts show that:

1. As of April 14, 1972 and for a period of 60 days

thereafter, Petitioner had neither applied for nor

been granted a variance from any operation at its

Quincy facility,

2. Petitioner had not commenced actual on—site fabri-

cation of equipment to control emissions from the

calcimatic kilns, and

3. As of April 14, 1972 no control equipment was in-

stalled or operational for the calcimatic kiln.

15—568

—j—

These stipulated facts clearly show that Petitioner failed

to meet the two conditions of Rule 203(c) by which it could have

been allowed to comply with Rule 203(b) instead of the more re-

strictive Rule 203(a). Therefore, emissions from the calcimatic

kiln are now subject to compliance with Rule 203(a). Rule 203(b)

is not applicable.

The calcimatic kiln is a gas—fired rotary hearth lime kiln.

Preheated limestone is fed onto the hearth which rotates at a slow

speed under six burners. During one revolution of the hearth,

limestone is calcined and then swept off the hearth as it approaches

the charging station. The kiln processes an average of 1.5 tons

of limestone per hour.

Petitioner’s Chief Engineer, Charles Norton, testified that

he had observed emissions from this kiln and numerous other Marble-

head kilns over a period of years. In particular, he visually

compared emissions from the Quincy kiln to emissions from Petitione’r’s

South Chicago operation. These visual comparisons indicated that

the Quincy emissions were more clear than the South Chicago emissions.

Therefore, Norton believed that the Quincy emissions were in com-

pliance with the limitations of Rule 203(b).

Agency employee, Ed Campbell, testified that he first informed

Ma~rb1eheadof possible violations in a letter dated May 12, 1972.

Campbell and another Agency employee then visited the Quincy

facility

in June 1973.

During this visit Campbell again informed

Marblehead representatives that emissions from the kiln were, in

his opinion, in violation of applicable emission limitations.

Norton apparently persisted in his belief that visual comparisons

did not show any violation. Because of these differences in

opinion, Marblehead agreed to perform a stack test on the kiln

emissions.

Two stack tests were conducted on September 29, 1973 by

Marblehead personnel in the presence of two Agency observers. At

a limestone feed rate of approximately 15,000 lbs./hr. the two

tests showed emission rates of 359 and 464 lbs. of particulates

per hour. These figures are in excess of the allowable emission.

rate. At this process weight rate Rule 203(a) allows emissions

of 7.55 lbs./hr.

Norton testified that he had no reason to believe the emissions

were this high before the test and that he was surprised by the

results (R. 90). As a result of these tests, Marblehead decided

to send a sample of the particulates to an outside consulting firm

for a particle sized distribution analysis. This analysis indicated

that about 87 of the particles were in excess of 10 microns.

Norton testified that it was the “extremely large size” of the

particles that caused his visual observation to be in error (R. 90)

15— 569

Marblehead proposes to control emissions from the calcinatic

kiln by installing two #50 series, 43A Buell cyclones in parallel.

These particular

cyclones were previously used at Petitioner’s

South Chicago facility for a number of years.

Nortcn testified

that the cyclones were 

refurbished in 1967 and removed from service

in 1969 when Petitioner installed baghouses at the 

South Chicago

facility. The parties have stipulated that the cyclones would 

expected to have a collection efficiency of between 94 and 97

under normal operations. At

this level particulate emissions

would 

range from 14 to 28 lbs./hr.

Norton testified that Petitioner could install 

the

two cyclones

in six months on a “crash program”.

Routine installation

of the

two cyclones would take about one year.

Some delay could be expected

in the crash program if steel delivery were 

delayed. The cyclone

installation project would cost about $25,000 exclusive of the

value of the cyclones.

Petitioner has installed the baghouse control devices on every

kiln it operates

except for the Quincy kiln. Norton estimated that

a baghouse for the QuIncy kiln would cost between $6 and $8 per

ACFM CR. 108) or $150,000 to $200,000 CR. 70) 

Agency Engineer

Campbell disagreed with Norton’s assessment stating that Norton’s

figures were high and that values of $5 to $7 per ACFM and totals

of $75,000 to $120,000 were more realistic CR. 158). Campbell

conceded that recent inflation would tend to favor the higher

estimated cost.

The Quincy operation represents approximately 1 to 2 of

Marblehead’s total production capability.

Clarence Jorgensen,

Marblehead’s Vice President of Operations, testified that fuel

for the kiln was uncertain and that use of oil was questionable

because of cost and possible contamination of product.

According to Marblehead fluctuating market conditions, kiln

operating costs and kiln capacity would make the installation of

a baghouse economically unreasonable. Ten or eleven men now

employed to operate the kiln could no longer be employed by

Marblehead if the kiln were shut down.

The Agency rejects Petitioner’s contention that control efforts

were not implemented at an earlier date because the company believed

that emissions from the kiln were within the allowable rate. The

Agency believes that visual observation, citizen complaints and

Agency communications over the past several years should have

warned Petitioner that it had a problem.

Only one citizen witness testified about problems caused by

emissions from the Quincy facility. Mrs. Charles Dyer, who

resides one block from the Quincy facility, testified that her

husband had complained to Marblehead about the emissions “a long

time ago” (R. 44). Mrs. Dyer is unable to open windows in her house

15

—

570

—5—

or hang out clothes to dry because of

the emissions. She

claimed

that 

paint on their

last three 

automobiles has been

ruined by the emissions.

Although the record shows the

existance of several sources of particulates

other than the

Quincy kiln, Mrs. Dyer was positive in her identification

the kiln as the source of problems she and her husband have

encountered CR. 47).

In this case, as in others (See:

EPA v. Marblehead, PCB

73-223) we find that excessive particulate

emissions from a

limestone processing plant can cause nuisance and short term

health effects in the community.

This variance cannot be granted based on the record pre-

sented.

Emissions from the calcimatic kiln are clearly in violation

of the allowable emission rate. Although Petitioner plans to

install equipment to reduce these emissions, the record clearly

shows that this equipment simply is not capable of bring~~Lnqthe

Quincy facility into compliance.

Testimony shows that it would be technically feasible to

install a baghouse on the kiln. The dispute boils down to the

issue of whether or not the installation of a baghouse is

economically reasonable. As the Agency asserts, the mere fact

that installation of a baghouse would be more expensive to

Petitioner than installation of the cyclones does not justify

granting a variance. Section 3(b) of the Environmental Protection

Act states that adverse effects upon the environment are to be

fully considered and borne by those who cause them. The record

shows that Petitioner seeks to operate in continuous violation

of the environmental standard under the protection of the variance.

We are unable to grant Marblehead that type of relief and would

not be inclined to do so if we had the authority.

The record shows that Petitioner has the expertise and

capability to design and install baghouse control devices. This

capability is clearly shown by the fact that Petitioner has

already installed at least 13 baghouse control devices at other

installations throughout the country. We do not wish to cause

unnecessary expenditures of funds. We favor compliance with

environmental standards by the most inexpensive methods available.

Petitioner should now re—evaluate its position in order to bring

its emissions into compliance. We believe that Marblehead has

both the engineering and financial capacity to do this.

We have carefully considered the character and degree of inter-

ference with the protection of health, welfare and physical

property of the people; the social and economic value of the

pollution source; the suitability of the pollution source to the

area in which it is located; and the technical practicability and

economic reasonableness of reducing the emissions. We conclude

that Marblehead has not established its right to the variance

requested.

15—571

—6—

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that the

Amended Variance Petition be denied without prejudice.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted

this  j~~day of       

, 1975 by a vote of ~