ILLINOIS POLLUTION CON1R~J~A
October 30,
1975
MIDWEST METALS, INC.
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75—231
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
MR.
RONALD C. MOTTAZ, appeared on behalf of Petitioner;
MR.
ROGER G, ZEHNTNER, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle):
Petitioner filed a Petition for Variance on June 4, 1975
seeking
a variance from Rule 103(a) and (b) of the Air Pollution
Control
Regulations (Air Rules). On June 6, 1975 the Board
found the
Petition to be inadequate and ordered Petitioner to
amend its Petition, Petitioner filed an amended Variance Petition
on August 18, 1975. The Agency filed a Recommendation to deny
the variance
on September 18, 1975. No hearing was held.
Petitioner operates a reclamation facility located
in
Madison County at
499 West St. Louis Avenue, in East Alton.
A pyrolysis process is
utilized to recover copper from used
insulated copper wire.
The process involves placing small
pieces of copper
wire into an air-tight vessel which is heated
to approximately
800°Fand held at
that
temperature for two
hours. Petitioner processes
approximately 500 pounds of insulated
conper wire per hour. In addition to copper, the
process
produces 83
pounds of primary oil, 7-1/2 pounds of secondary
oil, 20 pounds of
asphalt and 35 pounds of carbon per hour.
Petitioner hopes to sell the oil and asphalt to local industry.
The
carbon will be disposed of at a licensed sanitary landfill.
Petitioner requests a variance from the permit requirements
while
it
applies for and obtains and operating permit. Petitioner
stated in
the Amended Variance Petition that a grant of the
~ariance would
not affect the ambien.t air quality standards.
~du~r~al
Testings Laboratory,
mc,,
a consultant hired by Petitioner,
stated that
in their opinion
the
emissions complied with the
19
—
12
—2—
hydrocarbon standards found in Rule 205 of the Air Rules and,
according to material balance calculations, complied with the
particulate standards also.
The Agency
stated that there had been two problems associated
with
Petitioner’s facility during 1975 which were attributable to
the
processing of polyvinylchloride (PVC). Excessive odors were
reLeased on both days as a result of an explosion of the primary
condenser and bypassing of the secondary condenser unit. In
addition
the Agency alleged that a violation of the hydrocarbon
and particulate standards may be associated with Petitioner’s
facility,
The majority of the points raised by Petitioner are in the
nature
of mitigating circumstances. For example, Petitioner
stated that it was not aware of the construction permit requirement
before
it
constructed the facility. While this is not a grounds
for
a variance it does tend to go to mitigation in the event that
an enforcement case would be filed against Petitioner.
The
Board finds that any hardship imposed on Petitioner
is self-imposed in
that Petitioner has the means to abate the
violation solely by filing the required permit applications.
Therefore
the Board has determined not to grant a variance.
In the event
of a permit denial by the Agency, Petitioner
would be
free to challenge such denial through the permit appeal
process or seek
a variance from the applicable rules in question.
In denying
this variance we have not reached the issue of Petitioner’~
compliance with the Air Rules.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
Petitioner~s request for a variance from Rules 103(a) and
(b) of the
Air Pollution Control Regulations is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
her~b~ycertify the above Opinion and Order were
adopted
on the 3~~day of October, 1975 by a vote of
___________
Illinois
?ol
trol Board
19— 153