ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 16, 1975

LEHIGH PAVING COMPANY,

Petitioner,

)

PCB 75—298

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Zeitlin):

The instant Petition for Variance from Rules 

103

(b),

202(b),

203(a) and/or 203(b) of Chapter 2: Air Pollution, of

the Pollution Control Board (Board) Rules and Regulations

was filed by Petitioner, Lehigh Paving Company (Lehigh), on

July 29, 

1975.

A Recommendation from the Environmental

Protection

Agency (Agency) was filed on September 18, 1975.

No

hearing

was held in this matter.

~efl~qh

has produced asphalt paving mixes at its plant

near Pexton,

Illinois since 1959, with a break in operations

from 1962 to 1965.

As part of its operations there, Lehigh

selects and mixes

various combinations of crushed stone

products

and natural sand to produce aggregate for mixing

with hot

asphalt to produce various paving mixes. The

aggregates are loaded into feed hoppers, conveyed to and

then dried 

an oil-fired rotary dryer, and then conveyed

to a screening

system for classification by size and subse—

cuent storage

in

elevator bins, Aggregates

of the proper

size are then mixed with hot asphalt in a pug mill to produce

the paving mix, which is then dumped into trucks for transpor-

tation to a paving site.

Particulate emissions from Lehigh’s plant are produced

at

the rotary

dryer, hot aggregate bucket elevator, gradation

unit, and the pug mill; the greatest source of particulates

is the

rotary dryer. Depending on various factors, including

feed rate, aggregate size and aggregate content, Lehigh’s

plant, if uncontrolled, would produce approximately 5,400

pounds per hour of particulate matter.

Present controls on particulate emissions at the paving

nix

plant. include a

dust collection system with a multiclone

device, a

wet scrubber, and a scavenger dust collection

system whsch

vents essentially all emission sources through

I

9 —

97

—2—

the

wet

scrubber exhaust stack. A particulate emission test

performed on June 13, 1975, 

indicated

an average emission

rate, with those controls in operation, of 36.3 lbs./hr., at

a process rate of 120 tons per hour. The major particulate

emission is comprised of fine dust from the stone and sand

aggregates in Lehigh’s paving mix. Particle sizes, (ranging

from 

one to thirty-two

microns, vary 

with the

aggregates

used.

The Agency’ 5 Recommendation states that the applicable

particulate emission standard for Lehigh under Rule 203 (a)

is 32.7 

pounds per 

hour. Lehigh estimates 

that 

limitation

as 32.74 lbs./hr.

To achieve compliance with Section 203(a), Lehigh plans

to install a 

“Koch 

Plexitray” bubble—cap plate tray into its

existing wet scrubber exhaust stack. The Koch Flexitray

will have a venturi scrubbing effect on the exhaust gases,

and will collect an estimated 90 

per

cent of Lehigh’s current

particulate emission from the wet scrubber. Lehigh estimates

that emissions from the 

wet

scrubber will then total approximately

4 lbs./hr. at the normal process rate of 120 tons per hour.

Lehigh estimates that 

it can

have 

this

equipment

installed

by

May

30, 1976, 

and can 

have it 

“debugged”

and operating by

July 30, 1976.

Describing the hardship on which it has 

based 

its

Variance requests, Lehigh notes that in the absence of a

Variance it could not operate without being subject to

enforcement for failure to comply with the applicable particulate

regulations. It would also be unable to obtain the required

permits from 

the Agency, exposing it to even greater liability

for violation. Were Petitioner to close, it would be unable

to meet existing contracts to supply paving mix, and would

be unable to bid for future paving mix contracts. Lehigh’ s

40-man work force presently receives an 

annual 

payroll of

$450,000, and its purchases from suppliers average 

between

$600,000 and $900,000 per year.

In addition, both the Petition and the Agency Recommendation

in this case point out considerable 

good 

faith on the part

of Petitioner over the last 

few

years, in its attempts to

achieve compliance with the applicable air pollution regulations.

The Agency Recommendation notes that Petitioner has reduced

its emissions considerably over the years, and that it has

reworked its fugitive dust system, eliminated the use of

high percentage fine aggregates, and has taken considerable

steps to increase its scrubber efficiency, 

both 

independently

and as a result of Agency suggestions.

19—98

—3—

We

agree with

the Agency that Petitioner has indeed

shown considerable good faith, and has demonstrated what

the Petition describes as a desire “to be in full compliance

with applicable Pollution Control 

Board regulations.”

Before granting

this Variance, however, we must examine

the effect

of the recent United States Supreme Court case of

Trasn v. NRDC, 43 U~S,L.W,

4467 (U.S., April 16, 1975).

L~hiq~~Petition

cites 1973 Agency data as indicating that

there is no problem of attaining or maintaining ambient air

quality standards in the area of its plant. Lehigh is

located 

intra—state Air Quality Control Region 66, and

cites AgencY

figures as showing an average particulate

concentration in that region of 58 

ug/m3.

Lehigh also notes

that it:s plant

is located in a rural area near Paxton,

Illinoas,

and is considerably removed from the only sampling

stations in that

region, which are located in Bloomington

and

Champaign.

While the Agency disagreed with Petitioner’s

reasonang as

to the effect of Petitioner’s particulate

emisesons on air quality

in Bloomington and Champaign, the

Agency does

state that, based on its knowledge of the surrounding

area, there

is no air quality problem in the area affected

by Lehiqh~s

emissions.

We

have

additionally examined Agency data for the last

sali 

of 1974,

which indicates that nationa~.Ambient Air

Quality Standards

have not been violated. D~a for Bloomington

indicates that no

readings exceeded 260 ug/m~, and that the

tiqhest 1974

reading was 148 ug/m-~ the annual geometric

mean 9cr

partsculates at Bloomington was 59 ug/m3 in 1974.

Patastandard,from

withChampaignthe

highestindicate1974no readingviolationbeingof

the151 260ug/m~u9/m3

from 1973 to

1974, the annual geometric mean at Champaign

dropped

from 63 ug/m~to 50 ug/m3,

hased on the record before us, we

agree that 

a grant of

this Variance w:LLI not cause or contribute

to Ambient Air

Quality

Standard 

violations for particulates,

Weighing the

haresnip upon Petitioner,

its past good faith, its current

attempts

achieve 

compliance by July 30, 1976, and the

ausence of any Train violation, we

feel 

that

the

grant of

this Variance

has

b~en justified,

and that Petitioner has

met

its burden 

of proof.

We shasi not, nowever, grant all tne relief sought

by

Petitioner,

W~th regara

to rules 1u3(o) 

we feel that

petItioner should be

able to obtain a permit from the Agency

should it comply

with the terms of this Variance. With

regard to Rule 202 (b), the

Agency properly points out Petitioner

eel

introduced

no evidence 

of any opacity problem; lacking

ieat~ we cannot grant a Variance from that rule,

Because

:t:~t~oner ear not shown tha-

was

compliance as of

Ag::i i~1572

(the effective

nnt~ i:.: pant two of Chapter 2

of

the hit Pollutson regulation)

dule 203 (B) 

is not applicable

to Lehigh~

99

—4—

agree with the Agency that this Variance should be

conditioned on Lehigh’s application for all appropriate

construction and operation permits, and that a system of

reporting 

by Petitioner will assist the Agency in

monitoring

Lehigh’s prcgress towards compliance. We feel that a

performance bond of $5,000, (Petitioner’s compliance plan,

described 

above, is expected

to cost $15,000), is appropriate

in ltght of Lehigh’s past good faith efforts to achieve

compliance.

Th:Ls Opinion constitutes the findings

of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS ThE

ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THAT

Petitioner, Lehigh Paving Company, be granted a Variance

from Rule 

203(a) of Chapter

2: Air 

Pollution, of the

Illinois

Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations, until July

30, 1976, subject to the following conditions:

I. Petitioner shall apply for and

obtain from the

Environmental 

Protection Agency all

appropriate

construction

and operation permits for the equipment

described in the foregoing Opinion,

Petitioner

shall, on the first day of each

month 

after the date of tflis Order, submit to the

Environmental Protection Agency a report detailing

progress toward completion of the compliance

program outlined in the 

foregoing Opinion. Those

reports shall be submitted to the following address:

Environmental Protection Agency

Control Program Coordinator

Division of 

Air Po1lut~on Control

2200

Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

Within 30 days of the date 

this order

Petitioner shall submit, in a 

form acceptable to

the Environmental Protection Agency, a performance

bond in the amount of $5,000, covering the construction

outlined in the foregoing Opinion; such performance

bond shall be sent to the above address.

4.  Within 30 days of the date of this order

Petitioner shall

enei nra 

and :iorward

to the above

address, the followi.e~ aertiiicarton of acceptance:

—

100

—5—

I, (We),

having read the

Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in Case

No.

PCE 75-298, understand and accept said Order,

realizing that such acceptance renders

all terms and

conditions thereto binding

and

enforceable.

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

Mr. Young abstained.

I, Christan L. Noffett, 

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Controi

Beard, 

hereby certify that the above Opinion~ and Order

were adopted on the

__________________

day of

1975, ny a 

vote of

~,-p

Christan B. Moffet~ erk

Illinois Pollution ontrol Board

19—101