ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 28,
1973
JOHNS-MANVILLE PERLITE CORPORATION,
ROCKDALE PLANT
#73—60
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ROBERT JOYCE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
STEVEN G. BONAGUIDI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(BY SAMUEL T.
LAWTON,
JR.):
Petition filed by Johns-Manville Perlite Corporation seeks
variance from the provisions
of Rules
203(b),205(f)
and 206(a)
of
Chapter
2: Air Pollution,
•of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
Rules and Regulations, until September
28,
1973.
The foregoing
Rules are not presently in effect nor will they be by September 28,
1973.
Accordingly, we construe the foregoing petition as one seeking
relief from the requirements
of Rule 3—3.111 of the Rules and Regula-
tions Governing the Control of Air Pollution, which presently limit
the amount of particulates that may be emitted into the air.
The
difficulty with the present application for variance is that petition-
er makes no representation that it will be in compliance by Septem-
ber 28,
1973, but only that it will submit
a compliance program by
June 30,
1973, which will delineate a program as yet unascertained
that will,
at some unspecified date, bring the operation into comp1ianc~
Petitioner represents that prior to June
30, 1973,
it will sub-
mit an application for extension of variance should this appear
necessary in light of its compliance program.
As of the date of
this opinion,
no compliance program nor application for extension of
variance has been received.
We further note that while the hearing on the amended petition
was held on April 26,
1973, the transcript was not received by the
Board until May 31,
1973.
Petitioner’s plant
is located south of Joliet and is engaged
in the manufacture of mineral-type roof insulation board, decorative
ceiling tile and ground perlite filter aids.
Its 1973 sales are
anticipated in the amount of $13,000,000.
The plant employs approx-
imately 276 personnel in production,
administration and sales.
The specific variance petition relates to the Fesco roofing board
insulation department.
Fesco is a mineral type fire~Lresistantroof
insulation which is applied to dead level roofs in industrial and
8—401
commercial construction.
The Fesco production process is described
as
follows:
perlite ore is received in bulk rail cars.
The ore
is unloaded and transferred to nine perlite expanders where the
ore is expanded to useable form.
Waste newspaper is recycled by
returning the waste paper to pulp form through the use of a hydro-
pulper.
Bags of starch are mixed with water to form
a starch slurry.
The expanded perlite, news pulp, starch slurry and asphalt water emul-
sion are wet mixed in
a series of headboxes and deposited on a four-
drinier wire where the product
is
formed, pressed to desired thickness
and partially dewatered.
The board
is then cut into large sheets and
loaded into
a five zone,
eight deck Coe dryer, where the water re-
maining in the product is driven off.
The board is then trimmed to
final size and packaged for shipment.
Stack tests conducted by an independent testing laboratory
disclose that the dryer stacks were emitting particulates that con-
ceivably would violate the existing regulations.
While the original
computation indicated emissions in the amount of 73.4 pounds per hour
of particulates based on
a process weight rate of 93,000 pounds per
hour,
subsequent analysis indicates emissions of only 49.6 pounds
per hour against an allowable emission rate of
47.2 pounds per hour.
While part of this difficulty
is attributable to what the Company
construes to be non-particulate emissions,
it is noted that the difference
between the permissible limits and the computed limits
is not particu-
larly great and we will assume for purposes of this proceeding that
the 49.6 pounds per hour is,
in fact,
a particulate emission rate.
In the event it is determined that the particulate emission rate is
not exceeded then, of course,
no variance would be needed or appropriate.
The original measurements likewise reflected emissions of con-
taminants in addition to particulates,
as follows:
CO
221.74 lb/hr
SO2
.07 lb/hr
N02
17.6
lb/hr
CH4
35.2
lb/hr
The foregoing emissions were attributed to incomplete combustion at the
time the stack tests were conducted, which the Company
felt could be
eliminated by adjustment and re-balancing of the dryer.
To further
explore, the dryer was removed from servicr between December
4 and
December 14,
1972, and a task team creat:~ito study the problem.
During the shut—down new burners were installed in
zones
1 and 2,
whdch are believed to have lessened the emissions both in
zones
1 and
2 and zones
3,
4 and 5 because of interaction between the zones.
Other
correction work was made during the shut—down,
including the installa-
tion of new burner parts in zone
3 and the installation
of new baffles
in zones 1 and 2.
New stack tests were conducted on all dryer zones
during the week of February 12, 1973.
—2—
8—402
While at the hearing, the Company represented that the most
recent stack tests indicated a situation of possible compliance
with the particulate regulations,
it still is desirous of taking
all necessary steps to assure that compliance has been met.
There
is a possibility that the emissions may 3till be in violation, despite
the corrective action taken.
The Company proposes to conduct a pilot test program with a
high energy air filter system known as HEAF, which has been developed
and marketed by the Company for control of air contaminants.
A
pilot installation will be made on one of the five dryer stacks
to estimate
if the HEAF system will be able to conform with the
regulations.
Although the petition indicates that this testing would
be done in March,
at the April
26, 1973 hearing it appears that this
testing has not been finalized so that as of the date of the hearing,
we are not informed whether the HEAF
system would be adequate and
must assume,
for the purpose of this variance, that other systems
must be explored.
These include
a wet-electrostatic precipitator,
a high energy scrubber and a cloth collector.
While these presumably
will be conducted simultaneously with the I~AFpilot test,
it
is
estimated that
a minimum of 2-1/2 months will be needed to complete
the technical feasibility studies described.
Based
upon
the
foregoing
tests,
the
Company
anticipates
that
it
will
conclude
by
June
30,
1973,
its
determination
as
to
what
system
will be the most appropriate and will
file such further petitions
as are necessary to enable an extension of variance to provide ade-
quate time for the installation of the abatement program selected
to achieve
full compliance.
Following completion of the studies,
the abatement system will be selected, lay-outs prepared, specifica-
tions drawn up and ordered and the variance petition submitted.
The variance request to September 28, 1973 is in contemplation of
a further extension being submitted no later than June 30,
1973,
which would be acted on within 90 days pursuant to statutory require-
ment or before September
28,
1973, which would eliminate any gap
in the protective shield granted by a variance in the event the emis-
sions do,
in fact, violate the relevant regulations.
While we are
not normally disposed to grant a variance in the absence of a defini-
tive plan of compliance, we believe that the relatively small amount
of particulate emissions in excess of the applicable limits, justi-
fies the allowance,
in consideration of the Company’s represented
program for developing and installing
an abatement system.
The hard-
ship imposed on the community in the event the variance is granted
does not appear significant,
as compared to the hardship on the Com-
pany in the event the variance is denied, requiring
either the
imposition of
a penalty or the curtailment of production.
We grant petitioner variance until September
28, 1973,
from
the provisions of Rule 3-3.111 of the Rules and Regulations Governing
the Control of Air Pollution.
—3—
8
403
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Petitioner,
Johns-Manville Perlite Corporation,
be granted
a variance from the provisions
of Rule
3—3.111 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the
Control of Air Pollution until September 28, 1973, to
enable petitioner to submit to the Board and the
Agency
a definitive plan
for the installation of
abatement equipment to bring its operation into com-
pliance with the relevant regulations.
2.
The Board retains jurisdiction of this matter for
such other and further order as may be appropriate
based on submissions made by petitioner.
I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify
that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the
~
day of
June,
1973, by a vote of
,3
to
o
—4—
8—
404