ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

June 18, 1976

LEHIGH PAVING COMPANY,

)

)

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 76—94

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Satchell):

This matter comes before the Board as

a Petition for

an Extension of a Variance from Rule 203(a)

of the Chapter

2:

Air Pollution Regulations.

The original variance, PCB 75-298,

was granted on October 16,

1975 and expires July 30, 1976.

The Petition for Extension now before the Board was filed

April

7,

1976.

The Agency Recommendation was filed June

1,

1976.

Petitioner’s response to the Agency Recommendation

was filed June 11,

1976.

No hearing was held in this matter.

The Board takes notice of the facts and opinion of

PCB 75—298.

Lehigh Paving Company

(Lehigh), owner and operator of

an asphalt paving plant, requests this extension on the

basis that there has been delay over which Petitioner has

had no control.

Koch Engineering Company

(Koch)

is the

manufacturer of the control equipment to be installed.

According to the original compliance plan Koch was to have

prepared drawings for approval

in two to three weeks and

shipment was to be within ten weeks after approval of the

drawing.

However it actually took Koch eleven weeks

to

prepare the drawings

for approval, and shipment

is not

scheduled until the first week in July,

1976.

By the time

the equipment arrives in mid-July there will have been a

five month delay from the February 15,

1976 date in the

original compliance plan.

On the basis of this delay Lehigh

is asking the Board to extend the variance from Rule 203(a)

until December 1,

1976

(the estimated end of the 1976

operating season)

in order to avoid arbitrary and unreason-

able hardship to Lehigh and its employees.

The Agency recommended that the variance be extended

only to August

15,

1976 and then it would be subject to

conditions.

The basis of this position

is that the Agency

states that the equipment should require no more than three

22— 173

---

—2—

weeks or 100 hours to install,

The Agency states,

“Lehigh

is expected to receive the equipment during the first week

of July,

1976”; the petition states shipment is scheduled

for the first week in July 1976.

This leaves the arrival

date indefinite.

Lehigh claims the installation will take

three months.

Petitioner’s normal asphalt production out-

put is during 100 to 120 days of operation per year from

May through November.

The production schedule

is limited due

to weather conditions

(Agency Recommendation at 2).

As

Lehigh cannot install the equipment and make asphalt paving

at the same time,

timing in July,

a good weather month,

would be critical to Petitioner’s business.

Considering

these timing factors and the time schedule of the original

variance the Board finds that Petitioner’s request for ex-

tension is reasonable.

However, the Board must also con—

sider whether Petitioner will contribute to a violation of

the ambient air quality standards.

The two monitoring

stations

in Petitioner’s region are Champaign and Bloomington.

In 1975 the Champaign station, located approximately 25 miles

SSW of Petitioner’s asphalt plant, registered an annual

geometric mean particulate level of

46 micrograms per cubic

meter of air.

The Bloomington Station, located approximately

straight west of Petitioner’s asphalt plant, registered an

annual geometric mean particulate level of 64 micrograms per

cubic

meter.

The State and Federal ambient particulate primary

standard allows an annual geometric mean concentration of

75

micrograms per cubic meter of air.

This information and the

information used

in the prior proceeding indicate that Peti-

tioner’s particulate emissions will not cause or contribute

to a violation of State or Federal ambient air quality stan-

dards.

Under these conditions the Board finds that extension

of the variance to November

1, 1976

is justified.

This allows

Petitioner time to install the equipment and guarantee its

operation for the 1977 season.

The Board does note that Lehigh has been dilatory

in

sending its monthly reports and posting the performance bond,

conditions of the first variance.

The Agency has received

only two monthly reports and the performance bond which was

to have been provided by November 15,

1975 was not provided

until May 10,

1976.

The monthly progress reports remain a

condition of any extended variance.

The Agency Recommendation urges the Board as

a condition

of the variance to limit Petitioner to emitting no more than

3 pounds per hour from the wet scrubber exhaust stack at a

process weight of 120 tons per hour.

This recommendation is

based on several factors.

First, the families of the two

22— 174

---

3—

residences proximate to the plant, being approximately one

fourth mile from the plant,

object to the extension of the

variance because of the emissions.

Second, Lehigh’s present

emission

is 36.3 pounds per hour.

The regulated limit is

32.7 pounds per hour.

The Agency does not feel that a

reduction of 3.6 pounds per hour will reduce the number of

complaints

it receives on the facility and that Lehigh will

still be causing air pollution in violation of Section 9(a)

of the Act.

The Board finds that such a limitation would be inappro-

priate at this time.

Petitioner’s equipment is yet to be

installed and

its

efficiency is theoretical.

If the Agency’s

calculations are correct, the equipment should he capable ot

99.9

efficiency which should reduce emissions to 2.6 pounds

per hour at a process weight rate of 120 tons per hour.

This

figure

is less than one tenth of the emission limitations

established by our regulations.

Even if Lehigh’s equipment

should not reach this efficiency rate or should do so only

part of the time,

it would appear that the emissions should

be reduced to well under the 32.7 pounds per hour standard.

Thus it is premature to determine at what point Lehigh would

still be causing a violation of Section 9(a)

of the Act.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law.

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 Novem-

ber

1,

1976, subject to the following conditions:

1.

Petitioner shall apply for and obtain from the

Environmental Protection Agency all appropriate

construction and operation permits.

2.

Petitioner shall, on the first day of each month

after the date of this Order,

submit to the Agency

a report detailing progress toward completion of

the compliance program.

Those reports shall be

submitted to the following address:

Environmental Protection Agency

Control Program Coordinator

Division of Air Pollution Control

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

22—175

---

—4—

3.

Within

30 days of this order Petitioner shall

execute and forward to the above address and

the Pollution Control Board, the following certi-

fication of acceptance:

CERTIFICATION

I

(We), ________________________________, having read the

Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in Case No.

PCB 76-94,

understand and accept said Order, realizing that

such acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto

binding and enforceable.

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

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

Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and

Order were ado~t1edon the

j~~’’-

day of

~

,

1976

by a vote of

~

QJL.O~f~4~

Illinois Pollution

rol Board