ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
February 17, 1971
MEDUSA-PORTLAND
CEMENT
CO.
)
)
v.
)
170—27
)
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
)
OPINION
OF
TEE
BOARD
(BY
~1R.
LAWTON):
Medusa-Portland Cement Co. filed a petition for variance
received by the Board on October 23, 1970.
Waiver of the stat-
utory provision requiring Board action within 90 days
(Section
38, Environmental Protection Act) has been filed.
After hearing
held on the petition, we grant a variance subject to the terms
and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Medusa-Portland Cement Co. manufactures and sells Portland
cement at its plant in Dixon, Illinois.
Portland cement is manu-
factured by combining limestone, clay, sand and slag in predeter-
mined proportions, which materials are then crushed and pulverized
in grinding mills to produce lciln feed” (R-8).
Approximately
1900 tons of raw material are processed daily.
This procedure
is performed in a rotary kiln where the kiln feed is heated
to 2800°F., which through chemical and physical changes produce
cement
clinker.
The clinker
is then pulverized in gr±nding
mills to make the finished product known as Portland cement.
Three of the Dixon kilns are preceded by pre-heaters whereby the
kiln feed is brought into contact with hot gases for efficient
transfer of heat.
The kilns are fired with gas from April 15 to
October 11 and coal between November 11 and April
15.
(See Peti-
tion dated October 15,
1970).
The gases leaving the pre-heater
kiln include the products of combustion of the fuel, carbon dioxide
released through calcination of the limestone and dust particles
entrained from the materials in the kilns by the gases passing
through them.
The total volume of gases is about 120,000
SCFZ3.
The
particulate
matter
carried
by
the
gases
amounts
to
about
8
tons
per hour
(Pet., 10/15/70).
The emissions reaching the ambient
air amount to approximately 3500 pounds per hour, greatly in excess
of particulate emissions set forth in Rule 3—3.111 of the Rules
and Regulations governing the control of air pollution remaining
in force and effect pursuant to Section 49c of the Environmental
Protection Act.
(See petitioner’s Exhibit 26, Page 2.)
The evidence
indicates
that
the
operation
emits
a plume of 100
opacity,
500
yards in length, which diffuses over a distance of up to five miles
(R—201).
1-237
The Medusa plant
at Dixon has four kilns, of which three
are Fuller Humboldt pre-heater kilns xeferred to as Nos.
1,
2
and
3, installed
in
1957,
and one conventional straight kiln,
No.
4.
The pre—heater kilns
are equipped with
an electrostatic
precipitator
(“ESP”).
The conventional straight kiln is equipped
with
a mechanical cyclone followed by
a glass fabric dust collec-
tor and
is in compliance with the regulations.
(See testimony of
Charles Howlett
(R-48-55) .Supplemental
statement of Petitioner),
The variance request is to obtain sufficient
time
to install
specific abatement equipment on the three pre-heater kilns
to
achieve compliance with
the emission regulations,
in accordance
with
the time schedule hereinafter set
forth.
A detailed review
of
the events leading up to the present petition is necessary.
On October
12,
1967,
Petitioner filed
a letter of intent
with
the Air Pollution Control Board relating to its entire Dixon
operation
noting that the precipitator
installed in pre-heater kilns
Nos.
1,
2 and
3 was only
90
efficient.
The letter stated that
Medusa intended
“to seek and add any technical improvements
that
could be incorporated with our present dust collection systems
for these pre—heater kilns”.
The record does not disclose what
transpired
during the next
14
months,
On December 27,
1968, Petitioner was advised by the Technical
Secretary of the Air Pollution Control Board that the air contaminant
emissions reduction program
(Acerp)
dated October
12,
1967,
could
not be recommended to the Board for
~pprova1
because
it specifically
lacked specification of precisely what Petitioner proposed to do
to abate pollution and failed to include any timetable to achieve
compliance,
On January
20,
1969,
a new proposed air contaminant
emission reduction program was submitted to the Air Pollution Con-
trol Board,
again,
listing several alternatives that were under
consideration by Petitioner but containing no specific program for
compliance,
This so-called air contaminant emission reduction pro-
gram was again rejected by the Technical Secretary of the Air Pollu-
tion Control Board for inadequacy,
On June
30,
1969,
a public hearing was authorized by the
Illinois Air Pollution Control Board to consider appropriate action
because of Petitioner~s failure to submit an adequate air contaminant
emission reduction program,
On July
15,
1969, Medusa wrote
to the
Air Pollution Control Board stating:
‘“We have been conducting the
necessary tests and engineering on the most effective and practical
method of reducing the emission of dust from our Dixon plant.
From
the information presently available on plant data
and from engineering
performed by suppliers of dust reduction equipment,
we plan to reduce
the emission of dust to an acceptable level in 1971,”
1—238
1
On July
18,
1969,
the Technical Secretary of the Air Pollu-
tion Control Board answered stating that Petitioner was in violation
of the Board~sRules and Regulations and advising Petitioner that
the Board was proceeding with arrangements
for
a public hearing,
but that upon receipt of an acceptable Acerp such hearing would be
cancelled,
On August
6,
1969,
a revised dust emission control program
was submitted
to the Air Pollution Control Board,
This proposal
detailed the existence of the pre-heater kilns,the inadequacies
of abatement procedures,
and
the installation’ of spray towers and
automatic voltage control regulators
to achieve partial abatement.
The new proposal provided for the installation of
a glass bag-type
dust collector for kilns Nos,
1 and
3 and the continuation of the
existing electrostatic precipitator for kiln No.
2,
coupled with
the installation of
a wet scrubber ahead of the ESP.
These improve-
ments were scheduled through 1970 and provided
for completion by
December of 1971, with field testing and measurement completed
by March, 1970
(Environmental Protection Agency Exhibit
1).
This
Acerp was approved by the old Air Pollution Control Board on
August
28,
1969,
Progress reports on the status
of the installation
were required.
The first progress report was submitted on July
19,
1970,
indicating
that engineering drawings had been received
for the
proposed installation
and that negotiations were being conducted
with Northern Illinois Gas Company for conversion to gas firing of
kilns
1,
2 and
3,
during
the period of April 15
through’ November
11,
On July
1,
1970,
the new Environmental Protection Act went
into
effect,
On August
3,
1970, Petitioner wrote to
the Director of the
newly—created Environmental Protection Agency submitting
a further
status report indicating its expectation that the installation
of the necessary emission abatement equipment would be completed
by the dates originally proposed,
On September
17,
1970,
Petitioner
wrote
to the Environmental Protection Agency proposing
a modifica-
tion of its Acerp by the installation of
a Dracco glass bag dust
filter to supplement
the existing electrostatic precipitator for
all three pre-heater kilns.
The new arrangement would be 99.7
efficient,
This program modified the earlier Acerp which had
provided
for the existing
ESP to remain
in conjunction with kiln
No,
2 alone and the new bag house to be installed on kilns
1 and
3
only.
The new plan called for one large bag house collector serving
all three kilns with the retention of the ESP, producing
a greater
efficiency
in removal of particulate matter; ,the coarse particles
would be removed by
the ESP
and the super-fines removed by
the bag
house
(See Petitioner~sExhibit
28, Supplemental
Statement of Medusa-
Portland Cement’ Co.,
Page
6,)
The modified plan would cost approx-
imately $800,000.00 installed, being $200,000.00 more than the original
Acerp proposed.
On September
30,
1970,
Petitioner was advised by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency that the modification constituted
a request
for variance and that a new petition should be filed
consistent with the Act,
and Regulations of the Pollution Control
Board.
The Agency correctly interpreted the former Air Pollution
Control Act and the present Act, both of which limit variances to
a one—year period.
Since an Acerp is
a variance,
one granted in
August of
1969, had expired prior to the September
17,
1970
communication, which can only be construed as
a new request for
variance.
(See Environmental Protection Agency
v. Commonwealth
Edison Co.,
#70-4, decided thisday.)
On October 15,
1970, Petitioner sent
a letter to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency requesting
“an extension of variance’
granted by the Board
on August
28,
1969.
The letter contained
a
description of the operation of the pre-heater kilns,
the daily
processing of 1,907
tons
of raw material and
a description
of the
existing equipment.
The letter again proposed modification of
the original Acerp by providing for the installation of
a glass
cloth bag-type filter
to control all emissions from the three pre-
heater kilns.
The letter indicated that equipment orders had been
placed,
including an order with
the Fuller Company for the bag house,
in the amount of $246,000.00.
The schedule provided for installation
of all equipment and ducting with the ESP by December
of 1971, which
timing was consistent with that provided in the original Acerp,
as
approved.
An additional period to March of 1972 was requested
for field testing of the entire dust collection
system.
On October
30, 1970,
a letter supplementing the October 15,
1970 letter was
sent to the Agency stating that insistence on immediate
compliance with the emission regulations would necessitate reducing
the operation of the plant by two-thirds, resulting in the
loss of
2.2 million barrels of cement production
and sales
in the amount of
$7,700,000,
the income from which would be necessary to pay for
the
installation
of proposed pollution abatement equipment.
It was esti-
mated that
in excess of 180 employees would be unemployed and the
loss
to the community of Dixon and the State would be
in excess
of’
several million dollars.
Petitioner stated that the loss
of such
cement production would have
a detrimental effect on the construction
industry in the
state,
Pursuant
to the Act,
the Environmental Protection Agency
filed its recommendation,
urging that the petition be denied on
the grounds that Petitioner could operate
its plant at
a “substan-
tial production rate”
in compliance with the Act,
that Petitioner has
engaged
in
a dilatory campaign and “is
no closer
to compliance today
than it was
in 1967”.
The Agency contends that the evidence fails
1
—
240
to show that Petitioner’s
time schedule is the most expeditious
possible and that there
is substantial
injury to the public as
a
result of Petitioner’s operation.
The Agency’s investigation
notes
a substantial number of letters from citizens in the community,
complaining of Petitioner’s
emissions and indicating opposition
to
granting of
the variance extension.
However, persons contacted by the Agency in the area indi-
cated their willingness
to have the plant remain in operation
until brought into compliance.
The report noted that approximately
750 people depend on Hedusa-Portland Cement Co.
for their support.
Hearing was held on the variance petit:~cnin the City Hall,
Dixon,
Illinois,
on December
1—,
1970.
The Board
is asked to approve
a program initiated
in 1967
which,
according
to the Petitioner, will
not be completed until
March of 1972,
While the fault for this delay is principally that
of
the Petitioner,
it must be shared by the old Air Pollution Control
Board and
its staff, which did not communicate a sense of urgency
to Petitioner or take appropriate action to obtain and implement
a definitive program.
However, after inordinate procrastination,
sparring and negotiation, Petitioner did submit an Acerp which
was approved by the old Air Pollution Control Board.
It now
seeks to implement
this program and the
time schedule incorporated
in
it.
This request we must
now consider, not as an original
proceeding, but within the framework of
the events having already
taken place
and particularly,
the steps taken by Petitioner in
furtherance of
its approved prog~m.
Petitioner
is seeking to adhere
to
the
time schedule originally
~
red, but to install facilities
that will have improved capabiJ
~f pollution abatement beyond
those originall contemplated,
The evidence adduced at the hearing substantiated the character
of Petitioner’s
operation as above
set forth, the ineffectiveness of
the existing abatement facilities to adequately control the pre-
heater kilns emission and the desire to pursue
the pollutional abatement
program as modified.
The plant
is
located in
a sparsely populated
area east
of Dixon,
Evidence
in the record details the magnitude
of the emissions from Petitioner’s operation but the record is meager
on the degree of impact produced by the emissions on the residential
properties.
The prevailing wind direction appears to be away from the
populated area.
The record contains some evidence as to the toxic
effect of cement ~dust, both
pro and con.
(See testimony of Prince,
R-205),
(MPC Ex.
27A-1).
However, we find the evidence intro-
duced by both parties on the subject of toxicity inconclusive and
unpersuasive.
At the hearing,
the Agency reiterated its recommendation
that the variance be denied, but that if it be allowed that
it be only
for
a six-month’ periodS
A representative
of the Attorney General stated
that his office concurred with the recommendation of the Environmental
Protection Agency
(R-32),
While it is inexcusable for
the company to have taken
almost five years to reach its present proposal,
the Board must
consider the variance program in light of
the current factual
situation and determine whether Petitioner’s proposed program,
or
some modification thereof,
is compatible with
the statutory requisites
for the allowance of
a variance.
The evidence supports
the prin-
cipal allegations of the variance request insofar as it details the
nature of Petitioner’s operation,
the inadequacies
of the present
abatement equipment,
the proposed program for installation of
a
suitable bag house facility, and the time schedule calling for
complete installation by the end of December,
1971.
The inability
to operate
in excess of 30
capacity in event of
a shut-down of the
offending kilns is supported by
the record
(R-87~and
177.)
Furthermore,
the desirability of the modification
set forth in the September
17,
1970 letter
is adequately demonstrated
(R-59)
Evidence introduced by the Petitioner included the purchase
contracts, orders of
the abatement equipment
(Ex.
1
through
23
),
and the authorization by Petitioner’s
corporate directors
to spend $800,000,00 for
the acquisition and installation of the
equipment at the Dixon location.
At the request of the Hearing
Officer,
a supplemental statement was submitted restating Petitioner’s
intention to adhere to the time schedule proposed,
describing the
glass fabric dust filter to be obtained from the Fuller Company
at
a cost of $250,000.00
and itemizing the additional purchase
orders already issued exceeding $400,000,00.
A photograph was
included showing concrete footings already poured to accomodate
the installation.
Requests
for bids
on mechanical
ahd structural
erection will issue currently.
The time schedule for specific
erection of
the equipment on the site provides
for installation
beginning in April,
1971,
and completion by October
31,
1971,
with
tie-in of the newly-erected equipment
to ‘the existing kiln system
and the present ESP completed by December 31,
1971,
The break-in
and testing period will,
according to Petitioner,
require an addi-
tional three months after final installation,
William F,
Troutman
(R-148), Director of Corporate Development,
stated that $800,000.00 had been allocated for this project,
He
asserted that elimination of production from kilns
Nos,
1,
2 and
3
would reduce production to 30
of capacity and result in operation
costs double the revenue from such production.
The alleged hard~hip
included not only the asserted loss of revenue to the company, but
the resulting unemployment of personnel,
the inability to furnish
needed concrete to customers and the significant impact on the economy
of the immediate community and the State,
This witness suggested
that even partial cessation of operation would enable competitors
‘to move
in on Petitioner’s market with the likelihood that such
I
—
242
event would result in an ultimate shut—down of Petitioner’s entire
Dixon operation
(R-l57).
One disturbing feature of this case does not appear in the
record but must be noted.
The recommendation of the Environmental
Protection Agency states that the Agency had received numerous
complaints concerning the impact of Petitioner’s
operation on the
community.
Both the Agency and this Board have received communica-
tions commenting on the unpleasant attributes
of Petitioner’s par-
~iculate
emissions.
The hearing was publicized through the Board
Newsletter and public newspaper notice,
and received wide coverage
in the local press,
In excess of 100 people attended
the Hearing.
However,
not
a single person appeared to express opposition to the
proposed variance
or informed, the Board with regard to the impact,
if any, produced by Medusa’s particulate emissions on personnel
or residential areas.
A representative of the local radio
station,
the president of the local bank and employees of the
company all appeared
in support of the proposed variance,
A sugges-
tion was made by one witness that
the action of the Agency and the
Board in seeking to bring Petitioner into compliance with the
relevant statutory and regulatory provisions was “harassment”.
(R—l32),
While the Board does not draw any implications
from the foregoing
circumstances,
it should be noted that the time and place to voice
one’s concern in the matter of
a specific operation should be at
the Hearing,
it
is only through this procedure that the Board can
be informed of the true factual situation
in terms of the impact
of the facility upon the community.
The Board’s decision, however,
can only be based on what
is
disclosed
in the record,
Failure to adequately inform the Board
not only makes difficult the arrival at
a
just decision but con-
stitutes
a disservice
to the community itself,
Citizen concern and
interest
is meaningless
if not communicated to the Agencies mandated
to protect the public interest,
It is the decision of the Board that while Applicant has been
extremely dilatory in proposing and implementing a valid abatement
program,
it has,
at last,
embarked upon
a schedule that will bring
the Dixon operation into compliance with the
law.
The projected
time schedule,
in consideration of the present circumstances,
is
not unreasonable,
The evidence indicates that shutting down the
operation to the extent of 70
would impose upon the applicant,
the
community,
its employees,
and the local economy hardships dispro-
portionate with the benefit achieved by
suc’h shut-down.
This case
differs from Marquette Cement Co. v.
Environmental Protection Agency,
#70-23
(decided January
6,
1971)
in which we imposed a $10,000 penalty
as
a condition
of
a variance,
in that here,
the delay in commencing
a control program was essentially forgiven when the Air Pollution
Control Board approved Medusa’s Acerp.
We have
not been asked to
I
243
grant additional
time beyond that allowed by the old Board.
The Board has considered the character and degree of injury
to the public health and general welfare of people in the immediate
area
and the social and economic value of the pollution source,
It believes the proposed installation and abatement schedule
to be practical and economically reasonable
in eliminating the
pollution
source.
While this proceeding
is by way of variance
and not an enforcement action,
the foregoing
facts must be cOnsidered
in arriving at our decision.
Failure to grant the variation would
enable such enforcement action
to be instituted where the fore-
going matters would be the subject
of consideration,
This opinion
constitutes the finding of fact
and conclusions of
law by the Board.
ORDER
The Board having considered the transcript and exhibits
in this proceeding, hereby grants the petition of Medusa-Portland
Cement Co.
for
a variance subject to the following terms
and condi-
tions:
1.
Medusa-Portland Cement Co. shall be allowed
to operate
its pre-heater kilns Nos.
1,
2 and
3, thereby producing particulate
emissions
in excess of the relevant particulate emission limitations
set forth in the Regulations of the Air Pollution Control Board for
a period ending December
31,
1971.
2.
On December
31,
1971, Medusa-Portland Cement Co,
shall
have completely installed the new glass fabric dust collector
in
conjunction with the existing electrostatic precipitator
so as
to bring its operation into compliance with the relevant particulate
emission regulations.
Medusa-Portland Cement Co.
shall adhere
to the schedule
of installation as set forth in its letters to the
Environmental Protection Agency of October
15,
1970
and October
30,
1970,
as implemented by supplemental
statement of Medusa-Portland
Cement Co.
filed herein,
and shall file with the Agency and this
Board reports, every two months, of
its progress reflecting the
status of all equipment ordered and received and the installation’
of all facilities on the premises.
3,
Medusa-Portland Cement Co,
shall post with the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency,
on or before March
15,
1971,
in such form
as the Agency may find satisfactory,
a personal bond or other adequate
security, in the amount of $100,000.00, which
sum shall be forfeited
to the State of Illinois
in the event that the plant in question is
operated after January
1,
1972 without
an ewtension of this variance
and without control equipment sufficient
to reduce emissions
to
those permitted by the Regulations.
4.
Emissions
shall not be increased
above the levels
disclosed in the form submitted by Medusa-Portland Cement Co.
in connection with its
let-ter of intent
(Environmental Protection
-
Agency, Exhibit
1)
during the period of this variance.
5,
The failure of the company to adhere to any of the condi-
tions of
this order
shall be grounds for revocation of the variance.
6,
Petition for variance or modification of
this Order
shall be filed no later than November
1,
1971,
I, Regina
E
Ryan, certify that the Board adopted the above opinion
and ~
,
1971.
f_fl
~
~
//~
I Concur
I DissenL