ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL ECARD
    February 17, 1971
    TAMMSCO, INC
    )
    v.
    )
    # 70—28
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    Opinion
    of the Board (by Mr. Currie):
    Tamnisco processes silica for use in paint pigments; insulation
    and fiberglass, and the rubber industry (R. 12). Five tons of rock
    per hour are dried and ground to powder (R. 11—12). Despite two
    mechan!~ca1 collectors removing perhaps 90 of the emissions (R. 25)
    the drier dIscharges about 21 pounds of silIca dust per hour
    (R. 21, 28). The Rules and Regulations Governing Air Pollution
    (Rule 3—3.111) limit emissions from this size facility to 12
    pounds per hour.
    Pammaco bought this plant in December, 1969 (R. .13) and on
    June 29, 1970 filed a letter of intent to bring the plant into
    conpliance (R.
    1i4),
    pursuant to Rule 2—2.22. On July 1, 1970
    the Environmental Protection Act became effective, regaining
    that a petition for variance be filed to obtain permission to
    continue emissions in excess of regulation limits while installing
    additional collection equipment. Such a petition was filed, the
    Agency filed its recommendation, and a hearing was held. Because
    the transcript would not have been available in time to permit an
    Inte.ii~ent decision within the 90—Jay period prescribed by section
    38 of the Act, the company waived its right to a. decision within
    90
    days.
    We think the variance should be granted, subject to thp
    bond recjuired by statute to assure performance. The harm that
    will be caused during installation is small; the emissions are
    only 21 pounds per hour (as compared with 3500 in Medusa Portland
    Cemenb Co. v. EPA, decided today), and no serious complaints have
    been unearthed (R. 47). The plant Is in a town of 500 people
    (R. 11), and no one ivcs nearer than perhaps 200 yards from the
    plant (B. 31). The tirte requested Ia short: compliance is promIsed
    by July 1, 1971 by construction of a baghouse already ordered and
    scheduled for delivery June 18 (R.
    15).
    .
    Preparatory site work will
    be done In advance (R. 39), and installation will take only two
    man-days (S. 40).. On completion emissions will be ttnot measureable”
    CR. 28).
    1—2*7
    On the other side of the balance, to deny the variance ~:culi
    close the plant
    and
    throw 23 reople ~.uvo’~ jots, with aav~r.eeffuc
    on the whole community (R. 11); Tarnsco Ia the only ind’tctry in
    the community (R. ~Il) and are
    of only two suppflera of ito
    product
    in the country (R. 19). The grantin of :ome additional t~.i.e
    to achieve compliance is necessary to avoId an unr°ascnable
    hardship.
    Our
    only hesitation comes
    from the fact that the company
    requested an entire year from the time its Intent letter was
    filed in June, 1970, and from the company’s o~n teetinony that
    its supplier “would have shipped it (the baghouoe at an earUer
    date had we asked them to
    “
    (K. 23). The reason for not ‘s:kir.T
    was that “I was unable to ;et allocat~cn of f’anr
    ewiter t:.ar.
    that date June 1971; when delIvery is to be r.-.u’~
    :‘rt1i:
    -ian’~‘..rtnv
    end of the company” (R. 23). The ?eluct~..iee
    0.’
    .:‘r.’. X~ntt..,
    spend money for pollution control is no c..ccuae for deja;; in
    compliance. Therefore had we exa~riinedtI~’ ;.mtter z.x
    r~onthc
    ago we should have insisted cn a shorten.a~of the
    var~anc~
    period.
    However, due to no fault of Ta~msco,the case is oat; r.ow
    ripe for disposition, and it s~’erts pointteizs tc ‘r.clot on
    attemptIng to shorten the pcriod at this late dat’.
    rt
    o n’t
    clear that the supplier’s schedule is flexibl.c ~nou~I.to
    r
    r.dl:
    willaccelerationbe completetodaywithin(R.
    32),fiveawlmonths.urder
    Intt’cvien
    t’e~
    ofttrth3hi-ta’.iittorvnas
    4
    quantity of em~ssIons ana the uncrowded .atu.~ of tI’e r4 ~ .1
    .t’
    ‘.~,
    it does not seem worthwhile to devote mort. cffort na* to
    ti~L~n?
    to save a few weeks. The variance will oc ~ranted.
    This opinion constitutes the Board’s .t’ir.din~s
    “
    fact snn
    conclusions of law.
    ORDER
    After consider±n~::he record the Bo~rahereby crders as
    follows:
    1. Tammcco, Inc. nay
    exalt
    ui. to ‘1 rcur.d~ re’ hour of
    particulate matter from th.. urLer of itt e.ilica pinnt at ‘N
    g.:.
    Illinois, until July 1, 1971.
    2. Taamsco, Inc. thall tile with tre invtroronta
    Pr’t nt.nr.
    Agency, on or before
    ::arct.
    15, :971,
    &
    torJ
    ~r
    3t’c
    ct’3ur.t, rz
    the
    amount of $10,000, to be forfeited in•tzie cvont, the
    ‘lrsor
    L
    operated in excess of the re.alatlon l~:..tsafter Ju
    r
    3, ‘.971.
    3. The failure to file such security shall terninate this
    variance.
    1-248

    Back to top