ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 2, 1971

NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY

V.

)

PCB #71—99

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY)

Donald Bomberry for National Gypsum Company

Roger C. Ganobcik

for Environmental Protection Agency

Opinion of the Board (by Samuel R. Aldrich):

On May

4, 1971, National Gypsum Company requested a variance

from air pollution regulations for its Waukegan, Illinois plant.

The request was made after the Company failed to comply with the

terms of an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program (“ACERP”)

approved by the Air Pollution Control Board in May of 1970. The

program set a completion date of April 15, 1971, for installation

of pollution control equipment. The Company failed to maet that

deadline, The petition asks for additional time in which to re-

duce dust emissions from a gypsum block grinder.

At the hearing, plant manager Donald Bomberry testified that he

misunderstood the terms of the Company~s ACERP, He geared the

installation operation for a completion date of July’ 1, 1971,

rather than April 15 (R. 5). When informed of

his

error he caused

the operation to be accelerated (R. 18). Installation was complete

by June 7, 1971 (Ex. F) and the Agency

states

that the Company is

now in compliance with the law, Therefore, notwithstanding the

Company~s inexcusable delay in achieving compliance, a variance

is no longer necessary. We find the question of whether a variance

should be granted is now moot, Consequently we will dismiss the

petition.

The block grinder in question grinds approximately 3000 pounds of

gypsum block per day used in the manufacture of wallboard (R.ll,37),

In its petition the Company indicated that the grinding process re-

sulted in

the

discharge of gypsum partioles at the rate of approxi-

mately five pounds per hour, This is on the order of 24 times the

rate allowed under the rules (F. 24). However, at the hearing

Donald Bomberry testified that the rate indicated in the petition

was

incorrect. He stated that it should have been five pounds per

~ay (F.

9),

The Environmental Protection

Agency could

neither

confirm nor

deny

the amended estimate since it had recognized the

original figure as being in violation of

the

standards and thus had

not conducted

any

tests at the site (F. 23). At the hearing

Donald Bomberry agreed to provide the Board with whatever documents

were available

concerning

emission rates. None was forthcoming,

however,

2—185

---

If the figure of five pounds of gypsum particles per day is cor-

rect, no violation of the air pollution regulations has occurred

(F. 23). We have already ruled the question of whether the variance

should be granted is moot. Consequently we need not consider

whether the emissions were in violation of applicable sections of

the Environmental Protection Act.

Apparently the Agency has not monitored emissions either prior to

or following installation of the control equipment. Counsel for

the Agency indicated that

the

equipment had been inspected and

judged capable of bringing emissions within the standard (R. 28).

But persons living near the plant testified that emissions did not

decline noticeably after June 7, 1971, when installation of the

equipment was completed (F. 39). The same persons indicated,

however, that emissions were reduced to zero during the week prior

to the hearing and claimed the plant had not been

operating

during

this interval. This was

denied

by Donald Bomberry who testified

the plant had been in complete operation

(F.

39). Under the

circumstances we must proceed on the assumption that if a problem

persists it will

be

brought to

the attention of the Agency or the

Board

in an appropriate manner.

The petition for

variance is hereby dismissed.

This opinion

constitutes the Board~s findings

of fact and

conclusions

of

law.

I dissent

I, Regina H. Ryan,~lerk of the Pollution Control Board,

hereby certif~rt at the Board adopted the above opinion and

order this

day of August, ~

2— 186