ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
July
22, 1976
R.
A. CULLINAN & SON,
INC.,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 76—108
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
On April 21,
1976, R~A.
Cullinan
& Son, Inc.,
(Cullinan)
filed
a Petition for Variance before the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
for its Lawndale Asphalt Plant in the
Twomey
Gravel Pit
in Oran Township, Logan County, Illinois.
The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency
(Agency)
filed its Recommendation on June 23,
1976.
No hearing has been held in this matter.
Cullinan has filed
a
waiver of the 90-day rule until July 26,
1976.
Cullinan is
a corporation engaged in the business of road
and bridge construction.
The subject asphalt plant, which was
installed in 1971 and moved to its present
site
in
1973, produces
asphalt paving mixes by combining aggregates and asphalt in proper
proportions.
The plant has
a rated capacity of 275 tons per hour
and a normal production rate of 250 T/hr.
The main products are
bituminous aggregate mixture
(BAN),
I-lI bituminous concrete,
and
B-S bituminous mixture.
Normal production is maintained approxi-
mately six hours per day,
100 days per year and produces 150,000
tons of asphaltic concrete products annually.
Cullinan has twice been denied an operating permit by the Agency.
In Cullinan’s Petition,
it seeks variance from the operating
permit
requirement of Rule 103(b) of the Air Pollution Regulations
(Chapter
2)
as well as from the opacity requirement of Rule 202(b)
and the
particulate emission limitation of Rule 203(a) or
203(b)
of Chapter
2.
23
—
153
—2—
The greatest source of particulate emissions from the asphalt
plant is the rotary dryer.
Secondary sources include the hot aggre-
gate bucket elevator,
the gradation unit,
and the pugmill.
Cullinan’s
plant
is equipped with a primary dust collection system consisting
of a multiclone device and a secondary collection system consisting
of a wet scrubber which has been modified through the addition of
extra spray nozzles and the continual use of fresh water as opposed
to recirculated water.
In addition,
this plant is equipped with a
scavenger dust collection system which vents the gradation unit,
the pugmill,
and the hot elevator into the main exhaust system to
the multi-clone and wet scrubber.
With this arrangement,
the emission
sources are ultimately vented to the atmosphere through the wet
scrubber exhaust
stack.
According to Cull-nan’s Petition,
a particulate emission test
using a UOP sampling train was performed for in-house information
on the wet scrubber exhaust stack on October 22,
1975, and the test
results indicated an average emission rate of
58 pounds per hour
when BAM was being produced at a process weight rate of some 275
tons per hour.
The Agency,
however,
in its Recommendation indicates
that this stack test was not conducted according to methods accept-
able to the Agency.
According to the Agency,
emissions from
Cullinan’s plant calculate to 262 pounds per hour at a process weight
of 250 tons per day based upon the plant vendor’s standard method
of calculation.
Because the subject plant was not in compliance with Rule
203(a)
on the effective date of Chapter
2,
Rule 203(b)
is applicable.
At a process weight rate of 250 tons per hour, Rule 203(a)
allows
a
particulate emission rate of 48.5 lb. of particulates/hour.
Thus,
according to both Cullinan’s and the Agency’s data, the subject plant
is currently in violation of Rule 203(a)
Cullinan proposes to convert the existing spray bar scrub-
ber to an orifice scrubber at
a cost of approximately $10,000.00.
The increased efficiency of the latter is due to the increased mixing
of the dust particles and the water spray.
The orifice type scrub-
ber
is expected to operate at a pressure drop of
15 inches of water
and have an efficiency of 99.
According to the Agency Recommend-
ation, with the proposed controls the actual plant emissions should
be reduced to approximately 12 lb./hr.
The equipment is scheduled
for delivery on September 30,
1976,
and installation by November
30,
1976,
with the first operational debugging to be completed 15 days
after
the reopening of the plant for the 1977 season
(approximately
April
30,
1977).
23
—
154
—3—
Both Cull-nan and the Agency presented evidence on the effect
of Cullinan’s plant on the ambient air quality in the area.
The
plant is located in a rural area of Logan County.
There are no
similar emission sources within
5 miles of Petitioner.
Logan County
is included in the Illinois EPA 1975 West Central Illinois Intrastate
Air Quality Control Region 75 which,
together with Region 66, con-
tains
5 particulate monitoring stations ranging 25—37 miles
in dis-
tance from the subject plant.
In 1975, the State and Federal annual
ambient particulate primary standard was violated at one of the
5
stations, which was located in Decatur,
32 miles southeast of
Cullinan’s plant.
The Agency Recommendation indicates that, although
the evidence of Cull-nan’s affect on ambient air quality
is inconclu-
sive,
the Agency believes that the possibility that Cullinan will
cause a violation of the ambient air quality in the area during the
period of the proposed variance is minimal.
Cullinan alleges that denying it the requested variance and
subjecting it to possible enforcement action would impose an arbi-
trary and unreasonable hardship upon it.
Cullinan held an operating
permit for its plant until it was found that an inadvertent error
had been made in describing the wet scrubber in the application and
a new application was requested.
Cullinan has at all times cooperated
with the Agency and will achieve full compliance with the Regulations
through the program outlined in its Variance Petition.
Cullinan seeks variance from the permit requirement of Rule
103(b)
as well as from Rules 202(b)
and 203(a).
The Board finds
that denial of variance from Rules 202(b) and 203(a) would impose an
arbitrary and unreasonable hardship upon Cullinan and that the program
outlined in Cullinan’s Petition is sufficient to achieve compliance
with these rules within a reasonable amount of time.
Therefore,
the
Board grants Cullinan variance from Rules
202(b)
and 203(a).
How-
ever, as to variance from Rule 103(b), Rule 103(b) (6) (A)
specifically
provides for the granting of operating permits to applicants who have
received variances and are in compliance with the terms of such
variances.
Therefore,
the Board finds variance from Rule 103(b)
to
be inappropriate here and denies such request.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
Opinion of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Petitioner
R.
A. Cullinan is hereby granted variance
23
—
155
—4—
from Rules
202(b)
and 203(a)
of Chapter
2
for its Lawndale
Asphalt Plant until April
30,
1977,
subject to the following
conditions:
a.
By no later than ninety
(90)
days after
the date of the Board Order in this case Petitioner
shall obtain
a construction permit for the purpose
of constructing the orifice scrubber control equip-
ment described in the Petition for Variance.
b.
Petitioner shall submit written reports
describing the progress of construction of the
orifice scrubber to the following persons:
Control Program Coordinator
Division of Air Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
Regional Supervisor
Division of Air Pollution Control
4500 South Sixth Street Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
Such written reports shall be submitted on the following dates:
July
30,
1976
September
30,
1976
November
30,
1976
March
30,
1977
April
15,
1977
April 30,
1977
c.
By April
30,
1977, Petitioner shall have completed
installation of the scrubber and shall have made totally
operational the control system which
is the subject of this
Petition.
d.
By April
30,
1977, Petitioner shall obtain an opera-
ting permit for the plant’s operation.
e.
Within fourteen
(14)
days after the date of the
Board Order, Petitioner shall execute and forward to the
Control Program Coordinator a Certification of Acceptance and
23
—
156
—5—
agreement to be bound by all terms and conditions of the
variance.
The form of said Certification shall be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We),
having
read and fully understanding the Order of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 76-108,
hereby accept said Order and agree to be bound
by all terms and conditions thereof.
SIGNED___________________________
TITLE__________________________
DATE___________________________
2.
R.
A. Cullinan’s request for variance from Rule
103(b)
is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby6ertify the
ov
Opinion and Order were
adop ed on the
~
day of
,
1976 by a vote
of
..Q
ristan
L. Mo fet
erk
Illinois Pollution
trol Board
23
—
157