ILLINOIS POLLUTION CON1R~J~A

October 30,

1975

MIDWEST METALS, INC.

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 75—231

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

MR.

RONALD C. MOTTAZ, appeared on behalf of Petitioner;

MR.

ROGER G, ZEHNTNER, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle):

Petitioner filed a Petition for Variance on June 4, 1975

seeking

a variance from Rule 103(a) and (b) of the Air Pollution

Control

Regulations (Air Rules). On June 6, 1975 the Board

found the

Petition to be inadequate and ordered Petitioner to

amend its Petition, Petitioner filed an amended Variance Petition

on August 18, 1975. The Agency filed a Recommendation to deny

the variance

on September 18, 1975. No hearing was held.

Petitioner operates a reclamation facility located

in

Madison County at

499 West St. Louis Avenue, in East Alton.

A pyrolysis process is

utilized to recover copper from used

insulated copper wire.

The process involves placing small

pieces of copper

wire into an air-tight vessel which is heated

to approximately

800°Fand held at

that

temperature for two

hours. Petitioner processes

approximately 500 pounds of insulated

conper wire per hour. In addition to copper, the

process

produces 83

pounds of primary oil, 7-1/2 pounds of secondary

oil, 20 pounds of

asphalt and 35 pounds of carbon per hour.

Petitioner hopes to sell the oil and asphalt to local industry.

The

carbon will be disposed of at a licensed sanitary landfill.

Petitioner requests a variance from the permit requirements

while

it

applies for and obtains and operating permit. Petitioner

stated in

the Amended Variance Petition that a grant of the

~ariance would

not affect the ambien.t air quality standards.

~du~r~al

Testings Laboratory,

mc,,

a consultant hired by Petitioner,

stated that

in their opinion

the

emissions complied with the

19

—

12

---

—2—

hydrocarbon standards found in Rule 205 of the Air Rules and,

according to material balance calculations, complied with the

particulate standards also.

The Agency

stated that there had been two problems associated

with

Petitioner’s facility during 1975 which were attributable to

the

processing of polyvinylchloride (PVC). Excessive odors were

reLeased on both days as a result of an explosion of the primary

condenser and bypassing of the secondary condenser unit. In

addition

the Agency alleged that a violation of the hydrocarbon

and particulate standards may be associated with Petitioner’s

facility,

The majority of the points raised by Petitioner are in the

nature

of mitigating circumstances. For example, Petitioner

stated that it was not aware of the construction permit requirement

before

it

constructed the facility. While this is not a grounds

for

a variance it does tend to go to mitigation in the event that

an enforcement case would be filed against Petitioner.

The

Board finds that any hardship imposed on Petitioner

is self-imposed in

that Petitioner has the means to abate the

violation solely by filing the required permit applications.

Therefore

the Board has determined not to grant a variance.

In the event

of a permit denial by the Agency, Petitioner

would be

free to challenge such denial through the permit appeal

process or seek

a variance from the applicable rules in question.

In denying

this variance we have not reached the issue of Petitioner’~

compliance with the Air Rules.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

ORDER

Petitioner~s request for a variance from Rules 103(a) and

(b) of the

Air Pollution Control Regulations is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

her~b~ycertify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted

on the 3~~day of October, 1975 by a vote of

___________

Illinois

?ol

trol Board

19— 153