ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 8,
1975
FAIRBURY STONE COMPANY, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 74—463
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Odell)
On December 11,
1974, Fairbury Stone Company,
Inc.
(Fairbury Stone)
filed with the Illinois Pollution Control
Board
(Board)
a Petition for Variance from Rules 103(b),
202(b),
and 203(b)
of our Air Pollution Regulations
(Chapter
2)
for a period of one year.
Petitioner operates a limestone quarry on U.S.
24,
3
1/2
miles west of Fairbury,
in Livingston County,
Illinois.
The
operations consist of removing 12
to 18 feet of overburden,
blasting the limestock rock vein that
is
12 to
18
feet thick,
transporting the shattered rock to the central processing plant,
and screening and crushing in the processing plant, followed by
storage and loadout for distribution via motor trucks to
customers.
The quarry produces approximately 225 tons per hour
of stone in various size-classes.
Normal production consists of
one 8-hour shift per day, but during 1974 there have been some
two 8-hour shifts per day of operation.
Petitioner employs
8 to
10 persons.
On the basis of factors listed on page 8.2-1 of “Compilation
of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
Second Edition,” Petitioner
estimated their total particulate emissions,
if uncontrolled,
to
be as follows for various sources:
Primary crusher
(225 T/hr x 0.5
lb/T)
=
112.5
lbs/hr
Secondary crushing and screening
(90 T/hr x 1.5 lbs/T)
=
135.0 lbs/hr
Screening,
conveying, and handling
(225 T/hr x 2.0 lbs/T)
=
450.00 lbs/hr
Total uncontrolled emissions
=
697.5
lbs/hr
16
—587
—2—
The suspended emissions from the primary crusher and the secondary
crushing
(cone crusher or hammermill and impact crusher)
and
screening would amount to the following,
using the given emission
factors
(no factor given for screening, conveying,
and handling)
Primary crusher
(225 T/hr x 0.1 lb/T)
=
22.5 lbs/hr
Secondary crushing and screening
(90 T/hr x 0.6 lb/T)
=
54.0 lbs/hr
Suspended emissions
=
76.5 lbs/hr
Because of several modifications in processing, which are intended
to reduce particulate emissions,
Petitioner believes its actual
particulate emission rates
are less than those listed above for
uncontrolled emissions.
Fairbury Stone believed that it was operating in compliance
with applicable regulations when
it filed an Operating Permit
Application with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
on October
17, 1972.
This belief was based on the fact
that after Agency personnel inspected the plant on June 17,
1971,
and August
1,
1972, the inspector indicated to the plant super-
intendent that “the plant appeared to be
in compliance,”
However,
between October 17,
1972,
and
June 27,
1973,
there were eleven
exchanges between Petitioner and the Agency concerning the Operat-
ing Permit Application, which continued under
review.
From
June
27,
1973,
to April 17,
1974,
there was no
communication
between
Petitioner
and
the
Aqenc,
Beginning
again
on
April
17
1974,
the
Operating
Permit.
Application
was
under
active
cons ideration,
but
on
August.
30,
1974,
the
Agency
denied
the
Perm:t
Application
‘~asfinal
action
because
the
application
0±.
emission
factors
showed
that
the
primary
crusher
and
the
hammermill
would
emit.
particulate
matter
an
excess
of
the
rate
allowed
by
Rule
203 (h~
of
Chapter
2
Thereafter,
the
Agency
informed
Fairbury
Stone
that
enforcement
action
might
he
inotiated
because
Petitooner
was
operating
without.
a
valid
permit
and
Probably
was
exceeding
applicable
particulate
emission
limitations.
After
consultations
with
the
Agency
and
Myers
Engineers
~concerning
possible
particulate
control
methods)
Petitioner
sent
a
letter
on
October
31,
1974,
to
Mr.
Thomas
Casper
ifl
the
Agency
intorm~nn
horn
that
Fairhury
Stone
ontenoed
to
file
for
a
variance
and
install
a
control
system.
On
November
7
1974
the
Agency
received
from
Petitioner
a
Construct.ion
Permit
Aoplica~
tion
for
a
liquid
spray
dust--suppression
system
and
on
December
2,
1974,
the
Agency
granted
this
Construction
Permit.
The Agency filed
its
Recommendation with Board on February
7,
1975.
The Agency feels that the estimated particulate emissions
in
the Petition for Variance are reasonable.
“The existing control
equipment at Fairbury Stone consists of
a rudimentary device, the
shielding of transfer points on the conveying system; and a more
efficient system, the recirculation of discharge air on the hammer—
mill and Stedman mill.
The Agency estimates that the recirculation
systems are 50
and 75
effective for the secondary crushing and
Stedman milling processes,
respectively, when properly maintained.”
The liquid spray dust-suppression system, which is to be installed
by Petitioner under the Construction Permit that was granted by
16
—
588
—3—
the Agency on December 2,
1974,
should reduce particulate
emissions from the primary crusher, cone crusher, and hammer-
mill to the 90
efficiency level if the system is operated
properly.
This would achieve compliance with Rule 203(a)
of
Chapter
2, which the Agency properly pointed out as being applic-
able in this case, rather than Rule 203(b),
Although Fairbury
Stone was an “existing source”,
it does not meet either of the
conditions
of Rule 203(c); therefore,
Rule 203(a)
applies.
Two problem areas remain.
The Agency felt that the liquid
spray dust-suppression system could be installed by July
1,
1975,
instead of August 15,
1975, as the Petition for Variance stated.
Also,
the load-out area for Stedman mill limestone was believed
to have excessive particulate emissions.
Therefore,
the Agency
suggested that additional measures be taken to control
Stedman
load-out emissions and suggested alternative methods to achieve
this.
Stedman mill limestone, which is the most finely ground
and therefore easily airborne, comprised approximately 30 tons
per hour of the total 225 tons per hour maximum which can
be
processed.
Because of these two remaining deficiencies, the
Agency recommended that the Petition for Variance be denied un-
less Fairbury Stone submits a better program of compliance.
In a communication to the Board filed February 28, 1975,
Petitioner agreed to install
the
liquid
spray
dust-suppression
system
by
July
1,
1975.
Petitioner also stated that it
(a)
is
engaged in discussions with the Agency regarding possible control
systems for the Stedman load—out area,
(b) expects to file an
amended
variance
petition
in
this
matter,
and
Cc)
waives
the
right
to
a
decision
within
90
days.
On
March
6,
1975,
the
Board
considered
Petitioner’s
communication
of February 28 as a Motion
for Leave to File an Amended Petition and granted this Motion.
The Amended Petition for Variance was received by the Board
on March 10,
1975,
In it Fairbury Stone agreed “to install a
dust control system on the Stedman load-out which will consist of
the use of a spray header to provide a liquid curtain to sur-
round the Stedman bin discharge as trucks are loaded~
Said liquid
curtain will act as
a wind shield and will limit emissions by wet-
ting and collecting fugitive particulates
from the load-out
operation.”
A Construction Permit Application and a description
of this equipment has been filed with the Agency.
An Amended Recommendation from the Agency was received by
the Board on April
8,
1975,
Since the Amended Petition for
Variance resolved the two problems which the Agency objected to
in its original Recommendation,
the Amended Recommendation of
the Agency
is that Fairbury Stone be granted a variance from
Rule 203(a) until July
1,
1975.
The Agency stated that it will
grant the Construction Permit to Petitioner for the dust control
system for the Stedman load—out area.
The Agency has received no objections to the granting of
this variance, which may be partly due to the fact that Fairbury
Stone facilities are in
a primarily agricultural area.
The nearest
resident is located approximately one-quarter mile northwest of
Fairbury~Stone.
16—589
—4—
From October 17, 1972, until August 30,
1974,
there was
considerable delay by both the Agency and Petitioner in resolv-
ing issues associated with the Operating Permit Application of
Fairbury Stone. However, since October, 1974, Petitioner has
developed an adequate program to control particulate emissions
from its facilities.
Under the circumstances in this case,
the
Board agrees that Fairbury Stone should be granted a variance
from Rule 203(a)
of Chapter
2 through June 30,
1975.
In the
absence of
a specific time schedule in the Amended Petition for
Variance or in the attached single page from the Construction
Permit Application for the Stedman load-out dust control system,
we will grant Petitioner
a variance from Rules 103(b)
and 202(b)
through June 30,
1975.
If a variance is needed beyond July
1,
1975,
the requirements set out in Train
v. National Resources
Defense Council
43 LW 4467
(April 15, 1975) must be met. Peti-
tioner’s request for a variance from Rule 203(b)
is dismissed
for the reasons previously explained.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
ORDER
IT
IS THE ORDER of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
that:
1.
Fairbury Stone Company,
Inc.
is hereby granted a
variance from Rules 103(b)
,
202 (b), and 203 (a)
of Chapter
2, Air
Pollution Regulations from December 11, 1974,
through June 30,
1975.
2.
Petitioner’s request for a variance from Rule 203(b)
of Chapter
2, Air Pollution Regulations,
is hereby dismissed.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the
Yç~’
day of May,
1975, by
a vote of
_____________________
c~L~
iA.:~
~
Christan L. Móff&tt, Clerk
Illinois Pol1utio~(Control Board
16
—590