ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

8,

1975

MATERIAL

SERVICE CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 75—64

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Dr. Odell)

On February 13,

1975, Material Service Corporation filed

a Petition For Variance with~the Illinois Pollution Control

Board

(Board)

Petitioner sought a one-year variance from the

partIculate limitations under Rule 203(f)

of the Air Pollution

Regulations

(Chapter Two)

Petitioner became subject to this

Rule on April

14,

1973.

Material Service Corporation operates a shale sizing

facility

3 1/2 miles east of Ottawa, Illinois on the north bank

of the Illinois River.

The facility processes mined shale into

a product used in making concrete.

The shale passes through

various crushers and vibrating screens

in the Shale Sizing Plant0

The shale moves over conveyors to kilns where the shale is ex-

panded

or into a storage area and then into the kilns.

In the

Finished Products Building, the shale is screened and sorted.

The shale then moves to the Finished Products Storage Piles0

Shale not sufficiently crushed goes through a recrush area be-

fore going into the Finished Products Storage Piles0

To complete

Petitioner~sactivities, the product is shipped from the facility

by truck, railroad, or barge.

Material Service Corporation believed that the Shale Sizing

Plant was

in

compliance with all applicable air pollution regula~-

tions0

However, noting that the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(Agency)

had refused to issue a permit for this operation,

Petitioner requested a variance for this operation until sub~

stantial improvements can be completed.

The Agency had also re~

fused to issue permits for the finished product portion of the

facility

(the recrush area and Finished Products Storage Piles

area).

Petitioner stated that it was unable to compute the

amounts of these emissions, but it requested a variance until

substantial improvements were carried out in that portion of the

facility.

Specifically, Petitioner stated that the following im~

provements would be made in these two areas within the

next

12

months:

16

—

611

---

—2—

“13.

Material Service proposes to improve the Shale

Sizing Plant by replacing the hammer mill, presently used as

a secondary crusher, with a gyratory crusher,~whichwill reduce

the

generation

of

“fines”

throughout

the

entire

operation

of

the

plant,

and

by

refurbishing

and

adding

further

enclosure in

the

receiving

area

and

by

installing

a

new

dust

collection

de~

vice, together with new ducts, collection fans :and discharge

vents.

“14,

Material Service proposes to bring the finished

products operation into compliance by:

(a)

completely enclosing the Recrush Operation;

(b)

constructing

a dust collection system for the

new enclosure;

and

(c)

refurbishing the enclosed drop chute, or stacker,

for the fine finished product stockpile.

All of the .above are more fully set out in the technical drawings

which

are

attached

hereto as Exhibit flAW,~ Material Service ex~

pected

the

compliance

plan

to

cost

approximately

$700,000.

Material

Service

Corporation

alleged

that

the

grant

of

the

variance

would

not

have

a

severe

environmental

impact

on

the

area

because

of

the

rural

nat.ure

of

the

community.

Petitioner

employs

110 people and helps to generate employment for an additional 100

support industries,

The Agency filed its Recommendation on April

4,

1975,

The

Agency included copies of the permit denials of January and

February 1973 referred to in the Petition For Variance.

A December

1974 warning letter about permit dilinquencies was also included in

the Recommendation.

The Agency believed that Petitioner also need~

ed a variance from Rule 203 (a)

of Chapter Two since, compliance with

Rule 203(b)

was not achieved by April

14,

1972,

The Agency cal~

culatdd Petitioner~semissions as follows:

Standard Under

Petitioner~s

Rule

203(a)

Emission Rate

(lbs/hour)

(est.imated_lbs/hour)

Expanded Shale System

385

Fine Mill

The Agency recommended that the Petition For Variance be

denied although it concluded that Petitioner~scompliance program

would satisfy the requirements of the regulations and that the

timetable appeared reasonable,

The Agency argued that Petitioner

had failed to establish any arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

No information was included in the petition explaining the delay

in achieving compliance.

The Agency noted that

no complaints had

recently been received from area citizens but that the LaSalle

County Civil Defense Office had stated that,

in the

past, com-

plaints

had

been received from persons residing

downwind

of the

facility.

16

—.

612

---

—3—

We deny the variance,

While Petitioner has a reasonable

program of compliance, this does not satisfy the test for a

variance.

No arbitrary or unreasonable hardship has been shown.

No explanation was given why compliance efforts have been delayed

for such a long time.

While Petitioner may not have been ini-

tially aware that its facility had’ any emission problem,

the

denial of the permits in early 1973 should have prompted Petitioner

to undertake efforts to satisfy the regulations.

Since Petitioner

has

failed to show any arbitrary or unreasonable hardship, the

variance is denied,

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

was

adopted

on

the

~

day

of

May,

19.75

by

a

vote

of

to

~.

16