ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 19,
1974
A.?. GREEN REFRACTORIES
CO.
PETITIONER
)
)
PCB
74—163
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
)
RESPONDENT
)
MR.
JAMES
PEACOCK,
ATTORNEY,
in
behalf
of
A.?.
GREEN
REFRACTORIES
MESSRS.
JOHN
PALINSCAR
and
WILLIAM
A.
ERDMAN,
ATTORNEYS,
in
behalf
of
the
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Marder)
This
action
involves
a
request
for
variance
filed
on
April
26,
1974.
The
Board
on
May
2,
1974,
ordered
more
information
so
as
to
allow a more reasoned decision.
Petitioner on June 10, 1974, sup-
plied such additional information which fulfilled the Board’s re-
quirements.
Relief was requested from Rules
202
(b),
203
(b)
,
203
(f),
and 204
(f) (1) (A)
of the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations, as
they apply to Petitioner’s facility.
Petitioner owns and operates in Morris, Illinois, a facility for
the mining of raw clay as well as associated unit operations such as
crushing,
grinding,
drying,
and mixing.
Materials produced are used
basically in the steel and foundry industry.
It is alleged that the
nearest alternate source for such material is located in Southern
Ohio and Missouri.
The facility engages in strip mining on site to
supply approximately 81.2
of its raw material.
Mining is carried
out by the use of dozers, drag crane, and scraping equipment.
It is
alleged that water sprays are utilized to minimize fugitive dust.
Mined material is then passed through a roll crusher to reduce its
size to less than 2”
in
diameter..
Material so crushed is then trans-
ported via conveyor belts
to the central grinding department.
Mater-
ial is then passed through pan grinders to reduce the particle size.
This
is then bucket
conveyed
to
a
screening
and
rotary
drying
opera-
tion.
A selected portion of the screened material is sent to the drier
for admixing with undried material or to be used to generate a separate
end product.
Approximately 21.6
(15,561 tons) of total grinding
throughput was dried.
Transference from the screening operations
to
either bulk loads
or other production areas in the plant takes place.
These transfer points are allegedly controlled by means of a fabric
filter baghouse.
A percentage of the material from the grinding department
is con—
‘4—693
—2—
veyed
to
the
“Castable”
department.
Material
is
then
passed
through
two
rotary
dryers
as
needed.
Material
is
then
mixed
and
transported
for
shipment.
Other
materials
from
the
grinding
operation
are
diverted
to
the
“Hendryx”
Building,
which
is
essentially
a
material
handling
facility.
The
final
portion
of
ground
material
is
diverted
to
either
the
sleeve
press
or
fireplace
brick
facilities.
Both
of
these
opera-
tions entail drying and firing operations
(via a kiln).
A detailed
flow sheet for the above operations has been submitted verbally in
“Appendix A”
to the Petition and schematically in Drawing #ll6F-7 ap-
pended
to
the
Petition.
Emissions
are
generated
at
various
points
along
the
process.
Trans-
ference and packaging operations give rise to fugitive dust problems,
while dryers generate particulates.
The kilns, due to the high oper-
ating temperature and composition of feed,
emit SO2 as a product of com-
bustion.
The main emission sources at the facility are as follows:
Source
Type Emiss-
App. Rule
Allow.
Estimated
Emiss ions
ions
Crush. Dept.
Dryer
800-890#/hr.
Particulate
203
(a)
l2.5#/hr.
Castable Dept.
Dryers
600-700#/hr.
Particulate
203
(a)
4.144t/hr.
Crush.
Dept.
Dryer
SO2
4960 ppm
204(f) (1) (A)
2000 ppm
An initial hearing was held, on August 13, 1974,
at which time a ten-
tative stipulation was entered into between the parties.
This situa-
tion was,
at a later date (10/30/74), followed with two joint stipula-
tions which are at the heart of this matter,
and will be discussed lat-
er in this Opinion.
At the August 13, 1974, hearing, Mr. Noell
(plant manager) discussed
the location and staffing of the plant.
The facility has approximately
88
employees
(R.
16)
and
is
located
on a 900-acre site which is rela-
tively
isolated
from
residential
structures.
Mr.
R. Besalke
(mgr. en-
vironmental control) appeared to briefly discuss Petitioner’s attempts
at compliance.
One major point raised at this hearing is that by stip-
ulation the variance request for Rule 203
(f) was withdrawn,
as no evi-
dence of fugitive dust violations were found or anticipated.
The Aug-
ust 13 hearing was then adjourned to allow time for submittal of a new
stipulation.
The
second
hearing
was
held
on
October
30,
1974,
at
which
time
new
stipulations
were
presented.
The
highlights
of
said
stipulations
are
as
follows:
14
—
694
—3—
1.
Continuing investigation of methods to control emiss-
ions
has resulted in
a new compliance plan.
2.
The new compliance plan would,
in the opinion of the
parties, abate the particulate and SO2 emissions.
3.
The present drying operation in the grinding depart-
ment will be discontinued.
4.
A 100 ft. by 140
ft. structure shall be installed to
eliminate the artificial drying method at a cost of
$95,000.
The parties agree that the above plan: will eliminate all slurry and
water
problems
(which
would
be
generated
should
a
scrubber
be
used);
will
eliminate
all
SO2 emissions; will conserve fuel for said dryer;
and
be
technically superior.
The parties suggest compliance will be accomplished by April
1,
1975.
This
plan
also,
calls
for
the
installation
of
a
fabric
collector
to
control
emissions
for
the
two
rotary
dryers
in
the
castable
building
according
to
the
following schedule:
Purchase and order of equipment
11/15/74
Erection contract
12/31/74
Delivery
4/15/75
Completion of installation
5/15/75
Compliance testing
5/30/75
Operational
5/30/75
A second stipulation cites conditions which would be acceptable
should the Board grant variance.
To determine whether the Board should accept the above stipulation
as the basis
for a variance, we must explore environmental impact and
hardship to Petitioner.
Environmental impact:
As mentioned above, Petitioner’s facility is loc-
ated in a sparsely-populated area.
The
closest resident is 3/4 mile from
the source,
and the next closest resident is
1 1/2 miles from the source
(R.
22).
A major alleged source of particulate emission was shut down
on April 11, 1974, when
the
Grundy facility ceased operation.
Although
there is no evidence as to actual emissions that emanated from this
(Grundy) plant, Mr. Noell testified that by visual observation emissions
were large
CR.
20).
Mr. Noells further testified that to
his
knowledge
he knew of no citizen complaints regarding the facility
(R.
20).
It is
the Board’s feeling that the environmental impact of Petitioner’s emiss-
ions would be minimal.
Hardship:
Petitioner alleges that failure to receive a variance would
result in a
shutdown of
Petitioner’s
facilities.
The Board again reiter-
ates
its
opinion
that
failure
to
grant
variance
is
not
a
shutdown
order,
but
rather
a
shield
from
prosecution.
The
hardship
then
is
exposure
to
a threat of prosecution.
Should Petitioner’s facility be shut down, Pet-
itioner alleges a potential loss of 88 jobs and loss of $572,000
in
corn—
14
—
695
—4—
munity income.
Although the hardship case is minimal, in light of the
minor environmental damage and a viable compliance plan, the Board will
grant variance.
The
Board’s
variance
will
be
specifically
limited
to
those
operations
which
are
covered
by
compliance
plans.
We
have
no
way
of
knowing
wheth-
er a variance is required for Petitioner’s kilns, nor were we presented
with a compliance plan should such variance be needed.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Variance is granted from Rules 204(f) (1) (A),
202(b),
and
203(a)
as it applies to Petitioner’s crushing house and
grinding department until April
1, 1975.
2.
Variance is granted from Rule 202(b)
and 203(a)
as it ap-
plies to Petitioner’s castable building until May 30,
1975.
The above variances are conditioned on the following:
1.
Within
50
days from the date of this Order, Petitioner shall
post a performance bond with the Agency at 2200 Churchill
Road, Springfield,
Illinois,
62706,
in the amount of $10,000.
Said bond shall guarantee installation of equipment
as de-
tailed in the November 30,
1974,
Stipulation as agreed by
both parties.
2.
Petitioner shall submit bi-monthly progress reports to the
Agency at the above address.
Such reports shall contain as
a minimum a summary of progress made towards installation of
the six-bay storage shed and fabric filter collector,
as well
as copies of all documents, purchase orders, or agreements
pertaining to this compliance plan.
3.
In the event of unavoidable delay, Petitioner shall notify the
Agency as soon as possible.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the
Board on the
19th
day of
December
,
1974, by a vote of
4
to
p
.
.
14
—
696