ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
23,
1975
HOPPERS
COMPANY,
INC.
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 74—411
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss):
Hoppers Company,
Inc. operates a manufacturing facility i~i
Stickney,
Illinois for the production of phthalic anhydride and
tar products.
In February 1974 Hoppers was granted variance
from Rule 205(f)
of the Air Pollution Control Regulations until
February
14, 1975 pending installation and operation of air
pollution control equipment.
See:
Hoppers Company,
Inc. vs.
EPA, PCB
73-494,
During production of tarred felt products in the tar satur-
ation plant, hydrocarbons
are emitted in excess of the allowable
rate of
8 lbs,/hr.
Stack tests conducted in March 1972 were not
conclusive
so Hoppers retested in June 1973.
The June 1973 test
indicates
that
21 lbs./hr.
of hydrocarbons are being emitted.
Petitioner states that it was unaware the facility was not
in compliance until the 1973 stack test results were received.
At that time
a consultant was hired to study possible control
systems.
The system finally chosen was a Johns-Manville High
Energy Air Filter System
(HEAF).
The four stacks now venting
hydrocarbon emissions from the tar saturation plant will be
con-
nected to the HEAF System.
The HEAF System consists of a high static pressure fan,
a
heavy fiberglass mat and a mist separator.
Stack gasses containing
fine particles of heavy hydrocarbons are passed over the fiberglass
mat where the liquid particles are coalesced into larger droplets.
These droplets are disengaged from the mat by a high velocity air
stream and then removed from the air stream in
a low velocity mist
separator.
The removed droplets are collected and drained off as
a liquid.
15—337
Johns-Manville estimates
that
the control efficiency
of
its HEAF System ranges between 96
and 98.
The System has
operated successfully in other facilities.
An efficiency
of
about 62
is required to bring the Kopper~plant into compliance.
Both the Agency and Hoppers believe the System, once installed,
will bring the hydrocarbon emissions from the tar saturation
plant into compliance.
Failure to achieve compliance during the one year variance
which was previously granted
is apparently not Hopper’s fault.
Delivery of the
I-lEAF equipment has been delayed for three months
by the supplier which will cause
a corresponding delay in com-
pletion of installation.
Petitioner’s plant is located in an industrial/commercial area
some 2,000-3,000
ft. distant from a large residential area.
The
Agency has received complaints about the odors coming from the plant.
The
Agency
recommends
granting
the
variance
extension
because
the
control equ~Lpmentcould substantially reduce the citizen dis-
bomfort now being experienced.
The Agency believes the control
system is particularly desireable because it requires a minimum of
energy and doesn’t use fuel directly.
Extension of the variance shall be granted until May 14, 1975
subject
to certain conditions.
We find that the three month delay
in achieving compliance
is beyond the control of Hoppers.
It would
be unreasonable to deny this variance in light of the facts presented.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board
that Hoppers
Company,
Inc. be granted variance from Rule 205(f)
of the Air
Pollution Control Regulations for its Stickney, Illinois plant
until
May
14,
1975 subject to the following conditions:
1.
Petitioner shall continue to submit the quarterly
progress reports required under Part
I of the
Order in PCB 73-494,
2.
Petitioner shall make applications
for all necessary
construction and operating permits from the
Agency.
3.
Petitioner shall cause the $50,000 bond which was
required under Part
3 of the Order in PCB 73—494,
to be extended
to and including May 14,
1975.
Said
15—338
—3—
bond
shall
be
forfeited
in
the
event
Petitioner
fails
to
install
and
operate
the
control
system.
It
shall
be
mailed
within
30
days
to:
Fiscal
Services Division, Illinois EPA,
2200 Churchill
Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted
this
~
day ~
1975 by
a vote of
3
to ~