ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 27, 1975
MARBLEHEAD LIME
M,
)
Petitioner?
vs.
)
PCB 74—146
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
Richard Elledge, Attorney for Marblehead Lime Company
Tom Casper and John Palincsar7 Attorneys for the Agency
~OPINION AND ORDER OF THE
BOARD (by Mr. Henss):
Marblehead Lime Company filed its Petition for
Variance
on
April 24, 1974 seeIçing relief from Rule 203 (particulates) of
the Air Pollution Control Regulations pending installation and
operation of air pollution control equipment, The parties
engaged in a number of pre—hearing procedures, including
discovery. Marblehead waived its right, which exists under
Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act, to have its
Variance Petition decided in 90 days. The matter finally went
to hearing on September 23, 1974. During this hearing Marblehead
sought to introduce testimony dealing with the economic feasi-
bility of alternative control systems. This testimony was not
allowed by the Hearing Officer. Marblehead also sought a
continuance in order to prepare rebuttal testimony. This Motion
was also denied.
On October 2, 1974 Marblehead filed a Motion to Reconvene
the hearing alleging that the Hearing Officer had erred in
excluding testimony on the economic feasibility of alternative
control systems. Over Agency objection the, Board ordered that
one additional hearing be held at a time convenient to both
parties but no later than December 1, 197.4. For some reason the
additional hearing was not held, but the Agency requested and
the Hearing Officer ordered additional discovery.
On December 18, 1974 Marblehead filed a ~‘Moticnfor Leave to
Amend and for Consideration of the Merits of Said Petitionu. We
infer that the company wished to avoid the rather extensive
discovery then being sought by the Agency. The Marblehead motion
15
—567
—2—
was in substance a request that the Board decide the case on the
basis of the record which had already been established. It was
in effect an abandonment of the company’s request for additional
hearing and the abandonment of further opportunity to introduce
evidence regarding economic feasibility of alternative control
systems. The Board granted the Marblehead request and will now
consider the Amended Variance Petition and the record which was
presented.
Marblehead operates a calcimatic kiln in Meirose Township,
Adams County, Illinois for the production of pebble lime. The
facility, also known as the “Quincy operation”, is situated on
Illinois Route 57 approximately 1 1/2 miles south of Quiricy.
Marblehead sold its entire Quincy operation to Calcium Carbonate
Company while this action was pending. Under terms of the sale,
Marblehead has leased the calcirnatic kiln from Calcium Carbonate
for an initial term of five years with the option to extend the
lease for two successive five—year periods. Calcium Carbonate
has agreed to provide Marblehead with sized limestone for the
kiln.
Terms of the sale also provide that Marblehead shall indenmify
Calcium Carbonate ag~install expenses, liabilities, losses,
damages, injunction suits, fines, penalties, claims and misdemeano~
arising out of violation of any law, ordinance or regulation.
In the Amended Petition for Variance Marblehead seeks relief
from Rules 203(a) and 203(b) in order to operate the kiln pending
installation of control equipment and for an indeterminate period
of time after installation of the control equipment.
This petition seeks relief from two mutually exclusive regulations
for an indefinite period of time.
Two
problems are immediately
apparent. Petitioner’s operation is governed either by Rule 203(a)
or Rule 203(b) but not both. Further, the Board is not authorized
by the Environmental Protection Act to grant indefinite variances
(See: Environmental Protection Act, Section 36).
Stipulated facts show that:
1. As of April 14, 1972 and for a period of 60 days
thereafter, Petitioner had neither applied for nor
been granted a variance from any operation at its
Quincy facility,
2. Petitioner had not commenced actual on—site fabri-
cation of equipment to control emissions from the
calcimatic kilns, and
3. As of April 14, 1972 no control equipment was in-
stalled or operational for the calcimatic kiln.
15—568
—j—
These stipulated facts clearly show that Petitioner failed
to meet the two conditions of Rule 203(c) by which it could have
been allowed to comply with Rule 203(b) instead of the more re-
strictive Rule 203(a). Therefore, emissions from the calcimatic
kiln are now subject to compliance with Rule 203(a). Rule 203(b)
is not applicable.
The calcimatic kiln is a gas—fired rotary hearth lime kiln.
Preheated limestone is fed onto the hearth which rotates at a slow
speed under six burners. During one revolution of the hearth,
limestone is calcined and then swept off the hearth as it approaches
the charging station. The kiln processes an average of 1.5 tons
of limestone per hour.
Petitioner’s Chief Engineer, Charles Norton, testified that
he had observed emissions from this kiln and numerous other Marble-
head kilns over a period of years. In particular, he visually
compared emissions from the Quincy kiln to emissions from Petitione’r’s
South Chicago operation. These visual comparisons indicated that
the Quincy emissions were more clear than the South Chicago emissions.
Therefore, Norton believed that the Quincy emissions were in com-
pliance with the limitations of Rule 203(b).
Agency employee, Ed Campbell, testified that he first informed
Ma~rb1eheadof possible violations in a letter dated May 12, 1972.
Campbell and another Agency employee then visited the Quincy
facility
in June 1973.
During this visit Campbell again informed
Marblehead representatives that emissions from the kiln were, in
his opinion, in violation of applicable emission limitations.
Norton apparently persisted in his belief that visual comparisons
did not show any violation. Because of these differences in
opinion, Marblehead agreed to perform a stack test on the kiln
emissions.
Two stack tests were conducted on September 29, 1973 by
Marblehead personnel in the presence of two Agency observers. At
a limestone feed rate of approximately 15,000 lbs./hr. the two
tests showed emission rates of 359 and 464 lbs. of particulates
per hour. These figures are in excess of the allowable emission.
rate. At this process weight rate Rule 203(a) allows emissions
of 7.55 lbs./hr.
Norton testified that he had no reason to believe the emissions
were this high before the test and that he was surprised by the
results (R. 90). As a result of these tests, Marblehead decided
to send a sample of the particulates to an outside consulting firm
for a particle sized distribution analysis. This analysis indicated
that about 87 of the particles were in excess of 10 microns.
Norton testified that it was the “extremely large size” of the
particles that caused his visual observation to be in error (R. 90)
15— 569
Marblehead proposes to control emissions from the calcinatic
kiln by installing two #50 series, 43A Buell cyclones in parallel.
These particular
cyclones were previously used at Petitioner’s
South Chicago facility for a number of years.
Nortcn testified
that the cyclones were
refurbished in 1967 and removed from service
in 1969 when Petitioner installed baghouses at the
South Chicago
facility. The parties have stipulated that the cyclones would
be
expected to have a collection efficiency of between 94 and 97
under normal operations. At
this level particulate emissions
would
range from 14 to 28 lbs./hr.
Norton testified that Petitioner could install
the
two cyclones
in six months on a “crash program”.
Routine installation
of the
two cyclones would take about one year.
Some delay could be expected
in the crash program if steel delivery were
delayed. The cyclone
installation project would cost about $25,000 exclusive of the
value of the cyclones.
Petitioner has installed the baghouse control devices on every
kiln it operates
except for the Quincy kiln. Norton estimated that
a baghouse for the QuIncy kiln would cost between $6 and $8 per
ACFM CR. 108) or $150,000 to $200,000 CR. 70)
.
Agency Engineer
Campbell disagreed with Norton’s assessment stating that Norton’s
figures were high and that values of $5 to $7 per ACFM and totals
of $75,000 to $120,000 were more realistic CR. 158). Campbell
conceded that recent inflation would tend to favor the higher
estimated cost.
The Quincy operation represents approximately 1 to 2 of
Marblehead’s total production capability.
Clarence Jorgensen,
Marblehead’s Vice President of Operations, testified that fuel
for the kiln was uncertain and that use of oil was questionable
because of cost and possible contamination of product.
According to Marblehead fluctuating market conditions, kiln
operating costs and kiln capacity would make the installation of
a baghouse economically unreasonable. Ten or eleven men now
employed to operate the kiln could no longer be employed by
Marblehead if the kiln were shut down.
The Agency rejects Petitioner’s contention that control efforts
were not implemented at an earlier date because the company believed
that emissions from the kiln were within the allowable rate. The
Agency believes that visual observation, citizen complaints and
Agency communications over the past several years should have
warned Petitioner that it had a problem.
Only one citizen witness testified about problems caused by
emissions from the Quincy facility. Mrs. Charles Dyer, who
resides one block from the Quincy facility, testified that her
husband had complained to Marblehead about the emissions “a long
time ago” (R. 44). Mrs. Dyer is unable to open windows in her house
15
—
570
—5—
or hang out clothes to dry because of
the emissions. She
claimed
that
paint on their
last three
automobiles has been
ruined by the emissions.
Although the record shows the
existance of several sources of particulates
other than the
Quincy kiln, Mrs. Dyer was positive in her identification
of
the kiln as the source of problems she and her husband have
encountered CR. 47).
In this case, as in others (See:
EPA v. Marblehead, PCB
73-223) we find that excessive particulate
emissions from a
limestone processing plant can cause nuisance and short term
health effects in the community.
This variance cannot be granted based on the record pre-
sented.
Emissions from the calcimatic kiln are clearly in violation
of the allowable emission rate. Although Petitioner plans to
install equipment to reduce these emissions, the record clearly
shows that this equipment simply is not capable of bring~~Lnqthe
Quincy facility into compliance.
Testimony shows that it would be technically feasible to
install a baghouse on the kiln. The dispute boils down to the
issue of whether or not the installation of a baghouse is
economically reasonable. As the Agency asserts, the mere fact
that installation of a baghouse would be more expensive to
Petitioner than installation of the cyclones does not justify
granting a variance. Section 3(b) of the Environmental Protection
Act states that adverse effects upon the environment are to be
fully considered and borne by those who cause them. The record
shows that Petitioner seeks to operate in continuous violation
of the environmental standard under the protection of the variance.
We are unable to grant Marblehead that type of relief and would
not be inclined to do so if we had the authority.
The record shows that Petitioner has the expertise and
capability to design and install baghouse control devices. This
capability is clearly shown by the fact that Petitioner has
already installed at least 13 baghouse control devices at other
installations throughout the country. We do not wish to cause
unnecessary expenditures of funds. We favor compliance with
environmental standards by the most inexpensive methods available.
Petitioner should now re—evaluate its position in order to bring
its emissions into compliance. We believe that Marblehead has
both the engineering and financial capacity to do this.
We have carefully considered the character and degree of inter-
ference with the protection of health, welfare and physical
property of the people; the social and economic value of the
pollution source; the suitability of the pollution source to the
area in which it is located; and the technical practicability and
economic reasonableness of reducing the emissions. We conclude
that Marblehead has not established its right to the variance
requested.
15—571
—6—
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that the
Amended Variance Petition be denied without prejudice.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted
this j~~day of
, 1975 by a vote of ~