ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
6,
1974
MISSOURI
PORTLAND
CEMENT
COMPANY,
Petitioner,
)
PCB
73~48O
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent
Randall Robertson and Irvin Slate, Jr~,Attorneys for Petitioner
Michael Ginsberg, Attorney for the EPA
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr~Henss):
Petitioner, Missouri Portland Cement Company, owns and
operates
a portland cement manufacturing plant located on the
Ohio River near Joppa, Illinois~ The plant produces 600,000
to~~nsof cement per year~ Its particulate control consists of
simple cyclones and an electrostatic precipitator which are
calculated to have a normal operating efficiency of 99~72~
The EPA granted an operating permit for the plant’s single
kiln on February 7, l973~ This permit was gr~nte~.on the con-
dition that a stack test be performed on the kiln within 90 days
after i.ssuance of the permits
For various reasons, which will
be discussed, Petitioner did not perform the stack test and
tflis
eventually caused the Agency to deny the operating permits
One week after denial of an operating permit, Missouri
Portland filed its Petition for Variance in which it is requested
that:
‘~a) the Agency be directed to remove the special conditions
attached to the permit now issued requiring •the measurement of
particulate
matter
concentrations
in
the
effluent
stream
by
an
independent
testing
service;
or,
in
the
alternative,
b)
Petitioner
be
allowed
to
file
an
operating
permit
application
for
its
kiln
Il
at
Joppa,
Illinois
at
a
time
commensurate
with
its
installation
and operation of its new pollution control equipment on said kiln
in January 1975;
or,
in the alternative,
c)
that Petitioner be
granted a variance
to operate its kiln #1 at the Joppa,
Illinois
plant with emissions possibly in excess of those permitted by
applicable rules and regulations until the installation of its new
control facilities in January 1975 on the assumption, for this
purpose only,
that its current emission from kiln #1 may be in
violation of applicable rules and regu1ations~”
12
—
473
—2—
Although not specifically stated, it would appear that
Missouri Portland seeks relief from Section 9(a)
of the Statute
and Rules
203(b)
and 203(d) (3)
of the Air Pollution Control
Regulations.
The new standard applicable to portland cement
manufacturers
Rule
203(b)
of the Air Pollution Control
Regulations
I
is identical
to the old standard
(Rule 3-3.222 of
the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution).
For those companies which were not in compliance on the effective
date of the new Regulations, April
14,
1972,
the new Regulation
was to be met by December
31,
1973.
See:
Rule 203(i) (2)
and
(5)
It is apparent that Petitioner
was
not in compliance on April 14,
1972 and therefore,
Ru1~e
203(b)
is now applicable.
A public hearing was held in this matter on February
21,
1974 in Metrooolis,
Illinois,
Five witnesses appeared on behalf
of Petitioner and six citizen witnesses presented their views.
As constructed in 1963,
the plant consisted of conveying
equipment,
grinding mills,
a rotary mill, klinker coolers,
a
fly ash handling system, cyclone separators and an electrostatic
precipitator.
Under a variance granted in PCB 71-5 Missouri
Portland installed additional control devices in 1971 which were
designed to increase kiln contrOl efficiency to 99.72
(R.
58).
Rule 3-3.222 required all new cement kilns
to be equipped with
gas cleaning devices to remove not less than 99.7
of the
particulates.
It was further mandated that discharges not exceed
0.1 grain per standard cubic foot regardless of the degree of
efficiency required of
the
gas cleaning device.
Shortly
~fter receiving the conditional operating permit in
February
1C
3,
Petitioner requested a company to perform the
required
~ack test.
However,
the stack test was not attempted
until Se~temher1973 and was not completed because of unforeseen
complications.
Plans called for sampling to take place at the
100~ level of the l50~plant stack where two 90°sample ports
were located.
The stack diameterat the sample port location
measured about l5~.
When it became apparent that heat and the weight of the
sample probe would cause the probe to sag, Agency representatives
recommended the test be halted.
It was the Agency1s belief that
180°ports were needed to prevent sagging of the probe and produce
representative data,
Missouri Portland agreed and the test was
halted.
Some
two
months later the Agency for a second tine denied
Petitioner an operating permit.
Faced
with
an
apparent
impasse. Petitioner contacted a
stack
construction
comoanv
to
determine
the
requirements
for
a
structuri
modification on
the
stack
sufficient
to
allow
the
stack
test
tc
he
performed.
It
was
learned
that
modifications
to
the tile
lined
stack would cost about $12,000 and take about six months
to
completes
12~474
—3—
Petitioner has commenced a program to obtain better contrc
of emissions from #1 kiln.
Under a construction permit granted
by the Agency on October 11,
1973 a new five-section ten-field
electrostatic precipitator will be installed,
Its cost is
$391,000.
The efficiency of the new electrostatic precipitator
on a 280,000 ACFM flow is guaranteed to he 99.956
with residual
grain loadings at 0.002 gr/scf
(R.
83).
The Company states that
this will be the most modern and efficient electrostatic pre-
cipitator in the x~ation. Construction of precipitator components
has been accelerated so that a delivery c~ateof June 1974
is
anticipated.
It is estin~atedthat the electrostatic precipitator
will be installed by January
1,
1975.
Petitioner has agreed that
4t1 kiln will not be operated after January
1,
1975 until the new
precipitator can be operated
(R.
75).
When installed,
the new precipitator will discharge to twin
70’
stacks,
and the existing 150’ stack will not be used.
Thus,
Petitioner contends that the $12,000 modification for the sole
purpose of conducting a stack test would be an unreasonable ex-
pense on a stack which will be phased out of service at about
the time the modifications are completed.
We agree that it was proper for the Agency to require a
stack test as
a condition of the operating permit.
The control
efficiency was in compliance with Rule 3-3.222 by a mere 0,02
on
a calculated basis.
If such calculations were high by only 0.01
or if the performance of the control system was off by a like
amount, Petitioner~scalculated emissions would be 0.12 gr/scf and
Petitioner would not be in compliance with the Regulations.
How-
ever,
the situation has now changed.
It would,
in our opinion, be
unreasonable to require the expenditure of approximately $18,000
($12,000 for modifications and $6,000 for the stack test)
to
determine what the emissions are from a stack that will no longer
be used.
Missouri Portland plans
to increase the capacity of its
Joppa plant by mid-1975 from the present 600,000 ton/year to
about 1,350,000 tons/year.
A new kiln,
controlled by electrostatit
precipitator,
will
be added to the plant.
A baghouse
control
device will also be’ installed to control
cement emissions from
other parts of the operation.
The company claims that
this
expansion depends upon funds generated by the continued operation
of ~1 kiln
(R.
32).
Petitioner estimates
that the increased
capacity will bring an increase in employment of
about 50
(R.
32)
Control equipment for the new kiln
will be designed to meet both
the Illinois standards
and
the
U.S. EPA standard
KR.
31)
Testimony
by~Petitioner~sneighbors indicates that existing
control equipment has not performed as it should.
The
neighbors
said
dust frequently covered
their porches
KR.
112,
125)
and
automobiles
(R.
114, 123,
129)
They
testified
that
dust
settled
12—475
—4—
on the roofs of their homes thereby contaminating
their cistern
water
(R.
114,
135).
Dust from the cement plant
has allegedly
damaged the paint on their automobiles and
homes, damaged
carpeting inside the homes,
and pitted aluminum
window frames.
The neighbors were concerned about the health
consequences to
themselves and to the cattle grazing on dust covered
pastures.
They unanimously agreed that the almost daily scraping of
dust
from automobile windshields was an unreasonable nuisance.
They
felt
that the blurred vision experienced while driving their
automobiles during rainy periods placed them in danger.
The
Agency recommends that variance
he
denied or in the
alternative
that variance only
be
allowed from the Regulations
subject to certain conditions.
In its
Recommendation
the
Agency
states that its investigators have observed a plume of 100
opacity from in kiln on various occasions.
Petitioner admits
that certain operational conditions would cause excessive emissions
in violation of the Regulations
(R.
81).
Petitioner has submitted a program designed ~toreduce the
violations during the period of this variance.
Among the items
agreed
to:
I)
the installation and continual operation of a
recording device that measures current flow to ehch field of
the electrostatic precipitators and kiln drite;
2)
a process
weight rate average of 250,000 lbs./hn.
+
5
until stack test
results are available on the new electrostatic precipitator;
3)
ii kiln will be shut down within
4 hours of a malfunction or
breakdown of the kiln or related pollution control equipment and
not restarted until the problem has been corrected;
4)
scheduled
periods of routine preventive maintenance designed to insure that
no malfunction is apparent or about
to• occur.
All maintenance
records of work performed pursuant to the program and all •records
produ.ced
by
the
current
flow
recording
device
will
be
made
avail-
able
for
Agency
inspection.
Petitioner
will
annually
submit
a
remort
of
mOlfunction
and
breakdown.
The
report
will
be
submitted
to
the
Agency
by
January
31
of
each
calendar
year.
We
shall
grant
variance
from
Rule
203(h)
and
Rule
203(d)
(3).
Improvements are well underway for the control of emissions from
the
plant
and
these
improvements
should
be
in
operation
in
about
six months.
Petitioner has agreed to a set
of
operating
rules
that
should
provide
for
better
control
than
has
been
the
case
in
the past,
We believe that the specific limitations of Rule 203(b)
can he temporarily suspended while Petitioner improves the control
program
~..
however, Missouri Portland remains subject to the general
mandate against “air pollution” which is found in Section 9(a)
of
the Environmental Protection Act.
—5—
The Statute provides “No person shall cause or allow the
discharge or emission of any contaminant into the environment...
so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution in Illinois.,.”
This language will remain applicable to Petitioner’s operation
so that the neighbors cannot be ignored in this interim period.
Their health and their enjoyment of life or property are
to be
protected even during this variance.
ORDER
It is the Order of~the Pollution Control Board that
Petitioner~sJoppa plant be grante~dvariance
from Rule 203(h)
and Rule
203(d) (3) of the Air Pollution Control Regulations
until January
1,
1975 for the purpose of installing and testing
an
electrostatic precipitator on #1 kiln.
The plant shall
not
operate after January
1,
1975 without an electrostatic precipitator.
This variance is subject to the following conditions:
1.
Petitioner shall adhere
to the operation and
maintenance work rules as described in
Petitioner~s
Exhibit #3 including the
limitation of average
process ~ieightrate to 250,000 lhs./hr. ÷5.
2.
Petitioner shall
submit quarterly progress reports
to the Agency beginning July
1,
1974,
Said
progress reports shall
include details of
Petitioner’s progress towards com~letionof the
electrostatic precipitator on
in
kiln.
The first
progress report shall contain a schedule for
installation of the eLedtrostatic preciptator.
3.
Petitioner
shall, by July 1,
1974 post a bond in
the amount of
$75,000 in’a form acceptable to
the Environmental Protection Agency,
~.uchbond to
be forfeited in the event Petitioner fails to
install and operate
the electrostatic precipitator.
Bond shall be mailed to:
Fiscal Services Division,
Illinois EPA, 2200
Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706.
4,
Petitioner
shall apply for and obtain all necessary
construction and operating permits.
5.
Within 60 days after the installation of the electro-
static precipitator, Petitioner shall
perform
a
stack
test.
Said stack test
shall
he
performed
by
an independent testing service
approved
by
the
Agency.
Petitioner shall give
notice
to:
Illinois
EPA
Division of Air Pollution Control,
Region
V office,
12—477
—6—
2209 West
Main Street, Marion,
Illinois
62959,
Telephone 618/997—4371 at least five days prior to
the stack test indicating the time and place of
said test and shall allow Agency personnel to
observe said test if they
so desire.
Petitioner
shall submit results of said stack test to the
Agency as soon as they are available.
6.
By July
1,
1974 Petitioner shall submit to the
Environmental Protection Agency a program designed
to reduce tie environmental
impact
of
its emissions
upon its neighbors during
the
period of this
variance.
Within
10
days
of
receint of Petitioner’s
proposed program.
the
Agency shall submit to the
Board
its
comments
and recommendations on said program.
7.
The
Board retains
jurisdiction
of this matter for
any
further orders as may he necessary pursuant
to
Part
6
of
this
Order.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk
of
the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board, here~ycertify the
above
Opinion
and Order was adopted
this
~
of
~
1974 by a vote of
q
to ~