ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 3, 1973

AMERICAN

LIMESTONE DIVISION, AMERICAN

)

SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY,

Petitioner,

VS.

PCB 73—98

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr~ Henss)

Petitioner operates a

quarry located

south of Jonesboro in

Union

County, Illinois.

At the

present

time

emissions from

its

limestone crushing operation exceed the levels permitted

under

Rule 3~-3.111 of the Rules

and Regulations Governing the Control

of Air Pollution and Rule

203

(a)

and 203(0) Chapter

2, Part II

of the Pollution Control Board

Regulations

In order to achieve

compliance with the latter Rules

Petitioner

woula apparently

have to:

reduce emissions from one of its cleaning, conveying

and handling

points

from :L60 lbs. per hour to

26

3

lbs per

hour; reduce emissions from the fines miii from 720 lbs.

per

hour to :32.5 lbs. per hour; and reduce emiss:Lons from a third

point involving screening, conveying and handling from 240

lbs.

per

hour to 32

5

lbs

per

hour.

Petitioner plans to

install

encLosures with water sprays as its control

devices

and

has

received a construction permit from the EPA for this installation.

The variance is requeste.d until July 15, 1973

The limestone company gives the following reasons

for

requestinq the variance:

I) It

was not until February 1973 that a decision had

been

made on types of

materials

and equipment

to

standardize dust. controls in the various

plants

operated by Petitioner

2) Procurement of the materials necessary

for

the

dust control

facilities

would not

be

completed

until April

or

May

1973.

---

—2—

3) The slack period at the Jonesboro quarry is be-

tween late May and late August and it would be

most convenient and save a considerable amount

of lost production and money if the construction

could take place between late May and July 15, 1973.

The EPA investigation indicated that emissions currently are

minimal since the stone contained 6 to 8 moisture caused by

recent rains. The EPA had received no complaints from residents

living near the quarry. Nevertheless, the Agency has recommended

that the variance be denied on the grounds that Petitioner has

failed to prove that immediate installation of control equipment

would cause an unreasonable hardship.

What this amounts to is a request for a 2 1/2 month delay in

the start of construction. We do not feel that is a serious delay

especially in this exceptionally wet spring when emissions are

reduced by natural precipitation. The Petitioner has shown a

good faith effort to proceed ahead with the installation of control

devices. On balance, it. seems reasonable to accept a slight, delay

when ‘this will facilitate the standardization of control equipment

among the various plants, reduce the amount of lost production and

save money. Let it be said that we do not grant variances for

the “convenience” of Petitioners, but that in this particular case

Petitioner’s case is based upon more than an inconvenience.

ORDER

It is ordered that:

Petitioner is granted a variance from Rule 3-3.111

of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control

of Air Pollution and from Rule 203(a) and 203(c) of

Chapter 2, Part II Pollution Control Board Regulations

until July 15, 1973. During the period of the

variance Petitioner shall proceed with the installation

of control equipment and control facilities for the

purpose of complying with the emission standards by

July 15, 1973.

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

hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted on this 3rd

day of May, 1973 by a vote of 4 to 0

7

—