ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 6, 1972

IMPERIAL SMELTING CORPORATION

*72—235

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD. (BY SAMUEL T. LAWTON, JR.)

On March 28, 1972, we granted petitioner, a secondary zinc

processing facility, located in 

Chicago, 

Illinois, a variance

until June 30, 1972 from compliance with the Particulate Emission

Regulations, Rule 3.3-111 of the Rules and Regulations Governing

the Control of Air Pollution, in order that petitioner could

install certain air pollution abatement equipment that would

bring it into compliance by the end of the variation period. (*71-393)

The nature of petitioner’s operation is set forth in detail in

our March 28, 1972 opinion. Essentially, petitioner’s plan for

pollution control contemplated the installation of new Dynaclone

baghouses on two rotary furnaces, the installation of after burners

to burn off hydrocarbons and the utilization of a settling chamber

to collect larger particles. These combined facilities, together

with abatement equipment presently in use, would receive off gases

from the rotary and kettle furnaces in use and 

‘~‘ere ar~.ticipated

to bring petitioner’s operation into compliance with the relevant

Regulations.

In granting the variance, we imposed conditions with respect

to reporting stack tests, the posting of a bond and the requirement

that production be at a reduced rate as represented by petitioner

until the newly installed abatement equipment was operative.

On June 9, 1972, four days before the expiration of the

variance granted, petitioner filed a new petition for variance,

seeking to extend the variance uiitil October 30, 1972. On August 15,

an amended petition for variance was filed requesting extension of

the

variance to December 31, 1972. The Agency has filed a recommen-

dation noting that the petitioner has failed to comply with the

conditions upon which the original variance was granted, and proposes

that the variance be granted only until September 30, 1972.

We grant petitioner a variance to November 30, 1972 subject

to the terms and conditions hereafter set forth.

5

—

367

The petition for variance details the difficulties

encoun-

tered by petitioner in obtaining the bag houses needed for the

abatement program and the problems resulting from their opera-

tion once

installed. The original bag house that was ordered

appears to have been too small and generated an inordinate amount

of heat which curtailed its operation. The Phase One bag house

allegedly is unable to accomplish the work for which it was

anticipated but can be operated if selected raw materials are

charged into the rotary furnace connected with the bag house.

The second bag house is at a point where it can be put on line

although problems similar to those with bag house #1 are anti-

cipated. Accordingly, a modified program has been proposed pur-

suant to which Phase Two of the operation will be reduced in capa-

city and bag house #2 will receive the emissions from three kettle

furnaces. An additional bag house will be constructed to handle

the rotary furnace and collector kettle, its after burner and a

melt—down kettle. The plan, accordingly, becomes a three phase

bag house operation. However, because of additional space and

equipment problems and the need for arrangements for power supply,

additional time is requested to finalize the program. Petitioner’s

position is summarized in paragraph 15, as follows:

“15. That additional time; to wit, December 31,

1972, is needed by Imperial to complete its total

pollution control facility, so that it can economically

operate in compliance with the rules and regulations

governing the control of air pollution, said time being

required for the following reasons.

a. Phase One Bag House No. 1 is functional and on

in-line operation, but time is needed to complete the

stack test. The original stack test that was to be

performed had to be postponed, as Imperial was requested

to install a hood at the charging door of the rotary fur-

nace to collect tramp discharge when the furnace door is

opened for charging. The hood has now been completed and

the City of Chicago, Department of Environmental Control

has been notified that Imperial is again ready for said

test.

b That the modified Phase Two Bag House No. 2 is ready

to be put on in-line operation, that time is needed for

the corrections and adjustments that will oácur in the day

by day operation of said unit and that after the unit is

operational it is necessary to make the arrangement for the

stack test required by the Pollution Control Board.

c. That basically the length of time heretofore prayed

for is needed to fully complete Phase Three Bag House No. 3.

—2--

5

—

368

That due to past experience, Imperial feels that

December 31, 1972, is an optimistic target date; how-

ever, it is the desire of Imperial to force itself to

utilize every effort in its power to meet said date, or

again, then have to petition and inform the Pollution

Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency

that it at least has substantially met said date and

completion will come shortly thereafter.”

Petitioner represents that while work is progressing and

until the pollutional control program is fully completed, it will

operate its plant at a reduced rate of production and with selected

material so as to minimize pollutional emissions. Petitioner

alleges that it would be unable to meet the emission standards

without the installation of the equipment proposed and that a shut-

down during the period of installation would result in the discharge

of 100 employees and the deprivation of petitioner’s product from

the market with resulting hardship on the community as well as

petitioner. The recommendation filed by the Agency notes that

while the original variance allowance was conditioned on the filing

of monthly reports, the performance of stack tests, the operation of

a reduced rate of production and the furnishing of a performance

bond or other adequate security, no bond has yet been furnished

and the Agency is not aware of any stack tests that have been per-

formed.

In its present petition, petitioner now asked to be relieved

of the bond requirement.

The Agency believes that the operation

of the two bag houses originally contemplated by the first variance

can be operational in two months. It also notes that while the

request for variance is made to December 31, 1972, no equipment

for Phase Three has yet been ordered, and that because of the

abaence of a firm control program, the Agency is not able to

evaluate the amended petition, but believes the December 31, 1972

completion date to be optimistic.

With some degree of reluctance, we grant the extension of

variance to November 30, 1972. Petitioner has compounded its prob-

lem by failing to apply for the extension until the end of the

original variance period and is accordingly not now protected

against prosecution by the Agency. However, we are satisfied that

petitioner has pursued its program although perhaps not with the

diligence we would have expected and no useful purpose would be

served by denying 

it

the small additional period of time. We

will retain jurisdiction of this matter. If petitioner is unable

to complete its program, within this time, it will file with this

Board a new petition for variance prior to November 1, 1972,

stating the exact status of its program, what, if anything, remains

to be done and the date on which completion can be anticipated.

—3—

5

—

369

We will enter such further and additional orders, including a

possible penalty as may be appropriate in the premises in the

event a further variance period is sought. This variance exten-

sion is also conditional upon all of the matters originally pro-

vided in the earlier variance, including the filing of reports,

the conduct of stack tests, the limitation on production activity,

and the filing of a bond.

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclu-

sions of law of the Board.

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Petitioner,

Imperial Smelting Corporation, be granted a variance from the pro-

visions of Rule 3.3-111 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the

Control of Air Pollution until November 30, 1972, subject to the

following terms and conditions:

Imperial shall diligently pursue the installation

of the control equipment outlined in its petition

for variance and the record in this cause.

2. Imperial shall operate at a reduced rate of production

as described in its petition and the record in this

cause, until the operation of the above—described

control equipment.

3. Imperial shall submit written reports to the Agency

each month until the above-described control equipment

is installed and operating. The first report shall be

filed within twenty (20) days of the date of this order.

In addition, Imperial shall submit a final report to

the Agency within thirty (30) days after the described

control equipment is operable.

4. Imperial shall perform stack tests on each piece of

control equipment after said equipment is operable.

The results of said tests shall be certified by an

independent testing firm and shall be made a part of

the final report referred to in paragraph 3 of this

Order.

5. Imperial shall file with the Environmental Protection

Agency a performance bond or such oth~rsecurity as the

Environmental Protection Agency may deem appropriate

in the sum of $10,000 to guarantee installation and

performance of its control equipment in compliance

with this Order. The bond shall be mailed to:

Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental Pro-

tection Agency, 2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield,

Illinois 62706.

—4—

5

—

370

6. If petitioner concludes that it will be unable

to complete its abatement control program, as

modified, prior to the termination of this variance

it will file a status report with the Board and peti-

tion for extension of variance prior to November 1,

1972. The Board retains jurisdiction of this cause

for such other and further orders, including the

imposition of a penalty as shall be appropriate in the

premises.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify

that the above Opinion and Order was entered on the

Day of

September, 1972, by a vote of

T~

~

—5—

5—371