ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

27,

1978

WSC

CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 77—303

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

LAWRENCE E.

STRICKLING, KIRKLAND

& ELLIS, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONER;

LORETTA A.

WEBER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF

OF RESPONDENT.

OPINION

AND

ORDEH

OF

THE BOARD

(by M~. Goodman):

On

November 23,

1977, WSC Corporation

(WSC)

filed a Petition

requesting variance from certain of

the Air Pollution Control

Regulations

(Regulations)

for its coke plant operations and basic

oxygen plant at its Wisconsin Steel Works located on the far south-

east side of Chicago,

Illinois.

WSC

is

the successor in interest

of

the Wisconsin Steel facilities previously owned by International

Harvester

(Harvester).

A hearing

in this matter was held on January

23,

1978;

no members of the public were present at the hearing, and

the Board has received no public comment in this matter.

No evi—

dence having been presented at the hearing, the Board shall

decide

this matter based

upon

representations

made by Peti

tioner

in

its

PeLi. Lion

icr

Vdr

i~ncu

~iiid

Ihe

j;~v

I rorimeiiLi

f’roLect

.i~on

Agency

(Agency)

in

it_s

recommendation

*

This

is the latesL of a number of variances considered by

the Board concerning the Wisconsin Steel facility.

The subject

of this variance is both the coking operation and the basic oxygen

furnace operation at the plant.

Since both of these matters are

a continuation of matters previously considered

in PCB 74—277 and

PCB 75-271, Petitions for Variance previously

filed by Harvester,

the Board will not reiterate the factual situation.

3O—~

t3

---

—

2~

WSC

requests

variance

specifically

from

Rules

203(d)

(6)

(B)

(1)

(bb),

203(d)

(6)

(B)

(iv)(aa),

202(b),

and

203(b).

Since

1975,

the

owners

and

operators

of

the

Wisconsin

Steel

facility

have

pursued

a

compliance

plan

to

control

emissions

from

the coke operations

and

the

basic

oxygen

furnace.

Measures

taken

to control the emis-

sions have included termination of

an

old

coke

battery,

complete

rebuild of the currently used battery, new methods of coking and

maintenance,

installation of a coke side shed to alleviate the

heavy

emissions

from

the

coke side of the ovens,

new charging

equipment and procedures,

installation of high draft fans and

electrostatic precipitators in conjunction with the

basic

oxygen

furnace,

and

emission

control

oriented

work procedures.

In spite

of

the

advances

made

in

emission

control,

there

remain

some

uncon-

trolled emissions which exceed

the limits of Chapter

2 of the

Board’s Regulations.

These emissions involve sporadic

puffs

of

smoke during

the

charging

and coking operation and leakage through

warped plates in the

main collection hood over the basic oxygen

furnace.

‘In the case of the warped hood plates,

the emissions

escape

through

the

ventilating

monitor

located

in

the

roof

of

the

building.

Relief is requested until May 15, 1978 from Rule 203(d) (6) (B)

(i) (bb)

of Chapter

2, which covers

the

coke

charging

operation.

Relief from Rule 203(d) (6) (B) (4) (aa)

of Chapter

2

(coke oven emis-

sions)

is requested until May 30,

1978,

or if Petitioner is not in

compliance with this Rule on May 30,

1978, until July

1,

1979.

Relief from Rules

202(b) (opacity) and Rule 203(b) (particulates)

for emissions from the basic oxygen furnace roof monitor

is re~

quested until November

1,

1978.

The Board notes that in no case

does the request for variance go beyond July

1,

1979.

The Agency recommendation filed January

9,

1978 recommends

granting the requested variances under certain conditions.

The

Agency recommendation conditions are almost identical to the pro~

posed compliance plan included in WSC’s Petition with minor

exceptions that require Petitioner to obtain necessary State con-

struction and operating permits, to achieve compliance with Rule

203 (d) (6)

(13) (Iv) (nn)

no

J.aLer

than July

1,

1979 and to execute

a

certificate of acceptance and agreement to be bound by all the

terms and conditions of the variance.

The Board agrees with the

Agency’s recommendation.

The Wisconsin Steel facility has been

brought to its present status of compliance due to the good faith

efforts

of its various owners and the expenditure of a consider-

able amount of money.

To be denied a variance while WSC worked

to correct the last remaining emission problems

would be an arbi-

trary and unreasonable burden on WSC.

The Board will therefore

30—I I~

---

—3—

grant the variance requested and will incorporate the conditions

as requested by the Agency since they are, for the most part,

identical

to the compliance program as proposed by Petitioner.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of the Board

in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

WSC Corporation be granted variance from Rule

203(d) (6) (B) (i) (bb)

of Chapter 2:

Air Pollu-

tion Regulations of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board until May 15,

1978;

2.

WSC Corporation be granted a variance from

Rule 203(d) (6) (B) (iv) (aa)

of Chapter

2:

Coke

Oven Emissions until May 30,

1978;

or

if

Petitioner

is not in compliance with this

Rule on May 30, 1978, until July

1,

1979;

3.

WSC Corporation be granted a variance from

Rule 202 (b) (opacity) and Rule 203 (b) (particu—

lates)

for emissions from its basic oxygen

furnace roof monitor until November 1,

1978;

and

4.

The variance granted by Parts

1,

2,

and 3

of this Order are subject to the conditions

contained in the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s recommendation filed

with the Board January

9,

1978, which recommend-

ation is hereby incorporated by reference as if

fully set forth herein.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

were

adopted

on

the.~Y~-_day

of

*

—,

1978 by a vote

of_______________

30—I

15