ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
13,
1975
INTERLAKE,
INC.
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 73—462
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent,
MR.
W.
GERALD THURSBY,
appeared on behalf of Petitioner;
MR. MICHAEL A.
BENEDETTO,
JR.,
appeared on behalf of Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
Petitioner
filed
a petition seeking
a variance from
Rules
104 and three provisions
of Rule 203(d) (6)
(B)
of the Air
Pollution
Control
Regulations
(Air
Rules)
on November
1,
1973,
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(Agency)
filed a Motion to Dismiss
on
November
15,
1973.
Petitioner
filed an Answer to the Motion to
Dismiss
on
November 27,
1973,
On December
6,
1973 we
denied
the
Motion
to Dismiss.
The Agency filed a Recommendation to
grant
a
portion
of the requested relief subject
to certain
conditions
on
February
25,
1974,
A hearing was held on April
17,
1974.
Petitioner filed
a post~-hearingbrief on May
17,
1974,
The
Agency
filed a reply brief on June
6,
1974.
Petitioner has
filed
numerous
waivers of the 90~daydecision period.
Petitioner
originally
sought
a variance from Rule
203(d)
(6)
(B)
(i) (aa)
of the Air Rules,
This request was withdrawn
by
Petitioner
at the hearing
(R.
2)
.
Petitioner seeks a variance
from the requirement of
filing
a compliance program
(Rule
104);
the requirement of having an enclosed pushing and
quenching
system
for
its coke ovens
(Rule
203 Cd) (6) (B) (i) (bb)
; and the
emission
limitation restricting emissions from coke oven doors
(Rule
203(d)
(6) (B) (iv) (aa).
The Agency recommends that the latter two
requests
be granted
and the former be denied,
Petitioner owns and operates a by—product coke plant
located
in
Chicago where coal
is converted into coke by destructive
distillation of coal in coke ovens,
The coke plant is
located on
40-acres of land that includes two batteries of 50—coke
ovens
for a total of 100 coke ovens, by-product plants, coal
storage
piles and a materials handling system.
Coke ovens are contained
19
—
274
—2—
in a row of 100 and each oven is approximately
3 feet wide,
40 feet deep and 30 feet high
(R.
6-7).
Petitioner annually
produces
560,000 tons of coke
(R.
8).
Petitioner produces iron
at a nearby blast furnace where it utilizes all of the coke
produced at its coke plant
(R.
8-9).
Molten iron produced
at the blast furnace
is transported 11 miles
to Petitioner’s
facility in Riverdale,
Illinois where it is converted into
steel
in
a basic oxygen furnace
(R.
11).
Steel produced at
this facility is converted into numerous products.
Petitioner
contends that there is not an alternative source of coke
available to use
in its blast furnaces, and without the iron
produced in the blast furnace it could not operate its steel-making
facilities
(R.
8,
9,
11 and
12).
In addition to coke,
Petitioner’s coke plant also produces
coke oven gas which is used to supply heat during the coking
cycle and steam which is utilized in the blast furnace plant,
ammonium sulfate which is sold as
a fertilizer,
tar which is
utilized in the manufacture of asphalt and other various pro-
ducts,
light oils and napthalene
(R.
13 and 14).
Petitioner
sold $153 million dollars worth of products in 1973 which
were produced at the coke plant, blast furnace and steel
manufacturing facilities
(R.
14).
Petitioner employs 230
persons at the coke plant and 3,900 in all of its interrelated
facilities
(R.
12 and 18)
The variance request from Rule 203(d) (6) (i) (bb)
is sought
for the period of time
in which Interlake,
Inc. proposed to
further develop and install
a modified larry car.
The larry
car is used to deposit or charge coal from the coal hopper
on the larry car into the coke oven through charging holes
which are located on the top of the oven.
During the process
of charging, covers on the charging holes are removed and
replaced when coal has been deposited in the ovens.
Mr.
Fred Kirkau, Petitioner’s director of environmental control,
testified that emissions
from the charging process do not
comply with the Rule
(R.
18).
Mr. Kirkau stated that
Petitioner could comply with the
15 second emission limitation
period found in the Rule unless a malfunction occurred which
would prevent workmen from replacing the lids on the charging
holes
(R.
24).
However,
he testified that Petitioner’s
coke oven facilities do not fulfill the requirement found
in the Rule for an automated negative pressure charging
system
(R.
23).
He testified that the steam aspiration
system utilized by Petitioner is presently insufficient to
prevent emissions from the charging holes during charging
(R.
23-26).
Mr. Kirkau further testified that any emission
during the charging process would have an opacity of greater
than
30 percent which is not allowed under the Rule
(R.
22).
19—275
—3—
Petitioner has developed what it believes to be the
best system to control emissions from the charging process
(R.
28).
This system consists of a sequential charging
procedure whereby coal is deposited from the larry car
into the ovens through one charging hole at a time,
charging hole lids are automatically replaced by a mechanical
device on the larry car,
a cut—off mechanism is installed in
the larry car to prevent emissions from the charging hole going
up to the larry car hopper and into the atmosphere,
the coal
piles in the ovens are levelled to keep the gas passages open,
and negative pressure
is maintained on the ovens during the
entire charging sequence
(R.
28—30).
At the time of the hearing
Petitioner had installed the modifications on one larry car
and was
in the process of de-bugging the system
(R.
30),
Interlake proposed to have the second larry car modified by
December 31,
1974 utilizing the experience gained in working
on the first modified car
(R.
31).
Mr.
Kirkau
testified
that
even
with
the
modifications,
Interlake would not be in complete compliance with the Rule
in that any emissions from the charging hole while connections
were being made or broken would be 100 percent opaque and
the Rule limits opacity to
30 percent
CR.
34,
35).
Petitioner
states that they could meet the
30 percent opacity limitation
if the opacity were measured some
30 feet above the top of
the oven with the open sky as
a background
(R.
44).
The Agency recommends that the request for a variance
from Rule 203(d) (6) (B) (i) (bb)
be granted until December 31,
1974 subject to certain conditions which Petitioner has agreed
to
(R.
74—100)
Petitioner also seeks a variance from the Rule which
limits emissions from coke oven doors for more than 10 minutes
after commencement of the coking cycle and limits emissions
during the initial start-up to less than
30 percent opacity
(Rule
203 (d)
(6)
(B)
(iv)
(aa)
of
the
Air
Rules).
Petitioner
admitted
that
its
coke
oven
doors
smoked
for
longer
than
the
allowable
ten
minute
period
prescribed
in
the
Rule
and
the
opacity
of
that
smoke
is
greater
than
30
percent
(p.
8
of
Petitioner post hearing brief).
The coke oven doors are
self—sealing in that emissions are supposed to
form a
tar
seal along the knife edge of the door and the door jamb
itself.
Petitioner’s doors are approximately
18 inches
wide and 13 feet high
(R.
50).
Petitioner maintains that
under ideal conditions the doors will seal anywhere between
10 minutes and one hour after the door is closed and the
oven is charged
(R.
56).
Petitioner defines ideal conditions
as when the knife edge
is clean and not warped or damaged,
the door jamb is not warped and the diaphragm to which the
knife edges are attached is not warped
(R.
53 and 54).
19— 276
—4—
Petitioner has proposed a compliance program to control
coke oven door emissions.
Petitioner has replaced the steel
nuts on the adjusting mechanism with brass nuts which will
allow Petitioner to make adjustments during the coking
cycle
(R.
62 and 63).
Complete replacement
is scheduled
on May
1,
1974
(R.
64)
Petitioner has hired
4 additional workmen to clean knife
edges and door jambs each time a door
is removed for the pushing
of
coke
and
to
adjust
knife
edges
to minimize emissions
(R.
62
and
63).
Two
additional
workmen
have
been made available in
the door repair facilities
so the doors taken out of the service
can
be
promptly
repaired
and
four spare coke oven doors can
be
ready
for
installation
at
any
time
(R.
63).
Petitioner’s
program
to
minimize
door
emissions
was
begun
in
1973
when
materials
were
ordered
and
men
were
sought
(R.
44).
Actual
work
on
the
program
was
begun
in
January,
1974
CR.
145).
By
the
end
of
1974,
Petitioner
estimates
that
the
program
will
be
complete
and
workmen
will
be
properly
trained
and
educated
and
procedures
worked
out
(R.
74).
Mr.
Kirkau
testified
that
he
did
not
believe
that
the
program
outlined
above
would
achieve
compliance
with
the
Rule
in
question
in
that
some
doors
will
leak
longer
than
10
minutes,
that
it
is
impossible
to
tell
in
advance
how
long
a
door
will
leak
and
once
it
leaks
in
excess
of
10
minutes,
and
that
there
is
no
known
method
to
stop
it
from
smoking
(R.
68,
69
and
71).
Mr.
Kirkau
testified
that
any
emissions
from
the
door
will
exceed
the
30
percent
opacity
limit
(R.
69).
Mr.
Kirkau
again
testified
that
the
30
percent
opacity
limitation
could
be
met
if
the
opacity
measurement
was
made
at
some
30
feet
above
the
top
of
the
battery
with
the
open
sky
as
background
(R.
70).
Mr.
Kirkau
testified
that
Petitioner,
as
a
member
of
the
American
Iron
and
Steel
Institute,
is
engaged
in
research
under
a
Federal
grant
to
control
or
collect
coke
oven
door
emissions
and
that
Petitioner
is
continuing
to
do
its
own
research
to
control
these
emissions
(R.
68—69).
The
Agency
recommends
that
the
variance
from
the
emission
limitations
applicable
to
coke
oven
doors
be
granted.
The
Agency
contends
that
it
is
inappropriate
for
Petitioner
to
raise
the
issues
of
the
lack
of
technical
feasibility
of
control
at
variance
hearing
(Agency
reply
brief,
p.
2).
The
Agency
further
objects
to
Petitioner’s
proposal
that
the
opacity
measurements
be
made
some
thirty
feet
above
the
top
of
the
coke
oven
battery
citing
Rule
109
of
the
Air
Rules.
The
Agency
recommends
that
the
variance
be
granted
only
until
July
26,
1974
which
coincides
with
the
Order
of
the
Board
in
International
Harvester
Company
v.
EPA,
19—
277
—5—
PCB 72-321 and 73-176, which allowed Harvester until that
date
to
comply
with
the
same
regulation
(p.
6
of
Agency
reply
brief).
The
Agency
would
also
have
the
Board
impose
a
Performance
Bond.
In
addition
to
the
above
two
variance
requests,
Petitioner
seeks
a
variance
from
Rule
104
of
the
Air
Rules
which
requires
Petitioner
to
have
filed
a
compliance
program.
Petitioner
states that it has not submitted
a compliance program because
it cannot currently comply with the Air Rules
in question
(R.
80).
The
Agency
amended
its
Recommendation
at
the
hearing
to
recommend
that
the
Board
grant
a
variance
from
Rule
104
with
respect
to
requirement
for
submitting
compliance
plans
showing
dates
meeting
the
two
regulations
in
question
(R.
158).
The
Board
finds
that
Petitioner
has
presented
a
program
which
will
greatly
reduce
the
particulate
emissions
from
its
coke
plant
during
the
charging
cycle
and
from
the
coke
oven
doors.
The
Board
agrees
with
the
Agency
that
the
diligent
attempt
on
the
part
of
Petitioner
to
control
all
emissions
from
its
coke
operations,
as
proposed
in
Petitioner’s
petition
for
variance,
will
minimize
the
affect
of
the
air
emissions
on
the
environment.
We
find
that
Petitioner
has
established
a
sufficient
hardship
that
warrants
the
grant
of
the
requested
relief
in
that
a
variance
should
be
granted
from
December
31,
1973
until
December
31,
1974
as
requested.
We
reject
the
Agency’s
Recommendation
to
limit
the
variance
until
July
26,
1974
for
emissions
from
the
coke
oven
doors.
Given the retroactive nature of this variance petition,
we find no need to require
it
to
be
conditioned
upon
the
submittal
of
a
Performance
Bond
but
rather
we
will
condition
it
upon
the
requirements
set
out
in
the
Agency’s
Recommendation
as
amended
during
the
hearing
process
and
accepted
by
Petitioner.
During
the
pendency
of
this
variance
request
a
regulatory
proposal
was
filed
by
Granite
City
Steel
that
would
have
amended
Rules
203(d)
(6)
(B)
(ii)
~
203 (d)
(6)
(B)
(iv)
(aa)
of
the
Air
Rules.
This proposal was filed
on
November
30,
1973
and
designated
as
R73-l6.
On
July
24,
1975
the
Board
found
that
no
change
was
warranted
to
the
pushing
and
quenching
rule
and
that
Granite
City
had
failed
to
provide
the
Board
with
an
adequate
record
to
adopt
the
suggested
change
to
the
coke
oven
door
regulation
(In
the
Matter
of
Proposed
Amendments
to
Air
Pollution
Control
Regulations,
R73-l6
(July
24,
1975)).
In
that
Opinion
we
suggested
that
representatives from Granite City,
Interlake,
Republic
Steel,
the
Agency
and
other
interested,
meet
and
develop
a
mutually
agreeable
proposal
and
submit
it
to
the
Board.
We
again
repeat
the
invitation
for
Petitioner
as
one
of
the
major
coke
producers
in
Illinois
to
present
the
Board
with
any
proposed
regulation
it
feels
warranted
after
consulta-
tion
if it desires with other coke producers and the Agency.
19
—
278
—6—
If Petitioner requests a subsequent extension of this
variance
beyond
December
31,
1974,
Petitioner
should
provide
the
Board
with
the
results
of
any
research
it
is
undertaking
or
that
of
the
American
Iron
and
Steel
Institute.
Petitioner
should
further
provide
the
Board
with
information
in
response
to
the
Board’s
interpretation
of
the
Supreme
Court
decision
in
Train
v.
NRDC,
43
LW
4467
(April
15,
1975).
Information
should
also
be
provided
as
to
the
environmental
impact
of
Petitioner’s
emissions
including
a
calculated
emission
rate
after
Petitioner’s
program
for
controlling
coke
oven
door
emissions
and
charging
emissions
is
placed
in
operation.
This
Opinion
constitutes
the
Board’s
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law.
ORDER
a.
Petitioner’s
request
for
a
variance
from
Rule
203 (d)
(6) (B)
(i)
(aa)
of
the
Air
Pollution
Control
Regulations
is
dismissed
as
moot.
b.
Petitioner’s
request
for
a
variance
from
Rule
203(d)(6)(b)(i)(bb)
of
the
Air
Pollution
Control
Regulations
is
granted
from
December
31,
1973
until
December
31,
1974,
Petitioner
shall
also
include
the
following
in
its
compliance
program
to
be
completed
by
December
31,
1974
if
necessary
to
control
emissions:
1)
increase
steam
aspiration
pressure
and
flow
as
required
to
impose
sufficient
negative
gas
pressure
on
the
ovens
to
prevent
smoke
emissions
through
the
charging
ports.
2)
increase
the
size
of
the
aspirator
nozzles
and
steam
supply
lines
if
such
is
also
needed
to
obtain
sufficient
negative
oven
pressure.
3)
repair
leaks
in
ascension
pipes,
goosenecks,
and
caps,
and
any
other
areas
which
would
permit
air
seepage
into
the
oven
and
offtake
piping.
c.
Petitioner’s
request
for
a
variance
from
Rule
203(d)
(6)
(B)
(iv)
(aa)
of
the
Air
Pollution
Control
Regulations
is
granted
from
December
31,
1973
until
December
31,
1974
subject
to
the
following
conditions:
19
—
279
—7—
1)
Petitioner submit a door oroaram which is acceptable
to the Acencv.
Said proaram shall be submitted to:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Division
of
Air
Pollution
Control
Control
Program
Coordinator
2200
Churchill
Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
c.
Petitioner’s
request
for
a
variance
from
Rule
104:
Petitioner’s
request
for
a
variance
from
Rule
104
of
the
Air
Pollution
Regulation
is
granted
from
December
31,
1973
to
December
31,
1974
only
with
respect
to
the
above
two
rules
for
which
variance
is
granted.
In
addition
to
the
foregoing,
the
following
general
conditions
shall
be
required
as
a
condition
to
the
grant
of
this
variance.
1)
Petitioner
shall
implement
a
maintenance
program
which
shall
include:
(a)
an
alternate
procedure
preventing
large
accumulations
of
coal
discharges
on
top
of
the
battery.
(b)
replacement
of
steam
aspirator,
liquor
flushing
nozzles,
and
ascension
pipe
sections
as
soon
as
needed.
(c)
purchase
of
additional
spare
doors
and
jambs
as
necessary
to
assure
an
adequate
supply
to
properly
control
door
leakage.
(d)
record
keeping
on
all
oven,
machinery,
and
auxilliary
equipment
repairs
and
replacements
which
may
affect
emissions
of
contaminants
to
the
atmosphere
as
well
as
the
coking
times
and
oven
temperatures.
2)
Petitioner
shall
obtain
a
construction
permit
from
the
Agency
for
modifications of the spare larry
car.
3)
Petitioner
shall
apply
for
and
obtain
all
necessary
operating
permits
from
the
Agency
for
its
by-product
coke
plant.
4)
Petitioner
shall
submit
to
the
Agency
revised
Operating
and
Maintenance
Work
Rules
for
the
coke
plant.
19
—
280
—8—
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby
certify
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
were
adopted
on
the
13th
day of November, 1975 by a vote of
4
—
0
risan
•
e
Illinois
Pollution
~~6l
Board
19
—
281