ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 29, 1976

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, )

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 75—349

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Mr. Alan I. Becker appeared in behalf of Petitioner.

Mr. Roger C. Zehntner appeared in behalf of Respondent.

OPL:ION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Goodman):

This matter comes before the Board upon Petition of Inter-

national Harvester Company (Harvester) for review of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s (Agency) denial of Harvester’s

permit application for construction of a quench car fogging system

at Harvester’sWisconsin Steel Division located in Chicago, Illinois.

Hearing was held in this matter on October 30, 1975, and Harvester

has filed a waiver of its right to a decision from the Board within

90 days under Section 40 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act).

In an earlier variance petition before the Board, PCB 74-277,

Harvester requested, inter alia, variance from Rule 203(d) (6) (B) (i)

(bb) for its coke manufacturing facility known as Battery #3, pro-

posing to shut the facility down in mid 1977, and proposing to con-

struct the aforementioned quench car water fogging system as an

emission control device until such time as the Battery is taken

off line. The Board in its Opinion and Order in PCB 74-277 dated

June 6, 1975 (which Opinion and Order is hereby incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein) 

granted the variance re-

quested and approved the use of the quench car water fogging system

as “a viable control technique, particularly in view of the fact

that No. 3 Battery is scheduled for shutdown in mid 1977.”

The Agency in rejecting the construction permit application

contends it is restrained from issuing such permit by Rule 103(a) (5)

of Chapter 2 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations (Regulations) which

— 771

—2—

states, in pertinent part:

.No construction permit shall be granted unless

the applicant submits proof to the Agency that: (A)

the emission source of air pollution control equip-

ment will be constructed or modified to operate so

as not to cause a violation of the Act or of this

Chapter...,

In the Agency’s view the language of Rule 103(a) (5) indicates a

prohibition against the issuance of a construction permit for

pollution control equipment which does not achieve full compliance

with applicable regulations. It isthe Agency’s opinion that

Harvester must petition the Board for variance from the afore-

mentioned Rule before the Agency could issue such a construction

permit.

Harvester argues that the variance granted in PCB 74-277

together with the acceptance by the Board of the water fogging system

is sufficient to allow the Agency to issue a construction permit

for its proposed system. The Agency, on the other hand, finds

itself in a position where it may be forced to acknowledge that

the fogging system, once installed, would meet the requirements of

Rule 203(d) (6) (B) (ii) (bb), due to the language in other regulations

and prior Board Opinions.

It was the intention of the Board in PCB 74-277 that Harvester

shut down the No. 3 Battery by mid 1977 and in the meanwhile control

the coke oven emissions to whatever degree possible with the fogging

system. It was also the intention of the Board that the fogging

system be installed as quickly as possible so as to gain the maximum

advantage of its limited life. The Board has in the past granted

variance where an interim abatement facility was to be constructed

and final compliance would result only upon this interim facility’s

connection with some other facility. An example of this is the

immediate construction of a pretreatment plant for effluent which by

itself will not result in compliance with effluent standards but

which when later connected to a sanitary treatment plan results in

compliance with such effluent standards. E.W. Kneip, Inc. v. EPA,

PCB 75-171, 18 PCB 363 (1975). In Kneip, the Agency recommended

variance be granted including the construction of a pretreatment

plant with final compliance achieved by potential connection to a

proposed municipal treatment plant. Here we have an interim system

proposed to partially control emissions emitted under a Board variance,

with final compliance being the total elimination of said emissions

at a later date.

—

772

—3—

The Board holds that the Agency may not deny a construction

permit where the sole basis for said denial is that the construc-

tion facility will not result in compliance with the very same

regulation from which the applicant has received a variance and

said variance proceeding contemplated the construction of said

facility, which alone would not result in compliance but, ultimately,

would result in zero discharge. The construction of the fogging

system is part of an overall compliance plan whose object is the

cessation of emissions by mid 1977. Neither the Agency nor Harvester

may take the permitting process for this piece of equipment outside

the context of the variance proceeding in PCB 74-277.

The Board finds that the Agency should have issued a construc-

tion permit for the fogging system in consideration of the Opinion

and Order in PCB 74-277.

This Opinion constitutes the finding of fact and the conclusions

of law of the Board.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Harvester

be issued a construction permit for a system known as a quench

car water fogging system, consistent with the foregoing Opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christari L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were a~optedon

the

~q”’

day of       

1976 by a vote of 

‘S—O

Christan L. Moffet 

erk

Illinois Pollution  trol Board

—

773