ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 6,
1975
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 74—277
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
Mr. Alan I. Becker and Mr. Jeffrey L. Brown,
on behalf of
Petitioner;
Mr.
Peter B. Orlinsky and Mr. Thomas
R.
Casper, on behalf of
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This
petition for variance was filed by International
Harvester Company
(Harvester),
the operator of an integrated
steel mill in Chicago, Cook County,
Illinois, on July 22,
1974.
The petition requests an extension of a one—year
variance previously granted on July 27, 1973 by the
Board
(PCB 73-176 and PCB 72-321),
In the petition, Harvester
alleges that they have complied with the Board~sOrder of
July 27,
1973, wherein they were ordered to complete
spe-
cific
actions on their two coke oven batteries located at
the plant.
Upon motion for hearing by the Illinois.Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency
(Agency), filed on August 16,
1974,
the matter was set for hearing by the Board.
On
September 25,
1974, Harvester filed a supplement
to its
variance petition,
in which they indicated proposed plans
for a total control system on coke oven battery No.
4,
THE VARIANCE
The original variance granted by the Board in International
Harvester
v.
EPA, PCB 73~l76and PCB 72~321 11973), from
which this extension is requested by Harvester, consisted of
a variance for the operation of the following facilities
in
a manner which would
otherwise violate the indicated regulations:
(a)
The stacks on No.
3
battery, from Rule 202(b) (Opacity)
of the Air Pollution Regulations
(Chapter
2) of the Pollution
Control Board
(hereinafter PCB Rules, Chapter 2).
(b)
The lids on No.
3
battery,
from Rule 203(d) (6) (B) (i) (aa)
of the PCB Rules, Chapter
2.
17
—
235
—2—
(c) Charging on batteries No.
3 and No.
4 from Rule
203 (d) (6) (B) (i) (bb)
of the PCB Rules, Chapter
2.
(d)
Pushing and quenching on batteries No.
3 and No.
4
from Rule 203 (d) (6) (B) (i) (bb)
of the PCB Rules, Chapter
2.
(e)
Coke oven doors on batteries No.
3 and No.
4
from
Rule 203(d) (6) (B) (iv) (aa)
of the PCB Rules, Chapter
2.
(f)
Charging, pushing, and quenching operations
on
batteries No.
3 and No.
4 from Rule 104 of the PCB Rules,
Chapter
2,
to the extent that timely compliance with Part
2
of Chapter
2 will not be achieved.
In their amended motion to extend variance, Harvester
deleted the request for extension of variance from 203(d)
(6) (B) (1) (aa) which expired December
31,
1973,
and further
seeks an extension of
its variance from Regulation Section
203(d) (6) (B) (i) (bb), charging emissions,
up to and including
May 31,
1975.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY
Harvester~scoke plant consists of two batteries of
Wilputte by-product coke ovens.
Battery No.
3 contains 67
ovens installed in 1952 and 1956 with a capacity of 15.6
tons of coal per oven.
Battery No.
4 contains
45 ovens
installed in 1968, with a capacity of 27.8 tons of coal per
oven.
Both batteries are charged from larry—cars through
top side lids.
The lids on No.
3 battery are removed and
replaced manually by Petitioner’s employees.
The lids on
No.
4 battery are removed and replaced by magnetic lid—
lifters.
The coking process inherently produces large amounts of
gases and smoke,
95
of which are allegedly captured by the
by—product system and used for various purposes.
The gases
which are not captured in the by-product plant create the
coke oven emission problem.
These emissions result from
minute imperfections in the seal of the coke—oven door.
Additional emissions occur during the pushing operation and
some leakage is emitted from the stacks of the No.
3 battery.
AGENCY RECOMMENDATION
On November 20,
1974,
the Agency filed a recommendation
in the matter wherein they state that Harvester had been
dilatory in the implementation of its control program and
had failed to allege that a denial of the variance would
impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
A hearing on
the matter was held on January
8,
1975,
after which Harvester
submitted an amended variance motion to conform to the proof
presented at the hearing.
Briefs on the matter were sub-
sequently submitted by both parties.
—3—
As to the Agency’s contention that Harvester nas failed
to allege that
it would suffer arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship if its request for variance was denied, we find
that arbitrary and unreasonable haidship was established
the original proceeding,
PCB 73-176 and PCB 72-321,
the
record of which proceeding was incorporated within the
record of this proceeding by stipulation between the partius.
The operation of the coke plant is vital
to the entire
steel mill operation,
not only because the coke produced is
used to make steel,
(1973 Tr.
27), but because the coke gas
that
is also produced is a basic
fuel for steel mill proc-
esses.
(1973
Tr.
28).
In the light of the current short
supply of fuels,
it is apparent that without the coke gas,
Harvester could not continue in the production
of steel
without facing an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.
The Agency charges that Harvester has been dilatory in
achieving compliance
in that they agreed to have completed
their controls for charging emissions from No,
4 battery by
July 26,
1974.
Referring to Harvester’s January
27, 1975
amended variance motion in this proceeding,
the Agency
alleges that Harvester now states that its program to
control charging emissions from No.
4 battery will not be
completed until May 31,
1975.
It is clear from the doc-
uments cited by the Agency that the control program for
charging emissions contemplated by Harvester to be completed
May 31,
1975,
goes well beyond that which Harvester sub-
mitted as its plan
for control of charging emissions to be
completed by July 26,
1974.
In fact,
the 1974 proposed
program was substantially completed within a few months of
the target date.
In mitigation of that delay, Harvester
presented testimony at the hearing supporting its claim that
the delays were caused by unforeseen problems in the new
system and delays caused by vendors of the equipment for the
new system.
(R30,
R9l)
The Agency’s contention that prob-
lems with the control system “should have been obvious to
Petitioner at the outset of the project”
is not supported by
the evidence,
and the problems appear to be relatively minor
shakedown problems which Harvester proposes to correct by
the May 31,
1975 target date.
The Agency alleges that Harvester has failed to comply
with certain of the conditions of its original variance, PCE
73-176.
Harvester,
on the other hand, alleges that it has
“substantially complied” with all conditions of the original
variance and that any deviations were “wholly immaterial”.
The Agency points to Harvester’s non-compliance with four of
the conditions
of the original variance, PCB 73—176.
The first condition of the original variance
(PCB
73—
176)
cited, B-9,
required Petitioner
to put Agency-approved
work rules into effect by September 26,
1973.
The record
17 —237
—4—
shows that these proposed work rules were submitted and
rejected a number of times before final Agency approval and
that final acceptance by the Agency did not occur until July
31,
1974.
(Rll2)
Testimony at the hearing tended to indi-
cate that the work rules were a continuing problem caused by
the experimental aspect of the control program, and that
further revisions of these rules would likely be necessary
in the future as the program continues to its completion.
(Rlll)
The Board accepts this explanation as mitigation to
the fact that the work rules were not finally accepted by
the date proposed.
Conditions B-b
and B-l.l required Petitioner to work
out study procedures within 35 days.
The record shows that
the Agency acquiesced to Harvester’s request to extend the
35-day deadlines,
in order to facilitate study procedures
concerned with corollary procedures.
(R156)
This change in
the compliance with the conditions proposed does not seem
arbitrary,
and as the Agency acquiesced
to the changes,
they
cannot now be heard to complain of the delay.
The last
condition with which the Agency contends Harvester failed
to
comply is condition B—l2, concerning progress reports.
The
Board finds that submission
by Harvester of the first report
five days late does not constitute a material breachof that
condition.
(Rl16)
The final objection by the Agency to the issuance of
a
variance in this case concerns the control procedures pro-
posed by Harvester with regard to pushing and quenching
emissions from No,
3 battery until the battery is shut down
in mid-l977~ A procedure proposed by Harvester is a “Granite
City Steel type” water fogging or spray system,
(R73)
The
Agency takes strong exception to Harvester’s contention that
such
a system is
a viable control technique.
As the Agency
admits, conflicting testimony was presented at the hearings
concerning the operation of Granite City Steel’s fogging
system and, upon inspection of the record,
the Board tends
to agree.
(R76,
R180)
The testimony of both the Agency’s
and Harvester’s witnesses indicated that neither witness had
any real knowledge of that particular system or how well it
functioned.
The Agency submitted an exhibit entitled
Summary Report on Control of Coke Oven Emissions by Battelle
Laboratories
(Exhibit A)
a knowledgeable independent re-
search association, referring in their brief to Battelle’s
estimation of fogging systems and that they are given a
“negative evaluation”.
Upon inspection
of Battelle’s
report the Board finds that the term “negative evaluation”
must be taken in context:
“Battelle’s evaluation of these actual sys-
tems,
therefore,
must be negative
in. comparison
with hoods and enclosures.
However,
such systems
—5—
help in visible degree, and future evolutions of
this approach may prove quite satisfactory.”
(Respondent’s Exhibit A at
p.
64)
The Board feels that Battelle’s evaluation of the
fogging system is the only reasonable evidence of the
system’s ability to function that was produced at the
hearing.
Based upon the Battelle report, the fogging system
is
a
viable control technique,
particularly in view of the
fact that No.
3 battery is scheduled for shut down in mid-
1977.
Considering that the alternative proposed by Battelle
to the fogging system is a hood or enclosure similar to that
proposed by Harvester for their No.
4 battery at a projected
cost of
$5 million, the Board holds that a fccgging system
would be a reasonable alternative for the two years left in
the life of No.
3 battery.
The Environmental Protection Act provides in Section
36(b). for variances to be extended from year to year if
satisfactory progress has been shown and the Board in past
cases has followed that rube in both a positive and negative
fashion, Olin Corporation v.
EPA, PCB 72—517
(1973),
Missouri
Portland Cement Co.
v.
EPA, PCB 75-5
(1971), and Purdy Co.
v.
EPA, PCB 75-2
(1971).
In Olin, Mr.
Lawton stated:
“We believe that Olin has demonstrated
progress toward the achievement of its objective
and while
it has not adhered to the original
time schedule contemplated,
it has offered satis-
factory reasons in justification for the delay.”
The Board finds,
in this case,
that Harvester has
carried its burden of proof in showing satisfactory progress
in their attempts to control emissions from their coke oven
batteries.
They have proposed a system acceptable
to the
Agency for No.
4 battery and have proposed to shut down
No.
3 battery by 1977,
while applying a reasonable control
system on the operation of the battery.
Harvester has
spent,
to date, approximately $1 million toward control of
the batteries and is proposing to spend an additional
$5 million on the control facilities for No.
4 battery.
(R72)
It is the decision of the Board that Harvester be
granted the variance requested.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Board.
17 —239
—6—
ORDER
1.
Harvester
is granted a variance to and including
July
26,
1975 for the operation of the following facilities
from the indicated Air Pollution Rules:
a.
The stacks on No.
3 battery from Rule 202(b);
and
b.
Pushing and quenching batteries No.
3 and No.
4
from Rule 203(d) (6) (B)(i) (bb);
and
c.
Coke oven doors on batteries No.
3 and No.
4
from Rule 203(d) (6) (B) (iv) (aa);
and
d.
Charging, pushing, and quenching operations on
batteries No.
3 and No.
4 from Rule 104 to the extent
that timely compliance with Part 2 of Chapter
2 will not
be achieved.
2.
Harvester is granted a variance from Rule 203(d) (6) (B) (i) (bb)
for charging batteries No.
3 and No.
4
to and including May 31,
1975.
3.
The variance granted herein shall be subject to all
the terms and conditions of the July 26, 1973 Order in PCB 72-321
and PCB 73-176
(consolidated)
as may be presently applicable.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above 0 inion and Order
were adopted o~the
~M
day of
______________
1975
by
a vote of
~Q
Christan L. Moffet
erk
Illinois Pollution
trol Board
1/
—
240