ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August
13,
1971
CHAMBERS, BERING, QUINLAN
CO.
)
v.
)
PCB71—102
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ROBERT S. MONROE, ATTORNEY FOR CHAMBERS, BERING, QUINLAN CO.
JOHN STANLEY MC CREERY, ATTORNEY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(BY MR.
t(ISSEL):
Chambers, Bering, Quinlan Company
(CBQ) operate
a
gray iron
foundry,
drop forging,
stamping and machining facilities
at 700
North Jasper Street,
Decatur, Illinois.
CBQ filed a petition for
variance with
the Board on May
11,
1971, asking the Board to
allow CBQ the right to operate two old cupolas,
if necessary,
when repairs
are required on CBQ~snew electric furnace.
The
Environmental Protection Agency
(the uAgencyH)
recommends that
the variance be denied on the ground that CBQ has not shown
a
usubstantial nee&
for granting of
the variance.
A hearing on
the petition was held in Decatur, Illinois on June
24,
1971 be-
fore Sheldon
J. Plager, Hearing Officer.
A short discussion of the history of CBQ and air pollution
control devices is necessary.
For many years, CBQ operated
two
cupolas with
emissions of fly ash and other air contaminants.
As
required by
law, CBQ filed
a Letter of Intent on June
30,
1967,
which included a calculation of the emissions from and process
weight of the
plant,
It was obvious that some control devices
would
be
necessary
if
CBQ was
to comply with the then promulgated
regulations governing the control of air pollution.
CBQ filed
and had approved an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program
(ACERP)
on June
30,
1968,
just one year after the Letter of
Intent had been
filed.
This ACERP called for the installation
of an electric induction
furnace which would totally replace
the
two operating cupolas by April
15,
1971.
Actually, CBQ
ordered the furnace from Brown
Boveri,
an international company,
in February of 1968.
The furnace was recetved in July of 1970
and the rather large transformer
(ordered and received from
Westinghouse Electric Company) was received in June of 1970.
2
—
281
Since receipt of the furnace
and transformer, CBQ has experienced
many diffiGulties.
The first was
that the transformer was severely
jarred in shipment, and while
it was
not damaged from that,
it
was
found while examining it,
that the tap changer did not work
satisfactorily.
It took almost five weeks
to
find that it was
the
tap changer which was causing the problem.
After the transformer
was
fixed,
the furnace was installed and first operated on Decem-
ber
21 and
22,
1970.
The furnace was operated ~or three days,
then shut down to make adjustments until the latter part of
January,
1971,
Problems were occurring with
the furnace;
it was
experiencing electrical surges,
the source of which could not be
determined by the Brown Boveri engineers.
Since that time,
the
furnace has operated rather steadily
-
all of March except for
three days,
all of Arpil except for three days,
and all of June,
but for about three days
-
although these have been frustrating,
little breakdowns.
By the middle of February the
two cupolas
were replaced by the electric furnace as the principal source of
heat
in their foundry operation.
In other words, CBQ complied, and
completed their ACER? by the scheduled date of April
15,
1971,
CBQ now believes that during the next six months
(until November
10,
1971)
there may be times when the electric induction furnace may
not work,
and CBQ would like to operate the
two cupolas when and
if such a~breakdown in the electric induction furnace occurs.
It
cites the fact that if this is not allowed,
it will be
a hardship
for its
160 employees.
(Actually, only 140 employees would be
affected by
a short layoff~-the other
20 employees
are supervisory
and clerical, and are salaried;
so they would not be’ affected by
the short layoff,
if one occurs).
The sole question in this case
is whether
to grant the
variance to CBQ to allow them to operate
the
two cupolas during
the next six months if and when the new electric induction
furnace
doesn~twork.
In order to grant
a variance,
the petition
in any
case must prove that compliance with
the law and/or regulations
would impose an “arbitrary or unreasonable hardshiV.
We have
said on many, many occasions that in determining whether such
a
hardship is “arbitiary or unreasonable”, we will employ
a baianc~
ing process,
that is,
the benefit to the petitioner and burden
and benefit to the community
in granting the variance versus
the
detriment to the petitioner and benefit~tothe community in
denying the variance.
We have also said that
the
s.cales
are
weighed heavily in favor of the community interest.
In this
case, one further principle is applicable,
that is, we have
only granted variances, except in extremely unusual cases
such
as
the open burning o~explosive waste
(See ~
dated
February
22,
1971,
PCB7O-ll) where the petitioner ~has a program for
compliance with
the law or the regulations promulgated thereunder.
2
—
282
Such
is
not the case here.
As
the Agency puts it, CBQ is seeking
an “insurance” policy against the breakdown of the electric induc-
tion
furnace.
We do not think that this should be allowed because
the petitioner has had ample time
(since 1968)
to complete
its
program.
All the bugs should be out of the system if due diligence
had been employed.
The surrounding community has suffered long
enough,
and they have
a right,
after three years, to expect that
CBQ
will obey
the
law..
Yes,
there may be
some hardship on some
employees, but if we a~eto have an effective pollution control
program in this state, we must set adequate, achievable deadlines
and stick to them,
We commend CBQ in meeting its ACERP.
They
have shown that
they are
a conscientious
company which
is trying
to solve the severe
air pollution problem of this state.
They
have met
the
date and they should abide by
it.
The petition for variance filed by CBQ
is hereby denied.
This opinion of
the Board constitutes
its findings of
fact
and conclusions of
law.
I, Regina
E.
Ryan, Clerk of the
Board, certify that the
Board has
ap roved the above Opinion and Order
this
~
dày
of
~
1971.
2
—
283