ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

22,

1978

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS~

and ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Complainants,

v

)

PCB

76—310

INTERLAKE,

INCORPORATED,

Respondent,

-

and

-

INTERLAKE,

INCORPORATED,

Petitioner,

v.

PCB 77-44

CONSOLIDATED

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE

BOARD

(by Mr. Goodr~):

This matter is before the Board as

a consolidation of an er~~

forcement action against Interiake,

Incorporated

(Interlake)

filed

December

3,

1976

(PCB 76~310) and Interlake’s subsequent counter-

claim for variance filed February 10,

1977.

The counterclaim was

accepted by the Board as a petition for variance, docketed as

PCB 77-44 and consolidated with PCB 76-310 by Order of the Board

April

15,

1977.

The complaint

in

PCB 76—310 alleges violation of

Rules

203(d) (2) and 206(d)

of Chapter

2 which regulate the emis-

sion of particulates and carbon monoxide, respectfully and Section

9(a)

of the Act.

The petition seeks variance from this rule as

well as

from Rules 104,

202(b) (opacity)

and 206(d) (Carbon

Monoxide).

The subject of these proceedings

is Interlake’s sinter plant,

which is part of an integrated steel production

facility in

southern Chicago.

The sinter plant processes 138 tons/hr. of

30

—

471

---

2~

steel production waste material for recycling and reuse

in blast

furnace ironmaking~

The major sources of pollutants

from this

plant are the windbox end stacks, which have a total airflow of

320,000 cfm~

Emission of Co is

in the range of 3990-4450

ppm,

which

is

well

in excess of

the

200

ppm standard

in Rule

206(d).

Emission of

particulates

is

in the range

of

75~225

lbs~/hr, Rule

203(d) (2)

limits these stacks to 45~24lbs~/hr~

based

on a process

weight

rate of 138 tons/hr~

Over the last five years Interlake has installed emission

control

equipment at a cost of $l~5million.

This equipment in~

cludes a

“wet” Peabody scrubber for the breaker end stack and

multicyclone and CVX cleaning devices

for the

windbox

end

stacks,

The

CVX

devices include an electrostatic

precipitator

and moisture

eliminator,

The equipment for the windbox end stacks has not been

sufficient

to achieve compliance with the Rule 203(d) (2)

standards

for

particulates~

With regard to CO emissions,

Interlake

contends

that

compliance

is not economically feasible and is currently

seeking a

rule

modification

(R78-l),

In

its

initial recommendation, the

Agency

favored

denial of

the variance

for lack of an adequate compliance program for par~’

ticulates

and CO,

The Agency withdrew its

objection

in

an amended

recommendation filed January 24,

1978,

as

part

of

a

joint

stipu~

lation of fact and settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement

contemplates

dismissal of the complaint against Interlake and the

granting of a

variance from Rules

104,

202(b),

203(d) (2)

and 206(d)

until July

1,

1979,

The variance would be conditioned upon comple~

tion by

Interlake

of

various

improvements

in its emission control

systems by

that

date or,

in the alternative,

closing down opera~

tion of the sinter plant.

The Board reiterates

its long standing position that stipu~

lations, except as

to facts,

are inappropriate in a variance pro~

ceeding.

See ~

Mot

roUonv,

EPA, PCB

76~205,

Such

a stipulation contradicts the intent

of

the

Act which

grants

the

Board

sole

authority

to

determine

whether

the

requisite

arbitrary

and

unreasonable hardship exists for the granting of

a variance.

In

this

case

Interlake has expended $1.5 million

on

control equip~

ment and

is

still unable to meet the particulate emission stan&’

ards.

In addition, Interlake~seconomic capability for meeting

CO

emission standards is currently the subject

of

a

proposed rule

modification.

In light of these factors,

requiring

compliance at

the

present

time would be arbitrary and unreasonable,

We accept

the

Agency~s

recommendation

that a variance

be granted

for one

year.

The

compliance

program

agreed

to

by

both

parties

in the

stipulated

settlement

agreement

will be

treated

as

a

recommendation

for

conditions

to

be

attached

to a variance.

The Board accepts

30

—

472

---

the recommendation and grants the variance subject to the

conditions

enumerated in the Board~sOrder.

This Opinion

constitutes the findings

of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this

matter.

It is the Order of the

Pollution

Control Board that:

1)

The enforcement action against Interlake,

Incorpo-

rated in PCB 76-310 be dismissed

with prejudice.

2)

The petition

for variance in PCB 77-44

from Rules

104,

202(b),

203(d)

(2),

and

206(d)

of Chapter

2

of the Regulations be

granted

until

July

1,

1979

subject to the following conditions:

a)

Interlake shall complete installation

of

additional water or moisture capture

devices and electrical equipment

and

adjustment of electrostatics

on each

CVX

unit by February

1,

1979.

b)

Interlake

shall

complete

installation

of

a

water

recycle system

with

water

treatment by July

1, 19~9,

c)

Interlake shall post a $25,000

performance

bond to secure performance of these im-

provements.

d)

Interlake shall shut

down

its

sinter

plant on July

1,

1979 if

compliance

with

Rule

203(d) (2)

is not achieved.

e)

Interlake shall

complete replacement

of

the impeller on the breaker

box

fan and

the

moisture

eliminator

on

the breaker box Peabody scrubber by

June

1,

1978.

f)

Interlake shall

provide the Agency

with data on particulate emissions

from the breaker stack by June

1,

1978.

---

—4—

3)

Within 45 days of the adoption of this Order,

Interlake,

Incorporated shall execute and

forward

to both the

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency,

2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois

62706 and the Pollution

Control

Board a Certification

of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to all

terms

and conditions of this Order.

The

45 day period

shall be held in abeyance during any period this

matter is being appealed.

The form of said certi-

CERTIFICATION

I

(We),

having read

and

fully

understanding the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board

in PCB 76-310 hereby accept said Order and agree to be bound

by

SIGNED_____________________

TITLE______________________

DATE__________________________

Mr. Durnelle concurs.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

ce~tify

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

werea~oPtedonthe~4±da~

~

1978 by a

vote

Christan L. Moff~) Clerk

Illinois Pol1uti~hControl

Board

30

—