I~~LINOISPOLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 18, 1975
BORG WARNER CORP.,
YORK DIVISION,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75—167
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(By Mr.
Zeitlin):
This matter first came before
us on a Variance Petition
received April
23,
1975 in which Petitioner Borg Warner
Corporation
(Borg Warner)
requested relief from Rule 204(c) (2) (A)
of the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
Air Pollution Regulations.
PCB Regs.,
Ch.2:
Air Pollution.
In an Interim Order of
May
8,
1975 the Board found that Petition insufficient for
failure to addreA~sthe requirements of the Supreme Court
decision of Train v.
N.R.D.C..,
43 U.S.L.W.
4467
(U.S., April
16,
1975), and ordered that further information be submitted to
correct the deficiency.
An Amended Petition was received
from Borg Warner on June 27,
1975 containing the requested
information.
The Environmental Protection Agency submitted
its Recommendation cn July 28,
1975,
recommending that the
requested Variance be granted.
No hearing was held in this
matter.
The Petition and Amended Petition in this matter
concern Borg Warner’s York Division
(York), which
is
located
near the south edge of Decatur at 625 South Side Drive.
This is a large facility,
(approximately
10 acres under one
roof),
at which 536 employees are engaged in the high volume
manufacture of automotive air conditioning system compressors.
(Both employment and production at the Decatur facility are
down significantly as a result of depressed economic conditions,
especially
in the automotive
industry.)
Another Borg Warner
Division, Marvel Schebler/ Tillotson
(Marvel)
is located on
property adjacent to that occupied by York.
The power plant at York’s Decatur facility consists of
four steam-generating boilers which are used to supply steam
processing and heating purposes.
(Amended Pet., Ex.
4,
p.3).
The primary
fuel for these boilers
is natural
18
—
545
—2—
gas,
for which York has an interruptable contract with
Illinois Power Company.
The boilers are also equipped to
use fuel oil
as
a standby
fuel during periods when Illinois
Power
is unable
to supply natural
gas.
York and Marvel
share a one-million-gallon oil storage
tank to hold what
they consider an adequate supply of oil for such periods of
natural gas unavailability.
The tank presently contains
approximately
800,000 gallons of fuel oil with 1.3
sulfur
content.
Since Rule 204(c) (2) (A) requires that 0.93
sulfur
content oil be used in York’s situation, York
is seeking a
Variance from that Rule to allow the use of the 1.3
oil
presently
in storage during the 1975-1976 heating season.
Such usage of present oil stocks will allow sufficient room
in the storage tank to allow blending with 0.3
sulfur
content oil,
and compliance with Rule 204(c) (2) (A)
by May
31,
1976.
Whenever possible, York uses natural gas as its boiler
fuel.
In
1973,
Illinois Power estimated that it would be
unable
to supply gas on 179 days during the 1973-1974 heating
season.
To deal with this problem, York leased 50 railroad
tank cars and constructed the present 1,000,000 gallon oil
storage
tank.
Since York’s boilers consume approximately
6,000 to 7,000 gallons of oil per day during extended periods
of gas unavailability,
and up to 10,000 gallons on very cold
days,
it was felt that the 1,000,000 gallon tank would
provide storage
sufficient to allow maintenance of a one-
year oil supply.
Expecting significant periods of gas
supply curtailment,
York then apparently obtained whatever
oil was available,
some of which had a sulfur content as
high as 2.5.
During the 1973-1974 heating season,
York’s gas supply
was actually curtailed
on only 42 days,
and only 160,000
gallons of oil were used.
Subsequently,
100,000 gallons of
oil belonging to Marvel were transferred into York’s million—
gallon tank, leaving a combined inventory of 940,000 gallons
at the start of the 1974—1975 heating season.
For the 1974—1975 heating season,
Illinois Power forecasted
79 days of gas supply curtailment.
Based on that forecast,
York estimated that Marvel would use 118,500 gallons during
the 1974-1975 heating season and that York itself would use
553,000 gallons.
This combined usage would have left a
Spring,
1975,
inventory of 268,000 gallons of 1.3
sulfur
content oil, which could easily have blended with low—sulfur
oi.l
to achieve compliance with Rule 204(c) (2) (A).
18
—
546
—3—
During 3.974—1975,
gas
supplies were interrupted less
than was expected, due to a mild winter.
In
addition,
production at York was cut drastically due to the depressed
economy.
The result is that York and Marvel presently have
on hand 800,000 gallons of oil with 1.3
sulfur content.
York and Agency calculations agree that to achieve
compliance with Rule 204
(C)
(2) (A)
the inventory
in the
1,000,000 gallon tank at York must be drawn down
to approximately
630,000 gallons.
This will allow the blending
of
63
of the
present oil, having a 1.3
sulfur content, with 37
of low—
sulfur oil, having a 0.3
sulfur content.
To allow such
blending with present supplies, York asks that it be allowed
to continue
to burn 13
sulfur content fuel oil during gas
supply curtailments until March 31,
1976. After that time
York will force-burn remaining oil,
if necessary,
to reach
the required “blending level” of 630,000 gallons of 1.3
sulfur content oil, and will add 0.3
sulfur content oil
during April and May,
1976,
to achieve compliance by May 31,
1976.
we
feel that york has indeed shown that it would be an
unreasonable financial hardship to require immediate compliance
with Rule 204(c)(2)(A).
Costs of immediate compliance would
probably exceed $135,000, most of which would be unrecoverable.
Before granting this Variance, however, we must examine the
factors
mandated in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of
Train v
N.R.D.C, su~ra.
In response to the Board’s Interim Order of May
8,
1975, York submitted both actual SO2 readings for the Decatur
area
(Ex.
3) and an extensive dispersion model for its SO2
emissions
(Ex.
4).
~‘heactual $02 readings, taken from
Agency data,
indicate that Decatur does not have a problem
with SO2 concentrations,
and the modeling done by York
indicates that future violations of the ambient air quality
standards are improbable.
Further strengthening the conclusions to be reached
from York’s dispersion model for ~
the Agency Recommendation
includes calculations indicating that even un&er very strict
conditions ambient air quality standard violations would not
result from York’s operations.
York’s model used a mean
wind speed of 5,8 meters per second
(rn/second).
Agency
calculations using
1 rn/second and 2~2rn/second,
for stability
classes B and E respectively, showed that no violations of
the
3 or 24 hour air quality standards could be expected.
18
—
547
—4—
Based on these calculations and the actual readings of
so~concentrations for Decatur, we find that there is no
indication York will cause or contribute to any violation of
the national
aJrth~Lentair quality standards.
This finding,
and our finding that
a requirement
of immediate compliance
with Rule 204 (c) (2) (A) would work an unreasonable hardship
on the York Division of Borg Warner,
lead us to the conclusion
that a grant of the requested Variance is justified by the
instant record.
In granting this Variance we shall adopt the conditions
suggested by the Agency in its Recommendation.
We feel that
a performance bond of $10,000 will suffice to assure completion
of York’s compliance plan.
In closing, we note that we do not accept the Agency’s
argument in its Recommendation relating to the Train case,
supra.
The Board’s position on this matter has been stated
before.
See, King—Seeley Co.
v. EPA, PCB 75-159, April 24,
1975.
Further, we reject the Agency’s Recommendation that
a
Variance be given to Borg Warner’s Marvel Division.
Such
a
Variance is neither asked for nor justified in the record
here.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
IT
IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THAT:
1. Petitioner Borg Warner Corporation, York Division,
is granted
a Variance from Rule 204(c) (2) (A) of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution,of
the Pollution Control Board Regulations,
until May
31,
1976 for its facility in Decatur,
Illinois,
subject
to the following conditions:
a.
Petitioner shall submit written notice
from Illinois Power Company of any gas supply
curtailment, within
3 working days after
receiving such notice,
to:
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Control Program Coordinator
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois 627O6
b. Petitioner shall submit notice of the end
of any such curtailment within three working
days,
to the above address.
18
—
548
—5—
c.
By January
1,
1976, Petitioner shall
submit
a report to the above address outlining
the source of 0.3
sulfur-content oil and
its program to blend said oil with existing
supplies of oil to achieve an overall
0.93
sulfur—content oil by May 31, 1976.
d.
During any gas supply curtailment by
Illinois Power Company, Petitioner shall use
only oil from existing supplies.
e.
Within
30 days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall submit a performance bond
in the amount of $10,000
in a form acceptable
to the Environmental Protection Agency,
to
assure completion of the compliance program
outlined in this Opinion and Order, to the
above address.
2.
Within
30 days of the date of this Order,Petitioner
shall submit to the above address
a certification in the
following
form:
I
(We),
________________________
having read and fully understanding the
Opinion and Order of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board in PCB 75-167,
hereby accept
said Order, understanding that such
acceptance renders all terms and conditions
thereto linding and enforceable.
Signed
Title
Date
I, Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opnion and Order
were adopted on the
/~~“i
day of
~
1975 by a
vote of
3-c
Christan L. Moffett,J,~Jrk
Illinois Pollution ~d~rol
Board
18
—
549