ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May
    29, 1975
    STAG BREWERY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 75-27
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Dr. Odell)
    On February 10,
    1975,
    the
    Stag Brewery, a Division of
    Carling Brewery Company, Inc.,
    filed a Petition For Variance
    with the Illinois Pollution Control Board
    (Board).
    Petitioner
    requested a one-year variance from Rules 203 (g) (1) (B) and 204
    (C)
    (1) (A)
    of the Air Pollution Regulations
    (Chapter Two).
    Rule
    203(g) (1) (B)
    limits Stag Brewery’s particulate emissions to 0.44
    pound per million BTU’s; Rule 204(c) (1) (A)
    limits SO2 emissions
    to 1.8 pounds per million BTU’s after May 30,
    1975.
    The Brewery
    is located in the City of Belleville, Illinois.
    At the Brewery, the two coal—fired boilers are used through-
    out the year to provide steam for the brewery process,
    to san~tize
    equipment,
    and to heat the buildings during the winter.
    There is
    virtually no emission control equipment on the boilers.
    Twelve
    thousand tons of coal are burned each year.
    This Illinois coal
    has been analyzed as follows:
    Heat Content:
    11,200 BTU’s per pound
    Sulfur Content:
    3.0
    Ash Content:
    8.8
    In 1969, boiler stack tests
    showed emission rates of 0.38 pout’d
    of particulate and 5.1 pounds of SO2 per million BTU input.
    ~\
    -
    though the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency),
    in
    its Recommendation, disputed the relevance of the 1969 data,
    it
    calculated the Brewery emissions as 0.26 pound of particu2at.e
    and 5.09 pounds of 502 per million BTU input.
    Based on the
    Rule 203(g) (1) (B)
    standard,
    the Agency concluded that a variance
    was only required from the SO2 limitation of 1.8 pounds p~-:r
    million BTU under Rule 204 (c) (1) (A).
    The Petitioner based its hardship on the present unavail-
    ability of fuel oil that would enable it to meet the requirements
    of Rule 204 (c) (1) (A).
    A compliance plan submitted to the Agency
    over a year ago, which the Agency approved, showed conversion to
    oil.
    An oil supplier was sought out in the summer of 1974 and
    storage tanks were purchased in the fall
    (Ex.
    3).
    However,
    a
    November 8,
    1974,
    letter from the Federal Energy Administration
    indicated Petitioner could only obtain oil
    ‘1when use of petroleum
    —2—
    products certified by the appropriate State air pollution
    control agency to be essential to meeting the Primary Ambient
    Air Quality Standard of the air quality region in which the
    plant
    is located
    (Ex.
    4).”
    Petitipner requested Agency certi-
    fication in December 1974
    (Ex.
    5).
    An answer to this letter
    has not yet been received.
    Stag Brewery argued that other control methods were not
    available to Petitioner:
    1. High Sulfur Coal Control Devices:
    Methods not yet
    proven.
    2.
    Low Sulfur Coal:
    Not readily available and Petitioner
    does not have the capability to handle the large quantities
    required.
    3.
    Electric Boilers:
    Operating costs would be extremely
    high.
    4.
    Natural Gas:
    Not now available.
    5.
    Low Sulfur Oil:
    Oil allotments are difficult to
    obtain because of the energy shortage.
    The Agency filed its Recommendation on April 24, 1975.
    Included in the Agency information was a submission from
    Petitioner showing the annual costs of various fuels:
    Illinois Coal Without Controls
    $419,500
    Illinois Coal With Controls
    $537,500
    Oil
    (Excluding $300,000 Capital Expense)
    $489,000
    Low Sulfur Coal
    $639,500
    •The Agency discussed the use of low sulfur coal: “Since
    the ash content of western coal is frequently significantly less
    than the coal
    stag
    Brewery now uses,
    it may be more logical to
    assume that using western coal will cause a lower particulate
    emissiOn rate, not a higher particulate emission rate.
    Switch-
    ing
    ~O
    low sulfur coal should be much more expedient than con—
    iierting to oil firing since using low sulfur coal does not re-
    quire any new equipment.
    Furthermore,
    since converting to the
    use of low sulfur coal would cause no additional capital expendi-
    tures
    and oil conversion necessitates a $300,000 capital expendi-
    ture, switching to low sulfur coal does not seem to be a wholly
    unreasonable choice from an economic standpoint.”
    In discussing its lack of response to the Petitioner’s
    request for certification in December,
    1974,
    the Agency stated:
    “At this time it remain,
    unclear what evidence the Federal Energy
    Administration ~euuires
    in the form of a certification from this
    Agency before an ~xception will be granted to allow oil usage.
    From conversations with FEA representatives the Agency believes
    that,
    at the very least,
    t. e FEA will require proof that convert-
    ing to oil usage
    is
    the on y technologically practicable and
    economically feasible mean~of complying with the sulfur dioxide
    —3—
    standard.
    That burden of proof
    is similar to that required by
    the Board in the instant case,
    and it is a burden
    thai” has not
    yet been met by Stag Brewery.”
    The Agency recommended that the variance be denied because
    “The reasons why it has chosen that method
    to
    convert its boilers
    to oil firing
    remain somewhat unclear to the Agency.
    Stag
    Brewery should provide
    a more detailed explanation as to its
    reasons for rejecting the use of low sulfur coal.
    Without such an
    explanation t1~ieAgency cannot agree that the variance,
    as request-
    ed, should be granted.”
    On May 8,
    1975, Stag Brewery waived the requirement of final
    Board action within 90 days as required by Section
    38 of the
    Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
    On May 16, Petitioner filed
    additional information to support its variance request.
    Petitioner
    estimated its annual operating costs as follows:
    Illinois Coal Without Controls
    $446,500
    Oil
    (Excluding $300,000 Capital Expense)
    $499,000
    Low Sulfur Coal
    $666,500
    These figures included maintenance costs not contained in the
    earlier submission to the Agency.
    Petitioner presented figures
    to show that it has been operating at a loss since July 1,
    1973.
    Petitioner argued it would be an ‘unreasonable hardship to require
    conversion
    to western coal because of its present economic con-
    dition.
    Stag Brewery stated further that if its continued un-
    controlled use of Illinois coal was not acceptable, the economics
    Of
    its situation justified that it be given a variance for one
    year while conversion to oil is made.
    Petitioner noted that its
    capital expenditure.of $300,000 for conversion
    to oil could be
    recovered in approximately two years based on the annual operating
    costs with low sulfur western coal.
    We grant the variance until July 31,
    1975.
    Economic reason-
    ableness is only one of the factors 4±atthe Board must consider
    in granting a variance.
    Compliance With the law is the cost of
    doing business.
    However, here Petitioner’s problem is acute and
    some good faith has been shown in attempting
    to develop
    a viable
    compliance plan.
    Since the shortages of fuel oil
    Can
    be expected
    to continue
    (and costs can be expected to increase)
    other.
    techni-
    cally feasible methods to comply with Rule
    204 Cc) (1) (A)
    of
    Chapter Two need to be explored further.
    We are precluded under the facts of
    this case from deciding
    whether a variance is warranted beyond July 31, 1975.
    In Train
    v.
    Natural Resources Defense Council 43 LW 4467
    (April 15,
    1975)
    the
    United States Supreme Court held that states can grant variances
    from their Implementation Plans provided the primary ambient air
    quality standards are not violated.
    No evidence of the levels of
    502 in the area have been submitted in this case.
    Lacking such
    informa’tion, we cannot grant variances beyond July
    31,, 1975.
    —4—
    A short variance is granted to enable the Petitioner to
    prepare
    a firm compliance plan and meet any requirements demand-
    ed under federal law.
    ORDER
    Stag Brewery
    is hereby granted a variance from Rule 204(c)
    (1) (A)
    of Chapter Two from May 31,
    1975,
    to July 31,
    1975,
    in
    order to continue to use its coal fired boilers for its brewing
    operations at its Belleville plant.
    Request~forvariance from
    Rule 203(g) (1) (B)
    is dismissed without prejudice because at this
    time no violation of the standard is occurring.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
    adopted on the~g*~) day of May,
    1975, by
    a vote of
    ~
    -
    Christan L. Mo
    et
    Illinois Pollution ~6~~rol Board
    17
    —
    200

    Back to top