ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December
20, 1973
CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY
CREST CONTAINER
CORP.
PETITIONER
v.
PCB 73-438
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESPONDENT
MR.
PAUL PLUNKETT, ATTORNEY, in behalf of CONTINENTAL CAN-CREST
CONTAINER CORP.
MR. FRED HOPPER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
in behalf of the
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
Mr. Marder)
This action involves a request
for variance filed
by Crest Con-
tainer Corporation (Petitioner) seeking relief from Rule 204 (b)
of
Chapter
2,
Part
II,
of the Regulations of the Pollution Control
Board. More specifically, relief is sought to utilize a pair of new
boilers by burning high sulphur (2.5—3.0) #6 fuel oil. The Agency
has recommended a grant pending certain findings and conditions.
Crest Container Corporation is a division of Continental Can
Company. Crest owns and wishes tovery shortly begin operations of
a new facility located in Shelbyville, Illinois. The facilities will
produce expandable polystyrene containers. Expandable polystyrene
will be transferred from a bead storage area to Petitioner’s molding
machines. At this point steam is applied to the molding machines to
cause expansion and fusion of the descrete beads. The mold is then
cooled and the finished container is eject~ed. The finished item then
proceeds to the printing department (R. 68). The printing process
utilizes an ultra-violet cured ink. This is a high solids ink which
has the advantage of not setting up on standing. Because of this
property pollution due to ink wastes will not exist (R. 84),
Petitioner has spent approximately $1.75 million on its facili-
ties at Shelbyvilie. Plans for expansion call for considerably more
investment (R, 63). Initial plans call for a sales volume in the
neighborhood of $5,000,000 with additional expansion planned, Init-
ial plans call for an annual payroll of $800,000 and a staff of 100
10
—
465
—2—
people CR. 100). This point is of great importance in this action
as will be covered in detail when this opinion deals with the poten-
tial hardship.
Steam generation for the abovementioned process will be from two
Cleaver Brooks 500 H.P. boilers, Generation will be at a rate of
21 MM BTU/HR/boiler for each line (R, 145, 147), It is expected
that initially steam demands will run at about 100 of one boiler,
Testimony was further elicited that an additional boiler will be in-
stalled by June of 1974, which will be used to heat a proposed build-
ing expansion. Due to the fact that this boiler will be used for
space heating, it will not be run until about October of 1974. In
addition, a fourth boiler is being considered in the future, The
subject of this variance petition centers around the fuel to be used
in said boilers. Rule 204 (b) applies to new sulphur dioxide emission
sources with actual heat inputs of smaller than or equal to 250 MM
BTU/hr. The regulation limits emissions to 1.8 pounds of sulphur
dioxide per million BTU of actual heat input,
Petitioner alleges that it is impossible to secure a supply of
#2 or #6 low sulphur fuel oil for its boilers and that it must, in
order to operate, use a high sulphur #6 oil, Mr. Lester Bracken
(Plant Manager at Shelbyville) testified as to Petitioner’s attempts
to secure fuel oil (R. 96, 99)
.
Petitioner alleges that they were
completely turned down on attempts to get #2 fuel oil (See Pet. Ex-
hibit 5). A commitment for 100,000 gallons of low sulphur #6 fuel
oil was made on 7/27/73; however, this commitment fell through be-
cause of unavailability of oil, Attempts to increase gas supplies
also were unsuccessful (Pet. Ex, 5)
.
Mr. Devereaux of Continental
Can Corp. testified that one of the methods investigated by Petit-
ioner was to try and divert fuel oil from other plants in the corp-
orate group; however, no excess reserve was available even by truck
load from Chicago (R, 77). Petitioner alleges that the only fuel
commitment it has been able to secure is for #6 fuel oil at about
a 2 1/2 sulphur content.
Emissions from the subject boilers will be (by Agency calculations)
3.14 lbs/MM BTU, This will result in a
violation of
Rule 204 (b).
As mentioned, Petitioner’s facility is
located in Shelbyville, Ill-
inois. This area is not a
major metropolitan area, and the
effect
on the environment of Petitioner’s emissions will not be great,
Shelbyville is classified as a Priority II Region as defined by Reg-
ulations of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. A Prior-
ity II Region is one in which violations of the Federal Primary
Sulphur Dioxide Standard are not expected.
Two witnesses testified as to the effects on ground level sulphur
dioxide concentrations from Petitioner’s boilers. Mr. D. Jones
(Illinois Institute of Technology engineer) testified that in his
opinion under normal conditions the ground level sulphur dioxide
—3—
should be in the order of 0.01 ppm. (R. 137) It
was witness’s con-
tention that the Agency calculation of a maximum 0.049 ppm.
concen-
tration was based on very unfavorable climatic conditions. Mr. L.
Weitzman (Ill. Environmental Protection Agency) testified (R, 178)
to the results of a modeling calculation he ran. He calculated that
at
2,200 feet downwind from
a 50’ stack the ground level concentra-
tion would be 0.06 ppm. Under unusual conditions the
ground level
sulphur dioxide concentration could reach 0.08 ppm. The Board takes
notice that Mr. Weitzman related that the model used was not strictly
accurate in that several of his parameters did not apply to the exact
conditions at the Shelbyville location.
The primary air quality standard is 0.14 ppm. maximum 24 hr.
con-
centration. The above clearly shows that under no conditions will
Petitioner’s facility approach this limit. It is also important to
note that the Agency upon checking its emission inventory indicates
no
sulphur
dioxide emission sources in the area. The nearest air
monitoring station located 25 miles away shows a 0.01 ppm sulphur
dioxide concentration. From the above it is clear that Petitioner’s
facility will not cause serious environmental harm to the area. How-
ever, the Board hastens to add that Rule 204 (b) was enacted as an
attempt to maintain areas like Shelbyville at a high level of air
quality. It is for this reason that as part of its order the Board
will require that Petitioner diligently pursue every method to ob-
tain
compliance.
It has
long been the policy of the Board
to balance environmental
harm against hardship (Roesch Enamel & Manufacturing Co. vs. Environ-
mental Protection Agency PCB 71-62). This action involves a rather
unique hardship case in that the entire town would suffer if Petit-
ioner were not allowed to operate in the Shelbyville area. Mr. G.
Burrell and Mr. Robert Johnston, both active in community affairs,
testified at length as to the need for industry in the community
(R. 12-31) (R, 31-43). The testimony of these two witnesses centered
around the attempts made by the community to entice industry into the
area, The community was active in securing internal funds for con-
struction of a building which would house an industrial plant. It is
this building which Petitioner occupies. The city has suffered many
setbacks because of industry’s leaving the community. In 1958 a gar-
ment factory left the area at a loss of 70 jobs. In 1967 another fac-
ility leaving cost 50 more jobs, and in 1970 the White Farm Machinery
Corp. closed, putting 650 people out of work, The
abovementioned
building was occupied by a corporation which has since left the area
at a net
loss
of 80 jobs. Mr. R. Aiken of the State of Illinois De-
partment of Business and Economic Development testified that the un-
employment rate in Shelbyville is at 8-10, and that jobs are sorely
needed (R. 90). There is no question that the people of Shelbyville
have worked long and hard to secure industry. The hardship that would
be incurred if Petitioner were not allowed to locate in the area is
very real. It is the Board~s opinion that the hardships far outweigh
the environmental impact of Petitioner~s emissions,
10
—
467
—4—
The Agency in its recommendation points out that Petitioner has
not presented an adequate compliance plan. During hearing, however,
Petitioner did shed some light on the subject. The Board feels that
Petitioner is indeed attempting to investigate the problem and study
the technical and economic feasibility of abatement in ways other
than switching fuel. It is understood that the most convenient method
of compliance would be to secure a supply of low sulphur fuel. It
will be part of the Board’s order that an attempt of this nature be
pursued. The Board is very well aware of the present difficulty of
obtaining low sulphur fuel and fully realizes that Petitioner is not
alone in his plight. It is therefore necessary that Petitioner do
its share in seeking alternate compliance methods. Petitioner has
made an initial attempt in this area. Mr. David Jones testified that
he is an employee of Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. He
further testified that the Institute was retained by Petitioner to
investigate the effects of Petitioner~s emissions on the environment
and to recommend and initiate a program to abate sulphur dioxide em-
issions (R, 132). Mr. Jones further testified that Petitioner should
start making an economic study as soon as possible.
The Board hastens to point out that there are substantial differ-
ences between Petitioner and a major fuel consumer (such as utilities)
One cannot expect a facility of Petitioner’s type to be as far along
on research of sulphur dioxide abatement technology as a major con-
sumer of fuel, The fuel shortage, though predictable, has come upon
many moderate fuel consumers quite suddenly, and planning to meet
their fuel needs while helping to protect the environment is a rela-
tively new field to them. As mentioned, all facilities must do their
share in attempting to abate their problems. In the instant case the
Board feels a viable start has been made.
Messrs. Bowles and Dove, representing the people of Shelbyville,
were allowed to interrogate witnesses at the hearing by the Hearing
Officer. The People of Shelbyville did not petition to intervene in
this matter, as allowed by Sec. 310 of the Procedural Rules. Since
they did not intervene, the Hearing Officer erred by allowing them
the right of parties to examine witnesses. The Board has not found
this to be a fatal defect to granting Petitioner a variance. There
was sufficient testimony elicited by Petitioner for the Board to find
a grant of variance. The testimony elicited by Messrs. Bowles and
Dove is hereby stricken from the record.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1. Petitioner is hereby granted a variance from Rule
204 (b) until one year from the date of this Order,
subject
to the following
conditions:
10
—
468
—5--
A) Petitioner shall continue to diligently
seek low sulphur fuel oil capable of com-
plying with Rule 204 (b).
B) Petitioner shall apply for all necessary
construction and operating permits for the
facility.
C) Petitioner shall diligently pursue its in-
vestigations and if feasible implementation
of a sulphur dioxide abatement program.
D) Petitioner shall file every three months a
written report detailing its progressin re-
gards to conditions (A) and (C) above. Said
report shall be sent to:
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Central Region Coordinator
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the
Board on rh~2C:h cia~of December, 1973, by a vote of 5 to 0.
10
—
469