ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    3uly
    26, 1973
    INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    PCB 72—321
    v.
    )
    PCB 73—176
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    Alan I.
    Becker on behalf of Petitioner;
    James Rubin, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Seaman):
    On April
    30,
    1973,
    Petitioner,
    International Harvester
    Company,
    the operator of an integrated steel mill in Chicago,
    County of Cook,
    Illinois,
    filed a Petition requesting variance
    for the operation of the following facilities
    in
    a manner
    which would otherwise violate the indicated regulations:
    a)
    For the stacks on #3 battery
    front Rule 202(b) (onacity)
    of
    the Rules and Regulations of the Pollution Control Board
    (hereinafter PCB Rules).
    b)
    For the lids on
    #3 battery from Rule 203(d) (6) (B) (i) (aa)
    of the PCB Rules
    (lid replacement within 20 seconds).
    c)
    For charging on batteries #3 and #4 from Rule 203(d) (6) (B) (1) (bb)
    of the PCB Rules
    (installation of automated negative pressure
    charging or its equivalent by December 31, 1973).
    d)
    For pushing and quenching on batteries
    #3 and #4 from Rule
    203(d) (6) (B) (i) (bb)
    of the PCB Rules
    (installation of
    enclosed pushing and quenching system or equivalent by
    December 31,
    1974).
    e)
    For coke oven doors on batteries
    #3 and #4 from Rule 203(d)
    (6) (B) (iv) (aa)
    of the P03 Rules
    (door leakage opacity
    limitations)
    8
    595

    —2—
    Although regulations requiring automated negative pressure
    charging systems and enclosed pushing and quenching systems are
    not effective until December
    31,
    1973,
    and December
    31, 1974,
    respectively,
    a compliance plan
    and project completion schedule
    leading to compliance by
    the specified date is necessary in order
    to obtain an operating permit.
    Therefore,
    Petitioner also needs
    a Variance from Rule 104 of
    the PCB Rules,
    in order to obtain an
    operating permit.
    Agency investigators visited Petitioner’s facility on May
    9
    and
    10,
    1973 and on many occasions prior thereto.
    During the
    May
    9,
    1973 inspection, several instances of allegedly faulty
    coke oven operation were noted.
    A further inspection was con-
    ducted on June 12,
    1973.
    Petitioner’s coke plant consists of two batteries of
    Wilputte by-product coke ovens.
    #3 Battery contains 67 ovens
    installed in 1952 and 1956 with
    a capacity of 15.6
    tons of coal
    per oven.
    #4 battery contains 45 ovens installed in 1968, with
    a
    capacity of 27.8 tons of coal per oven.
    Both batteries are
    charged from larry—cars through topside lids.
    The lids on #3
    Battery are removed and replaced manually by Petitioner’s
    employees.
    The lids on
    #4 Battery are removed and replaced by
    magnetic lid—lifters.
    #4
    Battery is also equiped with
    a
    disintegrator-type wet scrubber which, however, has experienced
    operational difficulties.
    The coking process inherently produces large amounts of
    gases and smoke,
    95
    of which are allegedly captured by the by-
    product system and used for various purposes.
    The gases which
    are not captured in the by-product plant create the coke oven
    emission problem.
    These emissions result from minute imperfections
    in the seal of the coke-oven door.
    Additional emissions occur
    during the pushing operation and some leakage is emitted from
    the stack of the
    #3 Battery.
    It
    is apparent from the Petition that Petitioner is well
    aware of its emissions problem and has already taken substantial
    steps toward compliance.
    Also contained in the Petition is a
    lengthy and detailed description of additional measures Petitioner
    pledges to take in order to achieve total compliance.
    It is noted
    that the Agency is in substantial agreement with the remedial
    procedures submitted by the Petitioner for this Board1s approval
    and recommends
    that the several variances requested be granted
    subject to certain conditions.
    This Opinion constitutes the
    findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Board.
    8
    596

    —3—
    IT
    IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that variances
    for the equipment enumerated on page
    1 of this Opinion be granted
    for
    a period of one year from the date of this Order unless other-
    wise provided, subject to the conditions specified below:
    A)
    1)
    For the stacks on
    #3 battery from Rule
    202(b)
    of the
    P03 Rules;
    2)
    For the lids on
    #3 battery from Rule 203 (d) (6) (B) (I) (aa)
    of the PCB Rules;
    3)
    For charging operations on batteries #3 and #4 from Rule
    203(d) (6) (B) (i) (bb)
    of the PCB Rules until the installa-
    tion of controls;
    4)
    For pushing and quenching operations
    on batteries
    #3 and
    #4 from Rule 203(d) (6) (B) (ii) (bb)
    of the PCB Rules;
    5)
    For coke oven doors on batteries
    #3
    and #4 from Rule
    203
    (d) (6) (B) (iv) (aa)
    of the P03 Rules;
    6)
    For charging, pushing and quenching operations on batteries
    #3 and
    #4 from Rule 104 of the PCB Rules to the extent that
    timely compliance with Part
    2 of Chapter
    2 of the PCB Rules
    will not be achieved~
    B)
    I)
    Within
    35 days of this Order, Petitioner
    shall repair the
    grit arrestor
    in the coke quench tower and shall operate
    the tower with an adequate layer of coke on the grit
    arrestor screen.
    2)
    Within 60 days of
    this Order, Petitioner shall
    submit a
    report to the Agency detailing the operating and maintenance
    problems with the scrubber on the
    #4 battery larry car and,
    if
    appropriate,
    set forth
    a program for the repair,
    maintenance and operation of this scrubber.
    3)
    Within 60 days of this Order, Petitioner shall inspect and,
    if necessary,
    clean, replace and repair goosenecks and
    caps,
    liquor flushing nozzles, steam aspirators, and
    combustion port caps on batteries
    #3 and #4.
    4)
    One lidman shall be present at all times on #3 battery and
    #4 battery.
    If necessary to prevent leakage, lids on both
    batteries shall be luted.
    5)
    Petitioner shall maintain at all times one man on each side
    of
    #4 battery and one man on the coke side of
    #3 battery
    to clean doors
    arid jambs.
    Doors and jambs shall be
    inspected and,
    if necessary,
    cleaned after each push.
    8
    597

    6)
    All doors shall be reconditioned at regular intervals.
    Within
    35 days of this Order, Petitioner shall submit
    to
    the Agency for its approval a program for the maintenance
    of all doors on a regular schedule.
    Such program may
    involve an outside contractor
    to do this work on
    a regular
    basis.
    7)
    Petitioner shall replace lids on charging ports of battery
    #4 within
    20 seconds of withdrawal of the charging sleeve
    and shall replace lids on charging ports of battery
    #3
    within 20 seconds of withdrawal of the charging sleeve
    unless prevented by danger to workmen or danger of damage
    to equipment,
    in which case lids shall be replaced as soon
    as possible.
    8)
    On September 30,
    1973,
    and at three month intervals there-
    after, Petitioner shall report to the Agency on its
    investigation of pushing emissions controls and its
    progress in adopting and implementing a pushing emission
    control program.
    9)
    Within
    60 days of this Order, Petitioner shall place in
    effect operating and maintenance work rules for its coke
    ovens approved by the Agency.
    Such rules shall provide,
    among other things,
    for the presence of at least one lid—
    man on each battery,
    the completion of charging operations
    in conformance with subparagraph
    7, supra
    the inspection
    and cleaning of doors and jambs after each push,
    the repair
    and reconditioning of all doors on a regular basis, the
    setting and enforcement of coking times to avoid green
    pushes, the availability
    to the Agency of coking deter-
    minations and actual coking records and the revision of
    the work rules and resubmission for Agency approval when
    coke oven practices are changed or when new or modified
    equipment is installed.
    10)
    Within 35 days of this Order, Petitioner shall agree with
    the Agency on procedures
    for a study of door leakage.
    11)
    Within 35 days of this Order, Petitioner shall agree with
    the Agency on procedures for a study of controlled coking
    times to limit pushing emissions.
    12)
    Beginning on September 30, 1973,
    and every three months
    thereafter, Petitioner shall submit to the Agency a report
    of its progress in implementing the program covered by the
    Order of the Board herein.
    13)
    Within
    35 days of this Order, Petitioner shall furnish a
    form acceptable to the Agency a bond in the amount of $50,000
    to insure the installation of equipment as set forth In the
    Order.
    8— 598

    —5—
    I, Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois
    Pollution Control Board, certify that the above
    Opinion and Order was adopted by the Board on
    the~(o~”~
    day of
    ~
    ,
    1973,
    by a
    voteof~
    to
    ~
    .~
    ~
    //,
    ~
    8
    599

    Back to top