ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE
204(f) (1) OF THE ILLINOIS AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
September 4,
1975
)
)
)
)
)
R74-13
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE
BOARD
(by Mr.
Henss):
Edwin Cooper, Inc.
filed a proposal to amend Rule 204(f) (1)
of the Illinois Air Pollution Control Regulations so that the
SO~emission standard would not apply
to Cooper’s hydrogen
sulfide flares.
The proposal would exempt chemical manufacturing
plants from the standard through addition of the following
underlined language:
Rule 204(f) Sulfur Standards and Limitations for Process
Emission Sources
(1)
Si~’lfurDioxide Standards and Limitations
(A) Except as further provided by paragraphs
(f)
(i)(B),
(f)(1)(C),
e~’t~
(f)(1)(D) and
(f)(1)
(E) of this Rule 204, no person shall cause
or allow the emission of sulfur dioxide
into the atmosphere from any process
imission source to exceed 2000 ppm....
(E) Paragraph
(f) (1) (A)
of this Rule 204 shall
not apply to existing hydrog~ensulfide flares
at a chemical manufacturing plant provided:
(i) Said flares are operative on existing
(ii)
batch—type processes; and
The hydrogen sulfide emissicns being
flared are not, at the time of adoption
of this subpart(e), passed through
existing processes designed to remove
sulfur compounds from the flue gasses
as provided in suJparagraph
(D)
above;
anci
(iii)
~I9~
emission of sulfur dioxide into the
atmosphere from said flares does not
exceed 500 pounds per hour and 3500
pounds per eight-hour period;
and
18— 478
—2—
(iv) provided, however, that
if
emissions
controls for said flares become econ-
omically reasonable and technically
feasible the owner/operator of such
hydrogen sulfide flares shall install
such controls.
The proposed amendments and a brief statement of reasons
supporting the proposal were published in Board Newsletter No.
96
dated January 10,
1975.
Public hearings on the proposal were
held in Chicago on May
21,
1975 and Springfield on June 2,
1975.
Participants
in the hearings included the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency and the Illinois Attorney General.
Existing Rule
204(f) (1) was adopted by the Board on April
13,
1972 following extensive public hearings throughout the State.
On this Rule the Board stated:
“The process sources covered by Rule 204(f) will usually
be sulfuric acid plants and sulfur recovery units.
Rook of
American Cyanamid
(R.
976-985), Weber of Monsanto
(R.
1590-
1595)
and Hall of New Jersey Zinc
(Ex.
114, No.
52)
suggested
2000 ppm as
a reasonable level for existing sulfuric acid
plants which could be achieved under normal operating con-
ditions.
A stricter concentration limit would require plant
derating or addition of anxiliary scrubbing systems and has
not been shown to be uniformly necessary to meet air quality
standards.
~3ecausesulfur recovery units in oil refineries
serve as pollution control equipment greatly reducing
emissions of noxious sulfur compounds, existing sulfur
recovery systems are exempted from meeting the 2000 ppm
limit provided
they
are equipped with tall stacks.
Mowers•
(R.
3527-28) indicated that 10,000 ppm was a normal SO2
concentration from such equipment, and the Agency’s calcu—
lations
(Ex.
113—I)
indicate that stack heights of less
than 150 feet will cause ground level concentrations to
exceed the air quality standard.
New sulfur recovery units
will be required to meet the 2000 ppm level, and control
processes are available to bring this about
(Ex. 114, Nos.
3,
162;
Ex.
49),.”
Proponent in this matter, Edwin Cooper,
Inc.,
is
a Delaware
corporation owned by the Burmah Oil Company of Scotland.
Cooper
operates a chemical iranufacturing plant in Sauget, Illinois for
the production of petroleum additive components used in lubri-
cating oils.
Approximately 133 people are employed at the Sauget
plant.
Although Proponent produces
many different chemicals at
this plant,
the proposed amendments affect emissions from the
production of only two products,
zinc dithiophosphate
(ZDP)
and
phosphenate-phenate
(PP)
compounds.
18
—
479
—3—
Both ZDP and PP are marketed nationally and internationally
by Proponent wita the principle market being large oil companies
and independent refineries.
ZDP is utilized as an anti-rust,
anti—wear additive while PP is
a detergent dispersant.
Major
competitor companies producing ZDP and PP using similar tech-
nology include Standard Oil of Indiana, Standard Oil of
California, Standard Oil of New Jersey and the Lubrizol
Corporation.
A smaller competitor, the Elco Corporation,
specializes in these same additives.
Proponent estimates that
it now furnishes about 5
of the international requirements for
such additives.
ZDP and PP ere produced
in 1500 gallon batch reactors in
separate areas of Proponent’s chemical plant.
Certain steps in
the production process are considered to be well known chemical
reactions while others are considered proprietary by Edwin
Cooper.
Five ZDP batch reactors are available for the production
process which utilizes three reactors
in series.
This arrange-
ment allows for a maximum of two “trains” operating at the same
time.
Any or all of the five reactors may be in operation at
the same time but neither of the two “trains” are 3perated at
the same process step during such operation.
A single batch of ZDP requires about eight hours of process
time from start t~finish.
The ZDP reactants, phosphorous
pentasulfide
(P2S5)
and alcohol, produce one mole of hydrogen
sulfide gas (H2~)per mole of P)S5 reacted.
Most of the H2S
is
vented and flared through a 113” stack forming SO2 in the
flaring process.
Assuming complete reaction of
tfie 4400 lbs.
of P2S5/batch,
Edwin Cooper calculates
a theoretical maximum
SO2 emission rate of
316.2. lbs~/hr.for the ZDP process
(R.
252).
PP
is produced in five batch reactors in a separate process
area from the ZDP process during a 27 hour process cycle.
The
reaction chemistry for PP is more complex than that for ZDP.
During the reaction step,
2,154
lbs. of P2S5 react with poly-
butane producing I~7Sas a by—product.
This H2S
is vented and
flared through a l~8’stack forming SO2 in the process.
Using
laboratory data, Edwin Cooper calculates that SO2 emissions from
the PP process amount to 120.5 lbs./hr.
Thus the total
calculated maximum 502 emission rate for the two processes is
436.7 lbs./hr.
A calculated maximum eight hour SO2 emission
rate of 3,335.5
lbs.
is obtained by adding the maximum eight
hour emissions of 2,371.5 lbs. from the ZDP process and 964.0
lbs.
from the PP process
(R.
253).
In Docket No. PCB 72-516 Edwin Cooper sought a variance
from Rule 204(f) (l~for these two process emission sources.
After numerous discussions with the Agency on the variance
18
—
480
—4—
petition, Cooper withdrew the petition in favor of submitting
proposed amendments which are the subject of this proceeding.
The record sho~sthat Cooper and the Agency have discussed
Edwin Cooper’s S32 emission problem since 1971.
Edwin Cooper retained Air Resources Inc. in 1972 to
furnish information and advice on available SO2 control
technology for the ZDP and PP process emissions.
Les
Hardison,
Vice President of Air Resources Inc.,
directed all studies
performed for Edwin Cooper and prepared the substantial
technical reports supporting the proposed amendments.
For Edwin Cooper to meet the 2,000 ppm standard, the
following emissions reduction would have to be achieved
(E.C.
Exhibit
#2)
Reduction
Present SO2
Required to Meet
Emissions
2,000 ppm standard
ZDP only
76,000
97.58
PP only
37,000
94.80
Combined Total
59,000
96.82
Hardison reviewed a large number of possible abatement
techniques durinç~the initial phase of the study.
Most of these
techniques were abandoned due to poor reliability
arid economic
characteristics.
The review ultimately led to the selection
of eight processes or techniques which Hardison thought could
be technically feasible when applied to Edwin Cooper.
Hardison
testified that his review also found that none of the eight
systems selected had ever been applied to processes similar
to that of Edwin Cooper.
Having narrowed the field to eight systems, Hardison pro-
ceeded to investi~jatethe economics of each system.
Because of
inherent differences in the systems, Hardison consulted pub-
lished information relating to construction costs,
system
royalties,
sulfur credits and additional utilies requirements.
In some cases, base estimates for construction had
to be
estimated by the consultant, Air Resources,
Inc.
(R.
23).
MU prepared a “Comparison of Abatement Scheme Costs”
(Edwin Cooper Exhibit #2, Table 25), and later updated the
cost figures for the eight systems
(Edwin Cooper Exhibit
#6)
to reflect May 1975 prices.
A summary reflecting the updated
figures follows:
18—
481
—5—
Costs,
$/Year
Annual
Annual
Total
$/Short Ton
Capital
Operating
Capital
Annual
Sulfur
Cost
1.
Caustic
Scrubbing
241,227
47,351
288,578
737
210,447
(one unit)
2.
Caustic
Scrubbing
241,227
42,187
283,414
723.8
187,496
(two units)
3.
Limestone
Scrubbing
144,236
129,102
273,338
698
513,786
4.
Modified
Claus
118,786
140,622
259,408
663
624,987
5.
Stretford
122,659
79,448
202,107
516
353,100
6.
Rhodia
Cataban
77,953
79,448
157,401
402
353,100
7.
Takahax, Ford
Bacon and Davis
115,195
79,448
194,643
497
353,100
8.
ARI 300
96,182
79,448
176,230
450
353,100
(The reader is directed
to Edwin Cooper Exhibit
2, Table
25 and
Edwin Cooper Exhibit
6
for additional detail on the systems and
cost update quotations.)
Hardison testified that Systems
1 and
2, both caustic scrubbing
systems, could be applied at Proponent’s plant without extensive
pilot work due to their simple and straight forward technology.
Each of the remaining si~:systems would require the installation
of a pilot test unit and extensive field testing to insure
a
workable system that ~ould permit Edwin Cooper to achieve com-
pliance.
Caustic scrubbing, while reasonably applicable to batch type
processes,
is very costly and generates sodium sulfide as
a by-
product, according to Hardison.
The by-product disposal problem
(4,820 lhs./hr.)
and high cost for chemicals detract from the
attractiveness of this
system..
High capital costs and by—product
disposal
(1042 lbs./hr.)
are two of the drawbacks associated with
limestone scrubbing.
Hardison believes the Modified Claus
process
would
offc~rvery serious operating problems for Edwin
Cooper.
The Modified Claus method is amenable to
a continuous
process rather than the cyclical processes used at Edwin Cooper’s
plant.
18
—
482
—6—
Hardison testified that systems
5,
6,
7 and
8 are all
basically wet—scrubbing processes and appear to provide the
most
sound basis for application at the Edwin Cooper plant
(R.
29).
However,
as earlier noted, each would require the
installation of a pilot test unit and extensive field tests.
A pilot test unit, capable of evaluating each of the four
systems could be constructed in such a manner that modifi-
cations suitable to the requirements of each system could be
made.
The test program would require approximately five
months
for design of the pilot plant, development of the test
program and delivery and installation.
Another four months
would be required for the actual testing.
The minimum cost
for such
a testing program would be $50,000
(R.
201).
Installation and operation of any of the eight systems
would cause Edwin
Cooper to incur a higher cost per unit of
~ulfur removed than is now currently experienced by other
industries
(R.
76).
This would be so because of the size and
the cyclical nature of operations at the plant
(R.
44).
Hardison testified that the only new SO2 control system not
evaluated in the 1972 study is the Stauffer Liquid Claus
Process.
He contacted the Stauffer Corporation about the
system and was informed that Stauffer currently offers three
alternative processes, the Power Claus, the Aqua Claus and the
Super Claus.
Stauffer indicated that the Super Claus would
probably be the most applicable of the three processes due
to the high concentration of H2S involved with the Edwin
Cooper plant.
Based upon the information provided, Hardison felt that
the Super Claus process
is similar to the Modified Claus
process except for some additional complicating features.
Although the over—all economic situation would not differ
markedly from Systems
5 through
8, Hardison testified that the
addition of combustion equipment for the Super Claus process
would tend to make the process more difficult to operate and
control.
He added that Stauffer informed him that capital
costs for the Stretford Process
(System
5) would be on the
order of $500,000 instead of the $350,000 figure previously
reported.
During this study, Hardison also performed dispersion
calculations
in order to determine the maximum one—hour ground
level concentration.
According to these calculations the maximum
concentration would be 0.344 ppm based on
30 minute averaging
times.
(The Illinois standard is
0.42 ppm.)
In arriving at this
value,
Hardison used
a combination of assumptions which
ordinarily provide calculated ground level values comparable
to actual observations.
However, because the value determined
reflected experience and judgment and would possibly fail to
find support as rigorous calculations,
a sulfur dioxide dis-
persion study was undertaken to determine if the value would be
18
—
483
—7—
substantiated by alternative modeling techniques involving
more sophistication and detail.
In the sulfur dioxide dispersion study
(Edwin Cooper
Exhibit #3), emission data pertaining to the two flare stacks
and information derived from the previous study were assembled
and converted into a form suitable for use with a generalized
set of computer based techniques developed by Air Resources.
Weather data from
St. Louis’ Lambert Field for the year 1971
was obtained in computerized form from the Environmental Data
Service.
Topographic data was extracted from applicable U.
S.
G.
S. maps.
In order
to determine the short-term
(1 hour) maximum
concentration, Air Resources programmed its ARI Short—Term
Display Model with “worse condition” factors to produce the
following results
(Edwin Cooper Exhibit
3,
page V-l):
Critical Wind Speed,
MPH
1.75
Critical Stability Class
Ml)
Wind Direction, Degrees
253
Critical Distance Downwind, Ft.
1,520
Maximum Ground-Level Concentration
of SO2
(one-hour average) ppm
0.701
This maximum concentration has a very low probability of
occurrence and is presented as
the worst situation which might
arise.
Additional values were calculatea for the critical
receptor for each combination of wind speed, wind direction
and stability class.
The resulting probability distribution
was then used to establish the maximum value likely to be
reached once per
year.
As shown in Table
3, page V-2 of
Edwin Cooper Exhibit
3,
a one-hour SO2 concentration of 0.41
ppm would not be ex~ect~dto occur over 99.986
of the days in
one year.
ARI next calculated annual average values of concentration
over a grid around the plant site.
These calculations revealed
that a maximum annual SO2 concentration of 0.0064 ppm would
occur at a point northeast of the plant approximately 4,000 ft.
distant.
From these calculations ARI concluded that maximum ground
level concentrations determined by dispersion modeling techniques
were well within both the short-term and long-term federal air
quality standards for SO2.
Hardison testJfied that the basic equation and techniques
used for
the
study would be widely acceptable.
Parameters
used
in
the
study were chosen in order to produce conservative
values.
Although the methods “followed the best procedures
that we could employ at the time”, Hardison undertook additional
studies aimed at improving upon the precision of
the
modeling
results.
18
—
484
—8—
The additional testing involved actual measurements in the
field which were analyzed and compared to the modeling results.
For this study, ARI deployed its mobile ambient air quality
monitoring laboratory to the site.
When Hardison attempted to
locate the mobile laboratory
at the point determined most
likely to experience the highest short-term concentration,
it
was found that the point was located on the edge of
a railroad
track.
A second suitable location was found which necessitated
a second dispersion analysis subsequent to completion of the
field study.
This “Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Study”
(Edwin Cooper
Exhibit
4) was conducted over a thirty day period during
August and Septe:ciber 1974.
A total of 2,788
fifteen minute
average values of SO2 concentration were measured during these
periods.
Other variables monitored included ambient temperature,
wind speed, wind standard deviation and wind direction.
The
fifteen minute average values were correlated with wind
direction and those which could have indicated some contribution
from Edwin Cooper were analyzed and ordered statistically to
produce a cumulative frequency of occurrence plot.
The monitoring study revealed that lower
SO.) concentrations
were observed downwind of Edwin Cooper than modeting had pre-
dicted.
No violations of ~°2 standards were observed during
the observation period.
Concentrations approaching or slightly
exceeding 0.06 ppm were observed during periods when generally
southwesterly winds were experienced.
A power plant and
chemical complex are located southwest of the Edwin Cooper
plant.
However, the study found that none of these background
SO2 sources are likely to be aligned with the Edwin Cooper
flares
to produce high short-term concentrations.
Based upon this study and the second dispersion modeling
program,
Hardison concluded that Edwin Cooper’s emissions did
not have
a significant effect on the air quality of the
St.
Louis metropolitan area
(R.
42).
He felt that the 0.006 ppm
contribution from Edwin Cooper’s flares would be measurable
with sensitive monitoring equipment only to a distance of one
to two miles from the plant
(R.
225).
He
admitted that the
observed
frequency
of
west—southwest
winds
were
lower
during
the
monitoring
study
than
would
be
expected
but
he
did
not
feel
that
this
materially
affected
the
over-all study results.
Hardison testified that
the
combination
of
studies
per-
formed by ARI furnishes
a picture of air quality in the area
that
i” more comprehensive and believable than either technique
could produce alone.
He felt that the comparison of projected
and measured air quality levels
(Edwin Cooper Exhibit 4,
Figure
6)
was valid despite the short
(30 day) monitoring period.
18
—
485
—9—
The acceptability of any air monitoring program, whether
it involves monitoring for one month,
five months or one year,
depends upon seasonal variations in weather and background
concentrations which occurred during the monitoring period
according to Hardison.
A full year’s monitoring may still
lack seasonal variations thus making the data accurate for
only that one year.
Hardison attempted to secure monitoring
data for the area prior to’initiating these studies but was
unable to do so.
For this reason, ARI used the combination
of dispersion modeling and field monitoring.
Although the
Agency concurred in the methodology of ARI’s monitoring program,
some hestiation was expressed over the reliability of pro-
jections based upon 30
days actual monitoring time
(R.
232,
233).
No Agency witnesses presented testimony at either of
the two public hearings.
Subsequent to the hearings,
the
Agency submitted its “Written Submission” consisting of six
attachments.
Ed~inCooper objects
to the submission as being
improper in substance and form.
Attachments A through D
consist of documents relating to air quality in Air Quality
Control Region 70.
Region 70 encompasses the Greater St.
Louis area and consists of
4 counties in Missouri and
7 in
Illinois.
The Edwin Cooper plant is -located in Air Quality
Control Region 70.
The Board finds that Attachments A through
D constitute information bearing upon the issue at hand and
shall be made a part of this record.
Attachment B is
a summary of 1974 SO.~monitoring data
obtained from five locations throughout
tFie Illinois portion
of Region 70.
Violations of the annual standards occurred
at two of the five locations,
E.
St. Louis and Wood River.
E.
St. Louis experienced an annual arithmetic mean
of
0.031
ppm while Wood River experienced
a 0.033 mean value.
Short
term violations
(24 hour and 3 hour standards)
occurred only
at the Wood River site.
Analysis of Attachment D,
a computer print—out of an
emission inventory for the Illinois portion of Region 70,
shows that Edwin Cooper ranks 13th in quantity of 502 emitted
in the Illinois portion of Region
70.
In St. Clair County,
Edwin Cooper emissions constitute 3.25
of the total SO2
emissions.
Edwin Cooper’s SO2 emissions account for 0.34
of the total seven county area SO2 emissions. Madison County,
which includes the Wood River monitoring site,
accounts for
over 50
of the total SO2 emissions in the seven county area.
When compared
with
findings in the ARI studies,
these SO2
emission data strongly support the testimony of Hardison that
Edwin Cooper emissions probably do not significantly affect
18
—
486
—10—
the air quality in the St.
Louis metropolitan area.
Since the
measurable effect of Edwin Cooper’s SO2 emissions diminish
rapidly beyond one mile from the two flares, it is reasonable
to conclude that such emissions make no significant contri-
bution to the SO2 problems in E.
St. Louis and even less to
the Wood River problem 19 miles distant.
Agency review of
ARI studies for Edwin Cooper yield the same conclusion
(R.
301).
Attachment E to the Agency’s “Written Submission” con-
sist of
a letter from L. Schlossberg, Executive Vice President
of Detrex Chemical Industries
Inc.
to Board Member Donald Henss,
dated June 12, 1915.
Detrex is the parent corporation of Elco
Corporation,
a producer of ZDP and a competitor of Edwin Cooper.
Edwin Cooper objects to inclusion of this letter on grounds that
it is not a proper “writte~tsubmission”
in accordance with
Rule 209 of the Board’s Procedural Rules.
Additional objections
are raised as to reLevancy and accuracy of information contained
within the letter.
Rule 209 was designed and included in the Board’s Procedural
Rules
as
a means of securing expert or technical testimony.
It
deals with testimonyduring the course of development of the
record and
is not intended to foreclose the submission of
written material after the last public hearing and prior to the
close of the record.
Rule 210 clearly provides for inclusion of
such material and therefore Attachment E shall be included in
the record.
The Dextrex letter (AttachmentE) was submitted at the
request of the Illinois EPA.
While somewhat vague,
the letter
states that Elco produces ZDP by the batch process on a possibly
smaller volume than does Edwin Cooper.
Flaring of hydrogen
sulfide was practiced until “about 4—5 years
ago” at which
time a caustic scrubbing system was installed.
Attempts by
Edwin Cooper to obtain additional information directly from
Elco were apparencly unsuccessful.
Edwin Cooper claims that
files of the Cincinnati Air Pollution Control Board reveal
virtually no information about its competitor,
Elco, except
that the scrubbing system was installed in 1973.
Attachment F consists of
a one page memorandum from a
secretary to the Agency attorney regarding a telephone conver-
sation with Edwin Cooper’s attorney.
This Attachment also
qualifies for inclusion in the record pursuant to Rule 210.
Edwin Cooper’s objection to Attachments E and F of the Agency’s
“Written Submission”
is denied.
18
—
487
—11—
None of the parties
in this matter are aware of any other
process emission sources in Illinois that will be affected by
the proposed amendments
(R.
42, 116, 302).
Although Edwin
Cooper’s calculated maximum one hour emission rate is 436.7
lbs.,
the upper one hour limit proposed is 500 lbs./hr.
Donald
Coons,
Vice President of Edwin Cooper, testified that Edwin
Cooper seeks the 509 lbs./hr. limit as a safety factor primarily
because of inaccuracies in stack gas testing equipment
(R.
118).
Hardison testified that 500 lbs./hr. provides “a reasonable amount
of lee-way over the theoretical maximum number”
(R.
228).
He
felt that the eight hour emission value of 3500 lbs. would place
Edwin Cooper “uncomfortably close” to the calculated maximum
emission rate.
If the proposed amendments are not adopted, Edwin Cooper
will probably shut down the ZDP and PP production facilities.
The testimony indicates that these two products will earn a
profit for the company of $118,000 in 1975..
Profits from ZDP
and PP averaged $266,000 per year for 1972
—
1974, but this
average was greatly enhanced by an unusually profitable 1974
(See Exhibit 7).
The 1974 profits are substantially higher
than for years preceeding and following.
The 1974 profit
is
based in part upon factors such
as.r temporary increase in pro-
duction to supply needs
of a competitor which had experienced
an explosion and for inventory buildup by Cooper customers,
sale of old low-cost inventory at current escalating prices.
Donald Coons testified that he had compared the total
annual cost for ,the least expensive of the eight systems
(the
Rhodia Catabah system)
to the annual profits obtained from the
ZDP and PP processes.
He concluded that it would be uneconomical
for Edwin Cooper to install even the least costly control system.
Proponent’s Manufacturing Manager,
Bill Corlew,
testified that
because of impact on profits, he would not recommend the capital
investment for SO2 control.
Rather than install such controls
Corlew would recommend that the Edwin Cooper Company forego the
production of ZDP and PP.
In that event, Cooper would purchase
from competitors such amounts of ZDP and PP
as the Company
required for its packaged goods.
Employment for approximately
20 plant workers would be terminated by such a decision.
Another
B to 10 contract employees would also be affected by this decision.
During cross examination of Donald Coons the Agency sought to
obtain over-all profit figures of Edwin Cooper beyond that pro-
vided in direct testimony.
Edwin Cooper vigorously objected to
this request by claiming that the figures
for ZDP and PP should
stand by themselves since they are the only production processes
at issue.
In addition, public availability of such confidential
figures could possibly be detrimental
to Edwin Cooper due
to the
extremely competitive cost structure of the chemical products.
18
—
488
—12—
These figures were subsequently prepared and identified
in the record as Edwin Cooper Exhibit A.
In addition, detailed
calculations which had been used in arriving at maximum one-
hour and eight-hour emission rates were provided by Edwin
Cooper to the Board’s staff.,
Both the profit statements and
emission calculations were submitted on condition that Edwin
Cooper be allowed to petition for their nondisclosure pursuant
to Rule 107 of the Board’s Procedural Rules.
Edwin Cooper has
filed
a formal motion for nondisclosure of the profit information.
In response,
the Agency states that while it does not oppose
the Motion for Nondisclosure, lack of opposition should not imply
that the “Agency recommends
in favor of such confidential treat-
ment”.
The Agency believes that a myriad of factors are involved
in determining economic reasonableness and that the Board should
not foreclose consideration of
a “potentially significant factor”
by failing to make the total profit figures
a part of the record.
Having carefully reviewed the documents for which nondisclosure
is sought,
the Board
is of the opinion that public disclosure of
these documents is not required.
Cooper concedes that it has
sufficient financial standing to finance the installation of
controls
if economically reasonable in relation to the profit-
ability of the ZDP and PP operations.
The record absent these
documents provides sufficient economic information about.the
Edwin Cooper operation in our opinion.
Ih addition, the Board
has carefully revi~~wedthe calculation summaries and finds that
testimony concerning emission rates was accurately provided in
the record.
The motion for nondisclosure will be allowed.
At the outset of this proceeding Edwin Cooper stated that it
sought to “correct an oversight in the preparation of the
emission limitations” which occurred during the R7l-23 proceedings.
Edwin Cooper claims that Rule 204(f) (1) (A) was designed
to control
SO2 emissions from existing sulfuric acid plants.
ifl support of
these contentions Edwin Cooper cites the testimony of James Rook
of American Cyanamid Company, Donald Weber of Monsanto, Hall of
New Jersey Zinc and Robert G. Mowers of the Illinois Petroleum
Council regarding economic impact of the Regulation upon sulfuric
acid plants.
Indeed it was such testimony of economic impact that caused
the Board to adopt a 2,000 ppm limitation instead of the earlier
proposed limit of 1500 ppm.
As adopted,
the regulations exempt
from the SO2 standard all existing petroleum and petrochemical
processes designed to remove sulfur compounds from flue gasses.
The Board might have exempted smaller operations with their
smaller emissions,
such as Edwin Cooper, if the R71—23 record
had contained information about these operations.
Nevertheless,
Edwin Cooper is now subject to the standard of Rule 204 (f) (1) (A)
and,
is apparently the only Illinois source of this type so
regulated.
18
—
489
—13—
Edwin Cooper has prepared substantial documentation
showing that control of its emissions is not “necessary to
meet the air quality standards”.
Annual costs for control
methods would, for most years, exceed profits from the
controlled processes, and this could lead to ‘cessation of
these operations
(R.
122).
It has been shown that SO2
emissions from the Edwin Cooper flares do not significantly
affect the long or short-term air quality in Region 70.
The Board concludes from this record that Rule 204(f)
(1) should be amended in the
manner
proposed by Cooper.
The proposed amendment was carefully worked out by the parties
to assure that Edwin Cooper does not release environmentally
excessive amounts of SO2.
The proposed amendment will be
adopted.
This Opinion constitutes
the findings of fact and con-
clusions of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
The Sulfur Standard and Limitations for Process
Emission Sources of the Illinois Air Pollution Control
Regulations be amended as
follows:
Rule 204(f)
Sulfur Standards and Limitations for Process
Emission Sources
(1)
Sulfur Dioxide Standards and Limitations
(A)
Except as
further provided by paragraphs
(f)
(l)(B),
(f)(1)(C),
(f)(1)(D) and
(f)(l) (E)
of this Rule 204, no person
shall, cause or
allow the emission of sulfur dioxide into
the atmosphere from any process emission
source to exceed 2000 ppm....
(E) Paragraph
(f) (1) (A) of this Rule 204 shall
not apply
to existing hydrogen sulfide flares
at a chemical manufacturing plant provided:
(i) Said flares are operative on existing
batch type processes;
and
(ii) The hydrogen sulfide emissions being
flared are not,
at the time of adoption
of this subpart
(E), passed through
existing processes designed to remove
sulfur compounds from the flue gasses
as provided in subparagraph
(D)
above; and
18
—
490
—14—
(iii)
The
emission
of
sulfur
dioxide
into
the atmosphere from said flares does
not exceed 500 pounds per hour and
3500 pounds per eight-hour period; and
(iv) provided, however, that if emission
controls for said flares become econ-
omically reasonable and technically
feasible the owner/operator of such
hydrogen sulfide flares shall install
such controls.
2.
Edwin Cooper Exhibit A
(a listing of overall
company profits of Edwin Cooper, inc.)
shall be designated
“not subject to disclosure” and shall be retained in the
records of the Illinois Pollution Control Board under the
provisions of Procedural Rule 107.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify
thea abqve Opinion and Order was adopted
the _________day Of~~~j
1975 by
a vote of
___________
~inoisPollutiontro1B~rd
18
—
491
