ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

31,

1974

UNION

CARBIDE

CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 73—313

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent,

J.

A.

Lipe, Attorney for Petitioner

Thomas

A.

Cengel, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(By

Mr.

Henss)

Union Carbide Corporation requests variance from certain

of the Illinois Air Pollution Control Regulations

in

the

operation of its coke manufacturing plant at Robinson,

Illinois.

The parties are

in

agreement that we should consider this

action as a request for variance from Rules 103(h) (2),

103(b) (6) (E)

104 and 203(a)

of the Illinois Air Pollution Control Regulations.

The variance was granted by our order of December 20,

1973.

This

opinion gives the rationale for that decision.

A detailed history of

this case

is

found in our interim

opinion of November

8,

1973.

Our

prior

opinion gave the parties

additional time in which

to file additional pleadings,

factual

stipulation

or

written argument.

The parties did file additional

argument J)ut no new evidence

was

submitted nor were there any

amendments to the pleadings.

The facts are as stated in our

November

8,

1973 opinion.

The

Union

Carbide

Plant

manufacturc’~

coke

from petroleum

by~eroducts.

Two

kilns

heated

to

a

temocrature

of

1, 45O~

F.

are

used

to

drive

off

volatile

hydrocarbons

and. water

dunn

the

manufacturing

process.

Particulate

matter

is

also

emitted

duninc

the

manufacturing

prccess

and

is

discharqed

to

~he

atmosphere

through

two

stacks.

If

each

kiln

is.

considered

a

senarate

emission

source,

then

Union

Carbide

will

have

to

meet

a

limitation

of

11.86

lbs,/hr.

or

particulate

matter

for

each

of the

two

kilns

or

a plant total

of

23.72 lbs./hr.

If Petitioner’s

11

—83

---

—2—

two kilns

are adjudged “similar” under Rule 203(a), Petitioner

will be required to meet a total emission rate of 17.2 lbs./hr.

Union Carbide has proposed to install

a control system which

will reduce emissions

to 23.72 lbs./hr.

The proposed system

cannot meet the stricter requirement which the Agency would

impose through “aggregating” the two kilns.

It is our decision that,

in this instance, the theory of

“aggregation” should not be applied and therefore the standard

to

he met under Rule 203(a)

is 23.72

lbs./hr. of particulates.

The old requlations

(Rules and Regulations Governing the

Control of Air Pollution) did not contain any rule “aggregating11

similar

emission sources for the purpose of determining the

total allowable emission.

This

is

a feature which was added

to the Illinois Air Pollution Control Regulations for the first time

in 1972.

In adopting the Rule regarding “similar”

sources,

the

Board said more effective controls are required on the larger

units.

.

.“because of their greater potential for harm.

.

.

Multiple units of the same kind on the same premises were to be

treated as

one “both to prevent circumvention by building several

small

units instead of one large one and because of the practicality

of

applying

a single large control device to a number of small like

sources.”

It is obvious that the intent is to improve the environment

—-

larger units or multiple units.

applicable process weight rate will not actually improve the

environment but instead will cause damage

to the total environment,

we

believe that the aggregation princi’ple should not be applied.

From the record, we find that the settling chamber

--

combustion chamber proposed by Petitioner

environment.

Other systems under discussion cost substantially

more

-—

If a fabric filter system were installed,

4700 tons of

Illinois coal would have to be burned to supply 8.5 million

KWH

annually;

1400 gallons per minute of water would be

required to lower the temperature of the gasses prior to entrance

---

—3—

into the filter; and 33 tons per day of solid material would

have to be disposed of in a landfill.

If an electrostatic

precipitator were installed about 4.3 million

KWH

of electrical

power would be required annually;

this system would produce

33 tons per day of solid material with attendant landfill costs;

and would require an extensive water cooling system.

A wet

scrubber system would require 500 gallons per minute of water

(which could create

a new water pollution problem);

an additional

12.8 million KWH of electrical power annually from the burning

of 7,000 tons of coal;

and disposal of

66 tons per day of wet

filter cake would require

14 acres of land over a five year

period.

When viewed in the light of the additional burden (large

energy consumption,

solid waste disposal.,

and in the case of

the wet scrubber a water pollution problem)

to be placed on the

environment to achieve a minimal reduction of 3.26 lbs./hr. (0.88

per cent)

from each kiln,

the Board cannot find aggregation in

this case to be practical or warranted.

The Agency expressed concern that it might have problems in

application of the principle that similar sources will not be

aggregated when to do so would cause damage to the total environ-

ment.

The Agency conern stems from the possibility that an

Agency employee may be expert in the limited field which is

pertinent to the permit application but might not have the

background

to immediately determine the impact of other possible

environmental problems.

(Rule 103(b) (3)

allows the Agency to

adopt procedures to require data and information in addition to

the standard permit application requirements

in order to insure

that the permit applicant will be in compliance with all applicable

rules and regulations.

Thus,

the Agency already has at hand a

procedure whereby the burden could be clearly placed on any permit

applicant to show that aggregation would cause damage to the total

environment.

In the instant case,

the evidence introduced by Petitioner

convincingly shows:

1.

That aggregation of Petitioner’s sources would force the

construction and operation of additional control equipment costing

millions of dollars.

2.

That this additional equipment would produce a minimal

reduction in air pollution at the plant site

(6.52 lbs./hr.

of

particulates) but would place added burdens on the total environment.

3.

That it would be impractical to aggregate the two emission

sources since it would be done only at great cost and the total

environment would not thereby be enhanced.

11—85

---

—4—

4

Conatrtction o4

two

scperate k~lnscas not done to

c.rcunvent the Regu1~.t~oz~

Construction of a single incinerator-

settlina chamoer for both kilns would not achieve

any

economies of

scale.

3.

It

wou~d

be an unraasonable ‘iardship to require Petitione

to comply

with

thc.

particulate standards prior to installation of

its

control

epapment,

if

that

installation

oroceeds

on

the

16

month

schedule

ending

June

1,

1975.

Tie factual sttuation here

seems

unique.

Our

decision

is

lurit~dto

thc. factual situation

and

the Regulations which are

nqolv,d in this case,

and s’iould not ot regarded as establishing

road pr~cedent.

fl~

the

narrow isste presented to us in this

p-irticular

matter

‘~efind that Union Carbide has carried its burden

ar’. that the principle of aggregation should not be applied.

For

t

-

~h’ttEach case hill be decided on its own ‘nc.rits.

•r.

Dumel...e

¶jc5~~

s.

I, Christt’

1,

Mo~tett,Cleric of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

Ieret*y ce titv ‘he ekove Onniot

-

as flopted th.s

~j(j3”

thty

of

~,

1974

by

a

vote

of

jtoJ

•1~6