ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
26,
1973
BORG-WARNER CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 73—156
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
Joseph
S.
Wright, Jr.,
Attorney
for
Borg-Warner Corporation
Fredric
J.
Entin, Assistant Attorney
General
for the
EPA
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss)
Borg-Warner filed its petition on April
13, 1973 asking for
variance from Rules
103(b) (2),
103(b) (6) (E)
and 104
(operating
permit requirements)
of Chapter
2 of the Illinois Air Pollution
Control Regulations for certain equipment at its Marbon Chemical
Division plant near Ottawa in LaSalle County,
Illinois.
Petitioner’s manufacturing facility is located in a rural
area about 5 miles east of Ottawa.
The plant currently produces
about 220 million lbs.
of ABS
(acrylonitrile—butadiene-styrene)
resin per year.
Borg-Warner plans to boost the plant output to
270 million lbs. per year.
ABS is
a thermal plastic material
used
in
the manufacture of
a wide range of commercial and
domestic appliances which require a light but durable material.
The
facility,
also known as the Linmar plant, produces the ABS
resin
by a polymerization and resin drying process.
Two rotary resin drying units designated as dryers
“A” and
“B”
are currently in operation.
Construction on dryer “C”,
a larger
dryer capable of doubling Petitioner’s production capability,
commenced sometime prior to April
14,
1972,
the effective date of
Air Pollution Regulations.
All three dryers will emit styrene
and acrylonitrile in
a monomeric form in addition to particulate
matter.
The particulate matter is controlled by a bag filter
system rated at nearly 100
efficiency and is not an issue in
this proceeding.
Each
of the two smaller dryers discharge about
47,000 cubic feet of
air
per minute while the larger dryer will
discharge about 50,000 cubic feet
of
air
per minute.
The discharged
air allegedly contains approximately
100
ppm of the unreacted
acrylonitrile and
styrene
monomers, which Petitioner estimates
results
in
organic
material
emissions of
47
lbs.
per hour from
each
of
the
two
smaller
dryers and 56 lbs.
per hour from the
larger dryer. The
plant discharge with concentration of that level
8—
611
—2—
would be considered toxic.
In the original petition, Petitioner said it needed a
variance
for
all three dryers as
a result of the Agency’s
refusal to grant operating permits.
The EPA denied operating
permits because of Petitioner’s
failure to include a compliance
plan detailing the date and method proposed to bring the organic
emissions into compliance with Rule 205(f).
Rule
205(f)
limits
Petitioner’s organic emissions to
8 lbs. per hour with compliance
required by December 31,
1973.
Five days before the public hearing on June
26,
1973,
Petitioner filed without leave an Amended Petition for Variance
requesting relief from Rule 205(f)
in addition to those Rules
cited in the original petition.
The Agency immediately filed a
Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Petition claiming that in asking
for variance from Rule
205 (f)
,
Petitioner had substantially
altered the nature of the original petition and that such alter-
ation prevented the Agency from conducting any investigation,
making any recommendation,
or engaging in discovery into the
issues of the Amended Petition.
In Part V of
the original petition, we note Petitioner’s
allegation that the Agency had returned an operating permit
application for one of the small dryers because
it was not
accompanied by a compliance plan showing modifications Petitioner
would make
in order to comply with Rule 205(f)
by December 31,
1973.
In Part VII of the original petition, Petitioner specifically
states that compliance with Rule 205(f)
by the date required was
“neither technically feasible nor economically reasonable”.
Another reference to Rule
205(f)
is
found in Part IX of the original
petition.
In view of Petitioner’s
three specific references
to
Rule 205(f)
and the Agency’s use of said Rule in denying at least
one operating permit, we do not believe the Agency can claim
surprise due to the inclusion of Rule
205(f)
in the Amended
Petition.
Accordingly,
the Agency’s Motion to Dismiss
is denied.
During
1970, Borg-Warner began studies to develop techniques
for more efficient use of raw materials by increasing the degree
of polymerization,
thereby reducing unreacted monomers in plant
emissions.
The monomer, when emitted to the atmosphere reacts
with other substances
to cause air pollution.
A Connecticut
firm was commissioned
to recommend abatement techniques for the
Linmar plant.
The consulting firm submitted 13 proposals involving
10 different techniques.
Borg—Warner rejected 9 of the schemes
outright for lack of commercial
feasibility, fouling of equipment
due to polymerization, creation of other waste disposal problems
8—612
-.3—
and excessively high energy requirements.
The remaining
4
ideas
also entail the consumption of large amounts of energy
and are in the “doubtful”
category.
Petitioner filed an
affidavit which appears to verify its claim that the proposals
called for undue fuel and energy consumption.
Marbon technical personnel developed two major approaches
to solving the emission problem:
1.
Using mass transfer techniques
to remove
free hydrocarbons for recycling to the
reaction step.
2.
Adjusting the reaction to achieve a more
complete conversion of monomer to polymer.
After extensive testing involving as many as ten technical people
and over $250,000, method
1 was found to lack the efficiency re-
quired to comply with Rule 205(f).
Research and technical studies
have now focused on method
2 as the only feasible and economically
reasonable method of compliance.
Expenses of about $60,000 have
been incurred thus far with another $40,000 projected to the end
of 1973.
Technical manpower consumption for method
2 will reportedly
total
4 manyears.
In the Amended Petition, Borg-Warner stated that the Environ-
mental Protection Agency had granted operating permits for dryers
B and C.
The Agency acknowledged granting a permit for dryer A
without the submission of
a compliance plan.
Such permit issuance
is contrary to the provisions of Rule 103 (b) (6) (E)
and we have not
been told by the Agency why the permit was issued.
Petitioner’s
Exhibit
3,
an operating permit issued on June
7,
1973 for “Source
#1 Drying and Screening”,
is the only document in the record which
shows the granting of a permit.
To add to the confusion on this
matter, Petitioner testified that the relief sought for dryer C
was moot since the Agency had issued a permit for operation of
that particular dryer.
Then, the Agency contended that it had
issued permits for two of the dryers in question but failed to
state which two.
The record
is confusing as to which dryers now
have permits and whether compliance plans were submitted as required
for whatever permits have been issued.
Petitioner estimates that compliance with Rule 205(f) will be
achieved by October
1,
1974.
Equipment designed for the control
of emissions from dryer
C is scheduled to be installed and operating
by October 15,
1973,
Technical personnel will then evaluate the
new equipment for about
45 days in order to
provide
engineering
8
—
613
—4—
data required to design control equipment for dryers A and B.
Petitioner states
that in its effort
to achieve compliance
in
the shortest possible time,
a decision was made to eliminate
pilot scale testing
arid to install the new equipment on the
basis of successful bench scale testing only.
This move is
said to have speeded compliance by about
9 months.
Petitioner claims that denial of
a variance may mean a
large layoff of personnel at both the Linmar plant and several
consumer plants who rely on
the Linmar plant for a significant
portion
of
their ABS supply.
Supporting affidavits from each
of the consumer plants confirmed the imminence of
a layoff.
Petitioner also claims that current production
is running 75
days behind purchase requests.
The Environmental Protection Agency recommended denial of
the original petition for variance.
A recommendation on the
Amended Petition has not been filed.
The Agency refers
to the
highly toxic nature of acrylonitrile in concentrations greater
than
20 ppm
(40 hour industrial standard)
and states that
Petitioner
failed to report the acrylonitrile concentration in
its emissions.
Petitioner introduced partial results of
a dispersion
analysis performed
by
Air Resource,
Inc.
(Petitioner Exhibit #8).
The
Exhibit
purriorts
to
show
that
the
nearest
house
to
the
plant
could expect to enounter 1.04 ppm acrylonitrile when
the
wind
carries plant emissions in that direction and could expect an
annual average concentration of 0.00092 ppm acrylonitrile.
The
dispersion analysis also revealed that there was a 50
possibility
that there would be
a sufficient concentration of styrene to
enable odor detection over
a
1 hour period once a year under the
worst wind conditions.
Neither Petitioner nor the Agency
reported
receiving odor complaints from neighbors of the Linmar plant.
The Agency argues that at least three alternatives have not
been fully analyzed and shown to be unfeasible.
These are:
1.
Freeze—out
2.
Liquid
scrubbing
3.
Activated carbon absorption
(Fluidized bed absorption on activated carbon was one of the
methods
recommended by the Connecticut firm and listed by Petitioner
as
“recommended
for
further
study”.)
The
Agency
further
argues
that
process
control
methods
other
than
those
cited
by
Petitioner
are
possibly
available
but
have
not
been
thoroughly
investigated.
The
Agency
is
concerned that
the
modifications
contemplated
by
Petitioner
might
fail
to
provide
a
feasible
control
scheme
thus
delaying
compliance
beyond
October
1,
1974.
8—614
—5—
Although the evidence indicates that Petitioner’s emissions
will probably not constitute
a
toxic hazard or
odor nuisance to
its neighbors,
the emissions must nevertheless be controlled
because of the photochemically reactive nature of the styrene
and acrylonitrile.
Petitioner clearly requires a variance if
it is to continue to operate and supply its customers with a
chemical said to be in short supply.
We need more information before we can grant
a variance for
one year.
The record will support a short term variance while
the parties prepare additional information for us.
We grant a
variance from the operating permit requirements until October
15,
1973.
Since compliance with Rule
205(f)
is not required until
December 31,
1973 no variance will be granted from that Rule at
this time.
Petitioner shall by Septenther
20, 1973 provide the
Board and the EPA with information pertinent to the control
methods suggested in the EPA Recommendation.
The Agency shall
have 15 days following the receipt of that information to file
its final recommendation.
The parties
shall cooperate in in-
forming the Board which dryers have permits and the duration of
such permits.
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Board that:
1.
Borg—Warner Corporation is granted variance from
Rules 103(b) (2),
103(B) (6) (E)
and 104 of Chapter
2 of the Illinois Air Pollution Control Regulations
until October 15,
1973 for the operation of dryers
A, B and C at Petitioner’s Marbon Division plant
near Ottawa,
Illinois.
2.
Petitioner shall review all emission control
methods listed in paragraphs
9(b) and 9(c)
of
the Environmental Protection Agency’s Recommendation
and shall report to the Board and the EPA regarding
the Recommendation.
Such report shall contain
pertinent information sufficient
to determine the
feasibility and
reasonableness of each method and
shall be submitted no later than September 20,
1973.
Petitioner also in the report shall submit a survey
of literature relating to health effects of acryloni-
trile in concentrations.established by the dispersion
analysis,
and a statement of the photochemical effects
expected from discharges
of Petitioner’s plant.
8—615
—6—
3.
The Agency shall
submit its final Recommendation
within
15
days
after
receiving
the
Borg-Warner
report.
4.
The Board retains jurisdiction of
this matter
for such other and further Orders as may be
appropriate.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted
this
26th day of July,
1973 by a vote of
4
to
0
8—616