ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October

14,

1971

INDUSTRIAL

CHEMICALS

COMPANY

#71—44

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

 AGENCY

JAMES

 F. LEMNA

 (LEMNA & LEE),

AND

 OWEN RALL

 (PETERSON,

 LOWRY,

RALL,

BARBER

ROSS),

ATTORNEYS

FOR

PETITIONER

FRED

PRILLAMAN,

JOHN

McCREERY

AND

THOMAS

SCHEUNENAN,

ATTORNEYS

FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

OPINION

THE

BOARD

(BY

MR.

LAWTON):

Petition for variance was filed by

U.

S.

 Industrial

Chemicals

Company,

 a Division of National Distillers

 and Chemical Corporation,

for variance

 from the particulate emission limitations contained

 the Rules

 and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution

relative

 to the operation of

 its five coal-fired boilers and

the

operation of

 its sulphuric acid plant.

 An electrostatic precipitator

has been installed

 on one boiler which is presumably

being operated

in conctiance with

 the Reculations,

The petitioner states that it is in the process of installing

electrostatic precipitators

 to control the particulate emissions from

the

 boiler operation pursuant to

 a previous Air Contaminant Emission

Reduction Program

 (Acerp)

 approved by

 the Illinois ~ir Pollution

Control Board and that the

new

 hydration alcohol unit presently under

construction,

 also pursuant to

 a previously

 approved Acerp,

will

suoplant the sulphuric

 acid unit,

 thereby eliminating

 all emissions

from this source.

The Tuscola plant

 of U,

S.

 Industrial Chemicals Company manu-

factures

petrochemical

products

and

chemicals

for

 use both

as

checical

feedstock

and

for

sale.

Among

the

petrochemical

products

manufactured

 are two licuified petroleum gases,

 propane and butane,

s~’ntheticethyl alcohol,

 ethylene, diethyl ether

 and polyethylene resins.

Inorganic chemicals manufactured

 are sulfuric

 and phosphoric

 acid.

The foregoing products

 are manufactured in several interrelated

 units

 all dependent upon

 a 35,000 kilowatt power unit which is

a

prirciary source of air pollution.

 The power plant provides

 approx—

iraately

one-third

the

electricity

used

petitioner,

well

as the heating and motive steam used for refrigeration and gas compres-

sion in the petrochemical

 complex.

 The plant’s fiv,~boilers burn

400,000

 to 500,000

 tons of coal annually,

 and generate

~an

 amount

2

591

of

 steam

equivalent

 to that needed to supply

 a city of 100,000

population with electricity.

The initial operation in the processing chain is the hydro-

carbon recovery

 unit consisting of extraction and fractionation

elements.

Of

 the one—half billion cubic feet of natural gas Pan-

handle Eastern Pipeline Co.

 supplies the plant daily,

2

 is removed

for

 fuel,

 and 8

 is removed by

 the extraction unit for processing

and retention in the form of liquified petroleum gases.

 The re-

maining 90

 is transmitted back

 to Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Com-

pany for uses by its other customers.

 This re—transmitted portion

consists primarily of methane,

 which is suitable as fuel but un-

suitable as chemical feedstock.

 Petitioner~spresent arrangement

with

its

 gas supplier does not allow

 use. of this residual

90

for

fuel burning.

Extraction occurs by contacting the natural gas with

 a cold,

light oil which

 absorbs

 the heavy hydrocarbon components

 of the gas.

The absorption oil is then sent to large absorption towers.

 Heat

is applied to vaporize the desired hydrocarbons, which vapors

are

collected at the top of the towers and condensed

 to recover mixed

hydrocarbons

at

 a rate of

 700 gallons per minute,

 These hydrocarbons,

in

 turn,

 are pumped to the fractionation unit where through distil-

lation,

 the hydrocarbon mixture

 is divided into its components

—-

ethane

 (15-20 Million Cubic Feet per day), propane

 (400,000

 500,000

gallons per day)

 butane

 (100,000

gallons

 per day),

 and gasoline

(25,000 to 30,000 gallons per day)

 About

 million gallons of the

propane and butane

 are stored

 at the plant,

 largely

in

 a limestone

 strata 400 feet underground, for seaspnal sales.

The extracted ethane

 is transferred

as

 a chemical~feedstock

to

the ethylene unit,

 A series of heatuinduced catalytic reactions,

 gas com-

pression and separation converts

 the ethane to ethylene,

 the active

m~terialin the production of all of the petrochemicals produced

at the plant.

 It becomes the feedstock

 for the alcohol unit,

the

diethyl ether unit and

 the polyethylene units.

The alcohol unit, which is

 a mainstay of

U.

 S. Industrial

Chemicals

 Co., currently

 relies on

 the acid ester process for pro-

ducing synthetic ethyl alcohol from ethylene.

 The ethylene is

dissolved in 98,5

 concentrated sulfuric acid to produce ethyl sul-

fates which are then contacted with water in

 a hydrolizer,

 from

which reaction is produced ethyl alcohol, diethyl ether and dilute

sulfuric acid

(50

 concentration)

 The alcohol

 (190 proof;

 50-60

million gallons per year)

and

 the ether

 (5-10 million gallons per

year)

 are purified

 and sold,

 The ether is used for pharmaceuticals

and for chemical solvents and reactants.

The sulfuric acid plant and the phosphoric acid plant

 (now

shut down

 are inextricably related to the production of alcohol and

diethyl ether,The primary purpose of the sulfuric

 acid unit is to supply the

—

592

1,000 tons

 of 98.5

 concentrated sulfuric acid needed daily

 in the

alcohol unit.

 This is done by reconcentrating

 a portion of the 2,000

tons

of

50

 concentrated acid produced in the alcohol unit daily,

and recycling it through the

 alcohol unit,

 The primary purpose of

the phosphoric acid unit is to assist in the disposal of

40

 of the

dilute

acid

generated

the

alcohol

unit.

This

dilute

acid

mixed

with

ground

phosphate

rock

produce

phosphoric

acid

which

marketed

Evaporation

the

water

under

closely

controlled

temperatures

permits

reconcentration

the

“black

acid”

85,

The

remainder

of the concentration,

 up to 98.5,

 is accomplished by adding sulphur

trioxide to the black acid.

Sulphur trioxide production

 (SO3)

 is initiated in the drying

unit by absorbing water vapor from air pumped through

 a “drying tower”.

This dry air is then pumped to a sulphur burner where 10

 of the com-

bustion gases

 is sulphur trioxide,

 The SO3

 is sent to the absorption

towers, large brick—lined vessels containing packing designed to dis-

tribute evenly downflowing concentrated acid and upflowing SO3,

The

SO3 is absorbed and dilute acid is then injected into the towers to

stabilize the concentration at 98,5,

 SO3 vapors leave these two

“black acid” towers and are vented with vapors from

 a third absorption

tower through

 a 200

 foot stack

 to the atmosphere, which emissions are

partially abated by

 “demisters” composed of packing.

 The third ab-

sorption tower produces virgin acid,

 part of which

 is sold and part

of which

 is utilized both in the drying tower for absorbing water vapor

from incoming air and in the acid reconcentration process in the black

acid towers.

 Four hundred tons per day of sulfuric acid are produced

by the reconcentration process and by

 the virgin acid tower,

The

reconcentrated black acid and the unsold virgin acid are stored for

recycle back to the alcohol unit.

The remaining units, which do not appear to be sources

of

emission to the atmosphere,

 are the polyethylene unit which relies for

its feedstock on the ethylene unit and the denaturing unit which

 renders

 the alcohol unpotable.

The foregoing description of the petitioner’s operation is

necessary, both to evaluate the propriety of the variance petition

and the contentions raised by the Environmental Protection ~gency

in opposition to its allowance.

As noted above,

 the petition for variance requests permission

to continue

 the operation of the

 four coal—fired boilers and the re-

sulting

fly

 ash emissions beyond

 the limits prescribed by regulation,

 end~

ing the installation of electrostatic precipitators,the

 installation oE

—

593

which has been approved pursuant

to

 a time schedule contained in an

Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program

 (Acerp)

 granted by the

Illinois Pollution Control Board on August

5,

 1969,

 as will be more

fully described below.

 The variance

 also requests permission to

continue operation of the sulfuric acid unit, pending construction of

a direct hydration industrial alcohol

unit

 presently under construc-

tion,

 completion of which

 is contemplated for March

30,

 1972,

 at which

time the sulphuric acid plant will shut down,

The variance petition alleges the employment of 1,042

employees

 and an annual payroll of $10,800,000.00,

 and that $152,000,000.00

have been invested in “buildings,

 land improvements, pollution con-

trol devices and operating equipment”

 during the last nineteen years,

14,000 tons

 of natural gas

 (520,000,000 cubic feet)

172

 tons of

sulphur,

 270 tons

 of phosphate rock and 1,400

 tons

 of coal

 are used

daily by petitioner in its manufacturing process.

 The ethane,pro-

PanU,I butane and gasoline extracted from the natural gas total

2,040

 tons per day.

 Ethane is converted to ethylene for further

processing

 to ethyl alcohol and polyethylene, propane, butane and

gas

 are sold to commercial distributors

 for heating,

 industrial appli-

cation and motor fuel,

 Sulphur is converted to sulphuric acid used

in the manufacture

 of ethyl alcohol.

 Sulphuric acid used in the

alcohol operation is reacted with phosphate rock to produce fertilizer.

Some high quality sulphuric acid is marketed.

 Coal

 is used to fire

the

five boilers which generate steam

 for in—plant use,

 as well

as

30

of the electric power used by the plant.

 Petitioner represents that

three hydrocarbon double flares are employed for safety reasons,

equipped with smokeless

 flare tips which do not constitute

 a source

of pollution.

 1,5 pounds of uncollected

 fly ash are emitted per

million BTU’s fired from the coal boilers.

 40 mil1igr~amsof parti-

culates

 are emitted from the sulphuric acid unit per cubic foot of

stack gas.

Pursuant to Pollution Control Board Rule 310,

 the Hearing

Officer allowed intervention of the following organizations:

Phillips Petroleum Company

Industrial Water Supply

Eastern Illinois Water Company

Morris Construction Company

Rottman—Hoke Construction Company

Tuscola Chamber

 of Commerce

Ecoff Trucking Company

J.

L.

Allen Company

Quality Wood Products

The events leading up to the present variance petition

 follow:

—

594

On July

14,

 1969,

R.

 H, Coleman, General Manager of Petition-

er, wrote

to

C.

W.

 Klassen, Technical Secretary

 of the

Air

Pollution

Control Board, proposing

 as an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction

Program to control boiler emissions,

 the purchase and installation

on Boiler

 #1, of

 a so-called Anderson Separator and Aerodyne Collec-

tor for completion by June,

 1970, which,

 if proven effective, would

be installed on two additional boilers by June,

 1971 and on the

remaining two boilers by June,

 1972.

 The precise details of this

mechanism are of no current significance because the proposed Acerp

provided as follows:

“Should we

 find

 after our evaluation in the period

January

 15 to June

1970

 that the meChanical separabion

or collection equipment cannot be made to perform to meet

the emission standard,

 an alternate plan will be followed

to bring the No.

 1 Boiler into compliance by June 1971,

two additional boilers by June

 1972,

 and the remaining two

by

June

1973,

This

alternate

plan

takes

into

account

the

long

delivery

time

for

electrostatic

separation

and

collection

equipment

and

the

many

economic

factors

outlined

correspon~nce and discussion.”

This proposed Acerp, including

 the alternative proposal, was approved

by the Illinois Air Pollution Control Board on

August

1969,

Tests

on the Anderson Aerodyne Collector demonstrated that this process

did not bring

 the boiler emissions within the acceptable

 limits,

(R. 349,

 1756),

 and,

 accordingly,

 the company embarked upon the

alternative program, providing

 for the installation of electrostatic

precipitators

 on all boilers,

 in keeping with the

time

schedule

above outlined.

 One precipitator has been installed on Boiler

#1

although continuing implementation of the program appears

 to have

been suspended pending the present proceedings.

 (R,l326-l327)

On August

20,

 1968,

 the petitioner wrote to

 C. W. Klassen,

proposing

Acerp

for

its

sulphuric

acid

plant,

which

provided

for

modification and re-design of its acid distributor in the absorbers

and

for

the

use

i~proved

packing

which

would

provide

better

absorption of the SO

The

program

called

for

completion

October,

 1970.

 (Pet.

Ex.

19)

 This program was approved by

the

Air Pollution Control Board on November

7,

1968

 (Pet.

Ex,

20)

On

September

5,

 1969,

R.

 H. Coleman,

 on behalf of petitioner,

 advised

Mr. Kiassen that

 a direct hydration alcohol plant had been authorized

which would supplant

 the existing sulphuric acid plant used in the

alcohol manufacturing process.

 This program was embodied in an

Acerp proposal dated September

15,

1969

 and provided for shut-down

of the sulphuric

 acid plant during the

 last quarter of

 1971, and

shut—down of the phosphoric

 acid

unit

within

“six

months

one

year

later”.

(Variance

Pet.

Ex.

D)

alternate

the

pre-

viously

 approved program, petitioner proposed installation in the

west black absorber of new acid distributor pans

and

 a new York mesh

demister to replace the saddle-packed demister bed, which together

with improved liquid distribution was anticipated to improve re-

covery of the sulphur

 trioxide,

 This second Acerp was

 approved

by

 the Air Pollution

 Control Board on September

29,

 1969.

 (Variance

Pet.

Ex.

E)

 The record indicates

 that this

 program was

 followed,

The variance petition alleges that while this construction

is

proceeding,

 delays in delivery of major pieces of equipment require

suspending shut-down of the acid unit until the “first quarter of

1972”.

 appears that the phosphoric acid plant

has

 already been

shut down and that at least during the period of the hearing,

the

sulphuric acid plant has operated at levels complying with particulate

emission regulations,

 although variance relative

 to emissions from

this

plant

is

still

sought

pending

completion

the

direct

hydration

unit,

The petitioner asserts that denial of the variance will neces-

sitate complete shut-down of the entire industrial complex,

 resulting

the

unemployment

1,042

employees,

the

loss

of

 a $10,800,000

payroll,

 the foreclosing

of

 a major source of income to the suppliers

of coal, electric power

 and water,

 reduction in the open market of

one-fourth of the industrial alcohol produced in the United States,

 and the elimination

 of 500,000 gallons per day

 of propane

 as well

as large quantities

 of diethyl ether from the open market,

The

Environmental

Protection

Agency

recommends

 that

 the variance

be denied,

 The recommendation contains

 a summary

 of complaints

 received

from

citizens

 in the

 area alleging excessive

 odors,

 smoke, fumes,

observed

damage

metal

surfaces

 and extensive crop damage

as

a

consequence

particulate

and

fume

emissions.

The

position

the

Agency,

both

its

recommendation

and

developed

in~the

course

the proceeding,

 is that

 the variance should be denied for the follow-

ing

reasons:

1,

 Petitioner constitutes

one

 of the largest purchasers

of natural

 gas, which the Agency asserts could be used

in its boiler operation and not only

as

 a source of

supply

for

hydrocarbons

used

its

manufacturing

process;

2.

 Petitioner could purchase low sulphur

coal

and

thereby

reduce

 emissi~~nsof sulphur dioxide;

3,

 Petitioner manufactures commercial fuel which could be

used

its

boilers

thereby

eliminating

the

need

for

coal burning;

4.

That

the

time

schedule

proposed

for

compliance

excessive

and

all

installations

could

made

within

one—year

period;

—

596

5.

 Until such time as the new alcohol hydration plant is

in operation and the sulphuric acid plant shut down,

Petitioner could purchase the sulphuric acid used in

the alcohol process from commercial sources and thereby

eliminate the need for operation of the sulphuric acid

plant

 and its resulting emissions.

Petitioner devoted the major part of its case to meeting the

contentions raised by the Agency as to the availability of alterna-

tive

 fuels,

 the acceleration

 of the time schedule for installation

of the electrostatic precipitators and the desirability of sulphuric

acid

purchases

alternate

its

manufacture.

The unavailability of natural gas

 for fuel purposes

 and the

limitations

imposed

the

Federal

Power

Commission

were

adequately

set forth in the record

 (R.l54—l59),

 and support petitioner’s

position.

 As previously noted, petitioner is required to re—transmit

the

methane

component

 of the natural gas

after

the

 hydrocarbon

stripping

has occurred.

The

record

demonstrates

shortage

 of natural gas

which

 is desperately

needed

 elsewhere

 as in metropolitan areas

where

there is a critical

 need for alternatives to coal burning.

 With re-

gard

to

 the appropriateness

 of burning low sulphur coal,

 some

 amount

of this

 fuel

 is available

 in the western states.

 However,

 its use

would not solve the particulate problem

and

 there has been

no

ade

-

quate proof

of

 a sulphur problem calling for the use of this fuel.

The evidence supports petitioner’s contention that the use of

low

sulphur

coal

would

make

the

electrostatic

precipitators

less

effective for controlling fly ash emissions,

 as presently designed.

Even

 if low sulphur coal was available,

 it would be far more appro-

priate to burn such

 coal in highly populated areas

 such

as

 the Chicago

and

East

St.

Louis

regions,

where

intense

sulphur

dioxide

problems

are

known

exist,

rather

than

relatively

sparsely

populated

areas

where the sulphur dioxide problem is less

 acute.

 Nor does

the

substitution

fuels

manufactured

petitioner

for

coal

appear

a suitable alternative,

 Propane manufactured by petitioner is sold

to Phillips Petroleum Company which,

 in turn,

is

 a major distribu-

tor of this product for home heating and agricultural operations

 .708-—

723).

 Perry E. Goth,

Jr.

testified

that

this

supply

propane

was cut off,

 it would take Phillips

 at least two years

 to establish

a new source.

 Approximately 15,000 homes

 in the immediate area are

served by propane purchased from the Tuscola plant.

 Conversion to oil

burning,

while

not

seriously

advocated

the

Agency,

would

not

appear

to be an appropriate alternative in consideration of the costs neces-

sary

for

such

conversion,

Nor

does

the

record

support

the

Agency’s

assertion

that

the

time

schedule

previously

approved

the

Acerps

could be accelerated.

 Petitioner’s witness

this

respect

testified

programmed

schedule

installation

which

was

 not refuted by

the

Agency’s witnesses.

 He pointed

out

that

space

limitations

required

in-

stallation of the precipitators in

 a sequential manner rather than simul-

taneously.

 Likewise,

 the proposal that sulphuric acid be purchased

—

597

to be used in the alcohol manufacturing process does

 not have merit.

The approximate

 1,000 tons per day

 of sulphuric acid used in

 the al-

cohol process must be 98.5

 to permit its

 use in that process,

 After

the sulphuric acid is used in the alcohol process,

 its strength is re-

duced 50

 of which approximately 60

 can be recycled and is reforti’-

fied for further use,

 The remaining 40

 is used in the phosphoric acid

plant.

 Purchase of sulphuric acid from outside sources would create

substantial problems

 of disposal in that the re—cycling process above

described would be eliminated,

 and there is no market for the 50

 acid

created and no suitable storage facilities are available.

In summary,

 the Agency has

 not established on the 1-ecord the avail-

ability of natural gas

 or the appropriateness

 of requiring low sulphur

coal

 for use in the petitioner’s boilers nor does

 use of

 fuels manufac-

tured by petitioner appear to bea

 suitable alternative to coal burning.

While purchase of sulphuric acid from

outside

sources

 might be possible,

the

problems

it

creates

appear

far

 worse

than

those

would

solve.

No solid evidence suggests acceleration of either Acerp program beyond

that

previously

approved,

nor

can

the

present

record

order

immediate

abatement

program

for

air~pollution

resulting

frofi

sulphur

dioxide as

directed

Environmental

Protection

Agency

City

Spring-

field,

 #70—9,

c.

f.

~

A enc

#71—193,

#7l—l95~

#71—196,

#71—197,

71—198,

is

clear

that

sulp

dioxide

and

sulphurIc

acid

has

amaged

plants

the

area,

but

unclear

what

extent

this

attributable

the

boilers

and

what

extent

the

acid

plant.

will

therefore

order

that

study

the

problem

made

after

the

acid

plant

closed

and

that

appropriate

corrective

action

pursued

serious

problem

remains,

specified

below,

We believe petitioner has established its burden of proof for

the granting

a

variance.

Variance

granted

petitioner

substantial

conformity

with

its

petition,

but

subject

the

terms

and

conditions

hereinafter

set

forth.

While

allow

the

variance

the

time schedules

provided

the

petition,

will

insist

strict

 adher-

ence to this program and countenance no~delay in its achievement.

We

do

not

look

favorably

upon

petitioner’s

cessation

activities

during

the

pendency

this

proceeding.

Petitioner

could

certainly

not

have

assumed

that

this

Board

would

sanction

program

for

the

installation

the

electrostatic

precipitators

that

would

slower

than

that

previously

sanctioned

our

predecessor

Board.

granting

this

petition,

are

not

unmindful

the

severe

problems

petitioner’s

operations

have

created

for

the

residents

the

area.

Fly

ash

and

particulate

emissions

attributable

the

boiler

and

sulphuric

acid

operations

have

significantly

interfered

with

the

enjoyment

life

and

property

the

community.

The

nuisance

severe

and

demonstrable.

Damage

metals

and

crops

unquestionably

have

re-

sulted

from

emissions

from

petitioner’s

plant.

However,

petitioner

is

pursuing

 a program previously approved by the Illinois Air Pollution

Control Board and while petitioner unquestionably could have done more

—

598

and done

it

 faster,

 it was protected by the sanctions previously ob-

tained and is pursuing

 a program previously approved.

 On this state

of the record,

 no penalty can

 asserted.

However,

 there is one facility that we

will

insist

be

 improved

as

 a condition of this variance,

The primary purpose for the sulphuric acid plant is the manufac-

ture

 of acid used in the alcohol process,

 However,

 some virgin acid

 manufactured

for

sale.

 This facility appears to be operating

the

present time

 compliance with emission

regulations.

condition

tc~

the

 variance which we grant relative to

this

operation,

pending

comple-

tion

 the new hydration plant,

 we order

that

virgin

acid

production

for

external

sale

shall

cease

whenever

the

total

sulphuric

acid

plant

emissions

exceed

permissible

limits

set

forth

the

regulations.

This

production

limitation

will

permit

the

 company to continue the

major

function

its

sulphuric

acid

unit

and

exceed

emission

limits

when

necessary

for

the

manufacture

alcohol,

but

the

same

time,

reduce

the

extent

which

emissions

from

this

unit

violate

the

law.

order

further

control

the

possible

plant

damage

from

sulphur

emissions

from

the

boilers

and

after

the

shut-down

the

sulphuric

acid plant,

U.

S.

 Industrial Chemicals Co.,

 through an independent re-

cognized consultant,

 shall establish,

 operate and maintain continuous

monitoring

stations

for

SO2

for

the

period

from

April

1972

Septem-

ber

1972

the

area

where

crop

damage

has

occurred

the

past.

Within

days

after

September

1972,

the

company

shall

file

with

the

Board

and

Agency

program

for

the

alleviation

excess

SO2

levels

sufficient

cause

plant

damage.

The

Board

shall

issue

further

order

required.

Regrettably,

one

further

matter

must

mentioned

this

Opinion.

characteristic

many

cases

considered

this

Board,

great

emo-

tion

 is often

generated

 the proceedings and

the

issues

created.

 Con-

cern is expressed on the one hand for the future of the business involved,

and

the

other

hand

whether

continuation

the

alleged

pollution

will

remain

lingering

burden

the

community.

Intense

feelings

are

aroused

all

sides

which

frequently

come

head

during

 the course of

the

trial

and

are

often

expressed

through

the

 media

 and outside

 of the hear-

ing

process.

cases

this

sort,

great

importance

that

the

Board

fully

apprised

all

aspects

the

issue

and

public

participa-

tion

both

sought

and

welcomed,

However,

the

place

where

these

views

should

expressed

the

hearing

itself,

for

this

Board’s

decision

can

only

made

the

basis

the

record

before

it,

Extra-judicial

accusations,

threats

and

innuendos

can

only

serve

exacerbate

al-

ready

difficult

situation

and

impede,

rather

than

assist,

the

Board’s

ability

render

equitable

decision.

It

unfortunate

that

 such

circumstances characterized,

 in part,

 the present proceedings

 and it is

hoped that they will not recur in the future.

599

This

 opinion constitutes the findings

 of fact and conclu-

sions of law

 of the Board,

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that petitioner

be granted

 a variance

 to exceed the particulate emission limitations

set forth in the Rules

 and Regulations Governing the Control of Air

Pollution,

 subject to the

terms,

 conditions and time schedules here-

 inafter set forth:

1,

 Variance is granted to petitioner to operate its four

uncontrolled coal—fired boilers in

 a manner causing

emission of particu.ates

 in excess of

 the regulation

limits pending the installation of five electrostatic

precipitators,

the

first

which

has

already

been

installed.

Two

additional

 precipitators

shall

installed and in operation by

May

30,

 1972.

 Emissions

from all boilers on which precipitators have or will

be installed shall meet particulate emission limits

as

set forth

 the regulations.

 This variance shall

extend to Ogtober

13,

 1972, prior to which date petitioner

shall have initiated installation of the two remaining

electrostatic precipitators on Boilers

 #4 and

 #5 for

operation by May

30,

 1973,

 and shall petition this

Board

90

 days

 advance

 expiration

for

 extension

of this variance demonstrating that it

 has diligently

pursued

 the time schedule for total installation

 as set

forth in its variance petition.

2.

 Variance is granted to March

30,

1972

 to dperate the

sulphuric acid plant

manner

 causing particulate

emissions

 in excess of those allowed in the Rules and

Regulations Governing

 the Control of Air Pollution

pending operation of the direct hydration alcohol plant.

March

30,

1972,

the

sulphuric

acid

plant

shall

shut

down.

virgin

acid

 shall be manufactured for

sale

any

time

when

emissions

from

the

sulphuric

acid

plant exceed maximum emission limits presently in

force and effect in the Rules

 and Regulations Governing

the Control of Air Pollution,

3.

 U. S. Industrial Chemicals Co., through an independent

recognized

 consultant,

 shall establish,

 operate and

maintain continuous monitoring stations

 for SO2

 for the

period from April

1,

1972

 to September

1,

1972

 in the

area where crop damage has occurred in the past.

 Within

30 days after September

1,

 1972,

 the company shall file

with the Board and Agency

 a program for the alleviation

of excess SO2 levels sufficient to cause plant damage.

The Board shall issue

 a further order as required.

—

600

4.

 The company shall, within thirty-five days after re-

ceipt of this order, post with the Agency

 a bond or other

security

 in the amount of $500,000.00,

in

 a form satis-

factory to the Agency, which

sum

 shall be forfeited

to the State of Illinois

 in the event that the conditions

of this order are not complied with or the facilities

in question are operated after expiration of these variances

in violation of regulation limits.

I,

 Regina E.

 Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify

that the Board adopted the above Opinion

 this

 14 day of October,

1971.

2

—

801