ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 17, 1972

U. S. INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS COMPANY

DIVISION, NATIONAL DISTILLERS AND

CHEMICAL CORPORATION

#72—292

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION AND ORDER OF 

THE

BOARD (BY SANUEL T. LAWTON, JR.)

This is a petition for variance from Order entered in

Case #71—44, 2 PCB 591, dated October 14, 1971 as modified by

our Order of January 24, 1972, 3 PCB 513. The petition relates

to a proposed extension to May 30, 1973 with respect to the

emissions of particulates and sulphur dioxide (SO2) from

petitioner’s coal—fired boilers at its Tuscola,Illinois

plant as will be more fully set forth in this Opinion. A review

of the various petitions and orders previously filed and entered

in this case is appropriate.

Our original October 14, 1971 Order provided as follows:

‘TIT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that peti-

tioner 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 hereinafter set forth:

1.

Variance is granted to petitioner to operate its

four uncontrolled coal—fired boilers in a manner

causing emission of particulates in excess of the

regulation limits pending the installation of five

electrostatic precipitators, the first of which has

already been installed. Two additional precipitators

shall be installed and in operation by May 30, 1972.

Emissions from all boilers on which precipitators

have or will be installed shaJ.l meet particulate

emission limits as set forth in the regulations.

This variance shall extend to October 13, 1972,

prior to which date petitioner shall have initiated

installation of the two remaining electrostatic pre-

cipitators on Boilers #4 and #5 for operation by

—

697

May 30, 1973, and shall petition this Board 90

days in advance of expiration for an 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 operate

the sulphuric acid plant in a 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. On March 30, 1972, the

sulphuric acid plant shall be shut down. No virgin

acid shall be manufactured for sale at 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 Company, through an inde-

pendent recognized consultant, shall establish,

operate and maintain continuous monitoring stations

for SO2 for the period from April 1, 1972 to. Septem-

ber 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.

4. The Company shall, within thirty-five days after

receipt of this Order, post with the Agency a bond

or other security in the amount of $500,000.00, in

a form satisfactory 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 regula-

tion limits.”

On January 24, 1972, on petitioner’s motion, paragraph 1 of

the October 14, 1971 Order was amended by the addition of the

words:

“or the two boilers on which these precipitators are

to be installed shall not be operated after May 30,

1972 so that emissions from these two boilers exceed

maximum emission limits presently in force and effect

in the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of

Air Pollution”, following the words “two additional

precipitators shall be installed and in operation by

May 30, 1972”.

—2—

—

69E

The present petition filed on July 11, 1972 requests an 

exten-

sion of the original variance, as amended, with respect to the

coal-fired boilers, to May 30, 1973, to permit completion of the

installation plan for electrostatic precipitators on all five

boilers. In support of the variance, petitioner sets forth that

the first precipitator was installed and operational in June

of 1971. The second precipitator was installed prior to May 

31,

1972 and operational certification is “presently in progress with

the Environmental Protection Agency.” A third precipitator was

installed and was to be operational in mid-July, 1972. Presumably,

this precipitator is operational as of this date.

Petitioner further represents that by the end of July, 1972,

it will have confirmed delivery of the fourth and fifth electro-

static precipitator from its supplier and erection of these re-

maining two precipitators will commence in January of 1973 in order

to meet the May. 30, 1973 deadline provided in our original order,

subsequent to which date the boilers will not be operated in

excess of existing particulate emission regulations.

The foregoing program is consistent with our original Order,

as amended. We grant the variance as requested,- subject to the

terms and conditions more fully set forth below.

The recommendation of the Environmental Protection Agency

proposes allowance of

the variance as requested, subject to the

following terms and

conditions:

‘(a) Petitioner shall operate its uncontrolled boilers with

fuel other than coal. When no fuel other than coal is

available and use of uncontrolled boilers is necessary,

Petitioner may use coal but shall submit a report to the

Agency within one week of such use of coal with proof

that such use of coal was necessary.

(b) Petitioner shall submit monthly progress reports to

the Agency and the Board.

(c) Petitioner shall submit the results of stack tests

performed on all five boilers to the Agency by

June

30, 1973. Stack tests shall be performed by

an independent testing agency and in a manner approved

by the Agency. In addition to particulate emission

rates, tests shall be made of control devi~eefficiencies

and sulfur emission rates.

Cd) Petitioner shall comply with all conditions of the

Board’s Order in PCB 71-44, as amended.

—3—

—

699

(e) Bonds provided by Petitioner to secure performance

of the Orders in PCB 71—44 shall be amended to

additionally seàure performance of whatever Orders

may be entered in this case.”

In the investigation portion of its recommendation, the

Environmental ProtectionAgency makes several observations with

respect to the activities of petitioner since the granting of the

original variance. It notes that one of the precipitators that

was to have been operational by May 30, 1972 was not operational

until mid-July, 1972 and that the sulphuric acid plant was closed

down on April 28, 1972, rather than March 30, 1972, as provided

in our original Order.

The Agency also comments on the various

Orders entered with respect to the bond, but states that bonds

were posted on June 15, 1972, which we must assume satisfied

our various Orders in 

this respect. Accordingly, the amount and

form of the bond does not appear to be a matter of present con-

tention. More significant is the allegation made by the Agenc~

that the boilers are not being operated at the present time so as

to reduce particulate emissions to a minimum. Boiler #1 was

shut down for maintenance to the turbine. Boilers #2 and 3,

which do not have electrostatic precipitators, were being fired

by both coal and gas. Emission rates were estimated to be

90.5 pounds per hour. Boiler #4 controlled by an electrostatic

precipitator was being fired with coal and gas while Boiler #5

which has an electrostatic precipitator was being fired totally

on gas. The Agency contends that petitioner is not making

maximal use of its present precipitators by firing coal in

those boilers with precipitators and gas in those boilers without

precipitators. The Agency does not state whether Boilers #1,

4 and 5 are in compliance with particulate regulations. Stack

tests made in July, 1972 are not available, and the failure of

petitioner to furnish steam charts for the boilers or requested

information 

on gas fuel usage prevents calculations of emission

levels from boilers #2 and #3.

The Agency observes “Persons

contacted in the area expressed opinions that the air around the

plant is cleaner due to the discontinuance of the sulfuric and

phosphoric acid plants and to the decrease in particulate emissions

from the power plant.”

The petitioner has filed an objection to the observations

made in the Agency’s recommendaf~ion. It correctly observes that

the modification of paragraph 1 of the Order excused the May 30,

1972 electrostatic precipitator installation if the emissions

from the boilers do not exceed applicable particulate regulations

and that the boiler referred to by the Agency was out of service

by the Agency between May 30, 1972 and mid-July, 1972 when the

precipitator was tied in. The failure to shut down the sulphuric

—4—

—

700

acid plant is acknowledged. Petitioner refers to a status report

filed with respect to this operation, pursuant to our April 11,

1972 Order which detailed the difficulties in the phase-out of

this operation, necessitating continuance of its operation until

April 28, 1972. It likewise challenges the Agency’s contention

that it is not making maximum use of its present precipitators

and available fuels to minimize particulate emissions, contending

that gas fuel was distributed in the best possible manner to main-

tain present operation, when Boiler #1 was out of service and that

gas was used in Boiler #5 when the precipitator was out of service.

It further contends that it has furnished data to the Agency needed

to evaluate its emissions.

On the facts before us, the deviations from our original

Order are not sufficiently substantial to result in a denial of

the variance extension. If violations of the Regulations or our

Orders have taken place, appropriate remedies are available i~i a

proper action. More significant is the recommendation of the Agen-

cy that “petitioner shall operate its uncontrolled boilers with

fuel other than coal”. This would appear to require a departure

from our original order which anticipated the continuation of

coal

operation until final installation of electrostatic precipi-

tators by May 30, 1973. Petitioner is pursuing its original program

and we do not see any compelling reason for requiring a change

in this respect. However, we will require petitioner to maximize

the use of alternative fuels and report to the Agency within one

week after each coal burning the circumstances and conditions neces-

sitating the use of coal when coal has been used to the exclusion

of alternative fuels.

The petitioner disputes the need for stack tests on all five

boilers including sulphur emission rates. We will require stack tests

on each boiler with respect toparticulate emissions but accept peti-

tioner’s contention relative to SO7 emissions feeling that by the

furnishing of coal analysis and a daily fuel log, sulphur oxide emis-

emissionssions

can beopenaccuratelyfor

furthercalculated.considerationWe

willas

morekeep fullythe

subjectset

forthof

SO2

below and if the Agency can demonstrate that SO2 emissions cannot be

readily ascertained by the data submitted, we shall consider further

the possibility of requiring stack testing for SO2.

Pursuant to our October 14, 1971 Order, petitioner has sub-

mitted a report on results of continuous monitoring relative to

SO2 emissions, which concludes that no observable crop damage

symptoms in the vicinity of petitioner’s plant have resulted from

S02 emissions. We have asked the Agency to file its response

to this report. As of the date of this Order, this response has

not been completed. Accordingly, we will retain jurisdiction

of this matter for such other and further Orders as may be appro—

—5—

—

701

priate based upon the Agency’s response to the SO2 monitoring

emissionsreport

as

well

from

asthetheboilerspossibleif

suchneedrequirementfor

stack testsappearsof SOappro2

-

priate.

The phase—out of the sulphuric plant has undoubtedly im-

proved this situation and we shall await the Agency’s response

before taking any further action in this respect.

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

IT IS THE ORDER of 

the Pollution Control Board that variance

granted to U. S. Industrial Chemicals Company Division, National

Distillers and Chemical Corporation, by our Order of October 14,1971

(7~—44)asamended by our Order of January 24, 1972 granting peti-

tioner the right to operate its four uncontrolled coal—fired

boilers in excess of applicable particulate regulations pending

the installation of electrostatic precipitators is extended from

October 13, 1972 to May 30, 1973, subject to the following terms

and conditions:

1. Petitioner shall diligently pursue its fuel burning

program so as to maximize the use of fuels other than

coal in its uncontrolled boilers, during the period of

this variance. When coal is used as fuel in uncontrolled

boilers, petitioner shall submit a report to the Agency

within one week of such use, demonstrating that such

burning

of coal was necessary and that alternative fuels

were not available.

2. Petitioner shall submit monthly progress reports

to the Agency and to the Board with respect to the

installation and operation of all electrostatic preci-

pitators installed pursuant to this variance, as

extended.

3.

Stack tests shall be performed on all five boilers

with respect to particulate emissions and submitted

to theAgency by June 30, 1973. Such stack tests shall

be performed by an independent testing agency in manner

approved by the ‘Environmental Protection

Agency.

Petitioner shall submit to the Agency its coal analy-

sis, daily fuel log and such additional data as will

enable a calculation of sulphur dioxide emission based

on standard emission factors.

—6—

—

702

4. Petitioner shall comply with all conditions of the

Order of the Board in Case #71-44, as amended, to

the extent said provisions remain applicable.

5. Bonds heretofore provided by petitioner to secure

performance of the Orders entered in

#71-44 

shall be

amended to secure performance and compliance with all

terms and conditions of this Order. Such bond shall

be in form satisfactory to the Agency and shall be

mailed to: Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environ-

mental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill Drive, Spring-

field, Illinois 62706.

6. The Board retains jurisdiction for such other and

further Orders as may be appropriate with respect to

sulphur dioxide emissions based upon the Agency’s response

to report on results of continuous monitoring previously

submitted by the petitioner and the Agency’s capability

of determining sulphur dioxide emissions on the basis

of data furnished by petitioner to the Agency. 

Modifica-

tion

of this Order shall be considered on petition of’

either party hereto.

I, Christan Moffett, 

Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

certify that the above Opinion and Order wa~adopted on the /7’~1

day of October, A. D. 1972, by a vote of ~ to ~

—7—

S

—

703