ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 6, 1973

KOPPERS COMPANY

INC.

PETITIONER

)

PCB 73—365

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESPONDENT

MR. JOSEPH DELLA MARIA, JR., ATTORNEY, in behalf of KOPPERS COMPANY,

INC.

MR. MICHAEL A. BENEDETTO, JR., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

in behalf

of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION AND

ORDER 

OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Marder)

This action involves a request for a variance filed on August

27, 1973, by Koppers Company, Petitioner. Relief is sought from

Rule 206 Cc) of the Air Pollution Regulations. The Agency recommends

a grant subject to conditions discussed below,

Petitioner is requesting this variance for its plant in Stickney,

Illinois. The plant produces phthalic anhydride, which is a basic

raw material in

the manufacture of plastic, vinyl, paint and varnish

products. (R. 2) The plant has 150 employees and has an annual pay-

roll of $1,700,000. It is one of eleven suppliers of phthalic anhy-

dride in the country and is the sole supplier of this product to elev-

en Illinois corporations (R. 8)

Petitioner has a large investment in pollution control equipment

in the form of a scrubber, which removes 97 of its solid organic

matter from its discharge (R. 22). (The problem that brings Petition-

er

before the Board is that each of its two stacks is emitting

approx-

imately 4,000 ppm. of carbon monoxide, whereas the regulated standard

will be 200 ppm. as of December 31, 1973.)

Petitioner brought forth at a hearing held on October 29, 1973,

three methods that can allegedly reduce the carbon monoxide to the

level required by the regulation: thermal incineration, thermal cat-

alytic incineration, and cold catalytic oxidation.

From the record it seems that thermal incineration is a method

that would definitely bring the Stickney plant into compliance (R. 41).

10

—

251

—2—

It would cost the Petitioner $1,500,000 in capital expenditures, and

another $900,000 per annum operating costs.

The major drawback in

this system is that it requires large amounts of heating oil (esti-

mated at 5,000,000 gallons per annum (Pet. Ref. 16), or enough fuel

oil to heat 5,000 to 7,000 single-family homes. The Board takes not-

ice of the heating oil shortage facing the entire country and as such

will be responsive to methods and devices to control emissions with

minimal fuel consumption.

Thermal catalytic incineration is basically the same as thermal

incineration, with the addition of a catalyst bed added to reduce

power consumption. There are two alleged drawbacks to this system.

First, to eliminate impurities from the system natural gas is the

only practical fuel. Other fuels contain sulphur which would poison

the catalyst. Fr~mthe record (R. 

17)

there is unrebutted testimony

that Petitioner will not he able to obtain this natural gas from its

supplier. Secondly, 

the

record shows that this method has a very low

safety factor, Impurities entering the stream lead to potential ex-

plosions in the equipment (R. 50-51).

The final method brought forth is cold catalytic oxidation. This

is a method in which carbon monoxide is oxidized by metal salts at

low temperatures (100°F.). This method is still in the research

stage and Petitioner is unsure as to its workability but forecasts a

high degree of success with low fuel requirements for its operation.

The cold catalytic converter method was brought to the attention

of Petitioner by a scho:Larly paper entitled “Homogeneous Catalytic

Oxidation

of Carbon Monoxide,” by W. G. Lloyd and D. R. Rowe, appear-

ing in Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 5, #11, Nov. 1971,

page 1133.

One of the preconditions for a variance grant is that compliance

with a rule or regulation of the Board would impose an arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship on the Petitioner (Sect. 35 Environmental Pro-

tection Act) 

This, of course, must be balanced against the harm

that Petitioner~s discharges bring to the environment and the commun-

iby surrounding its plant (Roesch Enamel & Manufacturing Co. v. En-

vironmental Protection Agency, PCB 71-62). Demonstration of economic

difficulty alone in the face of alternalives does not justify vari-

ance relief (Swords v. Environmental Protection Agency PCB 70-6).

There must be more. Hardships to persons .other than Petitioner, such

as employees or customers, may be the basis for granting a variance

(Merle K. Buerkett 

Environmental Protection Agency PCE 71-303)

It is alleged that if this variance is not granted, Petitioner would

have to shut down its operation in Stickney (R. 31). This would nec-

essitate laying off 150 employees and leave ten to eleven Illinois

corporations without their sole supply of phthalic anhydride.

It is

the opinion of the Board that Petitioner meets the criteria for a var-

iance based on unreasonable hardship.

From the record it

is shown that 

Petitioner~s carbon monoxide out—

—

252

‘—3—

put is not injurious to

the community 

which surrounds it. Petitioner’s

plant is located in a heavily industrialized area, with residential

housing no closer than 2,000 feet from its emission sources. (See Ex-

hibits 1, 2, 

3, 5.)  Petitioner’s 

uncontroverted allegation in the

record (R. 14) indicates that all of the carbon monoxide dissipates

from the atmosphere to an undetectable level within 450-600 feet of the

emitting stacks. There is also 

uncontroverted allegation in the

petition that the ambient air quality for carbon monoxide is not exceed-

ed, and in fact the Stevenson Monitoring Station, the station closest

to Petitioner’s plant, has the lowest carbon monoxide reading of all

Chicago area monitoring stations. From the record 

it

is the opinion of

the Board that no substantive harm will be done if Petitioner is allowed

to continue emissions at its present level, while carrying out its

compliance program.

Petitioner’s basis for its carbon monoxide study was submitted as

an appendix to its variance petition. The following are the results

of carbon monoxide monitoring conducted by Petitioners:

Feet from Plume     

CO Background   

CO Measured

275’            

4.0 ppm.      

5.5 ppm.

360’            

4,0 ppm.      

Up to 5.0 ppm.

600”            

4.0 ppm.      

4.0

ppm.

375’            

3.0 ppm.      

4—5 ppm.

Other data shows similar carbon monoxide ranges. Although high

peaks (highest 18 ppm. for eight seconds) were observed, at no time

were the Air Quality Criteria exceeded, The average carbon monoxide

concentration of all Chicago area stations (July 1973) was 

3.7

ppm.

The average of the Stevenson station (July) was 1.6 ppm. The effective

primary air quality standard for carbon monoxide is 9.0 ppm. maximum

8 hr. conc. not to be exceeded more than once per year.

A variance is not granted just to allow a petitioner to violate

the regulations of the Board. It is the duty of a variance petition-

er to bring his facility into compliance with the law (Swords v. Envir--

onmental Protection Agency PCB 70-6). Petitioner has presented such

a compliance program. The basic drive of this program is two—pronged.

First, Petitioner proposes to design and put out bids for the construct-

ion of a thermal incinerator. Concurrent with that program, basic re-

search and pilot programs will be initiated by the Badger Co., a highly

respected design and construction firm, to determine if the cold cata’--

lytic oxidation method will he feasible in Petitioner’s

situation.

While this research is carried out (for a period

of

17 months), Petit”-

ioner proposes to hold work on

the

thermal incinerator in abeyance.

The Board appreciates and takes notice of Petitioner~s investment in

basic research for

the

solution

of its 

carbon monoxide problem,

whlch~

if successful, will aid similarly situated industries.

The Board

feels

that the 

development of

the

thermal incinerator can be taken

past tha

bid stage of development,

without 

undue hardship

to the Petitioner.

Thusly the Board w~11, as a

cond~tionto 

a variance grant, requLre that

—4

development of the thermal incinerator proceed through the stage where

an Environmental Protection Agency permit application for construction

would be submitted. This would reduce the maximum time necessary to

bring Petitioner’s plant into compliance from 36 months to 27 months

if the cold catalytic process proves to be unworkable.

Rule 206 (G) sets the effective date of Rule 206 (C) at December

31, 1973, for emission sources existing as of the time the Regulations

were enacted. Koppers Company, Inc., is such a source. Noting this

fact, the Board interprets Petitioner’s request to be a variance from

Rule 206 (C) starting December 31, 1973.

This Opinion constitutes

the findings of :Eact and conclusions of

law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that a variance be

granted to Koppers Company, 

Inc., from Rule 206 (C)

of the Air Poll-

ution Contr.51 Regulations until December

6, 1974, subject to 

the

fol-

lowing conditions:

1. Commencing 30 days from the date of this Order, Pet-

itioner shall submit quarterly reports to the Agency,

detailing the results of all tests and studies under-

taken and a complete description of all progress made

toward development of its cold catalytic oxidation sys-

tem, and/or installation of a thermal incinerator system.

2. Petitioner shall apply for all necessary construction

and

operating permits from the Agency.

3. Within 90 days prior to the expiration of this variance,

Petitioner should he preparing applications for construct-

ion permits of its thermal incinerator, and such applications

shall be completed within the time of this variance.

4. Any request for the extension of the variance shall include

a re-evaluation of the time schedule for compliance.

5. Respondent shall, within thirty days from the date of this

Order, post a performance bond in a form satisfactory to

the Agency in the amount of $100,000, guaranteeing install-

ation of a proper pollution abatement system.

IS SO ORDERED.

—

254

—5—

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Con-

trol Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by

the Board on the 

________

day of ~      

1973, by a vote

of

_________

to

~

—

255