ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 15,
1979
AMERICAt~IHOECHST CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 79—43
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
On April
13,
1979,
Petitioner American Hoechst Corporation
filed
its petition for variance before the Board.
Petitioner
seeks a variance from Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Control Rule
203(g)(1)(B),
“for a period of sixty
(60) days following August
16,
1979 or for such period as may be necessary to secure a
permit for
its
Ottawa facility’s two
(2) Babcock and Wilcox
FF15-32 chain grate stoker coal
fired boilers”
(Second Amended
Petition,
p.1).
Petitioner, however, believes “that
it now
and will hereafter be able to satisfy the formulation standards
of Board Rule 203(G)(1)(B)
as well
as the requirements of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act” based upon the prelim-
inary results
of testing conducted during July 17—19,
1979
(Second Amended Petition,
pp.1-2).
Petitioner’s First Amended
Petition alleged that immediate compliance “would impose an
unreasonable hardship on Petitioner since Petitioner expects
that Union Carbide Corporation
its
lessee
will cease opera-
tions at this facility by the middle of 1979,
resulting in
major changes
in steam requirements
at this facility”
(At p.3).
Petitioner’s estimate of the cost of compliance
is over $300,000.
The major issue
in this proceeding has been whether Peti-
tioner has proven that immediate compliance with Rule
203(g)(1)(B) would constitute an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship.
This Petitioner has not done, and for this reason,
among other reasons,
its request for variance will
be denied.
American Hoechst Corporation employs
220 persons
to pro-
cess polyvinylchloride
(PVC)
resins and conducts blending
and calendering operations
to manufacture yearly 12,000,000
pounds of PVC film
(R.12).
It produces PVC sheets in sheet
and in roll
form,
sometimes planishing the sheet
(R.17).
Planishing is
a process
in which a PVC sheet is placed between
two pieces of metal and inserted in a
2 feet by
8 feet press
3—103
—2—
to change
its characteristics by the application of heat and
pressure
(R.17—8).
The steam demand of the coal—fired boilers to heat the
building
is a uniform one which does not upset the boilers,
but every hour one of five planishing presses
is run for an
hour, which requires an almost double steam demand for the
three to five minutes during which the press is started
(R.19).
This fluctuating steam demand is a source problem
(R.20) and
is the reason attributed to violations
of Rule 203(g)(1)(B)
(R.23—4,
73—5,
89—90,
96—7,
113—4).
On September
5,
1979 hearing was held in this matter.
A petition to intervene by thirty—three owners of mobile homes
in King’s Trailer Court,
which is located just northwest of
the city limits of Ottawa
in LaSalle County, was allowed by
the hearing officer (R.10—11).
Representative Breslin of the
38th District on May 14, 1979 submitted petitions from
97
citizens opposed to granting of
a variance.
These were filed
more than 21 days after the effective filing date of the peti-
tion of April
13,
1979 and are therefore considered as public
comment.
In December of
1977,
Petitioner bought the facility at
issue
(R.20).
A permit had been issued covering the facili-
ties for the period 1974 through February of 1979;
the permit
was based on testing conducted in 1973 for Union Carbide
Corporation
(Union).
Petitioner believed the results of the
1973 tests to be valid and applied for a permit
in June of
1978.
In July of 1978,
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
requested more testing done.
This was performed
in October but the results indicated to Petitioner that a
permit might not be granted to Petitioner upon the expiration
of the previous permit.
Petitioner then “evaluated many of
theirl
alternatives” and
in February of 1979 petitioned for
a variance “limited
in time
...
to examine the possibilities,
to see what could be done about bringing the boilers into
compliance”
(R. 20—1).
Petitioner’s boilers have not been significantly modified
in 30 years
(R.18),
and are operated with no air pollution con-
trol equipment
(R.41).
In June of 1979,
Petitioner met with
the Agency.
It was determined that there was
a possibility of
complying by derating the boilers.
Tests at lower ratings
were performed in July of 1979,
and Petitioner resubmitted
its permit application and filed a Second Amended Petition
for Variance on August
7,
1979
(R.22).
Petitioner received two complaints about
its particulate
emissions from neighbors
in December of 1978.
During the
Summer of 1978 Intervenor
4.
E. Gillard called Petitioner’s
Plant Manager Youmans,
who visited the neighbor’s site
(R.46-7).
36—104
—3—
On June 22, July 20,
22 and 24,
and August 25 and 30,
1979,
Petitioner’s emissions were particularly bothersome to neigh-
bors
(R.144—5,
160—1,
173—5, 183).
On June 30,
1979 Union
ceased its manufacturing process
(R.42).
During August,
1979,
Union removed its equipment and the facility’s steam consump-
tion decreased
(R.39—40).
The problems Petitioner faces in complying include
a high
steam demand and a fluctuating particulate emission amount when
its five planishing presses are in operation.
Opacity readings
vary with the type of coal used
(R.23-4,
32).
The fluctuation
occurs five times during 8—hour periods of the operation of the
press
(R.29—30).
Fuel conversion is expensive for Petitioner
and apparently is
in short supply (R.24,49);
installing clean-
up equipment is likewise expensive
(R.25).
Petitioner has chosen the following course of compliance:
reduce steam production by burning 5,000 tons or less of coal
per year;
limit
the amount of
steam to the planishing press
to level the fluctuating steam load and to limit the draw of
the press;
operate the press at lower pressures to level the
fluctuating
steam load;
further insulate the boilers;
install
smaller steam valves to reduce the size of the fluctuating
steam
load
(R.25-7);
install
a dry sprinkler system;
not heat
the buildings which Union had occupied
(R.36);
and soot blow
the boiler more frequently
(R.76).
At the hearing, Petitioner introduced no evidence regar-
ding the environmental impact a variance would have
(R.22).
It has conducted no studies on environmental effects
(R.37).
It alleges that operating at derated levels would reduce the
particulates emitted to an amount which would enable Petitioner
to be
in compliance.
It is by virtue of this allegation that
Petitioner renewed its application for a permit and its peti-
tion for a variance
(R.22).
Regarding the fluctuating demand, testing at various fluc-
tuating
loads may not be possible
(R.69,
89—90).
Tests results
at steady state cannot be compared with test results under
fluctuating demand
(R.115).
Petitioner alleges that tests show
that it would be
in compliance if
it could use the same coal
it has been using and could operate the boilers at less than
25,000 pounds of
steam per hour
(R.33), which is the maximum
capacity of the boilers
(R.21).
Petitioner plans
to experi-
ment with coals having 0.70,
0.83
and 0.87
sulfur content
(R. 65—6).
The normal operating level of the boilers since June of
1979 has been 5,000 pounds
of steam per hour when the planish—
ing presses are not operated, and 12,000 pounds per hour,
for
three
to four minutes, when they are operated
(R.34—5,
61).
Petitioner projects a “normal operation” during the winter
months of 10,000 pounds per hour;
no steam rate was projected
56—105
—4—
for operation of the presses during the winter months
(R.34—5).
There are opacity problems operating at levels of less than
10,000 pounds
(R.35-6);
the boilers become
less efficient due
to nonuniform temperatures within the boiler casings and par-
ticulate emissions are increased
(R.63).
It
is the Agency’s position that,
since the ash content
of the coal Petitioner is experimenting with is unknown to the
Agency,
it cannot ascertain whether Petitioner will violate
the particulate emission standard.
However,
the Agency be-
lieves that operating at 10,000 pounds
of steam per hour
under steady state conditions will not violate the standard
(R.92,
96—7),
although
it has evidence that opacity levels
will he unacceptable
at less than 10,000 pounds of
steam per
hour
(R.93).
The Agency
is uncertain about violations while
operating
at greater than a 10,000 pound
level
(R.93,
119),
although three out of the six tests conducted at a 15,000—
pound
level on July 17-19, 1979 showed results which were
in
compliance
(R.60,
98).
There are no test results
for a 12,500—
pound
level
(R.99—100).
There
is no evidence of violation at
levels
less than 10,000 pounds
(R.100—1),
although there are
boiler operating difficulties at 5—6,000 pounds
(R.71).
The
Agency does not recommend a variance at
less than 10,000 pounds
per hour
(R.93), but does not maintain that that
is the only
level
at which Petitioner can achieve compliance
(R.115—6).
The nature and impact of the particulate emissions from
Petitioner’s facility were described at
length by a first few
of
the intervenors,
speaking for the rest.
Tens of photographs
of motor vehicles, mobile homes,
plants and human bodies were
admitted into evidence at the hearing
(Intervenors’ Exhibits
1-8).
The particulates were described as having
a
“base”
(R.173—5), as being
like “coal
soot with grease in it”
(R.145).
On at least July 22,
1979,
it fell
like “black snowflakes”
(R.129,
150-2).
One could
feel the particles
“hit you in the
face
in
sic
the arms”
(R.180).
It imbeds
in everything
(R.145,
164, 173—5).
It
is impossible to wipe
off because it
just smears
(R.164,
176).
The particulates prevent the neighbors from enjoying the
woods
(R.150) and even from going outside
(R.145,
160—1).
It
makes plants more susceptible to attack from varmits and weakens
plant growth
(R.148-9).
One can’t hang
a wash outside to dry
(R.159—60).
It gets on bare feet from being on the grass
(R.183),
and
it can sift through pants,
boots,
to socks
and otherwise ruin shoes and clothing
(R.145).
It gets on
car handles and trailer home railings
(R.145)
and on auto
upholstery (R.160—1).
It pits cars and boats
(R.173—5).
It
got on the photographer’s camera lenses on July 22, 1979
(R.145—6,
189).
The mobile homes must be cleaned constantly because
the particles sift into them
(R.149—50).
Air conditioners,
36—106
—5—
if possessed, must be
run constantly.
One neighbor awoke
in
the morning to find that the soot had sifted through the
screen on her bedroom window and had covered her arms and bed;
she realized she had been breathing
it all night
(R.160—1).
Another neighbor without
an air conditioner realizes that she
breathes it all night
in the summer months
(R.184).
When
pillow cases
are washed,
dark,
greasy spots remain (R.183).
One neighbor has constant headaches since having moved into
the court a year ago, although she cannot state that the soot
causes them
(R.150—65).
It
is now worse than
it was
a year ago, and “ten times”
as bad as when Bake—O—Lite occupied the facility
(R.150—2).
Apparently Plant Manager Youmans agreed in a December 19,
1978
letter to the Intervenors not to emit matter unless
the wind
velocity was at least
6 mph and the wind direction was not
from the South.
Intervenors believed such action would allev-
iate the problem
(R.157).
It was after this letter, and after
Union had ceased operations, that
in the Summer of 1979 the
problem increased.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
the Board finds that the presence of carbonaceous particulate
matter poses
a breathing hazard to those forced to inhale the
material.
The particles are similar to that particulate matter nor-
mally emitted from coal-fired burners and are not similar
visually to emissions from other stacks
in the area
(R.187—8).
The particles can be seen falling
as they come from Petition-
er’s stack
(R.130—1,
159—60,
166—78); they take 30—45 seconds
to fall
(R.180).
There are
no other stacks
in the immediate
area and open burning
is not allowed
(R.130—1).
The Board denies Petitioner a variance
from Rule 203(g)
(1)(B).
Petitioner has not proven that immediate compliance
imposes an unreasonable hardship and there
is
no evidence that
a cost of compliance of $300,000 is such sum as would
force
Petitioner ~o cease operations or prevent
it from leasing its
facility.
This
is especially true
in light of the dangers
which exist and which have existed at least since July of
1979 to the health of people and of
all living things.
Not
only must people and animals breath particles which are visible
as snowflakes are visible, but plant life must endure the
matter.
Not only must people choose to breathe
it
or to stay
indoors with an air conditioner running, but they cannot keep
their clothing,
furnishings,
vehicles, homes and other person-
al property clean without constant, daily attention.
Such
destruction of property and interference with human life and
welfare
is what pollution regulations are adopted to prevent
and, where
a balancing of rights
is
applicable,
to curtail.
Although there
is evidence that to operate Petitioner’s
boilers at 10,000 pounds of steam per hour,
a derating from
25,000 pounds,
would not violate Rule 203(g)(1)(B), there is
36—107
—6—
evidence that operating at
less than that rate
——
specifically,
between
5 and 6,000 pounds per hour
-—
would violate the rule.
Petitioner states that since June of 1979 its normal operating
level has been 5,000 pounds per hour except when the planish—
ing press
is on for three or four minutes;
in the winter it
expects
a normal operating level of 10,000 pounds per hour.
In at least the summer months,
then,
Petitioner will be viola-
ting Rule 203(g)(1)(B).
But it is in the summer months when
enjoyment of neighboring property is most affected and when
health effects are most demonstrable.
The Board notes that Petibioner’s boilers have no air
pollution control equipment installed and that these boilers
have
not been substantially modified in 30 years.
Looking at
the fact that since December of 1977 Petitioner knew that the
Union permit would expire on February 28,
1979, the denial
of
a variance can present no hardship.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of
fact and conclu-
sions of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that
American Hoechst Corporation’s petition for variance is
hereby denied.
Mr. Werner abstained.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, heç~Q~
certify t~eabove Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
/~
day of
l)C)M1~44.i..
,
1979 by
a
vote of
~-tj___
Christan L. Moffe
Clerk
Illinois Pollution
ontrol Board
36—108