ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

January

5,

1989

IN THE MATTER OF:

VISKASE CORPORATION,

ADJUSTED RACT

PETITION

PURSUANT

TO

35

ILL.

ADM.

)

CODE

215

.

SUBPART

I.

)

AS

88-1

CLIFTON

A.

LAKE,

OF MCBRIDE,

BAKER

& COLES,

APPEARED

ON BEHALF

OF

VISKASE CORPORATION.

JAMES MORRIS APPEARED

ON BEHALF OF THE

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY.

OPINION

AND ORDER

OF THE BOARD

(by

J.

Marlin):

This matter comes

before the Board

on

an August

5,

1988

Petition filed

by Viskase Corporation

(Viskase) pursuant

to 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code,

Subpart

I,

Adjusted RACT Emissions Limitations.

On April

25,

1988 Viskase

filed

its Notice

of Intent

to file

a

Petition for Adjusted RACT Emission Limitation.

Public Act 85—1321, which became effective August

31,

1988,

amends Section 10

of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

by

adding

the following

language:

Any

person

who

prior

to

June

8,

1988,

has

filed

a

timely Notice

of

Intent

to Petition

for

an Adjusted RACT Emissions Limitation

and

who

subsequently

timely

files

a

completed

petition

for

an

adjusted

PACT

emissions

limitation

pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adin.

Code,

Part

215,

Subpart

I,

shall

be

subject

to

the

procedures

contained

in

Subpart

I

but

shall

be

excluded

by

operation

of

law from

35

Iii.

Adm.

Code,

Part

215,

Subparts PP,

QQ

and PR,

including

the

applicable

definitions

in

35

Ill.

Adm. Code,

Part

211.

Such persons shall

instead

be

subject

to

a

separate

regulation

which

the Board

is hereby authorized

to adopt

pursuant

to

the

adjusted

RACT

emissions

limitation

procedure

in

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code,

Part

215,

Subpart

I.

In

its

final

action

on

the

petition,

the

Board

shall

create

a

separate

rule

which

establishes

Reasonably

Available

Control

Technology

(RACT)

for

such

person.

The purpose

of

this procedure

is

to

create

separate

and

independent

regulations

for

purposes

of

SIP

submittal,

review,

and

approval

by USEPA.

95—183

---

2

Section 215.260,

of Subpart

I, provides that

the Notice of

Intent must be filed within 60 days after

the effective date of

the Subpart

and that

a Petition must

be filed within

120 days

after

the effective date

of the Subpart.

Subpart

I became

effective on April

8,

1988.

Pursuant to Section 101.105,

the

computation

of the time period begins with the first

business day

following

“the day on which

the act,

event,

or development

occurs.”

Given

this computation method, Viskase’s Notice

of

Intent

and Petition were

both timely filed.

As

a

result,

the

provisions

of P.A.

85—1321 apply

to Viskase.

Public Act 85—1321 provides

that the Board

is “authorized

to

adopt pursuant

to

the adjusted RACT emissions

limitation

procedure

in

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code Part

215, Subpart I”

a

“separate

regulation” for persons who meet the specific

requirements

set

forth by P.A.

85—1321.

As stated

above, Viskase meets those

requirements.

Subpart

I was promulgated

by the Board

in Docket

R86—l8 which

is commonly referred

to

as the Generic Rule.

The

control

requirements

of the Generic Rule are provided

in Subparts

AA, PP,

QQ,

and RR of Part

215.

The Board

adopted

the Generic

Rule on April

7,

1988.

12

Ill.

Peg.

7284,

7311

(April

22,

1988).

However,

persons who fall under

the applicability of P.A.

85—1321 are “excluded

by operation

of

law”

from Subparts

PP,

QQ

and RR.

Subpart

I

of Part

215 was adopted

by the Board pursuant to

the authority of Section

28.1

of the Act.

That Section states:

In

adopting

a

regulation

of

general

applicability,

the Board

may provide

for

the

subsequent

determination

of

an

adjusted

standard

for

persons who can justify

such

an

adjustment

consistent

with subsection

(a)

of

Section

27

of

the

Act.

The

regulation

of

general applicability shall specify

the level

of

justification

required

of

a petitioner

to

qualify

for

an

adjusted

standard.

The rule-

making

provisions

of

the

Illinois

Administrative Procedure Act

in Title

VII

of

this

Act

shall

not

apply

to

such

subsequent

determinations.

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1987,

ch.

ll1l/~ par.

1028.1.

The Generic Rule provided

a mechanism by which

the Board

could

determine adjusted standards

for that

rule.

Subpart

I

of

the Generic Rule prescribed

this adjusted standard procedure.

Public Act 85—1321 excludes Viskase from the requirements

of the

Generic Rule

(Subparts PP,

QO,

and RR),

yet

it

retains the

adjusted standard procedure

to

be used for Viskase.

Adjusted

standards

are determined

by Board Order

and are not subject

to

the rule—making

requirements

of the Illinois Administrative

Procedure Act

(APA).

Although P.A.

85—1321

uses

the term

95—184

---

3

“regulation”

it

is clear

that

the General Assembly has required

the Board to utilize

the adjusted standard procedure

of Subpart

I,

not the rulemaking procedure

of the APA,

when adopting control

requirements

for the emission sources

that are subject

to P.A.

85—1321.

These

adjusted standards,

adopted by the Board, will

have the same force

and effect

as standards promulgated through

the rule—making process.

Therefore,

the Board’s

role

is

to adopt

a RACT volatile

organic material

(V0F4)

standard for Viskase, pursuant

to the

procedures

of Subpart

I.

This standard will

be considered

separate and independent

from other Board determinations

for the

purposes

of the State Implementation Plan

(SIP)

review

by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(U.S.

EPA).

Subpart

I puts

the burden

of proof upon the petitioner,

in

this

case, Viskase.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) filed

a Response

to Viskase’s Petition on September

22,

1988.

A hearing was held

on November

1,

1988; members

of the

public were present.

Both Viskase

and the Agency filed post—

hearing briefs on November

28,

1988.

Viskase

filed

a Reply Brief

on December

5,

1988.

The Agency filed

no Reply Brief.

Effectively,

Section 215.263 requires Viskase

to show that

an 81

reduction

in uncontrolled VOM emissions

is not PACT for

Viskase

and that the emission

reductions proposed by Viskase are

PACT and would

not interfere

in the State’s achievement of

ambient

air quality

standards.

RACT

is defined

by Section 211.122

as

“the lowest emission

limitation that

an emission source

is

capable

of meeting by the

application

of control technology that

is reasonably available

considering technological

and economic

feasibility”.

In

its April

7,

1988 Opinion

for P86—18,

the Board quotes

a

U.S. EPA comment which expands further

on the concept

of PACT.

In evaluating

economic feasibility for PACT,

the

Agency

(U.S.

EPA)

gives

significant

weight

to

cost—effectiveness.

However,

no

specific

cost—effectiveness

threshold

exists

to

determine

PACT.

Numerous

other

factors,

(i.e.,

age

of

facility,

quantity

of

emissions,

nature

of

emissions,

severity

of

existing

air

quality

problems,

extent

of

controls

present,

comparability

to

standard

industry

practice

in

related

industries,

cross

media

impacts,

economic

impacts,

etc.

)

must by considered

in establishing PACT.

(In

The

Matter

of:

Organic Material Emission

Standards and Limitation:

Organic

Emission Generic

95—185

---

4

Rule,

P86—18,

(April

7,

1988).

slip

op.

at 39.

Viskase manufactures cellulose meat casings

at

its Bedford

Park plant.

In manufacturing these casings, \Tiskase employs

the

viscose process.

The viscose process

involves the use

of carbon

disulfide

(CS2) which

is the primary source

of VOM emissions from

the Bedford Park plant.

Viskase

is

currently permitted

to emit

1476

tons per year

of VOM.

(P.

43).

Its emission reduction

proposal entails

a reduction

in allowable emissions;

Viskase

proposes

a maximum emission

rate

of

994 tons per year

(tpy).

The

allowable emissions

reduction lowers CS2 emissions

by 482

tpy.

Additionally, Viskase proposes

to eliminate

49 tpy

of non—CS2 VOM

emissions.

Evidently,

these reductions are not figured against

the present permitted level

of 1476

tpy.

This proposed reduction,

in allowable emissions,

is

to

be

accomplished without

the use of

an afterburner.

Instead Viskase

has merely proposed

to implement process

and production level

changes

to account

for the reductions

in allowable emissions.

Viskase

has begun utilizing wood

rather than cotton

as

a

cellulose source for

its manufacturing processes.

Viskase

asserts

that 12.4

reduction

in CS2

is

achieved

by such

a

change.

(P.

24).

In addition,

it has already implemented

the

use of all water—based coatings for

its coating operations

and

has permanently

shut down

a flexographic printer.

(R.l20).

s

a seasonal

reduction, Viskase commits

to limiting

its VOM

emissions during June, July and August

to 68

tons per month.

According

to Viskase,

such

a limit can

be achieved

by scheduling

the maintenance work

on the casing extruding machines for those

months; when the machines

are undergoing maintenance repairs, the

plant’s emissions will

be reduced due

to lack

of operation.

Viskase’s proposed annual maximum emission rate

is 994 tons

of VOM.

Viskase

is

currently permitted

to emit 1476

tpy.

If

Viskase had

to reduce its current

allowable emission rate

by

81,

it could

not emit more

than 280.4

tpy.

In summary, Viskase

proposes

to emit 713.6

tpy

in excess

of

an emission level which

would

be

in compliance with an

81

overall

reduction.

Viskase asserts that

an 81

overall VOM reduction

is not

PACT due

to the following reasons:

incineration

of CS2 would

be

required

for 81

control and implementation

of

an

incinerator

would

be

so costly

that Viskase would

be forced

to shut down

its

Bedford Park operations;

other

negative environmental effects

from

incineration outweigh

any environmental gains

realized by

the thermal destruction of CS~ and

the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration

(OSHA)

is

in the process of proposing

a

new

Permissable Exposure Level

(PEL)

for CS2 which would increase the

air flow and

lower

the concentration of CS2

in Viskase’s exhaust,

thereby making

incineration even less

cost effective;

and the

level

of

reactivity of CS2 to produce ozone

is

so low that

controls are unwarranted.

95—186

---

5

Cost of Incineration

Viskase currently operates

at

a ventilation rate

of

200,000.

standard cubic feet per minute

(scfm).

If OSHA changes

the PEL

for CS2 from the current

level

of

20 parts per million

(ppm)

to

10 ppm, Viskase will

have

to operate

at 300,000

scfm.

Correspondingly

it has estimated costs

for destroying

the 805 tpy

(81

control of

944

tons) under

each

scenario.

Incineration Costs

200,000

(scfrn)

300,000

(scfm)

Capital

costs

$13,500,000

$17,400,000

Annual operating

costs

$ 5,400,000

$ 7,200,000

$

per

ton CS2 removed

(at 81

overall

removal efficiency)

$

6,764

$

9,016

(Attachment #1

to

Odewald testimony)

With regard

to

incineration

at CS2 emission rates equivalent

to the currently permitted

level, Viskase stands

by

the

cost—

effectiveness figures which

it presented

in Docket R86—l8.

Specifically,

it was estimated

that

an

incinerator,

operated

for

seven months out of

the year would cost $5300

per

ton removed.

Yet,

if that same incinerator were operated year—round,

the cost

effectiveness would be

approximately $3400 per

ton.

These

estimates include the

costs for scrubbers which would

be needed

to control

the sulfur dioxide

(SO7) emissions

from the

incinerator.

(P 60—61;

R86—l8,

slip op.

at 37).

The Agency accepts

the figures presented by Impell

Corporation

in Docket R86—l8.

The Agency states that Impell

estimated

a cost effectiveness,

for

a year—round operation of the

incinerator,

in

a range

of $2030

to $2412 per

ton.

This figure

is calculated

from a base of approximately 1500 tpy of

allowable

emissions.

However, Viskase now figures cost—effectiveness

on the basis

of

a

994 tpy total

allowable emission

rate.

Since Viskase’s

allowable emissions are reduced,

the number

of tons

it can reduce

through

the use

of

an

incinerator

is similarly

reduced.

In

turn,

such

a reduction operates

as

an

increase for the cost—

effectiveness value

of

incineration.

As

a result, Viskase

95—187

---

6

estimates

that the annual cost—effectiveness ~or

an incinerator

(operated year—round) would

be $6800 per

ton.

(P.

57;

Attachment

#1

of Odewald’s Testimony).

The current allowable emission rate

of

1476 tpy was based

upon Viskase’s emissions

at

full production.

Viskase’s Bedford

Park plant

is operated as

a swing plant, since

it

is Viskase’s

most expensive plant

to operate.

(P.

1171;

131—32).

In recent years, Bedford Park’s actual emissions have been

significantly below

the allowable emission

level.

Evidently,

in

1987 Viskase only emitted

550

tons of VOM.

In 1985

and 1986,

Viskase’s annual

VOM

emissions were

near

the 220 ton

level.

Testimony at hearing further

indicates that the

last time

Viskase’s

emissior.s approached

the currently allowable

rate of

1476 tpy was sometime

in the mid—l970’s.

(P.61)

Consequently,

if one were

to

figure cost—effectiveness based

on actual

emissions

from

the Bedford Park plant, the actual cost—

effectiveness values would

be significantly greater than the

estimates presented by Viskase or the Agency.

The Board

notes,

though,

that

in general

it

is more appropriate

to figure cost—

effectiveness values

based

on allowable,

rather

than actual,

emission rates.

After

all,

the allowable emission

limit

is

the

only legally enforceable

limit.

Viskase’s decision

to operate

its Bedford Park plant

at

less than

full capacity

is purely

a

business decision which can be changed

at anytime irrespective of

the environmental consequences.

At hearing

for

the Generic Rule, P86—18, Viskase stated that

it wanted

to keep

its allowable VOM emission rate

at 1476 tpy

notwithstanding

the fact that

its actual emissions had been

significantly below

that level

in recent years.

(R86—l8,

slip

op.

at

39).

Now,

though, Viskase

is proposing an allowable

emission

rate of

994

tpy.

This

is approximately 33

reduction

in

allowable emissions.

At hearing, Judd Burdick, Vice—President of Operations

for

Viskase,

testified

that Viskase would

not and could not absorb

the cost of

an

incinerator

at

its Bedford Park

facility.

Burdick

stated that the Bedford Park plant,

as currently operated,

has

a

20

greater per unit cost

of production

than Viskase’s Osceola,

Arkansas plant.

According

to Burdick,

if

an

incinerator were

required

at the Bedford Park plant,

this unit cost discrepancy

would

rise

to

49.

If

an incinerator were required, Burdick

concluded

that “Viskase could

not and would

not continue

to

operate the Bedford Park plant.”

(P.118).

1 The Board notes

that Viskase’s estimates concerning energy

costs,

labor,

and specific savings from not using

the hydrogen

sulfide scrubbers, which were utilized

to generate

a cost—

effectiveness value,

have also been modified since R86—18.

95—188

---

7

Burdick

further testified:

Rather

than

spend

the

$13.5

million

in

capital

and $6.0 million

in

annual

operating

costs

which

would

be

required

by

such

a

pollution

control

system,

Viskase would move

its

production

operations

from Bedford

Park

to

existing plants

located primarily outside

of

the United States.

While

such

a

move would

be

not

inexpensive,

we have calculated that the payback,

in terms

of

the avoided capital

and operating costs

of

an

incinerator

at

the

Bedford

Park

plant,

would

return relocation costs within

a period

of

2

to

3 years.

(P.118)

Burdick also countered the Agency’s suggestion that the

costs

of

a VOM afterburner

system could be passed

on

to Viskase’s

customers.

Because

substantial

excess

cellulose

casing

manufacturing

capacity

exists

in

the

world,

the

market

is

highly

competitive.

In

fact,

the

market

is

so

competitive

that

it

has

recently

suppressed

what

would

in

other

industries

have

been

routine

price

increases,

during

the

five years

prior

to

October,

1988,

for

example,

as

depicted

in

Exhibit

10

to

the Petition, prices

for

small

cellulose

casing

have

remained

static,

and

prices

for

fibrous

casing

during

the

last

three years have actually declined.

The

reality

of

the

marketplace

makes

clear

that

Viskase

would

have

little

success

in

increasing

its

product

prices

to

pass

on

increased

costs

of

pollution

control

equipment

for

carbon

disulfide

emissions

at

the Bedford

Park

plant.

This

is

especially

evident when

it

is

recognized

that Viskase’s

principal

domestic

competitor,

TeePak

Corporation,

which

operates

a

cellulose

casing plant

in Danville, Illinois, would not

be

subject

to

a

similar

control

requirement

under

the generic VOM

regulation.

Even were

TeePak

not

present

in

Danville,

however,

aggressive

foreign

competitors

also exist

in

Japan,

West Germany

and Spain

who would

like

nothing better than

to sell their products

to

Viskase’s customers should Viskase attempt to

95—189

---

8

raise

its prices.

(R. 121—123)

Burdick also described the beneficial

impact of

the Bedford

Park plant on

the State

and

local

area.

The

Bedford

Park

plant

is

Viskase’s

oldest

casing

production facility.

The plant

began

operation

in

1932.

The facility employs more

than

800

people.

On

an

annual

basis,

the

salaries

of

those

employees

exceed

$25

million

per

year.

In

addition,

Viskase

purchases

goods

and

services

in Illinois

in

the

amount

of

$34

million each year,

most

of

which

comes

from

the

Chicago

metropolitan

area.

Viskase’s

state

income

and

payroll

tax

payments

are

approximately

$1.5 million

per

year.

The

Bedford

Park

plant

also

pays

$375,000

in

local

property

taxes,

of

which

approximately

$200,000

is

directly

for

the

support

of

local

schools.

The

plant

pays

more than $100,000 per year

in city and state

utility

taxes.

Exports

of

products made

at

the

Bedford

Park

plant

are

at

the

rate

of

approximately $16 million per year.

(R. 116—117)

Obviously,

if Viskase moves

its plant out of Illinois, such

benefits will

be

lost.

Cross—Media Impacts

of Incineration

Robert Odewald, Viskase’s Manager

of Environmental Affairs,

testified regarding emissions which

do not currently exist

but

would exist

if Viskase

installed

an

incinerator

for CS2

control.

The emissions

of

the incinerator would

in turn have

to

be controlled,

by

a

scrubber,

for SO2.

Odewald stated that

for

every pound

of carbon disulfide,

along with the associated

hydrogen sulfide, destroyed by the incinerator process,

two

pounds of sulfur oxides would

be produced;

therefore,

SO2

scrubbers would be necessary.

(P.31).

Odewald testified

that based

on the destruction of 805 tpy

of CS2

(81

reduction of 994

tpy), SO2 emissions even after

passing through

a scrubber would

be greater

than

100 tpy.

Although

an exact figure

is not given for

the estimated amount of

SO~emissions after

scrubbing, Viskase presents some figures

which can

be manipulated

to estimate

the emission level.

Without

a scrubber on an incinerator,

and assuming

2 pounds of

sulfur

2 destroyed, Viskase

oxides being generated for each pound of CS

95—19

fl

---

9

would produce

1610 tpy of sulfur oxides.

Assuming that

a

scrubber would

reduce SO2 by

81 percent

(P.36), Viskase,

even

after

scrubbing

for S0-~,would emit 306

tpy of SO~, (81

reduction

of 1610

is 1304 tpy reauction).

Viskase

claims that under

its

994

tpy “cap” proposal

it would not emit any SO2.

(Attachment

#2

to Odewald testimony).

Viskase points out that

the Bedford Park plant

is

located

in

an area “which reported among

the highest ambient sulfur dioxide

concentrations

in Illinois during 1986”.

(P.31).

Also,

a Viskase witness

testified that”sulfur

dioxide

is

roughly equivalent

in reaction—rate and mechanism

to carbon

disulfide

in ozone production potential

on

a

per molecule

basis”.

(P.94).

However,

no evidence was presented which

shows

that the reaction

rate

and mechanism of SO2 are roughly

equivalent

to

that

of CS2.

In addition~Viskase

asserts that

incineration

of

994 tpy

of

CS., would generate 11,000 tpy of carbon dioxide (CO~) which

Viskase would

not otherwise

emit.

(R.34).

Viskasepoints

out

that CO2

levels

in

the atmosphere have been labeled by

atmospheric scientists

as

“the most significant pollutant”

which

could contribute

to

a global warning,

commonly referred

to

as

the

“greenhouse effect”.

(P.37).

The sulfur dioxide scrubbing

of the emissions

of

an

incinerator

(controlling 994 tpy of

CS2) would produce

over

7

million pounds

per year

of sodium sulfate (NaSO4)

solution.

This equates

to 21,000 pounds per day of Na2S~4 being discharged

with

the Bedford Park plant’s 4astewater.

Viskase

asserts that

Na.,S04

is considered

a “toxic chemical”

and must

be reported

under

the “Community Right—to—Know”

provisions of

the

Superfund

Amendments

and Reauthorization Act (SARA).~

If Viskase did not

incinerate CS2

it would

not produce

this amount of Na2SO4

solution.

Viskase

has also calculated

the amount of additional energy

which would be needed

if

it

incinerated

994

tpy of CS2.

Viskase

states

that

it would

need

to consume

4 ~ounds

of

fuel oil for

every pound

of

CS., destroyed.

Viskase estimates that

the annual

amount

of energy ~sed

by

an incinerator/scrubber system would

be

equivalent

to that

needed

to heat

2,100

homes.

(P.41).

The Agency provides little information

or argument which

counters Viskase’s estimates concerning cross—media

impacts.

The

Agency claims that

a Viskase

incinerator would

Ofli~

be operated

2 The Board

notes

that Viskase

cites

42 U.S.C.5l10l3

as authority

for this conclusion.

The Board believes

that Viskase may

be

referring to

42 U.S.C.

§11023.

9S—191

---

10

for

7 months

of the year and the Agency concludes

that the

additional pollutants resulting

from incineration should be

reduced

by

5/12

the estimated amounts.

(Ag.

Comments,

p.

7).

However,

Judd Burdick testified that Viskase would have to

operate

an incinerator

12 months out of

the year

in order

to

achieve

81 percent removal.

(R.l34).

In P86—18,

the Agency,

itself,

advocated that the Board

look

to

the cost—effectiveness

figures which assumed

a 12—month operating period

for

the

incinerator.

(P86—18,

slip op.

at

38).

Concerning

the cross—media

impacts,

the Agency states that

such

impacts,

alone,

do not warrant

a

“no control” option

for

Viskase.

(Ag.

Comments,

p.

6).

OSHA Standard

As stated earlier, OSHA

is currently

in

the process

of

revising the PEL for CS2.

On June

7,

1988,

031-IA proposed

to

reduce the PEL to

1

ppm.

However,

if

the PEL

is

changed from the

current

20 ppm

to 10 ppm, Viskase estimates that

it would have

to

increase

its ventilation from 200,000 scfm

to 300,000

scfm.

(R.20).

According

to Visk-ase,

such

a change

in ventilation would

correspondingly

increase

the

annual cost—effectiveness

of any

incinerator

from $6800

per

ton removed

of CS2

to $9000 per

ton

removed.

(R.57).

Viskase asserts

that

if

the PEL were lowered

to

1

pom,

as

OSHA

has

currently

proposed,

it

could

not

comply

with such

a standard.

(P.83).

The Agency asserts

in

its comments that

if Viskase were

to

increase

its air

flow by

100,000

scfm,

“the concentration of

carbon disulfide

in the plant’s

air

flow

would)

be

so diluted

as

to render

the cost—effectiveness

of

an afterburner beyond

the

PACT level”.

(Agency Comments, p.6).

Due

to

this

COflCIUS1Ofl,

the Agency recommends

that

if the Board accepts Viskase’s

proposal,

it should condition the emission standard

to expire

within

3 years unless Viskase

commits

to

increasing

the

air

flow

irrespective

of OSHA’s

final

determination.

That

is,

apparently

the Agency would

not

be opposed

to Viskase’s

proposed emission

standard,

as

a permanent

level,

if Viskase

increases

the air

flow

of

its ventilation system.

Reactivity

of Carbon Disulfide

Viskase presented Gary

Z. Whitten, who has a doctorate

in

gas—phase kinetics,

to address

the issue

of

the degree

to which

CS2 forms

ozone.

Dr. Whitten assisted

in the development

of the

Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach

(EKM.A)

and the Urban

irshed

Model

(UAM) which are used

in estimating

the production

of

ozone.

(R.86).

According

to Whitteri,

these

are the only two

computer models approved

by

the U.S.

EPA

to assess

control

strategies

to achieve

the national ambient

air quality

standard

for ozone.

(P.84).

Whitten

testified that

the typical U.S.

EPA

application

of ERMA “ignoresl

the

individual reactivities

or

effectiveness

of different

types

of VOC.”

(P.97—98).

Whitten

95—192

---

11

also stated:

Tihe

recommended use of EKMA tacitly assumes

that

controlled

VOCs

volatile

organic

chemical)

will

be

equal

in

effectiveness

toward reducing ozone

as the effectiveness of

the average VOC

in the default

urban mixtures

of EKMA.

(P.98).

On

the topic

of ozone production

and the relative

effectiveness

of

certain precursors, Whitten

testified:

Although

emissions

of

NOx

and

VOC

are

known

to

be

the

generic

chemical

precursors

to

urban

ozone

or

smog

formation,

the

effectiveness

towards

ozone

formation

of

individual

emissions

sources

is

complex

and

not

easily

understood.

The

basic

factors

which

separate

the

most

effective

smog

precursors

from

the

least

effective

precursors

are

(1)

the

atmospheric

chemical

reactions

unigue

to

each

chemical

species,

(2)

the magnitudes

of

the

sources

involved,

(3)

the

timing

of

the

emissions,

(4)

the

locations

of

the various

sources

and

(5)

the

concentration

of

the

precursors

which

are

emitted.

Since

the

other

four

factors

can

influence

the

atmospheric

chemistry,

reactivity

is

not

readily

quantified

or

understandable

by

discussing

only

the

atmospheric

chemistry

of

an

individual

precursor species.

Notwithstanding

the above statements, Whitten described

the

relative effectiveness of CS~ in the production

of ozone.

Whitten stated

that CS2 can produce only

a single ozone molecule

upon

reaction.

On

the other

hand,

a typical VOC,

like pentane,

can produce two ozone molecules,

according

to Whitten.

(P.92).

On

a weight basis,

CS

only has approximately 10

of

the ozone

producing potential o~an

equal weight

of

a typical

VOC.

(P.93).

In terms

of Viskase’s emissions, Whitten

stated:

In

order

to

relate

the

weight

of

carbon

disulfide

on

equivalent

typical

VOC

weight

basis

as

required

by

LISEPA’s

model,

a

reduction

factor

of

4.8

must

be

applied.

Further,

the

mechanistic

equivalent

for

carbon

disulfide

to

produce

ozone

is

only

one—half

of

that

of

a

typical

VOC,

which

results

in a

net reduction

factor of

9.6.

In

effect,

this

factor

reduces

the

805 tons

per

95—193

---

12

year

of

carbon

disulfide

emissions

which

would

be reduced

by Viskase Corporation

to an

equivalent

of

84

tons

per

year

of

a

typical

VOC

like pentane.

When

the ozone production

potential

of

sulfur

dioxide

generated

from

incineration

of

carbon

disulfide

is

considered,

it

reduces

the

benefit

of

controlling

805

tons

per

year

of

carbon

disulfide

down

to

44

tons

of

VOC

per

year.

This

amount

is

less

than

1/100

of

1

percent

of

the

total

VOC

emissions

in

the

Chicago

area.

(P.100—101)

Whitten concluded that controlling Viskase’s CS-~“will not

produce

a significant ozone ambient air quality benerit”.

Whitten asserts

that

the reactivity

of CS2

is “equivalent

to the

lowest

reactivity category considered

in atmospheric models such

as EKMA”,

and when CS2 does

react, Whitten claims

that “it

produces

one—half

as much ozone as

a typical VOC like pentane”.

Finally,

the total

amount of

CS., emissions

from Viskase

are “very

low when compared with

the

tota! VOC emissions

on the Chicago

Metropolitan

area”, according

to Whitten.

(P.100).

In

the Agency Comments,

the Agency reviews Whitten’s

testimony

and states:

Thus

in terms

of ozone control,

by mass,

one

must control 4.~pounds of carbon disulfide

by mass

to have

the

same impact as

controlling

1 pound

of

a more typical

volatile organic material.

Considered

in

these

terms,

the cost—effectiveness values

predicted

by Viskase

must be multiplied

by

4.8 for

a fair comparison

of cost—

effectiveness values predicted

for other

volatile organic materials.

(Ag.

comments,

p.

5—6)

Yet,

the Agency

is unwilling

to state

that such

an adjustment

is

allowed

by the U.S.

EPA for PACT determinations.

Conclusions

At hearing,

the Agency stated that

the Bedford Park plant

should essentially

be considered

as

a single source

of VOM

emissions.

The Agency found

that

the most economical application

of VOM control equipment would be the control

of

the consolidated

CS2 emissions which

are presently ducted through hydrogen sulfide

scrubbers

as

a single gas stream.

(P.148).

Given

the record

before the Board,

it

appears that

the only

technically feasible

method

of add—on control

for Viskase’s CS2 emissions

is

95—194

---

13

incineration.

(P.21—3D).

Viskase

is currently allowed

to

emit

1476 tpy

of VOM.

However,

it

is now proposing to reduce

that

allowable emission level,

by approximately

33,

to

994 tpy.

If

Viskase were

to

install

an incinerator

to achieve an overall 81

control

of 1476 tpy,

its emission would

be approximately 280

tpy.

Consequently,

the difference between

the allowable emission

level proposed by Viskase

(and effectuated without

the use

of

an

incinerator),

and that which would result from an 81

control

is

approximately 714

tpy.

Consequently,

the primary

issue before

the Board

is whether

it

is reasonable

to

require Viskase

to

install

an

incinerator

in order

to further

eliminate

the 714 tpy

of CS2 emissions.

In order

to destroy

the additional 714 tpy of CS2, Viskase

would have

to

install

an

incinerator.

The cost—effectiveness

of

such an incinerator would be different than previously

indicated.

The previous cost—effectiveness values computed

in

the

P86—18 proceeding were

based on

a total uncontrolled emission

rate of approximately 1500 tpy.

Since Viskase

is proposing

a

reduced, total

uncontrolled emission rate

of 994 tpy,

the cost—

effectiveness values should similarly change.

The Agency states

that since

the uncontrolled emission rate

has been reduced

by

about

30,

the cost—effectiveness values rise about 40~.

(P.151; Ag. Comments,

p.3).

Adding 40

to cost—effectiveness,

estimated

by Impell

in

R86—l8,

and relied upon by the Agency, would yield annual

cost—

effectiveness values

in

the range of

$2842

to $3377 per

ton of

CS2 removed.

The Agency asserts that the cost—effectiveness

values adjusted

for

the 994 tpy level

are still within

a PACT

range.

(Ag. Comments, p.4).

Viskase asserts that the

annual cost—effectiveness value

is

$6,800 per

ton.

The Agency criticizes Viskase’s use of

a cost—

effectiveness value which assumes

a year—round operation

of the

incinerator.

The Agency states that the costs

for operating

an

incinerator are less than those

considered

by Viskase,

since

Viskase will only operate

an incinerator

for

7 months of

the

year.

(Ag.

Comments,

p.3).

The Agency seems to suggest

that the

appropriate cost—effectiveness value

is arrived

at by dividing

the annualized capital and associated operating cost

for

operating

an incinerator

for only

7 months

out of the year by the

annual emissions reduction which would

be realized

if

an

incinerator were operated

12 months

of

the year.

(See P.156—

160).

Viskase

asserts that such

a cost—effectiveness figure

is

inherently inconsistent.

According

to Viskase,

the cost

needed

to achieve

an emission reduction should

be divided

by

the amount

The Board estimates

the increase

to

be approximately 67.

95—195

---

14

of that

reduction.

Whether

the cost—effectiveness value

is

calculated

on

a control being utilized for

7 months

or

12 months

out of

the year,

Viskase claims that the numerator

and

denominator of

the fraction generating

the cost—effectiveness

figure

should at least

relate

to the same scenario.

However,

as the U.S. EPA commented

in P86—18,

there are

other

factors,

other than cost—effectiveness, which must

be

considered

in

a RACT determination.

Viskase’s Bedford Park plant began operation

in 1935.

The

plant

is

not only old,

but inefficient

and costly

to

run.

No

other cellulose casing manufacturer has controls for CS2

emission.

(P.21).

Although Viskase

is proposing

an allowable

emission rate of

994

tpy, Viskase’s actual emissions have

not

reached that

level

in recent years.

Currently, Viskase employs

no controls

for CS2.

However,

it

does operate hydrogen sulfide

scrubbers.

Its

proposed 994 tpy

emission limit will

not require

the need for additional

controls.

If Viskase

is forced

to utilize

an

incinerator,

in order

to

achieve

an

overall 81

control

of VOM emissions,

significant

cross—media impacts would

result.

Incineration

of 994 tpy of CS2

would cause Vi~kase, even after

scrubbing,

to emit an estimated

306 tpy of SOf

and 11,000

tpy of CO2 which would

not otherwise

be emitted.

It

is

also significant

to note

that Whitten

testified that

SO2 emissions

are approximately equivalent

to CS2

emissions with

regard

to their potential

to produce ozone.

In

terms

of reducing ozone producing pollutants,

an

incinerator

controlling CS2 may

not be

as effective

as what would

normally be

expected from

a control providing 81

VOM removal.

In addition,

the SO2 scrubbing process would cause Viskase

to discharge

in

its wastewater

over

7 million pounds

of Na?S04

solution annually.

Such

a discharge could

be avoided

if Viskase

did not utilize

an

incinerator.

Finally,

the record shows

that substantial

amounts

of energy

could

be

saved

if Viskase did not employ

an incinerator.

Carbon disulfide

falls under

the definition

of VOM.

Consequently,

sources emitting CS2 are subject

to any applicable

VOM control

requirements.

Viskase’s expert witness

concedes that

CS~is photochemically reactive to produce ozone,

contrary

to

Viskase’s assertion

in its Petition.

(P.105).

Yet,

the record

indicates that

as compared

to other VOM’s, CS~ is relatively

less

effective

in producing ozone,

on

a weight basis.

Whitten

The Board

has calculated the SO2 emissions to

be approximately

306

tpy.

See p.9

of

this Opinion.

95—196

---

15

suggests that 805 tons

of CS2 has the same ozone producing

potential

as

84 tons of

a VOM like pentane.

The Agency admits

that controlling 4.8 pounds

of CS2 has the same effect on ozone

production

as controlling

1 pound

of

a typical

\TOM.

While

the

Agency

is unwilling

to state that such

a discrepancy

in ozone

producing capabilities can be

factored

into

a cost—effectiveness

value,

it does not seem

to the Board

that such

a discrepancy

can

be ignored

in

a PACT determination.

The U.S.

EPA has stated that

the “quantity”

and “nature”

of emissions are factors which

“must

be considered

in establishing PACT.”

As

a result,

the ozone producing potential

of 714 tpy

of CS2

is only

a fraction of

that associated with

714

tpy

of

a typical

VOM.

Since

the objective of VOM regulation

is

to lower ozone

production,

this fact must

be considered

in light of the costs

associated with the removal of

714 tpy of CS2.

Viskase has asserted that it will not

install

an incinerator

but would move

its facility out

of Illinois,

and likely out of

the country,

if forced to

comply with

an 81

overall

reduction.

If Viskase moves, Illinois and the Bedford Park community would

greatly miss

the job opportunities provided by Viskase as well

as

the other

economic benefits

incidental

to the Bedford Park

plant’s operation.

No other

cellulose casing manufacturer

has

to

control CS2 emissions,

and apparently Viskase could

not shoulder

such

a burden.

The creation of new pollutants

is another

“cost”

of

incineration which must

be evaluated

in light of the ozone

producing potential

of Viskase’s emission.

In such

a light,

it

does not seem prudent

to require Viskase

to control

its CS2

emissions with an incinerator when such

a control technology will

produce

a new major emission source

of SO2, which

is

a criteria

pollutant under

the Clean Air Act,

11,000 tpy of CO2 emissions,

and cause Viskase

to discharge millions

of pounds

of Na2SO4

solution

in its wastewater.In addition,

testimony before

the

Board

indicates

that SO2 may have the same ozone producing

potential as CS2.

Also,

it cannot

be

ignored that

large amounts

of energy are required for

incineration.

Environmental regulation

is intended

to solve pollution

problems,

not merely transfer them from one medium to another.

Given the other

negative environmental

impacts, any benefit

gained by eliminating 714

tpy of Viskase’s CS2 emissions must be

observed

in

the complete environmental

context.

Generally,

the Board does not have the capability of

quantifying the environmental benefits and environmental costs

of

a particular pollution control

strategy

to the extent that

a net

environmental effect can

be attained and weighed against

the

actual dollar cost

of that control strategy.

While

such

information would greatly aid

the Board

in

its determinations,

it

is not easy to assign

a dollar value

to environmental resources,

such as clean air

or clean water.

Notwithstanding

these

95—197

---

16

considerations,

regulatory decisions must be made.

Often,

as

in

the instant matter,

relevant factors

must

be considered

together,

as

a whole,

rather than balanced against one another

on some type

of numerical scale.

This seems consistent with

the U.S.

EPA’s

view of

a

PACT determination.

The U.S. EPA takes

the position

that “no specific cost—effectiveness threshold exists

to

determine PACT”,

but rather “numerous other factors.. .must

be

considered

in establishing PACT”.

Given

all the circumstances of this particular

situation,

the Board

finds that an 81

reduction of uncontrolled VOM

emissions would not constitute PACT for Viskase’s Bedford Park

facility.

Viskase has proposed

to reduce

its allowable VOM

emissions by

33,

to

a

level of

994 tpy.

Such

a reduction

constitutes PACT for the Bedford Park facility and will

not

interfere with

the State’s progress toward achieving ambient air

quality standards.

Viskase has committed

to

a limit

of

68 tons/month

for

the

months

of June,

July,

and August.

The Agency states

that such

a

distinction which extends for less than the full ozone

season

would

not

be approved by the U.S.

EPA.

(Ag. Comments,

p.4).

The

Agency requests

a

2.87 tons/day monthly average without referring

to a 994 tpy limit.

Presumably,

this average would

apply to each

month of the year.

Viskase

requests limits of 2.22 tons/day for June, July and

August,

and

3.30 tons/day

as

an average

for each other month.

Alternatively, Viskase asserts

that

a limit

of

2.89 ton/day,

rather than 3.30, would

be sufficient

if averaged over the nine—

month period which does not

include June, July and August.

Since Viskase

is willing

to commit

to

less emissions during

the summer months of June,

July,

and August,

the Board believes

that

it should hold Viskase

to that commitment by way of emission

limits.

Although reduced emissions would not extend for the

whole

ozone

season (April through October),

extra relief from

ozone precursors during

those summer months could certainly

benefit

the air quality

of

the Chicago area.

Viskase

is able to

accomplish

the summer

emission reduction through the scheduling

of maintenance activities

on

its production

line.

There

is

nothing

in the record

to suggest

that such activities,

which

result

in less CS2 emissions,

could

be extended over the entire

ozone

season.

Viskase

insists that an average of

3.30 ton/day for each

of

the other

nine months

is necessary

to allow Viskase

to make—up

for lost production due

to periods when operations

are down for

maintenance

or

other reasons.

The Board accepts

the need for

such flexibility

at the Bedford Park plant particularly

in light

of

the fact that

it

is operated

as

a swing plant.

However,

allowing for such intra—month flexibility does not absolve

Viskase from its duty not

to exceed

the overall annual emission

95—198

---

17

limitation of

994

tpy.

Consequently,

the Board will require

that Viskase’s Bedford

Park plant’s VOM emission not exceed

994 tpy.

In addition,

Viskase

shall

be subject

to the following emission standards:

2.22 tons/day, computed as

a monthly average,

for the months

of

June, July and August;

and 3.30 tons/day, computed

as

a monthly

average

for

each of the other

nine months.

The methodology

for

computing

a monthly average from daily emission values will

be

determined by Agency permit.

Viskase

apparently accepts such

a

provision.

(Viskase Reply,

p.

7).

The Board accepts the Agency’s recommendation concerning

methodologies which

are

to

be used

for calculating emissions.

In

addition the Board will utilize the data record—keeping and

maintenance requirements

as suggested

by the Agency.

Such

records

would

be useful

in evaluating whether Viskase

is

complying with

the emission standards adopted today.

Viskase has

not argued against these particular recommendations.

The Board

has added

a requirement

that any daily emission values which are

computed must

be kept on file

as well.

The emission standards prescribed

by today’s Order

shall

take effect immediately.

Neither the Agency nor Viskase have

presented the Board with argument

to suggest that an alternative

effective date

is necessary.

Finally,

the Agency requests that the Board

limit

applicability

of

a

standard

for

three years

if Viskase’s proposal

is accepted.

Viskase opposes

such a “sunset” provision because

such a provision would merely “extend

the economic limbo”

of the

Bedford Park plant,

according

to Viskase.

The Board

is not

convinced that the standards adopted today must

be re—visited

in

three years.

Therefore, the standards do not contain

an

automatic repeal date.

ORDER

Pursuant

to the authority of Section

10

of the Environmental

Protection

Act,

as amended

by Public Act

85—1321,

and provided

that Viskase Corporation’s

(Viskase) plant

located

in Bedford

Park continues

to utilize the viskose process

in manufacturing

cellulose casings,

the Board hereby adopts the following emission

standards applicable

to Viskase’s Bedford Park plant.

These

standards become effective on the date

of

this Order.

1.

The volatile organic material

(VOM) emissions

from

Viskase’s Bedford Park plant shall

not exceed

994 tons

per year.

In

addition, VOM emissions,

computed on

a

monthly average basis,

shall

not exceed the following:

2.22 tons per day for each month during the period from

June through August;

and 3.30 tons per day for each

month during the period from September through May.

95—199

---

18

2.

Emissions

of VOM,

including carbon disulfide,

from the

Bedford Park plant shall

be determined from raw material

consumption

and plant—specific emission

factors.

These

factors shall

be developed using

the methods and

procedures

for

testing

contained

in 40 CFR

60

(1988),

including Appendix A,

Method

2,

2A,

2B,

15,

25,

25A and

25B,

as appropriate.

The methodology for computing

a

monthly average from daily emission values will

be

determined by the permit,

issued

to Viskase by the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

which

prescribes

the emission standards

set forth herein.

3.

In accordance with

the applicable methodologies, Viskase

shall:

a)

Maintain

a monthly record

of raw material

consumption by each processes or group of processes

subject

to

a different

emission factor; and

b)

Calculate

and record monthly VOM emissions,

daily

VOM

emissions,

average daily VOM emissions

in

tons/day,

on

a monthly basis.

4.

a)

Records of

testing

shall

be retained

by Viskase

at

its Bedford Park facility for

at least

5 years

following

the date

last relied upon for calculating

emissions;

and

b)

Raw material consumption records,

VOM emission

calculations,

and VOM emission records

shall

be

retained by Viskase

at

its Bedford Park facility

for

at

least

2 years following the date prepared.

IT

IS

SO ORDERED.

Section 41

of the Environmental Protection Act,

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1985

ch.

111 l,,~ par.

1041,

provides for appeal of

final

Orders

of the Board within

35 days.

The Rules of the Supreme

Court

of Illinois establish filing

requirements.

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn,

Clerk of

the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify

that the

a

ye Opinion

and Order was

adopted

on

the

~

day of

_________________,

1989,

by

a vote

Dorothy

M.

Gu,4~i, Clerk’

Illinois Poll’~’itionControl Board

95—209