ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
8,
1989
AKZO CHEMICALS,
INC.,
Petitioner,
PCB 89—34
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
MESSRS. DANIEL
F.
O’CONNELL AND BRIAN
A.
BOSCH
OF GARDNER, CARTON
& DOUGLAS, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;
~!R.
JOSEPH
R.
PODLEWSKI,
JR., APPEAREI)
ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.
C.
Flemal):
This matter
comes before the Board
upon
a Petiti.on for
Variance filed February 16,
1989 by Akzo Chemicals,
Inc.
(“Akzo”).
Akzo requests variance until March
15,
1990 from the
requirements
of
35
111.
Adm.
Code 215 Subpart RR
(35 Iii.
Adm.
Code 215.960—215.966),
the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Rules
(“Generic Rules”).
In general, Section
215.966
of the Generic Rules
requires affected sources
to achieve
an overall
reduction in uncontrolled
volatile organic material
(“VONI”) emissions
of
at least
81,
and
that such reduction be
achieved
by April
1,
1989.
On March
30,
1989
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (“Agency”)
filed
a recommendation that
~he requested
relief be granted subject
to condition~.
On April
6,
1989 Akzo
filed
a response
to the recommendationt.
Hearing was held on
April
25,
1939
in Chicago.
No members
of the public were
present.
BACKGROUND
Akzo operates
a chemical manufacturing plant located
in
McCook, Cook County,
Illinois;
the facility employs approximately
130 people.
Among
the many chemical products manufactured
at
this facility
is Arquad,
a trade name for Akzo’s long chain
~ In its response,
Azko objected
to one
of the Agency’s
recommended conditions.
This objection was later withdrawn
at
hearing
(R.
at
14).
100—09
—2—
quaternary aramonium salts2, which
is
an active ingredient
in
liquid fabric softeners and other related products
(R.
at
22).
Akzo operates two reactors for
the manufacture of Arguad.
In
general,
the production
of Arquad consists
of placing amines
in
a
reactor with
a solvent
(usually either
isopropyl alcohol
or
ethanol, collectively,
“IpA”),
then adding bicarbonated
soda,
heat,
and methyl chloride.
When the amines are converted
to
the
quaternary
salt,
the reactor
is cooled
and the material
is
transferred
to
a storage tank where nitrogen gas
is passed
through
the product
to strip methyl chloride.
Gas collects
in
the head space
of the storage
tank and
is vented
to the
atmosphere.
During this stripping process (called sparging),
IPA, also attaches itself
to
the nitrogen and
is ultimately
vented
to the atmosphere
as
a VOM.
The product
is then filtered
and prepared
for shipment.
For certain
types
of quads,
IPA
is
again added
to the product according
to customer specifications
(R.
at 33—41).
Akzo estimates
that
its production
of Ar~uad results
in the
emission
of approximately 350 tons
of IPA per year.
Akzo states
that production and
emissions
levels
are steady throughout
the
year and Akzo does not anticipate any significant future
changes
in production
(Pet,
at
4,
R. at
42).
Prior
to April
7,
1988,
Akzo’s VOM emissions generated by
the production of
Arquad were not regulated under
any specific
RACT rules.
However, on April 7,
1988 the Board adopted
regulations governing VOM emissions from miscellaneous Organic
chemical manufacturing processes
located in ozone non—attainment
areas
(In
re:
Organic Emission Generic Rule
35
Ill.
kdm.
Code
215, Subpart RR, R86—16).
Under Subpart RR, miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing processes
(as defined
in Section
211.122) which
are located
in ozone
non—attainment areas
and emit
100
tons
or
more
of
VOM
annually
are
required
to
achieve
compliance with RACT by April
1,
1989
(35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
215.966(b)).
For sources subject to Subpart
RR, RACT
is either
an emission capture and control technique which achieves an
overall
reduction
in uncontrolled VOM emissions
of
81
(35 Ill.
Adm. Code
2l5.966(a)(l)),
or
an adjusted RACT standard under
Subpart
I.
The Subpart
RR regulations became effective April
8,
1988.
Akzo’s production
of Arguad
is classified
as
a miscellaneous
chemical manufacturing process under Section 211.122.
Since the
Akzo facility
is located
in an ozone non—attainment
area
and
emits more than 100 tons
of VOM anually, Akzo
is subject
to the
VOM emissions limitations and compliance date
of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 215.966.
2 The quaternary
ammoniurn salts
are also referred
to
in the
record
as
“quads”.
100-10
—3—
COMPLIANCE
PLAN
Akzo states that
it will not
be able
to comply with Section
215.966 by April
1,
1989 and requests variance through March 15,
1990
to allow
it time
to
install and test
its proposed recovery
system,
described
below.
Akzo proposes to comply with Section 215.966 by installing
an IPA recovery system which will
achieve approximately 84
reduction of emissions
(R.
at
87—8,
lOU).
The system consists
of
installation
of
condensers on each
of the two reactors.
Vent
gasses would he piped through
the condensers where
cooling water
will
be used
to condense IPA.
Recovered IPA will be recycled
for
use
in the final product.
Any uncondensed
IPA and methyl
chloride will
be vented
to the atmosphere
(R.
at 33—87).
Akzo plans
to achieve compliance according
to the following
compliance schedule which was revised
(regarding
certain internal
dates
only)
at hearing:
1.
Generic Rules Approved by the Board.
April
7,
1988
2.
On—going discussions
re:
Scope
of
May—September
1988
Recovery System.
3.
Meeting
re:
Scope
of Recovery System,
October
19,
1988
Alternative Designs and Economic
Concern.
4.
Contacted Illinois Environmental
October
21, 1988
Protection Agency
re: procedure
for
requesting
a variance.
5.
Meeting
re: Revise project design.
November
22,
1988
6.
Completed preliminary projects schedule.
December
8,
1988
7.
Completed equipment specifications.
December
12,
1988
8.
Received approval for preliminary
December
23,
1988
funding.
9.
Considered modifications to proposed
January—February,
Recovery System.
1989
10. Decision
on
final modification
of
March 15,
1989
Recovery System.
11.
Issued
purchase
orders
for
Mid—March,
1989
Camp
rionel
condensors.
12.
Submitted Appropriation Request
to
March
31,
1989
Akzo Executive Committee.
100— 11
—4—
13. Executive Committee approval of
April
18, 1989
Appropriation Request.
14. Filed application
for Construction
May 1,
1989
Permit.
15. Complete detailed Engineering Design.
May 26, 1989
16. Award Construction Contracts.
June
5, l939~
17. Begin
on—site
delivery
of
equipment.
July 15, 1989
18. Receive
IEPA Construction Permit.
August
1,
1989
19. Begin on—3ite construction.
August
1,
1989
20.
Construction and installation
of
August—November,
Recovery System.
1989
21. Complete construction
arid begin
December
1,
1989
Initial Test Prints.
22. Complete debugging
and production
December
30, 1989
shakedown.
23. Release system for production.
December
31, 1989
(Pet.
Exh.
4)
Although the schedule
states that the system would
be released
for production by December
31,
1989, Akzo contends that
it needs
until
March
31,
1990
to
account
for
“possible
delays,
equipment
manufacture
and
delivery,
installation
and
debugging
problems,
and
complications
due
to
weather
or
other
unforeseen
circumstances”
beyond
Akzo’s
control
(Pet.
Exh.
4,
Pet.
at
9).
As
stated
in
its
recommendation,
the
Agency
finds
Akzo’s
schedule
acceptable.
The
Agency
explains
that:
because
Akzo’s
variance
will
not
expire
until
March
15,
1990,
Akzo
has sufficient time
in
which
to
make
a
compliance
demonstration
and
to
obtain
an
operating
permit
from
the
Agency
for
the
IPA
recovery
system
prior
to
the
expiration
of
the
variance.
(Rec.
at
11).
For
dates
that
are
now
in
the
pest,
Akzo
did
not
indicate
that
these
dates
were
nDt
in
fact
met.
100— 12
—5—
HARDSTII p
Akzo claims
that
immediate compliance or
compliance at
a
time sooner than March
15,
1990 would
impose
an arbitrary and
unreasonable hardship upon Akzo.
Akzo has presented
a number
of
other compliance options which it has considered
and rejected due
to either economic
or
technical
difficulties which would result
through use
of any of these options.
Briefly,
these
include:
1-)
Catalytic
or
thermal
incineration.
Akzo
states
that
these
options
would
be
more
expensive
to
install
and
less
expensive
to
operate
than
the
proposed
system.
Additionally,
these
options
would
not
allow
for
any
recovery
of
IPA
for
reuse.
2)
Carbon
absorption.
Akzo
states
that
a
carbon
absorption
system
would
be
efficient
for
more
dilute
gasses.
Here,
the
initial
concentration
of
IPA
would
be
greater
than
a
carbon
absorption
system
would efficiently handle.
3)
Water
scrubber.
Akzo
states
that
this
type
of
system
has two disadvantages
in that
it
would
allow
for
no
recovery of IPA and would trade an air pollution problem
for a water pollution problem.
(R.
at 96—97)
In addition
to the options outlined above,
Akzo considered
moving production,
altering the production process,
or shutting
down the Arquad production
lines pending installation of
the
recovery system.
Akzo claims these
options would result
in
increased
costs
or other
economic hardship including loss
of
customers and layoff
of
as many
as seventeen employees.
Mr.
Robert Brandolino, plant manager,
testified that any shut down of
the Arquad production
lines
at McCook could have
a similar
negative effect on Akzo’s Morris,
Illinois plant,
since that
plant provides feed stock
for the McCook plant production.
Mr.
Br3ndolino also stated that Arquad cannot
be stored
in high
volume due
to product shelf
life and customer specifications
including delivery dates
(R.
at 55—61).
In
its recommendation,
the Agency states that:
rrhe
Agency agrees with Akzo that compliance with
the
VOM emission limitation
of section 215.966(a)
by
April
1,
1989 will
create an unreasonable hardship.
Akzo, despite
its diligent efforts,
cannot
realistically install
and operate
a VOM control
system by April
1,
1989.
(Rec.
at
8)
The Agency further states that
the requested relief can be
granted consistent with federal law
(Rec.
at
7).
100—13
—6—
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
As noted earlier, Akzo
is located
in
a non—attainment
area
for ozone.
The two ozone monitors located closest
to the Akzo
facility are
in Cicero and Lemont.
At least
one ozone exceedence
was
reported
at
each
monitor
in
1987
arid
two
ozone
exceedences
were
reported
at
the
Cicero
monitor
in
1988
(Rec.
at
6).
Akzo
claims
that
the
VOM
emissions
from
its
Arquad
production
processes
will
have
no
significant
adverse
impact
on
human,
plant,
or
animal
life
during
the
term
of
the
variance.
Akzo estimates
that
its plant contributes
.058 percent
of the
total VOM load of
600,000
tons per year
in the Chicago area
(Pet.
at
10).
However,
the Agency believes
that “Akzo’s contribution
to
the
ozone
non—attainment
status
of
the
Chicago
metropolitan
area
cannot
be
so
easily
quantified.”
The Agency states that Akzo,
as
a
major
source
of
VOM,
does
contribute
to
an
unquantified
degree
to violations
of the ozone AAQS in northern Illinois
(Rec.
at
4).
Nevertheless, the Agency does note that by the end
of
the
requested variance period,
Akzo’s annual VOM emissions from the
Arquad production processes should be
in the vicinity of 66.5
tons reduced from 350 tons annually.
The Agency further notes
that during the course
of the variance,
as
stated
in its
petition, Akzo will employ reasonable efforts
to minimize VOM
emissions
to the greatest extent possible
(Rec.
at
6, Pet.
at
15).
CONCLUS ION
Based on the
facts
in this record,
the Board finds
that Akzo
has presented adequate
proof
that immediate compliance
or
compliance
at
a time sooner
than March 15, 1990 would
impose an
arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship upon Akzo.
The Board finds
that Akzo
is committed
to achieve compliance
by the installation
of an IPA recovery system,
and
further finds
the schedule
to
achieve compliance
is acceptable.
However,
should ~~kzo be able
to achieve compliance
sooner than March 15,
1990,
the variance
will expire at that
time.
The Board also agrees
with the parties
that minimal
environmental impact will occur,
given that
compliance
is
timely forthcoming.
Accordingly,
the variance will
be granted subject
to conditions consistent with
this Opinion and
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s
findings of
fact and
conclusions
of
law
in this matter.
I C)0—14
—7—
ORDER
Akzo Chemicals,
Inc.
is hereby granted variance from
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
215, Subpart RR
(35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 215.960—215.966)
for
its facility located
in McCook,
Illinois,
subject to
the
following conditions:
1.
Variance expires on March
15,
1990,
or when compliance
with
35
Ill. Adm. Code
215,
Subpart RR
is achieved,
whichever occurs first.
2.
During the term of this variance,
Akzo shall submit
quarterly written reports
to the Agency detailing all
progress made in achieving compliance with
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
215, Subpart RR at
its plant located
at 8401
W.
47th
St., McCook,
Illinois.
The first quarterly report
will
be due thirty
(30) days from the date
of the Board
order granting the variance.
These quarterly reports
shall
include monthly VOM emission data from Arquad
production.
All
of the above information shall
be
submitted
to the Agency at the following
addresses:
1)
Manager, Permit Section
Division
of Air Pollution Control
1340 N. Ninth Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62701
2)
Manager,
Field Operations Section
Division of Air Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1701
S. First Avenue, Suite
600
Maywood,
Illinois
60153
3.
Petitioner
shall give thirty
(30)
days notice prior
to
the expected date
of any compliance demonstration to the
Agency’s regional office and Emission Source Specialist
at the address provided
in Condition
2(2).
The Agency’s
Emission Source Specialist
shall be
further notified
within
a minimum of five
(5)
working days
of the exact
date,
time,
and place
of these compliance
demonstrations,
to enble the Agency
to witness
these
compliance demonstrations.
4.
Within 45 days
of
the date of
this Order, Petitioner
shall execute
and forward
to Mr. Joseph
R. Podlewski,
Jr., Enforcement Attorney,
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, 1701
S.
First Avenue,
Suite
600,
Maywood,
Illinois 60153,
a Certification of Acceptance
and Agreement
to be bound
to
all terms
and conditions
of
this variance.
The 45—day period shall
be held
in
abeyance during any period that this matter
is being
100— 15
—8—
appealed.
Failure
to execute
and forward
the
Certificate within 45 days renders this variance void
and
of no
force
and effect as
a shield against
enforcement
of rules
from which variance was granted.
The form of said Certification shall
be
as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We),
,
hereby
accept and agree
to
be bound
by all terms
and conditions
of the
Opinion
and Order
of the Pollution Control Board
in PCB 89—34,
June
8, 1989.
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1987
ch.
1111/2 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.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby cert4~ythat the above Opinion and Order was
adopted
on the
~
day
of
~
,
1989,
by
a
vote of
~
.
7/
~/‘~~_~
/~/7
~
~
Dorothy
M. 4unn,
Clerk
Illinois P~1lutionControl Board
100—16