ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 22,
1976
U.
S. INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS
)
COMPANY,
DIVISION, NATIONAL
)
DISTILLERS AND CHEMICAL
)
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 76-78
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This matter comes before the Board upon Petition for Variance
by U.
S.
Industrial Chemicals Company
(USI)
for their chemical
plant located in Tuscola, Douglas County,
Illinois.
The Petition
for Variance was filed March
18,
1976,
amended May
6,
1976,
and
a Recommendation by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) was filed on June 23,
1976.
uSI requests variance from Rule 204(e)
of Chapter
2 of the
Air Pollution Regulations of the Pollution Control Board to permit
the operation of
5 coal—fired boilers during the construction of
a power plant stack pursuant
to the terms and conditions of a con-
struction permit issued by the Agency on February
25,
1976.
The
5
coal—fired boilers generate steam for in-plant uses
and generation
of 40
of the electric power required by the plant.
The
5 boilers
currently burn about 1500 tons of washed coal per day, containing
approximately 2
sulfur.
USI’s power plant is well within the re-
quirements of Rule 204(c) (1) (B) (i),
i.e.,
6.0 pounds of SO2 per
million btu of actual heat input, but is not
in compliance with Rule
204(e) due to an unfortunate configuration of the existing power
plant stacks.
USI’s problem is apparently caused by the fact that
they have
5 one hundred foot stacks each venting one of the
5 coal—
fired boilers.
The building which they serve is
80 feet high.
In
23
—
147
—2—
order to prevent down wash affects
from a building, good engineering
practice indicates that a stack should be about
2 1/2 times the height
of the closest building it serves.
USI proposes to achieve compliance with Rule 204(e) by construc-
ting one
190 foot stack to serve all
5 boilers at an approximate cost
of $2,000,000.00.
To that end USI requested and was issued a con-
struction permit by the Agency on February 25,
1976 for the construc-
tion of the 190 foot stack to be completed some
70 weeks
from the
date of the construction permit.
It
is the Agency’s opinion that
the tall stack will achieve compliance with Rule 204(e)
and that the
70 week construction period is reasonable.
Based upon modeling done by USI, the source,
as
it now exists,
is capable of exceeding the national ambient air quality secondary
standard.
However,
considering the data presented by tiSI and the
comments made by the Agency
in their Recommendation,
it appears that
the chance of violation of the standards is very small
and therefore
the potential environmental damage
is de minimus in the eyes of the
Board.
USI compared the air quality
in Douglas County and the air
quality
in neighboring counties of Macon and Sangarnon in an attempt
to show lack of violation of the primary standard,
since no air
quality sampling was available for Douglas County.
The Board agrees
with the Agency’s estimation that no valid comparison can be made.
However,
considering that the potential violation of secondary
standards is so slight and the overall SO2 emissions from fuel
combustion point sources in the county is so low
(17,268 tons per
year),
the Board is of the opinion that the primary air quality
standards for SO2 are not likely to be violated by the present in-
stallation.
USI alleges that an ambient monitoring program was carried out
during 1972 which indicated the ambient air quality met both primary
and secondary standards at all times during the test period.
Follow-
ing the installation of electrostatic precipitators on its
5 boilers
in 1973, USI applied for an operating permit for its power plant.
In
fact, between February of 1973 and June of 1975 USI applied no less
than seven times
for an operating permit,
all of which applications
were denied primarily due to the Agency’s contention that SO7 emis-
sions from the boilers might exceed those
allowed by Rule 2OUe).
In addition, USI alleges that it was in a dilemma due to the proposed
change of Rule 204 by the Agency in R75-5 and the new amendment to
the Environmental Protection Act
(Section 10(h)) concerning the use of
intermittent control systems in lieu of compliance with SO2 emission
standards.
On June 12,
1975,
the application for permit was resub-
mitted accompanied by
a compliance plan which would permit the Peti-
tioner to meet the emission requirements of Rule 204(e) with the use
23
—
148
—3—
of a tall single stack.
After consultations with the Agency, USI
filed an application for a construction permit to construct the single
stack
in December of 1975.
The Agency subsequently granted
USI’s
application for the construction permit and now recommends that
variance be granted from Rule 204(e)
until June
1,
1977 or until the
new stack is completed, whichever is sooner,
subject to certain con-
ditions.
USI claims that in order to comply with Rule
204(e)
it would
be necessary to switch the power plant operation from coal to oil
at an estimated increase in cost of $67,000.00 per day.
In addi-
tion,
a capital expenditure of some $2,500,000.00 will be necessary
for the conversion of the facilities.
Conversion to oil would also
render useless $2,000,000.00 worth of electrostatic precipitators in-
stalled by USI in 1973.
Considering the proposed compliance plan,
the arbitrary and unreasonable hardship which would be imposed by
immediate compliance with 204(e)
and the fact that USI has apparently
pursued an operating permit with vigor,
if not with success, the
Board will grant the variance requested subject to certain conditions.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that U.S.
Industrial Chemicals Company be granted variance from Rule 204(e)
of the Air Pollution Regulations until June 1,
1977 or until comple-
tion of the proposed new stack, whichever event occurs sooner,
subject to the following conditions:
a.
USI shall follow the construction schedule contained in
the construction permit issued by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency on February 26,
1976 which permit is hereby
incorporated in this Order by reference
as
if fully setforth
herein.
b.
USI shall submit progress reports to the Agency within
30 days after the date of this Order and
every
90 days there-
after.
c.
Within 60 days of the date of this Order USI shall submit
a performance bond to the Agency in the amount of $100,000.00.
Said bond shall be submitted to the Agency Control Program
Coordinator in a form acceptable to the Agency.
23—149
—4—
d.
Within
35 days of the Board’s Order, Petitioner shall
execute and forward to the Control Program Coordinator a
Certification of Acceptance and agreement to be bound by all
terms and conditions of the variance.
The form of said Certi-
fication shall be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We),_________________________________having read
and fully understanding the Order of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board in PCB 76-78,
hereby accept
said Order and agree to be bound by all terms and
conditions thereof.
SIGNED__________________________
TITLE_____________________________
DATE_______________________________
Mr. Dumelle dissented.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hei~bycertify the
bove Opinion and Order were ~dopted on
the
~‘
day of
,
1976 by a vote
of
~(~-1
Illinois Poll
trol
Board
23—
150