ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 14, 1977

STEPAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

 PCB 76—161

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

Mr. Harley Hutchins, Attorney, appeared for the Petitioner;

Ms.

 Kathryn Sheehan Nesburg, Attorney, appeared for the Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr.

 Zeitlin):

This matter is before the Board on a Petition for Variance

filed by the Stepan Chemical Company

 (Stepan) on May 21,

 1976.

That Petition requested relief from the particulate standards

in

Rules 203(a)

 and 203(b), and the carbon monoxide limitations in

Rule 206(c)

 of Chapter

 2: Air Pollution,

 of this Board’s Rules and

Regulations.

 Stepan also sought relief from the organic emission

limitations

 in Rule 205(f)

 and 205(g) (1) (c), also of Chapter

 2, or

in the alternative

 a ruling that these limitations do not apply to

the subject facility.

 Pursuant to an objection filed by the Envi-~

roninental Protection Agency

 (Agency)

 on May 27,

 1976,

 the matter

was set for hearing.

An Amended Petition was filed by Stepan on September 28,

 1976,

which extended certain dates contained in the original Petition’s

compliance schedule by several months,

 as a result of delays caused

by

 a strike.

 A further amendment to StepaxYs Petition was entered

at hearing,

 (Cornpl.

Ex.

1,

R.

8),

 in which Stepan further extended

the period for compliance.

 A final amendment was made orally at

hearing,

(R.

 5), by which Stepan admitted the applicability of

Rule 205(f)

 to the organic emission from its facility, although it

continued to contest the applicability of Rule 205(g) (1) (c),

 (id.).

The Agency’s original Recommendation was filed on September

3,

1976.

 The Agency’s Recommendation was modified slightly at hearing,

and a

 formal Amended Recommendation was filed on March

3,

 1977.

—

281

—2—

A hearing was held in the matter on January 10,

 1977,

 at the

Will County Courthouse,

 in Joliet.

 Witnesses were presented by both

parties, although the Agency’s presentation was limited to expert

testimony on the definition of “petrochemicals,” and the applica-

bility of rules limiting emissions from “petrochemical processes”

and “petrochemical manufacturing processes” to Stepan’s facility.

Although special notice

 (in addition to the publication and notice

normally required) was given to one citizens’

 group, no members of

 the public participated at the hearing.

Stepan’s Petition concerns emissions

 from its phthalic anhydride

manufacturing process at its Nilisdale Plant,

 located on the Des

Plaines River

 in Will County.

 Stepan’s Milisdale facility is

described in a prior Variance case, and that description need not

be repeated here.

 Stepan Chemical Co.

 v. EPA, PCB 74-425,

 17 PCB

105

 (May

22,

 1975).

 In fact,

 a portion of the relief requested

here is an extension of the Variance granted in PCB 74-425 with

regard to the carbon monoxide limitations of Rule 206 (c).

Phthalic anhydride is produced at the Milisdale Plant by the

partial oxidation of O-Xylene in the presence of a catalyst.

 Stepar~

produced 32,935,000 pounds of phthalic anhydride, utilizing

 34,456,000

pounds of O-Xylene,

 in 1975.

 Waste gases from the process, exiting

at approximately 140°F.,with little heat value, are vented to the

atmosphere through a 75-foot stack.

 The composition of the waste

gases, and the applicable emission limits, are as follows:

WASTE

GPS

 REtWT

REWIRED

OI4PCt~1ENT

EMISSICNS

LIMITATICES

REGUlATION

REDUCTION*

CO

 5,000 PPM

200

PPM

 206(c)

96

(860 lb./hr.

)

(arrected

50

excess

 air)**

hydrocarbons

 398 lb./hr.

8

 lb./hr.

 205 (f)

85

 (per

(including

 40 lb./hr.

 205(f) (1) (A)

as particulate)

hydrocarbons

600

PR4*

100

PPM

 205(g) (1) (C)

78

(equivalent

nethane)

particulate

 40 lb./hr.

29.5

lb./hr.

203 (a)

Per

EPA

lecximendation,

 INI 7-10,

 apparently using 2\rrended

Petition,

 ¶5.

 See,

R.

50.

 For 100

 operation ~nissions,see R.

 19-20.

The

applicability

 of the “50

Excess

Air”

correction

this

 type of facility

is presently an issue in a

pending

Pegulatory

 proceeding, R75—9, R76—8,-12,-13.

25

—

282

_3_.

In PCB 74-425,

 the Board found that no technically feasible and

economically reasonable method for compliance with the carbon monoxide

limitation of Rule 206(c)

 then existed for Stepan’s phthalic anhydride

 plant.

 The Board granted a “research and development” Variance,

permitting Stepan to continue its investigation and development of

a ‘cold catalytic” compliance technology.

 Stepan was,

 at that time,

funding a research program at Northwestern University,

 including

bench and later pilot scale study of the new technology.

 A more

complete description of that research program, and an analysis of

the inapplicability of incineration as a control measure for Stepan’s

plant, may be found in the Board’s previous Variance Opinion in

PCB 74—425,

 supra,

 17 PCB at 106—108.

Subsequent to the entry of our Order in PCB 74-425, while the

cold catalytic oxidation study continued, Stepan was approached by

the DuPont Company regarding a new control technology which DuPont

felt would be applicable to the Millsdale Plant.

 The DuPont Torvex

catalytic reactor utilizes precious metal

 (platinum) deposited on

a ceramic honeycomb to remove both carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons

from the exhaust stream,

(R.

 70).

 This process is not a “cold”

catalytic process;

 though it will require elevation of the exhaust

gases above their 140°F.exit temperature,

 it will not require the

excessive amounts of fuel for incineration,

 as discussed in PCB 74—425.

Instead, the DuPont process

 (called a “combustor’~) utilizes waste

heat and steam from the phthalic anhydride process itself, along

with heat exchange,

 to achieve operating temperatures of approximately

500°to 525°F., (e.g.,

R.

 42).

 Except for startup, no additional

fuel is required.

An additional significant advantage of the combustor is that it

will treat the entire emission problem at Stepan’s Milisdale Plant,

rather than only the carbon monoxide emissions,

 or only the organic

emissions,

(R.

 41).

 The combustor will remove carbon monoxide with

an efficiency of

 95 per cent or more,

 approaching 100 per cent,

(R.

 72).

The efficiency with regard to organics

 is stated to be “above 85 per

cent,”

 (id.).

 Because of the operating temperatures involved, all

organics are expected to be in the vapor phase, with the result that

there will

 be no particulate emissions,

 (fl. 79).

In

fact,

 a principal

use of the Torvex unit has been hydrocarbon emission control.

A final advantage of the combustor

 is catalyst life.

 Unlike

the cold catalytic system researched at Northwestern University,

the catalyst is guaranteed by DuPont for a one-year period, yet the

parties expect catalyst life of five years or better,

 (R. 81—83).

—

283

—4—

As amended,

 Stepan’s timetable for compliance called for a

 decision by February

1,

 1977, as to whether the combustor or some

other control technology will be used at the Milisdale Plant,

(Pet.

Ex.

6).

 Petitioner’s post-hearing Brief indicates that the

combust.or was chosen.

 Petitioner’s timetable then calls

 for the

following:

April

1,

1977

 Complete System Final Design

and Approval Drawings.

April

1,

1978

 Equipment Delivery.

July 1,

1978

 System Installation.

August 15,

1978

 System Start-Up and Debugging.

The effect of Stepan’s present emissions of CO were detailed

in the previous Variance Opinion,

 PCB 74—425, supra, and need not

be repeated.

 The Agency’s Recommendation in this matter noted that

the nearest monitors for particulates, more than five miles from the

Millsdale Plant,

 (Rec.,

 ¶18), showed the following annual geometric

mean concentrations for 1975:

 Rockdale,

 97; Wilmington,

69.

The

only Will County monitor for ozone,

 located in Joliet, indicated

77 violations of the 0.08 ppm maximum.

As the Board found

 in the previous Variance case, supra,

17

PCB at 108:

To deny the variance in the instant action

would require utilization of existing control

technology which not only would be expensive,

but would have an adverse impact upon energy

 demand and the environment.

 Such a ruling

would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable

hardship upon Stepan while actually injuring

the public and environment.

Throughout

this

proceeding,

 as in the

 case,

 the Agency

has

 recommended that the requested Variance be granted.

 We agree.

Stepan has demonstrated a continuing effort to achieve compliance

with the carbon monoxide Regulations, to the point of developing new

technology.

 It has extended that effort to the other emissions in

jssue here, despite the fact that the applicability of the relevant

Regulations

 is honestly debatable.

 Stepan has now developed tech-

nology which will allow compliance within a reasonable period of

time,

 and is proceeding expeditiously to implement a suitable program.

—

284

—5—

With regard to the application of Rule 205(g) (1)

(C)

 to Stepan’s

facility, we note that Stepan is

 a party to a pending Regulatory

proceeding which could resolve this issue.

 In R75-9,

 R76-8,--12,-13,

Carbon Monoxide,

 the Board has been requested to separately define

“organic chemical partial oxidation” processes.

 Since the existence

of such a definition may resolve finally the application of Rule

205(g) (1) (c) to Stepan’s facility, we decline to review our decision

in Sherwin-Williams Co.

 v. EPA

 (Dec.

18,

 1975).

 Under the circum-

stances, we need not decide the narrow legal issue of the Rule’s

applicability under the tests set out in Sherwin-Williams.

 Id.,

Opinion at

3.

 We shall grant the variance, pending decision in

the Regulatory matter.

Finally, we note that Stepan plans to expand phthalic anhydride

production capacity at the Millsdale Plant,

(R.

 26).

 Inasmuch as

the parties agree that the control system to be constructed using

the DuPont cornbustor technique will be adequate to control the

emissions from such expanded operations,

(R.

 51), we find that this

planned expansion does not affect our judgement concerning this

Variance.

We shall grant the requested Variance, conditioned upon the

compliance schedule indicated in Petitioner’s Exhibit

6.

We

 shall

continue in effect the $25,000 performance bond required in the

previous Variance,

 although it shall now cover construction under

the new compliance plan.

 We shall also enter standard reporting

and certification requirements.

 In addition, we shall release

Stepan from the research requirements contained in the prior

Variance.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that:

1.

 Petitioner Stepan Chemical Company be granted a Variance

from Rules

 203(a),

 205(f),

 205(g) (1) (C),

 and 206(c)

 of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution,

 from May 22,

 1976 until August 15,

 1978,

 subject to

the following conditions:

a.

 Petitioner shall comply with the construction

schedule for its catalytic reactor system as

set forth in the accompanying Opinion and shall

apply to the Environmental Protection Agency

for all necessary construction and operating

permits.

—

285

—6—

b.

 Petitioner shall, on or about the 15th day of each

month subsequent

 to the entry of this Order, submit

to the Environmental Protection Agency a written

report detailing all progress towards compliance,

such report to be submitted to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Control Program Coordinator

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

c.

 Petitioner shall, within twenty-eight

 (28) days

of the date of this Order,

 continue in effect

its performance bond in the amount of Twenty—Five

Thousand Dollars

 ($25,000.00),

 in a form satis-

factory to the Environmental Protection Agency,

 to insure compliance with the control program

detailed in the accompanying Opinion.

 Such bond

shall be submitted to the Environmental Protection

Agency at the address given in subparagraph

(b)

above.

d.

 The Variance granted herein from Rule 205(g) (1) (c)

shall terminate upon final Board action in the

pending Regulatory proceeding R75-9,

 R76-8,-12,-l3,

if a new or amended definition is adopted affecting

Petitioner’s manufacturing process,

 in conformity

with the Board’s Opinion in this matter, ~pra.

e.

 Petitioner shall, within twenty-eight

 (28) days of

the date of this Order,

 execute and forward to the

Environmental Protection Agency,

 at the address shown

in subparagraph

(b)

 above,

 a Certificate of Acceptance

in the following form:

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE

I,

 (We),

_______

_______________—

 having read

the Order of

the

 Illinois PolluLion Control

Bo~ircI

case No. PCB

76-161, understand and accept said Order,

realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and

conditions thereto binding and enforceable.

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

—

286

—7—

2.

 Petitioner Stepan Chemical Company be released from the

research and development program required by our Order in Stepan

Chemical Company v. EPA, PCB 74-425, regarding cold catalytic

oxidation.

Mr. Jacob D.

 Duinelle dissents.

Mr.

 Irvin G. Goodman concurs.

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

Control Board,

 hereby certify the

 bove Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

/~t”

day of

_________,

 1977, by a vote of

4/_/

trol Board

—

287