1
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
W.R. GRACE & CO. - CONN., )
)
v. )
) PCB 96-193
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL ) (Air Variance)
PROTECTION AGENCY )
The following is a transcript of a
hearing held in the above-entitled matter, at James
Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph Street, Room 11-500,
Chicago, Illinois, on the 25th day of October, 1996
A.D., commencing at the hour of 9:30 o'clock a.m.
BEFORE:
MS. DEBORAH L. FRANK, Hearing Officer.
Appearances:
Ms. Christine L. Archer
Assistant Counsel
Bureau of Air
Division of Legal Counsel
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
appeared on behalf of the IEPA;
Ms. Katherine D. Hodge and
Ms. N. Ladonna Driver
Hodge & Dwyer
808 South Second Street
Springfield, IL 62704
Phone: 217/523-4900
FAX: 217/523-4948
appeared on behalf of the
W.R. Grace & Co. - Conn.
Also Present:
Ms. Casey Doyle for Board Member Meyer
Member of the Public
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
2
INDEX
OPENING STATEMENT
By Ms. Hodge 7
By Ms. Archer 23
WITNESSES
RICHARD M. IRELAN
Narrative 31
Direct Examination by Ms. Hodge 45
Cross-Examination by Ms. Archer 46
AARON G. ABBOTT
Narrative 47
Cross-Examination by Ms. Archer 72
ROBERT L. TRAGERT, P. E.
Narrative 75
Cross-Examination by Ms. Archer 80
KEVIN MADISON
Direct Examination by Ms. Archer 86
Cross-Examination by Ms. Hodge 87
CLOSING STATEMENT
MS. HODGE 89
MS. ARCHER 92
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
3
EXHIBITS
GRACE EXHIBITS FOR I.D. IN EVIDENCE
1 7 28
2 6 28
3 6 28
4 12 28
5 12 28
6 13 28
7 15 28
8 16 28
9 50 76
10 57 76
GRACE EXHIBITS FOR I.D. IN EVIDENCE
1 29
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
4
1 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Good morning and welcome
2 to hearing in W.R. Grace versus the Illinois
3 Environmental Protection. This is a air variance, PCB
4 96-193.
5 I'm Deborah Frank. I'm the Hearing
6 Officer for this matter.
7 If you would go ahead and make your
8 appearances on the record and introduce your witnesses.
9 I'll also note for the record that we
10 have Casey Doyle here from the Pollution Control Board.
11 She's the attorney assistant to Member Meyer, but we
12 have no other members of the public present.
13 Okay. You want to make your
14 appearance?
15 MS. HODGE: Good morning. My name is Katherine
16 Hodge. I'm with the law firm of Hodge & Dwyer in
17 Springfield, Illinois. We're here today representing
18 W.R. Grace in this matter. With me is Ladonna Driver,
19 who is also with our law firm.
20 And we will have three witnesses
21 today. First is Rich Irelan. And Mr. Irelan is the
22 Environmental Health and Safety Manager for the Chicago
23 facility.
24 We will also have Aaron Abbott who is
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
5
1 the Associate Process Engineer with W.R. Grace,
2 corporate.
3 And Mr. Robert Tragert who is the
4 Senior Environmental Coordinator with W.R. Grace,
5 again, with corporate.
6 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay.
7 MS. ARCHER: Good morning. My name is Christina
8 Archer. I'm an Assistant Counsel for the Bureau of
9 Air, for the Respondent, the Illinois Environmental
10 Protection Agency.
11 With me today is Mr. Brooke Peterson,
12 who is a Legal Investigator in the Bureau of Air and
13 Mr. Kevin Madison who is a Source Emission Test
14 Specialist in the Bureau of Air.
15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Before we begin, I just
16 note for the record that we had a conversation off the
17 record about the briefing schedule.
18 The parties have requested expedited
19 transcripts because they had requested expedited review
20 by the Board and Grace has agreed to file their brief
21 on November 8th and the Agency has agreed to file their
22 brief on November 15th and mailed as filed.
23 So, you may want to get it to each
24 other more quickly, since you're both in Springfield,
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
6
1 but you can put it in the mail to the Board.
2 MS. HODGE: We will do that.
3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Or Federal Express it.
4 MS. ARCHER: That's fine. The same for the
5 Agency.
6 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Do you have opening
7 statements?
8 MS. HODGE: Yes, I do.
9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. Go ahead and
10 begin.
11 Is there any other point or
12 preliminary matter that we need to cover?
13 MS. HODGE: No, I don't think so.
14 OPENING STATEMENT
15 BY MS. HODGE: On behalf of W.R. Grace, I want to
16 thank both the Agency and the Board, especially Miss
17 Frank, the Hearing Officer in this matter, for their
18 assistance and cooperation in expediting the
19 proceeding.
20 We urge the Board to grant the relief
21 requested as soon as possible, and as we had discussed
22 informally this morning, we would urge the Board to
23 move ahead and make a decision by the December 19th
24 board meeting, if at all possible, given the Board's
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
7
1 schedule.
2 And I would like to provide just a
3 little background at this point just to kind of clarify
4 how we got to this point and why we are here seeking
5 the relief that we are today.
6 Back in March of 1995, the Board
7 granted a variance to allow Grace and the Agency to
8 work towards the installation of an appropriate control
9 device for the VOM emissions from Grace's mixer loading
10 activities at the Chicago facility and this was
11 pursuant to Subpart QQ of Part 218 of the Board's Air
12 Regulations, and that was in the matter of W.R. Grace
13 versus IEPA. It was PCB 94-328, the proceeding. Under
14 that variance, Grace obtained a construction permit for
15 and installed a catalytic oxidizer meeting all, but
16 one, of the milestones in the Board's variance order.
17 The milestone which Grace was unable
18 to timely meet was in paragraph four of Board's March
19 16, 1995 Order, and we have brought exhibits with us
20 today just, really, to aid the Board in its review of
21 this matter so that you have all the documents in front
22 of you.
23 And Miss Driver has copies of this.
24 And, Miss Frank, we have entitled
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
8
1 this Grace Exhibit 1.
2 (Whereupon, Grace Exhibit No. 1
3 was marked for identification.)
4 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. Thank you.
5 MS. HODGE: And the Grace Exhibit 1 is a copy of
6 the Board's March 16, '95 Order in PCB 94-328.
7 This milestone was also incorporated
8 into Special Condition 6(c) of the construction permit
9 granted by the Agency for the oxidizer.
10 And this is Grace Exhibit Number 2.
11 (Whereupon, Grace Exhibit No. 2
12 was marked for identification.)
13 MS. HODGE: The same milestone was incorporated
14 into the current operating permit for the facility,
15 again, issued by the Agency.
16 And that's Grace Exhibit Number 3.
17 (Whereupon, Grace Exhibit No. 3
18 was marked for identification.)
19 MS. HODGE: The milestone at issue here required
20 the submittal of results from any testing required by
21 the Agency for the oxidizer by March 15, 1996.
22 Grace is requesting an extension to
23 the testing requirement deadline as it pertains to the
24 submittal of the capture efficiency demonstration for
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
9
1 the oxidizer.
2 When Grace filed its Petition for
3 Variance Extension in March of this year, it sought a
4 one-year extension to that deadline. As will be
5 discussed today, Grace needed time to implement a
6 permanent total enclosure in its solvent mixer room to
7 accomplish the capture efficiency demonstration.
8 Grace has substantially completed
9 those tasks when an explosion and fire occurred in the
10 solvent mixer room on June 14, 1996.
11 The oxidizer was rendered inoperable
12 by the explosion. In addition, the investigation into
13 the oxidizer explosion revealed that several emissions
14 and control option studies would have to be conducted
15 before an oxidizer could again be safely used to
16 control VOM emissions from the mixer loading
17 activities.
18 And we do expect these additional
19 studies, as will be discussed by the Grace witnesses
20 later on, to take some additional time here.
21 Consequently, on September 9, 1996,
22 Grace amended its variance extension request to seek a
23 two-year extension to the testing deadline for the
24 capture efficiency demonstration, as Grace believed the
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
10
1 capture efficiency testing would need to take place
2 with an operating oxidizer.
3 Since the filing of the extension of
4 the variance extension petition, Grace has discussed
5 this issue with the Agency.
6 The Agency has indicated to Grace
7 that the capture efficiency demonstration can go
8 forward even without the oxidizer.
9 Grace has completed installation of
10 the PTEs -- the permanent total enclosure -- and has
11 submitted certification of the PTE to the Agency.
12 Thus, a two-year extension to the testing deadline will
13 not be necessary at this point in time.
14 Therefore, Grace requested the Board
15 extend the testing deadline of paragraph four of the
16 Board's March 16, 1995 order and Special Condition 6(c)
17 of the Construction Permit issued by the Agency.
18 We ask that you extend this deadline
19 out to November 15th, 1996. Grace further requests
20 that this extension become effective retroactively on
21 March 15th, 1996.
22 Additionally, Grace requests a
23 variance from the emission control requirements of 35
24 Illinois Administrative Code Part 218, Subpart QQ, and
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
11
1 the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 35
2 Illinois Administrative Code Part 218, Subpart UU and
3 Section 9(b) of the act for its solvent mixer loading
4 operations, as well as a variance from the requirements
5 of the Board's March 16th, 1995 Variance Order and the
6 Construction Permit issued by the Agency for the
7 catalytic oxidizer.
8 Grace requested the variance from the
9 emission control and recordkeeping reporting
10 requirements for the solvent mixer loading activities
11 begin on August 15th, 1996, and continue until
12 May 15th, 1998.
13 This variance is requested due to the
14 previously mentioned explosion which occurred on June
15 14th of this year.
16 After the explosion, Grace shut down
17 its solvent process while it assessed the damage to the
18 control equipment and building and began its
19 investigation into the cause of the explosion.
20 On June 28th, 1996, Grace filed a
21 request for provisional variance from the requirements
22 of Subpart QQ and Section 9(b) of the Act to allow
23 Grace to resume operation of the solvent mixer without
24 air pollution control equipment.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
12
1 We have a copy of our request for
2 Provisional Variance from the Board, as well, and this
3 is our Grace Exhibit Number 4.
4 (Whereupon, Grace Exhibit No. 4
5 was marked for identification.)
6 MS. HODGE: This provisional variance was
7 requested for a period of forty-five days from July
8 1st, 1996, until August 14th, 1996, or until the
9 oxidizer and ventilation system were repaired.
10 By letter dated June 28, 1996, the
11 Agency accepted Grace's request for Provisional
12 Variance for review. The Agency filed its
13 recommendation with the Board on July 2, 1996,
14 The Board granted the Provisional
15 Variance on August the 1st, 1996 allowing operation of
16 the mixers without the oxidizer from July 1, 1996,
17 until August 14th, 1996, or until such time as the
18 oxidizer and ventilation system were repaired.
19 And the Board granted this relief in
20 PCB 97-24. This was in the matter of Grace Container
21 Products versus IEPA. And we have a copy of this as
22 well. It's Grace Exhibit Number 5.
23 (Whereupon, Grace Exhibit No. 5
24 was marked for identification.)
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
13
1 MS. HODGE: On August 6th, 1996, Grace contacted
2 the Agency to schedule a meeting to discuss the results
3 of its investigation into the explosion and fire.
4 Grace was informed that the
5 appropriate Agency representatives were unable to meet
6 until August 21st, 1996.
7 Meanwhile, on August 13th, 1996, we
8 filed a request for an extension of the Provisional
9 Variance to allow Grace to continue operations without
10 the oxidizer, while exploring whether the oxidizer
11 could be repaired or redesigned to address new safety
12 concerns identified during the investigation.
13 We have a copy of our request, Grace
14 Exhibit Number 6.
15 (Whereupon, Grace Exhibit No. 6
16 was marked for identification.)
17 MS. HODGE: By letter dated August 20, 1996, the
18 Agency accepted Grace's request for extension of its
19 Provisional Variance for review.
20 On August 21st, 1996, Grace met with
21 Agency representatives to discuss the results of the
22 investigation into the explosion and held the results
23 of that investigation implicated Grace's continued
24 compliance with Subpart QQ.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
14
1 It appeared from our discussions at
2 the August 21st meeting, that Agency representatives
3 understood that additional time would be needed for
4 both Grace and the Agency to evaluate compliance issues
5 raised by this situation.
6 During the meeting, the Agency
7 suggested that Grace and the Agency may be able to
8 enter into a compliance commitment agreement pursuant
9 to the newly amended Section 31 of the Illinois
10 Environmental Protection Act.
11 This agreement would have allowed the
12 Agency and Grace to agree to a certain timetable in
13 which investigations and discussions could take place
14 regarding how Grace should approach compliance with
15 Subpart QQ, the Board's prior variance order, and the
16 Construction Permit, in light of what had been learned
17 from the explosion investigation.
18 Immediately following this August
19 21st meeting, Grace representatives spoke with Agency
20 personnel on virtually a daily basis regarding the
21 compliance options for the mixer loading activities,
22 including an equivalent alternative compliance plan
23 and/or adjusted standard relief.
24 Grace provided for the Agency's
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
15
1 review and consideration a RACT demonstration and
2 that's "Reasonably Available Control Technology"
3 demonstration, that has been approved for solvent mixer
4 loading operations at a Grace facility which is located
5 in another state, like, this is for the Grace's Atlanta
6 Georgia facility.
7 Thereafter, on September the 9th, the
8 Agency informed Grace that a compliance amendment
9 agreement would not be appropriate for this case.
10 Thus, Grace decided to seek the necessary immediate
11 relief from the capture efficiency testing deadline and
12 the requirements to operate its solvent loading
13 activities with the oxidizer with the control equipment
14 by filing this amended petition for extension of the
15 Board's prior variance order and a supplemental request
16 for variance. This was filed on the same day, on
17 September 9th, 1996.
18 Thereafter, on September 13th, the
19 Agency issued a letter rejecting Grace's request for
20 extension of its Provisional Variance.
21 And this is Grace Exhibit Number 7
22 and this is Agency letter from Joe Svoboda.
23 (Whereupon, Grace Exhibit No. 7
24 was marked for identification.)
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
16
1 MS. HODGE: The Agency's rejection was based upon
2 statements made by Grace at the August 21st meeting,
3 that due to the extensive damage to the oxidizer, as
4 well as the information revealed by the explosion
5 investigation about the types and duration of emission
6 peaks occurring during the mixer loading process, it
7 would not be possible to repair and restart the
8 oxidizer in a manner that would safely control the
9 emissions from the mixer loading activity within the
10 forty-five day variance extension period.
11 Grace submitted a letter to the
12 Agency dated September 20, 1996, which clarified this
13 point. And this is Grace Exhibit Number 8 and this is
14 just a letter of clarification from me back to
15 Mr. Svoboda.
16 (Whereupon, Grace Exhibit No. 8
17 was marked for identification.)
18 MS. HODGE: Grace seeks the supplemental variance
19 relief so that it may continue operations while working
20 with the Agency to arrive at a technically feasible and
21 safe means of long-term compliance with Subpart QQ.
22 Grace and the Agency have agreed upon
23 a compliance plan to achieve this objective which
24 Mr. Tragert will discuss in more detail this morning.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
17
1 The compliance plan provides for
2 evaluation of an alternative equivalent control plan,
3 first. If that is not successful, then further study
4 of retrofit controls will be required.
5 As will be shown during the testimony
6 this morning, this explosion has revealed that much
7 more study of the emissions from the mixer loading
8 activities will be needed before control devices can be
9 seriously contemplated here again.
10 Grace is in the process of retaining
11 an outside consulting firm to perform the retrofit
12 control studies and design any necessary control device
13 equipment.
14 Both firms, which Grace is
15 considering to assist them with this work, have
16 indicated that it would take at least five months to
17 properly study and reach dependable conclusions as to
18 the nature of the mixer emissions.
19 Furthermore, the consultants have
20 indicated that at least a year will be needed to
21 achieve approval of a control device plan, order the
22 equipment, and have it installed and tested, assuming
23 that an appropriate retrofit control device can be
24 identified.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
18
1 Thus, if Grace is required to pursue
2 a retrofit control, installation of such a device under
3 the terms of the compliance plan will not be completed
4 until April 1st, 1998.
5 We have only requested relief in our
6 supplemental request for variance until August 14th,
7 1997. Due to Grace's agreement with the Agency as to
8 the compliance plan for this variance and the time
9 needed to conduct the items therein, Grace asks that
10 the Board grant the variance from the emission control
11 requirements of Subpart QQ and the recordkeeping
12 reporting requirements of Subpart UU, and Section 9(b)
13 of the Act.
14 For Grace's solvent mixer loading
15 operations, as well as the variance from the
16 requirements of the Board's March 16th, 1995 variance
17 order, and the Construction Permit issued by the Agency
18 for the catalytic oxidizer, from August 15th, 1996,
19 until May 15th, 1998.
20 Richard Irelan, Aaron Abbott and Bob
21 Tragert will offer testimony today.
22 Mr. Irelan will be providing some
23 background information on the facility and the solvent
24 process at issue here. He will also testify as to
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
19
1 Grace's efforts to meet the requirements of the Board's
2 prior variance order, as well as Grace's permit
3 requirements.
4 Mr. Irelan will further testify
5 concerning the oxidizer explosion, including Grace's
6 efforts to work with the Agency after the explosion to
7 determine how the cause should be addressed.
8 Finally, Mr. Irelan will provide some
9 information in support of the hardship Grace would
10 suffer if the instant variance, extension and
11 supplemental request for variance are not requested by
12 the Board.
13 Mr. Abbott will explain Grace's
14 efforts over the past few years to achieve compliance
15 with Subpart QQ, as well as the specific feasibility
16 and safety issues that have continually arisen during
17 that process.
18 Mr. Abbott will further testify
19 concerning the technical data that has been generated
20 as to the cause of the oxidizer explosion and how that
21 information impacts future efforts to use a control
22 device for long-term compliance with Subpart QQ.
23 Mr. Abbott will also discuss the
24 background of the capture efficiency demonstration
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
20
1 issue, as well as the steps Grace has undertaken to
2 complete the capture efficiency demonstration most
3 recently.
4 Mr. Tragert will explain the
5 compliance plan that Grace and the Agency have agreed
6 to for achieving ultimate compliance with Subpart QQ.
7 We believe that the testimony which
8 will be offered today will show that Grace has made
9 every good faith effort to comply with the requirements
10 from which it is now seeking a variance from this
11 Board.
12 As demonstrated by the compliance
13 plan agreed upon with the Agency, Grace is committed to
14 performing the activities required to achieve
15 compliance with Subpart QQ.
16 If the requested relief is not
17 granted, Grace would suffer an arbitrary and
18 unreasonable hardship. Grace has now accomplished
19 every step needed for the capture efficiency
20 demonstration and has submitted certification of the
21 same to the Agency.
22 Grace has displayed diligent effort
23 in completing the capture efficiency demonstration,
24 even after the control device was rendered inoperable.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
21
1 If the request to continue operations
2 without the oxidizer is not granted, Grace will be
3 forced to shut down its solvent process at its Chicago
4 facility.
5 Thus, we believe that based upon
6 these facts, the hardship Grace would suffer by denial
7 of the requested relief will outweigh the public
8 interest in attaining compliance with the requirements
9 at issue.
10 In addition, Grace has asked the
11 Board to grant retroactive relief in this matter.
12 As stated in our petition that we
13 filed back in September, and the amended petition,
14 Grace was granted retroactive relief where unusual
15 or -- as we say, the Board has granted retroactive
16 relief where unusual or extraordinary circumstances
17 were shown.
18 The testimony today will show that
19 the oxidizer explosion delayed Grace's efforts to
20 complete its efforts to demonstrate the capture
21 efficiency.
22 Furthermore, the oxidizer explosion
23 has created enormous complexities in attempting to use
24 a control device for the mixer emissions and has,
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
22
1 therefore, precluded any short-term compliance with
2 Subpart QQ.
3 The instant circumstances warrant a
4 retroactive starting date for the variance extension
5 request, as well as the supplemental request for
6 variance.
7 At this point in time, I would like
8 to have the Grace witnesses sworn in. And we're ready
9 to proceed with the testimony, unless Miss Archer would
10 like to give an opening statement.
11 MS. ARCHER: I would like to give a brief
12 opening.
13 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay.
14 OPENING STATEMENT
15 BY MS. ARCHER: W.R. Grace is a facility that's
16 located in the Chicago Ozone Non-Attainment Area at
17 6050 West 51st Street.
18 Grace's facility, specifically the
19 seven solvation mixers, are subject to 35 Illinois
20 Administrative Code, Part 218, Subpart QQ.
21 Subpart QQ does require that sources
22 with the potential to emit over 25 tons per year of
23 volatile organic material, or "VOM," control and
24 capture emissions of VOM by 81 percent overall.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
23
1 Grace's potential to emit is around
2 75 tons per year, give or take. Actual emissions are
3 approximately 19 tons per year.
4 I believe Miss Hodge has done a
5 wonderful job going through the history. I won't
6 belabor that point any longer.
7 Grace is seeking a variance to
8 conduct the capture efficiency testing or the permanent
9 total verification from March 15th, 1996, the
10 expiration date of the Provisional Variance, until
11 November 15, 1996.
12 Grace did submit to the Agency its
13 PTE verification to the Illinois EPA on October 17,
14 1996. And, as testimony will show, the Illinois EPA is
15 currently reviewing those results and hopes to have a
16 decision on that by November 15th, 1996.
17 Grace is also seeking a variance from
18 the requirements of Subpart QQ from August 15th, 1996,
19 which is the expiration date of the Provisional
20 Variance to either August 15th, 1997 or until May 15,
21 1998, depending upon the information submitted in the
22 compliance plan that Grace and the Agency has
23 substantially agreed upon.
24 I would like to clarify, the Agency
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
24
1 would ask the Board to only allow the variance for
2 Subpart QQ to expire on April 1st, 1998. The Agency
3 believes that for Subpart QQ, it's very important to
4 have this expire before the 1998 ozone season.
5 With regard to Subpart UU, the
6 testing requirements, the Agency would allow the
7 variance -- would recommend the variance expire on
8 May 15, 1998.
9 The Agency believes the oxidizer or
10 any other control device that would be installed should
11 be operational by April 1st, 1998, giving Grace an
12 additional time to allow for shake down, minor things
13 that would come up, and that.
14 So the Agency would ask that by
15 April 1st, 1998 that Grace comply with Subpart QQ if it
16 is determined that a control device is the appropriate
17 mechanism.
18 And, of course, if an equivalent
19 alternative control plan is acceptable, the Agency
20 would agree to expedite Grace's amended "application"
21 and issue that by August 15th, 1997.
22 The Illinois EPA concurs with Grace
23 that variance relief is appropriate in this matter.
24 The Illinois EPA has reviewed Grace's
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
25
1 petition in accordance with the Board's procedural
2 rules.
3 The Agency agrees that there would be
4 no additional detrimental environmental impact from the
5 granting of this variance.
6 As I stated earlier, Grace's actual
7 uncontrolled emissions are around 19 tons per year.
8 The Illinois EPA does not believe that this will be in
9 any way undermining the Illinois EPA's efforts to
10 achieve compliance in the Chicago Ozone Non-Attainment
11 Area.
12 The Illinois EPA would urge Grace to
13 continue to implement its process modifications under
14 normal operating conditions and, also, urge Grace to
15 continue to explore the water-based solvent.
16 The trend is toward water-based
17 solvents in this area and that would further reduce the
18 environmental impact during the term of the variance.
19 Regarding compliance with federal
20 law, at the time of the Agency's recommendation in this
21 matter, Subpart QQ had not yet been adopted by U.S. EPA
22 into Illinois SIP.
23 However, on October 21st, 1996, U.S.
24 EPA did publish its final rule approving Illinois'
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
26
1 generic RACT requirements of which Subpart QQ is part.
2 So, the Illinois EPA would amend its
3 recommendation to submit the variance as a SIP revision
4 to U.S. EPA.
5 And we do have copies of the "Federal
6 Register" approving Subpart QQ.
7 The Illinois EPA further believes
8 that it is an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship right
9 now for Grace to comply with the requirements of
10 Subpart QQ.
11 Since the explosion in June of '96,
12 both the Illinois EPA and Grace have been actively
13 exploring ways to comply with Subpart QQ.
14 There are legitimate safety concerns
15 right now that both the Illinois EPA and Grace need to
16 further evaluate before the appropriate means of
17 compliance with Subpart QQ can be determined.
18 The Agency believes that if Grace is
19 not allowed its variance, it might possibly be forced
20 to shut down and that would definitely outweigh
21 compliance with the rule currently.
22 The Illinois EPA also believes that
23 retroactive relief is warranted in this case. Grace
24 has demonstrated that there are unusual or
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
27
1 extraordinary circumstances in this case which would
2 warrant retroactive relief. In support of that, Grace
3 has worked very closely with the Agency, promptly
4 notifying us of each new development and as Miss Hodge
5 said, have been talking on virtually a daily basis
6 since August.
7 Illinois EPA does believe that Grace
8 has acted in good faith and they should be warranted
9 retroactive relief.
10 The Illinois EPA also believe that
11 the compliance plan agreed to by both parties in this
12 case is concrete and it has specific milestones that
13 both Illinois EPA and Grace shall meet.
14 I would like to ask that the Board
15 would amend the compliance plan, just in the fact that
16 all copies of progress reports, the outlines submitted,
17 shall also go to the Field Section in Maywood,
18 Illinois, as well as the Compliance Unit in
19 Springfield.
20 And, once again, the only minor area
21 for dispute that the Illinois EPA sees right now is
22 that the Illinois EPA would ask that the variance
23 expire on April 1st, 1998, for Subpart QQ and then
24 Grace be given an additional forty-five days, until May
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
28
1 15, 1998, to comply with Subpart UU, if it is
2 determined that an add-on control is the appropriate
3 mechanism, to get Grace into compliance in this matter.
4 Once, again, the Agency's reasoning
5 behind this is that the Agency does not want the
6 variance to extend into the 1998 ozone season.
7 Thank you.
8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Before we go further.
9 Miss Hodge, did you wish to move
10 Exhibits 1 through 8?
11 MS. HODGE: Yes, please.
12 I would move for the admission of
13 those exhibits.
14 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Is there any objections?
15 MS. ARCHER: No.
16 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. Then Grace
17 Exhibits 1 through 8 are admitted into evidence.
18 (Said document, heretofore marked
19 Grace Exhibits Nos. 1 through 8
20 for identification, were admitted
21 into evidence, to wit, as
22 follows:)
23 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Did the Agency wish to
24 Admit the Federal Register?
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
29
1 MS. ARCHER: Yes, it would.
2 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. And that will be
3 Agency Exhibit Number 1.
4 (Said document, heretofore marked
5 Agency Exhibit No. 1 for
6 identification, was admitted into
7 evidence, to wit, as follows:)
8 MS. ARCHER: Thank you.
9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Could you please swear
10 the -- Do you want them all sworn?
11 MS. HODGE: Yes. I would like them all to be
12 sworn today.
13 And before we move, I would like to
14 note for the record we do have one more person who has
15 joined us. Could we ask that person to identify
16 himself?
17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are you an interested
18 member of the public?
19 MR. LEVIN: Sort of. I'm with the Cook County
20 State's Attorney's office and my name is Mitch Levine,
21 L-e-v-i-n.
22 MS. HODGE: Thank you.
23 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Thank you.
24 Can you please swear the witnesses
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
30
1 then?
2 (The witnesses were sworn.)
3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. Miss Hodge, how
4 did you wish to proceed then? Did you have narratives
5 or were you going to ask them questions?
6 MS. HODGE: No.
7 We do have narrative testimony and we
8 would request that all three witnesses be allowed to
9 offer this testimony this morning and then hold any
10 questions from the Agency, the Board, or from the
11 public, until the end of the presentation of all three.
12 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. More like an
13 adjusted standard proceeding then.
14 MS. HODGE: Yes.
15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: And then have them
16 available to answer questions.
17 MS. HODGE: Yes.
18 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Is there a objection to
19 that by the Agency?
20 MS. ARCHER: No, there is not.
21 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: So, then if you could
22 just have your witnesses identify themselves as they
23 speak and proceed.
24 MS. HODGE: Mr. Irelan, would you proceed,
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
31
1 please?
2 (The witness was previously sworn.)
3 RICHARD M. IRELAN,
4 called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was
5 examined and testified in narrative form as follows:
6 NARRATIVE
7 BY MR. IRELAN: Good morning: My name is Richard
8 Irelan. I am the Environmental Health and Safety
9 Manager for W.R. Grace & Company.
10 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: You're going to need to
11 slow down and speak up for our court reporter.
12 MR. IRELAN: Okay. You might have to kick me a
13 couple of times.
14 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: That's fine.
15 MR. IRELAN: With Grace & Company, Grace
16 Container Products Division.
17 I've been with Grace for twenty-three
18 years and I've been in my current position for six
19 years.
20 The facility, we're talking about is
21 located at 6050 West 51st Street, Chicago, Cook County,
22 Illinois.
23 First, I would like to provide some
24 information as to Grace's facility and the process at
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
32
1 issue.
2 Grace operates its facility pursuant
3 to an air operating permit issued on September 27th,
4 1995 by the IEPA Bureau of Air. Grace's plant was
5 established in 1940 and currently employs approximately
6 one hundred people. We manufacture container sealants
7 lubricant fluids, and concrete additives.
8 The container sealants are a
9 rubber-based coating material used by the beverage food
10 and other can coaters to form a seal between the ends
11 of cans to the can body within the area where the two
12 pieces are crimped together.
13 Grace's Chicago plant produces both
14 solid-based and water-based sealants, while the trend
15 in the can coating industry is towards water-based
16 sealants. This demand is customer driven.
17 It is the production of these
18 solvent-based can sealants that result in the greatest
19 amount of emissions of VOM at the Chicago facility.
20 The sealant products are produced
21 generally by mixing compounded rubber and other
22 materials into solvent. All products are produced in
23 batches. There are no chemical reactions involved in
24 the process.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
33
1 The process flows as follows: First,
2 the rubber material is compounded batchwise on a dry
3 basis in a Banbury mixer. The rubber is subsequently
4 transferred to solvation mixers which have been charged
5 with other materials and solvent pipe from storage
6 tanks.
7 The compounded rubber and other
8 materials are loaded into the mixer through access
9 hatches in the mixer neck. This proceeding pertains
10 solely to the emissions from the loading of the solvent
11 compound mixers.
12 Actual emissions of VOM from the
13 mixer loading activities are estimated at 18.4 tons per
14 year.
15 Material recovery devices on the
16 solvation mixers condense and return to the mixers the
17 vast majority of solvent fumes generated during the
18 mixing operation.
19 After the compounds have been mixed
20 for the requisite period, they are pumped to
21 blend/storage tanks where low speed agitation continues
22 and, in most cases, additional solvent is added and the
23 product is recycled through one of two homogenizers to
24 attain and maintain product consistency.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
34
1 Finished product is loaded into to
2 tank trucks or other containers for distribution to
3 customers.
4 I will now like to discuss Grace's
5 historical efforts to comply with the requirements of
6 Subpart QQ from which we are now seeking a variance.
7 Several years ago in anticipation of
8 the 25 ton per year requirements and the Clean Air Act
9 Permit Program, Grace conducted an intensive review of
10 the regulatory status of its facility, particularly as
11 to the scope of the requirements of Subpart QQ.
12 Determining appropriate and
13 reasonable controls pursuant to Subpart QQ has been
14 extremely difficult.
15 Emissions from the mixers occur in a
16 complex and variable manner due to the batch nature of
17 the process and are, therefore, challenging to safely
18 and effectively capture.
19 Grace sought the variance which it
20 filed in 1994 to continue discussions with the Agency
21 as it developed the appropriate control mechanism for
22 the emissions from the loading activities.
23 Installation of retrofit controls in
24 this situation is costly endeavor, particularly since
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
35
1 demand for the solvent-based sealants is trending
2 downward due primarily to the fact that our customers
3 who use the solvent compound in their manufacturing
4 process also experience regulatory pressure to reduce
5 their emissions of VOM.
6 Grace examined a number of control
7 alternatives and determined with the Agency that the
8 most appropriate method of control was the installation
9 of an oxidizer.
10 Grace felt it was important to
11 explore in detail with the Agency the scope of the
12 necessary control system, particularly as to its size
13 and cost.
14 This could not be done before the
15 compliance deadline of March 15th, 1995. Thus, Grace
16 filed the original variance petition on November 16th,
17 1994, seeking relief from Subpart QQ, while it worked
18 toward installation of the oxidizer.
19 Upon the Agency's recommendation, the
20 Board granted the variance on March 16th, 1995 with the
21 effective date of March 15, 1995. The Order contained
22 several compliance dates and Grace met all of the
23 milestones ahead of schedule, except that there was a
24 misunderstanding regarding the capture efficiency
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
36
1 requirement.
2 Grace applied for its Construction
3 Permit on February 25, 1995. Grace certified its
4 installation of the capture system and issuance of a
5 purchase order for the thermal oxidizer on June 12,
6 1996. Grace certified the initiation of installation
7 of the thermal oxidizer on December 12, 1995. Grace
8 certified the start up of the oxidizer on February 13,
9 1996.
10 The Agency issued the Construction
11 Permit for the oxidizer on April 5th, 1995. Special
12 Condition six of the Construction Permit requires tests
13 for demonstration of overall destruction efficiency of
14 the oxidizer to be performed in accordance with the
15 method and procedures of Section 218.105 of Title 35 of
16 the Illinois Administrative Code and that the results
17 of these tests be submitted by March 15th, 1995.
18 Grace understood this provision to
19 mean that only destruction efficiency testing was
20 required, rather than both capture and destruction
21 efficiency. Based on that assumption, Grace scheduled
22 destruction efficiency testing for the control system
23 for February 27th, 1996.
24 On January 24th, 1996, Grace notified
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
37
1 the Agency of the destruction efficiency testing date.
2 It was than that the Agency informed Grace that both
3 capture and destruction efficiency testing would be
4 required.
5 Grace and the Agency then discussed
6 potential options for the capture efficiency testing.
7 As will be discussed more fully by Aaron Abbott, Grace
8 felt there were feasibility and safety concerns
9 inherent in each capture efficiency testing option.
10 As discussions with the Agency as to
11 the capture efficiency testing continued, Grace
12 performed start-up activities for the oxidizer.
13 Because of the Agency's preliminary concerns with
14 performing destruction efficiency testing without
15 simultaneously demonstrating capture efficiency, as
16 well as severe weather and difficulties in calibrating
17 the testing equipment, the destruction efficiency test
18 was not completed until March 12, 1996.
19 Destruction efficiency test results
20 were transmitted to the Agency by the March 15th, 1996
21 deadline.
22 As the capture efficiency testing was
23 not completed by March 15th, 1996, Grace filed its
24 petition to extend the capture testing deadline in the
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
38
1 Board's variance order and the Construction Permit on
2 March 14, 1996.
3 Following the filing of the variance
4 extension request, Grace continued its discussions with
5 the Agency as to the most appropriate avenue for
6 demonstrating capture efficiency.
7 Grace determined that a permanent
8 total enclosure, "PTE," was the most feasible option in
9 meeting the capture efficiency demonstration
10 requirements.
11 Grace began to implement the PTE and
12 had substantially completed installation of the PTE
13 when, in the early morning hours of June 14, 1996,
14 Grace suffered an explosion and fire in its solvent
15 mixing area. The fire sprinkler system activated
16 immediately and extinguished the fire in less than one
17 minute.
18 Fortunately, no one was injured since
19 there were no employees present in the immediate mixing
20 area at the time of explosion. However, the explosion
21 resulted in significant damage to the catalytic
22 oxidizer and the associated ventilation system.
23 The hood from the mixer in use at the
24 time was blown out in the corners and the screen was
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
39
1 impaled against a conveyor belt. Each trunk from the
2 main duct to the mixers was broken apart above the
3 damper. Severe damage was also sustained to the
4 rooftop duct work. One elbow of the duct work was
5 thrown off the roof and into the lawn below.
6 The process exhaust fan was found on
7 its side with the housing ripped open. The damper to
8 the oxidizer was bent toward the process. And the
9 damper from the process exhaust fan was bent toward the
10 fan. Sections of the duct were ruptured. Inside the
11 oxidizer the combustion air box was exploded with
12 twisted baffles and shrapnel found inside. Flanges to
13 the main combustion air were warped, as were several
14 access panels.
15 The building in which the mixers are
16 located was also damaged with windows and parts of the
17 walls being blown out.
18 Repairs to the oxidizer are estimated
19 at more than $125,000. Repairs to the building to date
20 have cost more than $50,000. Grace ceased operation of
21 the solvent mixing process immediately and notified the
22 Agency of the explosion later in the morning on June
23 14th.
24 The following week, representatives
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
40
1 from the Agency came to Grace's facility to observe the
2 damages sustained from the explosion and fire.
3 Meanwhile, Grace had begun an investigation into the
4 cause of the explosion and fire.
5 Grace assembled an investigation team
6 which consisted of several Grace personnel, including
7 three corporate engineers, four plan engineers and
8 managers, and the corporate process safety engineering
9 manager.
10 Grace also brought in external
11 personnel to assist in investigating the explosion,
12 including three engineers from TEC Systems -- that's
13 the manufacturer of the oxidizer -- and four
14 independent explosion experts from Factory Mutual,
15 Industrial Risk Insurers, Marsh & McLennan, and Hazards
16 Research.
17 Throughout the investigation, Grace
18 continued to appraise the Agency of the data and
19 preliminary conclusions that were being reached as to
20 the cause of the explosion and fire. Grace resumed
21 operation of its mixers without the oxidizer on July 1,
22 1996, under the terms of the provisional variance
23 granted by the Board.
24 Immediately thereafter, Grace worked
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
41
1 its explosion experts to further investigate the cause
2 of the explosion.
3 Aaron Abbott will explain the
4 technical conclusions reached by the explosion experts,
5 but, in essence, it was determined that the explosion
6 was caused by a large emission peak from the mixers
7 that occurred over a very briefly period of time, so
8 brief, that no technology apparently exists for
9 detecting such peaks. Thus, grace was concerned that
10 the oxidizer could not be safely operated nor
11 redesigned for safe operation.
12 On August 21st, 1996, Grace
13 representatives met with several Agency personnel to
14 discuss the results of the explosion investigation and
15 the implications of same in assessing whether or not
16 the oxidizer could be safely operated to control
17 emissions from the mixer loading activities.
18 Grace's regulatory and process
19 engineers presented the data that had been collected
20 from the explosion experts' study of the projected
21 cause of the explosion. The plant manager and I also
22 presented our concerns about jeopardizing the safety of
23 Grace's workers by resuming use of the oxidizer.
24 We thought from the Agency's
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
42
1 statements at the meeting that we could work out our
2 problems with the oxidizer and our compliance status
3 under Subpart QQ due the Compliance Commitment
4 Agreement.
5 However, the Agency later determined
6 that we could not use that agreement. Therefore, Grace
7 seeks this supplemental request for variance so that it
8 may continue operating while working with the Agency to
9 determine how it should go about achieving compliance
10 with Subpart QQ for its mixer loading activities.
11 As will be discussed further by Bob
12 Tragert, Grace and the Agency agree upon a compliance
13 plan for this process. Denial of the supplemental
14 request for variance would constitute an unreasonable
15 hardship to Grace, as Grace would be forced to shut
16 down a solvent process indefinitely. Most of Grace's
17 hundred employees would be displaced if Grace is not
18 able to continue production without the oxidizer.
19 Grace has a substantial portion of
20 the solvent-based can sealant market. Therefore, any
21 sustained disruption of production would have a severe
22 impact on the nation's food and beverage industry.
23 Grace's Atlanta plant was operating
24 twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, in an
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
43
1 effort to make up for that production shortfall at
2 Grace's Chicago facility during the June shutdown.
3 However, the Atlanta plant cannot operate in such a
4 fashion indefinitely, as down time for maintenance and
5 repairs would become necessary.
6 Grace's smaller plant in San Leandro,
7 california is not able to increase production due to
8 permit constraints. Moreover, certain products may
9 only be produced in Chicago due to the location of
10 dedicated equipment designed to avoid product cost
11 contamination.
12 Therefore, any -- Grace's capacity to
13 shift production to other locations is severely limited
14 and is only a short-term option. Grace's only
15 alternative to operation under authority of the
16 variance is to return to a shut down.
17 Grace has experienced a loss of
18 $50,000 per day in product sales from this facility
19 during the last shut down and would likely incur the
20 same losses in any subsequent shut down.
21 Aaron Abbot will elaborate as to the
22 environmental implications of the variance, but as
23 stated before, the level of VOM emissions is expected
24 to continue to decrease as does demand for the
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
44
1 solvent-based sealant.
2 The trend in the solvent-based
3 sealant market is towards use of solvents with
4 continually lower volatility.
5 Thank you. I will be happy to answer
6 questions after the testimony.
7 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay.
8 MS. HODGE: Thank you, Mr. Irelan.
9 Before we move on to Mr. Abbott's
10 testimony, there are just a couple points I would like
11 to clarify with Mr. Irelan.
12 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay.
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION
14 BY MS. HODGE:
15 Q. Mr. Irelan, you stated that Grace had
16 certified its installation of the capture system and
17 issuance of a purchase order for the thermal oxidizer
18 on June 12, 1996, and I think that that date is really
19 June 12, 1995; is that correct?
20 A. That's correct. Yes.
21 Q. And then another point and this regards the
22 deadline for submittal of testing requirements in the
23 initial variance in the Board's order.
24 I believe you stated that those
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
45
1 results were to be submitted by March 15th, 1996, and I
2 believe the date is March 15, 1995; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you very much.
5 A. Sorry.
6 Q. I'm sorry. The date you stated was March
7 1995 and it should have been March 1996?
8 A. Should be. Yes, I was looking at it here.
9 You're right.
10 MS. HODGE: We just want to get these things
11 clarified for the Board's record here.
12 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Abbott, is that who's
13 next?
14 MS. ARCHER: May I just ask a few questions of
15 Mr. Irelan, first, before we go on, just to clarify?
16 MS. HODGE: I think that's okay to clarify
17 testimony. That's fine.
18 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Miss Archer, please go
19 ahead.
20 CROSS-EXAMINATION
21 BY MS. ARCHER:
22 Q. Mr. Irelan, you stated that the trend is
23 towards water-based sealants?
24 A. Correct.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
46
1 Q. What percentage currently is made up of
2 water-based sealants?
3 A. I believe it's around fifty-fifty, I
4 believe.
5 Q. And could you give an estimation of the
6 time frame that you would anticipate towards
7 water-based sealants, when that trend would be
8 complete?
9 A. Since it's customer driven, it's difficult
10 to do. Do either of you have a --
11 MR. ABBOTT: No.
12 MR. TRAGERT: We couldn't make a guess that would
13 be data.
14 THE WITNESS: Over the past few years it's been a
15 single digit number as the decrease or the increase,
16 however, for the past, say, five years.
17 BY MS. ARCHER:
18 Q. And currently it's around fifty-fifty?
19 A. That's around fifty-fifty.
20 MR. TRAGERT: It's reformulated to solvent-based
21 compounds that have less -- The VOCs that are in them
22 are -- We've gotten away from toluene.
23 We've gotten away from some of the
24 hazardous air pollutants, so that has slowed down the
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
47
1 change.
2 BY MS. ARCHER:
3 Q. And what percentage of the market does
4 Grace have currently?
5 A. In North America, it's 98 percent.
6 MS. ARCHER: That's all I have.
7 Thank you, Mr. Irelan.
8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Wow.
9 THE WITNESS: That's one of our problems is if we
10 can't operate, then we've got a big problem supplying
11 our customers.
12 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Abbott?
13 (The witness was previously sworn.)
14 AARON G. ABBOTT,
15 called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was
16 examined and testified in narrative form as follows:
17 NARRATIVE
18 BY MR. ABBOTT: Good morning. My name is Aaron
19 G. Abbott. I'm an Associate Process Engineer with W.R.
20 Grace & Company located in the Lexington,
21 Massachusettes office. I hold a Bachelor of Science
22 degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of
23 New Hampshire. I received this degree in 1990.
24 I'm registered with the Commonwealth
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
48
1 of Massachusettes Board of Professional Engineers and
2 Land Surveyors as having passed the Fundamental
3 Engineering Subjects Examine in 1993.
4 Since joining W.R. Grace in August
5 1990, my duties have included new process evaluation,
6 design and scale up, emissions estimation, measurement
7 and modeling, process modeling, and permit development.
8 My office is at the Grace Container Products divisional
9 headquarters in Lexington, Massachusettes, as I
10 mentioned. My work serves three plants in the United
11 States and nineteen plants out of the U.S.
12 I have extensive experience in
13 estimating emissions from Grace Container Products'
14 solvent-based can sealing compound process.
15 Beginning in 1991, I worked on a
16 one-year project to develop test methods for estimating
17 fugitive emissions from solvent mixers to identify
18 source reduction potential in our San Leandro,
19 California project. The project led me to gain
20 experience in air permitting and other compliance
21 issues with the Bay Area Air Quality Management
22 District.
23 I led a project to develop a Title V
24 Synthetic Minor permit for the San Leandro site. I
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
49
1 have participated in the development of Title V permits
2 for the Atlanta and Chicago plants.
3 Between 1995 and 1996, I was project
4 manager of a project to perform an emissions inventory,
5 source testing, and a control technology evaluation for
6 Grace's St. Neots, England plant.
7 I would like to first provide some
8 background as to the history of our search for an
9 effective and safe control mechanism for VOM emissions
10 from the solvent mixer loading activities.
11 As Richard Irelan stated, we began an
12 intensive study of VOM emissions from the Chicago plant
13 when the Board adopted amendments to Subpart QQ of 35
14 Illinois Administrative Code Part 218, which required
15 Reasonably Available Control Technology, or RACT, for
16 sources in the Chicago ozone non-attainment area, with
17 the potential to emit 25 tons per year of VOM, or
18 greater.
19 The emissions of VOM from Grace's
20 Chicago facility have recently been estimated at about
21 32.4 tons per year, with approximately 18.4 tons per
22 year from the loading of the solvent mixers.
23 Subpart QQ, Miscellaneous Formulation
24 Manufacturing Processes, requires 81 percent control of
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
50
1 emissions from all miscellaneous emission units which
2 are not exempted by the regulation.
3 Grace Exhibit 9 is a table
4 summarizing the VOM emissions from the plant by process
5 and regulatory classification.
6 (Whereupon, Grace Exhibit No. 9
7 was marked for identification.)
8 MR. ABBOTT: On this exhibit, the column denoted
9 "SLC" refers to the emissions from the solvent process.
10 At the plant, 10.5 tons of VOM emissions per year are
11 applicable to and are in full compliance with Part 218
12 Subpart B. Also, 21.8 tons per year of VOM emissions
13 are regulated by Subpart QQ. Of the 21.8 tons per
14 year, 3.4 tons per year of VOM emissions from
15 packaging, piping fugitives, non-bulk packaging and the
16 actual solvent mixing process are exempt from Subpart
17 QQ as they emit less than 2.5 tons of VOM per year, per
18 emission unit, or 5 tons per year in combination.
19 Thus, the remainder of the VOM emissions from Grace's
20 Chicago facility, 18.4 tons per year, are attributed to
21 the solvent mixer loading activities and these are the
22 emissions that we determine must be controlled under
23 Subpart QQ.
24 Finding an effective control for the
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
51
1 mixer loading emissions has been very complicated.
2 Emissions from the mixers occur in a complex and
3 variable manner due to the batch nature of the process
4 and the fact that the vast majority of emissions are
5 fugitive in nature and are challenging to safely and
6 effectively capture.
7 The majority of the emissions occur
8 at the mixers during two different activities. Loading
9 and mixing.
10 Mixing emissions occur when the
11 contents of the mixers are being stirred and passed
12 through vent pipes after the access hatches are closed.
13 In-line condensers return to the
14 mixers the vast majority of the solvent fumes generated
15 during the mixing operation.
16 The loading emissions are fugitive in
17 nature and occur through displacement when materials
18 such as solvent, rubber, bags of solid materials, and
19 products are loaded into the mixers through the mixer
20 necks.
21 Since materials are added to the
22 vessels intermittently rather than continuously, the
23 emission profile of the process as a whole is
24 characterized by emissions peaks and valleys.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
52
1 The "peaky" nature of these emissions
2 presented numerous challenges when we were working with
3 the Agency in 1994 to design the control system to be
4 installed at the Grace plant.
5 For example, carbon adsorption was
6 not a viable option due to the static risks discussed
7 more fully below and the technology's inability to
8 handle the highly variable emissions that occur from
9 mixer loading. Furthermore, than carbon adsorption
10 would have presented disposal concerns for both the
11 spent carbon and the recovered solvent which could not
12 be reused in the process.
13 A flare was likewise not considered
14 initially to be feasible due to the vast amount of
15 natural gas that would have to be burned when emissions
16 were low, making operation costs extremely high.
17 Furthermore, Grace's facility is
18 located in a residential neighborhood which would have
19 been incompatible with the installation of the flare.
20 As Mr. Irelan stated, we determined
21 with the Agency in 1994 that the best choice for
22 achieving the 81 percent emission control required by
23 Subpart QQ was the oxidizer.
24 However, arriving at the proper
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
53
1 specifications for the oxidizer in this situation was
2 difficult and I would like to review some of the
3 challenges we dealt with at that time, as they are
4 applicable to the dilemma that we currently face in
5 attempting to resolve how Grace will now comply with
6 Subpart QQ in light of what has been learned from the
7 oxidizer explosion.
8 The maximum instantaneous emission
9 rate which can occurred from mixer loading is much
10 larger than the emission rate averaged over time.
11 Because control equipment such as an oxidizer needs to
12 be sized for maximum instantaneous conditions, Grace's
13 unit had to be significantly larger than one would have
14 to be sized for the average emissions of this process.
15 Thus, for two sources having the same
16 daily emissions, but one having a "peaky" emissions
17 profile and another having a more constant rate such as
18 a coating operation, the source having the "peaky" rate
19 will require a larger control device. Furthermore,
20 that control device will have to handle continually
21 fluctuating VOM inputs.
22 The cycling of the concentration of
23 the fume stream would cause the unit to experience
24 alternating cold and hot cycles within relatively short
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
54
1 periods of time.
2 During these cold cycles, the
3 oxidizers would have to burn supplemental fuel to
4 maintain efficient temperatures.
5 As the emission rate rises to its
6 peak value, which occurs within seconds and is caused
7 by the adding of materials such as rubber into the
8 mixer, the oxidizer would have to quickly cut back on
9 supplemental fuel as the fume stream will supply the
10 heating value.
11 Our oxidizer vendor, TEC Systems,
12 told us that they have no historical operational
13 experience to predict the long-term effects on their
14 systems of this cycling and other vendors shared this
15 view.
16 The emissions from the mixers are
17 caused by displacement of head space vapors during the
18 addition of materials.
19 Materials can be added by operators
20 at various stages of the process in accordance with
21 individual batch formulas and there are many variations
22 on the formulas. Therefore, it was very difficult to
23 model the typical emission profile.
24 Since the emission's rate is variable
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
55
1 over time, source testing with conventional methods
2 such as method 25A was feared to be inadequate to
3 accurately quantify emissions.
4 Design of an oxidizer for the mixer
5 loading emissions also presented several safety
6 concerns.
7 The mixer neck headspace/workspace
8 interface is potentially dangerous, as it is in the
9 mixer region where an explosive concentration of VOM in
10 air is most likely.
11 The room is built to explosion-proof
12 building standards, but static discharge is always a
13 concern in an area where solvents are handled.
14 The room is intentionally humidified
15 during certain times of the year when there is a
16 likelihood of static build up on materials and
17 operators. Humidity reduces the chances of a static
18 discharge that can cause a fire or explosion.
19 The designers of Grace's emission
20 control system had to design the VOM capture
21 ventilation at the neck openings with extra care. The
22 capture system had to be designed for full operator
23 access in loading materials, taking samples, and other
24 activities.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
56
1 With an oxidizer the end of the
2 ventilation system, the design required the VOM
3 concentration in the air stream inside the ventilation
4 system at any time to remain below 25 percent of the
5 lower explosive limit of the fume stream.
6 To maintain this safe level, air flow
7 must be set appropriately. However, as extra fresh air
8 is pulled into the capture ventilation to dilute the
9 emission peaks, the air flow over the mixing vessel
10 increases.
11 This extra fresh air will tend to
12 dilute the concentration in the mixer neck region.
13 This will have the potential effect of moving the
14 flammable region of air into the mixer headspace. This
15 is undesirable, as a potentially explosive region would
16 be moved closer to the liquid solvent source. Thus,
17 the design of the ventilation system had to minimize
18 the extra air pulled from the mixer headspace while, at
19 the same time, sufficiently capturing the emissions
20 coming out of the mixers to prevent their escape into
21 the atmosphere as fugitives.
22 Taking all of these concerns into
23 account, we worked with the oxidizer manufacturer to
24 derive specifications for the oxidizer that would
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
57
1 accommodate peaky VOM emissions and minimize the threat
2 of sparks or explosions.
3 However, the explosion and fire that
4 occurred on June 14th of this year revealed that there
5 were emission conditions occurring at the mixers that
6 were previously undetected.
7 As Mr. Irelan stated, we quickly
8 assembled an investigation team after the oxidizer
9 explosion. At the conclusion of the investigation, the
10 team agreed upon preliminary determinations as to the
11 sequence of events surrounding the explosion. A copy
12 of one of the expert's reports, that of Hazards
13 Research, is Grace Exhibit 10.
14 (Whereupon, Grace Exhibit No. 10
15 was marked for identification.)
16 MR. ABBOTT: The explosion originated in the
17 combustion air box of the catalytic oxidizer, when a
18 concentration of solvent vapors or a vapor pocket above
19 the lower explosive limit entered from the process
20 emission capture hood. The explosion flame front
21 traveled back through the airhandler and duct work,
22 damaging filters and dampers as it passed. Various
23 components were bent, dislocated, or blown apart,
24 depending upon their orientation and configuration.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
58
1 When the flame front exited the only
2 open ventilation hood, it ignited the solvent vapors
3 present at the mouth of the mixer and started a small
4 fire. This augmented the force of the explosion and
5 blew out windows and portions of the walls in the
6 solvent mixer room.
7 Just before the explosion, the last
8 batch of processed rubber had been loaded into the
9 mixer. The bottom agitator of the mixer was operating,
10 but the top agitator had not yet been turned on.
11 Our theory on the root cause of the
12 flashback is the following: Due to the lack of
13 movement near the surface of the batch, a superheated
14 pocket of compound formed around the vicinity of the
15 bottom agitator. This boiling pocket began to form a
16 bubble. The bubble volume continued to expand until it
17 attained sufficient buoyancy to burst up through the
18 surface of the batch, allowing a surge of solvent vapor
19 to enter the duct work and reach the oxidizer.
20 The explosive concentration reached
21 the air box in the oxidizer first, where the explosion
22 was initiated. Thus, the explosion was caused by the
23 ignition of a flammable vapor cloud by the gas-fired
24 heater in the oxidizer. This ignition source is
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
59
1 present whenever the oxidizer is in operation.
2 Calculations were performed in an
3 attempt to quantify the amount of flammable vapor that
4 was present in the system.
5 The calculations were based upon the
6 size of the fireball within the solvent mezzanine,
7 which was approximately 7 to 8 feet in diameter, as
8 well as the damage sustained in the mezzanine and
9 penthouse.
10 It was determined that approximately
11 one quarter of one pound or 114 grams of solvent was
12 emitted over a one-second time interval from the mixer
13 forming a vapor pocket that caused the explosion in the
14 catalytic oxidizer. This determination was based on
15 calculations of force and observation -- and the
16 observation that less solvent would not have been
17 sufficient to cause the explosion and more solvent or a
18 step change in VOM concentration would have caused more
19 damage to the duct work than was actually experienced.
20 The significance of the explosion
21 experts' conclusions is demonstrated by the lack of
22 reliable technology for detecting solvent emission
23 peaks or vapor pockets. We have been unable to
24 identify any mechanism that would be capable of
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
60
1 reliably measuring solvent emissions or vapor pockets
2 that occur over intervals on the order of one second.
3 In fact, neither Grace nor the
4 explosion experts consulted for this investigation are
5 aware of any technology that can adequately monitor and
6 reliably respond to solvent emissions peaks or vapor
7 pockets that occur over less than a five-second time
8 interval for the range of mixtures of VOC's possible in
9 this case.
10 When Grace was examining its
11 emissions for the design of the oxidizer, it analyzed
12 emissions using data logging devices having a sample
13 resolution of ten seconds per sample. Now it appears
14 that emissions must be monitored on a second-by-second
15 basis, or less, in order for the oxidizer to safely be
16 characterized.
17 However, Grace does not believe that
18 there is any device commercially available to
19 accomplish such monitoring. For instance, Grace is not
20 aware that any on-line gas chromatograph would be
21 available to continuously speciate the VOC mixture.
22 Even if quick responding monitors
23 were to be identified, they may not be able to
24 differentiate between an explosive peak and one that
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
61
1 appears naturally as solvents and materials are added
2 to the mixer.
3 Moreover, the explosion investigation
4 concluded that given the current air flow and duct
5 configuration, less than five seconds is available to
6 sense explosive vapors. As stated above, Grace is not
7 aware of any monitor that could adequately detect such
8 vapors or peaks over less than a five second period for
9 our conditions.
10 Temperature monitoring of the
11 catalyst bed is a mechanism only for identifying a
12 gradual increase in vapor concentration. It is not an
13 effective safety control for moderate or rapid
14 increases in vapor concentration and, therefore, would
15 not play a role in preventing an explosion under these
16 conditions.
17 In line flame arresters or rupture
18 disks installed along the duct work would do nothing to
19 prevent an explosion and fire, as their presence
20 assumes an explosive or flammable situation will occur.
21 The information gathered from the
22 explosion investigation reveals how difficult it is to
23 use a control device, particularly an oxidizer or
24 incinerator for emission control in this situation.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
62
1 The viscosity of the material in the
2 mixers, even with both agitators running, makes
3 complete mixing of the batch difficult with the ability
4 to accumulate pockets of vapor, both in the unagitated
5 portions of the mixer, as well as in the area of the
6 mixer blades.
7 As was determined by one of the
8 outside explosion experts, the primary safeguard for
9 the use of the oxidizer is to assure, up-front in the
10 design phase, that process conditions do not create a
11 vapor generation rate in excess of the allowable
12 quantity. This is extremely difficult to do with our
13 mixers as vapor pockets are not easily controlled or
14 eliminated.
15 This reality, as well as the current
16 state of the art for technology that detects solvent
17 emission peaks, suggests that no catalytic oxidizer may
18 be designed for control of emissions from Grace's mixer
19 loading operations that will be free from risk of
20 another explosion. The critical question at this point
21 is what type of VOM emissions are occurring from the
22 mixers second by second.
23 Unfortunately, there is no EPA method
24 for measuring emissions such as these. Yet, there must
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
63
1 be a complete understanding of the magnitude and
2 duration of the VOM emissions that are occurring from
3 the mixers before any sort of retrofit control device
4 is evaluated.
5 Therefore, Grace needs time to work
6 with the Agency to determine how it will approach
7 compliance with Subpart QQ for the emissions from the
8 mixer loading activities.
9 Grace and the Agency have agreed upon
10 a schedule of items that Grace and the Agency must
11 complete to accomplish that goal, as set forth in the
12 Compliance Plan in the Agency's recommendation. Bob
13 Tragert will discuss this compliance plan.
14 Grace has also requested an extension
15 of its variance and permit deadline for submittal of
16 the capture efficiency demonstration. After Grace was
17 informed that capture efficiency testing would be
18 necessary, Grace and the Agency discussed potential
19 options for the capture efficiency testing, as well as
20 feasibility issues raised by some of those methods.
21 35 Illinois Administrative Code
22 218.105 contains the test methods and procedures to be
23 used by owners and operators of VOM emission units
24 subject to Part 218, when, in the opinion of the
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
64
1 Agency, it is necessary to conduct testing to
2 demonstrate compliance.
3 The first option discussed was for
4 the Agency to exercise its discretion not to require
5 the capture efficiency testing for the oxidizer
6 pursuant to 35 Illinois Administrative Code 218.991(a),
7 and instead, to allow a compliance demonstration based
8 upon engineering calculations. The Agency responded
9 that a more formalized testing procedure would be
10 necessary.
11 Pursuant to 35 Illinois
12 Administrative Code 218.105(C)(1)(A), Grace would not
13 have to perform capture efficiency testing if it could
14 demonstrate that the emission units are equipped with
15 or use a permanent total enclosure.
16 The Agency and U.S. EPA
17 specifications for the determination of whether a
18 device is a PTE are contained in Procedure T of
19 Appendix B of Part 218.
20 Alternatively, Grace and the Agency
21 could have derived an alternative testing method
22 pursuant to 35 Illinois Administrate Code
23 218.105(C)(2), which must be approved by U.S. EPA.
24 Finally, Grace could have implemented
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
65
1 a temporary total enclosure, or "TTE," pursuant to the
2 technical requirements set forth in 35 Illinois
3 Administrative Code 218.105(C)(2).
4 Use of a TTE also implicates
5 Procedure T of Appendix B of Part 218.
6 It was felt that modifying the mixer
7 room to create a PTE may only exacerbate the
8 above-referenced safety conditions potentially creating
9 a fire hazard and inhibiting worker comfort and
10 operability. The mixer room was designed to have a
11 large inflow of air to ensure that the VOM
12 concentration in the duct work is kept below the LEL.
13 Thus, physically modifying the mixer room to create a
14 permanent total enclosure is a complicated option both
15 from a feasibility and safety perspective.
16 If creation of a PTE was to be
17 required, Grace would have needed additional time to
18 assess and resolve the safety issues raised by
19 modifying the mixer room.
20 As for the development of an
21 alternative testing procedure, due to the nature of the
22 emissions and the design of the emission units and the
23 mixer room, deriving a statistically reliable method of
24 the capture testing in this situation would be
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
66
1 difficult. The Agency and Grace were, at the time of
2 the original variance extension -- excuse me, at the
3 time the original variance extension petition was
4 filed, discussing a test protocol that would accomplish
5 the objectives of Section 218.105(C)(2).
6 The Agency advised Grace that any
7 alternative test method that is agreed upon between
8 Grace and the Agency may have to be submitted to U.S.
9 EPA for review and approval. It was unclear last March
10 how long such a process would take, but it would have,
11 nevertheless, precluded compliance with the capture
12 testing deadline of March 15, 1996.
13 Evaluation of a TTE, magnify the same
14 safety and feasibility issues as development of a PTE.
15 In order to accommodate the piping, conduit and duct
16 work, a flexible material would have to be used to seal
17 openings and provide acceptable enclosure. Such
18 materials as polyethylene or other plastics generate
19 static which creates an explosion hazard, considering
20 the amounts of flammable solvents that are used in the
21 area of the mixers.
22 Because of the dimensions of this
23 facility, construction of a TTE that meets all five of
24 the U.S. EPA criteria would not be achievable.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
67
1 Development of a TTE for an individual mixer or a
2 series of mixers would not produce reliable data.
3 Due to the ventilation from the mixer
4 hood and the additional ventilation in the room, the
5 resultant ventilation rates in the TTE would create a
6 sufficient level of turbulence such that the capture
7 efficiency of the mixer hood would be reduced.
8 Furthermore, a large opening in the TTE would be
9 required to periodically transport raw materials to the
10 mixers. This underscores the notion that a TTE was not
11 a practical method of testing capture efficiency in
12 this situation.
13 As Mr. Irelan stated, Grace decided,
14 along with the Agency, that a PTE was the best approach
15 for demonstrating capture efficiency and Grace moved
16 quickly to make several modifications to the mixer room
17 to implement the PTE. The modifications were conducted
18 in accordance with the specifications set forth in
19 Procedure T in Appendix B to Part 218.
20 Grace repaired the bottom section of
21 the door in the northwest corner of the mixer room to
22 create a tighter seal around the opening. All roof,
23 wall and door penetrations, such as piping, were
24 sealed. The spiral staircase at the north wall was
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
68
1 removed completely and a concrete floor was poured to
2 seal the opening. The wooden overhead door on the
3 north wall was replaced with a new metal door to make a
4 tighter seal with the outside wall when closed. All
5 process piping extending through the pipe chase to the
6 mezzanine at the north wall was removed.
7 The meters and associated piping was
8 relocated to the first floor and a concrete floor was
9 poured to seal that opening. All controls located in
10 the northeast corner area were removed, except for the
11 agitator switch for the rak tank. The solvent pump
12 switch, the meter and piping were relocated to the
13 first floor and a concrete floor was poured to seal
14 that opening. A new heater was installed at the
15 northeast corner of the mezzanine. The areas around
16 the rak tank were repaired and a concrete floor was
17 poured to seal the openings. The exhaust fans were
18 removed from the penthouse and the openings were
19 sealed. The penthouse door was repaired so that it
20 closes properly.
21 A new heater was installed at the
22 east wall of the mezzanine, The stairwell opening in
23 the southeast corner of the room was fully enclosed up
24 to the ceiling with metal studs and one-half inch
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
69
1 gypsum inside and out. OSHA-approved safety stairs
2 were installed.
3 The heater in the southeast corner of
4 the room was relocated to facilitate installation of
5 the new metal safety stairs to the mezzanine. All of
6 these modifications were concluded before the oxidizer
7 explosion on June 14, 1996. The only remaining item at
8 that point was replacement of windows on the south and
9 north walls. After the oxidizer explosion, the windows
10 were replaced with screened sections that may be opened
11 outward. These window sections may function as NDOs
12 with area calculations based on 6,000 cubic feet per
13 minute divided by 250 feet per minute.
14 Pursuant to discussions with the
15 Agency, Grace conducted air flow testing on October
16 16th, 1996, to certify the requirement that all air
17 flow through NDOs into the PTE is greater than 200 feet
18 per minute inward during source operation. Grace
19 submitted a letter certificating the PTE as meeting
20 IEPA criteria on October 17, 1996. On October 23,
21 1996, Kevin Madison contacted Grace to request
22 additional information, which we are submitting to
23 Kevin Madison today.
24 Mr. Irelan spoke a little bit about
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
70
1 the environmental impacts from this variance and I
2 would like to expand on that.
3 Grace has requested a variance from
4 the Subpart QQ requirements so that it may conduct its
5 mixer loading activities without the oxidizer. The
6 environmental impact of the VOM emissions during the
7 variance period should be minimal as the VOM emissions
8 from the mixer loading activities are now estimated at
9 only 18.4 tons per year.
10 Projected environmental impact from
11 the variance extension for the capture efficiency
12 testing requirements is negligible. Preliminary
13 results from the destruction efficiency testing on
14 March 12th, 1996, indicated that the catalytic oxidizer
15 was achieving 96 percent destruction efficiency.
16 Velometer testing in the mixer room showed an inward
17 flow of air to the oxidizer hoods and ventilation
18 system at all mixer room openings. The hood design
19 calculations showed that the air flow across the mixer
20 openings was three times that which was required. The
21 velometer testing also demonstrated that the face
22 velocity at the point furthest from the hoods, at the
23 hopper loading area, show that the air flow is directed
24 toward the hoods at a rate of 125 feet per minute.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
71
1 Grace believes that the increased
2 airflow in a room resulted in complete capture of VOM
3 emissions from the mixers in the mixer room. Thus, the
4 inward flow of air at all points in the mixer room
5 created a negative pressure which, along with the
6 overdesign of the hoods, created a potentially closed
7 system for purposes of VOM emissions. Therefore, while
8 the catalytic oxidizer was in operation from March 15,
9 1996 to June 14, 1996, Grace believes that it met the
10 81 percent overall destruction efficiency requirements
11 of Subpart QQ.
12 Since Grace resumed operations
13 without the catalytic oxidizer on July 1, 1996, actual
14 uncontrolled VOM emissions from the mixer loading
15 activities have been estimated at a rate of 18.4 tons
16 per year.
17 Thank you. I'm willing to answer any
18 questions.
19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Do you have any
20 clarification for this witness?
21 MS. HODGE: No, I do not.
22 But I would request at this time that
23 we take just a very short break before we proceed with
24 Mr. Tragert.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
72
1 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Wait.
2 Miss Archer, do you have any
3 questions for this witness?
4 MS. ARCHER: I have a few, yes.
5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: I would like to get those
6 taken care of first.
7 MS. HODGE: That's fine.
8 CROSS-EXAMINATION
9 BY MS. ARCHER:
10 Q. Mr. Abbott, you stated on your direct
11 testimony that initially a flare was not considered as
12 a control option. However, in the compliance plan that
13 both the Illinois EPA and Grace have agreed upon, Grace
14 is willing to look at an enclosed flare.
15 I guess my question is, had you
16 looked at an enclosed flare initially or just a flare?
17 A. No. We had not specifically looked at
18 enclosed flares.
19 Q. Okay. And, in your opinion, would you
20 think an enclosed flare would have the same safety
21 risk? You stated that Grace was in a residential
22 neighborhood.
23 A. To evaluate whether or not an enclosed
24 flare or any other retrofit control technology will be
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
73
1 appropriate, knowing what we know now about our
2 emissions situation, will -- this work will be --
3 Sorry.
4 The environmental consultants that we
5 are going to retain will work with us to determine
6 whether or not such devices are appropriate.
7 Q. Also, along the same line of thinking, you
8 talked about devices being able to measure vapor
9 pockets that would occur in less than five-second
10 intervals, flame arresters, FIDs, you've also agreed to
11 study those in the compliance plan; is that correct?
12 A. We will also evaluate control instruments,
13 monitoring and control instruments.
14 Q. And, one more question.
15 The three months that Grace operated
16 with oxidizer from March 15, 1996 to June 14, 1996, do
17 you have any idea what the actual emissions were during
18 that three-month time period? If you were to
19 extrapolate that three months into a year period, what
20 the actual emissions would be, controlled, with the
21 oxidizer?
22 A. I believe at this point they would be
23 approximately 4 percent of 18.4 tons per year, whatever
24 that works out to.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
74
1 MS. ARCHER: Okay. Thank you.
2 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Do you have anything
3 further?
4 MS. ARCHER: No, I do not.
5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Ms. Hodge?
6 MS. HODGE: No, I do not.
7 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Before we go off the
8 record, in case our member of the public has to leave,
9 do you wish to make a statement on the record?
10 VOICE FROM THE FLOOR: No. Absolutely not.
11 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Then let's go ahead and
12 take a ten-minute break and come back about
13 eleven-fifteen.
14 MR. TRAGERT: Point seven four tenths.
15 (Whereupon, a discussion was held
16 off the record.)
17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Let's go back on the
18 record.
19 And we need to, I guess, begin with
20 Mr. Tragert.
21 MS. HODGE: Before we do that, Miss Frank, I
22 would like to move for admission of the exhibits, Grace
23 Exhibits 9 and 10 presented during Mr. Abbott's
24 testimony.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
75
1 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Is there an objection to
2 them?
3 MS. ARCHER: I'm sure there's not.
4 No, there's not.
5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: It's the summary of
6 emissions and the Hazardous Research report.
7 MS. ARCHER: No. No objection.
8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. Then let's
9 continue, please. And those are admitted into
10 evidence.
11 (Said document, heretofore marked
12 Grace Exhibits Nos. 9 and 10 for
13 identification, were admitted
14 into evidence, to wit, as
15 follows:)
16 (The witness was previously sworn.)
17 ROBERT L. TRAGERT, P. E.
18 called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was
19 examined and testified in narrative form as follows:
20 NARRATIVE
21 BY MR. TRAGERT: Good morning. My name is Robert
22 Tragert. I'm the Senior Regulatory Coordinator with
23 W.R. Grace and Company, Connecticut, Grace Container
24 Products Division. I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
76
1 in Civil Engineering from Norridge University. I
2 received this degree in 1982. I am registered with the
3 Hawaii Licensing Board as a professional engineer,
4 having passed a professional engineering exam in 1992.
5 Since joining W.R. Grace in November
6 1991, my duties have included design and installation
7 of process modifications and upgrades, permit
8 development, emissions reporting, environmental
9 auditing, and I have participated in the development of
10 Title V permits for our Atlanta and Chicago plants.
11 My office is at the Grace Container
12 Products divisional headquarters in Lexington,
13 Massachusettes. My work primarily serves four plants
14 in the U.S.
15 I would like to provide some
16 information as to the compliance plan that has been
17 agreed upon between Grace and the Agency. This
18 compliance plan is in two phases, beginning with the
19 pursuit of an equivalent alternative control. By
20 December 15, 1996, Grace must submit an equivalent
21 alternative control study to the Agency which is to
22 provide for at least 81 percent control of VOM
23 emissions from the solvation mixers, using process
24 equipment and work practices, such as condensers,
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
77
1 cooling jackets, dedicated chillers, and knife gate
2 hatch assemblies.
3 If accepted, the equivalent
4 alternative control study will be implemented by the
5 Agency and U.S. EPA as either a revision to the
6 Illinois SIP or federally enforceable permit pursuant
7 to 35 Illinois Administrative Code 218.108(b).
8 The Agency must either approve,
9 request modifications to, or disapprove the equivalent
10 alternative control plan by January 15th, 1997. In any
11 event that Illinois EPA approves the equivalent
12 alternative control plan with or without modifications,
13 Grace shall submit a supplement to its pending Clean
14 Air Act Permit Program, or "CAAPP," permit application,
15 incorporating the equivalent alternative control plan
16 by February 15, 1997.
17 The Illinois EPA will then have 180
18 days or until August 15th, 1997 to process the
19 supplemented CAAPP application.
20 The other component of the compliance
21 plan deals with pursuit of retrofit controls in the
22 event that the equivalent alternative control plan is
23 not approved.
24 Notwithstanding the challenges just
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
78
1 presented by Aaron Abbott, Grace agreed that it will
2 submit detailed outlines by January 15, 1997, for
3 studying other possible methods of compliance with
4 Subpart QQ, including an enclosed flare or catalytic
5 oxidation with VOM monitors, or a series of monitors in
6 the duct work leading to the catalytic oxidizer;
7 warning systems capable of diverting emissions that
8 exceed the lower explosive limit to an emergency bypass
9 stack; rupture discs and flame arresters in the duct
10 work leading to the oxidizer; and a dilution box in the
11 duct work leading to the catalytic oxidizer.
12 The Agency must complete evaluation
13 and approval of each control device study outline no
14 later than February 1st, 1997. In any event that
15 Illinois EPA does not approve the equivalent
16 alternative control plan, Grace is to submit the
17 conclusions reached during the course of the control
18 device investigations, including all supporting
19 documentation, test methods and procedures to the
20 Agency no later than July 1, 1997. Upon receipt, the
21 Agency is to evaluate the conclusions based on the
22 supporting documentation and either concur with or
23 reject the proposed compliance method as expeditiously
24 as possible, but, in any event, no later than July
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
79
1 15th, 1997.
2 In any event that Illinois EPA
3 concurs with the proposed compliance method, Grace is
4 to initiate control equipment purchasing by August 1st,
5 1997. This is only two weeks after the Agency approves
6 the control equipment chosen by Grace. Accordingly,
7 while the Agency's recommendation states that the
8 purchase order shall be issued by August 1st, 1997, the
9 Agency has agreed that the intent of that requirement
10 is that Grace initiate the purchasing of the control
11 equipment by August 1st, 1997.
12 Grace is to install control equipment
13 and have it operational by April 1st, 1998. Grace
14 fully intends to have the control equipment operating
15 by April 1st, 1998, but the Agency has agreed that
16 Grace may perform start-up and shake-down activities,
17 as necessary, during the period from April 1, 1998 to
18 May 15, 1998. Grace will conduct all necessary testing
19 of the control equipment and submit the same to the
20 Illinois EPA by May 15, 1998.
21 Grace must submit monthly progress
22 reports documenting progress made on the control device
23 studies, as well as monthly emission estimates.
24 In response to footnote one on page
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
80
1 four of the Agency's recommendation, pursuit of the
2 retrofit control option will indeed require a variance
3 period that extends to May of 1998. As set forth
4 above, before any control system can be evaluated
5 fully, Grace must further characterize the emissions.
6 Grace has met with two outside
7 consulting firms to discuss preparation of the studies
8 and design specifications for control devices. These
9 firms have informed Grace that the above compliance
10 plan for evaluation of the retrofit control option is
11 very aggressive, particularly concerning the time
12 needed to fully evaluate the VOM emissions and properly
13 design equipment to safely control these emissions.
14 Thank you. I will answer any
15 questions.
16 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. Miss Hodge, do you
17 have anything you need to clarify?
18 MS. HODGE: Not with Mr. Tragert, no.
19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. Miss Archer?
20 CROSS-EXAMINATION
21 BY MS. ARCHER:
22 Q. Mr. Tragert, isn't it true that if an
23 add-on or retrofit control option is, indeed, the
24 solution to compliance with Subpart QQ that this
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
81
1 retrofit control device will be operational by
2 April 1st, 1998?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Also, in addition, the equivalent
5 alternative control studies will be conducted
6 simultaneous while preparing outlines of control --
7 retrofit control options?
8 A. Yes.
9 MS. ARCHER: Thank you.
10 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Is there anything
11 further?
12 MS. HODGE: I have just a few additional points
13 of clarification on the conditions contained within the
14 Agency's compliance plan. And these are matters that
15 we've discussed with the Agency since the submittal of
16 the recommendation and I just, again, would like to
17 clarify for the record for the Board.
18 And the compliance plan and the
19 Agency's recommendation starts on page 11.
20 And, first, in paragraph II, the
21 Agency specifies the relief sought in the variance for
22 the solvation mixers is that from 35 Illinois
23 Administrative Code 218 Subparts QQ and UU, as well as
24 Section 9(b) of the Act.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
82
1 We point out that Grace has also
2 sought relief from the requirement to operate the
3 catalytic oxidizer, as contained in the construction
4 permit for the catalytic oxidizer, as well as the
5 Board's prior variance order. The Agency's concurred
6 that it intends for relief from the reference
7 Construction Permit, the current operating permit, and
8 variance order requirements to be included in the
9 supplemental request for variance sought for the
10 emissions from the mixer loading activities.
11 And we'll, certainly, on behalf of
12 Grace, clarify on this point in our final brief as
13 well.
14 The next issue relates to the
15 conditions in paragraph II(A)(3) on page 11 of the
16 recommendation and paragraph four that appears on page
17 13 of the Agency's recommendation.
18 In both of those provisions, the
19 Agency refers to a revised CAAPP application. Grace
20 timely submitted its CAAPP application for its Chicago
21 facility and would submit a supplement or an amendment
22 to its pending CAAPP application to incorporate the
23 equivalent alternative control plan.
24 The Agency has indicated that it does
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
83
1 not intend by its use of the term "revised," for Grace
2 to lose its application shield due to its pending CAAPP
3 application when it submits its supplement or amendment
4 to the CAAPP application.
5 In paragraph II(B)(1)(a) which
6 appears at the top of page 12, the Agency states that
7 the catalytic oxidizer study shall include actual
8 operational studies of the specified devices.
9 Again, upon consultation with the
10 Agency after the filing of the recommendation, Grace
11 understands that this phrase does not require actual
12 installation and study of the devices at Grace's
13 facility, but that information regarding the
14 feasibility and safety of the devices is all that's
15 required.
16 Grace also wishes to clarify the
17 compliance dates in paragraph five on page 13 of the
18 Agency's recommendation.
19 And maybe we're being redundant here,
20 I know Miss Archer has covered this several times, but
21 the Agency states that Grace shall comply with Subpart
22 QQ by April 1, 1998, and Subpart UU by May 15th of
23 1998.
24 The Agency has indicated to Grace
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
84
1 that it intends, as set forth in paragraphs II(B)(5)
2 (a) and (b) on page 13 of the recommendation, that
3 emission control be implemented by April 1st, 1998, and
4 testing be conducted by May 15, 1998.
5 However, Subpart QQ also contains a
6 testing provision which appears at Section 218.948.
7 That provision calls for testing of the equipment, when
8 in the opinion of the Agency such testing is required.
9 Based on that language, the Agency stated to Grace that
10 it, indeed, intends that the testing deadline for the
11 control equipment be May 15, 1998.
12 And just on the final point on the
13 compliance plan in the Agency's recommendation. In VI,
14 we have included a condition that's a little bit
15 unusual and what we are asking the Board is, if the
16 involvement of U.S. EPA in this matter renders any
17 milestone dates impossible to meet, the Illinois EPA
18 and Grace shall jointly petition the Board to issue a
19 revised final order within this proceeding to
20 incorporate new milestones as necessary.
21 And, as I stated, we know that this
22 is an unusual request, but these are very unusual
23 circumstances. We have a very, very aggressive
24 schedule of milestones for both Grace and the Illinois
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
85
1 EPA to meet in this matter. We are both concerned
2 about U.S. EPA's involvement as to the timing of some
3 of the milestones and so that's why this condition is
4 requested here.
5 We think it's certainly appropriate,
6 given the unusual circumstances here, and we would urge
7 the Board to issue the variance with this condition
8 within it.
9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Miss Archer, do you have
10 witnesses?
11 MS. ARCHER: Yes, I do.
12 If I just may point out one
13 additional compliance plan agreement --
14 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Sure.
15 MS. HODGE: -- that I believe Miss Hodge
16 overlooked.
17 At the top of page 13 in condition
18 (B)(5)(a), the Illinois EPA and Grace have agreed to
19 change that language to initiate a purchase order for
20 the control equipment by August 1, 1997.
21 MS. HODGE: Yes.
22 Thank you very much.
23 MS. HODGE: And one other clarification I'd like
24 to make that I just noticed.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
86
1 In condition 2(A)(1), when we are
2 discussing the equivalent alternative control plan, to
3 also be clear that an equivalent alternative control
4 plan may also be submitted pursuant to Section
5 218.946(C), which is part of Subpart QQ, the Illinois
6 EPA believes that Section 218.108(B) which was
7 originally specified in the compliance plan would
8 probably supercede Section 218.946(C), but just to be
9 clear, both those sections would provide for an
10 equivalent alternative control plan.
11 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay.
12 MS. ARCHER: I would like to ask Mr. Kevin
13 Madison be sworn.
14 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Swear the witness,
15 please.
16 (The witness was sworn.)
17 KEVIN MADISON
18 called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was
19 examined and testified as follows:
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY MS. ARCHER:
22 Q. Mr. Madison, I just have a few quick
23 questions on the permanent total enclosure verification
24 for you this morning.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
87
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. On October 17, 1996, did you receive the
3 PTE verification from Grace?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. And have you reviewed that verification?
6 A. Yes, I have.
7 Q. Have you made a recommendation on that
8 verification?
9 A. I have reviewed the October 17th,
10 information and found one small minor omission of
11 information, at which time I contacted Aaron Abbott of
12 W.R. Grace and he has submitted that information to me
13 today.
14 Q. Okay. And the additional information that
15 Mr. Abbott provided you this morning, was that
16 sufficient to correct the deficiencies you originally
17 had noticed in the October 17th submittal?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. So, at this date and time is the PTE
20 acceptable to the Illinois EPA?
21 A. It is acceptable.
22 MS. ARCHER: Thank you.
23 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Is there anything
24 further?
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
88
1 Miss Hodge, do you have anything
2 further?
3 MS. HODGE: I have a follow-up to that.
4 CROSS-EXAMINATION
5 BY MS. HODGE:
6 Q. Mr. Madison, then, would you agree that
7 Grace has met its obligations pursuant to the first
8 condition contained within the compliance plan for the
9 variance, and that is the submittal of the PTE closure
10 verification to the Agency?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 MS. HODGE: And, I think, perhaps in our brief,
13 Miss Archer, we then can ask the Board to grant the
14 relief for the PTE verification until today's date,
15 instead of November 15th.
16 MS. ARCHER: That's fine.
17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Is there anything
18 further?
19 MS. ARCHER: No.
20 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there any other
21 witnesses?
22 MS. ARCHER: No.
23 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: For the record, I found
24 all witnesses to be credible and will issue a written
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
89
1 statement to that effect. I will also issue a written
2 statement with the exhibits listed and the briefing
3 schedule.
4 Grace is to have their brief done by
5 November 8th and the Agency will have theirs done by
6 November 15th.
7 Is there anything further at this
8 time?
9 MS. ARCHER: I would just like to clarify that
10 the Illinois EPA has moved to admit Exhibit 1 into
11 evidence.
12 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: And it is admitted.
13 MS. ARCHER: Thank you.
14 MS. HODGE: Miss Frank, I have a very brief
15 closing statement that I would like to make, as well.
16 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Go right ahead.
17 CLOSING STATEMENT
18 BY MS. HODGE: We believe that the testimony
19 offered today by both the Grace witnesses and by the
20 Agency indicates that Grace has been faced with
21 extenuating circumstances in its compliance efforts,
22 not only with the feasibility and safety challenges, it
23 is faced with certification of capture efficiency
24 testing, but also with the oxidizer explosion.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
90
1 Nevertheless, Grace has acted
2 expeditiously to complete the capture efficiency
3 testing, even with the explosion.
4 However, as stated by the Agency in
5 its recommendation, Grace needs additional time to
6 study whether a control device can be safely operated
7 to control the VOM emissions from the solvent mixers.
8 Grace would suffer arbitrary and
9 unreasonable hardship if the request of relief is not
10 granted.
11 Grace has now accomplished every step
12 needed for the capture efficiency demonstration and has
13 admitted certification for same to the Agency.
14 Grace has displayed diligent effort
15 in completing the capture efficiency demonstration,
16 even after the control device was rendered inoperable.
17 As pointed out by the Agency in its
18 recommendation and at hearing today, Grace and the
19 Agency must be certain that all safety concerns are
20 fully addressed before any control device is
21 implemented to control the VOM emissions from the
22 mixers.
23 If the request to continue operations
24 without the oxidizer is not granted, Grace will be
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
91
1 forced to shut down its solvent process. Thus, Grace
2 believes that based upon these facts, the hardship
3 Grace would suffer by denial of the requested relief
4 would outweigh the public interest in attaining
5 compliance with the requirements at issue here.
6 Grace also believes that the unusual
7 and extraordinary circumstances here merit the granting
8 of retroactive relief by the Board.
9 The oxidizer explosion delayed
10 Grace's efforts to complete demonstration of capture
11 efficiency and has created enormous complexities in
12 attempting to use a control device for the mixer's
13 emissions.
14 As pointed out by the Agency in its
15 recommendation, Grace has consistently acted quickly to
16 address all compliance issues and has explored every
17 viable alternative to the relief sought in this
18 proceeding.
19 The instant circumstances warrant a
20 retroactive starting day for the variance extension
21 request, as well as the supplemental request for
22 variance.
23 The Agency has agreed that the
24 environmental impact during the term of this variance
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
92
1 will be minimal. Grace has implemented several process
2 modifications and practices that have substantially
3 reduced its VOM emissions from the solvent mixers.
4 Further, VOM emissions are expected
5 to decrease as Grace's customers will continue to
6 demand solvent products with lower volatility.
7 Grace has demonstrated all the
8 required elements for the relief sought in its amended
9 petition for variance extension and supplemental
10 request for variance.
11 We ask that the Board grant the
12 relief requested as soon as possible and we want to,
13 again, thank the Agency for its cooperation and its
14 guidance in this matter and to thank the Board and Miss
15 Frank for expeditiously scheduling this hearing for us.
16 That's all we have today. Thank you
17 very much.
18 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Miss Archer, do you have
19 any type of closing?
20 MS. ARCHER: Very brief. Thank you.
21 CLOSING STATEMENT
22 BY MS. ARCHER: The Illinois EPA does believe
23 that Grace has met its burden and it is entitled to a
24 variance in this matter.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
93
1 The Illinois EPA believes that Grace
2 has shown it would be an arbitrary or unreasonable
3 hardship to operate with control devices currently.
4 The Illinois EPA also believes that
5 Grace has taken many steps to minimize environmental
6 impact during the term of the variance.
7 The Illinois EPA further believes
8 that this variance will be in compliance with federal
9 law as the variance will be submitted to U.S. EPA as a
10 SIP revision to Subpart QQ.
11 And Illinois EPA also believes that
12 retroactive relief is warranted in this case and Grace
13 has worked diligently and in good faith with Illinois
14 EPA in this matter.
15 Therefore, the Illinois EPA would ask
16 that the variance for the permanent total enclosure
17 verification would run from March 15, 1996, until
18 October 25th, 1996, which is today, upon result --
19 submittal of the verification to the Agency.
20 The Illinois EPA further believes
21 that the compliance plan negotiated between Grace and
22 the Illinois EPA is concrete and it has specific
23 milestones that both parties must meet.
24 If it is determined that an
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
94
1 equivalent alternative control plan will be the best
2 solution, the Illinois EPA would ask that the variance
3 expire, then, on August 15th, 1997.
4 Then if it is determined that a
5 retrofit control is the appropriate means for
6 compliance of Subpart QQ, the Illinois EPA would ask
7 that the variance would expire on April 1st, 1998, the
8 date that it has been testified that the control device
9 would be operational in this matter.
10 The Illinois EPA understands that
11 Grace has concerns with the start-up and shake-down of
12 a retrofit control device, however, these concerns may
13 be addressed in a Construction Permit that would have
14 to be issued prior to April 1st, 1998.
15 The Illinois EPA believes that there
16 would be no risk to Grace if the variance expired on
17 April 1, 1998, before the start-up of the 1998 ozone
18 season, as the Illinois EPA has indicated it's very
19 important for their efforts to bring the Chicago Ozone
20 Non-Attainment Area into attainment.
21 Thank you.
22 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Is there anything
23 further?
24 MS. HODGE: No.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
95
1 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. Then the hearing
2 is adjourned.
3 Thank you all.
4 MS. HODGE: Thank you.
5 MS. ARCHER: Thank you.
6 (HEARING CLOSED.)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742
96
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS:
2 COUNTY OF C O O K )
3 Sally A. Guardado hereby certifies that
4 she is the Certified Shorthand Reporter who reported in
5 shorthand the proceedings had in the above-entitled
6 matter, and that the foregoing is a true and correct
7 transcript of said proceedings.
8
9
10 Certified Shorthand Reporter
Notary Public, County of Cook, State of Illinois
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 614-7742