ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 16, 1993

GENERAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION,  

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB 93—178

(Variance)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL     

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,        

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by M. Nardulli):

This matter is before the Board on General Chemical

Corporation’s (General Chemical) amended petition for extension

of variance filed on October 27, 1993. General Chemical seeks an

extension of the variance from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 212.322(a)

(Existing Process Sources) granted in PCB 92-217. The variance

granted in PCB 92-217 expired on December 1, 1993. General

Chemical seeks to extend the variance until February 1, 1994.1

Also on October 27, 1993, General Chemical requested the

incorporation of the entire record and the opinion and order in

PCB 92-217. On November 4, 1993, the Board granted petitioner’s

request to incorporate the record from PCB 92-217 and held the

matter for Agency recommendation. On December 2, 1993, the

Agency filed a motion to file the recommendation instanter. The

Agency recommends that the Board grant the variance subject to

conditions. On December 8, 1993, General Chemical filed a

response to the motion to file instanter and to the Agency’s

recommendation. General Chemical raises no objections to either

the motion to file instanter or to the Agency’s recommendation.

The Agency’s motion to file the recommendation instanter is

hereby granted.

The Agency notified Representative Wyvetter ‘lounge, State

Senator Kenneth Hall, the St. Clair County State’s Attorney and

the Chairperson of the St. Clair County Board of the instant

petition for extension of variance, as required by Section 37(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/1 

~g.

(1992)). In addition, the Agency placed legal notice in a

newspaper of general circulation in the area of the plant. The

Agency reports that no citizen objections, complaints or comments

We note that General Chemical has not sought retroactive

application of the extension of variance to December 1, 1993, the

date of expiration of the original variance.

2

have been received thus far. (Ag. Rec. at 

3•)2 

Hearing in this

matter was waived and none was

BACKGROUND

held.3

General Chemical owns and operates a manufacturing facility

located in Fairmont City, St. Clair County, Illinois. The

closest residential area is approximately 1,000 feet from the

plant. (Ag. Rec. at 2.) General Chemical employs twenty-six

people at the Plant, including four salaried employees, twenty-

one hourly employees and two part—time secretaries. The yearly

gross payroll is approximately $633,204.00. (Ag. Rec.at 6.)

General Chemical’s plant is the only domestic producer of

sodium aluminum sulfate (SAS), a food grade product used in the

manufacture of baking powder. SAS is produced by mixing aluminum

sulfate, sodium sulfate and small amounts of sulfuric acid and

sodium hydrosulfide. The materials are then mixed with water in

a mix tank. From the mix tank the mixture is pumped into a

rotary kiln roaster. The roaster reduces the excess liquid and

the rotary action produces spherically shaped pieces of solid

SAS. The roaster emits particulate matter (PM) and particulate

matter of 10 microns or smaller (PM1O) in this process. Based

upon the process rates and operating hours for General Chemical

and the formulae and parameter values from Section 212.322(b) and

(C), 

the Agency has derived a permit limitation of 8.16 pounds

per hour of particulate matter. (PCB 92-217 at 2.) General

Chemical’s permit to operate the roaster and scrubber expired on

December 1, 1993. (Ag. Rec at 2.)

The plant is located in a moderate nonattainment area for

ozone and is an attainment area for PM1O as determined pursuant

to the Clean Air Act, (42 U.S.C. S7401 ~ sea. (1990)) (CAA).

(Ag. Rec. at 2.)

The Board notes that General Chemical has not stated the

specific level of emissions it seeks to be allowed to emit

pursuant to this variance extension request. However, based on

discussions with General Chemical’s counsel and technical

2

The amended petition will be cited as “Pet. at 

.“,

and the

Agency recommendation will be cited as “Ag. Rec. at 

.“

~ Ui~erthe Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7501 

et. seq.) 

a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal, subject to reasonable notice

and comment is required for any variance from the applicable

emissions in an non—attainment area. General Chemical is located

in an attainment area and a SIP submittal is not required.

Therefore, a hearing is not required for this variance extension.

(See General Chemical Corp. v. IEPA (February 4, 1993), PCB 92—

217.)

personnel, the Agency believes that it was General Chemical’s

intention to request the same emissions limit as was allowed in

PCB 92-217. The

allowable emission level requested in PCB 92—217

was 40 lb/hr of PM. The

Agency further believes that General

Chemical intended to request

the same process weight rate and

operating hours as permitted in PCB 92-217. (Ag. Rec. at 

3.)

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

Section 

36(b) of the Act allows the Board to grant an

extension of variance where satisfactory progress has been

demonstrated. Section 36(b) states:

Section 36 Variances

Except as provided by Section 38 of this Act, any

variance granted pursuant to the provisions of this

Section shall be granted for such period of time, not

exceeding five years, as shall be specified by the

Board at the time of the grant of such variance, and

upon the condition that the person who receives such

variance shall make such periodic progress reports as

the Board shall specify. Such variance may be extended

frombut

onlyyeariftosatisfactoryyear

by affirmativeprogress actionhas

beenof

theshown.Board1

(emphasis added)

A petition for an extension of a variance is made pursuant

to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.123. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.123 states:

Section 104.123 Extension of Prior Variance

a)  A petition to extend a prior variance granted by the

Board shall be commenced by filing a petition for

variance with

the Agency and the Board in accordance

with the requirements of Sections 104.120 and 104.121.

To the extent that the information required by Sections

104.120 (Petition for Variance) and 104.121 (Contents

of Variance Petition) has been included in the prior

petition for variance for which extension is sought, a

resubmission of that information shall not be required

provided that the petition shall request the

incorporation of the record, opinion and order in the

prior proceeding into the new petition.

b)  A petition to extend a prior variance shall be subject

to all of the requirement of this Part except as

provided in subsection (a).

General Chemical seeks an extension of its variance from 35

Ill. Adm. Code 212.322(a). 35 Ill. Adm. Code 212.322(a) states:

Section 212.322

Existing Process Sources

a) Except as

provided in this Part, no person shall cause

or allow the emission of particulate matter into the

atmosphere in any one hour period from any existing

process source which, either alone or in combination

with the emission of particulate matter from other

similar new or existing process emission sources at a

plant or premises, exceeds the allowable emission rates

specified in subsection (c) and Illustraticn C.

In determining whether any variance is to be granted, the

Act requires the Board to determine whether a petitioner has

presented adequate proof that immediate compliance with the Board

regulations at issue would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship (415 ILCS 5/35(a) (1992)). Furthermore, the burden is

upon the petitioner to show that its claimed hardship outweighs

the public interest in attaining compliance with regulations

designed to protect the public (Willowbrook Motel v. Pollution

Control Board (1977), 135 Ill.App.3d 343, 481 N.E.2d 1032). Only

with such showing can the claimed hardship rise to the level of

arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

A further feature of a variance is that it is, by its

nature, a temporary reprieve from compliance with the Board’s

regulations (Monsanto Co. 

V.

IPCB (1977), 67 Ill.2d 276, 367

N.E.2d 684), and compliance is to be sought regardless of the

hardship which the task of eventual compliance presents an

individual polluter 

(u.).

Accordingly, except in certain

special circumstances, a variance petitioner is required, as a

condition to grant of variance, to commit to a plan which is

reasonably calculated to achieve compliance within the term of

the variance.

The Board may grant an extension of variance where

satisfactory progress has been demonstrated. (Ekco Glaco v. IPCB

(1989), 186 Ill.App.3d 141, 542 N.E.2d 147.) In addition, it has

been past Board practice to grant an extension of an expired

variance where satisfactory progress has been demonstrated.

(See, Scott Air Force Base v. IEPA (May 10, 1990) PCB 88—69, lii

PCB 09 (extension granted after expiration of original variance

upon the showing of satisfactory progress and where the duration

of the extension was unusually short); Rowe Foundry v. IEPA

(February 23, 1989) PCB 88—21, 96 PCB 147 (extension granted

after expiration of original variance upon showing of

satisfactory progress); City of Farmington v. IEPA (February 20,

1985) PCB 84-166,  

PCB

(extension of expired variance

granted where lack of comp1T~cewas beyond the control of

petitioner and where there were no reasonable alternatives);

Midwest Solvents v. IEPA (April 5, 1984) PCB 84—5, 

—

PCB 371

(extension of expired provisional variance granted where diligent

progress was demonstrated and adverse weather conditions

interfered with completion of work project).)

DISCUSSION

Section 212.322(a) contains limitations on emissions of PM

that exceed the

allowable emission rates for existing process

sources specified in Section 

212.322(c). These limitations vary

depending on the process weight rate. The Agency reports that

General Chemical’s permitted process rate weight is 2.8 tons per

hour, with a limit of 6,384 operating hours per year, or 8.17

allowable pounds per hour (lb/hr.) of PM. (Ag. Rec. at 3.)

General Chemical reports that in August 1993, following

installation of the fabric filter dust collector on the roaster,

stack tests demonstrated compliance with the PM limits of Section

212.322 (a). However, on September 20, 1993, the emissions from

the stack had visibly increased and operations at the plant were

terminated immediately. Upon inspection, General Chemical

determined that the tensile structure of the bags had

deteriorated markedly. Although General Chemical was aware that

the bags would wear out eventually, the actual bag failure was

considered premature. (Pet. at 2.) Petitioner presented a

thorough analysis of alternative compliance options to the Agency

at the meeting held on September 23, 1993. (Pet. at 3.; Ag. Rec.

at 4.) Petitioner intends to perform stack tests and report to

the Agency on a bi-weekly basis. (Pet. at 3, 4.)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

The Agency believes the requested extension is not likely to

result in any serous environmental or public health effects.

Moreover, the Agency believes in order to make the necessary

modifications to the plant, including installing of different

bags on the fabric filter dust collector, the petition should be

granted. (Ag. Rec. at 5.)

HARDSHIP

The Agency has characterized General Chemical as “extremely

diligent” in its attempt to bring the plant into compliance with

the provisions of Section 212.322(a). The Agency believes that

if General Chemical is not permitted to continue to produce SAS

at the plant during the very short additional time requested to

make the necessary modifications, the result could be a permanent

closure of the SAS process at the Plant and resulting economic

hardship to the area. (Ag. Rec. at 6.)

COMPLIANCE 

PLAN

General Chemical has not submitted a formal compliance plan

to the Board, but has presented a proposed compliance plan to the

Agency. The proposed plan includes the installation of Huyglass

6

bags. The Agency notes that the Huyglass bags are considerably

more expensive than the standard fiberglass bags initially used

by General Chemical. The Agency believes the addition of the

Huyglass bags to the fabric filter dust collector will result in

General Chemical achieving compliance with the emissions

limitations of Section 212.322(a). (Ag. Rec. at 6.)

COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL 

LAW

In accordance with the provisions of Section 35 of the Act,

the Board may grant variances only if they are consistent with

the provisions of the CAA. The Agency believes that because the

plant is not located in a PM1O nonattainment area, any variance

from the standard of Section 212.322(a) will not be subject to

USEPA approval. (Ag. Rec. at 5.)

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to Section 36(b) of the Act, the Board may grant an

extension of variance where satisfactory progress has been

demonstrated. In addition, the Board may grant an extension of

an expired variance upon the demonstration of satisfactory

progress. Here, the record indicates that General Chemical has

been very diligent in its efforts to comply with the provisions

of Section 212.322(a) and the provisions of its initial variance.

In August, petitioner performed stack tests which demonstrated

compliance with the emission standards. Subsequently petitioner

experienced an unexpected technological failure. Thereafter,

General Chemical initiated several meetings with Agency

personnel, conducted an extensive evaluation of alternative

compliance options,• retained engineering consultants and

developed and implemented compliance

procedures. Both the Agency

and petitioner

believe the proposed changes will bring the plant

into compliance in an expeditious manner.

The record indicates that no serious environmental

or public

health effects that will result,

or have resulted, from General

Chemical’s out—of—compliance status.

Furthermore, the Board

concludes that General

Chemical faces a substantial hardship if

variance extension is not granted.

The Board finds that General Chemical has presented adequate

proof of satisfactory progress towards compliance. Accordingly,

the Board hereby grants General Chemical an extension of variance

subject to the

conditions stated below.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

1.  Petitioner, General Chemical Corporation, is hereby granted

variance from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 212.322(a) as it relates to

particle emissions from its plant located in Fairmont City,

Illinois, subject to the following conditions.

A.  General Chemical Corporation shall install Huyglass

bags or other equivalent bags on the fabric filter dust

collector on the SAS roaster on or before January 1,

1994.

General Chemical Corporation shall submit biweekly

progress reports to the Agency detailing all progress

made towards installing and testing the Huyglass bags

or other appropriate bags on the fabric filter dust

collector, addressed as follows:

State of Illinois/EPA

Regional Manager/Bureau of Air

2009 Mall Street

Collinsville, Illinois 62234

Attention: John Justice

2.  General Chemical Corporation shall otherwise operate the

Plant during the term of the variance under the permit

conditions specified in its operating permit, and shall:

A. Onemissionsor beforeof Januarythe

SAS Evaporation15,

1994, measureand

Roastingthe

PM

Processand

SO2

by an approved testing service during conditions that

are representative of maximum emissions, and submit a

final report of the results of the tests to .the Agency

on or before February 1, 1994.

B.  Use the following methods and procedures for testing of

emission, unless another method is approved by the

Agency (Refer to 40 CFR 60, Appendix A for USEPA test

methods):

Location of Sample Points: USEPA Method 1

Gas Flow and Velocity:   

USEPA Method 2

Particulate Matter:    

USEPA Method 5

Sulfur Dioxide:      

35 Ill. Adm. Code

214.101(a) (USEPA Method 6)

As part of the measurement of PM emissions, General

Chemical shall measure and report both the inorganic

and organic considerable particulate matter in the

USEPA Method 5 impinger catch.

C.  During the above-referenced tests, determine the

following information:

8

i)  Process liquor flow rate, concentration and

process weight rate;

ii)

Process operating temperatures; and

iii) Pressure drop across the baghouse.

Process liquor feed rate, concentration, process weight

rate, and process operating temperatures shall be

determined based c’n the SAS operating log and SAS

concentration feed rate record sheet. Pressure drops

across the baghouse shall be measured with a

permanently install manometer as part of the

particulate matter collection system.

D. At lease fifteen (15) days prior to the actual date of

testing, submit a written test plan to the Agency for

review and approval. This plan shall describe the

specific procedures for testing, including at a

minimum:

i)  The person(s) who will be performing sampling and

analysis and their experience with similar tests;

ii)

The specific conditions under which testing will

be performed, including a discussion of why these

conditions will be representative of maximum

emissions and the means by which the operating

parameters for the source and any control

equipment will be determined;

iii) The specific determinations of emissions and

operation which are intended to be made,

including sampling and monitoring locations;

iv) The test method(s) which will be used, with the

specific analysis method, if the method can be

used with different analysis methods;

v)  Any minor changes in standard methodology proposed

to accommodate the specific circumstances of

testing, with justification;

vi) Any proposed use of an alternative test method,

with detailed justification;

and

vii) The format and content of the Source Test Report.

Operate the SAS Evaporation and Roasting Process during

testing in accordance with normal operating practices.

Process or pollution control equipment modifications

prior to the tests shall be documented.

The report

shall include any changes that may enhance PM control

efficiency or reduce emissions through changes in

operating conditions.

Prior to carrying out these tests, notify the Agency’s

Regional Office and the Agency’s Source Emission Test

Specialist, at the addresses for notice set forth

below, a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the

expected date of these tests and a minimum of five (5)

working days prior to the test of the exact date, time

and place of these tests, to enable the Agency to

witness these tests.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control 

—

Regional

Office

2009 Mall Street

Collinsville, Illinois 62234

Attention: John Justice

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Attn: Source Emission Test Specialist

Division of Air Pollution Control

Intercontinental Center

1701 First Avenue

Maywood, Illinois 60153

G. Submit three (3) copies of the Final Report(s) to the

Agency within fifteen (15) days after the test results

are compiled and finalized.

H.  Submit a copy of the Summary of Results, General

Information and Conclusions, as contained in the Final

Report, to the Source Emission Test Specialist.

I.  Include in the Final Report shall, at a minimum:

i)  A summary of results;

ii) General information;

iii) Description of test method(s), including

description of sampling points, sampling train,

analysis equipment and test schedule;

iv) Detailed description of test conditions;

v)  Process information, i.e., mode(s) of operation,

process rate, e.g. fuel or raw material

consumption;

vi) Control equipment information, i.e., equipment

10

condition and operating parameters during testing;

vii) A discussion of any preparatory action taken,

i.e., inspections,

J. This variance shall expire on February 1, 1994 or upon

petitioner achieving compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. code

212.322(a), whichever comes first.

3.  Within 10 days of the date of this order, Petitioner shall

execute and forward to:

L. L. Kroack

Assistant Counsel

Bureau of Air

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276

This ten day period shall be held in abeyance for any period

during which this matter is appealed. The form of the

certification shall be as follows:

CERTIFI CATION

I (We), _______________________________________

hereby accept and agree to be bound by all terms and

conditions of the Order of the Pollution Control Board

in PCB 93—178, December 16, 1993.

Petitioner

Authorized

Agent

Title

Date

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS

5/41 (1992), provides for appeal of final orders of the Board

within 35 days. The Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois

establish filing requirements.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above opini and order was

adopted on the 

____________

day of 

____________________

1993 by a vote of 

_______________

Dorothy N. 9~n, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board