28-88
28-89
28-91
28-94
28-95
28-96
28-97
28-99
28-1 01
28-1 02

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October

13,

1977

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

 R75-9,

 R76-8, -12, —13

CHAPTER

 2: AIR POLLUTION,

)

 (CONSOLIDATED)

RULE 206:

 CARBON MONOXIDE

ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Goodman):

The following are hereby adopted as

 a proposed final draft

Opinion and Order of the Board

 in this matter.

 The proposed final

draft Order shall be set for publication and a 45—day public

comment period.

 The Proposed final draft Opinion shall be made

available for public inspection during such 45-day public comment

period.

PROPOSED FINAL DRAFT OPINION AND ORDER

OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr.

 Goodman)*

This matter originally

 came before the Board on a Petition

for Regulatory Change filed by Amoco Chemicals Corporation on

June

9,

 1975.

 That proposal, docketed as R75-9,

 sought amendment

of Rule

 206, Carbon Monoxide, of Chapter

2:

 Air Pollution,

of

the Board’s Rules and Regulations.

 Ill. PCB Regs.,

Ch.

2,

 Rule

206.

 The petition~spurpose was to avoid the enforcement of exis-

ting carbon monoxide standards

in

Rule 206(c) (petroleum and petro-

chemical processes)

 against emissions

 from operations

 at the

Amoco Joliet plant.

 See,

Amoco Petition,

 ¶2; R.62.

After the first hearing in the matter,

 three additional

parties

(Stepan

 Chemical, Koppers

Co.

Rn

cIih’lcl

 (‘hr’rnical)

 also

mci

U~qula

tory

Pet

 ions

 as so

Lh

 ho tow.

 ‘I’iie common

cause

amonq

the

four

petitioners

 is a specific chemical process, also

described below,

 and a contention that such processes should not

be regulated under standards applicable to, or designed for, petro-

leum and petrochemical processes.

*The ~

 ~Tshes

 to thank Vincent P.

 Flood,

 Jr.,

 Attorney, Hearing

Officer in this matter,

 for his assistance

 in the preparation and

drafting of this Opinion and Order.

—2--

THE

PETITIONS

Amoco’s original proposal would have added

 a new subsection

(h)

 to Rule

 206,

 specifically governing Amoco’s

 ~‘Organic Chemical

Partial Oxidation Processes.”

 Although AMOCO’s proposed regulatory

change dId not include a definition of “Organic Chemical Partial

Oxidation Processes,” Amoco did submit a proposed definition,

 after

the first hearing

 in this matter,

 to be added to Rule 201 of Chapter

2.

 The definition delineated more clearly the areas which Amoco

hoped to encompass

 in its original proposal by listing

 24 specific,

individual processes,

 or groups of processes,

 and generally in-

cluding,

 “any oxidation process which yields primary products inter-

mediate between

 the starting organic material a~:dthe oxides of

carbon.”

Shortly after AMOCO’s proposed definition was received,

the

Stepan Chemical Co. filed a Regulatory Petition of its own

 (R76—8),

asking that it be consolidated for hearings with Amoco’s proposal.

The Stepan proposal did not

 (like Amoco’s)

 ask that a separate

sub-part of Rule 206 be added;

 instead, Stepan asked that the

processes

 involved be regulated by exception from “petroleum and

petrochemical process”

 in a new subsection 206(c) (4)

At approximately the same time, Koppers Co.,

 Inc.,

 also filed

a Regulatory Proposal,

 R76-12,

 also asking that

 it be consolidated.

Koppers also wished to add a new subsection 206(c) (4).

Shortly after Relchhold filed the fourth Proposal

 (R76-l3)

 seeking enactment of a new Rule 206(h) (Organic Chemical Partial

Oxidation Processes,

 it filed an amendment to that Proposal, with-

drawing the original R76-13,

 and asking Board enactment of the

following:

“Rule 206(h):

 Polybasic Organic Acid Manufacturing Process.

No person shall cause or allow the emission of any gases

containing carbon monoxide into the atmosphere

 from any

polybasic organic acid manufacturing process unless the

total fuel value of the waste gas stream is less than 30

of that required for flame incineration of the waste gas

stream at 1460°F,without heat exchange,

 and the source

does not cause a violation of the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards,

 a source may use approved dispersive

techniques.

 Polybasic acid manufacturing processes not

meeting the above conditions shall burn such waste gas

stream in

 a direct flame afterburner so that the resulting

*As noted below, p.16,

 the proponents generally concurred in

Reichhold’S Amended Proposal after the close of the hearings.

It is therefore the only proposal reproduced fully here.

28-88

—3—

concentration of carbon monoxide

 in such waste gas stream

is

 less than or equal

 to 200 ppm or such waste gas stream

is controlled by other equivalent air pollution control

 equipment approved by the Agency accordinq

 to the provisions

of Part

 1 of this Chapter.”

With

 its second proposal,

 Reichhold also asked for a new

definition

 in Rule

 201 to accompany the proposed Rule

 206 (h):

“Polybasic Organic Acid Manufacturing Process:

 Any process

involving partial oxidation of hydrocarbon with air to manu-

facture polybasic acids or their anhydrides,

 such as maleic

anhydride,

 phthalic anhydride,

 terephthalic

 acid, isophtha-

lic acid,

 trimelletic anhydride.

 A polybasic manufacturing

process

 is not a petroleum or petrochemical process.”

A final proposal,

 called “unofficial” by the Agency, was

made by Reichhold in its briefs.

 Reichhold suggested that the

Board take the option of simply not regulating “partial oxida-

tion processes,”

 In either of two ways:

(1)

 The Board could

define “Petrochemical Processes”

 to exclude the various

petitioners’ processes;

or,

(2)

 it could simply declare that

the petitioners’

 “partial oxidation processes” are not governed

by Rule 206(c).

THE PROCEEDINGS

The Board originally authorized hearings on the Amoco

proposal,

 R75-9,

 at its meeting of July 31,

 1975;

 the proposal

was published

 in Environmental Register #107, dated August

5,

 1975,

(Ex.

2).

 After additional publication,

 and public notice

pursuant to the Board’s Procedural Rules,

 a hearing was held in

Joliet on the Amoco proposal on February 24,

 1976.

 That hearing

was concerned almost entirely with the operations and emissions

associated with

 the Amoco Joliet plant.

The Stepan proposal was filed on March

22,

 1976, and authorized

for hearing and publication on April

8,

 1976.

 At that hearing,

the

Board also entered an Interim Order allowing Stepan’s Motion for

Consolidation.

 R76—8 was published in Environmental Register

 #123.

Addtional Interim Orders were entered on May 6,

 1976, and June

18,

 1976,

 granting similar motions by the Koppers Company

 (R76—12)

and Reichhold Chemicals

 (R76-l3).

 Those proposals,

 as set out

above, were published in Environmental Registers

 #125 and #128,

respectively.

28-89

—4--

Further hearings c~ the merits

the

 various proposals were

then

held

July

 12 and

13,

 1976,

 and March

1977

Chicago.

The Hearing Officer also granted

motions

include

the

record

in this matter the voluminous records generated

 in prior adjudica-

tive cases.

 ReichholdChemica1sv~ EPA, PCB 73-539,

 74-111

(Consolidated);

 Stepan Chemical Company v.

 EPA, PCB 74-425,

 17 PCB

105

 (1975).

 The records

 in those eases were given exhibit Nos.

31

and 32, respectively.

 Additional evidence on the m&rits was also

entered, principally by Koppers,

 at the second of two Economic

Impact hearings,

 held March

21,

 1977.

An Economic Impact Study,

 as required under P.A.

 79-790, was

filed by the Institute for Environmental Quality on December

22,

 1976,

(IIEQ Doc.

 #76-28;

Ex.

 E-l).

 Hearings on that study were held March

7 and

21,

 1977,

 in Chicago and Springfield.

Additional Interim Orders,

 related to briefing schedules, were

entered on May

 12 and 26,

 1977,

 There

 is still outstanding a Motion,

filed by the Agency on May

5,

 1977, asking that final decision

in

this matter be deferred for a period of one year,

 to allow the pro-

ponents

 to gather

additional

ArnJ~icnt

Air Quality

 data.

THE

PROCESSES

The

various

proposals

generally

describe

processes

which

the

proponents

wished

to

regulate

separately.

While

specifics

those

proposals

may

have

 differed,

the

 proposals generally were aimed at

processes

using

catalytic

reactions

partially

oxidized

organic

feedstocks,

usually

 (but

not

necessarily)

derived

from

petroleum

another

petroleum

derivitive

(R.46-50).

Data

acompanying

Amoco’s

proposal,

R75—9,

described

its

pro-

cess

follows:

“Amoco’s

primary

Mid—Century

oxidation

process

uses

acetic

acid

solvents

with

bromine

promoter

and

cobalt

manganese

catalyst

oxidize

xylenes

dibasic

acids.

.Preheated

acetic

acid,

para-xylene

and

catalysts,

together

with

high-pressure

air

are

charged

agitated

reactor

operating

moderate

tem—

perature

and

pressure,

400°—450°F and

330—400

psig.

The

production

isophthalic

acid

(IPA)

and

trimellitic

anhydride

(TMA)

separate

units

are

similar

except

for

the

feedstock.

Meta—xylene

and

pseudocumene

are

used

place

para—xylene.

28-90

—5—

Amoco’s

 first witn~. s described the process

 as “doing a very

simple replacement,”

(R.20).

When

air

 is bubbled through the

agitated liquid reactor,

 four hydrogen atoms are stripped from

the para-xylene feedstock,

 “hoping

 to replace

a1

 four of them

with oxygen atoms, while at the same time neither oxidizing any

of the carbons or remaining hydrogens in the molecule.”

 (Id.)

Unsuccessful reactions result from shearing the benzene ring or

by succeeding in attaching less than the optimum four oxygens,

and

the by-products must then be removed prior to sale.

 The resulting

chemical intermediate

 is used in making polyester film and fiber

(R.lS).

 See,

Ex.

7.

Amoco’s Joliet plant produces approximately

4

 of all U.S.

crude terephthalic acid; Amoco has 25-30

 of the national market

if its out—of-state plants are considered,

 (R.l3l; See, materials

accompanying Amoco’s petition,

 R75—9).

 Amoco’s Joliet plant

presently produces 100

 of the world’s trimelletic production and

100

 of the isophthalic acid market in the United States,

 (R.l31—32).

In the latter two cases,

 however, other products such as phthalic

anhydride can be substituted directly,

 (R.l33; but see,

Ex.

 E—l,

pp.

25,

28,

34),

Stepan’s

facility

is,

Amoco’s,

located

 along the Des

Plaines

River

near

Joliet,

1,2

miles

from

Amoco,

(R.l2).

 The opera-

tion of the Stepan plant

 (the Milisdale plant) was described in a

Board

opinion

PCB

74—425,

 supra,

 a variance proceeding.

Stepan uses an ortho-xylene feedstock reacted to produce phthalic

anhydride.

 17 PCB

 105,

106

 (1975).

A

solid,

white

crystal

room

temperature,

phthalic

anhydride

used

plasticizer

make

polyester resins and in the paint industry.

 The process involves

passing heated air and vaporized ortho-xylene over a solid catalyst

for

oxidation

phthalic

anhydride.

The

impurities

the

process

include

phthalic

anhydride,

benzoic

acid

 (See,

Ex.

 32, record at

9

in PCB 74—425.)

 The principal emissions

 from the Millsdale plant

are phthalic anhydride and carbon monoxide,

 (Id.

at

 11), with an

off-gas temperature of 140°F.and 1/2

CO,

 (id.

 at 13).

Koppers also produces phthalic anhydride,

 at a plant in

Stickney,

Illinois,

(R.255,

Ex.

36).

Using

steam,

process

air

preheated.

The

ortho-xylene

raw

material

injected

into

the

heated

air

stream

and

enters

fixed-bed

catalytic

reactor

where

exothermic,

partial

oxidation

reaction

takes

place,

(R.260)

Heat is withdrawn from the reaction indirectly via salt baths,

and

used

for

steam

generation.

“The

vapor

phase

continues

 to a gas

cooler.

and on

 to the switch condensers where the crude phthalic

anhydride is solidified and removed from the gas stream.

 The crude

28-91

phthalic

 anuydricI~ is

j4.~4

rum the swit

 rhensers in

cycles,

sent

 on t pre~~~

 r~ rhe strippe~

 mu, and steer

column, where

 it is retntr~.

 roce a market~

 n~oduct,

reaction

gases

 pass from the

 ~ondenser t

 ~ raucous

where

they

 are scrubbed and tF~

 austed.”

(R

The

 Sti. kney

facility

 uses six reactors, whi

~tre

various

 iewnstream eqinpment

such

 as switch condensers and sr~

 .rs.

 There

 :~r. four emission

sources

 (stacks),

 (R.262)

The

 Reichhold plant is located adjacent to

 he illinois River

about

six

 miles from Morris

 Ill nois, about fi~ aen miles

 f.~.om

Joliet,

 and forty-seven tc fifty

 aix miles from

 intown Chicago,

(Ex.

 31, Transcripts,

 Vol.

 2 at

p

 6Th,

 The Rd

 aid plant proluces

maleic

anhydride

 using air and bunzene, with a catalyst,

 in a

reactor

 specific temperatures.

 The off-gases are cooled prior

entry

into

primary

 recovery r ~ts

 (switch

condensers).

 Additional

maleic

anhydride

 recovered

 ~n tn~successive

 ater and caustic

scrubbers,

the

caustic

scr’ibber

r~erting

 any renaming maleic

hydride

sodium

malate,

wnic.

 ~hen incinerated.

The

gas

strE-c.r

also

 passed through

carbor

a

 ~ers to recoxor unreactec’

 er~~e

Reichhold

 testified that carbon

xide

 is an

 navoidable by’produu

the

exothermic

 reaction ir~’

in

maleic

anhydride

 productio~

(id,

75—76;

 See,

Ex.

32,

 B 73—539,

 7~.-~li1consolidatedl

Ex~

this

 ~~tcr)

It

can be seen that

che~e

 tour companies use essentially the

same processes,

with s1i~htvariations,

 us.~ng

 .xlar organic

feedstocks.

There

was

 some discussion

as

 to whether any

firms

 chemical

processes

 other than the proponents might be co~ered under any of

the

proposals,

 (R.667;

Ex,

71)

The

Agency

 did supply a list of

those

who

would

 potentially be effected

specific

regulation

for

partial

 oxidation processes

 That list, however, was compiled

for

the

1964-1966

period.

 (see, Public Comment ~12).

 The list

indicated

several

 producers besides

petitioners

this

case

 which

might

conceivably

fail

within

the

definitions

offered

the

parties

for

partial

oxidation

processes,

rhc

included

Witco

Chcmic.il

Company

 (Chicago),

 the Sherwin~Wi1liams Company

 (Chicago)

 Ciark

Oil Company

(Chicaqo)

 and Gulf Oil

 (Calumet City).

Each

 of those

additional potentially

effected producers was, according to the

Agency’s list,

 engaged

 in processes which would have been included

within Amoco’s list of affected processes proposed

 an appendx

to Rule

 201,

 (see page

 2 supra).

 As noted in the record, no~e~rer

(R.667),

 that list is probably absolute.

 The Institut&s

 contractor

found that there are,

 at p~’esent, only four chemical firms that use

partial oxidation

processes

 in the manufacture of their products:

the

four

 proponents here,

 (Ex.

E-

1.

at

2,

26,

 29—33, Tables 6~9).

211-92

The best evidence before the Board,

 then,

is

tTh.

uie

only

four

firms potentially effecred in ml.

 matter are ~iase before us here,

We therefore limit our anall~rJ~to

 cheir emissions and the effects

of such emissions.

EM~ ~(rTS

Amoco’s emissions are descc.~.cc.

 in various places throughout

the record.

 The existing units cc

 ~he Joliet Plant discharge from

7,583 SCFM to 10,833 SCFM per hour

 (36,416 to 51,620 lb/hr).

Of

those discharges, nitrogen conscicates from 92—95

 of the total.

Carbon monoxide,

 on the other hard

 ranges from 0.1

 to 1.2

(Ex.

9;

 see also Ex.

19,

 Table I).

 Amoco’s permit application for

the Joliet Plant showed a total dincharge of 834 lb/hr of CO,

 (Ex.

8).

Agency calculations,

 on the other hand,

 show a total discharge by

Amoco of 700 lb/hr, or 1,980 tons/yr,

 (Agency Brief at

3).

The

exhaust gases from the Amoco Plant are discharged at approximately

100°F, (e.g.

 R.98).

Stepan’s process results

 ~charges

 of 192,000 pounds of

air and about 1,000 pounds of

c

 monoxide

per

 hour, with trace

amounts of organic chemicals

 00 lb/hr of carbon dioxide,

(Ex.

 32, PCB 74—425,

 Record

ci..

The

 discharge

 is 1/2

 CO, at

an exit temperature of 140°F

~t

14).

 Agency calculations

indicate Stepan’s discharges

Jah

 lb/hr,

 or 3,460 tons/yr.

Koppers discharges are somewhat

greater

fo~

 all components,

but similar in relative composition

 A total

 4,400 lb/hr of CO

is discharged,

 at a concentration

 of 3,700 ppm in a waste stream

composed largely of nitrogen

 (730,000 ppm),

 oxygen

 (160,000 ppm)

and water

 (65,000-86,000 ppm).

 (See,

 e.g.,

Ex.

 42).

 The Agency’s

calculations for Koppers were 3,970 lb/hr of CO,

 or 15,670 tons/yr.

Carbon monoxide is also an enavoidable by—product of the

manufacture maleic anhydride

 at the Reichhold plants,

 (Ex.

31,

Record in PCB 73-539,

 74—111, at

75)

 The off gases from the

maleic manufacturing processes include 1.7

 carbon monoxide, 16

oxygen, with the remainder largely nitrogen,

 (e.g.

 id., Volume

II at 101;

 see also,

id.

 at Ex.

10:

 3,360

 lb/hr).

The

Agency

esti.mnt(~d

Reichho1d’s~discharges

as

 10,000 tons/yr.

summary,

although

 the CO emissions

vary

from

Petitioner

Petitioner,

 it can be seen that the makeup of the

Petitioners’

total

emissions

quite

 similar from

Petitioner

Petioner.

The

Agency’s

estimate

total

emissions

for

all

four

Petitioners

31,050

tons/yr.

28-93

—8—

Ar~iBIENTAIR QUALITY

All four of the Petitioners

 in this matter are located

generally near Chicago.

 Although there were no 1976 violations

the 35 ppm one-hour ambient air quality standard in the

Metropolitan

Chicago Interstate Air Quality Control Region

 (No.

 67),

 there were

violations

 of the

9

ppm eight-hour ambient air quality

standards.

Five different sites

 in the region

 (containing all of the Peti-

tioners)

 recorded excursions above

 9 ppm; all of those violations

took place within the city of Chicago.

 See,

 Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency,

 1976 Annual Air Quality Report,

 at 78,

91.

(We

shall,

 for purposes of this analysis,

 take notice of the Agency’s

1975 and 1976 Annual Air Quality Reports).

 One of those five sites

recording excursions had only one reading in excess of

 9 ppm, which

is allowed under the ambient standard, Rule 310(a) (1).

 The remain-

ing four sites had,

 total, twenty-two instances where the

ambient

air quality was standard,

 sixteen of those being concentrated at

the

CAMP Station

 in downtown Chicago,

 (id.

 at 91).

These figures are considerably better than those recorded in

1975.

 In that year,

 there were both more sites registering viola-

tions,

 including Joliet with two excursions above

 9 ppm,

 and a

greater number of violations

 (although most of the decrease resulted

from improved readings at the CAMP and Cermak Stations

in

Chicago).

See,

 1975 Annual Air Quality Report at 40,

 82, Table 12.

Testimony by Dr. Babcock in 1975,

 in the Reichhold

variance

case,

 indicated total CO emissions in the region of approximately

3,000,000 tons/yr.

 (PCB 73—539,

 74—111

 (Consolidated)

 Vol.

II,

23.)

 At that time, estimating Reichhold CO emissions of 15,000

tons/yr,

Dr.

Babcock

found

that

Reichhold’s

emissions

constituted

roughly four tenths of 1

 of those

 in the region.

 (id. at 24).

Using

instead

the

Agency’s

estimates

for

all

four

Petitioners

this

matter

amounting

31,050

tons/yr,

see

that

 the contri-

bution of all four sources to the total

 CO in the region

 is approxi-

mately 1

 or less.

In addition to the general information on carbon monoxide

available for the region containing the Petitioner’s plants, each

of the Petitioners has individually submitted both modeling

and

monitoring results.

 Such data was first submitted to the

Board

in the Stepan variance, PCB 74-425, supra.

 Although the placement

~Thabco~~tifI~d

 that the principal contribution to

ambient

CO is by the automobile, which leads to existing air quality vio-

lations

 in areas of heavy auto traffic.

 The Agency’s Annual Air

Quality Reports

 for 1975 and 1976 agree, stating that,

 “the

major

source.. .by far

 is the motor vehicle.”

 1976 Annual Air Quality

p~~tat 10.

 Dr. Babcock estimated that motor vehicles account

for over 2/3 of the total,

 in ex.cess of

 2 million tons/yr.

 73-539,

74-111

(Consolidated),

Record,

Vol.

23.

28-94

—9—

the

monitors

the

 ritial

study

seems

so~

it

arbitrary,

(PCB

74-425,

 Record

at

and

readings

were

t

 for only

the

month of August,

 1974,

 (Id. at

 59), Stepan’s mo.~oring

contractor

reached the opinion,

 “that

J~rn

 no signific

 impact

from the

emissions

from

 Stepan.”

(id

~

 61).

 (A1thc~

 there was one

eight—hour

violation,

11

ppm,

Lhe

wind

direc~uon

precluded

any

Stepan contributions;

 that excnr’-. ~n was attributed

to

“automotive

exhaust

some

other

form.”

(id.

~.t

62).

Most

readings

were

the

order

ppm,

(id.

at

Ex.

11,

12;

 but see,

Id.

R.67).

Again utilizing Dr.

 Babcock, Stepan

presented evidence to show

that

its

 emissions (assuming 4500 tons/yr Ca) arount to approximately

0.1

the

in

the

 air quality control

regic

Dr.

Babcock

testified

that

 Stepan’s emissions

would

not

ha’....

any

effect

whatso-

ever on violations

 in downtown

Chicago, and would be unlikely

to have

any effect on excessive concentrations elsewhere in the region,

due

to its remoteness from concentrations of automobiles,

 (Id.

 at 85).

Stepan’s final exhibit

in

that proceeding,

 (id.,

Ex.

 14), was

a

study showing the general

effect

‘I a change to Rule 206 (c), finding

that the effect on CO

ambient a:r

quality would

be

negligible,

 even

if applicable to such major

emi7t’~

n

 as refinery.

Reichhold’s ambient air

qi

ty

data was also submitted in a

prior adjudicative case,

PCB

73

 P39,

 74-111

 (Consolidated),

 supra.

Testimony there indicated

that

 violation of the ambient air quality

as a result of Reichhold’s

operations

was possible, but only under

extremely adverse

meteorological

conditions, inluding a combination

of low wind speeds,

 unstable

conditions and the presence of a very

low level inversion;

 even

under such conditions,

 violations could

take place only within a radius of 300 meters

 from the stack, with

concentrations decreasing rapidly both closer to and farther from

the emission source,

 (73-539,

 74-111, Record at 10—14; but see,

Id.

at 18,

 19).

 Using Agency figures and Reichhold modeling,

 it was

estimated that Reichhold might contribute 0.4

 to the total ambient

CO in the Metropolitan Chicago air quality control region.

 Again,

the contribution was termed “negligible.”

 (id.

 at 25).

Reichhold did not monitor at its plant.

 Instead, Reichhold

submitted the results of the study prepared for Commonwealth Edison

at Collins Station, approximately one mile from the Reichhold plant,

(id.

 at 117).

 Reichhold also noted that a study was made at the

Amoco Joliet plant, about six miles from Peichhold’s facility,

 (id.).

Although the monitors in the Edison study were obviously not placed

to record contributions

by

Reichhold,

 the use of wind data made

possible some analysis of the effect of its emissions,

 (see,

id.

at

122).

 Although the monitoring period was short

 (again, one month),

the results of the study do show that CO

 is not generally a problem

in the vicinity of the Reichhold plant,

 (id.

 at 126).

28-95

—10—

Amoco’s modeling

an.

 xonitoring results were submitted at

the

first hearing

 in this matter.

 The highest one-hour value for

CO

recorded

was

 5.9 ppm;

the

 highest

eight-hour value was

4.28

ppm,

(R.88).

 The data gathered

during

 Amoco’s monitoring program

correlated generally with dispersion modeling, which did not

indi-

cate potential violations,

 (R.92;

Ex.

 15).

 Like the monitoring

studies undertaken by Stepan and Reichhold, however,

 the Amoco

program was conducted for a limited time:

 March and April,

 1974,

(R.84).

Additional

information

was

submitted

 by Amoco at the July

12,

1976

hearing,

 (see,

 e.g.,

 P.213, Ex.

 34).

 Again, a violation

was

not

indicated.

Koppers

located

closer

those

downtown

Chicago

 areas which

have

experienced

 ambient air quality violations

 for CO, although

its

Stickney plant is still considerably removed

from any of the

monitors

which have indicated violations.

 As with the other companies,

Koppers presented testimony and evidence that would support its con-

tention that its CO emissions could

not either have caused

violations

in the neighborhood of its own

plant,

or have contributed to

the

existing violations farther away.

 Although there were some

anomalies

in the test results,

 (e.g.

 R.509-531), and the monitoring

loc~tions

may not have been perfectly

chosen.,

 (P.405), Koppers’ modeling

generally showed that its emissions

did not cause CO ambient

air

quality

violations,

(e.g.,

 P.436).

Finally,

 some additional data with

regard to the Stepan monitor-

ing, corroborative of the data received in PCB 74-425, was introduced

by Stepan for cross-examination purposes,

 (P.534).

CONTROL

TECHNIQUES

was

the

 general contention of all of

the

Petitioners

 in this

matter that the carbon monoxide emissions from their plants,

as

detailed above, simply cannot be controlled to the levels required

Rule

206(c)

economically

reasonable

manner.

Most

the

testimony and evidence presented by the parties

 in this matter,

as

well

the

preponderance

that

seen

the

earlier

adjudicative

cases, concerned the costs and technical difficulties associated

with

the

control

emissions

from

partial

oxidation

processes.

The

Board

has

 been aware of these

issues for some time;

 as the

Agency points

out, the

issues

here

 have been presented more or less

continuously since

 1973.

 See, e.g.,

 PCB 73—365,

 PCB 74—63,

PCB 74—325, PCB

75—350

 (Koppers);

PCB

73—539,

 74-~ll1 (Consolidated),

supra

 (Reichhold); PCB 73—460,

 74—425,

 76—161

 (Stepan).

The proponents concentrated on four methods for the removal

of

carbon monoxide from their emissions.

28-96

—11—

(1)

 Incineration;

at

approximately

1500°F.,

 .‘arbon

i~Td~Ts

 effectively oxidized and eIu~d.nated.

This

method,

for

these

Petitioners,

 recuires

considerable

fuel

input

inasmuch

th~

if-gases

are at a

very

low

temperature

with

 lit.le

fuel value,

 (as described above for

each

Petitioner).

(2)

 Incineration with heat recovery

 under

this

method,

both

conventional

and

innovative

heat

recovery

 techniques are employed to

cut

fuel

requirements.

(3)

Cold

catalytic

oxidation

the

Board

discussed

this

method

previously

variance

matters,

supra,

while

research

was

 being funded,

The

~rograms

have

been

dropped

because

-—

 despite

some

laboratory

successes

the

method

has

not

proven

feasible.

(4)

 Thermal catalytic oxidation

 this method, while not

~

 fuel necessary for

incineration, does require some energy input

for successful

CO removal.

 This method, dis-

cussed chiefly in terms

 of a Du Pont proprie-

tary system,

 is also useful for removing

other contaminants such as hydrocarbons.

It

was covered extensively by the par’ties and

in cross-examination by the Agency.

 There was

even

some

discussion

recovering

heat

from

 the exothermic partial oxidation process

itself in conjunction with this method.

The parties also discussed briefly the additional possibility

of using exhaust gases from the partial oxidation processes

as

combustion air for other requirements

 at the Petitioners’

 facili-

ties,

 such as steam boilers.

 Because of the quantity of exhaust

gases involved, however,

 this method was shown

 to be impractical.

Incineration.

 There can be no question of the fact that incine-

ration does constitute a technically practical method for the

eliminaH~3’~iof carbon monoxide from the Petitioners waste gas streams.

Although the parties presented arguably

valid evidence to the effect

that combustion by-products of incineration

 (e.g.,

 SO2) would con-

stitute worse pollution

problems than uncontrolled

Ca,

and to show

the unavailability of fuel for such incineration, their principal

contention with regard to incineration as well as the other

potential control technologies was one of simple cost-benefit.

28-97

They

argue

 that the reJ’

..~

 small

amounts

removed

 canno~

justify

the

 enormous ca~ ta

and

operating

costs

involved.

In its most recent

varinn~

 u~se,

PCB

76-li

 Stepan

estimated

that

the

incineraton

 of its em~scons would

require,

addition

to

any capital costs,

 4,000,000 ga1lo~is

fuel

oil

per

 year,

 (PCB 76~

161, Record

at 23).

 That figure

 quite compatible with the

evidence

received

 this matter.

 hoppers,

 for example, estimated

that

even

with

heat

 exchange at a maximum

of 57,

 961 gallons

of

fuel would be required

each hour,

 or a

total

 of 7,611,000

gallons

per year,

 (Ex.

50).

Amoco

estimated

that

incineration

would

 require

2,000,000 gallons

per year of No,

 6 fuel oil,

 (Fx,

 20).

As

early as

1971,

 Reichhold had

estimated that its

1.7

 car~

on

monoxide

waste

gas would require

 .075 MBTU’s for every

 1,000

 lbs.

 of exhaust

gas to

achieve incineration,

 or 45,000,000 BTU5 per hour.

 Even if natural

gas

were

available

 that time

 (1971),

the necessary natural

gas

would have cost

$250-300,000

per

year,

with

capital

cost

for

the

incinerator

$300,000-400,000,

(PCB

 73—539,

 74—111

 (Consolidated)

Ex.

36,

at

2),

 Gas is now unav~..

able for such purposes,

 of course,

and prices

for

fuel

 and construction

have

risen.

Heat

Recovery.

 In add~t.~.o~o

normal

heat

recovery

 systems.

Koppe~T~stigateda

“Reeco”

..em

utilizing

extremely

 high

heat

exchange

(85-90).

 The un

 s Involved would cost

$5,000,000,

with

operating

 costs in the banl~of

$400,000—600,000

per

 year,

(P. 314).

 Such

units

have

 not been

widely tested.

Cold

Catalytic

 Oxidation.

 hoppers

also

investigated

 various

—~-.—

—,--—_,~..-—-—-.

cold catalytic oxidatron control systems,

going

far

solicit bids from

vendors,

(P.280-301).

Pilot

plants

were

actually

installed,

 (Ex.

 53).

 In general,

due to catalyst blinding,

 systems

upsets and unsatisfactory emissions,

 the systems have been very

unsatisfactory.

Thermal Catalytic Oxidation.

 Stepan has done considerable

work with the Du Pont Catalytic Reactor System.

 This system

opercte~

by heating the off gases

and passing

them over a catalyst; hydro-

carbons are oxidized

to carbon dioxide

and

water

while

carbon

monoxide

 is oxidized to

carbon

 dioxide.

 In addition, it

appears

that

heat

exchange

may

 significantly

reduce the need for

supplementa.~

 fuel for the system’s

operation.

In

its

most

recent

variance

 reques~

Stepan

proposed

the

installation

 such a unit, for the

control

of

hydrocarbon emissions as well as carbon

monoxide; reductions

 in plant

discharges have been estimated at 85—95

 for organics and

96-100

for

carbon monoxide in

pilot

plant

testing.

28-98

—13—

Whether the Du Pont system would be applicable to the other pro-

ponents, however,

 is unclear.

 Amoco, Rappers,

 and Reichhold utilize

other methods for hydrocarbon control,

 increasing the relative cost

of such

 a system for

CO control.

Again,

in

summary,

control

of CO emissions

 from partial oxi-

dation processes is technically practical.

 Given sufficient fuel

for incineration, or sufficient capital investment for catalytic

reaction, each

of the Petitioners could readily comply with the

200 ppm CO standard in Rule 206(c).

 The issue,

 simply,

 is cost.

ECONOMIC

IMPACT

The Institute’s Economic Impact Study,

 IIEQ Document No.

 76-28,

concludes that,

 “although thermal incineration

 is technically and

economically feasible.

this method would be inefficient because

incremental social benefits appear to be significantly less than

incremental social costs.

 Even though the social costs of thermal

catalytic oxidation would be

 less,

 we still conclude that compliance

with Rule 206(c)

 is inefficient using the least-cost method, since

these

 firms contend that they meet Federal standards for CO emis-

sions.

“In the long run,

 if all four firms complied with Rule 206(c),

the loss of social benefits from plant relocations and the impact on

energy would make compliance with Rule 206(c)

 inefficient.”

 (Ex. E-l

at xvi).

Section 6(b)

 Coverage.

 Sec.

 6(b) of the Act requires that the

institute’s studies consider a wide range of specific environmental

and economic effects which might be associated with proposed regu-

lations,

 as well as contain,

 “an evaluation of the environmental

costs,

 and benefits of the rules and regulations

to

 the People of

the State of Illinois,

 including the health, welfare and social

costs and benefits.”

 Ill.Rev.Stat.,Ch.lll

 1/2,

 §l006(b)(l)

 (1977).

The study in this matter considered all of the various sectors set

forth there, under the same short—run/long—run basis noted

 in the

conclusion quoted above.

 See,

 e.g.

Ex.

 E-l at Table

1,

ch.

V.

The

study’s investigation of economTc effects, based on comparisons

between enforcement of the present regulation and the effective de-

regulation proposed by the parties, was adequate and generally

supportive of those quoted conclusions.

The macro-economic effects described in the study

 (indicating

excessive cost and little benefit resulting from enforcement of Rule

206(c)

as

 it exist)

 result principally from macro—economic effects

upon the four firms constituting the organic chemical partial oxi-

dation industry in

Illinois.

 The study found that although

in

28-99

—14—

the short

term

enfo.~.c~mentof

Rule

206(c)

would

 impact negatively

only

upon

the

four

prod~

rs,

 short and long terms eUects

 upon

those producers would negatively impact the economy

Illinois

generally.

As

 “price takers”,

with

 fragile market

shares,

Illinois

producers are unable to raise prices by amounts

neces~ary

to offset

the costs which would be associated with Rule 206(c)

 compliance.

See,

e.g.,

Ex.

E-l

32.

result,

the

study

found

that

Illinois

producers

would,

the

indeterminate

“long

run”,

forced

relocate elsewhere, with significant, general, negative impact for

Illinois.

The study performed in-depth analysis of the cost of compliance

upon each of the companies.

 Although there were

some

 corrections

the figures used by the

Institute

 at the hearings,

 the data nonethe-

less

indicated

that

the

enforcement

Rule

206(c)

limitations

for

CO against the four firms would result in cost

increases

which

could

not be offset by price increases,

 (id.,

Ch.

IV,

 §SB—D),

The only significant dispute regarding the economic study was

the

Agency’s

contentions

that,

(1)

the

study

was

error

when

found

that

the

benefits

enforcement

could

not

properly

 computed,

(e.g., Ex. E-l at 69-~74); (2)

the

 study was

 in error when it assumed,

for benefit measurement,

 that none

of the four impacted firms

would

cause or contribute to a violation of ambient air quality standards,

based on a lack of

adequate

data,

find

that

these

issues

are

properly resolved using,

 for benefit analysis,

 our ambient air quality

standards for carbon monoxide; we shall discuss below the adequacy of

the data before us.

ISSUES

Although the adequacy of the record on the question of ambient

air quality compliance

 is unquestionably the major issue which we

must decide,

 there ar~

several issues which the parties raised

throughout this proceeding.

(1)

 In both the prior Stepan and Reichhold

variances as well as this regulatory pro-

ceedirig,

 the parties argued at length that

was

never

the

Board’s

intention

that~

organic

chemical

partial

oxidation

processes

be regulated by Rule

 206(c).

(2)

 Are the Petitioners’ processes “petroleum or

petrochemical” processes?

 The parties argued

that regardless

 of what might have been the

Board’s

original

intent,

their

processes

are

not

petroleum

 or petrochemical processes,

and

should not be subject to the same standards

as,

e.g.,

refineries.

28-100

—

15—

(3)

 Is it tech ~ica1ly practicable for

the

Petitioners,

or their ~,ocesses, to meet the 200 ppm standard

of Rule 206(c)?

 .1~1though, as we noted above,

thermal incineration is an effective control

method for carbon monoxide, there are nonethe-

less problems with enforcing the regulation.

Principally, the parties argued that it

is

irrational to apply a “50

 excess air” criteria

to their processes,

 inasmuch

 as excess air limi-

tations are generally used to prevent the dilution

of waste gas streams.

 The parties discussed this

question at length in the prior variance hearings,

and at the hearings on these regulatory proposals,

(e.g.

 R.36—40).

(4)

Is

it economically reasonable to require that the

 proponents here comply with any carbon monoxide

standard?

Since we decide that the ambient air quality data is adequate,

and does support proponents’

 position, and that the enforcement of

Rule 206(c)

 or some other standard against the proponents would be

economically unreasonable, we specifically decline to answer any of

the other issues raised.

Whether the Petitioners’

 processes were considered by the Board

in the enactment of Rule 206, or whether they are “petrochemical”

processes,

 is immaterial,

 inasmuch

 as we choose to regulate these

processes

 separately.

 We need not discuss the application of “50

excess air”

 to the Petitioners emissions,

 or the availability of new

control techniques such as Du Pont’s,

 since

 the ambient air quality

and cost data before us

 justify the separate regulation of Peti-

tioners.

The Agency contested

-—

 rather strenuously

——

 the adequacy of

the modeling and monitoring performed by the proponents

 to show that

a regulatory amendment would not cause ambient air quality problems.

Although there were some

quest~ons

r~S

 to monitor placement in some

of the monitorinq situations,

 (see

supra),

 the Aqency did not

seriously

question

the

quality

the

Petitioners’

modeling

monitoring; extensive cross—examination did not uncover any serious

flaw

the

proponents’

methodology

performance.

Rather,

the

Agency

attacked

the

sufficiency

the

proponents’

presentations

quantity

terms.

The

 Agency alleged that the Petitioners models were

not

calibrated,

did

not

include

all

meteorological

conditions;

monitoring,

 the Agency claimed,

 likewise did not cover all expected

weather conditions.

28-1 01

—16--

The essence of the Agency’s

argument, and

 it.s pending motion

noted above,

 is that more information, predictive and historical,

is needed before the Board can make an informed judgment on the

effect the proposed regulatory change(s).

 Further narrowing its

argument,

 the Agency has not really questioned the effect of the

proposed regulatory changes upon ambient air quality with regard to

operations by three of the Petitioners:

 Amoco, Stepan and Reichhold.

They are located away from Cook County in areas with few other CO

 sources, where there are not ambient air quality violations;

the

sources

 in question will probably not cause or contribute to viola-

tions of the one-hour or eight-hour standards.

 We agree with the

Agency,

 however,

 that closer analysis

 is needed with regard to

Koppers’

 emissions.

As noted above, Koppers is located in a suburb adjacent to

Chicago,

 in an area where

 it might conceivably contribute to an

ambient air quality violation.

 (Essentially all

Illinois

 ambient

air quality violations for CO are located in Chicago.)

 However,

as we also noted above, Koppers

is

 located away from problem areas

within Chicago.

 Although it is located near some potential areas

(two race track parking lots and the Stevenson Expressway),

hoppers

modeling and monitoring

 albeit imperfect

—

 indicate that it will

not contribute

 to a violation.

All the proponents’

 data on ambient air quality, predictive

and

actual,

 is certainly imperfect.

 In places,

it is far less than

perfect.

 It is sufficient,

 however,

 to show that the proponents’

CO emissions are highly unlikely to cause or significantly contri-

bute to any ambient violation.

 There is even a possibility that

 control technologies would contribute to violations of other

standards,

 e.g.,

 SO2.

 Weighing that likelihood against the economic

effects, micro- and macro-, separate regulatory treatment for the

proponents has been justified.

 We shall therefore deny the Agency’s

motion to require additional data and defer action,

 and shall instead

enact the regulatory change requested.

There remain, then,

 two final issues for decision:

 (1) which

of the various proposals should be adopted, with what changes; and

(2)

 should any proposal be applied prospectively

to

plant expansions

or new plants?

 By the conclusion of the hearings in this matter,

the proponents had generally settled upon Reichhold’s amended petition,

supra, as a consensus position.

 We agree, because that proposal

limits

—-

 in both the proposed Rule 206(h)

 and the accompanying defi-

nition

——

 the coverage of the change.

 We shall amend the proposed

Rule 206(h),

 however, by deleting the references to ambient air

quality,

 finding that proposed provision duplicative of existing Rule

102

 (prohibition of air pollution).

 We shall also amend the proposed

definition insofar as it defines

 In the negative with regard to

28-1 02

17-

petroleum or petrochemical

processes;

 since we

are

separately regu-

lating the processes in

question, it

is immaterial whether they are

or are not petroleum or

petrochemical

processes.

With regard to coverage,

we feel

that no specific limitations

are necessary.

 Some of the

Petitioners plants have been recently

expanded, apparently without

adversely

effecting ambient air quality;

Rules

 102 and 303 will provide adequate protection with regard to new

partial oxidation processes.

Finally, we note

that the Agency

questions

 its ability to

obtain U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approval of a State

Implementation Plan

 (SIP)

 amendment based on the existing ambient

air quality data for partial oxidation processes and carbon monoxide.

We feel that,

 in light of the relatively minor CO emissions involved

(as compared to total area CO emissions, principally motor vehicle

related),

 the fact that other

states

do not regulate the emissions

in question, and the area’s

trend

towards compliance,

 such approval

should be obtainable.

The Board therefore adopts

 as its Proposed Final Draft Order

in this matter the following.

PROPOSED

 FINAL

DRAFT ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Rule 201,

(definitions)

 of Chapter 2:

 Air Pollution of this Board’s Rules

and Regulations be amended by addition of the following new defini-

tion:

Po~~sic9~~4c Acid Partial Oxidation Manufacturing Processes:

Any process involving partial oxidation of hydrocarbons with

air to manufacture polybasic acids or their anhydrides,

 such

as maleic anhydride,

 phthalic anhydride,

 terephthalic acid,

isophthalic acid,

 trimelletic anhydride.

Rule

 206, carbon monoxide emissions standards and limitations, of

Chapter

2:

 Air Pollution of this Board’s Rules and Regulations

shall be amended by addition of the following sub-section

 (h):

(h) Po~

 .sicOrq

 idManufactur4~r22e!~~. No

person shall cause or allow the emission of any

gases containing carbon monoxide into the atmosphere

from any polybasic organic acid manufacturing process

unless the total fuel value of the waste gas stream is

less than 30

 of that required for flame incineration

of the waste gas stream at 1,460°F,without heat

exchange.

 Polybasic acid manufacturing processes not

28-103

—18—

meeting the abov:~conditions shall

burn

uch

waste

gas

stream in a direct flame afterburner to achieve

a

resulting concentration

of

carbon monoxide

in

such

waste gas stream of less than or equal

 cc 200 ppm, or

shall employ such other,

 equivalent control method

or equipment as may be approved by the Agency according

to the provisions of Part

 I of this Chapter.

Mr. Werner dissents.

I,

 Christan

 Noffett,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Proposed Final t~ra~t

 Opinion and

Order were adoi~ted

on Lhe_~’’

 day of ~

1977

by a vote of

‘/-

Illinois Pollutio’

 Board

28-1 04