—14--

ILLfl~ISPOLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

8,

1977

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ~

)

 R75-9,

 R76-8,

 -12,

-13

CHAPTER

 2: AIR POLL~Q~J,

)

 (CONSOLIDATED)

RULE

 206: CARBON MON~fl~E

OPINION

AND

ORDER

ThE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Goodman)

This matter origin.ally 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 1’~,noxide, of Chapter

2:

 Air Pollution,

of

the Board’s Rules and Regulations.

 Iii. PCB Regs.,

Ch.

 2, Rule

206.

 Amoco’s purpose was

 to provide separate carbon monoxide

emission standards f~rcertain operations at its Joliet Plant,

which operations the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

felt were subject

 to Rule 206(c)

 (governing carbon monoxide emis-

sions from petroleum and petrochemical processes)

 See, Amoco

Petition,

 ¶2;

 R.62.

After the first hearing in the matter, three additional

parties

 (Stepan Chemical, Koppers Co., Reichhold Chemical) also

filed

 Regulatory Petitions, as set forth below.

 The common cause

among 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 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

 ~moco

hoped to encompass in its original proposal by listing

 24 specific,

~he

 Board wishes to thai~Vincent

 P. Flood, Jr., Attorney, Hearing

Office in this matter,

 for his assistance in the preparation and

drafting of this Opi~nionand Order.

—

309

—2—

iudi~ziduaI

 processes,

C

 ~oups

 of processes, and generally in—

sluding,

 ~any oxidatiou

 rc~ass

which yields primary products inter~-

:nediate between the starting organic

material

and the oxides of

carbon~

Shortly

after

AMOCO’s

proposed definition was received,

Lhe

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~partof

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,

 KoppersCo.,

 Inc.,

 also filed

a Regulatory

Proposal, R76-l2, also asking that it be con~1idated.

Koppers also wished

to add a new subsection 206(c) (4).

Shortly

after Reichhoid

filed

the fourth Proposal

 (R76-13)

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—l3,

 and asking Board enactment of

the

following:

~Rule

 206(h):

PolybasicOi~anic

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 for carbon monoxide.

 To achieve compli-

ance with National Air Quality Standards, a source may

use

approved dispersive techniques.

 Polybasic acid manu-

facturing processes not meeting the above conditions shall

burn

such waste gas stream in

 a direct flame afterburner

so

that the resulting concentration of carbon monoxide in

such

waste gas stream is less than or equa.l to 200 ppm or

such

waste gas stream is controlled by other equivalent

air

pollution control equipment approved by the Agency

 according

 to the provisions of Part

 1 of this Chapter.”

With

its second proposal,

 Reichhold also asked for a new

dofinition

 in Rule 201 to accompany the proposed Rule 206(h):

“Polybasic

Organic Ac

~dManufacturing Process:

 Any process

involving partial oxidation of hydrocarbon with air to manu-

facture polybasic acids or their anhydrides,

 such as maleic

~As noted below, p~l6,

the proponents generally concurred in

P~eichhold’sAmended Proposal after the

close of the hearings.

1t

 is therefore

the only proposal reproduced fully here.

—

310

—3—

anhydride,

 phthaii

 anhydride, terephthalic acid,

 isophtha-

lic acid, trimelL

 ic anhydride.

 A polyba~~cmanufacturing

process

 is not a petroleum or petrochemical process.”

A final proposal, called Thnofficial” by tue Agency,

was

made

by Reichhold

 in its briefs.

 Reichhold suggested that the

Board take the option of simply noL

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 F~uruary24,

 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.

Further hearings on the merits of the various proposals were

then held on July 12 and 13,

 1976,

 and March

7,

1977

 in Chicago.

The Hearing Officer also

granted motions to include

 in the record

in this matter the voluminous records generated in prior adjudica-

tive cases.

 Reichhold Chemicals v.

 EPA, PCB 73—539,

 74—111

(Consolidated);

 Stepan Chemical Company

v.

 EPA, PCB 74-425,

 17 PCB

105

 (1975).

 The records in those cases were given exhibit Nos.

31

and

 32, respectively.

 Additional evidence on the merits 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,

28 —311

—4—

‘IIEQ Do~

 #76-28;

Ex.

 B-i).

 Hearings on that

study were held March

 a 21,

 1977,

 in Chicago and Springfield.

Ac1a~tiona1Interim Orders,

 related to briefing schedules, were

~tered

 on May 12 and 26,

 1977.

 There is still outstanding a

Motion,

f~d 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 Ambient Air Quality data.

On October 13,

 1977, the Board

 (Mr. Werner

dissenting)

 entered

aI.

 aaditional

Order

adopting a “Proposed Final Draft Opinion and

i

 er”

 in this matter.

 That Order set a 45-day public comment

pE-~iod on the “Proposed Final Draft”, and “Proposed Final Draft

~

 portion

was

published in Environmental

Register

#157

 (October

1/,

 1977).

 With minor changes, based

on comments receiv~ from the

bnvironntental

Protection Agency,

 this

final Opinion and Order

c~se1y parallels that “Proposed Final Draft.”

THE PROCESSES

The

various proposals generally describe processes which the

ç~oponents

wished to have regulated separately.

 While specifics in

hose proposals

may have differed,

 the proposals generally were

 ~smed

at

processes using catalytic reactions to partially oxidized

)iqanic feedstocks,

 usually

 (but not necessarily)

 derived from

~ctro1eum

 or another petroleum derivitive

 (R.46—50)

bata

acompanying Amoco’s proposal, R75—9,

 described its pro—

~

 as follows:

~AfflOCOVS

 primary Mid—Century oxidation process uses acetic acid

solvents

with a bromine promoter and cobalt manganese catalyst

to

uxidize xylenes to dibasic acids.

.Preheated acetic acid,

para-xylene and catalysts, together with high-pressure air

dLe eharged to an agitated reactor operating at moderate tem-

perature

and pressure, 400°—450°Fand 330-400 psig.

Ihe production of isophthalic acid

 (IPA)

 and trimellitic

anhydride

 (TMA)

 at separate units are similar except for

the feedstock.

 Meta—xylene and pseudocumene are used in

,Lace of para-xylene.

ASL000’S

 first witness described the process as “doing a very

nie replacement,”

 (R.20).

 When air is bubbled through the

~c

 ~LecJ.liquid reactor,

 four hydrogen atoms are stripped from

~c

 para~xylenefeedstock, “hoping to replace all four of them

oxygen

atoms,

 while at the same time neither oxidizing any

—

312

—5—

of the carb~ns

r

 reins

 hydrogens

 in the mc

 ile.”

 (Id.)

Unsuccessful re~tions

 sult from shearing the

 ~zene ring or

by succeeding

 in attaching less than

the

optimu

 our oxygens, and

the by-products must then be removed

prior

to

s

 The resulting

chemical intermediate

 is used in making polyest ~

 film and fiber

(R.18).

 See,

Ex.

7.

Amoco~sJoliet plant produces approximateLz 4

 of all U.S.

crude terephthalic acid;

 Amoco

has 25-30

 of the national

market

if its out-of-state plants are cons~dered, (R.lfl;

 See, materials

accompanying Amoco’s petition, R75-9).

 Amoco’s

 Joliet plant

presently produces 100

 of the worTh’s trimelie

 production and

100

 of the isophthalic acid market in the Unit

 States,

 (R.131-32).

In the latter two cases,

 however,

 other products such ~

 ohthalic

anhydride can be substituted directly,

 (R.l33; but see, Ex. E-1,

pp.

25,

28,

34)

Stepan~sfacility is,

 like 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 Millsdale plant) was described

 in a

previous Board opinion

 in PCB

 74-i25,

 supra,

 a variance proceeding.

Stepan uses an ortho—xylene feedsoock reacted to produce phthalic

anhydride.

 17 PCB 105,

106

 (l97~

 A solid, white crystal at room

temperature,

 phthalic anhydride

used as a plasticizer to

make

polyester resins and in the paint industry.

 The process involves

passing heated air and vaporized or~rho-xyleneover

a solid catalyst

for oxidation to phthalic anhydride.

 The impur ties

 in the

process

include benzoic acid

 (See,

Ex.

 32, record at

9

 on 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°Fand 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 is

preheated.

 The ortho—xylene raw material

 is injected into the

heated air stream and enters a fixed—bed catalytic reactor where

an

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

phthalic anhydride

 is then melted from the switch condensers in

cycles,

 sent on to pre—decomposers,

 the stripper column, and steam

column, where

 it is refined

to produce a marketable product.

The

reaction gases pass from the switch condenser

to

the aqueous scrubber

where they are scrubbed an. then exhausted.”

 (R.26l).

 The Stickney

28

—

313

—6—

;

 ~ses six reactors,

which share various

 ~ e~mequipment

ss as

 ~witch condensers and

scrubbers.

 There

 our emission

c~ ~stacks),

 (R,262),

~ne Reichhold plant is located adjacent to

 ~linois

 River

ab

 c six miles from Morris,

 Illinois,

 about fl s~n

 les from

3

 LiSt

 and forty-seven to fifty air miles from dow town Chicago,

t

 Transcripts, Vol.

 2 at p.67).

The

Rei~’riud plant produces

 c~nhydrideusing air and benzene, with a ciirL’st,

 in a

~cs

~r

 at specific temperatures.

 The off—gase~

 cooled prior

t

 e ~tty onto primary recovery units

 (switch co~~ensers).

 Additional

iic anhydride

 is recovered in the successive

 er and caustic

iittcts,

 the caustic

scrubber converting any

 maleic an—

ydr~ e to

sodium malate, which is then incinerated.

 liit ~os stream

15

ailo passed through carbon absorbers to recover unreacted benzene.

s~hhs~dtestified that carbon

monoxide

 is an

unavoidable by-product

 ~xothermic

 reaction involved in

maleic

anuydride production,

a~75—76;

 See,

Ex.

32,

33

 in PCB 73—539, 74~ill

 consolidated

~

31

 on this i~ter),

can

be seen that these four companies

use essentially

the

 iov~pr~cesses, with slight variations,

 using sImilar organic

u3st~cks.

rTcre was some discussion as to whether an~ tirms or

chemical

~~ss other than the proponents might be co

 ~red under any of

~c pr~posa1s, (R.667; Ex,

 71).

 The Agency did sopply a list of

~1cTh

 wno would potentially be effected by a specific regulation

i

 ~r~al

 oxidation processes.

 That list,

howover,

was compiled

~t

 ~964—l966

 period,

 (see, Public Comment t12).

 The list

a

i.

sated several producers besides petitioners

ifl

this case which

al

 ~n~eivab1y

 fall within the definitions offered by the parties

a ~ia1 oxidation processes;

 these included Witco Chemical

u

~ry (Chicago), the Sherwin—Williams Company

 (Chicago),

 Clark

orpany

 (Chicago)

 and Gulf Oil

 (Calumet City).

 Each of those

~to ral potentially effected producers was,

 according to the

~y~s list,

 engaged in processes which would have been

included

r

 Amoco’s

list of affected processes proposed as

an appendix

~c 201,

 (see page

 2 supra).

 As noted in the

record,

however,

 that list

 is probably obsolete.

 The Institute’s

contractor

t~tthere

 are, at present, only four chemical firms that use

~1

 oxidation processes

 in the manufacture of their products:

t

n

I

a

 proponents here,

 (Ex.

E—l at

2,

26,

 29-33, Tables 6-9).

28

—

314

—7—

The best ei~de

 ~3oard~ then,

is

t1~

 n~only four

firms potentiai.

 this matter are

t

 ~3e~cureus here.

We therefore

I

 r our ur~a~i~iu

 to their emissi

 nd the effects

of such emission.~.

EMJ

55

 ‘)TS

Amoco~semissions are descnibeci in various oi~es throughout.

the record.

The

existing

units at

 :he Joliet F1~rndischarge from

7,583 SCFM to

1L,833 SCFM

per hour

 36,416 to ~

 ~0 lb/hr).

Of

those discharges

 nitrogen constituc~esfrom 92-

 of the total.

Carbon monoxide,

 the other hand

 ranges fror~ ~L1

 to 1.2

(Ex.

9;

 see als

 ~9, Table

I).

 Amoco’s pei

 application for

the Joliet Plant showed a total discharge of

81

 /~ mf CO,

 (Ex.

8).

Agency calculations, on the other hand,

 show

 a total dis~~rgeby

Amoco of 700 lb/h~, or 1,980 tons/yr,

 (Agency Brief at

3).

The

exhaust gases from the Amoco P1an~are dischargr~dat approximately

100°F, (e.g.

 R.98)

Stepan~sprocess results

in

 ci 3charges of ~~2,000

 pounds of

air and about 1,000 pounds of cii

 monoxide pr

 hour, with trac~

amounts of organic chemicals

 £100 lb/hr of carbon dioxide,

(Ex.

 32, PCB

 74—425,

 Record an

 The discharge is 1/2

 CO, at

an exit temperature of l40°r

 at 14).

 Agency calcu1ation~

indicate Stepa&s discharges

 980 lb/hr,

or

 3~460

tons/yr.

Koppers discnarges are somewtn.u greater

fc

 all components,

but similar

 in relat~iucomposition.

 A total o

 ~,400

 lb/hr of CO

is discharged, at

 jpcentration of 3,700 ppm in a waste stream

composed largely ou

r

 trogen

 (750,000 ppm),

 oxygen

 (160,000 ppm)

and water

 (65,000

 6,000 ppm).

 (See,

 e.g.,

Ex,

 42).

 The Agency’s

calculations for Yoppers were 3,970 lb/hr of CO, or 15,670 tons/yr.

Carbon monoxide is also an unavoidable by—product

of

the

manufacture of maleic anhydride at the Reichhold plants,

 (Ex.

31,

Record in PCB 73-539,

 74—ill, 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

estimated Reichhold!s discharges

 as 10,000 tons/yr.

In summary, although the CO emissions vary from Petitioner

to Petitioner,

it

can be seen that the makeup of the Petitioners’

total emissions

 is quite similar.

 The Agency’s estimate of total

CO emissions

 for all four Petitioners

 is 31,050 tons/yr.

—

315

—8—

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

All four of the Petitioners

 in this matter are located

qenrrail~’near Chicago.

 Although there were no 1976 violations of

the 35

ppm

one-hour ambient air quality standard

 in the Metropolitan

thicano Interstate Air Quality Control Region

 (No.

 67),

 there were

violations of the

 9 ppm eight-hour ambient air quality standards.

Thare

different sites

 in the region

 (containing all of the Peti—

ioners~ 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

shal:L

for

purposes

of

this analysis,

 take notice

 of the Agency’s

1975 and 1976 Annual Air Quality Reports).

 One or those five sites

recording excursions had only one reading in excess of

 ppm, which

is alaowed under the ambient standard,

 Rule 310(a) (1).

Tue

remain—

inq four sites had,

 total, twenty-two instances where the ambient

air arialilay was

 in violation of the standard,

 sixteen of those vio—

latroris being concentrated at the CAMP Station in

downtown Chicago,

at

91)

These

 figures are considerably better than those recorded in

5973

 In that year,

 there were both more sites registering viola-

tions.

 including

Joliet with two excursions above

 9 ppm, and a

preater

 x~urnberof violations.

 Most of the

1976 decrease resulted

f~ram trnoroved readings at the CAMP and Cermak Stations in Chicago.

1975

 hnnual Air Quality Report at 40,

 82, Table

12

Testimony by Dr. Babcock in 1975,

 in the Reichhold variance

:aae~ indicated total CO emissions in the region of approximately

3~U9U.390 tons/yr.

 (PCB 73—539,

 74—111

 (Consolidated)

 Vol.

II,

at

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

tsar. ~‘r,Dr. Babcock found that Reichhold’s emissions constituted

rouqhI’/ four tenths of 1

 of those

 in the region.

 (Id. at

 24).

tThriq instead

the Agency’s estimates for all four Petitioners in

This

 matter

amounting to 31,050 tons/yr, we see that the contri—

turion

of all

four sources to the total CO in the region is approxi—

noIs I

I

or

less

•

*

Is addition to the general information

 on carbon monoxide

~::cJoi!ab1efor the region containing the Petitioners’

 plants,

 each

r:h’a Patationers has individually submitted both modeling and

mrniuasing results.

 Such data was

first submitted

 to the Board

rue

Stepan

variance, PCB 74-425,

 supra.

 Although the placement

 Babcock

testified that the principal contribution to ambient

is

j~y the

automobile, which leads

 to existing air quality vio—

lotlaos

 in areas of heavy auto traffic.

 The Agency’s Annual Air

snality i~eportsfor 1975 and 1976 agree, stating that,

 “the major

acuros.

 .hy far is the

motor vehicle.”

1976

Annual Air Quality

at 10.

 Dr. Babcock estimated that motor vehicles account

lIar

over

2/3

of the total,

 in excess of

 2 million tons/yr.

 73—539,

74ThU

 :arulidated)

 Record, Vol.

 II at 23.

28—316

—9—

of the monitors in that

 nitial study seems sorncwhat arbitrary,

(PCB 74-425, Recordat

~),

and

 readings were tisen for only the

month of August,

 1974,

 (id~at 59),

 Stepan’s monitoring contractor

reached the opinion,

 “that there

 Is no signifIc at impact from the

emissions from Ste~a~i1,”

 (Id.

at

61).

 (Aithoaph there was one

eight-hour violation,~at 11 ppm,

 the wind

direction

 precluded any

Stepan contribution~arthat excursi~

 was attributed to “automotive

exhaust or some oth~~ford

“

(id

62)

 Most

readings were on

the order of

 2 ppm,

 (id.

 at Ex.

11,

 12; but see,

id.

 at R.67).

Again utilizing. Dr. Babcock, Stepan presented evidence to show

that its emissions ~(assuming 4500 tons/yr CO) amount to approximately

0.1

 of the CO in thp air quality control regic

 Dr. Babcock

testified that Stepan’s emissions would not hav~any effect whatso-

ever on violations

 in downtown Chicago, and would be uniThely 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 gën,eral effect

of a change to Rule 206(c),

 finding

that the effect on CO ambient air cuality would be negligible, even

if applicable to sucth major emitt

 s as refineries.

Reichhold’s ambient air quality data was also submitted in a

prior adjudicative case, PCB 73Th59,

 74-111

 (Consolidated),

 supra.

Testimony there indicated that a violation of the ambient air quality

as a result of Reichhold’s operations was possible, but only under

extremely adverse meteorological conditions,

 including 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 Reichhoid might contribute

0 4

 to the total ambient

CO

 in the Metropollt3jt. Chicago air quality control region

 Again,

the contribution was~termed “negligible.”

 (Id.

 at 25).

Reichhold did not ~ionitor 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).

 Reichholdlalso noted that a study was made at the

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

 (id.).

Although the monitor~ in the Edison study were obviously not placed

to record contributions k~yReichhold,

 the use of wind data made

possible some analysis of the effect of its emissions,

 (see,

id.

at

122).

 Although the *nonitc.~ingperiod was short

 (again, one month),

the results of the ~Itidy do show that CO is not generally a problem

in the vicinity of the Reichhold plant,

 (id. at 126).

28— 317

—

10—

Pun

s

modeling

 onitoring results wc

 submitted at the

;ea~ug U

 this

r~

 The highest one~ o~value for CO

1 was 5.9 ppm;

the

 Thhest eight-hour va

ta

 was 4.28 ppm,

o.

 The data gathered du~

 Amoco’s monit

 program

o rsia~.edgenerally with dispersion modeling,

 t~ictdid not mdi-

o actential violations,

 (R.92;

 lIx.

 15).

 Lika the monitoring

~3ar~ undertaken by Stepan and R~ichhold, howaver,

 the Amoco

program was conducted for a limited time:

 March and April,

 1974,

4)

 Additional

 information was submitted by Amoco at the July

£9

 hearing,

 (see,

 e.g.,

 R.213,

Ex.

 34).

 Again, a violation

~ot indicated,

roppors

 is located closer to those downto~

 hicaqo areas which

e.porienced ambient air quality violations

oar

 91Th

 although its

ey plant

 is still considerably removed from any or

~ie

monitors

nave indicated violations,

 As with the other companies,

to

presented testimony and evidence that would support its con—

i

that its CO emissions could not either tave caused violations

tAo

 ieighborhood of its own pUnt,

 or have contributed to the

1

g violations farther away.

 Although there were some anomalies

~ic

 art results,

 (e.g. R.509~

 1), and the

 lonitoring locations

crt

 have been perfectly cho~e~- (R.405), Koppers’ modeling

Thy snowed that its emissi

c

 did not cause CO ambient air

~ThLl

 violations,

 (e.g.,

 R 436;.

linairy,

 some additional data with regard to the Stepan monitor—

corroborative of the data recc~ved in PCB

 4—425, was introduced

to~ar~for cross—examination purposes,

 (R.53J.

CONTROL TECHNIQUES

was the general contention of all of the Petitioners

 in this

o t~t the carbon monoxide emissions from their plants,

as

a

 a11 above,

 simply cannot be controlled to the levels required

i~

~.u6~c) in an economically reasonable manner.

 Most of the

cay and evidence presented by the parties

 in this matter,

as

o~the preponderance of that seen in the earlier adjudicative

concerned the costs and technical difficulties associated

t

 e control of CO emissions from partial oxidation processes.

ii)~Id

has been aware

 of these issues for some time;

 as the

~ points out,

 the issues here have been presented more or less

uvusly since 1973.

 See, e.g.,

 PCB 73—365, PCB 74—63,

Th325,

 PCB 75—350

 (Koppers);

PCB

73—539,

 74—111

 (Consolidated),

(ieichhold)

;

 PCB 73—460,

 74—425,

 76—161

 (Stepan)

do proponents concen rated on four methods for the removal of

a monoxide from their emissions:

28

—

318

—

11—

(1)

 Incineration;

 ~ approximately 1500°F.,carbon

monoxide is

 actively

oxidized and eliminated.

This method,

 for these Petitioners,

 requires

considerable fuel input inasmuch as the off—gases

are at a very low temperature with little

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

 in variance matters,

supra, while research was being funded.

The

programs have been dropped because

-—

 despite

some laboratory successes

——

 the method has

not proven feasible.

(4)

 Thermal catalytic oxidation

 this method, while not

requiring the quantity of 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 parties and

in cross—examination by the Agency.

 There was

even some discussion of 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

elimination of 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 CO,

 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

—

319

—12—

uey argue that the relatively small amounts of

 removed cannot

ut4fy

 the enormous capital and operating cost

 solved.

is

its most

recent

variance case,

PCB 76-1

 lItepan estimated

t

i~c

the incineraton of its emissions would req

a,

 in addition to

a

 capital costs,

 4,000,000 gallons of fuel oi

 per year,

 (PCB 76—

ith

 Record at 23).

 That figure

 is quite comparar e with the

e Thence received in this matter.

 Koppers, for example, estimated

~ajateven with heat exchange at a maximum of 571,

 961 gallons of

ol would be required each hour,

 or a total of 7,611,000 gallons

 year,

 (Ex.

 50).

 Amoco estimated that incinaration would require

s

000,000

gallons per year of No.

 6 fuel oil,

 (Thu

 20).

 As early as

3

 Reichhold had estimated that its 1.7

car

 monoxide waste

would require

 .075

MBTU’s for every 1,000 1~. o~

exhaust gas to

arnieve incineration,

 or 45,000,000

 BTU5 per hour.

 Even U

 natural

g

 s were available at that time

 (1971),

 the necessary natural gas

d have cost

$250-300,000 per year,

with a capital

cost for the

o

 ncrator of $300,000—400,000,

 (PCB 73—539,

 74ALll

 (Consolidated)

36,

 at 2).

Gas

 is now unavailable for such ;~UrpoSes,of course,

ni prices for fuel and construction have risen

~2oyer.

 In addition to normal heat recovery systems,

Thors investigated a

“Reeco”

system utilizing extremely high

~t

 exchange

 (85-90).

 The units Involved would cost $5,000,000,

~h operating costs

 in the range of $400,000-600,000 per year,

P 314).

 Such units have not been widely tested.

Cold Catalytic Oxidation.

 Koppers also in~stigated various

A catalytic oxidation control systems, going

so

far as

to

WaLt

bids

from vendors,

 (R.280-30l).

 Pilot

plants were actually

aThed,

 (Ex.

 53).

 In general,

 due to catalyst blinding, systems

~

 and unsatisfactory emissions,

 the systems have been very

ar tisfactory.

Thermal Catalytic Oxidation.

 Stepan has done considerable

~rwitF~he Du Pont Catalytic Reactor System.

 This system operates

locating the off

gases and passing them over

 a catalyst; hydro-

hors are

oxidized to carbon dioxide and water while carbon

~o

 xide

is

oxidized

to carbon dioxide.

 In addition,

 it appears

at heat

exchange may significantly reduce

 the need for supplemental

o~ for the system’s operation.

 In its most recent variance request,

pan proposed the installation of such a unit,

 for the control of

~yorocarbon emissions

 as well as carbon monoxide;

 reductions in plant

~~charges

 have been estimated at 85—95

 for organics and 96-100

for

-tobon monoxide in pilot plant testing.

28

—

320

—13—

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

ponents,

 however,

 is unclear.

 Amoco, Koppers, and Reichhold utilize

other methods for hydrocarbon

control,

 increasing the relative cost

of such a system for CO control,

Again,

 in summ~ry,control

of

CO emissions from partial oxi-

dation processes

 is tachnically

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 ~he 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-1 at Table

1,

ch.

V.

The

study’s

 investigation

 of economic 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

—

321

—14--

he -~l~

 ~nru

 lent

of Rule 206(c) would impact negatively

spc

 pint

 ~is,

short and long terms effects upon

p ‘~ar~s ~~ld negatively

impact

the

economy of Illinois

~eneratly

As

 price takers~,with

fragile market shares,

 Illinois

rods cors are unable to raise prices by amounts necessary to

offset

~riecosta rhich

would

be associated with Rule 206(c)

 compliance.

Jo

n~.

Fx

3-1

at

32,

 As a result,

the

 study found that Illinois

producers would,

 in the indeterminate “long run”, be forced to

;clo-ate Thsewhore,

with significant, general, negative impact for

I

 flOlS

Th

 vudy pertormed in-depth analysis of the cost of compliance

oac~

 the companies.

 Although there were some corrections of

o fiaure~used by the

Institute at the hearings, the data nonethe-

a

iniioaard that the

enforcement of Rule 206(c)

 limitations for

aga art the four firms would result

in cost increases which could

ion be offset by price increases,

 (id.,

Ch.

IV,

§~B-D).

Tie only significant dispute

regarding the economic study was

h~Pgenc

C

ontentions that,

(1)

 the study was

 in error when it

~ t:~a-~the benefits of

enforcement could not be properly computed,

e ~

Lx

6

 1 at 69-~74); (2)

Lhe

study was in error when it assumed,

:cr b~r~~flc

 measurement,

 that none of

the

four

impacted

firms

would

aruse or contribute to a violation

of

ambient

air

quality

standards,

-used on a lack of adequate data.

 We find that these issues are

arsperly rosoirea using,

 for benefit analysis, our ambient air

quality

 ~tandarda for carbon monoxide; we shall discuss below the

adequacy

nie data ~otore

us.

ISSUES

Al -bosch U

 adequacy of the record on the question of

ambient

 qnalit

corupilcince

is

unquestionably

the

major

issue

which

ass

decide

There

 are several

 issues which the parties raised

05

IJijauc

Jits

proceeding.

(I)

both

the

prior

Stepan

and

Reichhold

variances

well

this

regulatory

pro-

ceeding,

the

parties

argued

length

that

was

never

the

Board’s

intention

that

organic

chemical

partial

oxidation

processes

 regulated

Rule

206(c).

Arc

the

Petitioners’

processes

“petroleum

~utrochemical”

processes?

The

parties

argued

Lhat

 regcirdl

~ss

what

might

have

been

the

Boar&s

original

intent,

their

processes

are

floe

petroleum

petrochemical

processes,

and

id not

subject

the

same

standards

 e.g.,

refineries.

28

—

322

—15—

(3)

 Is it technically practicable for the

Petitioners,

or their processes,

 to meet the 200 ppm standard

of Rule 206(c)?

 Although,

 as we noted above,

thermal incineration

 is an effective control

method for carbon mono~cide,there are nonethe-

less problems with enforcing the regulation.

Principally, the parties argued that

it

is

irrational

apply

 a “50

 excess air” criteria

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 are adequate

for

 the limited purposes of our analysis here, and therefore does

support the

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

 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.

The Agency contested

—

 rather strenuously

 the adequacy of

the

modeling

and

 monitoring performed by the proponents to show that

regulatory

amendment

would

 not cause ambient air quality problems.

Although

there

were

some

questions

monitor

placement

some

of

the

monitoring

situations,

(see

supra),

the

Agency

did

not*

seriously

question

the

quality

the

Petitioners’

modeling

monitoring; extensive cross—examination did not uncover any serious

flaw

in the proponents’ methodology or performance.

 Rather, the

Agency attacked the sufficiency of the proponents’ presentations in

________

 terms.

 The Agency alleged that the Petitioners models were

not calibrated,

 or did not include all meteorological conditions;

monitoring, the Agency claimed, likewise did not cover all expected

weather conditions.

*~i,ft

see,

pp.2

&

 3 of IEPA Comments on proposed Final Draft Opinion

and Order.

28

—

323

—16--

The

essenar

tar

ml’s

argument,

and

its

pending

 motion

noted above,

i-S

it

mu

 Thrmation, predictive

 and.

historical,

needed

befor

are

Board

can

make

informed

-judgment

 on the

effect

the

propomu

regulato

-y

.unge (s)

Furthar

narrowing

its

argument,

the

Agency

has

not

redlly

 questioned

the

 effect of the

proposed

regulatory

changes

upon

ambient

 air quality with regard to

operations

three

 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

question

 will

probably

not

cause

contribute

viola-

tions

 the oneThour

eight-hour

standards,

agree

with

the

Agency,

however,

eriat

closer

analysis

needed

 with

regard to

Koppers’

emissioar

As noted

above,

 Koppers

 is located in a suburb adjacent to

Chicago,

 in an

area

 where it

might

conceivably

contribute

ambient air

quaarty

 violation.

 tEssentially all Illinois

ambient

air quality

yb

 ations 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 problem

areas

 (two race

 ~rack parking lots and the Stevenson Expressway),

Koppers modeling

aad

monitoring

 albeit imperfect

 indicate that

it will Probably

~ot

 contribute

)

 violation.

All the

prolonents~

 data

 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

anThkely

 to cause

or significantly contribute to

any ambient vio1au~ni,

 (There

 is even a possibility that control

technologies would

 ontribute

 to violations

 of other standards,

e.g.,

 SO2.)

 Weiyltg

 that likelihood

against the economic effects,

nicro— and

macro—

 aeparate

regulatory treatment for the proponents

has

 been justifier

 shall therefore deny the Agency’s motion to

require

additional

lata

 and defer action, and shall instead enact

-abe

regulatory

 chmuige

requested.

There

remain,

 mien,

 two final issues for decision:

 (1) which

the

various

pro,osals

should

 adopted, with what changes; and

(2)

should

any

 proposal

 applied prospectively

 to plant expansions

new

plants?

the

conclusion

 of the

hearings

 in this matter,

the

 proponents

had

generally

 settled upon Reichhold’s amended peti-

tion,

 supra,

 as a uvnsensus

position.

 We agree, because that proposal

limits

both

tac

 proposed Rule 206(h)

and

the

accompanying

defi-

nItion

——

the

coverage

the

change.

shall

amend

the

proposed

Rule

 206(h),

howevor,

 deleting the references

 to ambient air

quality,

finding

chas

 propot

ed provision duplicative of existing Rule

102

 (prohibition

0~

air

 pollution).

 We shall also amend the proposed

definition

 insofar

it

defines

 in the negative with regard to

28

—

324

-17—

petroleum

or petrochemic:~lprocesses;

 since we sce separately regu-

lating the processes

 in question,

it

 is immaterial

 whether they are

or are not petroleum or petrochemical processes.

In response to the Agency’s comments on the Proposed Final

Draft of October 13, 1977,

 however, we shall use the full

term

“polybasic organic acid partial oxidation manufacturing process”

throughout the body of the new Rule 206(h).

 As the Agency notes,

more precise drafting to clearly corelate the

new definition of

that term and the new substantive Rule may prevent future liti-

gation over the new Rule’s coverage

 (as happened

with

“petrochemical

processes”,

 etc.).

With regard to coverage, we feel that no specific ~mmitations

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.

 We shall also deny the Agency’s Motion of

May

5,

 1977.

The Board therefore adopts the following Final Order

 in this

matter.

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:

Polybasic Organic 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.

28

—

325

—18--

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)

 Polybasic Organic Acid Partial Oxidation Manufacturing

Processes.

 No person shall cause or allow the emission

of any gases containing carbon monoxide

 into the atmos-

phere from any polybasic organic acid partial oxidation

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 organic acid partial

oxidation manufacturing process not

meeting

 the above

conditions shall burn such waste gas stream

 a direct

flame afterburner to achieve a resulting concentration

of carbon monoxide

 in such waste gas stream of

 less than

or equal to 200 ppm,

 or shall employ such other, equiva-

lent control method or equipment as may be approved by

the Agency according to the provisions of Part

 I of this

Chapter.

Mr. Werner concurs,

I,

 Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were ~dopted on

the~~day

~

 1977 by

 a vote of ~

Christan L. Noff

 Clerk

Illinois Polluti

 ontrol Board

28

—

326