ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 29, 1975

ASHLAND CHEMICAL COMPANY,

)

division of Ashland Oil,

)

Petitioner,

vs.

)

PCB 75—174

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Zeitlin):

This matter zomes before the Board on a Petition for

Variance, submitted by Petitioner Ashland Chemical Company,

(Ashland), a division of Ashland Oil, Inc. The Petition,

filed April 25, 1975. seeks relief for Ashland’s Mapleton

plant, from Rules 203(g)(l)(B) and 204(c)(1)(A) of the

Pollution Control Board (Board) Air Pollution Regulations.

PCB Regs., Ch. 2, Ruies 203(g) (1) (B), 204(c) (1) (A). Following

the Board’s May 8, 1975, Interim Order requiring supplemental

information to conform with the

U.S.

Supreme Court decision

of Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 43 U.S.L.W.

4467 (U.S., April 15, 1975), an Amended Petition was filed

by Ashland on June 11, 1975. A Recommendation from the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) was received

August 25, 1975, recommending that the requested variance be

granted. No hearing was held in this matter.

Ashland’s Mapleton, Illinois, plant is engaged in the

manufacture of fatty acids, fatty nitrogen chemicals, and

various derivatives thereof. The plant employs approximately

286

people, and has an annual payroll of approximately 4 1/2

million dollars. Variance is sought for two 60,000

pound-per-hour coal-fired steam boilers, which are presently

fired with southern Illinois coal at a rate of approximately

54,000 tons per year. Those boilers presently emit particulate

matter at a rate of 0.50 pounds per million btu of heat

input, and have sulfur dioxide emissions of 5.7 pounds per

million btu. Rule 203(g) (1) (B), which became effective on

May 30, 1975, permits particulate emissions of .138 pounds

per million btu; Rule 204(c) (1) (A) allows SO2 emissions of

1.8 pounds per million btu.

18

—

625

---

—2--

Ashland originally proposed compliance with both the

particulate and sulfur dioxide regulations through the use

of low sulfur oil to fire its boilers. In fact, during

1973, one 70,000 lb/hr natural gas—fired boiler was converted

to low sulfur oil firing. However, subsequent directives

from the Federal Energy Office ruled out such conversion for

the two 60,000 lb/hr. coal-fired boilers at issue here.

Presently, Ashland proposes to achieve compliance with the

particulate and SO? regulations through the use of:

a) western low sulfur coal, with improved particulate

control, or

b) similar improved particulate control, to be

used with a dry reaction sulfur removal

process.

As the Agency Recommendation notes, either of these

alternatives will result in compliance with present regulations.

Regardless of the method eventually chosen for SO2 control,

Ashland projects compliance with the particulate limitations

of Rule 203 (g) (1) (B) by June 1, 1976. With either of the

proposed SO2 control strategies, Ashland should be in compliance

with Rule 204(c) (1) (A) by December 31, 1976.

Ashland’s efforts to achieve compliance with these two

regulations indicate good faith. The present, 85 efficient

multiclones used for particulate emission control will be

supplemented by a 99 efficient, fabric filter baghouse, at

a cost of $976,000. To control SO2, Ashland has conducted

extensive investigations, at considerable expense, into

several control technologies. These have included wet-

scrubbing, (using

any

of several

processes),

the use of low-

sulfur western coal, and a dry reaction SO2 control system

which would allow the use of Illinois coal, and which can be

used in conjunction with the planned baghouses.

Ashland rejected wet-scrubbing for sulfur control due

to projected costs of between $1,700,000 and $2,100,000. It

is expected that if the dry reaction control system is used,

its total •cost will he approximately $750,000. Should

western coal be adopted as the control technology, costs of

at least $500,000 are projected.

—

---

—3—

Based on these, and other good faith efforts shown

by Ashland, the Board would normally have approved Ashland’s

compliance plan, and have granted the variances requested

for the appropriate periods, without further consideration.

We must, however, consider the factors mandated in the Train

decision, supra.

In its Recommendation in this matter, the Agency

questioned the validity of air quality monitoring and modeling

data submitted in Ashland’s Amended Petition. Without so

stating, it is apparently the gist of the Agency Recommendation

that Ashland’s modeling techniques and assumptions are not

valid. However, the Agency further contended that air quality

is but one of many factors to be considered by the Board in

any Variance grant, and stated that compliance with Ambient

Air Quality Standards, under the Train decision, should not

be a prerequisite to the grant of a Variance by this Board.

While we reject tne Agency’s position on the Train case,

the Board nonetheless feels that the grant of a Variance

is warranted here. The Agency failed to overcome the evidence

on ambient air quality submitted by Ashland.

The Agency states that the Peoria major metropolitan

area, which includes the Ashland Mapleton plant, has a

significant sulfur dioxide and particulate air quality

problem. That area contains all of Peoria and Tazwell

Counties; violations of the particulate and sulfur dioxide

standards shown in the Agency Recommendation, however, are

not identified with relation to the Mapleton plant.

Conservative data submitted by Ashland, on the other

hand,and

particulateattempted concentrationsto

more closely

torelatethe Mapletonexperiencedlocation.SO2

These figures, taken in conjunction with the modeling per-

formed by Ashland, indicated that, based on the data present,

Ashland would probably not cause or contribute to a violation

of primary Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Questions were raised by the Board, however, as to the

adequacy of the record in this case on the Train issue. To

assure a complete basis for our Findings on the matter, the

Board on September 4, 1975, entered an Interim Order re-

manding the case to the parties for further investigation and

submission of evidence. Responses containing further

information were received from the Petitioner on September 18,

1975, and from the Agency on September 23, 1975.

18

—

627

---

—4--

Dealing first with the Agency’s response, we find that

it adds little to the record. The Agency apparently

questions our application of the Train case to Illinois

Variance matters. The data that is contained in the

Agency’s response is not related to Petitioner’s facility,

vis-a-vis the likelihood of that facility causing or

contributing to ambient air quality violations, and does

not aid our consideration.

Petitioner’s response adds considerable information.

It includes a sun~naryof data amassed by the Batelle Institute

on air quality in the Peoria Region, and analyzes that data

in light of pollutant contributions by Petitioner’s plant.

The response shows that those violations existing in the

Peoria-Pekin area, approximately 18 miles from the Ashland

plant, are not caused or contributed to by that plant.

Petitioner’s modelling and data have been confirmed

by the information in its repsonse. Ashland has met its

burden under the Train case, and its evidence remains

essentially uncha lenged.

The conditicns which we attach to Ashland’s Variance

are the result of suggestions in the Agency Recommendation.

A performance bond, it is felt, will serve to assure

completion of the work contemplated by Ashland’s compliance

programs in a timely fashion. We shall also require a

certification of acceptance for the Variance and the con-

ditions under which it is granted. Reporting and

stack testing conditions will enable the Agency to monitor

results of the compliance programs.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of l~wof the Board in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THAT:

1. Petitioner Ashland Chemical Company is granted a

Variance from Rules 203(g) (1) (B) and 204 (c) (1) of

Chapter 2: Air Polli.tion of the Pollution Control Board

Rules and Regulations from June 1, 1975 until June 1, 1976,

foremissions from two (2) 60,000 pound-per-hour coal-fired

boflers at its Mapleton, Illinois plant, subject to the

following conditions:

18

—

628

---

—5—

a. Petitioner shall adhere to the compliance

programs detailed

in

the accompanying Opinion,

in acco;:d with the construction time schedules

contained in its April 25, 1975 Petition.

b. Petitioner shall submit quarterly progress

reports detailing progress toward compliance

with the sulfur dioxide and particulate regulations;

such reports shall be submitted within 30 days

of the end of three month periods concluding at

the end of August, November, February and May, to:

Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Contol Program Coordinator

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

c. Within 30 days of the date of this Order,

Petitioner shall submit a performance bond in

the amount of $100,000 in a form acceptable to

the En~ironrnenta1Protection Agency, to the

address as noted above.

d. Petitioner shall apply for all necessary

construction and operating permits from the

Environmental Protection Agency.

e. Within 30 days of completion of installation

of the pollution control devices contemplated

in

this Opinion and Order, Petitioner shall perform

stack tests on the relevant boilers, giving notice

of the date, time and location of such tests

to the Environmental Protection Agency, allowing

observation of such tests by said Agency, and

submitting the results of such tests to said

Agency upofl availability.

2. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Petitioner

Ashland Chemical Comoany shall execute and forward to the

Environmental Protection Agency at the address as noted

above, a certification of acceptance of this Variance, in

the following form:

18 —629

---

—6—

I(we) _________________have read and fully understand

the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

in PCB 75-174, and hereby accept said Order, understanding

that such acceptance renders all terms and conditions

thereto binding and enforceable.

Signed By: __________________________

Title: __________________________________

Date: ______________________________

Mr. Dumelle dissents.

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

Board, hereby ceit’fy he above Opinion and order were adopted on the

~gday

of

____________,

1975, by a vote

~—)

Illinois Pollution

ol Board

18

—

630