LINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

6,

1974

CPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.

PETITIONER

)

v.

)

PCB 74-23

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

RESPONDENT

)

)

MR. JAMES N. GLADDEN, JR., ATTORNEY,

in

behalf of CPC INTERNATIONAL,

INC.

MR~, JOHN PALINCSAR, ATTORNEY,

in behalf

of the ENVIRONMENTAL PRO—

TECTION AGENCY

OPINION

AND ORDER

OF

THE BOARD (by

Mr.

Dumelle)

Corn Products Corporation, Incorporated (CPC) filed a Variance

Petition on January 18, 1974~ On

March

11, 1974, Petitioner filed

an Amended Variance Petition and a Waiver of the 90—day decision

period. The Agency filed a Recommendation on April 30, l974~ No

hearing was held.

Petitioner operates a wet corn milling plant located in Pekin,

Tazewell County, Illinois. Petitioner seeks a variance from the

compliance program requirements of Rule 401 Ce), and the particul—

ate emission compliance dates established by Rule 203 (i) (4) and

SO2 compliance dates established by Rule 204

(a)

(1) (A) of the

Air Pollution Regulations. The Agency recommends the granting of

the variatce which would enable CPC to revise its compliance program

and project completion schedule for one of three coal-fired toilers

for the generation of process steam and in—plant electrical powers

The Agency filed an enforcement action against CPC

-in October of

1971 after receiving a petition signed by approximately 200 resi-

dents of the Pekin area alleging that CPC was a source of air pollu-

tion. The Board found CPC to have violated Section 9

(a) of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act and Rule 3-3.112 of the Rules

and Regulations Governing Air Pollution (EPA v.CPC, International,

Inc., PCB 71-338, 5-541 (October 3, 1972)

).

The Board ord~

that CPC burn low ash-high heating coalin order to assurecon~li-

ance with the appl.icable air pollution particulate limitation of

0.6 lbs. per million Btu from Boiler~Cand ordered CPC to pay a

penalty of $15,000 (EPA v, CPC, International, Inc., supra at 5—546)~

Boiler C is the subj~ the present varIance petition, The Agency

---

—2—

granted CPC an operating permit for Boiler C on March 9, 1973, contin-

gent upon

CPC’s

compliance program and project completion schedule

which indicated the installation of an electrostatic precipitator

and

Cc) (1) (A) of the Air Pollution Regulations.

CPC entered into a contract with American Standard, Inc.,

Air

Qual-

ity Division of Dearborn, Michigan, to design and install an electro-

static precipitator, O?t November, 1973, American Standard, Inc.,

notified CPC that~~it would no longer desi,gn and install electrostatic

precipitators. However, American Standard, Inc., guaranteed it would

honor CPC’s existing order, including erection and maintenance. CPC

notified American Standard to cancel the contract because CPC felt it

was “essential to have technical. support people from the supplier of equip

ment as technically complex as electrostatic precipitators.” The Agency

agrees that CPC’s reluctance

to

complete the contract for the installa-

tion of electrostatic precipitators with American Standard, Inc., should

not be construed as a self-imposed hardship.

CPC entered into negotiations with Freeman Coal Company which were

to

lead to a long-term contract to supply CPC~sfacility with coal from one

of Freeman Coal Company~ssouthern Illinois mines which was being

equipped with coal preparation facilities. Freeman predicted that coal

with a sulfur content of 1.09 and a Btu rating of 12,100 Btu per pound

could be supplied in a sufficient quantity to meet CPC’s total coal re-

quirements. By August of 1973, Freeman began supplying CPC with coal

with the following characteristics: 1.25 sulfur; and 11,800 Btu per

pound. Therefore CPC determined that it would have to blend coal with

a lower sulfur content in order to still meet the SO2 standard while

using 75 mixture of the Freeman coal.

However, Freeman Coal Company then notified CPC that it would not

and

could not supply all of CPC~sneeds and would not negotiate a

long-term commitment.

In

February, 1974, CPC began burning only coal

from Orient #3 mine from Freeman Coal Company in Boiler C which

was

low

in ash content and had a sulfur content

of

less than 1.25 as opposed

to

previously burned coal with a

sulfur content of approximately

3.

While

this was not required by Pollution

Control

Board~sAir Regulations, CPC

alleged that coal supply negotiations indicate that this action is nec-

essary in order to establish a claim in the future

of

the limited supply

of low sulfur coal available in Illinois, This has had a result in in-

creasing the price per ton from $11.04 to $15.78 per ton.

Because of the coal supply situation and the

cancelling

of the

e1ectro~

static precipitator contract, CPC has determined that its present compli-

ance program no longer appears capable of achieving compliance. CPC

states that by April 15, 1974, it will have been presented an in-depth

engineering study evaluating five alternative means of control. Three

of the five alter~tives (sodium scrubber, water scrubber, and electro-

static precipitators) would result in compliance by August, 1976, Two

other alternatives (double alkaline scrubber and lime scrubber) would re-

sult in compliance by November, 1976. The Agency states that ~petitioner

has now

limited its choice of control systems to two alternatives.

The

fi~aldecision on control systems will be made when all bids of these two

systems have been received,”

12—482

---

—3—

CPC alleges that the granting of the variance would not have an

unduly negative impact on the environment in the Pekin area.

CPC

estim~tes that it will contribute 0.54 micrograms per cubic meter

(ug/m~) to the primary ambient air quality standard of 75 ug/m3 an--

nual geographic means for particulates. CPC also estimates an addi-

tion of 0.35 ug/m3 addition to the annual average ambient SO2 air

quality standard of 80 ug/m3. In addition, CPC estimates an increase

in the peak 24 hour contribution of 1.08 ug/m3 for particulates

and

0.7 ug/m3 for SO9. This would be in excess of the peak 24 hour con-

centration if CP~s facility was in compliance with applicable regu-

lations as of May 30, 1975.

While agreeing that a variance should be granted, the Agency dis-

agrees with CPC’s estimates as to particulates

and

502 contributions.

As the Agency points out, CPC’s facility is located in a standard met-

ropolitan statistical area. Values contained in the operating permit

application for Boiler C list its emissions as 5.34 lbs. per million

Btu’s for SO2 and 3.76 lbs. per million Btu~sfor particulates. CPC

claims the existing multiclone collectors have an efficiency of 92.5

particulate removal. The Agency asserts the maximum acceptable effic-

iency of multiclone collectors systems is 75. The Agency calculates

CPC’s particulate emissions to be 2.08 lbs. per million Btu’s. The

Agency presented the following calculations for air contaminant emiss-

ions from CPC’s facility:

particulates 1682 lbs. per hour

SO9

—

2500 lbs. per hour

hyarocarbons

-

7.4 lbs. per hour

CO

-

24.2 lbs. per hour

NO~

-

CPC, theto Agencyparticulatesubmittedand

SO2

calculated contributions to ambient air quality for varius meteorol-

ogical conditions from the CPC facility. These were attached to the

Agency~s recommendation as Exhibit A. However, this Agency exhibit

lists the calculated contributions

for the entire CPC facility while

the values presented by CPC apply only to Boiler C~semissions.

The Board finds that because of CPC~sdemonstrated good faith in

complying with air pollution regulations in previous Board Order PCB

71-338, that the variance requested by CPC is reasonable, The envir-

onmental consequences of

this

delayed compliance from

12-15

months do

not warrant a denial of the request based upon

the estimated

contribu-

tions resulting from

this facility during the non-compliance period

and the calculated emissions for

all

of CPC~s

Pekin facilities. How—

ever,

the Board is limited

by Section 36 (b) of the Environmental Pro--

tection Act to only grant one-year variances from Air Pollution Regu—

lations~ Therefore the Board will grant a variance from Rule 104 (e)

in order to allow CPC to file a new project completion schedule. Be-

cause of the

one-year

limitation, th~eBoard will grant CPC a variance

from Rule 203 (i) (4) and 204 Cc) (1) (A) from May

30.

1975, the effect~

ive date of these Rules, until June 6, 1975. This short variance would

12—483

---

—4—

be extendable upon the appropriate showing of continued good faith

in achieving compliance with the particulate and SO2 standards as

outlined in Exhibit G of the Petition for Variance and in the appropri-

ate project completion program filed with the Environmental Protection

Agency.

The Board will also extend variance of Rule 3-3.112 of the Rules and

Regulations Governing Air Pollution until May 30, 1975. This will serve

to

allow Petitioner to operate above the ~limitof the existing rules re-

garding particulates until May 30, 1975, at which time 203 (i) (4) be-

comes effective.

This

ORDER

The Illinois

Pollution

Control Board hereby grants a variance from

Rule

104 Ce) of the

Air Pollution

Regulations to CPC International,

Inc., until July 30, 1974. The Board

hereby grants a variance

to

CPC

International, Inc., f~omRule 3—3.112

until

May 30, 1975, and from

Rules 203

(i)

(4)

and

204 Cc) (1)

(A) of the

Air Pollution Regulations

from May 30, 1975, until June 6, 1975.

These variances are conditioned

upon:

1.

Outlining a compliance program and project completion

schedule with the Environmenta~~~~Protection

Agency by

July 30, :1974, which shall conform

to the timetable

proposed

by CPC Exhibit S.

2.

CPC shall submit quarter19 progress reports to the

Agency at the following address: Environmental Pro-

tection Agency, Division of Air

Pollution Control,

Variance

Section, 2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield,

Ill:Lnois

62706,

3. CPC

shall

post a performance bond in

the

amount of

3100,000 in a form satisfactory

to the Agency, pur—

;~uant to the Illinois Revised

Statute,

Chapter 111

1/2 Section :1036 (1973)

Said performance bond shalL

be

posted

with the Agency at the following address:

Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air

Pollution

Control, :Depar-tment of

Fiscal

Services,

2200 churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1. christan B. .Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

:loari fereby certify that the above Opinion and Order were

adopted

on the

stt

Say of S-~ne :L9 74

~c~y

a vote of 4 to 0

i/O