ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAPD
November
8,
1973
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCI3
73—313
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
3.
A.
Lipe, Attorney for Petitioner
Thomas A. Cengel, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
INTERIM OPINION AND ORDER OF
THE
BOARD
(by Mr.
Uenss)
Petitioner Union Carbide Corporation requests
30 day con-
tinuance
in
order
to
allow
the
parties
to
submit
additional
argument
or
information.
The
Motion
is
allowed.
We
believe
it
may
assist
the
parties
in
their
preparation
of
additional
pleadinqs,
factual stipulations or argument if they receive our present under-
standing of the background and issues of this case.
The following
is issued for that purpose.
Union Carbide Corporation produces high quality coke from
petroleum by—products at its plant located near Robinson,
Illinois.
Each year the Company uses about 300,000 tons of petroleum raw
materials, which are purchased from several refineries,
Union
Carbide applies heat
to its raw materials in a process
called
calcining,
to drive off oxygen, water vapor and volatile materials
in the form of gasses.
Particulate matter
is also emitted
in the
process.
Most of the petroleum coke produced at this plant
is
used
within the Union Carbide Corporation for the production
of carbon
and graphite electrodes,
carbon arc lighting devices, dry cell
batteries,
brushes for electric motors and generators, foundry
castings and nose cones for rocket missiles.
The plant operates
24 hours per day throughout the year, except for an occasional
shutdown for repairs, and employs
37 persons.
It was constructed
in 1958 but was not purchased by Union Carbide until April
1971.
There are two inclined rotary kilns, each measuring
10’
in
diameter by 180’
in length.
A natural gas fired burner at the
lower end supplies heat of 1450°F.
The petroleum raw ni~iteria1
is fed into the elevated end of the kiln,
and the revolving motion
of the inclined kiln causes the raw material to
flow by gravity to
the lower end as
the heat drives off volatile hydrocarbons
and
water.
Gasses and entrained particulate matter from the kiln enter
a
combustion chamber where excess air is introduced
to burn any
combustible material prior to exhausting
through a
145’
sLack.
10—39
—2—
The hot calcined petroleum coke is gravity fed from the burner
end of the kiln into an enclosed rotating water spray cooler which
reduces the temperature of the coke to about 350°F.
Exhaust
gasses and entrained particulate matter from the inlet section of
each cooler pass through a cyclone prior to exhausting through
a
40’ stack.
Exhaust gasses and entrained particulate matter from
the outlet section of each cooler exhaust through a 115’ stack
which serves both coke coolers.
The finished product is carried
by bucket elevator to a storage bin from which it is loaded into
railroad cars.
Each- tf the identical kilns can process about
18 tons per
hour under normal operating conditions.
Petitioner can produce
different grades of coke by varying the quantity of air introduced,
the heat and retention time,
Rarely do the two kilns produce the
same product at the same time.
Union Carbide Corporation filed its petition for variance on
July 31, 1973 asking for relief from Rules 103(b) (2),
103(b) (6) (E)
104, and 203(b)
of the Illinois Air Pollution Control Regulations.
These Rules relate to operating permits, compliance programs and
particulate emission standards for existing emission sources.
Specifically, Petitioner sought a fifteen month variance to operate
kiln #1 and a
24 -month variance to operate kiln
#2 pending installation
of air pollution control devices.
Subsequently, Union Carbide
amended the petition and now seeks permanent variance from Rule 203(b)
on condition that Petitioner “discharge not in excess of
24
lbs. per
hour of particulate matter from each of its new stacks”.
A public
hearing on the Amended Petition was held on October
3,
1973.
The Agency has recommended that the variance be denied.
The
Agency states that Petitioner
is in violation of the currently
applicable particulate regulation, Rule 3-3.111 of the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution.
The Agency
further states that since Union Carbide was in violation on the
date the Air Regulations went into effect in April 1972 Petitioner
will be required to meet the more stringent “new source” standard
of Rule 203(a) by December 31,
1973.
Petitioner has not requested
a variance from either the current
standard, Rule 3—3.111, or the standard it must meet on December 31,
1973,
Rule
203(a).
The parties are in basic disagreement in their interpretation
of the Regulation and do not agree as to the Standard which must
be met.
The Agency contends “that the process weight rates from
the two kilns must be aggregated for purposes of determining the
allowable under Rule 203(a)”.
Rule
203(a)
states “No person shall
cause or allow the emission of particulate matter into the atmos-
phere in any one hour period from any new process emission source
10—40
—3—
which, either alone or in combination with the emission of
particulate matter from all other similar new process emission
sources at
a plant or premises, exceed the allowable emission
rate specified...
.“
(emphasis supplied)
If the two kilns are
“similar sources” the Standard to be met is 17.2 lbs./hr.
If,
as Petitioner contends,
the two kilns are not similar sources each
kiln will be allowed emissions of 11.86
lbs./hr. for a total of
23.72 lbs./hr.
from the plant.
The evidence revealed that two months after Union Carbide
purchased the plant, the EPA sent the Company an emission in-
ventory questionnaire with instructions to complete the question-
naire and hold it until someone from the EPA visited the facility.
Union Carbide calculated emissions from each of its two kiln
stacks at
313 lbs./hr. and stated that emissions were 626 lbs,/hr.
The record
is not clear whether emissions from three other stacks
located at the inlet and outlet of coke coolers, were included in
the calculation.
The information was presented to an Agency
investigator in December 1971,
and in January 1972 the EPA warned
Petitioner
of possible prosecution for excessive particulate
emissions.
The EPA letter stated that Union Carbide was limited
to particulate emissions of 28.29 lbs./hr. from each kiln pursuant
to Rule 3-3.111 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control
of Air Pollution.
Petitioner had already engaged the services of Automated
Process Surveys of New York to make a study and recommendation
as to the design of
a control system for the kiln emissions.
This was done about six months after Petitioner took possession
of the plant, and stack tests had been performed during January
1972, prior to Petitioner’s receipt of the warning letter from
the EPA.
The stack tests revealed that emissions from #1 stack
were 260 lbs./hr. and emissions from #2 stack were 100 lbs./hr.
It was not specifically stated whether the three stacks
which
were attached to the spray coolers were tested in January
1972 but
we infer from the entire record that they were not.
In June 1972, Automated presented its report.
It was recommended
that two large fans be installed to blow air into the combustion
chambers on the theory that additional air would supply more
oxygen for combustion and increased turbulence would help complete
the combustion of carbon particles to carbon dioxide and water.
Union Carbide installed the fans at a cost of $15,000 on one of
the two combustion chambers.
This installation was completed in
December 1972.
Petitioner attempted to perform a stack
test on
the newly equipped kiln in January 1973 but was prevented from
doing so by extremely cold weather.
The company claims that
there was
“visual improvement”
in the stack discharge, but the
stack test was not taken until March 1973.
10
—
41
—4—
Stack tests taken in March 1973 revealed that the stack
serving the fan equipped combustion chamber was still emitting
142 lbs./hr.
In addition,
the stack venting the inlet to the
coke cooler was emitting 15 lbs./hr. and the common stack
which was venting the outlet from both coke coolers was emitting
60 lbs./hr.
These tests convinced Union Carbide that, despite
the conclusions and recommendations of Automated Process Surveys,
the addition of fans alone would not provide the degree of control
necessary to achieve compliance with the Regulations.
During
this period Petitioner also received a report from Chemstress
Consulting Company which had been hired to investigate “every
possible method for abatement controls of our Robinson stack except
the incinerating settling chamber”
(R.
33).
The evidence indicates
that Chemstress evaluated six possible methods, found that only
two methods would bring compliance with the Regulations but would
recommend neither of them
(R.
34).
The record failed to describe
any of the methods evaluated by Chemstress and the report was not
submitted in evidence.
Chemstress recommended the incinerating
settling chamber as the control method which should be adopted
(R.
34)
In June 1972 Petitioner had employed Air Resources Inc.
to
evaluate and propose an incinerating settling chamber which would
bring the stacks into compliance
(R.
33)
Air Resources also evaluated five other systems which were
rejected for various reasons.
We will not dwell upon those but
list them as:
Granular bed filter
—
not proven commercially
Dry mechanical collector
—
would reduce particulates
to
53 lbs./hr.,
an insufficient reduction.
Fabric filter
-
would require over 1400 gallons per
minute of water to lower the temperature of the
gas to 350°,the maximum operating temperature of
the baghouse,
and would require 8.5 million
kiliowat hours of electricity
(KWH)
.
Capital
costs would be $1.7 million and annual operating
costs $370,000.
This method would also involve
other environmental prohlems since 33 tons per
day of fluffy material would have to be disposed
of in
a landfill and the generation of 8.5
million KWH of power would require the nearby
power plant to burn 4700 tons per year of high
sulfur Illinois coal.
Electrostatic Precipitator
-
high efficiency could not
be guaranteed due to the nature of the particulate
matter.
An extensive cooling system would be
necessary to reach the 700°operating temperature
of the electrostatic precipitator.
This system
10—42
—5—
would consume about 4.3 million
KWH
per year
and would produce 33 tons per day of dry partie-
ulate matter with attendant landfill costs.
Wet
scrubber
—
would
require 12.8 million KWH of
energy,
capital costs of
$1.9 million and operating
costs of $420,000 per year.
Water consumption of
approximately 500 gallons per minute for each kiln
could create a water pollution problem.
Disposal
of
66 tons per day of wet filter cake would require
14
acres of
land over
a
5 year period, winter
operations might be difficult due to freezing
problems and a possible visibility hazard from
steam plume.
This method would require the burning
of 7000 ton of coal per year at the nearby power
plant.
Air Resources recommended the combination settling chamber--
combustion chamber method as the “most applicable abatement device”
for the following reasons:
1)
The capital cost of approximately $1,500,000 was the
lowest of the six control systems.
2)
The operating costs were by far the lowest of
all the
alternatives which were considered.
3)
The system was reliable and proven in similar appli-
cations and is the only system in present commercial
use in the United States in this application.
4~ There would be no attendant solid waste disposal,
water pollution,
or other environmental disadvantages.
5)
It required no power consumption.
Preliminary designs for the combustion chamber called for the
construction of chambers approximately
70’
long,
27’ wide and 27’
high on each kiln system.
Each chamber would be lined with re-
fractory brick and exhaust through new 10’
diameter stacks
145’
in height.
At page V-l of the Air Resources report was found the
rationale for the Air Resources design:
“The basis on which this
preliminary design was completed is contained in Table
IV.
Also,
the Union Carbide personnel stressed that the down time required
for installation be minimal.
This restriction eliminated the most
economical installation in which
a common stack would serve both
kilns”.
(emphasis supplied)
10
—
43
—6—
Originally, the schedule included 15 months installation
time for the first chamber with the second chamber to be com-
pleted
9 months after the first.
After consultation between
Petitioner .and Air Resources,
it was decided that both chambers
could be constructed simultaneously thereby reducing the total
schedule to about
16 months
(R.
42)
.
A maximum of seven
(7)
days down time for system tie-in was allowed for each chamber.
Gary Nagl, Project Manager for Air Resources,
testified
that the proposed chambers would allow for the complete com-
bustion of all combustible material to carbon dioxide and water
(R.
74).
The control system could reduce Petitioner’s particulate
emissions to 11.86
lbs./hr.
from each kiln stack
(R.
76)
.
The
particulate matter emitted would consist solely of ash type
material,
60
of which would be ash residue from the raw petroleum
material and the remainder silica, alumina, ferric oxide and
calcium oxide from the eroded kiln refractory lining.
Although
Nagl initially said that to the best of his knowledge the particulate
emissions were not toxic in nature,
he finally stated that he was not
qualified to testify about the toxicity of the materials
(R.
95).
At the time the Regulations were adopted on April
14, 1972 the
Union Carbide plant was obviously not in compliance with Rule 203(b)
and was not under
a variance.
Therefore,
Rule 203(c)
is applicable.
That Rule provides that Petitioner must be in compliance with the
more stringent provisions of Rule 203(a)
(new emission sources)
by
December 31,
1973.
The current particulate Regulation is Rule 3-3.111
of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution.
Neither the original nor the amended variance petition addressed that
fact.
Petitioner has not requested
a variance from Rule 3-3.111 or
Rule 203(a)
but specifically asks for a permanent variance from
Rule 203(b),
a Rule which is inapplicable to Petitioner’s operation.
It seems therefore,
that
the
Petition should be dismissed without
prejudice.
We assume that Union Carbide might file
a new Petition for
Variance or an amendment in this action and will therefore indicate
some guidelines which might be useful in future proceedings.
Permanent variances have not been granted and we do not foresee the
time when they will be.
Legislative intent, we believe,
is found
in Section
5(b)
of the Environmental Protection Act:
“It is the purpose of this Act...to restore, protect,
and enhance the quality of the environment and to
assure that adverse effects upon the environment are
fully considered by and borne by those who cause them.”
10—44
—7—
We do not find any legislative intent that excessive
emissions of contaminants should continue indefinitely.
The
legislative purpose to “restore” environmental quality leaves
no room for permanent variances.
Variances
are granted where
compliance with the Statute or applicable regulations would
impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship and even then the
polluter must have a reasonable plan to bring the facility into
compliance.
The granting of
a variance is not taken lightly
by this Board.
In Mt. Carmel Public Utilities Company vs.
EPA,
PCB 71—15 we
stated:
“Except for cases of
‘no technology available’
this
Board must require that those who seek a
‘shield
against enforcement cases’
(which is what a variance
is) must have
a definite program to control
the
emissions
with
existing control technologyt’.
(See
also:
Harold
L. Swords vs. EPA,
PCB 70—6,
Central
Illinois Public Services vs.
EPA,
PCE 71—261,
71—262,
71-263 and 71—264, Hardwick Bros.
Co.
vs.
EPA,
PCB 71—17,
Flintkote Co. vs.
EPA, PCB 71-68, Chambers, Bering,
Quinlan Co.
vs. EPA, PCB 71—102, Metropolitan Sanitary
District
(Village of Streamwood) vs.
EPA, PCB 71—183,
York Center Community Cooperative vs.
EPA, PCB 72-7,
and Laesch Dairy Company vs.
EPA, PCB 72—93.)
Without reservation we reaffirm the criteria for grant of
a
variance.
Where control technology is available and its use will
not impose an unreasonable hardship upon the Petitioner,
a variance
can only be granted upon a showing of eventual compliance with the
Standard.
In this case the parties disagree as to
the
standard to be met.
The Amended Petition states:
“that prior to this time Petitioner’s
engineers had been under the impression that the Agency would treat
each of the two new stacks as a separate source for orocess weight
rate calculation purposes”
(Amended Petition for Variance, p.
2).
However, Mr. Nagl testified as
follows:
Mr. Cengel:
When you started this orogram were you asked
to come up with
a program which met a specific
level in terms of emissions?
Mr. Nagl:
We were asked to come up
with
a program
which will put the plant in compliance with
the Regulations.
Mr. Cengel:
You were not asked for a specific figure?
Mr. Nagl:
During the course of it we decided it was going
to be a single source requiring 11.86 lbs./hr.
10—45
—8—
Mr. Cengel:
Who was we you are speaking of?
Mr. Nagl:
Union Carbide and Air Resources.(R.
97)
Petitioner fails
to identify the Agency employee who allegedly
interpreted the two kilns as two separate emission sources
The
record simply does not support Petitioner’s allegations that the
EPA had committed itself to that interpretation.
If each kiln
is considered
a separate emission source, then
Union Carbide
will
have to meet
a limitation of
11.86
lbs./hr,
for each of the two kilns or a plant total of
23.72 lbs./hr,
Rule
203(a).
The settling chamber-combustion chamber which is
proposed by Union Carbide would apparently meet this limitation.
On the other hand,
if Petitioner’s two kilns are adjudged “similar”
under Rule
203(a)
,
Petitioner will be required to meet a total
emission rate of 17.2 lbs./hr.
Union Carbide claims that the
proposed control system can not meet such requirements.
In our opinion adopting the Air Pollution Control Regulations
we said:
“similar sources are to be aggregated for purposes of
determining the applicable process weight.
The
significance of this provision is that more effective
controls are required on larger units, both because
of their greater potential for harm and because of
well recognized deficiencies of scale in control
equioment.
This graduated control requirement was a
feature of the original Bay Area Table.
It is
important,
therefore,
to treat multiple units of the same kind on
the same premises as if they were one, both to prevent
circumvention by building several small units instead
of one large one and because of
the
practicality
of
applying a single large control device to a number of
small like sources.
Because these latter policies do
not apply to sources of different kind,
it
is not
necessary to aggregate
a basic oxygen furnace with an
asphalt saturator,
or even with a sintering plant,
for purposes of this Rule.”
We chose not to include a definition of “similar emission
sources”
in Rule
201 of the Regulations because the physical
complexity of many facilities would require the careful sifting
of all pertinent information before two or more sources could be
adjudged similar.
A rigid definition simply could not encompass
all of the various factors
that might arise
from the multiplicity
of Illinois emission sources.
Thus, we determined that a case by
case determination would be required.
Since neither the current Regulations nor the prior Rules were
in force at the time of construction, the Union Carbide plant was
10—46
—9—
obviously not built with circumvention in mind,
The
question
of circumvention might arise
in future proceedings since the
Air Resources report at page V—I clearly states that Union
Carbide placed such restrictions on Air Resources
that the
consulting firm had to eliminate “the most economical install-
ation in which
a common stack would serve both kilns”.
These
restrictions, we are told, were necessary to limit down time
and were therefore
a matter of economics and not an attempt to
circumvent the Regulations.
But the current plan for concurrent
construction of control systems might now remove this objection
to the single stack concept.
We have previously said that one
reason for the rule is
the “practicality of applying a single
large control device to
a number of small like sources”.
However,
we do not have sufficient information in this case to determine
if one common control system is practical.
We need information
regarding:
1.
The chemical and physical characteristics of
materials entering the process, leaving the
process as product and leaving the process
as
emissions in the operation of the
two
kiln
systems.
2.
Frequency of and reasons
for producing dissimilar
products in the simultaneous operation of the kilns.
3.
Proximity of the two kiln systems and economic
reasonableness and technical feasibility of the
single large combustion——settling chamber
in
comparison to other plans which have been
advanced.
While these guidelines are not to limit the issues,
the Board
does
feel that these are some of the matters which should be more
fully developed.
In deciding whether the two kilns are similar
sources we will consider not only the product and the useage of
the kilns, but whether they were constructed or modified to circum-
vent the Regulations and whether it is practical to treat them as similar
for control purposes.
The issue of “practicality”
involves not
only questions of technical and economic feasibility, but an
assessment of total impact on the environment.
We note that some
forms of control create other environmental problems,
i.e. water
pollution,
the burning of coal at power plants.
If it
appears
that the total environment may be damaged by considering the
stacks to be “similar sources” then it would seem to be impractical
to consider them as similar.
10—47
—10—
ORDER
Thirty day continuance
is allowed for the purpose of
allowing the parties to submit additional pleadings,
factual
stipulation or written argument.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, he4eby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted
this
~day
of ~
,
1973 by
a vote of
~
to
0
10—48
