ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
25,
1974
KOPPERS COMPANY,
INC.
PETITIONER
v.
)
PCB 74-63
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESPONDENT
NORMAN
J. BARRY, ATTORNEY,
in behalf of KOPPERS COMPANY,
INC.
PETER E. ORLINSKY, ATTORNEY, in behalf of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Marder)
This case comes
to the Board on Petition of Koppers Company,
Inc.
filed February
8,
1974, for variance from Rules 103
(a)
(5)
(A) and
206
(c)
of Chapter
2 of the Board!s Rules and Regulations,
for an en-
largement of its phthalic anhydride plant in Stickney,
Illinois.
Petitioner concurrently with the filing of its petition filed a
motion requesting the Board order the Agency to file its recommend-
ation by February
15, 1974.
This motion was denied by an Order of
the Board dated February 14, 1974.
On April 10,
1974,
Petitioner filed a motion for Grant of Variance
Without Hearing.
The Board ordered this
case to be assigned for de-
cision on April
18,
1974.
On April 19,
1974,
Petitioner filed a motion for Leave to File
Additional Affidavit of T.
R. Wedell.
This motion is hereby granted.
The Agency filed its recommendation
on April
4,
1974, recommending
a grant subject to certain conditions.
No hearing was held.
Petitioner
is requesting this variance for its plant in Stickney,
Illinois.
The plant produces phthalic anhydride, which is a basic
raw material in the manufacture
of plastic, vinyl, paint and varnish
products.
(R.
2)
The plant has 150 employees and has an annual pay-
roll of $1,700,000.
It is one of eleven suppliers of phthalic anhy-
dride in the country and is the sole supplier of this product to
eleven Illinois corporations
(R.
8)
(Koppers Company,
Inc.,
v. Envir-
onmental Protection Agency,
PCB 73-365).
Petitioner has a large investment in pollution control equipment
—2—
in the form of a scrubber, which removes 97
of its solid organic
matter from its discharge
(R.
22)
(Koppers Company,
Inc.,
v. Environ-
mental Protection Agency,
PCB 73-365).
On December
6,
1973,
the Board granted Petitioner
a variance from
Rule 206
(c)
of Chapter
2 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations for its
existing phthalic anhydride plant at Stickney,
subject to conditions
outlined in our Order of that date
(Koppers Company,
Inc.,
v. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, PCB 73—365,
December
6, 1973).
In this case
Petitioner
is asking for basically the same relief
as
in its previous
variance for a proposed addition to its phthalic anhydride plant.
The Board of Directors of Petitioner has directed that the phthalic
anhydride plant be expanded to 172 million pounds output,
a 32
in-
crease.
Koppers will begin construction of this project after the
granting of this variance.
The work will take 12 months to complete.
Petitioner further alleges that the local economy of the area will be
stimulated by the construction of the new plant by $9,000,000.
The
plant payroll will also increase about $100,000 per annum.
With the
new output, Petitioner hopes to alleviate
a shortage of the product
for the benefit of eleven Illinois companies supplied by Petitioner.
Petitioner reasserts
in this action the same data on control tech-
nology as found in the previous variance case.
In the previous case
the Board found as follows:
“Three methods that can allegedly reduce
the carbon monoxide to the level required by the regulation
(are)
thermal incineration, thermal catalytic incineration, and cold cata—
lytic oxidation.
“From the record it seems that thermal incineration is a method
that would definitely bring the Stickney plant into compliance
(R.
41).
It would cost the Petitioner $1,500,000
in capital expenditures,
and another $900,000 per annum operating costs.
The major drawback
in this system is that it requires large amounts of heating oil (es-
timated at 5,000,000 gallons per annum
(Pet.
Ref.
16), or enough fuel
oil to heat 5,000 to 7,000 single-family homes.
The Board takes not-
ice of the heating oil shortage facing the entire country and as such
will be responsive to methods and devices
to control emissions with
minimal fuel consumption.
“Thermal catalytic incineration is basically the same as thermal
incineration, with the addition of a catalyst bed added to reduce
power consumption.
There are two alleged drawbacks to this system.
First, to eliminate impurities
from the system natural gas
is the
only practical fuel.
Other fuels contain sulphur which would poison
the catalyst.
From the record
(R.
17)
there is unrebutted testimony
that Petitioner will not be able to obtain this natural
gas from its
supplier.
Secondly, the record shows that this method has a very low
safety factor.
Impurities entering the stream lead to potential ex-
plosions in the equipment
(R.
50-51).
—3—
“The final method brought
forth is cold catalytic oxidation.
This
is a method in which carbon monoxide is oxidized by metal salts at low
temperatures
(100°F.).
This method is still
in the research stage
and Petitioner
is unsure
as to its workability but forecasts a high
degree of success with low fuel requirements for its operation.
“The cold catalytic converter method was brought to the attention
of Petitioner by a scholarly paper entitled “Homogeneous Catalytic
Oxidation of Carbon Monoxide,” by W.
G. Lloyd and D.
R.
Rowe, appear-
ing in Environmental Science and Technology, Vol.
5,
#11,
Nov.
1971,
page 1133.”
In the short period of time since the December
6,
1973, Order,
there has been nothing to indicate that there has been any radical
change of technology for carbon monoxide removal
for a phthalic anhy—
dride plant.
Hardship:
Petitioner alleges that Rule 205
(c)
puts an unreason-
able and arbitrary hardship on it,
in that Rule 205
(c)
is directed
more to higher temperature refinery operations, and that the technol-
ogy for carbon monoxide removal
is not applicable to the cold opera-
tion used by Petitioner to make the phthalic anhydride
(Pet.
P.
6).
Petitioner further alleges that should this variance not be granted,
it would continue to build the addition,
using thermal incineration
as
a control method.
In the previous case,
the Board determined that
thermal incineration would probably bring Petitioner’s existing facil-
ity into compliance,
it would be exceptionally expensive,
and there
would be
a great problem in Petitioner’s obtaining
a sufficient supply
of heating oil
(see Koppers Company,
Inc.,
v.
Environmental Protection
Agency, PCB 73-365,
P.
2).
Also,
failure to grant the variance would
cause Petitioner to duplicate control methods.
The Board,
in our
earlier decision, allowed Petitioner to experiment with the cold cata—
lytic oxidation method.
If we now deny Petitioner
a variance here,
we are in fact forcing him to develop cold catalytic oxidation for its
existing plant, while not allowing Petitioner to use it for its new
facility.
The Board finds that there is sufficient hardship to Pet-
itioner to allow the grant of a variance in this case.
Environmental impact: The Board previously determined,
“From the
record it
is shown that Petitioner’s
carbon monoxide output is not
injurious to the community which surrounds
it.
Petitioner’s plant
is located in a heavily industrialized area, with residential housing
no closer than 2,000 feet from its emission sources.
(See Exhibits
1,
2,
3,
5.)
Petitioner’s uncontroverted allegation in the record
(R.
14)
indicates that all of the carbon monoxide dissipates
from the at-
mosphere to an undetectable level within 450—600 feet of the emitting
stacks.
There
is also an uncontroverted allegation in the petition
that the ambient air quality for carbon monoxide
is not exceeded, and
in fact the Stevenson Monitoring Station, the station closest to Pet-
itioner’s plant, has the lowest carbon monoxide reading of all Chicago
area monitoring stations.
From the record it is the opinion of the
Board that no substantive harm will be done if Petitioner is allowed
to continue emissions at its present level, while carrying out its
compliance program.
—4—
“Petitioner’s basis
for its carbon monoxide study was submitted
as an appendix to its variance petition.
The following are the re-
sults of carbon monoxide monitoring conducted by Petitioners:
Feet from Plume
CO Background
CO Measured
275’
4.0 ppm.
5.5 ppm.
360’
4.0 ppm.
Up to 5.0 ppm.
600’
4.0 ppm.
4.0 ppm.
375’
3.0 ppm.
4—5 ppm.
“Other data shows similar carbon monoxide ranges.
Although high
peaks
(highest 18 ppm.
for eight seconds) were observed,
at no time
were the Air Quality Criteria exceeded.
The average carbon monoxide
concentration of all Chicago area stations
(July 1973)
was 3.7 ppm.
The average of the Stevenson station
(July) was 1.6 ppm.
The effect-
ive primary air quality standard for carbon monoxide is 9.0 ppm. max-
imum
8 hr.
conc.
not to be exceeded more than once per year.”
(Koppers
Company,
Inc., v. Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 73-365, P.2-3.)
The addition will have
an emission rate calculated to be 794 lb/hr,
as compared to the rate for the existing facility of 2382 lb/hr. car-
bon monoxide.
The concentration of carbon monoxide
in the stack gases
for the addition will be 4000 ppm., which is the same for the existing
unit.
Petitioner has realleged the above environmental data in its
petition in this case,
indicating that the carbon monoxide level in
the ambient air around the plant is the lowest in the Chicago area,
and that little or no carbon monoxide is carried beyond the plant’s
boundaries.
Petitioner further alleges that the emissions of the add-
ition, combined with that of the existing plant, will still be within
all ambient air quality standards
(Pet.
P.
16-17).
The Agency concurs
in this evaluation
(Agency Rec.
P.
3).
The Agency has received no
citizen complaints concerning Petitioner’s plant.
In its original variance Petitioner proposed a compliance plan as
follows:
“First, Petitioner proposes to design and put out bids for
the construction of a thermal incinerator.
Concurrent with that pro-
gram, basic research and pilot programs will be initiated by the Badger
Co.,
a highly respected design and construction firm, to determine
if
the cold catalytic oxidation method will be feasible in Petitioner’s
situation.
While this research is carried out
(for a period of 17
months)
,
Petitioner proposes to hold work on the thermal incinerator
in abeyance.”
If after the 17-month period,
it appears that cold cat-
alytic
oxidation will not prove to be feasible, the Petitioner would
complete the thermal incinerator.
Petitioner proposes the same com-
pliance plan here as in the previous variance.
The Board finds that
this is an adequate plan,
and it will be incorporated in the Order for
this case.
In the December
6,
1973, Order and Opinion,
the Board ordered Pet-
itioner to carry on its work involving development of the thermal in-
cinerator to the point where Environmental Protection Agency construct—
—5—
ion permit applications would be submitted.
In the petition to this
action Paragraph 18, Page 13, indicated that this program would be
“held” after three months,
in violation of the Board Order.
The affi-
davit of
T.
R. Wedell was submitted by Petitioner to clear up this
seeming inconsistency.
In it,
Mr. Wedell affirms that Koppers
is pro-
ceeding beyond the three month cutoff
date,
and will continue develop-
ment on the thermal incinerator, until the time it submits Environ-
mental Protection Agency permit applications.
The date for this
is
tentatively set for Sept.
1,
1974.
The Board will grant Petitioner variance from Rule 206
(c)
and
Rule 103
(a)
(5)
(A)
of Chapter
2 of the Regulations until December
6,
1974.
The reason for the short duration of this variance is so
that it will come due at the same time
as the variance
in PCB 73—365,
and in the future the existing plant and the addition can be consid-
ered together.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
ORDER
IT
IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Petitioner be
granted a variance from Rule 103
(a)
(5)
(A)
and Rule 206
(c) of
Chapter
2 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations,
until December 6,
1974, subject to the following conditions:
1)
Petitioner
shall incorporate as part of the reporting
requirement in Order number
1 in Koppers Company,
Inc.,
v. Environmental Protection Ayency, PCB 73-365,
any
data that will relate
to the increase
in capacity of
the phthalic anhydride plant as it affects the research
on the cold catalytic oxidation research.
2)
Petitioner shall apply for all necessary construction
and operating permits from the Agency.
3)
Within 90 days prior to the expiration of this variance,
Petitioner should be preparing applications for construct-
ion permits of its
thermal incinerator, and such applica-
tions
shall be completed within the time of this variance.
4)
Any
request for the extension of the variance shall include
a re—evaluation of the time schedule for compliance.
5)
The bond set in PCB 73-365 shall apply to the variance
in this matter,
and shall guarantee performance with this
Order.
6)
Any request for the extension of this variance must be
filed no later than
90 days prior to its expiration.
—6—
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
certify thai the above Opini n and Order was adopted by the
Board on the
~S
“
day of
___________,
1974, by
a vote of
S
to
p.
