ML19329E648

Deposition of Jg Temple (Dow Chemical Co) Re Contracts W/ Util.Mi Dept of Natural Resources Correspondence Re Vendor Violations of Air Quality Stds Encl

ML19329E648
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	11/05/1976
From:	Jeffrey Temple DOW CHEMICAL CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19329E643	List: ML19329E642 ML19329E646 ML19329E648 ML19329E651 ML19329E652
References
NUDOCS 8006160428
Download: ML19329E648 (25)

Text

.

V TESTIMODY OF JOSEPH G. TEMPLE, JR-Q. Please state your name and business address.

A. Joseph G. Temple, Jr. My business address is 47 Building, Michigan Division, The Dow .hemical Company, Midland, Michigan.

Q. What is your position with The Dow Chemical Company?

A. I am General Manager of the Michigan Division of Dow Chemical USA, an operating unit of The Dow Chemical Company.

Q. What is your educational background and business experience?

A. My educational background and business experience primarily has been in the chemical industry. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Chemical Engineering from Purdue University in 1951, and was employed by The Dow Chemical Company that same year in its research and development area.

In 1954, I entered the Plastics Marketing Department and served as a field salesman in Boston, Massachusetts, a product sales manc.ger in Midland, Michigan, and a plastics district sales manager 4n Cam en, New Jersey. I returned to Dow headquarters in Midland in 1964 as a product group sales manager. In 1965, I became business manager for polyolefins.

I then advanced to the position of sales manager for the Plastics Department in 1967 and was appointed general manager of that department in 1970. I was named to my present position in Januar'/ 1973 In that position, I am in charge of the management of the Michigan Division, which includes chemical plants in Midland, Bay City and an industrial site in Freeland, all of which are in Michigan.

Q. Would you describe for us your involvement with the centracts between Dcw and Consumers Power Ccmpany with regard to the Midland nuclear plant?

8006160 h l

2 A. In January of 1973, there was in existence a General Agreement that had been executed by Consumers Power and Dow in 1967. Shortly after my ar-rival, I became involved in negotiations between the parties which re-suited in certain amendments to the 1967 contract and the execution of contracts for water supply, electric service, and steam service, which have been included as part of Consumers Power Exhibits 7(a)-(c). I also have been in charge of the current negotiations between Consumers Pcwer and Dow.

Q. Has Dow's management conducted reviews of these contracts subsequent to 1967?

A. Yes. Since 1967 when the General Agreement was signed, the Michigan Division has periodically reviewed the situation with regard to the economics of nuclear steam as compared to a Dew alternative whenever Consumers has announced a new projected total capital cost or a new com-pletion date for the Midland nuclea plant, or has announced any other in-crease in a significant cost factor. In addition, the contracts have been subjected to continuous review since May of 1974, when Dow was first in-formed of a probable construction delay at the Midland nuclear plant be-cause of the financial difficulties of Consumers Power.

A further review of the project and the contracts between the parties was commenced in August 1976, as a direct result of the Court of Appeals deci-sion on July 21, 1976, and the new projected capital cost of the project of$1,670,000,000 given to me by telephone on August 5, 1976.

t

[ L'11s last review, which was concluded in September of 1976, resulted in l

l a conclusion that at the present time circu= stances have not changed suf-ficiently to call for a modification of Dow's co=:-d.tment to nuclear pro-duced steam to be supplied by Consumers Power in March of 1982. Under the

3 present circumstances as known to Dow, the nuclear alternative r mains the most attractive one economically. Further, the matter will be kept under continuous review and Dow will keep all of its options open.

Q. What alternative sources of steam did Dow consider in its review?

A. The options which Dow considered as alternative sources of steam to the nuclear plant were: Conventional coal-fired steam turbine plants utilizing either high sulfur or low sulfur coal producing electricity and process steam; package boilers fired by coal, gas, oil, or a combination of the three; and a coal gasification unit in combination with gas turbines and package boilers.

Q. How is Dow currently obtaining steam and electricity for its Midland Plant?

A. Dow is currently producing all of the steam and some of the electricity for its Midland Plant with its own fossil-fired units.

Q. Did Dow consider continued production from these existing fossil-fired units as an alternative to the nuclear supply?

A. No, because Dow had previously determined that these units must be replaced as soon as possible for two reasons:

1. 'Ihese facilities are quite old, with major pieces of equipment that will be 30 to 50 yearc old in 1982. Dow is concerned that some of these turbogenerators and boilers already may have been stretened beyond their meaningful life. Dow has studied as carefully as it can how much further these powerhouses can be pushed, and it has concluded that there is simply no way in which they can be made to operate safely and reliably beyond 1984 at the outside. Dow will be continuously reviewing the situation to see whether 1984 itself isn't indeed too far. This means that whatever expenditures Dow may =ake in the next

k few years to assure safety and reliability and to comply with Dov's Consent Order with the Michigan Air Pollution Control Commission are down the drain as far as use after 1984 is concerned.

2. These powerhouses are currently being operated under a consent order with the Michigan Air Pollution Control Co==ission which permits con-tinued operation until 1980. (Copies of this consent order and related documents identified as Consumers Power Company's proposed Exhibit 8(a)-(g), are attached hereto.) In all probability, Dow vill be able to operate these facilities in Qe present fashion until 1980. continued operation of these units beyond 1980 vill be dependent upon obtaining a further consent order from the MAPCC. It is not possible to predict at this time whether such an order can be obtained or for that matter what new regulatory or statutory provisiens Dov may be faced with at that time.

The problems of the nuclear plant, its completion date and Dov's obligations under the Consent Order are undoubtedly interrelated. What the Commis-sion will do, to some extent, may be predicated en what the Licensing Ecard does. If, for exemple, there vere to be an order to abandon the nuclear plant, the MAPCC probably would no longer consider interi=

arrange =ents, but would be looking towards some kind of order which would contemplat,a a per=anent alternative for the Midland nuclear plant.

On the other hand, if this Licensing Board reaffir=s the construction permits with no suspension, the MAPCC will probably consider the 1982 scheduled date for steam supplies and what alternatives seem most feasible under the circumstances of the availability of steam frem the nuclear plant in March of 1982.

l

5 It must be emphasized that the timetable of the Midland nuclear plant is the critical factor in all of this and that in the near-term this timetable is Dow's most critical problem. Dow simply

~

cannot rely on its antiquated, existing fossil-fired units for much longer, certainly not beyond 1981+. Dow believes it is stretching the useful life of these units to their limits. Nor can Dow rely on any continued variances from the air pollution regulations beyond 1980. In addition, the cost increases in nuclear steam which would be inherent in a delay caused by suspension of the construction license and the actual delay that would result in the commercial operation dates of nuclear Units 1 and 2 would force Dow management to evaluate whether the situation had not then been altered to such an extent that Dow =ust make other arrangements for a reliable supply of steam.

Q. As a result of its recent review, what is Dow's conclusion as to the com-parative costs of nuclear produced steam and steam produced by the alterna-tives considered?

A. Although the difference in cost between the nuclear alternative and the coal-fired alternative has narrowed appreciably due to the numerous delays already incurred and the consequent cost increases of the nuclear plant, Dow's latest analyses show that the nuclear alternative still retains some cost advantage, assuming that Dow would require a return on investment of greater than 15% before taxes. (Dow would expect to receive a return of greater than 15% before it could justi1'/ capital expenditures for any

[ facility it might build including an electrical and steam supply system.

Dow could not justify the investment required to generate adequate steam

6 and electricity at its Midland Plant without including all of the cost factors attributable to a return on the investment. Thus, such an in-vestment must yield a return ec= parable to that which the same funds would earn'in another investment by Dow bearing similar risks.)

Q. Does Dow istend to construct and operate a facility to act as e. backup or auxiliary for the steam from the Midland nuclear plant?

A. Dow has the right, under the terms of the steam service contract, upon retirement of its existing fossil-fuel fired generating units, to generate and utiline in its Midland Plant an amount of steam not exceeding 1,000,000 lb/hr at a pressure not exceeding 175 psig from any facilities owned and operated by Dow, as standby or aurniary to the steam to be provided by

. Consuners. Dow has not yet decided what type of facilities to install to generate this steam. Whatever facilities are chosen, they will be in-stalled under a permit from the MAPCC and, of course, will meet the air pollution standards applicable to such a facility.

Q. You previously referred to continuing negotiations between Dow and Consumers Power. Would you please state Dow's position in these negotiations?

A. Since 1975, there have been active negotiations between Dow and Consumers Power concerning possible modifications of the various contracts between them which relate to the nuclear plant. Dow's position on some of the principal issues is:

1. 3here ::rast be a specifically stated deadline for the ec==encement of a reliable steam supply for Dow's Midland Plant by Consumers Power.

A clearly understood timetable is required for the completion of the key aspects of the job of constructing and starting up each of the

7 reactor units, Dow cannot be expected to wait beyond a reasonable time for the comoletion of the nuclear power plant and comencement of the reliable delivery of contract quantities of process steam.

If that timetable is so chan6ed that the stated deadline for delivery of process steam cannot be met, it must be clear that Dow can teminate the contract.

2. As a direct result of Consumers' announced delays, Dew will not receive process steam and power from Consumers in 1980, but at some time in 1982. Because of this, Dow will be forced to secure process steam and power from sources other than the nuclear plant or forfeit markets for its products. Therefore, there can be no contractual restrictions on Dow's right to make, purchase and utilize process steam and elec-tric power at any time at the Midland Plant. This includes elimination of any restrictions on how Dow may use the steam supplied by Consumers when the nuclear plant is in comercial operation. If the contract is so modified, Dow will still be obligated to purchase a minimum of 2,000,000 pounds per hour of 175 psig steam frem Consumers Power if the nuclear plant is in comercial operation in confomance with the stated deadline.

3  ! edification of the tems and conditions of the Contract for Electric Service, including changing the term of the contract from five years to one year. Dow's current estimated monthly average total electrie demand for the Midland Plant in 1982 is between 175-200 =egawatts.

If the contract is so modified, part of this demand may be supplied by Consumers Power, and the remainder supplied by self-generation.

l

8

h. Other issues that were discussed in the negotiations included a defi-nition of commercici :peration date for each unit; provisions for Dov to recover from Consumers expenditures kw must make to keep present fossil' units in operation after July 1,1980, until the present target' co cercial operation date; a restatement of when and under what conditions the "nonrecoverables" associated with the direct steam costs are payable to Consumers by Dow; financial protection for Dov should the Midland nuclear plant operate below industry experience for sini-lar units; and revision of certain provisions dealing with the alloca-tion of costs arising out of the supply of water to the Midland nuclear plant.

Q. In summary, Mr Temple, what are Dov's,present intentions with regard to its agreement with Consu=ers Power?

A. Dov intends to purchase process steam from Consumers beginning the first year of operation (1982). In that year, the amounts will range from the contractual minimum requirement of 2,000,000 lb/hr of 175 psig steam and h00,000 lb/hr of 600 psig steam. Dov has the right under the contract to increase its reserved capacities for steam up to the maximum steam generating capacity of the plant by giving Consu=ers Power six years' notice of its intent to do so. At the present ti=e, Dov's contract de=and in 1982 for electric service from Consumers Power is established at 300,000 kilo-watts, which will be supplied in accordance with Consumers Power's Rate F.

Dov's current total electric demand for the Midland Plant in 1982 is esti-cated to be between 175,000 - 200,000 kilowatts. If the centract is modi-fled, part of this de=and nay be supplied by Consu=ers Power. Dow will

' install and operate, pursuant to its rights under the contract, the capa-bility to generate 1,000,000 lb/hr of steam at Midland.

Exhibit 8s

(

(. .

STATE DI I ICiiICA:i DEPAitT!!Elli 0F i;ATUi!AL I ESC'JRCES

, AIll POLI.UTIO:1 C0:lTROL CD:::'ISSICli

) -

In re Administra~tive Proceedings acainst )

00 I CllEf ICAL CC"P.U"/, a Ocla.41re Corpora- )

tion, concerning sulfur dioxide caissicas ) File lio. 12-73-05 from fossil f uel burning c erations at ) .

Midland Division, in :lidiand, liichigan. )

)

,(TIPU'_ATIOil FOR EitTRY OF CONSEd ORDER

• AND .

FIffAL CRDER -

Th4 matter is before _the Air Pollution Control Comission on a proiosal from the company to implement a Supplementary Control System for sulfur dioxida control in lieu of the Company's co mitment to construct two 400-foot stacks to enhance dispersion of sulfur dioxide. The previous commitment was developed because the Ccmmission had cause to believe that the fossil fuel fired boilers crc emitting sulfur dioxide that, if continued unabated, will be in excess of allowable limits according to the provisions of liichigan R. 336.49 (ACS '"

tio. 71, pages 30-32) on July 1,1975. Supplementary Control Systems are systems '

uhich limit the rate of pollutant emissions during periods when ceteoroloaical s

conditions conducive to ground level concentrations in excess of air quality standards are anticipated.

Dow Chemical Company and the staff hereby, with the approval of this Commission, ag,rce to the termination of this proceeding by entry of a Final Ord:r by consent.

(s

,  ?. .

I* Consent Order No. 12-73-05 Page 2 Dou Cheinical Company and staff hereby and herewith stipulatu and agree as follows: '

1. That Dow Chemical Cc=pany, a Delaware Corporation, having its principal office at Midlind, "ichigan, acknowledges proner service of a notice of he,.p;ing and pr,ogo:2d org,cr for corrective actica, and expressly herewith waives the filing of an answer or denial thereto.

2. That the D:w Chemical Company ackncaledges that it is presently the source of the caissions which result in all significant ambient air concentraticas of sulfur dioxide in and around Midland, Michigan.

3. That the Dow Ch6mical Company has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that all constant c.iission reduction technology ' reasonably I

available t.o the conpany has been applied and is presently insufficient to e

attain the national su,1 fur dioxide air quality standards. The company and the i .

! staff agree that_ further constant emission reduction means, other than tall

stack construction, are not reasonably availabla to the ccmpany at this tica.

"f* .4. That the Dow Chemical Company has demonstrated the technical feasibility of its versien of a Supplementary Control System to achieve the primary and I

secondary sulfur dioxide air quality standards by July 1,1975. .

!. 5. That Dou Chemical Company and the staff agree that the signing of this I

i Stipulation is for settlement purposes only and dces not constitute an admission s by Dow Chemical Ccapany that the law has been violated, but both staff and Cow I.

{ Chemical Company do expressly agree that the sulfur dior.ide emisciens frem Hidland Division, South Side and West Side Power Plants, at Midland, Michigan, should be abated and, therefore, both staff and Dou Chemical Company herewith and hereby stipulate and agree to the following time sche' d ule for affirnative action:

a .

l. .

--e

(. k. .

Cui:sent Ocd;r I;o. 12-73-03 Pwje 3 a) By April 1,1974, Dow Chectical Company shall replace the four existin; continucus sulfur dior.ide at:alyzces ,ith units that will co.:: ply with the United States Environmental Protecticn Agency's specifica. tion :

as listed in the Federal Register, \olume 26, ::o. 84, April 30,1971.

b) Fu.rthen cre, Dow Chemical Company shnil install up to four addi-s tional sulfur dicxide monitors at locations ar.d en a ticetable specified by the Chief, Air Pollutien Centrol Divisica, Ce:artcent of !!atural P.escarces.

c) Cn and after :'ay 1,1974, Dow Chemical Co=any shall subm.it to the staff on a real time basis all air quality data from the sulfur dio::ide

. ~

monitoring stations and other pertinent inforcation related to fuel switching and the implementation of the Supplementary Centrol System at Midland, Michigan. 05w Chemical Company shall provids at its exoense the necessary equipment to receive this information at the staff offices in Lansing.

,, d) By April 1,1974, and monthly thereafter, Dow Chemical Company shall submit a conthly report of air quality data sur. aries and a su=ary of abatcaent actica taken at the South Side and 'lest Side Potter Plants, c) Cy September 1,1974, submit to the Cc issica evidence to show '

cause, if any Dow Chemical Company has, why the company should not be required to increase the stack height for Coiler f:o. 20.

f)AfterJune 30, 1975, Dow Chemical Company shall prevent all sulfur s

l dioxide air quality ' standards promulgated by the United States Environmental l

Protection Agency in Federal Register, Volume 35, llo. 84, dated April 30, 1971, from being exceeded in and around Midland, Michigan, for any cause attributable to .the company. The ccmpany shall utilize at its option lower -

sulfur fuel, load reduction, plant shut down or other means to accomplish this objective. .

w -

(

(

, ~ . .

Consent Ord:r !!c. 12-73-05 -

page 4 g) By January 1,;1975, and annually thereafter, the company shall report to the Co=iission and shall show cause, if any the company has, ec to why the company should not proceed with dispatch to the design and

, installation of particulate centrols en its existing ccil-fired boilers.

h) Cy July 1,1930, co i Chemical Ccmpany shall purchase its steam and power requircments in sufficient quanitities or make other operating mod - l fications, as appropriate, to be approved in advance by the Cc.nmission, to ensure complete ccmpliance with 7.11 applicable state and federal pagi-culate and su1 fur' dioride emission limitations, such limitations being published in the Administrative Code.

6. The Dow Chemical Ccrpany and the staff agree that this stipulation and final order rescinds an agreement between the parties dated !! arch M,1973, entitled Voluntary Agrcement for Air Pollution Abatement.

Staff and Dow Chemical Ccapany both acknowledge that public hearings on this abatcasnt program t:are held before the Coaission on December 18, 1973.

Both staff and Dow Chemical' Company hereby consent to enforcement of this stipulation and Final Order in the same manner and by the same procedures for all final . orders entered pursuant to Section 16 of Act 257 of the Public Acts of 1972, being Section 336.26 of the ftichigan Co-piled Laws, including, but s

not lim. cd to, enforcement by legal action brought under 1972 PA 257 and/cr 1970 PA 12/.

Appr//oved as to Form an Cont $nt: -

/ - . -

.?

)/? J.:'ll/c },k 1 .

.;f^

I !IIIllEid DivisiE1 21. LcA[d r :, Vice Prc::Id. .i t. 5/3/ 74 I. Dow Chemical Company

. Dat.ed: ._

(.

Consent Order tio. 12-73-05 .

Page 5

/n,-ve! cs to Content: Aoproved a: to Fcra:

h,1)d O ! C

/ . f N V

c,g',a. -> : :D..., ,,m / .\.s f's).

, ,i, p(.xvin -

a

- ~ . .- . . . - ~. -

Les k'Ja g r, Cnief 5t.cwart ::. Freecan Air Polluti::n,Codral Divisicn Assistant /,ttorney General

-w-Dar. art =ent of ::atural Rescurces . . , ,_

Ci.tei: snin Dated: lil % ! .>,. I et .a//gy U

. -FIf!AL GRDER .

This Comission having read the above stated Stipulation for Entry of -

Consent Order, and the Commiss, ion being further fully advised in the pre ;ises,

. IT IS ORDERED that this Consent Order shall be entered in the record of this Cc=ission I.s stated herein.

air POLLUTIO:l C0riTROL C0""ISSIO.1

.By: l..f I. b( '4 : t.d!:f

, Ralph u. Purdy Executive Secretary .'

Dated: N'-/ 7- 7 -

s -

o 9 '

4/15//'4 .

I

- $$ fer ** Q

.fxhittit 6b

/

(

\

STATE O.: MICHIGA.'l [-( - O / h r 's 86[3 O

~l g r. f, > c!.s I

.w rt w ,s: N u n es coteus 2 04 es s s ;>'en.e

• Y, '

. . u.m -

mun.: a. utuxsn. ommer f;

'!.77 'r.I,'.1

- - v. .rw DEPARTMINT Or NATURAL RISOURCES

. .++ t % 2 8 3

• stevm 7. 3.mc i su:'. . c. tv.wo. 3.'cwon m:4

. . u.. . : .: .u.m NOWA.93 A. Th.?.EA. C. evor December 5, 1975 N'jir- . . .. .

- L~. , v g g DEC Frank M. Brower, Ph.D. n. 2 IS?O Director of Environmental Control "'

Dow Chemical Company ctrag %

623 Building Midland, Michigan 48640 .

~ ,

Daar Dr. Brower:

We view with considerable alarm the Dow Chemical Ccmpany's inability to prevent the ambient sulfur dioxide concentration.from exceeding the maximum 24-hour national ambi,ent air quality standard in the Midland area on December 1,1975. It is apparent to staff that the control strategy con-tained in consent order no. 12-7.3-05 batween the 001 Chemical Company and the Michigan Air Pollution Ccntrol Commission is not adequate to protect the public health or the citizens of Midland. As this is a most serious matter, it is our intent to -file with the Michigan Air Pollution Control Co :nission at its meeting of December 16, 1975 an administrative complaint requesting a changa in the consent order to provide for more certain compliance with the air quality standards.

You will be advised of the content of the administratiu cer: plaint in the near future.

"e respectfully request that the company submit to this office by December 12, 1975, the following infomation: (1) ERT's predicted S0 all grid locations.for flovember 30 and December 1,1975;2(concentrations 2) hourly fuel type, at_.e fuel use rates, and sulfur dioxide emission rates for each boiler for the same 48-hour period specified in (1); (3) other dispersion parameters, including teteorological data used by ERT to predict a.r.bient 50p concentrations darino that 43-hour period; (4) a narrative description of tTie control measures ~

reco.T. mended by ERT and the control measures implemented by the company.

Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Robert Miller at (517) 373-8540.

Very truly yours, JI 0

.uc u/ w" I

Lee E. Jig?r,/ /Chief LEJ:dre Air Pollution Control Division

, ,' ,dhN : Can White -

• . .", '"" ' 3) Ste.vart Freec'an 48 e: t \

to a: . ')

$** f , '

..pf.

• Exhibit 8e c c.: L.TMik

, STATE OF t.HCMIGA'1

(

.} "s *-."N',

n, a J "f~ C-

. ,m ,,w,uu c m

.m / / ~.:*!-

, g J$ !&wl f:[f[f' - vm.uru c. mtun.n. com.,or nt~M -W U, . . . e*.,. ./'.;,.::.

.v.a DEPARTM2.T OF NATURAL .9ESOURCES 3;. L. w" t sr:vws r. uucn cm..m. v .;m. ac'aam um

         . .. . ...:. m                                              MC.'i)30 A TA%iR. O'r.c::r                           . . .. , .

f- .s ,

                                                                                . December 24, 1975 P.r. Joseph Temple General Manager                                 -                         .

Cow Chemical Ccapany . Midland Division . 2020 Dew Center

                            !!idland, ?!ichigan          48640

Dear Hr. Temple:

The flichigan Air Pollution Centrol Cc. mission will meet on January 1975' 20 at the Delta Administration Building, 7710 Mest Sa.ginaw Highway, Lansin 11ch2gan. According Final Order to f!o.the terms of Stipulation for Entry of Consent Order and . 12-73-05 entered between Dow Che .ical Ccacany and the P,ichigan Air dollution Control Co:anission, the cc:pany is' required to annually repor-i to the Ccroissica and show cause, if any the com any has, as to why the cc pany should not proceed with dispatch toh t' a design fired and installation of particulate centrols en its existing coal-boilers. - There trill be opportunity during the Cc ci::sion's teetin' g on January 20,for the. company to make this required demonstrati . Additionally, it is rquested that the ccmpany be prepared to explain to the Ccmissic: . by air quality monitors in the !!idland area curing the pericd of i:ovember 30 to Dece=ber 1,1975.

                                                                                                                                                          ~

high levels constitute a violation of the federal air quality standar roe Comission, the sulfur dioxide i!o. and, in addition, are in violation of the Order of 12-73-05. ' Order ofrers Ice possibility of future violations of both the feder air quality standards and recccmends that the existing Order be acdified. Staff uould be happy to meet with representatives of the company prior to the January 20 Ccmaission meeting in an attempt to developy a~autuall satisfactory solution to this sulfur dioxide question. There is currentlu as to particulate eatss1ons at which time vie v;ould discuss the sulrur dioxide issue.

  %~.     ,-
   ~

RECEIVED

  *'$.r'f)
  '1,                                                                                              JAN - 51978 5.t n-

i...

. .

3 *1 .;;.

                                                                                                ..rui.u    .
                                                                                                             ....

• A

       ..-                                        t                                                           j                                   -

e. \ (

, Mr. Joseph Tecple - Dow Chemical Ccapany Page 2 - As soon as the Cc;:nicsion'c agenA ' ~ ' 4- -,, - ' tw.. we will sand a copy to you. - in32ry 20 meeting, Very ,t=ly y urs,

                                                                                       )

yy l M 4'-

                                                            .                          Lee E. Jag'ar, Chie-T                                                                                                                     '
                                               ,                                       Air Pollution Control Division l                      LEJ:cah                                                                                                   -

cc: Frank Brower ~ Delbert Rector ,

                         . Air Pollution Centrol Co.T.missioners g

e W i Q . en G t , - I O . s 4 . 4

                                                                                                                                                                                                                *e e

i 4 l l I. < l l ! l , I

                                                                                                           -. -     -_-     -      .- 2
                                                                                         < J ,_ :.u .:.:< i                             '

Exhibit 8d STATE Oi- taiCHIGAN l R d 6,y e d ^Y C E Y [ MV-<d# .Afgut E!3Og;AC15 CO$4M83320M 2.: - i - a c m. I r:'t.r': v.n.ux:., c. ,.sitaxt:4. co.. no, nn ;;f.1 c.n 4te *e W**tttY DEPARTMEFF OF N.a.TURAL. RESOURCES

  .,  . L. s. A31                         STEv3?;3 T. ?.*AS.Jit S'; L'; 'ti. U'.3M 'r",N.94's '3325 CM413 G. voss3t.0.'E                                 h&AAdu A. TA?iNICI, D rector January 15, 1976 Mr. Joseph Temple General Manager Dow Chemical Company Midland Division 2020 Dow Center                                                                            .

Midland, Michigan 48640

Dear Mr. Temple:

At a meetirig on January 15, 1976 in our Lansing office, Dr. Frank Bro'.ter indicated that the Dow Chemical Company is in the process of making modifi-catio:is to boilers number 14 and 15 in the Southside Power They Plant. also indicated that they were not aware of permits having been applied for or obtained from the Michigan Air Pollution Control Commissica for these modifications. Please be advised that the rules of the Commission require that permits be obtained prior to installation or modification of tnis type of equipment and the Air Pollution the necessary Control Act makes it a criminal offense to proceed without permits. until appropriate permits are obtained.You are hereby advised to discontinue any modifi You are further ady! sed that failure to comply with these permit requirements will result in appropriate administrative or legal action . Very truly ym rs, SSAC 'd !W \ Lee E. Jafer( Chief Air Pollution Control Division LEJ:rac- i l cc: Mr. Stewart Freeman Dr. Frank Brower F s %..- s:n z

_. .. - . . . , _ - .- - - - - - " - - - " -- -" E

              ?.                                                                                                                                                               __.,

b '

                                                                                                                                                                                      *~'

(( ExhiPt8e '.h.

                                                                                                                                       , . a... .

g STATE OF MICHIGAN s s' w,w. nw. :n :ewwon -

                                                                         @l1
                                                                           -l
                                                                                                        ,c.                   a.3                                          s.~..>
                                                       ~
                                                                              -                                            <. 4 m 6.w.J
    ', ',7 [.f.E,[                                       wiwm c. u:wetsu, ommor                                 (J, h4                                                              ,

7.7,,7.7.1 DEPARThlENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES g . / L ,'M. e.we p w on'.tf STEVENS 7. MASON CUILO:NG. LAN3:NG. f.ttG't:GAN 45923 n.W t. v. ~r.'l HOWARO A. TANNER. 0;tecMr /MS

• t*/r.!* G c. 4tGv3 January 22, 1976 Mr. Joseph Temple R E C Ej y g;-)

General Manager Dow Chemical Company llidland Division JAN 2 s m-n 2020 Dow Center tiidland, Michigan 48540 Mca. , .4,, g

Dear !!r. Temple:

At its meeting of record on January 20, 1976, the liichigan Air ?cilution Control Commission considered two matters pertaining to your c:- The first matter had to do with a report by your company as re .:pany. ired by Stipulation for Entry of Consent Order and Final Order No. 12-73-05

                    .to show cause as to why the company should not proceed at this ti: e with the installation of particulate controls on its coal-fired boiters. The second matter had to do uith the levels of sulfur dioxide whic.h eccured as a result of your company's coal burning activities in the "idiend community during the period l'ovember 30 - December 1,1975.

In regard to the first matter, the Commission expressed concerr over the lead time that would be required to implement strategies t: centrol particulata emissions in crder to caet the deadline required by Order No. 12-73-05. The Cor.ission urged the company to review with its staff the alternative strategies presently under consideration for caeting this deadline and to identify the time schedules required to inplement each of the strategies. The intent of this revieu uculd b5 to identify increments of progress and set dates for their accccplish-ment so that compliance with the deadline of July 1,1930 uculi be achieved. I would hope that the company's plans for compliance with the Cocaission's particulate caission standards can be adequataly identified so that this portion of Order No. 12-73-05 need not be an issue in contested case hearings that may now be held as a res:lt of the Commission's Order for Rehearing which is discussed later in tnis latter. In regard to the second matter, the position of the Cc nissior's staff was that, since levels of sulfur dioxide had cccurred during t' e period Movember 30 - December 1,1975 which trould probably have been ;revented had the company implemented instructicns received frc its corsaltant under the SCS previously approved by the Comnission, the Consent Order should be modified to defend against such future occurrences. The

t. .m

6.

f. r i f s .

N iir. Joseph Temple . January 22,197G ccapany's positica es presented by i;r. Frank Leoc;er and Mr. Louis Pribila uas that, since in the co 7.a;'.c eis: .c ticlatica of t?.e fr.darai air cuality :hndtru or k.uhr. .:rJar .o. 12-73-05 had occurred, the company nas unwilling to negotiate a revised crder. - After hearing from the ccapany, staff end inter:sted perscr.s, the Cc.=ission entered an " Order for I:oWrinf dich requires tb?.t a record for reconsideration be preoared, Inat Final urder :;o. 12-73-05 r rain in full force pending further consideratica by tia Ccanission end further required that the Acting Executive Secretary of the Co.Taission give formel written notice to the company by formal service of a copy of the Order that the Commission's determination that facts pertaining to this case rey varrant a modification of Fin-:1 Grder .:c. 12-72-05 uill also serve as a letter of transmittal of a copy of the Order of theThis lettee, Commission. It is my understanding that, although this Order for Rehearing paves the way for formal proceedings such as before a hearing officer, the entry of this order by the Cc: mission does not preclud2 reaching an agreement and bringing such an agreement before the Ccamission uith I no formal hearings being held. This latter ccurse would be the preference of the Coraission's staff and I encourage.you to evaluate the staff's position, as we shall yours, and would request that another meeting be h' eld between Dow Chemical Company representatives, representativesof this office, and representatives of the Attorney General's office to attempt to work out a mutually agreeable solution in this matter. I suggest February 3, 4 or 5,1975 for such a meeting and if a meeting is agreeable to you, I request that you select one cr affar alternative dates. l.'e are willing to meet with you in our office in Lansing or your offices in liidland, whichever is preferable to you. . I look forward to your early reply. Very truly yours, AIR POLLUTIO 1 C0.'!TP.0L CO.';'USSIOff p'0 s.ur W4W LeeE.Jagir/ Acting Executive Secretary LEJ:mah e

                                                                          --e

                                        .v g               _~ s s n "'E e .e      .   .e                                                          .

t

• 6

       /                                    [                                                                  #                          '

Q Exhibit 6f . ye - .. a t ~. ., w, a

                                                                                            ....s.

r .. .-

                                                                                    ..s..--.

c.1.o. .r.s. t. t. .,

                                                                        . c.    .         .
                                                                                                        . . . . ; .. ..,, ,I
                                                                  ~          -
                                          .                    CI s !'CL./ '  M..: : .

s w. "..n  : Lar. sing, .'U.dtigm: _ Jmmesy .22, 1976 1, Lee E. Jage.1, Acting Execu.tive Sec.tc.tzty of 6 e ,t.i.r. PolCutt.io;: C Co.=Lsson, 00 HERESY CERTIFY B:zt autexed J.s a. 2.r.= copy of _ - ' ' ce ORDER FC? REKEL RTli.'; on nic Cc:~. minion'.s 71.wi O'do.' - W

                                                                                                                              . I'l-73-ng ar.d 6:ct I have ccAefulig compmed tJte said copy, consis.                                                                    ting of M s. ee (5) pages, tein: Die o.tiginal titueof now on file a:d of <tecatd in kJte offic          ,

said Ccn=ission,' cr.d Bta.t it is a ccrtect in;'.sev:pt- l1:e.tefror.t and o d :a l e D icr.eo f. , *

                                                                                                                          ,_. ../                         .

W

                                       ',                                           By:        <.10 M Lee c. Jagc?. j t

[('74W@/ - f Actir.; Exec::.ive Secrcisty , dit Lot Pollutica 5ing, RLehiCentici 51 Cornission i 2  !

                                                                                                                                                                                  \

O e, __< -. -

i ' t i t STt.".' *: CS* P.(C*uGA:: s DEPARTME!!T OP NATUPM. RESCURCCD AIR POLLUTION CONTRO . COMMICSIO:: In tha matter of administrative pro:cedings

• againnt DOh CHEMICAL CO2TANY, a Dclawar2 corporation , concerning nulfur dioxide and particulate cmiacions from foncil fucl
• APC I:c.

burning operations at the Midland Division = 12-73-05~ in the City of Midland, County of hidland,

                                ' State of Michigan. -                  w-          --.                                        -
                                                                                                                                       ... 1
                                                                                                                                     ?- ..

ORDER ?OR REHEARING , i 21 a public session of the Air Pollution Control t 4 - l

                               ' Commission, on Tuesday, January 20, 1976, at the Delta Tcwnship Hall, the Co miss. ion having heard from both the Air Pollution Control Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
                                                                                                        ~

and from rep'resentatives of the Dow Chemical Company, concerning I . sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions from foccil fucl , bur'ning operations at the Midland Division of the Dow Chemical Co..pany, ,

                                               , A.sd, it appearing to the Comm,ission.from the ma' ters heard that' Final Commission Order No. 12-73-05$,,           ,

as . written, -

                                                                                                                                            ~

may 'not be affording the public the degree of protection uhich

                               ,was intended by the Commissien and which t'he Conmission views as being both necessary and desirable to prevent and. minimize                                               '

degradation of the environment and to protect both 'the public , health and the air,g resource,.and,the public trust therein, frem"

                               . impairmant,

• And, it further appearing to the Commission that Final Order no. 12-73-05 should he reconsidered, And,.the Commicsion being cognizant that Final Order 12-73-Os concernn the first cupplementary control e

   .                                                                                                               .                                 j

1 # syntem approved for implomsitation in this C' Late of :-lichigan, and that t hic part i re la r :.:yn t a e .. 'u:. . of th.. fiu.t .. t. m : . De operational in the United Statou, co that the Co.mtL :Lon, in appro/ Final Order 12-73-05, was acting without benefit of preevien':. or c>:poric$co, - 1 And, it further app 2aring that cortain propo.:cd modifications by D:r.r Chemical . Company at the itidinnd f acility

                                                                 .                  s concerning this system will be subject to the permit rules of thic Commission,                                                                           

2 And, it being the Co: mission's desire to con 12!c: this system _i_n, toto ather .than considering various portion: o' tha syctem piecemeal through the pa=:it process, And, the Co=missica having discretionary authority, pursuant to Section 5(c) of the Air Pollution Act, being 1955 PA 348, as amended by 1972 PA 257, to "make, codif' or canec1'

             , .                orders which reqtiire, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, ,the control,of air pollu ion,"

And, the Cornission having discretionary authority to ordar rehearings on its cwn totid,n pursuant to sgetion 07 of t.hc Administrative Procedures Act, haing 19G9 PA 306, an ccend.ca by 1970 PA 40, '

                                       .        NOW, T!!EPCFOP2, IT IS ORD2P3D that there be a rehearing of the provisions of Final Order 12-73-05.
                                                    ~                                                                         ,

It is further ordered that a record for reconsideration be prepared cither by agrec= cat of the partiec, or in the courne of formal proceeding for preparation of a proposal for decidion before a hearing officer to be designated by the Director oC the Depart =cnt cf "atural Recour ce. - i < l 2 . l ( .

                                                                             .       -                    _~                  ..                                     .

J a I t - i.e. Tur'.M r t r'. ,: d t'.:'. rina l ora. R . 7 * ,1 *s chall remain in ful) force i:r.d ef fect pending a deciaion on reconciduration by the Cor=ission. . 4 f i , It is further crdered that the 1,cting E>:acutiva l Sect:'tcry of th0" Cc=-ir...io.. c iv.: for.al .triLLen notice to P,

j. Chemical Compani by fo..ul sr.r rica "si a copy of thic ordet

                                - that the facts, and conduct of Cow Chc:'ical Company, an alleged
                 .              . by taf f in the sta f f activity rcport, de.ted January 20, 1976,                                                                            '

2 and natters brought forth this date hofore che Co::::.tission . a.. in public session, nay warrant, upo.. reccacid-aration of this natter, a modification of the proricienc of Final order i* q .

                                   .12-73-05'.                                            -

i , s. - t

                                                             , This ORDER is effcetive immediately.

i . i ' 1

           \                                                                           ./t-,-                ,                ->h's,. ' . x' Wcc Chritt:.3:i                          '       . %

For thf Corr.ission

                                                        ,                               Upon Vote of the Co:c.ission 1

l. January 21, 1916 1 -

           !                        This C 'cr drafted by:

• 1 p n W

                                             "254      e o #8G.,6C':~               c                                                  -

5

                                                                    *,w                                                .

Stewart H. Freeman . . Assistant Attorney General

• i

.r 6 i . 3 1 l i l l l

r.  :

c _ . _ _ . , , i

_ _ _ ._ -- _ - =m

   . q , .-                                      .

4.. 9 to :;r a,. {, ( Exhibit 8g i 9%p.uno ,g

    .?

f ,l'D Qq i UNITED STATES ENVIRONNENTAt. PROTECTION AGENCY #g P. 3g 4:;y9v,,, j . necron v m soum czmoan cr. 5 6,g(]j g g g l

     %,         , ,, y                          caic4co. iwsois soso4                          ,   ,j p

CERTIFIED f4 AIL M RETURil RECEIPT REQUESTED FW hiM 2 61975 - U" , e lir. Frank Ii. Brewer

• ff/ /

F :d lianager, Environmental Control iiichigan Division of Dow Chemical Co. h . [,] 628 Suilding liidland, Ilichig.a 4S540 )'

Dear idr. Brower:

l I Under the provisicns of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 951857 i et. seq., the Administrator of the United States Environcental Protection 8 Ager.cy-(EPA) approved portions of an implementation plan submitted by the i State of liichigan to attain the national ambient air quality ' standards for j particulate matter and sulfur dioxide within the Central flichigan Intrastata

• Air Quality Control Region (40 C.F.P.. Part 52, 37 FR 10873). The provisiens i

             .sc approved include: R 335.11 through R 336.14; R 335.41 through R 335.49;                      !

R 335.51 through R 335.54; R 336.61 and R 336.62 of the liichigan Air Pollution l Centrol Regulations concerning control of particulate matter and sulfur i dioxide emissions. These regulations are enforceable by the State of liichigan j and the Federal Government. j i It has been determined that the information requested hwin is necessary i to d termine whether the Dow Chemical Co. West side and South side Powsr house  ! is in compliance with applicable provisions of the State Implementation i Plan. Accordingly, you are hereby required under authority of Sections 113 i and ll4(a) of the Act (a copy of which is enclosed) to report the inforcation I' requested in the attached Air Pollutant Emissions Report. Instructions fer completing this report are also attached. Copies of the applicable  ! 1973 iiichigan Air Pollution Reporting Forms (AP-101 thru AP-104) should i also be submitted. - 2 In addition, if you are in compliance sith the above-cited flichigan Air b Pollution Control Ccemission Regulations, you are hereby required to certify i such compliance to this agency and to indicate the basis for your certification. I Further, for any regulations with respect to which you do not certify compli, ii ance, ycu are hereby required to state whether letters of intent or plans i. and specifications have been submitted to the State of liichigan under the pr: visions of the above-cited regulation.

                                       .                                                                         i'.

[ t Additionally, you are required under authority of Section 114(a) to allcw P EPA personnel to freely enter any of your facilities at 14idland, iiichigan I to review any records, inspect any monitoring equipment or rrethod, and sample i or observe any emissions. Your cooperation in this hatter will be appreciated. i

                                                                                                             'l:

! i i

f

                         'g i    6                                                                       ,

I

• f 3, -

         .                            \                                      (

a e t i 1-I The inferratior required by this !chtic 5 -11 5 ha su':-ittad to Mr. Ce.vid  ! 1*oo , Chi ? f , '.ie Uforc.m ac'. '< ~S , m " - r.c. *:: .:::.,h gion i.', nc 12tec  ; than 15 days after the date of its recaipt. A copy of this reply should j also be sent to Mr. Lee E. Jacar, Chief, Of.*ision o' pir Pollution Ccatrol, . Mic tigan Capartnent cf Fa tura i .hsr.urcos , CICO :. ort- Luyan Straat, L. .t,in.;, - Michigan 40914. If you are in tha pre:;3.; -? ::rrik , cut 2 complian: , prc; ram, whethtr' for:31 or inforr.al, whicn has beer. a:preved in any tranr.r , by the Michigan Air Pollution Cen:rol Ccecissica, a copy of such program should be attached to your reply to Mr. F.es. Any chacges in the infornation . provided pursuant to this request cust be riported nc later than fivs days  ! after such change occurs. This continuing requirecent to provide notification of changas in the infernatica coverad by this letter shall remain in affact i for a period of six conths froa the date of this latter. Any question concernir.g i i' this request may be directed to Mr. !!illiam Beyer or Mr. Peter Kelly of I!r. Kee's j staff, who may be contacted by telephone at (312) 3 3-3730, or 1346. < 3 I ' You ar2 hereby advised that if the Environmental Protection Agancy, en the basis of any information available to it, determines that your firm is in l violatica of any applicable regulation ar.d is not follouing an acceptable' i cc.rpliance program, your firm will be liable for apprcpriate action purcuant i to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act.  !

                                                  .                                                         t Very truly yours,                                   j n

hks Nsuww  ! i i 1 ames 0. Mcdonald, Director i Enforcement Division i: Attachcents a/s . ; E cc: Mr. Lee E. Jager .t Chief, Division of Air Pollution Centrol Michigan Department of !!atural P.esour:as li;

                                                                                                              's i

e i. I i~ 4

                                                                                                        .      I i

1 I

                                                                                                              .I ir
                                                                                                   -,}}