RECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JAN 3 0 2006
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
PETITION OF LAFARGE MIDWEST, INC .
)
AS 06-001
FOR BOILER DETERMINATION
)
(Adjusted Standard - Land)
PURSUANT TO 35 III. Adm. Code 720.132 and
)
720.133
.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO :
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Attn: Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
100 West Randolph Street
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
James G. Richardson, Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this 26 th day of January 2006, a copy of the attached
Petitioner's Response to Illinois EPA Amended Recommendation
was filed with the Office of the
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, a copy of which is herewith served on you
.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon
o, A o ey for
Petitioner Lafarge
idwest, Inc .
Howard & Howard Attorneys, P .C .
One Technology Plaza, Suite 600
211 Fulton Street
Peoria, IL 61602
(309) 672-1483
G.V-LU
fargc\SouthChicago\PCBFilingsNosicc Filing ResplEPMmendRewmm_I-26-06 .doc
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK'S
OFFICE
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
JAN 3 0 2006
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PETITION OF LAFARGE MIDWEST, INC
.
)
AS 06 -001
Pollution Control Board
FOR BOILER DETERMINATION
)
(Adjusted Standard - Land)
PURSUANT TO 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.132 and )
720.133
.
)
PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY AMENDED RECOMMENDATION
NOW COMES the Petitioner, LAFARGE MIDWEST, INC ., by and through its
attorneys, Howard & Howard Attorneys, P . C., pursuant to Section 104.418(c) of the procedural
rules [35 111. Admin. Code 104.418(c)], and presents to the Illinois Pollution Control Board
("Board") its Response to
Illinois EPA
Amended Recommendation .
In support of its Response, the Petitioner states as follows
:
I .
Background and Procedural History
On September 12, 2005, this Petitioner filed a Petition with the Illinois Pollution Control
Board seeking a determination that a slag dryer operated at its South Chicago Slag Grinding
Plant may be considered a boiler for the purposes of reclaiming thermal energy from utilizing
off-specification used oil as a supplemental fuel . The Board regulations at 35 Ill. Admin. Code
720.132 provide that the Board will make such a determination on a case-by-case basis by
evaluating the criteria specified at 35 Ill . Admin. Code 720.132 and by utilizing the Adjusted
Standard procedures of Subpart D of 35 Ill . Admin. Code Part 104
.
In accordance with the Board's procedural rules, specifically 35 Ill . Adm. Code
104.408(a), Petitioner arranged for publication of notice of its Petition in a newspaper of general
circulation in the area likely to be affected by Petitioner's activity. On September 30, 2005,
Petitioner timely filed with the Board a certificate of publication stating that the Daily Southtown
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
had published notice of the Petition on September 15, 2005 . Filing of the certificate complied
with the Board's procedural rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.410 .
On October 24, 2005, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, through its Assistant
Counsel James G. Richardson, filed its Recommendation to the Board in accordance with 35 Ill
.
Adm. Code 104.416. The Agency recommended that the Board grant the Petitioner's requested
relief.
On October 20, 2005, the Board issued an Order in this proceeding which directed the
Petitioner to provide additional information in support of its Petition and request for relief. The
Board's October 20th Order directed Petitioner to provide the requested additional information by
filing an Amended Petition in these pending proceedings
.
On December 5, 2005, Petitioner filed its Amended Petition for boiler determination
through adjusted standard proceedings. The Amended Petition addressed the Board's requests
for additional information and clarification as specified in its Order entered on October 20, 2005
.
On December 15, 2005, the Board issued an Order finding that Petitioner's Amended
Petition complied with the petition content requirements set forth in the Board's procedural rules
[35 Ill. Admin. Code 104.406], based on its initial review of the additional information,
clarifications and explanations provided in the Amended Petition. The Board's December 15`
,
Order allowed the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter "IEPA" or "Agency"), to
file an Amended Recommendation, provided the amendment did not cause material prejudice .
The Agency was directed to file its Amended Recommendation, if it chose to do so, on or before
January 17, 2006. As provided by the Board's procedural rules at Section 104 .418(c) [35 Ill.
Admin. Code 104.418(c)], Petitioner was given permission to file a reply to the Agency's
Amended Recommendation within 14 days after the date of receipt of the Amended
Recommendation.
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
2
On January 12, 2006, the Agency filed with the Board its Amended Recommendation,
designated Illinois EPA Amended Recommendation,
a copy of which was received by legal
counsel for the Petitioner on January 17, 2006
.
The Agency's Amended Recommendation
essentially asks Petitioner to clarify two statements or items of information included in the
Amended Petition. The Agency continues to recommend approval of the relief requested by the
Petitioner, provided its questions are addressed through these proceedings
.
Petitioner is now submitting its Response to Illinois EPA Amended Recommendation to
address the request for clarification included in the Agency's Amended Recommendation
.
Petitioner's response is timely filed within the deadlines specified by the Board's December 15` h
Order and Section 104.418(c) the Board's procedural rules [35 Ill. Admin. Code 104.418(c)]
.
II .
IEPA's Requests for Clarification - Costs of New or Modified Pollution Control
Equipment
In its Amended Recommendation, the Agency correctly notes that Item 6 of the Board's
October 20, 2005 Order requested information as to whether the use of off-specification used oil
would require the installation of any new or additional air pollution control devices or the
modification of existing pollution control equipment. If so, the Board requested information
regarding the costs of such new or modified pollution control equipment
.
In its Amended Petition, Petitioner addressed the Board's questions by providing a
description of the existing high-efficiency fabric filter baghouse pollution control equipment
currently controlling particulate emissions from the slag dryer and provided an estimate of the air
emissions expected to result from the combustion of off-specification fuel oil . Based on the
existence of state-of-the-art pollution controls for particulate emissions and the expected air
emissions from combusting off-specification used oil, Petitioner continues to believe that no
modifications to the existing baghouse control equipment will be required to further control any
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
3
non-gaseous particulate
emissions .
Additionally,
Petitioner continues to believe that no
additional pollution control equipment will be required to control emissions from the combustion
of off-specification used oil as supplemental fuel in the slag dryer
.
As acknowledged in the Amended Petition, utilization of off-specification used oil fuel in
the slag drying system would need to be reviewed and approved by the Agency's air permitting
officials, with issuance of a Construction Permit and/or modifications to the existing Operating
Permit.
All questions about the air pollutant emissions associated with combustion of off-
specification used oil fuel would be addressed and fully answered through the air permitting
review process
.
In its Amended Recommendation, the Agency notes a potential inconsistency between
Petitioner's statements concerning the adequacy of its existing pollution control equipment and a
statement regarding the costs of utilizing off-specification used oil as a supplemental fuel at the
South Chicago Slag Drying facility. IEPA makes the following observation :
On line 2
of
page 20
of
the Amended Petition, Petitioner indicates its
belief that the combustion
of
off-specification used oil as supplemental fuel in the
slag dryer will not require additional pollution control equipment . On line 10
of
page 14 is the statement that the cost savings from the use of specification used
oil did not justify the investment to burn used oil, but the lower cost of off-
specification used oil did make the project economically feasible .
These statements, and the statements referenced in Section
104.406(g) below, suggest that additional equipment and/or the modification of
existing equipment is required for the burning
of
used oil, but no details about the
equipment are contained in the Amended Petition
.
Currently, the Grinding Plant is designed and permitted to utilize natural gas as the sole
fuel for the slag drying system . If the Board makes a determination that the slag dryer is
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
4
classified a "boiler by designation" and allowed to combust off-specification used oil fuel,
Petitioner will need to make physical improvements at its South Chicago facility for the receipt
of fuel shipments, on-site storage and conveyance of the used oil fuel to the slag dryer
.
In
addition, Petitioner believes that the actual burners of the slag dryer may need to be modified
such that the both natural gas and used oil fuel may be combusted in the slag dryer
.
The
"
.
.
.investment required to burn used oil in the slag dryer" statement in the Amended
Petition refers to the capital expenditures associated with design, purchase and installation of the
ancillary equipment, such as tanks, pumps, piping and possibly burner reconfigurations, needed
to receive, store, convey and combust the supplemental used oil fuel . Additional operation and
maintenance costs are also associated with installation of the ancillary equipment to allow use of
off-specification used oil as a supplemental fuel for the slag dryer . The projected capital costs
associated with the proposed use of off-specification used oil fuel do not include new pollution
control equipment or modifications to the existing control equipment
.
The Agency's Amended Recommendation also included a recommendation that
Petitioner provide its costs of burning natural gas in the slag dryer . That cost information was
not identified by IEPA as required to satisfy the substantive criteria for the Board to make a case-
by-case boiler designation but only that such information "could be useful . "
Operating cost information for the South Chicago facility, particularly natural gas prices
and contract terms, is extremely sensitive information the release of which could jeopardize
Petitioner's profitability and damage existing contractual relationships with suppliers and
customers. Unless absolutely necessary to secure the relief requested from the Board, Petitioner
respectfully declines to submit proprietary operating cost information and natural gas
cost/pricing data at this time, because it would be fully accessible to the general public and to
Petitioner's competitors .
If submittal of Petitioner's operating costs, natural gas costs,
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
5
contractual terms and/or natural gas pricing structure is deemed necessary for the Board's
determination in these proceedings and is specifically requested by the Board, Petitioner will
request that such information be maintained as confidential and protected against disclosure
pursuant to Part 130 of the Board's rules [35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 130], designed for the
protection of sensitive proprietary information such as trade secrets and other non-disclosable
information
.
III .
IEPA's Requests for Clarification - Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide
In its Amended Recommendation, the Agency correctly notes that Item 7 of the Board's
October 20, 2005 Order requested Petitioner to provide emission levels for all contaminants of
concern under both the rule of general applicability and the proposed relief. That information
was provided in the Amended Petition submitted by Petitioner on December 5, 2005, which was
accepted by the Board for determination,
as referenced in the Board's Order entered on
December 15
.2005
.
Although Petitioner has provided the information requested by the Board, the Agency
raises a question about language in the Amended Petition characterizing the potential increases
in sulfur dioxide emissions associated with annual combustion of 500,000 gallons/year of off-
specification used oil supplemental fuel . IEPA makes the following observation
:
On line 17 of page 5 of the Amended Petition, Petitioner indicates that a
negligible increase in sulfur dioxide emissions is the only emissions change
expected from the utilization of off-specification used oil. Then on line 5 ofpage
24, the statement is made that only the sulfur dioxide emission from the
combustion of off-specification used oil would exceed the allowable emissions
under the current Lifetime Operating Permit .
The current Lifetime Operating
Permit, provided in Exhibit G, indicates that the maximum annual allowable
emission for sulfur dioxide is 1 .23 tons/year. In Table 3 of Exhibit F, the potential
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
6
emissions from the dryer when using off-specification used oil are 37 .13 tons/year
for sulfur dioxide .
These various references to sulfur dioxide emissions do not appear to be
consistent and should be clarified by Petitioner.
Petitioner acknowledges that use of the term "negligible" in the introductory sections of
the Petition may have caused some question about the amount of sulfur dioxide emissions that
are estimated to be associated with utilizing off-specification used oil as a supplemental fuel
.
Use of the term "insignificant" would have been more accurate to characterize the expected
emissions increase. The potential annual increase in sulfur dioxide emissions associated with
combusting 500,000 gallons of supplemental off-specification used oil fuel, the maximum
amount of supplemental used oil fuel anticipated by Petitioner, would not be "significant" as that
term is used and applied in the Board's air permitting regulations, e .g. see 35 Ill. Admin. Code
Part 203
.
Exhibit F to the Amended Petition provides calculations of the emissions of all
contaminants of concern identified in the Board's October 20 th Order, specifically PM, S0 2 , CO,
VOM, and NOx, that would result from the combustion of up to 500,000 gallons/year of off-
specification used oil as supplemental dryer fuel. Exhibit F also includes calculations of the
emissions of the same air contaminants, specifically PM, S02, CO, VOM, and NOx, that result
from the combustion of natural gas in the slag dryer under current facility operations .
Petitioner reaffirms the accuracy of the emissions estimates set forth in Exhibit F of the
Amended Petition. As demonstrated by Exhibit F and the supporting calculations, there will be
no "significant" increase in emissions of sulfur dioxide resulting from combustion of up to
500,000 gallons/year of off-specification used oil as supplemental dryer fuel . All air emissions
associated with combustion of off-specification used oil fuel would be less than the allowable
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
7
emissions under the current Lifetime Operating Permit for the South Chicago facility, with the
exception of sulfur dioxide
.
As acknowledged in the original and Amended Petitions, utilization of off-specification
used oil fuel in the slag drying system must be reviewed and approved by the IEPA air
permitting officials, with issuance of a Construction Permit prior to proceeding with the
proposed project and modifications to the existing Lifetime Operating Permit. The permitting
process would ensure that all emissions associated with combustion of off-specification used oil
fuel would be in full compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements and environmental
standards .
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests a determination from the Illinois Pollution Control
Board that the slag dryer operated at the South Chicago Slag Grinding Plant satisfies the criteria
set forth in Section 720.132; is a "Boiler by designation" within the meaning of 35 Ill. Adm .
Code 720.110; and may utilize off-specification used oil for energy recovery, in compliance with
Section 739.161 of the Board's regulations (35 III . Adm. Code 739.161) .
Respectfully submitted,
LAFARGE MIDWEST, INC., Petitioner
Jon S. Faletto
Howard & Howard Attorneys, P.C .
One Technology Plaza, Suite 600
211 Fulton Street
Peoria, IL 61602
(309) 672-1483
(309) 672-1568 FAX
jsf@H21aw.com
G.V-LVafarge\SoutbChicngo\Pttition\RcspoDse AmcndRaommCM_I-26Ab .doc
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
8
By:
ttorney for Petitioner
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
:
)
PETITION OF LAFARGE MIDWEST, INC .
)
AS 06-001
FOR BOILER DETERMINATION
)
(Adjusted Standard - Land)
PURSUANT TO 35 Ill. Adm. Code 720.132 and
)
720.133
.
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached Petitioner's Response to Illinois
EPA Amended Recommendation upon the person or agency to whom it is directed, by placing it in
an envelope addressed to :
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Attn: Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
100 West Randolph Street
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
James G. Richardson, Asst. Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
and mailing it via First Class U .S. Mail from Peoria, Illinois, on this 26 1h day of January 2006,
with sufficient postage affixed thereto
.
Jon
etto,
As
Attorney for
Pe
er Lafarge Midwest, Inc .
Jon S. Faletto
Howard & Howard Attorneys, P.C
.
One Technology Plaza, Suite 600
211 Fulton Street
Peoria, IL 61602
(309) 672-1483
G.V-L\ a(mgc\Sowli CTicago\PCB Pilings\Cat Sm_RcpIEPMmendRecomn_I-26-06 .doc
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
