ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 23,
    1979
    FEDERAL PAPER BOARD COMPANY, INC.,
    Petitioner,
    PCB 79—69
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    MS.
    PERCY L.
    ANGELO, MAYER, BROWN
    & PLATT, APPEARED ON BEHALF
    OF PETITIONER;
    MS. LORETTA A.
    ~EBER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
    BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Goodman):
    On March
    29,
    1979 Federal Paper Board Company,
    Inc.
    (Federal)
    filed a Petition for Review of Permit Denial,
    alleging that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) wrongfully denied Federal~s operating permit appli-
    cation regarding a coal-fired boiler at its Morris,
    Grundy
    County,
    Illinois plant.
    A hearing was held on June 21, 1979
    and a
    Stipulation of Fact was filed with the Board on June
    25,
    1979,
    No members of the public were present at the hearing,
    and the Board has received no public comment
    in this matter.
    Federal owns and operates a plant
    for the recycling of
    wastepaper into paper packaging products in Morris,
    Illinois.
    The boiler in question is
    a traveling grate, stoker—type
    coal—fired boiler.
    The boiler has
    a maximum firing rate of
    179 million Btu per hour and is used to produce process and
    heating steam.
    Pursuant to an operating permit issued by the
    Agency on August 16,
    1973,
    Federal equipped the boiler with a
    multiple cyclone mechanical dust collector which cost approxi-
    mately $300,000,
    and also switched to low sulfur coal.
    The
    permit was to expire
    in August,
    1978.
    On May
    9,
    1978,
    Federal applied for renewal of its boiler
    operating permit.
    The application was denied by the Agency on
    June
    15,
    1978 for the reason that a stack test taken in 1973
    demonstrated boiler particulate emissions of
    0.8 lbs.
    per
    million Btu and a sulfur emission rate of 4.4
    lbs. per million
    Btu.
    Federal then arranged for a new stack test to be conduc—
    :35—217

    —2—
    ted.
    Results
    of the new stack test demonstrated an average
    particulate emission rate of
    0.144
    lbs. per million Btu by F
    factor calculation and 0.17
    lbs.
    per million Btu by “conven-
    tional” calculation.
    On January
    9,
    1979,
    Federal reapplied
    for an operating permit,
    stating that its plant was not con-
    tributing
    to any
    failure
    to attain or to maintain ambient air
    quality
    standards.
    The Agoncy’s February
    22, 1979 denial of the second appli-
    cation resulted in the present petition.
    The Agency claims
    that Federal failed to demonstrate that its emission sources
    would not prevent the attainment or maintenance of the air
    quality standards for particulates set forth in Rule 307 of
    Chapter
    2.
    The Agency also claims that Federal’s particulate
    emission rate exceeded 0.1
    lb. per million Btu,
    the standard
    in Rule 203(g)(1)(A)
    of Chapter
    2,
    and the standard the Agency
    views
    as the emission level necessary
    to maintain air qualtiy
    (Respondent’s Brief,
    p.5).
    The Agency alleges that Federal
    has failed to meet its burden of proof that it will not violate
    Rule 102.
    Federal counters
    that
    it has not prevented the attainment
    or maintenance
    of air quality standards in Grundy County, and
    is not in violation of the standards
    in Rule 203(g)(1)(A).
    Federal submits
    that its permit application incorporated the
    Agency’s December
    5,
    1977 submission to the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency
    (U.S.
    EPA) which designated Grundy County
    as an attainment area for particulates.
    As further proof of
    compliance with Rule 102,
    Federal
    submits that
    it has never
    been deemed necessary to perform air quality modeling of
    Grundy County,
    Illinois.
    Federal contends that the results of the F factor analy-
    sis, an accepted engineering technique which
    is prescribed by
    the U.S.
    EPA,
    should be applicable
    in its case.
    Federal alleges
    that 0,144
    lbs. per million Btu as calculated by the
    F factor
    approach is equivalent to 0.1
    lb. per million Btu when rounded
    to the first significant decimal.
    Thus, Federal pleads com-
    pliance with the standards in Rule 203(g)(1)(A), and a
    facie case with regard to Rule 102.
    The first question before the Board is whether 0.144
    lbs.
    per million
    I3tu calculated by F factor or
    0.17
    lbs. per million
    Btu calculated by “conventional”
    calculation is the applicable
    omission rate.
    The Board finds
    that because the F factor
    (Ipproach was ~tpproved by
    Lhe
    Agency
    and
    was
    adopted
    by
    the
    parties
    in
    the
    Stipulation
    of
    Fact,
    the
    rate
    of
    0.144
    lbs.
    per
    million
    Btu
    by
    F
    factor
    is
    the applicable emission rate.
    T~oadditicnai questions before the Board concern whether
    Federal violated the standard of 203(g)(1)(A)
    and whether
    Federal failed
    to prevent attainment or maintenance of air
    quality standards in Grundy County.
    35—218

    —3—
    The Board will not engage
    in a game of semantics with
    respect
    to the standards of Rule 203(g)(1)(A) defining whether
    emission rates
    should be rounded to the first significant
    decimal when gauging compliance with the 0.1
    lb. per million
    Btu standard.
    As with all Regulations of this type,
    there
    will be some situations which,
    so to speak,
    fall through the
    cracks.
    It
    is the Board’s duty to resolve these situations
    based on the facts of the particular situation
    (U.S.
    Steel Corp.
    v.
    EPA,
    PCB
    77-317,
    p.4).
    The
    Agency
    is
    correct
    to
    consider
    Rule
    103’s
    ambient
    air
    standards
    in such
    a case as this.
    Wherever there
    is vagueness
    between compliance and non—compliance,
    the true public concern
    is
    the effect of the emissions on the environment.
    Federal
    must
    prove
    that
    it
    has
    not
    prevented
    the
    attain—
    ment or maintenance of ambient air quality in Grundy County,
    Illinois.
    Federal submits that Grundy County had been desig-
    nated as attainment
    for particulates but that Grundy County’s
    emissions have never been modeled.
    The Agency presents no
    evidence in rebuttal.
    The Board therefore
    finds that Federal’s
    emissions are not in violation of Rule 103 and that the Agency
    erred in
    its denial of the operating permit application for
    Federal’s coal—fired boiler.
    Therefore,
    the matter
    is reman-
    ded to the Agency for further action consistent with this
    Opinion.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclu-
    sions of law of the Board in this matter.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that the
    Agency’s denial
    of an operating permit for Federal Paperboard
    Company,
    Inc. be reversed and that this cause be remanded for
    further action consistent with this Opinion.
    Messrs.
    Young and Dumelle concur.
    I,
    Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of
    the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board,
    her ~y certify the abov
    Opinion and Order were
    ado~edon the
    _____
    day of
    ~1~LL4..~PL
    ,
    1979 by a vote
    ~
    Illinois Pollutio
    ntrol Board
    35—2 19

    Back to top