ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 25,
1988
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PROPOSED SITE—SPECIFIC
)
PARTICULATE LIMITATIONS
)
R87—12
FOR SCHROCK’S SAWDUST
)
FIRED BOILERS IN ARTHUR,
)
ILLINOIS
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Marlin):
This matter comes before the Board
on a petition for site—
specific relief filed by Schrock/A Division of White Industries
(Schrock)
on April
13,
1987.
Specifically, Schrock is seeking an
exemption from 35
Ill. Adm. Code 212.204 which imposes a
particulate emission limitation of 0.1 pounds per million British
thermal units (lbs./mmbtu).
Instead of that limit, Schrock seeks
to be subject
to
a particulate emission limit of 0.28 lbs./mmbtu.
On May 14,
1987, the Board granted the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(Agency) motion to incorporate
into this proceeding
the record of PCB 86—205, which was
a
Schrock variance proceeding concerning the same particulate
emissions.
At hearing, the Agency and Schrock moved again
for
incorporation of PCB 86—205.
That joint motion was granted by
the Hearing Officer
(R.
7).
A hearing was held
in this matter on July 30,
1987
in
Arthur;
no members
of the public were present.
The Board will
denote citations to the transcript of that hearing by “R”.
Also,
on July 30th,
the Board held a separate hearing in PCB 86—205.
The Board will denote citations to the transcript from that
hearing as “R
II”.
On October 23,
1987, the Department of Energy
& Natural
Resources filed
its Negative Declaration in this matter.
The
Economic and Technical Advisory Committee filed
its concurrence
with the negative declaration on November 13,
1987.
On March
5,
1987,
the Board
issued
its original Opinion and
Order
in PCB 86—205 which granted Schrock
a short—term variance
from section 212.204.
Pursuant
to the Board’s grant of Schrock’s
motion for reconsideration,
the Board held
the July 30th hearing
in PCB 86—205.
After
reconsidering its March 5th Order,
the
Board issued an Opinion and Order on October
1,
which granted
Schrock a variance until October
1,
1988.
Since the record from
PCB 86—205
is incorporated into this proceeding,
the Board finds
it useful to reiterate some of its earlier
findings.
86—487
2
Schrock
owns
and
operates
a
manufacturing
plant
located
in
Arthur,
Illinois,
in
the
County
of
Moultrie
where
it
manufactures
wooden
cabinets.
Schrock
employs
approximately
600
employees,
making
it
the
largest
single
employer
in
Moultrie County.
An
8
million
BTU
per
hour
(“8 MBTU/hr
or
8
mmbtu”)
Kewanee water
tube boiler
is used
at
the plant
to provide building heat during the
heating
season.
This
boiler
is
capable
of
burning
oil,
gas
or
wood
residue.
Normal
firing practices are
to start the boiler with
either
gas
or
oil,
and
after
the boiler
is
brought
up
to operating temperature, fire the
boiler with wood
residue.
pproximately one—
half
ton
of
wood
residue
is
burned
per
hour.
The boiler was originally installed
in
1978
and
was
modified
to
burn
wood
residue
pursuant
to
a
construction permit
issued
on
October
22,
1979.
An
operating
permit
was
issued on February 19,
1981, which expired on
February
11,
1986.
Schrock
experienced
severe
firing upset problems when firing
the
boiler
~ith
wood
residue.
As
a
result,
Schrock determined
that
it
was
necessary
to
rebuild
the
boiler.
Schrock
applied
for
a
construction
permit
which
was
issued
on
September
3,
1985.
The
construction
permit
authorized
the
reconstruction
of
the
boiler
and
the
removal
of
the
original
fabric
filter.
The
permit
required
that
Schrock
conduct
a stack test prior
to applying for
an
operating
permit.
A
new
mechanical
particulate collection system consisting
of
a
multicyclorie
was
installed
to
replace
the
fabric
filter.
This
multicyclone
was
designed
to meet
a particulate
level
of
1.0
pound
per
MBTU
(“lbs/mmbtu”).
A
stack
test
conducted
on
January
21
and
22,
1986,
demonstrated
a
particulate
emission
rate
of
0.2775 lbs/mmbtu.
(PCB 86—205, slip op.
at 1—2,
March
5,
1987)
It
appears
that
there
were
significant
problems associated with
the operation of the
baghouse
fabric
filter.
Mick
Price
Schrock’s
Arthur
plant
manager
testified
that
the
boiler
could
not
be
run
on
“high
fire” due
to the lack of adequate ventilation
through the baghouse.
(R.
63).
This
in turn
caused problems
in
failing
to provide enough
86—488
3
steam
for
a
comfortable
temperature
within
the
plant.
Price
asserted
that
excessive
particulate emissions were also a result.
(R.
79—80).
In
addition,
he
stated
that
soot
from
the
boiler
was
being
deposited on
cars
in Schrock’s parking lot.
Finally, he stated
that
fires
had
occurred
in
the
baghouse.
According
to
Price,
the baghouse
filter
had
to be replaced three or four times because of
fire
damage.
(R.
II.
63—63).
Price
further
stated
that
the
baghouse
was
one
of
the
problems
which
necessitated
a
change
in
the
boiler
system.
He
said
that problems would
have continued
if
the baghouse
had not
been
changed.
(R.II. 68—69).
Exhibit
18
of
PCB
86—205
is
a
report
authored
by
Energy
Resource
Systems
(ERS)
which
evaluated
Schrock’s
boiler
system,
as
it
existed
prior
to
the
changeover.
The
report
is dated May
7, 1985 and was basically
a part of an ERS proposal
to modify Schrock’s
system.
(R.II.85)
In
the
report,
ERS
comments on the baghouse.
Your
present
dust
collector,
according
to
the manufactures
sic
specifications
is
not
large
enough
to
provide
a
8,000,000
BTU
boiler
output with the proper volume of air
to
control
combustion
chamber
temperatures
and
maintain
proper
design
velocities
within
the
ductwork and the stack.
(Exh.
#18,
p.
3)
ERS goes on
to recommend that the baghouse be
replaced by a new dust collector.
The report
also states:
The
Company
ERS
guarantees
that
the
equipment
covered
by
this
Proposal,
if
installed
and operated
under
the
instructions
of
the
Company,
will
meet
the
ordinance
relating
to
air pollution,
State
of
Illinois.
(Exh.
#18,
p.
3)
This guarantee was
to apply to the mechanical
collector
system,
the
multiclone,
which was
86—489
4
eventually
installed
by
Schrock.
(R.
II.
81).
That system
is
now producing emissions
that are not
in compliance.
It
is Schrock’s
position that pursuing
a legal action against
ERS
for
failure
to
live
up
to
its guarantee
would
be
economically
undesirable.
(R.
II.
83).
(PCB
86—205
slip.
op
at
3—4, October
1,
1987)
Options for compliance with the limit of Section 212.204
were also discussed
in the variance proceeding:
Mick
Price,
the
plant
manager
for
Schrock’s
Arthur
facility,
testified
at
hearing
that
the Venturi
scrubber,
proposed
as
a
part
of
Schrock’s
compliance
plan,
would
enable
Schrock
to
burn
sawdust
and
still
achieve
compliance with the 0.1 pount per million BTU
standard.
In addition,
Price
testified that
a
Venturi
scrubber
could
be
purchased,
installed,
and
operational
within
21
weeks
after
Schrock
placed
an
order
for
the
scrubber.
CR.
II.
27—29).
The-
scrubber
option
would
cost
Schrock
approximately
$80,000.
This
cost
estimate
includes
expenditures
for
the purchase,
shipping,
and
installation of
the scrubber.
(R.
II.
43).
Another
compliance
alternative
for
Schrock
would
be
to
burn
oil
or
gas
rather
than
sawdust.
Mick Price testified
that it would
take
less
than
30
minutes
to
convert
the
boiler from sawdust
to gas.
However, he also
states this option would result
in “extremely
high
costs” due
to
the costs
associated with
the
purchase
of
natural
gas
and
the
landfillirig
of
sawdust
which
would
have
otherwise been
burned
in the boiler.
(R.
II.
29—30).
Dean
Baird,
the
Vice
President
and
General
Manager of Schrock, testified at the original
hearing
in
this
matter
held
on January
22,
1987.
At
that
hearing,
Baird
gave
some
specific
costs
to
burn
oil
or
gas
and
landfill
the
sawdust.
According
to
Baird,
the annual cost to landfill the sawdust would
run
in
the
range
of
$50,000
to
$80,000
per
year.
He stated that natural gas was cheaper
to use than oil and that the annual cost
to
86—49 ()
5
use natural gas would amount to over $72,000.
CR. 30—31).
(PCB 86—205, slip op.
at 2—3,
October
1,
1987).
At the regulatory hearing,
Price testified that Schrock
produces 2,385 lbs
of sawdust per day.
(R.
23).
He stated that
if the sawdust had to be landfilled,
it would cost Schrock $185
per day.
(R.
28).
According
to Price,
other technically feasible compliance
alternatives, which Schrock had discussed with ERS,
include an
electrostatic precipitator and another baghouse.
The cost of
precipitators was estimated at $160,000.
(R.
26).
While the
baghouse would only cost $50,000,
it was not recommended by ERS
due
to operational problems concerning fires and clogging.
(R.
26).
At the regulatory hearing, Schrock first requested that the
Board
find Section 212.204 invalid as applied to Schrock.
The
Board notes
that
it addressed this issue
in its March
5,
1987
Opinion and Order
and held that the emission limit
of Section
212.204 currently applies
to Schrock’s boiler.
(?CB 86—205,
slip
op.
at
7, March
5,
1987).
In general, the Board does not grant site—specific relief
from the requirements of a rule unless it
is shown that
compliance with that rule is technically infeasible or
economically unreasonable.
It
is clear from the record that
there are technically feasible methods by which Schrock can
comply with Section 212.204.
Therefore,
the issue before the
Board
is whether the application of Section 212.204 to Schrock’s
boiler would create an economically unreasonable situation.
At hearing, counsel for Schrock argued,
that
in light of
the
environmental impact at issue,
“the
available feasible
technology for complying with the Board’s rule
is economically
unreasonable.”
CR. 10).
Later,
in response to a question concerning the impact on
Schrock due to the cost of compliance, Schrock’s counsel stated:
Schrock
has
taken
the
position
in
this
proceeding
that
the
cost
for
control
is
economically unreasonable
on
a
cost per
ton
basis
for
a benefit to inferred basis.
sic
Schrock
has
not
taken
the
position
that
installing
the
control
equipment
would
imperil
its financial situation.
(R.
32—33)
86—49 1
6
On the other hand,
the Agency opposes the granting
of site—
specific relief.
According
to the Agency,
such relief would be
improper, since non—compliance with the rule was the result of an
intentional engineering change.
(R.
8).
However, the Agency
takes the position that Schrock’s current operation would not
cause
a violation of the ambient air quality standards for
particulates.
(R.
31—32).
While
the Board understands that Schrock did not
intentionally change
its control technology in order
to avoid
compliance,
the important fact for consideration is that Schrock
is currently not in compliance with the limit of Section
212.204.
That
is,
it
is irrelevant which person
is at fault for
Schrock’s noncompliance.
The issue presently before the Board
merely concerns the ability of Schrock to comply with the
existing
rule.
It
is also clear from the record that Schrock could utilize
a wet scrubber to achieve compliance at
a cost of approximately
$80,000.
The Board
is not convinced that such a cost
is
economically unreasonable.
Section
8 of the Title
II, Air Pollution,
of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act
(Act) states
in part:
It
is
the purpose
of
this
Title
to
restore,
maintain,
and
enhance
the purity
of
the
air
of
this
State
in
order
to
protect
health,
welfare,
property,
and
the
quality
of
life
and
to
assure
that
rio
air
contaminants
are
discharged
into
the atmosphere
without being
given
the
degree
of
treatment
or
control
necessary
to prevent pollution.
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1985,
ch.
ill
½
‘
par.
1008.
Section 10 of the Act provides:
The
Board
pursuant
to
procedures prescribed
in
Title
VII
of
this
Act,
may
adopt
regulations
to
promote
the purposes
of
this
Title.
Without
limiting
the
generality
of
this
authority,
such
regulations
may
among
other things prescribe:
a)
Ambient air quality standards specifying
the
maximum
permissible
short—term
and
long—term
concentrations
of
various
contaminants in the atmosphere.
86—492
7
b)
Emission
standards
specifying
the
maximum
amounts
or
concentrations
of
various
contaminants
that
may
be
discharged
into the atmosphere;
**
*
*
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1985,
ch.
111 1/2 ~
p.
1010.
Consequently, the promulgation of
emission limitations and
air quality standards are two distinct methods by which
the Board
may act in order
to “restore, maintain, and enhance the purity of
the air” in Illinois.
The numerical limits
set by both emission
limitations and ambient air quality standards represent
benchmarks that must be
reached in pursuing the goals
of the
Act.
Compliance with one benchmark does not negate the necessity
for compliance with the other;
rather,
both have individual worth
in achieving and maintaining
a high quality environment.
Schrock’s plant is located
in an attainment area.
It also
appears that its current emissions do not threaten that
“attainment status”.
But, that fact alone
is not sufficient
justification for granting regulatory relief.
This insufficiency
is still not overcome when one adds the factor
that compliance
would increase costs
for Schrock.
It
is rare when environmental
regulation does not increase the costs of the polluter.
However,
those costs justify relief only when they are found
to
be
unreasonable.
Such is not the case here.
If the Board granted
relief to Schrock in this instance,
it
would be establishing a precedent which could undermine the whole
regulatory process.
The implication would be that any source
which would
incur added expense,
if forced
to comply with the
emission limits of
a
rule,
would
be entitled to relief merely
upon the showing that its noncompliance would not cause
a
violation of an air quality standard.
The
result of such a
policy would
be a series of exemptions resulting
in the increased
degradation of air quality,
since
under this interpretation
emission limitations would be viable only
in instances where
a
source failed to show that an exemption would not lead to
violation of air quality standards.
Such
a holding would clearly
contravene the intent of the Act.
Also,
the closer
the ambient air particulate levels approach
the air quality standards,
the more likely
it is
for
a new source
to cause
a violation of the air quality standards.
Therefore,
the development of future industrial sources, which wish
to
utilize coal, sawdust,
or wood as
a fuel source, might be
jeopardized by allowing an increase
in particulate emissions from
existing sources.
86—493
8
At hearing, Mick Price testified that when the baghouse was
utilized, Schrock received complaints regarding “soot deposited
on the siding of houses and the neighborhood just across the
railroad tracks.”
(R.
20).
Even though the soot was the result
of
a malfunctioning baghouse,
it
is apparent that Schrock
is
situated such that its emissions can impact upon
a nearby
residential neighborhood.
The Board
is not convinced that
Schrock should
be allowed
to permanently subject its neighbors to
emissions which contain particulate levels that are more than
double of what is normally allowed.
Finally,
the Board notes
that
in its Motion for Expedited
Decision, which was granted on January 21,
1988,
Schrock
reiterated
its position, previously asserted
in its April
9,
1987
motion
for reconsideration
in PCB 86—205,
that “it would need
forty—six weeks
for Schrock to bring its boiler into compliance
should the Board deny the petition for site specific rule
char-oe.”
This statement
is
a direct contradiction to one which
counsel
for Schrock made at the variance hearing on July 30,
1987:
We
anticipate
that
the
Board will grant
the
site—specific
rule change position, and once
that
is
final,
Schrock
will
then
be
in
compliance with the rule as modified.
If the
Board
does
not,
Schrock
believes
it
can
install
a
Venturi
wet
scrubber,
as
will
be
described by Mr.
Price,
within six months of
the Board’s final
decision denying
the
site—
specific rule change.
(fl.
II.
13)
Also,
testimony from Mick Price indicates that a scrubber
could be purchased,
installed and operational within
21 weeks
after Schrock placed an order for
the scrubber.
(R.
II.
28—29).
Even though
the Board
is denying Schrock’s regulatory relief,
the
record indicates that Schrock can still achieve compliance with
Section 212.204. prior
to October
1,
1988, which
is the date of
expiration for Schrock’s variance.
In summary,
the Board
finds
that it
is both technically
feasible and economically reasonable
for Schrock
to comply with
Section 212.204.
As a result, Schrock’s petition for site
specific relief
is denied.
ORDER
The Petition for Establishment of
a Site—Specific Limitation
filed by Schrock/A Division of White Industries on April
13,
1987
is hereby denied.
86—494
9
Section
41 of the Environmental Protection
Act,
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1985 ch.
ill 1/2
par.
1041, provides for appeal
of final
Orders of the Board within
35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme
Court
of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M. Gum, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the ab~reOpinion and Order was
adopted on
the
~
day of
________________,
1988,
by a vote
Dorothy M.
unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
86—495