ILLINUIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
October 1, 1987
SCHROCK/ A TAPPAN DIVISION,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86—205
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTiON AGENCY,
Respondent.
ROY M. HARSCH AND DANiEL F. O’CONNELL,
OF MARTIN, CRAIG, CHESTER
& SONNENSCHEIN, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
BARBARA BALLIN COLLINS APPEARED OL~ BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Marlin):
This matter comes before the Board as the result of a
hearing which was held pursuant to the Board’s Order of May 14,
1987. In its Order of May 14, 1987, the Board granted, over the
objections of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency), a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Schrock/A Tappan
Division (Schrock). Schrock had sought reconsideration of the
Board’s March 5, 1987 Order which had granted Schrock a variance
from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 212.204, New Source Using Solid Fuel
Exclusively, until May 31, 1987. The variance, concerning
particulate emissions, enabled Schrock to use wood fuel to run
the heating boiler at Schrock’s facility in Arthur. A hearing
for reconsideration of the March 5 Order was held on July 30,
1987 in Arthur; no members of the public were present. Citations
to the transcript generated by the June 30, 1987 hearing will be
denoted by “R.II”. Citations to the transcript of the original
hearing, held on January 22, 1987, will be denoted by
“R”.
On
September 9, 1987, Schrock filed an Agreed Motion for Expedited
Decision. That motion is hereby granted.
Much of the facts concerning the boiler’s operation were
discussed in detail in the March 5, 1987 Opinion, so it is
unnecessary to review them here. However, it should be noted
that the Board held in that Opinion that the emission limitation
standard of 0.1 lbs/rnmbtu prescribed by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 212.204
does apply to Schrock’s boiler. (Opinion and Order, PCB 86—205,
March 5, 1987, p. 7). Also, the Board found:
From February, 1981, until September, 1985,
Schrock utilized a baghouse for pollution
control of particulates and its operations
met the 0.1 J.bs/mmbtu standard (Rec. p. 6).
82—27
2
In l9~5, Schrock changed its pollution
control device to a multicyclone that was
designed to meet a 1.0 lbs/mmbtu emission
limit (R. 28). In other words, Schrock went
from compliance to non—compliance by an
intentional engineering change to its
pollution control equipment. Regardless of
who is responsible for the result, it is
clear that the non—compliance is due to a
planning error rather than a technological or
economic restraint on Schrock’s capacity to
comply.
(là. at 6).
This Opinion will deal with any new facts or issues which arose
at the July 30 hearing.
At hearing, Schrock requested tnat the Board grant a
variance for one additional year (R.II. 15). As a part of a
proposed compliance plan, Schrock will continue to pursue site—
specific relief under Docket R87—l2. If the Board denies such
relief, Schrock states that it will achieve compliance by
installing a Venturi wet scrubber within six months of the
Board’s denial of site—specific relief. (R.II. 13).
The Agency stated at hearing that it does not object to the
Board granting Schrock an additional variance so long as the
Board requires Schrock to install a scrubber during that variance
period. However, the Agency does object to allowing any site—
specific relief for Schrock. It is the Agency’s position that
since Schrock went from compliance to non—compliance by an
intentional engineering change to its pollution control
equipment, it should not be granted site—specific relief. The
Agency claims that the variance sought by Schrock is
“inextricably linked” to Schrock’s request for site—specific
relief. (R.II. 17—18).
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 pound 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.
(R.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
82—28
sawdust to gas. however, he also stated this option would result
in “extremely high costs” due to the costs associated with the
purchase of natural gas and the landfilling of sawdust which
would have otherwise been burned in the boiler. (R.II. 29—30).
Lean 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 use
natural gas would amount to over $72,000. (R. 30—31).
Schrock presented evidence at the July 30, 1987 hearing
which further clarified the reasons behind the changeover from
the baghouse to the multiclone. Schrock objects to the Board’s
conclusion, in the March 5 Opinion, that Schrock was in
compliance when it utilized the bagnouse. It is Scnrock’s
position that the facts do not prove this conclusion. (R.II.
19). Nick Price testified that he could not conclude that
Schrock was in compliance while it employed a baghouse. (R.II.
80)
It appears that there were significant problems associated
with the operation of the baghouse. Price testified that the
boiler could not be run on “hign fire” due to the lack of
adequate ventilation through the baghouse. (R. 63). This in turn
causec problems in failing to provide enough 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—64). 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.Il. 68—69).
Exhibit 18 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 STU
boiler output with the proper volume of air
to control combustion chamber temperatures
and maintain proper design velocities within
the ductwork and the stack.
82—2 9
4
(Exh. ~l8, 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 tne ordinance
relating to air pollution, State of Illinois.
(Exh. ~lS, p. 3)
This guarantee was to apply to the mechanical collector system,
the multiclone, which was eventually installed by Schrock. (RII.
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 unoesirabie. (R.II. 83).
No further evidence concerning the environmental impact was
presented at the July 30 hearing. Consequently, the Board will
not deviate from its previous conclusion, in the March 5 Opinion,
that a short—term variance would have “minimal” environmental
impact. In its March 5 Opinion, the Board granted a short—term
variance because Schrock lacked a definite compliance plan.
First, the Board stated that an “intention” to file for site—
specific regulatory relief was not a sufficient compliance
plan. Secondly, the Board cited the fact that Schrock had not
yet picked a compliance alternative that it would pursue in the
event it was denied site—specified relief. (Opinion and Order,
PCB 86—205, March 5, 1987, p. 8—9).
Since the Board’s March 5 Opinion, Schrock has filed a
petition for site—specific relief which has now been docketed as
R87—l2. Also, Schrock has asserted that it will install a
Venturi wet scrubber if the requested regulatory relief is not
granted.
Although the replacement of the baghouse
with
the multiclone
was clearly an intentional change, it appears from the record
that Schrock acted in good faith and fully expected that the
multiclone technology would afford compliance with the 0.1
lbs/mmBTU standard. Also, poor operational performance by
Schrocic’s baghouse in part precipitated the boiler system
revision that resulted in the change of pollution control
devices.
Given the economic factors of the available compliance
alternatives, the minimal environmental impact which might result
from a variance in this instance, and the fact the heating season
is close at hand, the Board finds that a denial of a variance
would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on Schrock.
82—30
5
As a result, the Board will grant Schrock a variance, subject to
conditions, in order to allow Schrock to use sawdust in its
boiler for the next heating season.
The Board will also impose a limitation of 0.2775 lbs/mmBTU
on the allowable emission rate. This limitation was a condition
to the March 5 variance, and Schrock has not provided the Board
with any evidence to suggest that the cap should be deleted from
this variance.
The issues considered by the Board in acting on a petition
for variance are quite distinct from the considerations used fcr
a petition for regulatory site—specific relief. Therefore, it is
important to note that the Board’s action today in granting a
short—term variance does not in any way ~rejudge the outcome of
Schrock’s pending site—specific petition in R87—l2.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusion of law in this matter.
ORDER
Schrock/A ‘tappan Division is hereby granted a variance from
35 Ill. Adm. Code 212.204 for the use of wood fuel at its
manufacturing facility in Arthur, Illinois, subject to the
following conditions:
1. This variance shall commence on the date of this Order
and shall expire October 1, 1988 or when Schrock’s
boiler emissions comply with the applicable regulations
concerning particulate emissions, whichever occurs
first.
2. During the pendency of this variance, Schrock’s
emissions of particulate matter into the atmosphere
shall not exceed 0.2775 lbs/mmbtu.
3. within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
Schrock/A Tappan Division shall execute a Certification
of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to all terms and
conditions of this variance. Said Certification shall
be submitted to the Agency at 2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois, 62706. The form of said
Certification shall be as follows:
CERTI FICATION
I, (he)
,
hereby
accept and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions of the
Order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 86—205, October 1,
1987.
82—31
6
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
N. Nardulli abstained.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act, Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1985 ch. 111 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.
I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above O~inion and Order was
adopted on the
74A~
day of
~
,
1987, by a vote
of
-
.
Dorothy
t4.
Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
82—32