ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
21,
1973
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
)
)
)
PCB 72-51
)
)
CPC INTERNATIONAL,
INC.
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle)
This
is
an enforcement action alleging violations
of Section 9(a)
of the Act and Rule
3-3.112 of the old Rules and Regulations Governing
the Control of Air Pollution as amended
to August,
1969.
Hearings
were held on December
12 and 13,
1972, January
24 and 29,
1973,
February
8,
1973 and April
5,
1973.
Also,
a Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement was
filed
by the parties
on February 27,
1973.
Section
9(a) provides
in part that no person shall cause, threaten
cr allow the
emission of any contaminant
into the environment so
as
to cause
or tend to cause
air pollution.
Section 3(b)
of the Act
defines air pollution as ~‘the
presence in the atmosphere
of one or more
contaminants
in sufficient quantities
and of such characteristics
and
duration as
to be injurious
to human, plant,
or animal
life,
to health,
or
to
property,
or
to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of
life or property.
CPC
owns and operates
a corn wet milling plant
in Bedford Park.
They employ
over
2,152
people and operate around the clock,
seven days
a week.
Total expenditures
of the plant
are
in excess of $90,000,000
per year,
The emissions from the plant are vented to the atmosphere
thru four stacks
at
a total volume of 138,000 cubic feet per minute.
Around
twelve private citizens testified to the 9(a) nuisance
violation.
It
is
obvious that the plant
is emitting
a burnt corn
ocal
odor.
The
question is whether
it
is
a nuisance under the Act.
The
citizeus~reactions
to the odor was substantial.
They had trouble
breathing
(R.8),
they
were
nauseated
(R.l2)
it was pungent
(R.32),
it
was
overpowering,
annoying, and bothersome
(R.36),
it causes wheezing
and
headaches,
it
caused
one
witness
to
abandon
a
bicycle
ride
and
go
into
her
house
to
escape
the
odors
~,(R.34,
37)
it
triggers
migraine
headaches
in
one
witness
(R.48),
it
causes
a choking,
suffocating
feeling
(R.48),
it
prohibits
the
use
of
park
facilities
and
gardening
(R.47),
it
prevents
one
witness
from taking walks
as prescribed
by
her
doctor
(R.67),
it
causes
awakening
at
night
(R.80),
it
generally
affects
outside
activities
(R.93),
it
is
offensive
(R.87,
106,
123),
it
causes
coughing
(R.
123) and spitting
(R.
160),
it
is
unbearable
(R,
163),
it
affects
sinuses
(R.
168;)
and
it caused one woman to
remove
her
child
from
the
park
program
(R.
168).
8—311
—2—
One man testified that he could smell the odor not only at
his home in LaGrange which
is three miles from the plant, but also
at his job which
is nine miles from the plant.
In addition to the
witnesses there
is
a petition signed by over 280 people concerning
the odors from CPC.
We find that there
is
a violation of Section 9(a) of the Act.
The citizens’
testimony more than adequately proves
that the emissions
from CPC are injurious to human life and that they do unreasonably
interfere with the enjoyment of life and property.
A penalty of
$7,50
is assessed for this violation.
The complaint also alleges
a violation of Rule 3-3.112 of the
Rules and Regulation Governing the Control of Air Pollution,
as
amended to August,
1969.
The evidence concerning this allegation
is
in the record thru affidavits (Exhibits
F ~ G),
the contents
of which have been stipulated by the parties
as being admissible.
The issues before the Board in this matter concern both the determina-
tion of the particulate emissions allowed under Rule 3-3.112 and the
determination of the actual emissions that have occurred.
There
are
5
boilers at CPC,
3 coal
fired and
2 gas fired.
Boilers
#1
(coal),
#2
(coal, and
#4
(gas)
exhaust jointly through
a 250 foot stack
(the west stack), while boilers #3
(coal)
and
#5
(gas)
exhaust jointly through a second 250 foot stack
(the
east stack).
There are thus two emission sources,
the stacks,
that are the subject of this section of the complaint.
The first issue to be resolved is the allowable emission of
particulates.
The Agency uses the CILCO opinion
(PCB 72-83)
to
claim that allowable emissions should be based on the capacities
of the boilers.
This results
in
a fixed value independent of
operating conditions.
The Respondent determined
its allowable
emissions using the capacities of the coal boilers plus the actual
fuel usage
(operating load)
of the gas boilers, which results
in a
higher allowable emission than that determined by the Agency.
The
Respondent argues
that since it
is impossible for them to obtain
sufficient gas to operate
the boilers continuously at full
capacity,.
the actual gas boiler loadings should be sued.
However, from Attach-
ment B
to the Affidavit of Charles Morton,
it can be seen that during
June,
l971~, the
#4 boiler operated at an average hourly load of
269.4 x 10°BTU/hr. which is
86 percent of the boiler capacity of
314 x 106 BTU/hr.
During May,
1971,
the
#5
boiler operated at an
average hourly
load of 252.7 x 106 BTU which
is
80 percent
of the
boiler capacity of 314 x
106 BTU/hr.
Thus,
during some periods,
it
is possible for CPC to receive sufficient natural gas to operate the
gas boilers
at full capacity so
that an allowable emission based on
boiler capacities
is appropriate and the CILCO case should be cited.
CPC’s use of coal boiler capacity rather than average boiler load
to calculate the allowable emissions also seems like an intention
on their part to follow the CILCO opinion.
3—312
-3-
Using the boiler capacities
to determine the allowable
particulate emissions,
the Agency calculates an allowable of
0.468 lb/b6 BTU for the plant
(CPC calculates
an allowable of
0.594 lb/b6 BTU based on average gas usage).
Both parties
performed the calculation of allowable emissions incorrectly
in that they used
a multiple stack factor for the two stacks which
is suitable only for stacks with equal heat inputs.
The stack
factor was taken from ASME Standard APS-l “Recommended Guide for
the Control of Dust Emission Combustion for Indirect Heat Exchangers”,
referenced in Rule 3-3.112,
and an examination of this document will
show that the multiple stack factor is not appropriate.
This point
was also brought out in the CILCO opinion and the conclusion found
in that case and which should be found in this case is
that the
method to use
for unequally heated multiple stacks
is that of
superposition of sources.
For the particular situation at CPC,
the superposition method results
in a calculated allowable emission
of 0.469 lb/b6 BTU, which
is almost identical
to the value calculated
by the Agency.
Thergfore,
the allowable plant emission to be applied
to CPC
is
0.47 ib/lO BTU.
The actual emissions of particulates at CPC were calculated
by both parties using collection device efficiencies
and particUlate
emission factors.
A sampling test of the #1 boiler conducted by
Commercial Testing and Engineering Co.
(CTE)
on February 25,
1972,
Attachment
3 of the Statement of Joseph
L. Hof~mann,showed parti-
culate emissions from two tests of 0.717 lb/b0 BTU and 0.729 lb/lO
BTU.
The samples were taken downstream of the multicbone
collectors
and thus represent emissions up the stack.
In determining the actual emissions, the Agency used the CTE
test result together with
a particulate emission factor for the
coal boilers
of l7A, where A represents
the percent ash content of
the
coal.
The factor was taken from Table
1-2 of AP-42 “Compilation
of Air Pollutant Emission Factors”, Attachment
4
of the Hoffmann
Statement,
and taken with the sampling test result implies
a collec-
tion efficiency for the multicbone of •84.5 percent.
The Agency
then applies this efficiency along with the emission factor to each
coal boiler and in addition applies
a particulate emission factor
for gas combustion, Table 1-6
of AP-42,
to show that on four out of
ten dates
for which the boiler loadings were known, CPC emitted par-
ticulate
in excess of
the allowable limits,
as shown on Attachment
5
of the Uoffmann statement.
The Agency thus finds
a violation of
Rule 3-3.112 on these four dates.
CPC,
in their determination of the actual emissions,
does not
use the information from the GTE tests but instead uses
a multi-
clone collection efficiency of 90.2 percent based on design charts
published by Western Precipitator, the manufacturers of
the multi-
clones.
This efficiency is dependent on the:size distribution of
the particulates entering the collector and on the gas pressure
drop through the collector.
No analysis
of size distribution was
available
for CPC, so the distribution given in Table A-l of AP-42
8—313
-4-
was assumed.
Thus, by using the assumed particulate size distribu-
tion, the known pressure drop,
and the design chart supplied,
Attachment
C
to the Affidavit of Donald
F.
Franzen,
an expected
collection efficiency of 90.2 percent was determined.
In addition,
the emission factor of 17A used by the Agency was also used by CPC
and with these two pieces
of information plus the monthly average
boiler loadings listed in Attachment
B
of the Affidavit of Charles
R. Morton, CPC calculated monthly average actual emissions that for
the period of November,
1970
to June,
1972 are less than their
calculated allowable emissions as shown in Attachment N of the
Franzen affidavit.
Because of the lack of complete test data for the plant, both
parties made engineering assumptions
and approximations in trying
to prove their respective cases.
The Agency applied the GTE test
results from one coal boiler
(#1)
to
the other two coal boilers
and
also combined the test results with an emission factor to determine
the collection efficiency of the multiclones.
They used this
efficiency, plus the emission factor,
to calculate the actual
emissions.
GPC ignored the GTE test results and based their determina-
tion of multiclone efficiency on manufacturer design curves using
an assumed particle size distribution.
They then used this efficiency
along with the same emission factor used by the Agency to determine
the actual emissions, assuming in addition that there was no con-
tribution to the emissions from the
gas fired boilers.
Based on the allowable emissions for CPC of 0.47 lb/lOb BTU
the Agency shows
a violation for
4 specific dates
out
of
10 for
which they had data.
Also,
CPC’s own calculations show
a viola-
tion, on the average, for the entire month of November,
1971, where,
based on Attachment
N
of the granzen affidavit,
the
emissions from
the plant averaged 0.50 lb/bO
BTU.
The Board,
in the CILCO
opinion, has held that compliance on the average
is not enough and
that “one day of clean air does not compensate
for
a day of dirty
air.”
In addition, non-compliance on the average for
an entire
month indicates non-compliance for many hours
of many days and thus
a significant problem.
The penalty for this violation
will
be $2500.
The Proposal for Settlement need not be expressly repeated in this
opinion.
We will incorporate
it herein by reference and simply require
that GPG adhere
to all its
terms
and compliance dates, including its
provisions for filing permit application, performance testing, adjust-
ments, progress reports, odor panel
tests
and
a performance
bond.
Even though the parties have agreed upon a remedial program
we still find it necessary to assess
a penalty for
the past violations.
The health and welfare of many people was interfered with and we must
deal with that issue.
The total penalty shall be
$10,000.
This opinion constitutes
the Board~sfindings of fact and con-
clusions of law.
8—314
-5-
ORDER
CPC International shall pay to the State
of Illinois
by July 31,
1973,
the sum of $10,000.
Penalty payment by certified check or
money order payable
to the State of Illinois shall be made to:
Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Drive,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
CPC International shall
adhere to all the terms
and compliance
dates contained in the Proposal for Settlement filed February
27,
1973 including the provisions
for filing permit application, per-
formance testing, adjustments, progress reports, odor panel tests
and
a performance bond.
I, Ghristan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion an~1Orderwere adopted on the
~
day of June,
1973 by
a vote of
~1—O
Christian
L. Moffe~t
,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution
trol Board
8—315