ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August
20,
1981
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2:
AiR
)
R77-15
POLLUTION CONTROL RULES AND REGULATIONS
(SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION LIMITATIONS).
PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by I.
Goodman):
This Opinion supports the Order of July 23,
1981 entered in
this matter, authorizing
first notice publication of
the propose~1
rule herein.
Ashland Chemical Company, now Sherex Chemical Company,
Inc.
(Sherex), on October 19, 1977 filed a proposal to relax sulfur
dioxide emission limitations to 6.0 lbs./million Btu’s
for existing
Peoria area solid fuel combustion sources having heat inputs not
greater than 250 million Btu/hr.
At the time of the proposal,
Rule 204(c)(1)(A) of Chapter
2 limited
such Peoria area sources’
emissions,
regardless
of size or category,
to 1.8 lbs./million
Btu of heat input.
On May 15,
1978, the hearing officer granted
Bemis Company, Inc.
(Bemis)
status as regulatory proponent along
with Sherex.
Hearings were held on January
24,
1979
in Springfield;
on
January 30,
1979 in Chicago; on February
7,
1979
in Peoria;
and on
April 17,
1979 in Chicago.
Upon receipt of the economic impact
study of the Illinois Institute For Natural Resources
(Institute),
economic impact hearings were held on January 29,
1980
in
Chicago;
on January 30, 1980 in Peoria;
and on February 13, 1980
in Chicago.
All hearings were for the purpose of receiving evidence on a
numbc c
of related regulatory proposals which the Board
had
consolidated
for purposes of hearing on December 14,
1978.
These proposals
were
R78—14 and R78—16; Board proposals
inquiring into the adequacy of
existing sulfur dioxide and particulates regulations, respectively,
in light of the 1977 amendments of the Clean Air Act
(CAA),
42
U.S.C. S7401, et ~
R78—15,
a source—specific particulates
emission limitation proposal of the City of Rochelle; and R78—17,
a Board proposal to delete Rule 204(c)(1)(D), which referred
to
a sulfur dioxide emission standard which had become unne~sssary
under the 1977 CAA amendments for purposes of Illinois’
~tate
Implementation Plan (SIP),
Board proposals R78—14 and p78—16
also incorporated court-mandated further proceedings
in ~71—23,
the Board’s original adoption of Chapter12,
the Board’s; Ur
pollution control rules and regulations.
Ashland Chemical Compap~~.
IPCI3,
64 Ill.App.3d 169,
381 N.E.2d
56 (3d Dist.1978); Illinois State~Wamberof Commerce, et al.v.
IPCB,
67 Ill.App.3d 389,
384 N.E.2d 922 (1st Dist.1978) and related
cases, appeal dismissed 78 Ill.2d 1,
_____
N.E.2d
(1979).
The Board acknowledges the assistance of Ms.
Terry
E.
Cox in
actii-ig
as Hearing Officer herein.
43—229
—2—
On August 21,
1980 the Board dismissed proceeding R71—23 in
light of Pub.
L.
81—1444, adding
§9,2
to the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Act (Act),
Ill.Rev.Stat.
ch.
1l1—½, §1009.2,
which mandated Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
investigation of existing sulfur dioxide regulations.
The Boar-i
also dismissed R78—16,
the particulates limitations
inquiry
proceeding,
having found that §9.2 regulations will affect
existing record evidence as to the technological feasibility and
economic reasonableness of simultaneous compliance with both
sulfur dioxide and particulates emission limitations.
The Board
gave leave to reopen that proceeding subsequent to the filing o~
the Agency’s §9.2 proposal on grounds of technological infeasi-
hility or economic unreasonableness of simultaneous compliance.
See Commonwealth_Edisç
Cornp~~
v.
IPCB,
62 Ill.2d 494,
343 ~
459
(1976),
reh
denied.
On January
8,
1981 the Board dismissed
R78—14,
its sulfur dioxide limitations inquiry, the Agency havinq
on December
1,
1980 filed its §9.2 regulations
(docketed R80—22).
The record in proceeding R77—15 closed on May 15,
1981,
Post—hearing public comment was received from Sherex and
the
Agency.
Sherex’ comments were that its modeling studies,
submitted
to show compliance with Rule 204(e)(3),
a source—specific—related
provision, demonstrate that Sherex would not cause or contribute
to violations of the Peoria major metropolitan area ambient air
quality if it raised
its stacks to good engineering practice
(GEP)
height and continued burning washed Illinois coal of 2,5—2.7
sulfur content.
Sherex argues that less impact on ambient air
quality would result from these practices than from its burning
lower sulfur content coal, not extending its stacks, and complying
with the 1.8—lb.
limitation,
Sherex estimates that at an emission
rate of 5.28 lbs.
and
with stacks of 187 feet it would
emit
up to
24
of the 24—hr. primary ambient air quality standard, assuming
existing background concentration levels and no increase in
emissions from other affected sources.
With GEP stacks and its
present rate of 4.6 lbs.,
this percentage decreases to 21
(R.
678—9).
Bemis’
1976 modeling shows emissions of up to 47
of
the 24—hr. primary standard
(R.796-7).
The 24-hour maximum PSD
increment ~Class II) beyond the applicable baseline concentration
is
91 ugfm
Sherex proposes an increased emission limitation given the
condition that sources’ stack heights are increased and that
affected sources make specific showings of no adverse effects
on
ambient air quality.
On this point, the Agency has testified
that
industrial sources generally have shorter stacks than power plants,
so that regardless of their relative amounts of emissions,
the
relative areas of emissions of industrial sources are of short
rather than long distances,
No evidence at hearing was given as
to whether any source but Sherex would raise its stack to GEP
height (see R.925—6).
The applicable SIP requirement is at 40 CR~,
Part 51.24(h), given Peoria’s designation as attainment on or
before December 31,
1982 in Part 52.727
(see Part 81.314).
Sherex
further comments as to compliance by the use either of low sulEur
43—230
—3—
coal,
citing cost and particulate matter compliance problems, or
of scrubbers,
citing its experience with
a dry reaction removal
system,
including its supply and cost problems.
The Agency’s comments centered around the environmental
necessity of retaining the 1.8—lb.
limitation for Peoria area
industrial boiler sources under 250 million Btu of actual heat
input.
This limitation was originally promulgated in R71—23 to
apply to stationary solid fuel combustion sources of every variety
in the three major metropolitan areas in the state regardless of
heat input rate.
The
Agency’s testimony at hearing established
that the 1.8—lb.
limitation is necessary to maintain the Peoria
area’s “marginal” primary attainment designation, parti~ularly
with regard to the 24-hour primary standard of 365 ug/m
,
However,
the Board notes that the Agency’s recent proposal
in R80-22 for
these sources is for
a limitation which could reach as high as
6.8 lbs.
At hearings,
all of which were well attended by various
industry and environmental group representatives as well as the
Agency,
a multitude of evidence, particularly with regard to
available controls and Peoria ambient air quality, was admitted.
Sherex, Bemis Company, Inc.,
and Celotex Corporation comprise the
sources most affected by this regulation.
Sherex operates two
coal—fired boilers with a combined heat input of 147,000 Btu/hr.;
Bemis operates an 80,000—lbs,/hr. boiler plus a standby 70,000—lbs.!
hr. boiler;
and Celotex operates two 83,000—lbs./hr. boilers.
Although on September 29,
1975 the Board granted Sherex a variance
(PCB 757174)
in order to install and use desulfurization equipment
on emissions caused by the use of high sulfur coal, studies
indicated that compliance with a limitation of 1.8
lbs. with this
equipment was not technologically feasible.
Bemis and Celotex
representatives both testified regarding the economic unreason—
ability of purchasing low sulfur coal,
scrubbers,
and a substitute
source of electricity.
Finally, Sherex pointed out that the bulk
of the sulfur dioxide pollution present in the Peoria area is
caused by larger facilities,
including power plants, which
generally are equipped with tall stacks.
The Board notes that
power plants exist in Bartonville, Pekin and Peoria,
all of which
contribute to sulfur dioxide emissions
in the Peoria major
metropolitan area
(see R.47--9,
53—4, 182—3,
461—3,
822—3).
The instant proposal would allow smaller industrial boiler
sources to emit more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than larger
industrial boiler sources,
One apparent justification for allowing
this differential
in emission rates is the relatively higher econ-
omic burden the smaller sources would have to bear were they to
install scrubbers or other controls
(R,284,
288, 328,
336—7,
838),
even though there is little clear evidence that compliance with
the SIP’s 1.8—lb. limitation is technologically infeasible.
The
problem is that where low sulfur
coal,
scrubbers,
fluidized bed
combustion systems, or even the burning of oil or gas is technolo-
gically feasible, the costs may be economically burdensome.
When
these costs are passed on to consumers, product pricing may affect
competition with other companies which do not pass on such costs.
43—231
—4—
The increased emissions consume available PSD increment
in
those areas within the Peoria region which have reached attainment
status
(R.617—8,
661—4).
The increased emissions will affect a
demonstration of reasonable further progress and limit the avail-
ability of offsets to all major stationary sources of sulfur
dioxide seeking to modify equipment or locate operations
in those
areas within the Peoria region which have not reached attainment
status (see SS9.1(e) and
(f) of the Act).
The environmental impact of allowing an increase in the
sulfur dioxide emissions from these smaller industrial sources
is
not insignificant.
The primary attainment status under the CAA
may be jeopardized
(R.24,
32—4,
59—4,
103—4,
149—3, 499—5,
571—3,
612—8,
664—3;
of 468),
and the increased emissions are likely to
cause some degree of crop,
livestock and material damage.
The
crop damage which will occur consists of reduced yield
in soybean
plants
(R.198—202); the material damage (excluded from consideration
in the economic imp~ctstudy of the Illinois Institute of Natural
Resources,
R.827(E)
)
consists of deterioration of structures and
vehicles.
The Institute’s Doc. No. 79/22,
October, 1979,
a macroeconomic
study,
predicts a net benefit to the adoption of this regulation,
in comparison with costs, although further environmental damage
was predicted to be as high as $3.5 million (page 36).
Costs are
defined to include reduced source expenditures (savings) from not
having to comply with the SIP’s 1.8—lb. limitation.
Although having carefully considered the evidence
in this
record,
the Board is swayed by additional considerations stemming
from the February 21,
1980 issue of the Federal_~~r (Vol.45,
p.l1481).
Sherex and other sources have received notices of vio-
lation of the SIP from the USEPA.
Such notices can ripen into
the
nondiscretionary imposition of sanctions,
including the cessation
of operations.
It for this reason that, upon motion made in the
§9.2—initiated sulfur dioxide regulatory proceeding R80—22, the
Board on July 9,
1981 adopted as an emergency regulation a limita-
tion of 5.5 lbs.
for these sources.
In weighing the repercussions
of possible shutdowns with the environmental damage and the legal
ramifications, and specifically considering the existence of a
pending regulatory proceeding covering the same issues,
the Board
finds compliance with
a 1.8—lb.
limitation at this time to he
economically unreasonable for these sources.
The Board has ordered
nonemergency rulemaking begun in order to impose an applicable
emission limitation upon expiration of the emergency rule and
prior to the adoption of rulemaking in R80-22.
The Board notes several concerns under §39(d) of the Act
which are relevant to the Agency’s issuance of construction arid
operating permits:
the effect on air quality of stack height;
the strength of commitments to operate both process and control
refers to economic hearing record.
43—232
—5—
equipment properly (see R.301); and the technological feasibility
of specific control equipment’s capacities to enable sources to
simultaneously comply with applicable particulate matter regulations.
Mr. Werner abstained.
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion was adopted
on the ~t~4
day of
__________,
1981 by a vote of
4-c~
oL4~
~
--
Christan L. Moffétt~plei~k
—
Illinois Pollutioti4c*itrol Board
43—233