:ELL1NOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 24,

1985

ANDERSON

CLAYTON

FOODS,

)

Petitioner,

)

PCB 84—147

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

Respo~tent.

MS.

PERCY

i~. ANGELO~ ~iAYER, BROWN

&

PLATT,

APPEARED FOR PETITIONER;

MS.

BOBELLA GLATZ,

AT~:ORNEY—AT—LAW,

APPEARED FOR RESPONDENT.

OPINION

AND ORDER OF TRE

BOARD

(by

B.

Forcade):

This

matter comes

before the Board on a September 9,

1984,

petition

for variance from

35

Ill. Adm, Code 216.121,

filed by

Anderson

Clayton Foods

(“ACF”),

Section 216.121 provides a 200

part

per

million

(ppm)

limitation

for carbon monoxide

(CO) emis-

sions

from

fuel

combustion emission sources,

ACF requests a

five—year variance

in

order

to retrofit an existing oil/gas

boiler

with

a coal—fired fluidized bed combuster at their Jack-

sonville

food

processing

plant.

The

Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Agency”)

filed a recommendation in support of

grantinq

variance,

subject

to

conditions,

on November

20,

1984.

Hearing

was

he:Ld in

Jacksonville

on

November

30, 1984.

No public

comments

were received.

A

briefing schedule

was

established

by

the

hearing

officer

at

the close of hearing.

ACF

and

the

Agency were to submit final

briefs

on January 2~1985.

ACF filed their

brief

in a timely

manner~

The Agency

filed

their

brief

on

January

8,

1985.

ACF

did

not

oblect to this

late filing

hut requested,

in their original

brief,

that they have the opportunity to

submit a

supplemental or

reply

brief

The Board

took

no

action

on

this

request

and

on

January

:~:~is~

ACF filed a

supplemental

brief,

On

January

24,

1985,

the Rate of decision, the Agency

filed

a motion to strike

ACF’s

supulemental brief

or

in the alternative,

accept

responsive

arguments

contained in

its

motion.

The Board

denies

the

Agency~s

motion

to th~ike,

hut will accept the

argumentation

contained

in

the

motion for the

record.

The

Board

notes,

however, that briefs

are

not

a riubt in

practice

before

the

Board.

ACF owns and

operates a food processing

plant

located

on

East

Morton Road in

Jacksonville, Morgan County,

at the junction

of U.S.

Highways

36 and 104.

ACF produces

oil based food products

at

its

Jacksonville

plant,

including vegetable

oils, margarine

and shortening

The prime raw material

is

soybean oil which is

obtained

regionally

(R.

14)

62-417

---

2

The plant operates

continuously

throughout the year,

producing

1.5 million pounds per day of finished oil products

and

employs

400

people

(R. l4)~ The plant is located

on

92 acres,

35

of

which are farmed.

The plant property is bordered

on

the north

and east by fields, on the southwest by a golf course,

on the

southeast by fields and on the west by a residential

area

(R.

15—17).

Jacksonville has a population of 20,000.

The

nearest

air monitoring station

is

in Springfield,

approximately 30 miles

east of ACF.

processing fats and oils is an energy

intensive activity.

ACF

operates twO 65,000 pound per hour gas/oil

fired

steam

boilers,

burning approximately 650,000 mmBtu of fuel

to generate 473,600,000

pounds of steam per year,

which

is used

for

heat and process

purposes

(R. l7~l8). ACF is planning to retrofit

one of the

presert

boilers

~th a Wormser fluidized bed

combuster

(FBC).

The

retrofitted boiler will burn 23,000 tons of

less expensive,

high

sulfur Illinois coal, which will result in a

substantial

savings

in fuel costs,

The FBC will also use

6,300 tons of

Illinois limestone

in the combustion process

(R.

22—23).

ACF

has

applied for a grant from the Illinois Coal Bond

Fund Program

to

partially fund~theretrofit.

ACF applied to the

Agency for a

construction perthits for the retrofit,

The Agency issued a

Notice of incompleteness on April

16,

1984, because

the

appli-

cation did not include sufficient information,

specifically

regarding CO emissions

and the necessity of a

variance.

Con-

sequently,

this proceeding was initiated

(R.

24—25).

The Wonsser FEC is a unique system that

effectively reduces

sulfur dioxide

(SO

)

emissions from high sulfur

coal combustion

and is compact eno~ghto allow the retrofitting of

small

and

medium sized conventional boilers

(R.

22—23).

The

Wormser

FBC

uses a dual bed design,

one for combustion and

one for desulfur—

ization, allowing each bed to operate at its

optimum

temperature.

As

coal burns

in the lower bed, the SO

that is formed

rises into

the

upper bed of crushed limestone, wh~reit

is

absorbed to form

calcium sulfate,

~er

90

of the SO

produced

is

expected to be

controlled by the fluidized bed procLs

(R.

41—45).

The converted boiler is expected to emit increased particu-.

lates, SO.~nitrogen oxides

(NO

)

and CO.

The Wormser FBC

is

expected ~o produce SO~emissioAs of 1~2~pounds

per million

BTU

(R.

45).

However, this level

is below the 1.8 pound

per

million

BTU limitation of §214,122(a),

ACF plans to install

a baghouse

to

control

articulate emissions to less than the

0.1 pounds

per

million 13TH limitation of §212,204,

The Wormser FBC

is

expected

to

emit 0.4 pounds per million BTU of

NO

,

however,

there

are

no

Board regulations limiting NO

for boile~swith

less

than

250

million BTU per hour heat inp~t. NO

emissions

would

be greater

than from the current gas—fired boil~rbut less

than

conventional

coalfired technology~

CO emissions are expected

to

exceed

the

200

ppm limitation of §216.121.

ACF estimates that

CO emissions

will be no

higher than 400

ppm

(R.

47~48), The Agency, however, utilizing

manufacturer’s

---

3

test

bur~’

estimate

that gi

sions

f

§216.1

1

control

FBC ted

FBC

S

limit~ti

technolo

1979

ard

The

to

make

grantinC~

using

U

models

accepta

I

submittc

Agency

o

ambient

3—4).

1

about

7

impact’-

second

Jac ‘sor

National

5),

D’~

the

fol

w

H.

toxic

e

cardiov

level

o

system

haled

&

of

grantine

concent

a

are

wel

would

no

iroct a similar fluidized bed boiler

retrofit,

emissions could be higher

(Rec,

p.

3).

ACF

asserts

present

state of technology, control

of CO

emis—

iclized

bed boilers to the 200 ppm

level required

by

~

not

be possible.

At this point,

it

is

clear

that

) emissions from FBC’s has not been

adequately studied.

a

is

new and many states that

have

experience

with

Texas,

do not regulate CO

(R.

45)..

The

Board’s

CO

hch

dates from 1972, was adopted

years before FBC

~

“veloped.

The Wormser FBC

system was patented in

H,

44),

o

contracted with ETA

Engineering, Inc.

(“ETA”)

r

R-

ive

analysis of the

environmental effects of

ETA prepared an air quality

modeling

analysis,

c

ital Protection Agency issued

and approved

c

~kedclosely with the Agency to

ensure the

-nr

methodology

(R.

52).

The

ETA

report

was

as

Exhibit

2,

The report

states,

and

the

b the CO levels that would

result in the

~r

u d

I

exceedingly

low

(Pet,

Ex,

2,

p.12,

Rec.

p.

.o~r

impacts are about 3

and

8—hour

impacts

are

i

the

significance levels used in

prior years-.

The

‘

concentration,

as stated

in terms

of

the

highest

~O

concentrations are as follows:

Averaging

Time

1-hour

C-hour

NAAQS

40,000

10,000

of

NAAQS

0.2

0.4

t

e

is

located in an attainment

area for all five

r

Ail

Quality

Standard

(NAAQS)

pollutants

(Pet.

p.

oringfield

air

quality

monitor is compared

in

to the

CO

NAAQS:

.~rat~onsof CO in humans can produce

well known

t

as

asphyxiation,

Lower levels

can

aggravate

irseases and decrease human

performance.

The

xyhemoglobin,

or CO bound

hemoglobins,

in

the

human

~t.

y

related

to the CO

concentrations

in

the.

in—

p,

5),

However,

the adverse

environmental

impact

iriance

is minimal,

The increase

in the ambient air

i~less than half a per cent.

Air

quality impacts

~ificance

levels

(R.

53—54),

Human health

t

~d

by granting variance.

Polluta ~

CO

Maximum of

~77m/m)

66.8

35,3

Averagi

Time

Impa~t

17j~gj~j

Back9ound

jJ

NAAQS

of

NAAQS

1—hour

46,8

13,455

40,000

34

8—hour

35.3

8,970

10,000

90

(Rec.

p

62-419

---

4

T1~e

Wormser

to

$790

c

trof

it

from

the

imately

p

and

liz

year

(

and

Na

seconda

ACF’s

pu

$1.6

m

year

(P

an

inno

for

ACF

quality

circumst

hardship

Ps

compl

i

directs

“what

no

attaini

five

ye

technol

the

200

ficient

nature

provide

method

a

future

These

F~

tiona

compi

i

necessa

concre

this c

More

I

FBC

S

inforr

In

B,F

1982)

FBC

un

Agency

minimia

Addi

ti

tion

wI

-

circula

granted

Midwest

imposed

il

the

conventional

oil—gas

boiler with

the

reduce

ACF~sannual

fuel

costs

from

$2,349,054

~‘~ra

annual

savings

of

$1,558,142,

The

re—

‘~5ntlion,

of

which

$1

million

has

been requested

iS

Coal

Bond Fund

(R,

27),

ACF

will

spend

approx—

0

n

outside

construction

labor.

Illinois

coal

-ill

iC

purchased for approximately

$828,000 per

)

~tilizing an Illinois

Department

of

Energy

u

ces

(“DENR”) multiplier

of

2,0

for

calculating

Ps

on

the

Illinois economy

from coal mine income,

r

Illinois coal

is expected

to yield more than

ddilonal revenues for

Illinois businesses each

)

1learly, the retrofit

of

the

ACF

boiler

with

~I3C

am

will provide

numerous

economic

benefits

a’

:

Illinois,

The

impact

on ambient air

tl

as would the health

effects.

In these

impose an arbitrary

and

unreasonable

~riance,

C

i

-

not

submitted a firm

plan for ultimate

/

)

ppm CO limitation.

The parties were

~r dated September 20,

1984, to discuss

i

rorrrj

ance

or regulatory

change will result in

oh

o~lestandard at the end

of

the

requested

o

The Agency has

responded that present

s

es not at this time

permit compliance with

~a~ioi,

The Agency further

asserts that insuf—

available

at present,

due

to

the

experimental

~inology,

to formulate a

regulation

that would

mu

achievable

CO emission

levels with FBC’s or a

?

of

compliance,

The

Agency

will,

in

the near

ezctssion

data

from

FEC

installations

in

Illinois,

cur

ently

under construction

or in a pre—opera—

o

11.

be

better

able

to

recommend

methods

of

o

alternative,

regulatory

changes

that

may be

zio

ate

this

new

technology

(Rec,

p.

5-6).

hesitant

to

grant

variances without

~p1iance,

the

circumstances

presented in

~

T

‘exibility

egarding

this requirement.

~-

o

be

developel.

concerning

CO

control

from

• ~.fo

Wormser

FBC

in

particular,

yet the

developed

u~tiJ

the

FBC’s

are

operational.

~ILPA

PCB

82—88,

49 PCB

223,

(October

27,

.~

~t~u

a five

yectr

variance for a circulating

t.

I

13.F

Goodrich

to

submit a

report

to

the

.~

to

completion

of

construction

regarding

1)

emissions and optimizing

combustion efficiency.

Goodrich

must recommend a

CO

emission

limita-

ents

best

available

control

technology for

units

within

two

years

of

completion.

The Board

iance

for

three

years

for an

FBC

installation

in

3EPA,

PCB

84-19,

June 14,

1984.

The Board

a

tudy and a

periodic

reporting requirement

62-420

---

5

as

condit on

P

the

variance.

The Board

will,

in

the

instant

case,

grart

A~’1~

a three year variance and

impose

as

a

condition

of

variarcE

t

ACF develop and implement a

program

to

study

and

evaluate

...

hnical advances

in the

control of CO in FBC

boilers.

s~

II

also be

required

to

develop

and

evaluate

the

operating

I racteristics

of

their

Wormser

FBC

boiler

and

must

submit

w

~-

t

r

reports

every six

months

outlining the progress of

these

pro

It

should also be noted

that ACF has also agreed

to

prov th

DENR

with

data

from the

project

for

future

analysis

of

ecoro

environmental impacts

of

the

Wormser

FBC

(Pet,

p,

4),

The

their

recommendation,

proposes

a

condition

that

woul

r

CF

to “immediately

implement

any

technical

advances

rol of CO in fluidized

bed combustion boilers”

(Rec,

p

-

strongly resisted

application of such a

conditior

and

in their written

brief

(R.

29, Petitioner’s

Brief

p

argues that such a

mandatory

requirement

present’-

al

economic and environmental

risks.

CO

control

ton

e

uld

be developed that

would

be extremely

expensive

lei

nt,

Thermal efficiency

could drop through

implement

f

0 controls

(R,

33,

36).

Additionally,

there

is

a trade

~

fir

the

combustion process

between CO emissions and

creation

CR.

36,

45).

Such a

mandatory condition requiring

immediate

r

drentation

of CO control techniques may not result

in

an

overal

environmental benefit,

The

Board shall not impose

such a

cone ion

in this

variance,

More information needs to be

developed

I

Board

believes that CO

emissions will be adequately

controlled a

he

400 ppm level, with

no

real risk to air quality

or human

herJ

r

during the term of the

variance.

The information

developed

4

r

the variance will enable ACF, the

Agency and

the

Board

to

reasonable and effective

control plans

in the

future

or

j

i

~ate

more

appropriate regulatory CO emission

limitatior

oard

notes, however,

that

under

35

Ill.

Adm,

Code

103

-

rders

are modifiable for

up

to

one

year

based

on

the

cx

n~w

facts not previously

before

the

Board,

r~titutesthe Board’s findings

of fact and

conclusi

~

this matter.

ORDER

Ard

nyton

Foods

(“ACF”)

is

hereby

granted

a

variance

from

3~

Code

216,121 for its

Jacksonville

food processing

plant,

ies

to the boiler that will

be

retrofitted

with a

Wormser U

d

bed combuster,

until

January

24, 1988.

The

varia

granted

subject

to the

following

condition

1.

emissions during the period

of

the

variance

be

o a level below 400 parts per

million.

62-421

---

6

2.

That

Anderson

Clayton Foods be

required

to

develop

and

implement

a program to study and

evaluate

any

technical

advances in the control of CO in

fluidized bed com-

bustion boilers,

3,

That

Anderson

Clayton

Foods be required

to develop and

evaluate

the

operating characteristics

of

their

Wormser

fluidized

bed

combustion bofler.

4,

That

Anderson

Clayton

Foods

be

required

to

submit

to

the

agency

every

six

months,

a

written

report

describing

the

progress

of

the

programs

required

by

conditions

3,

4

and

5

to

the

following address:

Control

Program

Coordinator

illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency

2200

Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

5,

Within

45

days

of the date of this

Order,

Anderson

Clayton

Foods

shall execute a Certificate

of

Acceptance

and

Agreement

to be bound to all

terms

and

conditions

of

this

variance.

Said Certification

shall

be

sub-

mItted

to

the Agency at 2200

Churchill

Road,

Spring-

field,

Illinois

62706.

The

45—day period shall be

held

in

abeyance

during

any

period

that

this

matter

is

being

appealed.

The form

of

said

Certification

shall be as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We)

,

hereby

accept

and

agr~i

Eo

be

Eound by all terms and

conditions

of

the

Order of

the

Pollution

Control Board in PCB

84—147,

January

24,

1985,

~tioner

~rized

Agent

Title

bate

---

7

IT

IS

SO ORDERED,

Board

Member

C. Theodore Meyer dissented and Board Member

J. Anderson

concurred,

I,

Dorothy

1-1.

Dunn,

Cleric of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that

the

above

pinion

and Order was

adopted

on

the

J~

day of

-

-,

1985 by

a

vote

of

O~

--~/

,

‘

/

~ZL~&~/

Dorothy

M.7Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

62-423