ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
August
18,
1983
CPC INTERNATIONAL,
INC~,
Petitioner,
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
~LTheodore
Meyer):
On December 30,
1982
CPC
International,
Inc0
(CPC)
filed
a pleading requesting an Alternative
Emission
Standard for its
fuel
combustion sources located at
its Argo, Illinois plant.
The
Alternative
Standard procedure was then
under
consideration
by
the Board in R80-22:
Sulfur Dioxide ~ission
Limitations0
With
that same pleading,
CPC also requested a variance from
its current operating limit of 1~8pounds per million Btu
(lbs/mBtu),
That same limitation was
then
under consideration
in
R80—22 and was finally adopted
as
the
general
emission
limit
for
sources
located
in
the
Chicago major metropolitan area.
Pending
final adoption of
R80—22,
on January 27,
1983 the Board
stayed.
action
on CPC~sAlternative
Standard
request
and
variance
~etition.
The
Board.
also
assigned
a
separate
docket
number
to
the
variance
petition.
On
March
16,
1983
CPC
filed
a
~Supplement
to the Petition for
Adoption
of
an
Alternative
Standard
and
for
Variance.
The
rules
adopted
in R80’~22
became
effective
on
March
28,
i983~
That
same
day
CPC
moved
to
lift
the
Board
imposed
stay
and
to
consolidate
both
matters
for
hearing0
On
April
7,
1983,
the
Board
granted
the
former
but denied the
request
to
consolidate
because
the
relief sought
and the ele—
merits
of
proof
differ
in
each
proceeding.
The
Board
also
ordered that the Supplement
filed on March 16,
1983
serve
as
the
variance petit:ion0
Hearing on the Variance Petition was noticed
on April
18,
1983 and
held
on May 19,
1983,
The Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency (Agency)
filed its Recommendation on
May 24,
1983.
No public comments were received in this matter0
Pursuant to Section 35
of
the
Act,
CPC
requested a variance
from the 1.8 lhs/mBtu limit found at Rule 204(f),
Since the
Board~s
stay
was
lifted within twenty days of
the effective
date of that
rule,
pursuant to Section 38 of the Act,
CPC ob—
t~aineda statutory stay of the application of
Rule
204(f) to its
Argo sources pending disposition of this variance petition0
The Petition
filed
March
16,
1983 stated that this was CPC~s
53-217
)
V
C
3
1.
1
T
I.
a
1
tO.
-
‘
c.
a
c
1p-
sic
u
I
)
~
‘jP
‘
e
b
a
c
t
t
ct
0
r
a4
C
x
y
I
-e
4
3
p
US
ii
—3.-
The
Agency Recommendation found the modeling analysis per-
formed by CPC acceptable.
However, it qualified its assessment
that CPC could be granted a 6.0 lbs/mBtu limit without possibly
causing NAAQS violations,
The Agency noted that CPC had been
studied as an isolated source,
and that
the other
boilers
in the vicinity had been included in the
model at
a
maximum lii~ni-
tation of 1.8 lbs/mBtu.
Should any of these sources
be similar—
ily granted a relaxed limitation or should
new sources he located
in
the
area, the Agency stated that
maintaining air quality
for
sulfur
dioxide could become a problem.
CPC~srequest for variance
is deficient,
CPC did
demon-
strate the environmental consequences and consistency with
federal.
law should its sources not have to comply
with
Rule 204(f).
How-
ever, CPC did not demonstrate that
it
is
now out of compliance.
It did demonstrate the economic benefits
should it not have
to
comply.
Finally, CPC did not include a plan or
schedule to
achieve compliance with Rule 204(f),
This is because CPC is
not
requesting a period of time to make progress towards compliance.
Rather CPC is requesting to go out of compliance with Rule 204(f)
to save money and possibly increase the use of
Illinois
coal,
i.e.
medium sulfur coal, in keeping with Section 9,2 of the Act,
This
form of relief is inconsistent with Title IX of the Act.
Since a
variance has,
at the most,
a five year duration, compliance with
the Act or Board regulation is ultimately anticipated.
A variance
is intended to defer compliance to avoid arbitrary or unreason—
able hardship being
suffered by a Petitioner,
CPC
is
not antici-
pating new technology or other changes
which necessitate
a
delay
in compliance.
In fact, through
its
pleadings and statements
at hearing CPC sought the variance as a means of obtaining a stay
pursuant to Section 38,
Since CPC did not adequately demonstrate
that it is now out of compliance or to be
in compliance
with
Rule 204(f) at this time would impose an arbitrary or unreason-
able hardship at its Argo facility, which could
be
avoided by
limited relief from that Rule, CPC’s request for variance
is denied.
The Board recognizes that CPC is currently seeking exemption
from Rule 204(f) through the alternative emission standard pro—
cedure provided at Rule 204(g).
This,
or a site—specific rule-
making,
is the more appropriate forum for the relief CPC is seek-
ing.
ORDER
CPC International, Inc.~srequest for variance from
Rule 204(f) of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution for
its three sources
located at its Argo facility is hereby denied~.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
53-219
J0
D.
Dumelle
concurred.
I,
Ohristian
L,
!4offett,
Clc~rkof
the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
ce~tify
that
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
on
thej~’day
of
,
1983 by a
vote
of
~
Christan
L,
Moffett,
c~re~k
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
~