ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
July 24,
1980
BUNGE CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 79—135
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Respondent.
EDWARD CUNNINGHAM, BROWN, HAY
& STEPHENS, APPEARED ON BEHALF OP
PETITIONER.
REED NEUMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
I.
Goodman):
Bunge Corporation
(Bunge) filed this petition for variance
on July
2,
1979, requesting that the Board grant variance from the
requirements and standards imposed by Rule 103(b)(2) and Rule
203(g)(1)(D) of the Board’s Air Pollution Control Regulations
(Regulations) for two coal—fired boilers located in Cairo,
Illinois. On May
8,
1980 Bunge amended its petition in the
alternative
to request variance from Rule 103(b)(1)
of the
Regulations should the Board find the source involved herein
to
be classified a new source.
Hearing was held on May
5,
1980.
The Board has received no public comment on this petition.
Bunge owns and operates a soybean processing plant and grain
elevator located in Cairo, Alexander County,
Illinois.
The
facility employs about 110 persons and purchases 70
of its
soybeans locally.
Approximately 75,000 bushels of soybeans are
crushed each day into soybean meal and soybean oil.
Two
spreader—stoker boilers with travelling grates
utilizing
approximately
90 tons per day of low sulfur coal are the source
of process steam required by the facility.
Only one boiler
operates at a time; the other
is used on a standby basis.
In 1977 when the boilers were originally installed,
particulates were controlled with multiclone flyash arrestors and
sulfur dioxide control was achieved through flue gas
desulfurization using
a scrubber.
—2—
In order to achieve full compliance with the regulations
Bunge proposes to install by August,
1981 a baghouse at a cost of
approximately
$2,400,000.
In addition, Bunge proposes to install
certain other equipment and make certain repairs which it has
estimated will cost an additional
$575,000.
In its petition
Bunge notes that the Cairo area
is sustaining
a declining trend
in population and has
a 24
rate of unemployment.
In its recommendation of August
3,
1979 the Agency stated
that although it did not find the program proposed by Bunge to be
unreasonable,
it was delayed in coining and that any hardship
claimed by Bunge
is self-imposed.
In addition the Agency
Recommendation urges that there
is insufficient showing by Bunge
that the ambient
air
quality of the region,
and the national
ambient air quality standards, will not be adversely affected by
granting this proposed variance.
The Agency also stated that the variance request should be
from Rule 103(b)(1) instead of 103(b)(2) because Bunge installed
the boilers and started them up in November,
1977, which action
qualifies the boilers as “new” emission sources under the
definition of Rule 101 of the Regulations.
The Board
finds that
Bunge’s two boilers constitute new emission sources as defined in
Rule
101 of the Board’s Regulations.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT
Given that Bunge’s proposed construction schedule
is
reasonable and that the baghouse installation will result
in
compliance with the Board’s regulations, the effect of the
proposed variance on the environment and the hardship which
will be sustained by l3unge should the proposed variance be denied
must be considered.
Exhibit
1,
a copy of the Federal Register,
Volume
45, No,
21, dated January 30,
1980,
indicates that all of
the counties within Air Quality Control Region 72 with the
exception of Massac County have attainment statuses with respect
to national ambient air quality secondary particulates standard.
Exhibit 22 contains the results of Bunge’s consultant’s somewhat
poorly designed effort to determine the effect of Bunge’s
emissions on the area.
The results indicate
a moderate effect on
local ambient air quality and that the adverse effect on air
quality diminishes rapidly in areas beyond Bunge’s property
boundaries.
In its recommendation the Agency noted that the nearest air
quality monitoring reporting stations are operated by the
Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA)
in Metropolis
(Massac County)
and a State—owned facility at Massac County Hospital in
Metropolis.
The 1977 data for the two TVA sites indicated a
level of 45 micrograms per cubic meter.
The Massac County
Hospital data were inconclusive statistically, but the Agency
does not expect Bunge’s emissions to have any effect due to the
distance between Cairo and Metropolis.
—3—
Although this evidence concerning particulates emission
levels is not clear,
in considering other evidence
in the record,
including the volume of Bunge’s emissions,
the Board
concludes
that continued operation of the facility during construction of
the proposed baghouse will not pose
a threat to the ambient air
quality
in the region.
HARDSHIP
Bunge installed the two boilers in 1977 along with a
multiclone dust arresting system in tandem with a flue gas
desulfurization scrubber.
At that time it was felt by all
parties that the system would allow compliance with the Board’s
regulations.
It was soon apparent that the forced draft system
had been undersized and that the boilers could not function
correctly unless the scrubber section was removed from the flue
gas train
(R.64).
The sulfur problem was corrected through the
use of low sulfur coal, but stack tests were not conducted then
because of coal vendor problems caused by a strike and a very
cold winter.
The May, 1978 stack test indicated that emissions
levels were higher than those allowed by the Board’s regulations.
A decision was made at that time to attempt to achieve compliance
by “tinkering” with the system, that
is, making adjustments both
in the coal and the equipment to minimize particulate emissions.
Bunge installed a vacuum ash system and changed a fuel
specification to a higher Btu content and lower ash and fines
content coal
(R.67).
A second test was conducted in September,
1978, which indicated a three—fold increase in particulate
emissions
levels instead of the expected reduction (R.71).
The
unexpected increase remains,
for all practical purposes,
unexplained
(R.72).
At this time Bunge decided to investigate alternative
actions.
The option of switching to oil
to fuel the boilers was
closed in Bunge’s estimation by a federal
law concerning
conversions
to fuel oil and a dramatic increase in the
Oji
price
structure.
Early in 1979
a consultant was engaged to do a
complete cost study and analysis on bringing the boilers into
compliance with the Board’s regulations.
The consultant submitted the report in March of 1979 which
resulted in
a decision by Bunge
to install
a baghouse in the
boiler exhaust train.
It was at this time that Bunge
filed
the
instant variance petition
(R.76).
It is the Agency’s opinion that the chronology outlined
above proves only that Bunge
has
put itself
in
a bad position by
making poor decisions,
dragging its feet, and cutting too many
corners.
While conceding that the baghouse system represents a
satisfactory solution
to the problem,
the Agency does not concede
that Bunge had done all it could to comply prior to the baghouse
committment.
The Agency,
in effect, argues the prudent man
standard, that Bunge has not acted in the same manner as that of
a prudent man in Bunge’s situation.
4a4a
The
Board
disagrees.
Certainly
in
retrospect
it
can
be
argued
that
Bunge
has
made
some
wrong
decisions.
The
prudent
man
standard,
however,
does
not
demand
that
the
conclusions
and
decisions
be
correct
ones.
It
only
demands
that
they
be
within
the
scope
of
what
a
reasonable
man
might
have
determined
under
similar
conditions.
The
Board
finds
that
Bunge’s
decisions,
although incorrect, were indeed reasonable.
The Board will
therefore grant the variance requested under certain conditions.
In
its
recommendation
the
Agency
points
out
that
Bunge
is
requesting
what
amounts
to
totally
uncontrolled
emission
levels
during
the
period
of
the
variance
and
therefore
suggests
certain
conditions
if
the
Board will
decide
to
allow
the
variance.
The
Agency’s position is well taken.
The recommendations include
monitoring,
maintenance
and
reporting requirements, the
abandonment
of
the
flyash
injection
system
on
both
boilers,
and
a
performance surety
bond
in
the
amount
of
$75,000.
The
Board will
condition
the
variance
upon
these recommended requirements.
This
Opinion
constitutes
the
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
of
the
Board
in
this
matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that
Bunge Corporation be granted variance from the Illinois Pollution
Control Board’s particulate emission standards under Rules
203(g)(1)(D) and 103(b)(1) of Chapter 2:
Air Pollution from July
2, 1979 until October 15, 1981 under the following conditions:
1.
Bunge Corporation shall execute its proposed compliance
plan as contained in the petition for variance herein filed July
2, 1979, which petition is hereby incorporated by reference as if
fully set forth herein.
2.
Bunge Corporation shal1 instal1 at least
two
ambient
air monitors for particulates in appropriate locations in
and
around the plant site, to be operated during the remaining
term
of this variance.
The site location for the monitoring equipment
is to be approved by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
prior to installation.
3.
Bunge Corporation shall
submit
monthly reports to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency tabulating all data
gathered by the air monitors noted above.
4.
Bunge Corporation shall initiate a preventative
maintenance program on its boilers and associated air pollution
control
equipment,
said
program
to
be approved by the Agency and
to
include
a
monthly
report
of
al 1
maintenance
performed
and
any
malfunctions
experienced.
5.
Bunge
Corporation
shall
discontinue
the
use
of
the
flyash injection system on both boilers until such time as it
achieves compliance
with
the Board’s particulate regulations.
—5—
6.
Bunge Corporation shall submit to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency’s Region
3 office a quarterly
report indicating construction completed during the previous
quarter.
7.
Within 45 days of the date of this Order,
Bunge
Corporation shall furnish to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency a performance surety bond in the amount of
$75,000,
said bond to be released upon timely completion of the
compliance plan.
8.
Within 45 days
of the date of this Order, the Petitioner
shall
execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, Variance Unit,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,
IL
62706,
an executed Certification of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound
by all conditions
of the variance.
This 45—day period shall be
stayed
if Petitioner
seeks judicial review of this variance
pursuant to Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act.
The
form of
sa.id certification shall be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We),
____________________________,
having read and
fully understanding the Order in PCB 79—135 hereby accept that
order and agree
to be bound by its terms and conditions.
By
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
,
,
Title
Date
Mr. Werner concurs
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that th
above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
~/h
day of
______________,
1980 by a
vote of
~
.
06)
~tanL.,~7?~rk
Illinois Pollutio
Control Board
