ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 18,
1986
IN THE MATTER OF:
PARTICULATE EMISSION STANDARDS
)
R84-42
FOR CONTINUOUS AUTOMATIC
)
STOKING PATHOLOGICAL WASTE
)
INCINERATORS
ADOPTED RULE
FINAL ORDER*
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by B. Forcade):
This matter comes before the Board on a November
1, 1984,
regulatory proposal by Basic Environmental Engineering,
Inc.
(“Basic”).
Basic proposes a new statewide general regulation
that would establish particulate emissions standards for
continuous automatic stoking pathological waste incinerators
(“Basic incinerator”).
Hearings were held on April
24,
1985,
in
Chicago and on June
3,
1985,
in Springfield.
On October
8,
1985,
the Department
of Energy and Natural Resources
(“DENR”)
filed
a
letter of negative declaration of economic impact, obviating the
need
for
a formal economic impact study.
The Economic and
Technical Advisory Committee of the DENR concurred with this
action on October
17,
1985.
On June
20,
1986,
the Board proposed regulatory language for
first notice comment which was published at 10
Ill.
Reg.
11751,
July 11,
1986.
The statutory 45—day comment period ended on
August
25,
1986.
One comment was received from the
Administrative Code Unit
of the Secretary of State’s Office
regarding non—substantive format corrections.
Those changes were
incorporated
in the second notice order.
On September
11,
1986,
the Board directed this proposed rule
to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
(~JCAR”)for
second notice review.
Second notice began on September 22,
1986,
and expired on November
6,
1986.
On November
19,
1986, JCAR
issued
a Certification
of No Objection.
JCAR also requested the
following
modifications:
1.
To
update
its
statutory citation
in
the
Authority Note;
The Board acknowledges the contributions of David G.
Mueller, hearing officer, and F. Tom DePaul,
technical assistant,
in this proceeding.
74-316
—2—
2.
To
amend
the
definition
of
“animal
pathological waste” in Section 212.185(a)
to read as follows:
“Animal
Pathological
Waste”
means
waste
composed
of whole
or parts
of
animal carcasses and also noncarcass
materials
such
as
plastic,
paper
wrapping and
animal
collars.
Non—
carcass
materials
shall
not
exceed
ten
percent
by weight
of
the
total
weight of the carcass and noncarcass
materials combined; and
3.
To insert in line
3 of Section 212.185(d)
after the phrase
“gaseous auxiliary fuel”
the phrase “such as natural gas.”
The Board, by today’s Opinion and Order, adopts the proposed rule
with the above—noted changes for final notice.
Basic
is the inventor and manufacturer of
a new application
of continuous automatic stoking to animal (non—human)
pathological waste incineration.
Although Basic proposed a
state—wide
rule,
the only known facility that would be affected
by the new rule is the City of Chicago animal
incinerator
at
Goose Island
(4/24/85,
R.
19,44).
The City of Chicago operates a
Basic incinerator along with two other batch type incinerators.
The incinerators at Goose Island destroy dead animals from city
streets,
animal pounds and animal hospitals
(4/24/85, R.
21—
24).
The rule would
allow animal pathological incinerators using
automatic stokers
to apply
a different basis for determining the
emission limit than Section 212.181.
The existing concentration
based regulation requires that new incinerators cannot emit more
than 0.1 grains
of particulate matter per dry standard cubic foot
(gr/dscf), when corrected
to 12
CO2.
It
is this correction
to
12
CO2 that the petitioner feels
is unjust for pathological
incinerators employing automatic stoking.
The rule establishes
a
different method
of calculating particulate emission and a
corresponding emission limitation that would apply only
to
continuous automatic stoking pathological incinerators.
The genesis of
the Basic’s regulatory proposal
is the
current operating permit condition imposed on the Basic
incinerator
at Goose Island that requires the addition of
charcoal to the animal charge
in order
to ensure compliance with
Section 212.181.
The Agency imposed this operating condition
after
two compliance stack
tests were conducted at the Goose
Island incinerator.
During the first stack
test, ?he incinerator
was operated with
a charge comprised solely of animal
carcasses.
Under these conditions,
the test results, when
corrected
to 12
C02, exceeded the existing emission limit.
Believing the excee~anceto be caused by low CO2 emissions,
a
74-317
—3—
second stack test was performed where charcoal was added to the
animal charge.
The purpose
of adding charcoal was to increase
the CO2 content of the flue gas and thereby reduce the correction
to 12
CO2.
Under
these conditions,
the incinerator passed the
stack
test and an operating permit was issued by the Agency.
The
permit stipulates that charcoal always be added to the animal
charge
(4/24/85,
R.
60).
The Basic proposal, which would allow a
mass emissions
(pounds of emissions/pounds
of charge) method of
calculating compliance rather than the existing concentration
based method
(grains/dscf, when corrected to 12
CO2), would
obviate the need
to add charcoal.
Basic presented testimony regarding the undesirability of
adding charcoal
to the animal
charge:
1)
the Basic system is
designed
to utilize natural gas jets to
insure complete
combustion of the high water content animal waste.
Charcoal
is
expensive
in terms of material and labor and
is redundant
to
natural
gas;
2) the addition of charcoal, which
is done by hand,
increases worker exposure to the infectious pathological waste.
The intended method of operation, without charcoal, minimizes the
amount of human handling of the waste;
3)
it
is difficult to
estimate and arrange the amount of charcoal needed as the animal
charge
is inherently variable;
4)
charcoal occasionally insulates
the charge and prevents complete
“burn—out,” necessitating
workers entering the incinerator and breaking up chunks
of raw
animal waste.
Natural gas jets, which directly impinge on the
waste, provide more complete destruction of the animal waste and
ensures sterile rather than putrescible ash
(4/24/85,
R. 24—28,
57—61).
Basic also pointed out that the addition of charcoal
logically increases the total amount, of material being burned and
thereby increases the total amount of particulate emissions when
compared
to animal charge alone
(6/3/85, R. 33).
Basic asserts that the current concentration based standard
and method
of calculating emissions places the Basic type
incinerator
at
a disadvantage when compared with batch type
incinerators.
This
is due
to the existing
rules’
requirement
of
correction
to 12
CO2.
The existing rule
is expressed in terms
of the concentration of particulate emissions in the stack
gas.
CO2
is a product of combustion that can be measured.
Correcting
the particulate emission calculation to 12
CO~provides a
reference point to determine whether any dilution of the
emissions
is occurring.
Dilution occurs when excess air, not
necessary for combustion,
is inadvertently or intentionally
admitted into the incinerator.
Such dilution affects the
concentration of particulate emissions in the stack gas.
Consequently,
the current rule establishes
a grain concentration
with a corresponding standard correction factor
of
12
CO2.
Basic asserts that during
a compliance stack test,
batch
type incinerators are more able
to advantageously ~cluster” CO2
emissions than the Basic incinerator which emits
CO2
in a more
74-318
—4—
continuous manner.
Continuously stoked incinerators cannot
minimize
the carbon dioxide correction factors
by performing the
test over the period of
time with highest CO2 emissions like a
batch
type incinerator
can.
This can result
in misrepresenting
the actual emissions from batch type incinerators and,
consequently, unfairly creating a bias against a Basic type
incinerator
in a stack
test.
In place of the concentration based emission limit, Basic
proposes a mass loading emission rate,
i.e.,
0.1 pounds
of
particulate per 100 pounds of charge
(0.1 lb/l00 lb charge).
While
it is the stated desire of the petitioner that the new
emission limit be exactly as stringent as the existing emission
limit,
it
is the demonstration of this equivalency that becomes
the central
issue
in this proceeding.
As this proposal
is state-
wide
in its application,
issues relating
to the demonstration
of
attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS)
for total
suspended particulates
(TSP)
arise.
There are still
areas
in Illinois
for which the state cannot demonstrate
attainment with the NAAQS.
The Basic incinerator at Goose Island
is located
in a primary non—attainment areas for TSP (6/3/85,
R.
59, 4/24/85,
R.
80).
Such attainment was
to have been
demonstrated
by the end of 1982.
Illinois presently has an
extension.
Any amendment
to existing regulations that would
allow an increase of emissions of particulate matter may not be
approvable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of
the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)
and may also make
it more
difficult to demonstrate that the NAAQS can be attained.
The record
in this matter developed through
a pattern of
testimony, response and modification, with the Agency, petitioner
and Board interacting at hearing and through written comments.
It
is necessary to review
the evidence presented in some detail
as the central issue
in the proceeding
is technical
in nature.
The first several exhibits
(Exhibits
1 and 2) described the
actual design of the Basic incinerator located at the Goose
Island facility.
Detail was
given
to the difference between this
design and a design which would typify the existing batch
type
incinerators with stationary fixed hearths that are currently
being used about the state.
One difference between the two types
of incinerators
is the nature of the feed operation.
Batch
systems are operated by placing the charge, which
in this case is
animal carcasses, onto the hearth and incinerating for
a fixed
period of time.
At the conclusion of
this period,
a second
charge
is pushed onto the hearth and any remains from the first
charge are pushed out onto a grate where the ash can fall out and
be removed.
By comparison,
the Basic design incorporates
automatic stoking which
is
a continuous feed operation.
This
method of stoking, together with some of the other design
features result
in
a more continuous
or uniform progression of
the charge through the incinerator.
While it
is the intent of
74.319
—5—
present
incinerator regulations that the testing procedures for
demonstration of compliance be unbiased so that the same
performance standards are met regardless of the type of
incinerator, this difference in the feed operation may influence
the results of emission tests.
To explain this effect,
it must be understood that the
combustion
rate,
or manner in which the charge
is burned,
is not
constant.
For the purposes here,
this implies that during the
first period, that
is the period immediately following placement
of the carcass on the hearth, very little CO2
is being
released.
Most of the heat supplied
is being used to reduce the
high moisture content of the animal.
Once sufficient evaporation
has taken place,
the heat is used
to ignite the combustible
animal tissue.
This period of rapid combustion can be noted by
an increase
in the amount
of CO~released.
A final period may be
considered
in which the combustion rate tapers off as
the amount
of material left for combustion becomes limited.
It should be
noted that any
sample of the CO2 concentration obtained at the
discharge stack and taken over a finite time period will reflect
the stage of combustion that was occurring
in the incinerator
at
that time.
It
is the contention of the petitioner that during
stack
tests for compliance,
operators of batch type incinerators
typically begin their
stack test so that the period of the test
coincides with the period of highest CO2 release from the
charge.
The petitioners then argue that this inherent “edge”
cannot be capitalized on by an automatic stoking incinerator.
The reason
being that automatic stokers, as opposed
to batch
systems,
are continuously fed and that all modes of combustion
are running simdltaneously and therefore one would expect to see
less time variability
in the CO2 concentration at the discharge
stack.
This contention
is stated in testimony given by Merle
Jackson at the first hearing and
is supported
in Exhibits 4,
5
and 7.
Exhibit
4
is
a stack test report dated January 4,
1984,
in which the Goose Island automatic stoking incinerator was
tested for purposes of permit
requisition.
The results of the
individual
stack tests show that the average amount of charge was
1,820 Ibs;
the average CO2 content
in the stack
(after
subtraction of the CO2
in the auxiliary fuel)
was 1.3;
the
average concentration at 12
CO2 was 0.464 gr/dscf and the
emission rate was 1.466 lb/hr.
The uncorrected concentration in
the stack gas was 0.012 gr/dscf.
Since the measured CO2 content
was between 1.0
and 1.5,
the 12
CO2 concentration correction
factor was between
8 and 12,
and the averaged concentration
corrected
to 12
CO2 was 0.464 gr/dscf, well above the limit of
0.1 gr/dscf.
A second stack test of the incinerator was conducted for
purposes
of demonstrating compliance with the existing regulation
on April
12,
1984.
The major difference
in the operation of
the
74-320
—6—
incinerator during the latter
test,
as compared to the January
4
test, was the addition of charcoal to the charge.
Approximately
40
lbs.
of charcoal were added to each load of animal carcass
entering the incinerator.
The addition of charcoal produced CO2
levels
in the range of 5.0
to 6.0
and,
therefore,
12
CO2
concentration corrections of 2.0
to 2.4.
These test resulEs then
yielded an averaged emission rate of 1.517 lb/hr and a
concentration corrected
to 12
CO2 of 0.097 gr/dscf when the
charging rate was 1,851
lb/hr.
Comparing these two incinerator
performance tests on a mass loading basis,
the first test
resulted
in an emission rate of 0.0809
lbs of particulate per 100
lbs of charge and the second test resulted in
a value
of 0.0828
lbs of particulate per 100 lbs
of charge.
These values are
nearly equivalent,
although the actual emissions were slightly
greater when charcoal was mixed with the charge.
Since the
concentration was below the existing emission limit,
a permit was
issued to the facility.
However,
an operating condition was
placed on the permit requiring charcoal
to be burned with the
animal carcasses.
Via
a series
of testimony presented by John Basic, president
of Basic Engineering; Merle Jackson, environmental consultant to
Basic Engineering; and Robert Cyboran, project manager for the
City of Chicago Goose Island facility; evidence was presented to
support the petitioner’s objection
to adding charcoal
to the
charge.
The major points were:
1) that better sterility of the
ash could be achieved with natural gas burning as opposed to
charcoal;
2)
burning with natural gas would
be 50—60
less
expensive than using charcoal; and 3)
it
is more difficult to
assure complete destruction when the incinerator
is operated with
a charcoal charge.
Also,
4)
the method by which charcoal
is
manually added
to the charge by workers creates an additional
opportunity for exposure
to disease producing pathogens and
is
therefore an unnecessary health risk.
The Agency did not present any evidence supporting the
advantage of using charcoal
in the charge other than to note than
comparable incineration would
be achieved with
a greater
percentage
of CO2
in the stack
gas.
The evidence presented in Exhibits
7 through 13 were
concerned with the demonstration of equivalency between the
proposed 0.1 lbs of particulate per 100 lbs of charge rule change
and the existing regulation.
While the question of equivalency
may
at first appear quite straightforward,
there are several ways
of approaching the problem where each,
though correct, result in
different values.
The argument taken by the Agency was that
if one makes the
comparison
on a theoretical basis using stoichiometric
combustion,
the existing regulation is more stringent than the
proposed regulation.
Exhibit
9 and the written testimony of
74-321
—7—
Berkley Moore demonstrate that
if the chemical analysis for
pathological waste as presented in AP—40 are used,
the requested
rule would constitute a relaxation of between 11.5
and 750.0
of
the existing regulation.
The reason for the wide range of values
is that the calculated emissions,
in terms of pounds of
particulate per pound of charge, depend upon the water content in
the charge.
The water content
is important since any variability
in the chemical composition of the fuel results
in
a similar
variability
in the mass emission based regulation.
Using the
average water content of animal pathological waste as given
in
AP—40 results
in a 77
relaxation of the standard.
It should be
noted that although the values cited
in AP—40 are probably the
best information available and that the manual
is considered
a
standard reference for calculations of this nature, the numbers
must be viewed
in light of the fact that a very limited amount of
information has been gathered on the chemical composition of
animal pathological wastes.
The petitioner presented
a more empirical comparison of the
two regulations.
The focus of
this comparison was Exhibit 12
where the emissions from
a number of pathological incinerators
were plotted by both
a concentration at 12
CO2 basis and by
a
measured pound of emission per 100 pounds of charge basis.
(Exhibit
8, which was submitted at the first hearing, contains
most
of the same data points as Exhibit 12 which was submitted at
the second hearing.
The major distinction between the two plots
is that Exhibit
12 provides
a reference for each test or data
point.)
The data selected,
in general, support the contention
that
a regulation of 0.1 lb/lOU lb charge would be equivalent.
That is, one would expect to see an equal degree
of control
required by this regulation as would be expected under the
existing regulation.
Exhibit 12 includes the test results of the
stack emission test as
the Goose Island facility.
Exhibit 13
is an extension
of Exhibit 12 where the measured
concentration corrected
to 12
CO2
is converted to a theoretical
mass emission rate using
the average chemical composition of
pathological waste as given in AP—40.
The theoretical
line then
represents the stoichiometric equivalence between the two
regulations and is
in agreement with the Agency’s calculations.
The petitioner goes on
to argue that the data presented in
Exhibit
13 does not support the theoretical equivalence but
rather that
a “line of sight” drawn through the measured data
points suggests a slope of about 1/2 the theoretical value.
The
petitioner believes that the reason for this discrepancy
is,
again,
that the CO2 measurements obtained during stack tests on
batch incinerators reflect values which are greater than the true
averaged amount of CO2 emitted during the complete burning cycle.
To emphasize this point, Exhibit
7 was entered.
Exhibit
7
is
a summary
of CO2 measurements taken during independent stack
tests on batch type incinerators.
These data indicate that when
74-322
—8—
a carbon balance
is performed,
that
is when the quantity of CO2
actually measured is divided by the amount of CO2
in the stack
gas from stoicheometric combustion,
the resulting carbon balances
are typically greater than 200.
Since a value of 100
would be
expected,
the petitioner suggests that batch incinerators are
capable of producing CO2 values that are artificially high and
which help meet compliance by reducing the 12
CO2 correction.
Via the testimony
of Dr. John Reed,
the Agency refuted some
of the arguments and conclusions presented by the petitioner.
First,
the Agency pointed out that only four of the incinerator
stack test results reported by the petitioner in Exhibit
7 are
considered acceptable by the Agency.
The other tests are not
considered representative of the performance of existing
permitted incinerators
in Illinois.
Also,
the Agency pointed out
that the petitioner’s explanation for large CO2 concentration
measurements in batch
type incinerators and low CO2 concentration
measurements in automatic stoking
incinerators is only one of
several plausible explanations.
They noted several other
explanations for
the observed phenomena.
Certainly there
is
difficulty in drawing positive conclusions for
the cause of
differing CO2 concentration levels
in these incinerators based
upon the amount of data presently available.
The detailed discussion of CO2 levels
is necessary because
it becomes
a key element
in the technical position taken
by the
Agency and the petitioner.
The petitioner argues that the
inherent edge that batch
type incinerators have been used
to
artificially increase the measured CO2 content and achieve
compliance should be recognized when aetermining equivalency with
the proposed regulation.
Alternatively, the Agency presents the
position that a more straightforward theoretically based
conversion will result
in
a more stringent limitation under the
existing rule rather than the proposed 0.1 lb/lOU lb charge
limitation.
During the course of the April
24,
1985, hearing,
the
petitioner amended
the proposal to include this sentence:
“The
particulate
emissions
produced
when
burning
animal
pathological
waste
using
gaseous
auxiliary
fuel
shall
not
exceed
the
pounds
per
hour
emission
rate
equivalent
to
the
concentration
rate
set
forth
in
Section
212.181
(d)
when
applied
to
burning
mixed
charge
animal
pathological
waste
for
demonstration
of
compliance.”
(Basic Amended
Proposal).
This addition seemed
to address some
of the Agency’s concerns
regarding
a potential loosening
of existing particulate emission
limitations.
The question then arises as to how can the amended
74-323
—9—
language be effectively implemented.
To this end,
the Agency
presented testimony by James Cobb regarding how the proposed
regulation would be implemented,
if adopted by the Board.
Two
series of stack tests would be performed, and compared
to
demonstrate equivalency with Section 212.181.
The purpose of
comparing the test results
is to show that actual emissions of
particulate matter are less under the proposed
regulation when
only animal pathological waste
is burned than emissions of
particulate matter which are allowed under the existing
regulation when burning
a mixture of
the same amount of animal
pathological waste plus up to 25
of additional material with a
higher carbon content.
The first series of tests would be performed with the mixed
charge and must demonstrate that the incinerator can meet the
existing particulate emission limitation of 0.1 gr/dscf.
The
results
of this series
of tests are converted
to a particulate
emissions limit expressed
in lb/hr.
The second series of tests
would be performed using the same amount of animal pathological
waste as during the first series of tests but without the
addition
of charcoal.
The objective of this series
of tests
would be to demonstrate that operation under “normal” conditions
would not produce particulate emissions greater than the proposed
allowable limits of 0.1 lb/lOO
lb charge consisting only of
animal pathological waste.
If the results of this series
of
tests are less than the lb/hr allowable limit from the first
series,
then the emissions will not be greater than allowed under
existing Section 212.181(d).
Petitioner would
be satisfied with
this “two test” method
of determining compliance
(6/3/85,
R.
107—
109
,
P.C. No.
6).
The remaining exhibits, Exhibits 14 and 15, demonstrate that
the Goose Island facility is located
in a primary non—attainment
area.
The Agency,
in
its
final comments, describes its position
regarding the proposed rule change as being one of “caution”
(P.C. No.
5).
The Agency’s primary concern focuses on whether
the proposed rule would
be approvable by the USEPA as
a SIP
revision.
The existing incinerator
rule, Section 212.181, has
been approved by USEPA
.
The proposed rule would apply
statewide,
in both attainment and non—attainment areas for TSP.
Specifically,
the only existing Basic type incinerator
is located
in a primary non—attainment area.
The Agency has legitimate
concerns
in this regard because
it
is their duty under
the Act to
submit regulatory amendments
to USEPA as SIP revisions.
Two tests will have to be passed by any regulation adopted
by the Board for non—attainment areas.
First,
it will have
to be
shown that the regulation will not jeopardize any attainment
demonstration approved by the USEPA as part of
the SIP and
second,
it will have to be shown that the emissions allowed by
74-324
—10—
the regulation constitute “reasonably available control
technology”
(RACT)
(P.C.
No.
5, pp.
7—10).
The Agency believes that there are several ways that USEPA
could view the proposed rule for purposes of determining
the air
quality impacts
in a non—attainment area in its review as a SIP
amendment.
Since, from
a theoretical point
of view,
the
regulation could allow an increase in emissions over current
operation,
the USEPA may disapprove
the regulation because the
state does not have an approved attainment demonstration for
particulate matter
in any non—attainment area for this
pollutant.
In the absence
of such demonstration, USEPA cannot
determine what,
if any, impact the proposal will have on the
state’s ability to achieve the goals of the attainment
demonstration.
This rationale has been given for disapproval of
variances from particulate standards
in non—attainment areas
(50
FR 26732).
However,
the size of the one existing facility and the
magnitude of the potential increase
in emissions under
the
proposed regulation may affect USEPA’s response.
If the existing
Basic incinerator were to operate at the maximum rate,
that is,
24 hours per day,
365 days per year, then the total emissions
under the proposed regulation would be 8.76 tons per year.
When
compared
to the operation of
a standard incinerator burning the
same material under
the existing regulation, at the theoretical
rate of 0.056 lb/lOO lb charge,
the anticipated emissions would
be 4.9 tons per year.
The difference of 3.8 tons may be
considered insignificant by USEPA.
In its letter
of June 21,
1985,
to the DENR, John Basic used the figure of 2080 hours
of
operation annually.
When that figure
is used instead
of the
maximum of 8760 hours
of operation per year, the maximum
allowable emissions are 2.08 tons per year, which
is
an increase
of 0.9 tons per year over what would be allowed under the
existing regulation
(P.C.
No.
6).
Regarding the RACT determination, the Agency believes that
many technical issues have been addressed but that additional
evidence regarding the benefits of the continuous automatic
stoking technology be submitted,
preferably by the City of
Chicago.
The Agency believes that the economic information
is
very weak
(P.C. No.
5, pp.
10—11).
Basic responds that
it
is
inappropriate for
the Agency to question the DENR’s determination
regarding the economic aspects
of the regulation
(P.C.
No.
6).
The technical record
in this proceeding
is extremely well
developed, which
is appropriate because the Board believes that
the ultimate issue
is technical
in nature.
Basic and the Agency
have approached the issue from two different methodologies;
the
Agency from a
theoretical basis and Basic from a more empirical
basis.
Both approaches are valid
in coming to
a decision in this
matter.
In
a like manner,
Basic proposes
a different method of
74-325
—11—
calculating emissions than the existing concentration based
method.
Both the mass emission approach and the concentration
based
approach
are
valid;
each
has
merits
depending
on
what
type
of process
it is applied to.
Basic has made a good case that the
mass emissions approach
is more appropriate for continuous
stoking pathological waste incinerators systems than the
concentration based approach, while not increasing actual
emissions.
The Board recognizes that batch incinerators can “cluster”
CO2 emissions during a stack test through sequence charging,
based on evidence presented by Basic.
This proposition
is
supported by the carbon balances that were calculated from
previous stack test reports which show values higher than 100.
The concentration based approach could inequitably treat an
incinerator with a continuous feed system,
such as
a Basic
incinerator.
Clearly, an argument that the existing regulation allows
“fudging” of CO2 levels with one type of incinerator but not
another would
be inadequate to support
a rule change.
However,
Basic has demonstrated by comparison of concentration based
emissions
to mass emissions data obtained during previous stack
tests that actual emissions will be equal
to or lower than
currently permitted emission levels.
The Agency critizes some of
the empirical data upon which Basic’s arguments are based as
being old or
“not approved” by the Agency.
It would appear to
the Board that it
is better
in this situation to try to review as
much of the admittedly limited data
as possible rather than
narrow the analysis.
The adopted rule incorporates numerous safeguards
to ensure
that emissions will be no greater than under existing Section
212.181.
Section 212.185(d)
requires that emissions must be
equivalent to those permitted under Section 212.181(d).
The
proposed method of Agency permitting via two stack tests and
a
comparison of emissions seems workable and will effectively
implement the intent of Section 212.185(d).
Regarding the approvability issue,
the Board feels that this
is fundamentally addressed by the demonstration of equivalency
between the existing rule and the proposed rule.
If USEPA
accepts the demonstration that operating under
a mass emissions
regulation will result in emissions less than or
equal to the SIP
approved concentration—based regulation,
then the proposed rule
should be approvable.
Additionally,
if the rule is equivalent to
a rule that is considered RACT,
then
it too should be RACT.
Further evidence regarding the advantages of the Basic
incinerator system would not shed more light on the real issue of
whether there
is
a tightening or a loosening of particulate
emission levels.
The fact that Basic
is currently in negotiation
with the City of Chicago to replace the existing batch
units at
74.326
—12—
Goose Island seems
to demonstrate
the desirability of
the system
in the market place.
The standard that this Board must follow in promulgating
rules
is technical feasibility and economic reasonableness.
Clearly operating without charcoal, which the proposed rule will
facilitate,
is technically feasible as the system was designed to
utilize natural gas.
The record indicates that natural gas
is
more desirable from an economic and health standpoint.
The
proposed rule will also be economically reasonable as a result of
decreased labor and materials required for operation.
The Board proposed the rule for first notice and, speci-
fically, requested comments from USEPA on the issue of SIP
approvability.
No substantive comments were received during the
first notice period.
The Board believes that the record
supporting this rule is sufficient and that it
is desirable to
adopt a rule that will accommodate
this new technology as applied
to pathological incinerators.
The Board believes that the rule
provides adequate safeguards of equivalency to the existing
applicable
rules.
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts Section 212.185 as
a final
rule.
The Clerk of the Pollution Control Board
is directed
to submit
the following adopted
rule to the Secretary of State for
publication in the Illinois Register:
Section 212.185’
Continuous Automatic Stoking Animal
Pathological Waste Incinerators
a)
For purposes
of this Section,
the following definitions
apply:
“Animal Pathological Waste” means waste composed
of whole or parts of animal carcasses and also
noncarcass materials such as plastic,
paper wrapping and
animal collars.
Noncarcass materials shall not exceed
ten percent by weight of the total weight
of the carcass
and noncarcass materials combined.
“Animal” means any
or~anismother than a human being of
the kingdom,
Animal, distinguished from plants by certain typical
characteristics such as the power of locomotion,
fixed
structure and limited growth,
and non—photosynthetic
metabolism.
“Continuous automatic stoking” mans the
automatic moving of animal pathological waste during
burning, by moving the hearth
in a pulse cycle manner,
which process
is designed
to provide
a continuous
burning rate
in which the design charging rate per hour
equals the burning
rate every hour without limitation,
and results
in emission rates which are similar
over any
hour
of the burning process.
74-327
—13—
b)
Section
212.181 shall not appl~vto continuous automatic
stokin~pathological waste incinerators
if all of the
following conditions are met:
1)
The incinerator shall burn animal pathological
waste exclusively, except as otherwise prescribed
by the Agency during specified test operation.
2)
The incinerator
shall burn no more than 907
kilograms
(2000
pounds)
of waste per hour.
3)
The incinerator shall be multi—stage controlled air
combustion incinerator
having cyclical pulsed
stoking hearth.
C)
No person shall cause or allow the emission of
particulate matter
into the atmosphere from
any
incinerator,
as defined
in this section,
to exceed
1
gram of emission per
1 kilogram of
animal pathological
waste charge
(0.1 lb/lOO lb
).
d)
The particulate matter emissions produced when burning
animal pathological waste using gaseous auxiliary fuel,
such as natural gas,
shall not exceed the pound per hour
emission rate eguivalent
to the maximum concentration
rate set forth
in Section 212.181(d), when applied to
burning
a maximum of 2000 lb of mixed charge animal
pathological waste plus solid waste
for demonstration of
compliance.
“Mixed charge”
shall contain no more than
25
by weight
of solid waste other than animal
pathological waste.
(Source:
Added at
Ill.
Reg.
_______,
effective
___________
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the ~ove
Opinion and Order was
adopted,on the /f~day of
_________________,
1986, by a vote
of
______________
Dorothy M.,,t~unn,Cl~’rk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
74-328
