ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
20,
1986
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PARTICULATE EMISSION STANDARDS
)
R84—42
FOR CONTINUOUS AUTOMATIC
STOKING PATHOLOGICAL WASTE
)
INCINERATORS
PROPOSED RULE
FIRST NOTICE
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 state—wide 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.
The proposed
regulatory language has been amended several
times during the course of this proceeding.
The most current
version
is found
in the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”) December 11,
1985,
final comments
(P.C.
No.
5).
Basic
concurs with the language changes advocated by the Agency
(P.C.
No.
6).
Basic
is
the inventor and manufacturer
of
a new application
of continuous automatic stoking
to animal
(non—human)
pathological waste incineration.
Although the
proposal
is for
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
proposed
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
CO~.
It
is this correction to 12
CO2 that
the petitioner
feels
is unjust
for pathological incinerators employing automatic
70-298
—2—
stoking.
The proposed 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 proposed rule 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,
the 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 exceedence
to be caused by low CO2
emissions,
a 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 proposed
rule,
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
C02) 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
70.299
—3—
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
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,
the
petitioner proposes
a mass loading emission rate,
i.e.,
0.1
pounds of particulate per 100 pounds of charge
(0.1 lb/lOO
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.
70-300
—4—
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
chargeis 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
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 mode 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 simultaneously and therefore one would expect
to see
less time variability
in the CO2 concentration at
the discharge
stack.
70-301
—5—
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
lbs;
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
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 results 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 bacteria and
is
therefore an unnecessary health risk.
70.302
—6—
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 appioaching
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
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/lOO 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.
70-303
—7—
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
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 written 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 CO7
concentration measurements
in batch
type incinerators and Tow 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 determining 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.
70-304
—8—
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
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/lOU 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.
70-305
—9—
The Agency,
in
its final comments, describes
its position
regarding the proposed rule change as being one of “caution”
(P.C.
Mo.
5).
The Agency’s primary concerns 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
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 the 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/100 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).
70.306
—10—
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 Board will propose,
for
first notice, the regulatory
language in the Agency’s final comments, which is acceptable
to
Basic
(P.C.
No.
6).
The Board believes that the record
supporting this rule
is adequate
to proceed
to first notice and
that
it is desirable to propose
a rule that will accommodate this
new technology as applied
to pathological incineration.
By
proceeding
to first notice,
the Board specifically requests that
the USEPA provide comments regarding the approvability of this
proposed regulation.
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
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 approac, 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
70.307
—11—
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
rule,
as proposed
at first notice,
incorporates numerous
safeguards to ensure that emission 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
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
is
concerned with the approvability
of this
proposed rule as
a SIP revision.
However,
the best course of
action
is
to proceed
to first notice and specifically,
request
USEPA comments and suggestion.
The merit and economic record in
this proceeding
is complete.
The
issue of approvability by USEPA
can only be joined by taking some sort of formal action.
Therefore,
the Board
by this Opinion and Order proposes
a rule
for first notice.
This will provide all participants and USEPA
something concrete
to comment on and make suggestions.
If
further development of the record is necessary as
a result of
comments received,
then this can be done during first notice.
70-308
—12—
ORDER
Proposed 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 212.185
is directed
to the
Secretary of State for first notice publication in the Illinois
Register.
Section 212.185
Continuous Automatic’Stoking Animal
Pathological Waste Incinerators
a)
For purposes
of this section,
the following definitions
~ply:
“Animal Pathological Waste” means waste compo~4
of whole
or parts of animal
carcasses
not
exceeding
ten
percent
by
weight
of
other
materials
such
as
plastic,
~~er
wrapping
and
animal collars.
“Animal” means any
organism
other
than
a
human
being
of
the
kingdom,
Animalia,
distinguished
from
plants
by
certain
typical
characteristics
such as
the power
of
locomotion,
fixed
structure and limited growth,
and nonphotosynthetic
metabolism.
“Continuous automatic stokin~”means 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
~uals
the burning rate every hour without
limitation,
and results
in emission
rates
which
are
similar
over
~y
hour
of
the
burning
process.
b)
Section 212.181 shall
not apply
to continuous automatjc
stoking pathological waste incinerators if all
of the
following conditions are met:
1)
The
incinerator
shall
burn animal patholqgical
waste
exclusively,
except
as
otherwise
prescribed
~y
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 atmos2here 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 burn~p.g
animal
pathological waste using gaseous auxiliary fuel
shall not exceed the pound per
hour
emission
rate
equivalent to the maximum concentratior~_rateset forth
70.309
—13—
in Section 212.181(d), when app~liedto burning
a maximum
of 2000 lb of mixed charge animal pathological waste
pius solid waste
for demonstration of compliance.
“Mixed charge”
shall contain no more than 25
by weight
of solid waste other than animal pathological waste.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the
ab ye Opinion and Order was
adopted
on the ~Ot~~~dayof
____________________,
1986,
by
a vote
of
70
/~
~
______
Dorothy
M. Gun~,Clerk
Illinois Pollu’tion Control Board
70-310
