ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
18,
1983
CPC INTERNATIONAL,
INC.
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 82—153
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
PERCY
L.
ANGELO, MAYER, BR~~N& PLATT, APPEARED
ON
BEHALF OF
PETITIONER;
PETER E. ORLINSKY APPEARED ON
BEHALF
OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by 3. Theodore Meyer):
CPC International, Inc.
(CPC)
initiated this proceeding
on December
30,. 1982 by filing
a petition for relief from sulfur
dioxide limitations for its two sources
in the Chicago major
metropolitan area.
At that time the sulfur dioxide rulemaking
docketed as R80—22 was
in Second Notice pursuant to the Admini-
strative Procedure Act
(Ill.
Rev,
Stat. 198i~
ch,
127,
pars.
1005.01(b)).
The proposed. rules were subsequently adopted as
final by the Board on February 24,
1983 and effective on March 28,
1983.
Adopted therein at Rule 204(f)
(hereinafter 35
Iii,
Adm.
Code 214.141 as codified) was
a
1.8 pounds per million British
thermal unit
(lbs/mbtu)
limit
for sulfur dioxide emitted from ex-
isting
fuel combustion sources burning exclusively solid
fuel
in
the Chicago major metropolitan area.
A method for these sources
to obtain an alternative limitation was also adopted at Rule 204(g)
(hereinafter 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 214.201 as codified).
Thus, prior
to adoption, CPC had filed
a Petition for Variance from the then
proposed limit of 1.8 lbs/mbtu and a Petition for an Alternative
Standard pursuant to then proposed rule for its Bedford Park
Illinois facility.
On January 12,
1983 the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
moved to dismiss the Variance petition as pre-
maturely filed.
CPC filed
its Response on January 24,
1983.
On
January 25,
1983 it moved to stay the proceeding until the effec-
tive date of R80-22, whereupon the Agency would agree to with-
draw its motion.
On January
27,
1983 the Board ordered that the
54-349
—2—
Petition for an Alternative Standard and the Petition for Van.-
ance be docketed separately (PCB 82—153 and PCB 83—11, respec-
tively); that CPC file a Variance petition distinct from the com-
bined petition already received; and that proceedings in both mat-
ters be stayed.
On March 16,
1983 CPC filed a Supplement to its
original
filing which the Board later accepted as the requested
Variance petition.
On March 28, 1983 CPC moved to lift the stay
and to consolidate hearings on both petitions.
On April
7,
1983
the Board lifted the stay, but denied consolidation since the
relief sought and elements of proof differed for each petition.
Hearing on the Alternative Standard petition was held on June
3,
1983 in Chicago.
A second hearing was held on September 12,
1983
to provide the additional information requested by an August 18,
1983 Board Order.
CPC owns and operates a corn wet milling plant on approxi-
mately 300 acres in Bedford Park,
Illinois.
Employing approxi-
mately 1550 people, CPC processes approximately 100,000 bushels of
corn per day into finished products including corn sugar,
corn
starch, corn oil and corn syrup.
The necessary steam and energy
is generated by three dry—bottom pulverized coal fired boilers,
each having a rated capacity of 330 mbtu/hour.
Two
boilers are
vented through one stack and the third is vented through a
second stack
(R.43).
Both stacks are 250 feet high, which consti-
tutes good engineering practice, and are equipped with hotside
electrostatic precipitators to control particulate matter (R.44).
To meet a
1.8 lbs/mbtu sulfur dioxide emission limit, in the past
CPC has burned low sulfur coal, that
is, coal with an estimated
sulfuric content of less than 1.
(R.45)
Based on CPC~sDecember,
1981 through November, 1982 purchases
it annually burns approxi-
mately 300,000 tons of coal at an approximate cost of $51.00 per
ton.
(R.54)
CPC estimates that low sulfur coal
is $10
-
$18 per ton
more expensive than medium sulfur coal which is available from
Illinois’ reserves.
So that CPC may burn the latter, with an
estimated sulfuric content of 3,
CPC is requesting that an alter-
native limit of 6.0 lbs/mbtu be applied to its Bedford Park
sources.
Under Section 214,201, CPC bears the burden of proving
in an adjudicative hearing that its proposed limit will not cause
or contribute to a violation of the primary or secondary air
quality standards or of any applicable Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) increment.
If this relief
is granted pursuant
to the Section 214.201 process, the alternative limit is to be
included as a condition to CPC~soperating permit.
To sustain its burden of proof, CPC used modeling analysis
to demonstrate that a relaxed limit of 6.0 lbs/mbtu would not
violate the
3 hour or 24 hour ambient air quality standards
for sulfur dioxide.
(Exhibit 19),
CPC premised its modeling
on a recent study by the Agency for sulfur dioxide in the Chicago
major metropolitan area.
(Ex.
4).
This same study had been intro—
54-350
—3—
duced and relied on in setting the Chicago limit of 1.8 ihs/mBtu
in R80-22.
The dispersion model, MPTER, included background con-
centrations
for the area, surface observations from Chicago Midway
and mixing heights from Peoria from 1973 to 1977, and the impact
of Bedford Park’s sources at an assumed emission rate of 1,8
lhs/mbtu.
Therefore,
using MPTER,
and the same meteorological data, CPC
modeled the incremental increase
in emissions and added these to
the Agency~sanalyzed base values to discover possible points of
violations.
Given CPC’s request for a relaxed limit of 6,0 lbs/mbtu
the incremental increase amounted
to 4,2 lbs/mbtu.
Since both
stack heights constitute good engineering practice, CPC~sstudy
did not evaluate possible building downwash.
The Agency’s study had assessed impacts at 700 receptors.
Attainment was considered achieved if the total concentration
predicted at a receptor was below 80
of the ambient air quality
standard.
This assured a 20
growth margin.
At the outset of
CPC’s study,
the number of receptors was reduced
to
90,
Only
those receptors within 10 kilometers of the CPC facility were
retained to be studied along with four monitoring stations near
CPC.
Thereon the analysis,
in a four part process,
identified
those receptors where concentrations could exceed the 80
value,
and eliminated from further study those that did not.
At the first
step the five highest
3 hour and 24 hour concentrations at each of
the ninety receptors were determined.
The impacts, with one excep-
tion, were less than or equal to 30
of the respective standard.
Therefore, receptors originally modeled by the Agency to have
concentrated impacts of less than 50
of the standards were elimi-
nated, reducing the number of receptors remaining to be studied
by CPC to 39.
The next step was to add the highest incremental
values determined by CPC to the second highest concentrations
determined by the Agency
for each of the remaining receptors.
Where the sum did not exceed 80
of the standard, the receptors
were eliminated from further study.
Eleven receptors remained,
7
of which required further analysis for both the
3 hour and 24
hour standards.
The fourth step involved
a two—part screening process.
The
highest incremental concentrations determined by CPC were added
to the Agency’s concentrations for both the 24 and
3 hour standards.
If the sum indicated potential concentrations less than 80
of
the respective standard, the receptor was eliminated.
If the
result was greater than 80
of the respective standard,
a day to
day analysis was performed.
That is, CPC~svalues were added to
the Agency’s values for the same modeled day.
At each receptor
the results were negative for both standards.
None of the eleven
studied for the 24 hours standard exceeded 80
of the standard,
and none of the seven studied for the
3 hour standard exceeded
80
of that standard.
(R.
188—190)
In going from 90 receptors to the last step involving the
eleven receptors, CPC’s analysis was most conservative.
The
54-351
—4-.
twenty percent growth margin developed in the Aqency~soriginal
analysis
was
maintained
and
secondly,
it
was
not
until
the final
step that CPC~shighest incremental values were paired with the
Agency~svalues
for the same day and time.
In each preceeding
step
the
highest
levels
due
to
the
incremental increase were
added to second highest values determined by the Agency, regard-
less of the fact that they were not predicted to occur at
the
same
time.
Two
additional
analyses
were
performed
by CPC.
The first
was
to identify points of high concentrations which may have
been
missed
in
the
initial
analysis.
Concerned about one
hour
concentrations,
59 additional receptors were identified downwind
from
CPC during conditions of maximum concentrations,
After deter-
mining the five highest
3 hour and 24 hour concentrations
for
each
and
again
employing
the same model and data used by the Agency,
the
concentrations
were found
to
be
similar to those at the Agen-
cyvs
receptors.
Furthermore,
the
absolute
highest
concentrations
occurred
at
receptors
studied
by
the
Agency.
This
result.
endorses
the
reliability
of
the
receptor
network
originally
used
in
the
Agency~s study,
and
subsequently
scrutinized
by
CPC,
In
the
second
additional,
and
final
analysis,
CPC
evaluated
the
anticipated
impact
at
the
original
receptors
and
the
supple-
mental
receptors
for
the
years
of
1973,
1974,
1976
and
1977.
In
so
doing
CPC
duplicated
the
afore
described
analysis
which
had
been
based
on
1975
data
which
is
traditionally
considered
‘~worst
cased.
The
results
for
the
additional
four
years
were
substan-
tially
the
same
as
those
for
1975.
At
none
of the receptors were
conditions
predicted
to
be
greater
than
80
of
the
air quality
standards.
Under the alternative standard process, consumption
of
PSD increments
is to be evaluated,
if applicable.
In this instance
the PSD program
is not applicable
since 40 CFR 51,24(b)(2)(iii)(e)
removes CPC~sintended switch to medium sulfur coal
from the
definition of a major modification.
Nevertheless the PSD program
is intended to insure a margin for new industrial growth and a
hypothetical evaluation of CPC’s consumption
is therefore of
value to the Board.
In the area of the CPC facility the PSD baseline has not yet
been established,
Assuming that this fuel
switch or some other
project had established a baseline, CPC~smodeling analysis
provides the information necessary to evaluate it under the
PSD ~rogram.
The PSD level
for the
3 hour standard is 512
ug/m
.
Over the five year peri~dstudied the second highest
3
hour conSentration was 350 ug/m
in the Agencys~sanalysis and
359 ug/m
after studying CPC~sincreased etfec~.
The PSD incre-
ment level
for the 24 hour standard is 913ug/m
.
The second
highest 24 hour concentration
~as
83
ug/m
according to the
Agency~sanalysis,
and
95 ug/m
by CPC~sanalysis.
(Ex.
19
Table 6).
Obviously,
the predictions were far bei.ow the
3 hour
54-352
PSD incremental
level, and in only
the
one
instance
c.~cd
ma’gir
ally above the 24 hour level.
The other
four years’
second
high-’
est pre~ictionsfor the 24 hour concentrations
were
beow
thc
91 ug/m
level,
it is possible that sources of
sulfur
dioxide
near
the
CPC
facility could intermix with its emissions to cause trouble spots.
Three such sources,
GM Electromotive, Western Electric
s Hawthorne
Works, and Commonwealth Edison’s Rid.geland facility were
reviewed
and should be given special consideration by CPC, but c~ch&ininated
for individualistic reasons.
Although GM Electromotive is
within 10 kilometers of CPC,
it was not predominantly downwind
from CPC.
Therefore CPC believed its modeling analysi~~
to bc
suf-’
ficient to detect any potential violation,
The
Hawtho~o T,r:ks
are outside of the
10
kilometer mixing zone
and
thcrefore
irter—
mixing
is unlikely,
(R,116),
Additionally, Hawthorne to
arrounced
its intention to close, which will
in effect reduc?.
.,ulfu
dio~’ride
emissions
in the area,
(R.196)
Likewise, Comnonwealth Ldi on tas
retired the Ridgeland facility and therefore CPC did not con.~ider
its emissions
(R,
102,
Ex,
23).
At the time of it.~an
yois
none
of the sources near CPC
had
requested
a
relaxed
limit
pursuant
to
Section 214,201,
CPC therefore did not incinde this pos~.ibiIty
in its analysis.
The closing of two nearby major sources reduces
this possibility.
The Agency has requested that CPC be required to sample and
average daily the sulfuric content of its coal,
The Agency argues
that daily averaging
is necessary to satisfy the relaxation as
a SIP amendment due to a United States Environmental Protection
Ageny’s
(USEPA)
letter of April
22,
1983
(Resp,
Ex,
1),
In summary
that letter states that
if emission limits are quantified in mass
emissions per unit of time, then ambient a~rquality standards and
PSD increments may be jeopardized should a source choose to use
poorer quality fuel at reduced loads,
To avoid this possibility,
the letter suggests that emission limits be estabiishea
n pounds
of sulfur dioxide per unit of heat content (lbs/mbtu), or that
modeling demonstrate
the results at all feasible operating loads.
At the very finish, the letter recommends the first option and
in parenthesis qualifies that the per unit of heat contert
the
fuel be verified on a “daily average’.
CPC argues that
it cannot operate at reduced levels because
the boilers must be fully loaded to meet production demands,
(R,46)
If and when CPC operates its boilers
at reduced loads,
it
has testified that stack gas temperature and velocity are not
appreciably affected because the same amount of heat must be gene-
rated
to bring the process steam to the same temperature and
pressure produced at
full load.
(R,47)
The alternative standard requested by CPC
in this matter is
quantified in mass emissions per unit heat content of the fuel,
Given the USEPA’s recommendation, further modeling for partial
loads
is,
therefore, not necessary.
Since the heat of the process
54-353
—6--
steam must be constant,
it follows that exit ‘elor ~‘yard )~e
of gases on full or partial load are much the same,
the
about reduced plume height and higher ground level corcentr U
is thus unfounded unless there
is a malfunction,
In advocating daily averaging the Agency explained tra
t~e
sixty day averaging rule was inappropriate for a single fa~lity,
Recognizing that individual
facilities would experience variib lity
in their coal’s sulfuric content the rule allows
5
of the sixty
days’
samples to be greater than 20
of the averages
The A ency
alleges that the rule was developed assuming that amongst
titude
of sources it was unlikely that a sufficient numbe
uld
be simultaneously exceeding the average
to cause violation
f
the air quality standard.
The Agency advises
ttat- CP~. a
n
facility,
should not be given this
20
leeway on a t~, monti
basis because that would allow violations of its
6
0 lU~r
limit,
which is the rate modeled “just
hort”
of
~ir q
violations,
(R 138),
Based on CPC’s analysis occassioral excurci
over
6,0 lbs/mbtu limit at its sources should rot resu t
ir
ic
t
~is
of the air quality stardards,
Overall mode irg at ti~6
lb
ribtu
limit demonstrated that levels greater than ~U
of tre
-
~rlards
should not occur due
to CPC’s increased emissions,
At cody eleven
receptors
in the initial analysis was
it demonstrated that the
incremental
increase might result
in levels greater than 80
of
the standard.
Potential violations were eliminated at each once
the conservative practice of adding CPC’s highes~results to the
Agency’s second highest results on any given daj of the modeled
year was eliminated.
Also,
the first step in the inrtal
worst
case”
analysis fourd that,
with one exception,
CPC
s in rcaaed
emissions contributed no more than 30
of
the staidard,
It
therefore,
stands that if the 6.0 lbs/mbtu limit is exceeded
occassionally violations of the standards should not res
t
whether CPC is considered
alone or in combinati n
q’
d
c
-by and
background sources.
Based on CPC’s analysis,
the 20~margir
~d
more
is reserved so that
it can be given the leeway of 20i
cal
variability
5
of the time over a sixty day period.
The conservative assumptions
in and the results of
~
r
id—
ing analysis performed by CPC provides the Board with suffi
cnt
basis to grant
it a 6,0 lbs/mbtu limitation
for sulfur dioxide
emitted from its two sources at Bedford Park,
Illinois,
Using dis—
persion modeling, which in itself
is conse1~vative,CPC considered
the impact of
increased emissions by
a net change of 4,2 lbs/mbtu to
emissions already dstermined by the Agency
s modeling of the
Chicago area,
Although the “worst ca~e”aeteorolgy and operating
conditions were used in both studies no violations of 80
of the
applicable
air
quality standards
were
predicted.
The potential
for
growth
is
also
insured
since
the analysis’
cutoff was 20
less
than the actual standard,
and
the hypothetical PSD analysi
i~di—
cated levels below the applicable increment levels.
Ar alternative
54-354
limit
of
6,0
lbs/mbtu
is
granted
to
CPC pursuaac
00 3~io~
214~20L,
This
level
is
to
he
a
condition
of the operating permrt. lasted to
CPC’s
Bedford
Park
facility’s
sources.
That
permit shodl also
contain
a
condition
that
Section
214,101(c)
is
the
aopl~abie
measurement
method
to
assure
compliance.
According
to
CPC’s
figures
it
uses
approximately
300,000
tons
of
coal
per
year
and
estimates
a
savings
of
between
$3.
3
and
$5.4
million
per
year
if
allowed
to
substitute
medium
suirur
coal
for
more
expensive
low
sulfur
coal.
CPC testified that
it
contacted
more
than
twenty
companies
about
purchasing
med~,irrn
sulfur
coal,
some
in
Illinois
and
some
outside of Illinois
(R.
67),
but
that
it
is
the
company’s
intention
•to purchase
Illinois
coal
in
keeping
with
Section
9,2
of
the
Ac’: (Ill~
Rev.
Stat.
1981,
ch.
111½,pars.
1009,2)
~R,
68,79\,
In
adopting
the
alternative
standard
process
in
H,
80—22
arid
ra
qran
~iq
a
relaxed
limitation
to
CPC
in
this
proceediri~,
the
toai:c.
:L3
~
plementing
the intent of Section
9
,
2
of
the Act ~hicn
i~
c
enhance
the
use
of
:E:Llinois
coal,
consistent writ
t:be
ned
t~
attain
and
maintain
the
National
Ambient
~ir Qua1i~:yitdnda~d~.
.
,
The Economic Impact Study accepted
it
1.
80—22 ond
it
:his
proceeding
(Ex,
7)
used
a
multiplier to
estimate t~iesecondary
economic
benefits due to increased use of
Illinois coal,
:n
that
study
a
multiplier
of
two
was
considered
reasonable
for
a
small
region
when
the
primary
economic
effects
are
substantial,
(Ex,
7,
p.
3—24)
Although
the
primary
effects generated
by CPC~s
purchases
are
not
necessarily substantial,
if the same muitip~ieris em-
ployed the potential secondary economic impact
is netween
86,6
and
$10.8
million
ocr
year.
Section
9,2
of
the Act does not mandate
use
of
only
Illinois
coal
when
standards
are relaxed,
That
power
is
also
beyond
the
authority
of
the
Board
jince
It
is
the ocople
oE
Illinois
who
will
suffer
from
the
resulting
degradation
.n
air
quality,
albeit
not
in
violation
of
the
apolicable
sulfur
dioxide
air
quality
standards,
arid
the
same
who could
ueriefr~
from the
increased
use
of
Illinois
coal,
CPC’s
relaxation
is qranLed with
the
hope
that
CPC
will
purchase
Illinois
uoal
ORDER
It
is
the
Order
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
that CPC
inter-
national,
Inc.
he
granted
an
alternative
irmitation
for
sulfur
dioxide
for
its
Bedford
Park,
Illinois facOli ty of 6.0 pounds
per
million
British
thermal
units
of heat
input
pursuant
t.o
35
Ill.
Mm.
Code
214,101,
subject
to
f-he following conditions:
1)
Within
30
days
of
the
date
of
this Order, CPC
International,
Inc.
shall
apply
to
the Illinois
Hnvironmental
Protection
Agency
for
a
revision of
54-355
—8—
its
operating
permit
for
its
Bedford
Park
facility~s
boilers
consistent
with
this
Opinion
and
Order,
2)
The
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
agency
shall
impose
as
a
condition
to a permit to
operate
that
the
measurement
method
for
compliance
shall
be
that
contained
in
35
Ill.
Mm.
Code
214.101(c).
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
Board
Members
B.
Forcade
and
J.
Marlin
abstained.
I,
Christan L,
Moffett,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board, hereby certify that the above
Opinion and
Order
wa~~adopted
on theJ~ day of4~i~~-t~t
1983,
by
a vote
of
~0
Christan L. Moff~’t~Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
54-356
