ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 6, 1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCI3 72—372

FEDERAL PAPERBOARD COMPANY,

Respondent.

Dennis R. Fields, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of

Complainant;

James W. Gladden, Jr. on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):

On September 15, 1972, the Agency filed Complaint against

Respondent, Federal Paperboard Company, a New York Corporation

qualified to do business in Illinois. Respondent owns and

operates a cardboard manufacturing facility at Morris, County

of Grundy, Illinois.

Of that facility, the Agency charges that a certain boiler

therein has been and continues to be operated in violation of

Rule 2—2.53 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control

of Air Pollution, which Rule limits the emissions of particu-

late matter from the combustion of fuel for indirect heating for

equipment outside the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas to

0.8 pounds of particulate per million ETU.

Respondent operates a traveling grate stoker boiler which

is coal fired and consumed 165 tons of coal per day in 1972.

The boiler operates seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day.

The Agency alleges that a continuing violation has existed

since November 9, 1971.

At the May 14, 1973 hearing on this cause, the parties sub-

mitted an Agreed Statement of Facts. According to Paragraph

6(e) thereof, an Agency Environmental Engineer would have testi-

fied to the effect that based upon emission factors for traveling

grate stoker boilers published by the Public Health Service and

relied upon by engineers, he calculated the quantity of particu-

lates emitted by the boiler to be 0.88 pounds per million ETU’s.

Having submitted these calculations, the Agency closed its case

in chief.

9— 189

—2—

The Agency’s engineer based his calculations on standard

emission factors and an estimated collection efficiency of the

breach and baffles which act as control devices at the plant.

During the period in question, the ash content of the coal

burned by Respondent varied between 4.9 and 6.4. The Agency’s

calculations showed emissions of .88 lbs/MBTU when the coal

burned had an ash content of 6.4 and emissions of .64 lbs/MBTU

when the coal burned had an ash content of 4.9. Therefore, by

its own calculations the Agency has shown that Respondent has

not been guilty of continuous violation as alleged.

Further, the Agency’s calculations did not use the Standard

Emission Factors in computing the efficiency of collection of

the breach and baffles. The Agency engineer used an efficiency

of 40 which had been estimated to him by Respondent’s personnel

during a visit to the plant (Statement, 6(d)). This efficiency

was not based on any tests (R. 31—32), it was simply an estimate.

According to the Standard Emission Factors, a breach and baffle

can have an efficiency of 25 to 50, depending on the installa-

tion.

Also included in the Agreed Statement of Facts is a report

of stack tests conducted at Respondent’s plant on March 26 and 27,

1973 by Air Resources, Inc. for Respondent. These stack tests

were performed by qualified personnel pursuant to ASME Power

Test Code 217 (R. 9) and were observed by Mr. Fred Smith of the

Agency. The coal used during the tests was not specially ordered

for such tests, but was received in the normal course of business.

The Agency has not challenged the test procedures or the results;

indeed, said results are incorporated in the Agreed Statement of

Facts.

The first stack test during which coal with an ash content

of 4.9 was burned showed a measured emission rate of .6052

lbs/MBTU. The second stack test during which coal with an ash

content of 5.08 was burned showed a measured emission rate of

.5973 lbs/MBTU (Exhibit B to Statement, p. 8). Moreover, it was

the opinion of Dr. Sander Sundberg who conducted the tests that

the gas volumes measured during such tests were higher than would

normally be expected or were actually present. Indeed they were

higher than the rating of the induced draft fan which helps move

the fly ash particulate from the boiler out the stack (R. 10,

Exhibit B to Statement, p. 6). And, if the measured gas flow was

higher than actually present, the measured emissions on the tests

were also higher than actually present (R. 11).

Because of the measured gas flow, stoichiometric calcula-

tions based on carbon input and output were applied by Dr. Sundberg

to the combustion of coal in the boiler in order to calculate a

gas volume (R. 10, Exhibit B to Statement, pp. 6-7). Since

—

190

—3—

stoichiometric calculations are based on actual data developed

in the testing procedures (R. 30), they are considered to be

accurate. Dr. Sundberg discussed the calculated gas volume with

Mr. Smith, who agreed that it was appropriate to include the

calculated gas volumes in the test report (R. 12). Use of these

calculated gas volumes, which in the opinion of Dr. Sundberg were

more representative of the actual gas volumes than those measured

during the test, reduces the emissions during the first stack

test to .4639 lbs/MBTU and the emissions during the second stack

test to .4252 lbs/MBTU (Exhibit 13 to Statement, p. 8)

Using both the measured and calculated gas flows and col-

lection on both stack tests, Dr. Sundberg calculated the efficiency

of the collection devices at Respondent’s plant. These calcula-

tions apply standard emission factors to the actual amount of coal

burned in an hour during the tests to determine the amount of fly

ash emitted by the boiler. This amount is then compared with

emissions from the stack collected during the tests (Exhibit B to

Statement, p. 8) to determine the efficiency of collection of the

breach and baffles (R. 13-17). The efficiencies using the

measured gas volumes and collections were 44.3 on the first test

and 46.9 on the second test or an average for both tests of 45.6

(Res. Exs. 1 and 2). The efficiencies using the calculated gas

volumes and collection were 57.3 on the first test and 62.3 on

the second test or an average for both tests of 59.8 (Res. Exs.

1 and 2).

Having determined the collection efficiency, Dr. Sundberg

in Respondent’s Exhibit 2 used the same formula as the Agency

engineer had used to determine the emissions if the ash content

of the coal were increased to 6.4 (R. 20) 

The only difference

is the efficiency of collection used; the Agency used an estimated

efficiency while Dr. Sundberg used a calculated efficiency based

on the actual stack tests. These calculations show that the

emissions if the average efficiency based on the measured gas flow

is used would be .799 lbs/MBTU. If the average efficiency based

on the calculated gas flow, which Dr. Sundberg considered more

accurate, is used the emissions would be .590 lbs/MBTU (Res. Ex. 2).

Both of these emissions are in compliance with Rule 2—2.53.

This Board has consistently held that actual stack tests can

be used to rebut galculations based on standard emission factors.

See EPA v. Norfolk.& Western Railway, PCB7O—4l (1971); EPA v.

Donnelly, PCB72-410, 72—472 (1973). Federal had stack tests con-

ducted by an outside firm which the Agency observed and did not

challenge. Said stack tests show that Respondent was operating its

boilers in compliance with Rule 2—2.53 at the time of the tests

regardless whether the measured or calculated gas flow is used.

The stack tests show that the breach and baffles used at Respondent’s

plant have an efficiency higher than the 40 used by the EPA in

—

191

—4—

its calculations regardless of whether measured or calculated

gas flow is used. Using Standard Emission Factors and the

e:Eficiencies established by the stack tests, the boiler at

Respondent’s plant was also operated in compliance with Rule

2-2.53 when the ash content was 6.4.

On the basis of all the evidence presented, the complaint

against Respondent must be dismissed. As noted above, the Agency’s

case in chief consisted solely of its engineer’s calculations.

The height of Respondent’s stack, a factor critical to the

determination of permissible emission under Rule 2—2.53, was

not specified. Further, the only evidence of the ash content

of Respondent’s coal furnished by the Agency dated back to

March 30, 1970. On the basis of such a record, this Board may

well have found the Agency’s case lacking even if Respondent

had not commissioned the stack tests in its defense.

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that the complaint

against Respondent, Federal Paper Board Company, be dismissed.

Mr. Odell abstains.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted

on the ~  day of September, 1973 by a vote of 

J..

Christan

QJLL~

L. Moffett,

/?1

C~p~

Illinois Pollution Cox(W~’1Board

—

192