BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES
)
Fc$EtvE
GENERATING COMPANY,
)
KS
OPFICj
EDWARDS POWER STATION,
0 R
I
G
I N AL
Nov
032005
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB~
Li
)
CAAPP Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Division of Legal Counsel
1021
North Grand Avenue
Post Office Box
19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
Ms. Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
1000 West Randolph Street, Suite
11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
Ple~etake notice that on
// /3
~,
2005, the undersigned caused to
be filed
with
the Clerk of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
Petitioner’s
Petition
for Review
and Motion for Stay, and Appearance, copies of which are herewith served upon
y
u.
B//
James T.
Harrington
One of its attorneys
James T.
Harrington
David L. Rieser
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker,
Suite 4100
Chicago, IL
60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
\\REA\286553
Printed
on
Recycled Paper
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James T.
Harrington, one of the attorneys for Petitioner, hereby certify thatl
served copies of:
1.
Motion to Allow Filing ofLess Than Nine Copies;
2.
Notice of Filing;
3.
Petition for Review and Motion to
Stay;
and
4.
Appearance;
upon the
Division ofLegal
Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
on November 3, 2005 via Federal Express.
jMngton
n
of the Attorneys for Petiti
er
cGuireWoods LLP
77
West Wacker,
Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Telephone: 312/849-8100
\\REA\287270. I
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES
)
u
GENERATING COMPANY,
)
~iV
042005
EDWARDS POWER
STATION,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Poiiut~
Control Board
Petitioner,
)
ORIGINAL
v.
)
PCBO5-_____
)
CAAPP Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
MOTION TO ALLOW FILING OF LESS THAN NINE COPIES
AmerenEnergy
Resources
Generating
Company (“Ameren”),
by
and
through
its
attorneys, McGuireWoods
LLP,
respectfully
requests
that
the Board
allow it to file
less
than nine
copies
of its
Petition
for
Review of a
CAAP
Permit.
The Petition
includes
lengthy exhibits,
including the Permit.
Ameren has attached the original and
four copies
and
submits
that
submitting five
additional
copies would be an
unnecessary expense
and
a burden to both Petitioner and the Board.
WHEREFORE,
for
the
reasons
stated
in
this
Motion,
Ameren
respectfully
requests that it be
allowed to
submit an original and four copies of its Petition for Review
and Exhibits
instead of nine copies otherwise required by Board rules.
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES
/
GENERATG COMPA~T~/
By:
James
T.
Harrington
David L. Rieser
McGuire Woods LLP
77
West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, IL
60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
its Attorneys
Printed on Recycled Paper
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
Petitioner
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES
GENERATING COMPANY,
EDWARDS POWER STATION,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
ORIGINAL
(1
PCB0~Y?
)
CAAPP Appeal
)
)
)
APPEARANCE
We
hereby
file
our
appearances
in
this
proceeding,
on
behalf
of
Petitioner,
Edwards Power Station.
Dated:
November
3, 2005
cidL.Rieser~
Attorney ARDC No.:
3128590
McGuireWoods LLP
77
West Wacker Drive,
Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60601
~orneyARDC No.
11
Telephone:
312/849-8100
VOID
AFTER
180
DAYS
MCGUIREWmDS
ONE
JAMES
CENTER
901
EAST CARY STREEr
RICHMOND,
VA 23219-4030
www.rncgurrewooas.com
FIVE
HUNDRED
TWENTY-FIVE AND
001100
Dollars
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
TWGJuTiAT.Jhr.~NEuJIRED
iF
OVEn
S~U.UUu.uu
Chicago.
IL
II’
2 ~E EU RI’
‘:06
~
~
0U~29RE0~lR?2’
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
_______
100W.
RANDOLPH
ST
Firnr
~
/
C
SUITE
11
500
CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS 60601
Address:
~7
•7
Lu
tu’ ~ L~C~
~~aIvz~
-
CHECK
DATE
11/01/05
Bank
America
Atlanta.
GA
— n.Jau.as.p.I..
~
i:nc~.,..
n’o. P.
~
I.11:.
~:..
.:1::p:rTh.
e..N.u
~I•
ga,.
n.a.
CHECK
NO.
238509
63-1
510
CHECK
AMOUNT
Transaction
Date.
PU
RCH
AS F
R1FILER
Name:
Cit’/S tateiZ i
p:
Phone:
IN
V
C)
CE
23208
~T~I
L~&IC(
~iit
~R6C
~
L
)(~I
/
I
~
~/
Co
TRANSACTION TYPE
PAYMENT
TYPE
DpiniinlTianscripi
Filing Fee
Cash
Check
Doetirneni
Sale
~_____
Billable
Descnption
Unit
~
~
2~/~
~OLr~f
~
,3j-’C’
Ct
-
(,, ç
5~L.
~ocL
-
(4,
~
~
~
~yv~(’~
A~n1E2~-pa.7ztD
Price
e/~ØO
LL
Unit
~
H.
.
t-
—n
~
j
Amount
~
~
-if
oD
~--H—
I~
/~
U
-b I
4~iaa~-
MtQ~c5,A
7
~j.5a&i4~fr~t’v
4-
.
-.
-
-
—.
.--
—
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES
)
~1!IVEo
GENERATING
COMPANY,
)
S
OFFICE
EDWARDS POWER
STATION,
D
N
I
A
NQ~j03
2005
i\JF\
STAT81-,
Petitioner,
)
‘_‘F
~LLIN~,5
8oard
v.
)
___
)
CAAPP Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
PETITION FOR REVIEW
AND
MOTION FOR STAY
NOW
COMES
Petitioner,
AmerenEnergy
Resources
Generating
Company
(“Petitioner” or “Ameren”)
pursuant to
Section 40.2
of Illinois
Environmental Protection
Act
(“Act”
or “15
ILCS
5/40.2”
and
“35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
105.300
et seq.”).
Petitioner
petitions
for
hearing
before
the
Board
to
contest
the
decisions
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Agency”)
to
include
certain
conditions
and
make
other
decisions
in
the
issuance of the permit dated
September
29,
2005
(“Permit”)
and
issued
under
the Clean Air Act
Permit
Program
(“CAAPP”)
or (“Title V”)
set
forth
at
Section
39.5
of the
Act
(415
ILC
5/39.5)
for
the Edwards Power
Station
(“Edwards”).
Petitioner requests that
the Board
recognize that the Permit is
not final and effective as a
matter
of
law
or,
in
the
alternative,
stay
this
Permit
pursuant
to
35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
105.304(b) during
the pendency of this
Petition
for Review.
In support
of this
Petition,
Petitioner states as follows.
1
Printed
on Recycled Paper
I.
BACKGROUND
1.
Petitioner owns
and operates a coal-fired power plant for the generation of
electricity known
as
the Edwards Plant located
at 7800
South CILCO
Lane, Bartonville,
Peoria County,
Illinois.
2.
This
Plant consists
of three
boilers,
Boiler
BLR
1
(a
Riley
Stoker
Boiler
with
nominal
capacity of 1,523
mmBTU/hr);
Boiler
BLR
2
(a
Riley
Stoker
Boiler
with
nominal
capacity of 3,321
mmBTU/hr);
and
Boiler BLR
3
(a Foster Wheeler Boiler with
nominal
capacity
4,594
mmBTU/hr),
together
with
ancillary equipment,
including
coal
handling and
fly ash handling equipment.
3.
The
Edwards
Plant
has
a
nominal
capacity
of about
780
megawatts
of
electricity.
It employs approximately
116 people.
4.
Edwards
is
a
major
source
subject
to
the
Clean Air Act
Title
V
Permit
Progrant
On
July
10,
1995,
Central
Illinois
Light
Company,
the
prior
owner
of
the
Edwards Power Station,
filed an
application
for a CAAPP Permit with the Agency.
The
Agency
issued
a draft/proposed Permit
for the public
and
USEPA’s
review
on
June 27,
2003.
That review ended on
September 28, 2003.
A public hearing was held on
August
21,
2003.
The
Agency
issued
a
draft
Permit
and
draft
responsiveness
summary
on
July
19,
2005.
It provided for
a
10
day
comment period ending
August
1,
2005.
The
Agency
issued a draft Permit
for USEPA review on August
15, 2005.
5.
Ameren filed
comments
on
various
proposed
permits
on
January,
2005
(Exhibit
A),
and
August
1,
2005
(Exhibit B),
as well as participating
in joint
comments
filed by the Air Utility Group of Illinois (“AUGI”) on September 23, 2003
(Exhibit C).
2
Printed on Recycled Paper
-
.--~
6.
On September
29, 2005,
the USEPA Region V posted a document entitled
“Clean
Air Act
Permit Program
(CAAPP) Permit”
for the Edwards Power Station
dated
September
29,
2005
with
an
expiration
date
of September
29,
2010,
Application
No.
95070026;
I.D.
No.
143805AAG on
its
website,
a
copy of which
is attached hereto and
made a part hereof as Exhibit D.
7.
Ameren received the Permit in the mail on
October 4, 2005.
8.
Ameren
hereby
petitions
for
review
of
the
issuance
of the
Permit
and
particularly
the inclusion
of the
following
identified
terms
and
conditions
thereof and
asks
the
Board
to
reverse
and
remand
the
Permit
to
the
Agency
specifically
for
the
purpose ofremoving said conditions or revising the Permit as requested herein.
9.
Ameren further requests that the Board enter its
order recognizing that the
Permit
is
not
final
and
effective
pending a final decision of the Board
and
the action
by
the Agency
implementing
that
decision or,
in
the alternative,
issue its
Order staying the
Permit.
10.
Ameren specifically petitions
for review of the Permit as a whole
and
the
conditions
set forth below for the reasons stated.
II.
STAY
11.
The
Permit
is
a
license
within
the
meaning
of
the
Administrative
Procedure ActS
ILCS
100/10-65.
12.
As a license, it is subject to
5 ILCS
100/10-65(b) which provides:
When
a
licensee
has
made
timely
and
sufficient
application for the renewal of a license or a new license
with reference to
any activity of a continuing
nature, the
existing
license
shall
continue
in
full
force
and
effect
until
the
final
agency
decision
on
the
application
has
3
Printed on Recycled Paper
r
been
made
unless
a
later
date
is
fixed
by
order
of
a
reviewing court.
13.
No
“final
agency decision on
the application”
on
the Permit
occurs
until
the
Pollution
Control
Board
rules
on
this
Petition
for
Review.
See
Borg- Warner
v.
Mauzy,
100 Ill. App.
3d 862
(1981), 427 N.E.2d 415
(Ill.App.Ct.
1981).
14.
Therefore,
pending a decision by this Board, the Permit is not
in effect or,
at a minimum, the contested terms are not in effect.
1 5.
The
Board
should
issue
its
order
finding
that
the
terms of the Permit
are
not in
effect
pending
its
final decision and
any
final action of the Agency
implementing
the Board’s decision.
16.
If the Board
does not
enter an
order
as requested,
it should
enter its
own
order
staying
the
Permit
or,
in
the
alternative,
staying
the
contested
terms
pending
its
final decision.
17.
As
set
forth
herein, the
Permit
contains
numerous
Conditions which
are
illegal,
unsupported
in
law or fact or otherwise unreasonable.
Many of these Conditions
are impossible
with which to
comply or impose
an
unreasonable burden upon Petitioner.
Moreover,
a
stay
would
not
impose
a
severe
burden
on
the Agency
or the public
since
this
Permit
Application has
been
pending
since
1995
and
a
further delay
in
imposing
these Conditions,
to
the extent
they
are
valid,
will prejudice neither
the Agency
nor the
public.
Moreover,
Petitioner
will
remain
subject
to
all
requirements
of
the
law
and
regulations
and
prior
Permits
during
the
pendency
of
this
Petition.
Furthermore,
as
documented
below,
Petitioner
has
a
substantial
likelihood
of
success
on
the
merits.
Various critical
Conditions
were
imposed
in
violation of the
law,
without proper
notice
4
Printed on Recycled Paper
and
an
opportunity
to
comment,
and
without
basis
in
law
or
fact
or
are
otherwise
unreasonable.
III.
EFFECTIVE DATE
18.
a.
The Permit
states
that
it was issued
September
29,
2005.
An e-
mail
dated September
29,
2005,
7:18
PM,
stating the Permit
was
posted
on
the USEPA
website was effectively received by Ameren on the next business day.
b.
The Permit
is
apparently
intended
to
be
effective
September
29,
2005, the date it was purportedly issued.
The Permit
itself does not contain any effective
date.
The USEPA
Region
V
website where
it was
originally posted
states
that
it was
effective
September
29,
2005.
It
contains
numerous
terms
and
conditions
which
are
apparently
intended
to
be
immediately
effective
or which
require
immediate
action
by
Petitioner to
come into
compliance
with
very
short
deadlines.
Most of these
conditions,
whether
otherwise
contested
or
not,
are
not
contained
in
any
prior
applicable
law,
regulation
or
permit
and
significant
conditions
were
not
contained
in
any
prior
draft
permit issued for public
comment.
This purportedly immediately effective permit fails to
give
Petitioner adequate notice
of what
is
required
or adequate
time
to
take
action
to
comply.
As
such, it
is
unreasonable and
contrary
to
law and
a violation of due process.
The
Permit
should
be
remanded
to
the
Agency
in
order
to
provide
adequate
time
to
comply
with those terms ofthe Permit that are otherwise found to be valid.
Ameren
did
not
receive the
signed
Permit
until
October
4,
2005.
Posting
on
the
federal
website
and
e-mail
notice
of such
posting
does
not
constitute
delivery
to
Ameren.
The
Permit
should
not
be
deemed
effective prior to
its
delivery
to
the Permittee in
final form by the Agency.
In particular, if the Permit is deemed effective
5
Printed on Recycled Paper
on
September
29,
2005,
the
two
days
remaining
in the
third
quarter
would
require
Ameren to have taken action on these days and to file reports for the two days of the third
quarter when the Permit would be deemed effective. Ameren had no
official
notice ofthe
Permit,
no opportunity
to
comply with the
terms and conditions
thereof, and no reason
to
have
created
or
maintained
the
records
required
to
file
such
quarterly
report.
Furthermore,
filing
such
a
quarterly
report
or
other
documents
for
a
two-day
period
would be
a useless gesture and
impose an unreasonable burden upon Ameren.
IV.
GENERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
19.
(a)
Conditions
5.6.1(a) and
(b) require record keeping of emissions of
mercury, hydrogen chloride,
and hydrogen fluoride.
(b)
There is no basis
in state or federal
law or regulations for requiring
reporting
of mercury,
hydrogen
chloride
or
hydrogen
fluoride.
These facilities
are
not
subject to
federal
regulations
as Hazardous Air Pollutants and
there
is therefore
no
basis
for requiring sampling, record keeping or reporting for these substances.
20.
(a)
Conditions 5.6.2(b) and (c) require Permittee to retain and
print, on
paper,
records
retained
in
an
electronic
format
and
further
require
Permittee,
upon
request,
to
submit copies
of any
electronic
records
required
to
be
kept
under
the permit
but not otherwise submitted to the Agency.
(b)
These conditions
impose
an
unreasonable
burden
upon
Permittee.
Paper
copies
of records
retained
in
electronic
format
are
generally
neither
useful
nor
required.
21.
(a)
Condition
5.6.2(d)
provides:
For certain
records
required
to
be
kept
by
this
permit
as
specifically
identified
in
the
recordkeeping
provisions
in
6
Printed on Recycled Paper
Section
7
of
this
permit,
which
records
are
a
basis
for
control
practices
or
other
recordkeeping
required
by
this
permit,
the Permittee shall
promptly
submit a
copy
ofthe
record
to
the
Illinois
EPA
when
the
record
is
created
or
revised.
For
this
purpose,
the
initial
record
shall
be
submitted within 30 days ofthe effectiveness of this permit.
Subsequent
revisions
shall
be
submitted
within
10
days of
the
date
the
Permittee
begins
to
rely
upon
the
revised
record.
(b)
The requirement to
submit
all
records, apparently
including
forms
of records,
within
30
days
or when created or revised,
is
overly vague
and
burdensome,
serves no useful purpose and is otherwise unreasonable and unsupported in
law.
22.
(a)
Condition
5.7.1
specifies
General
Source-Wide
Reporting
Requirements.
It requires that,
“flhe
Permittee shall promptly notify the Illinois EPA of
deviations of the source with the permit requirements.”
(b)
The condition does not define either “promptly” or “deviation” and
is therefore overly vague and does not give the Permittee fair warning ofwhat is required.
Permittee suggested alternatives
during the comment period but none
have been adopted.
Specific
reporting requirements for the specific
terms
of the permit
have been provided
and should be
sufficient for any reasonable purpose.
V.
COAL
FIRED BOILER
Calculated
95
Upper Tolerance Bound for Opacity
23.
(a)
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(ii) provides the following records are required:
Records
for each affected boiler that
identify the
upper bound of the 95
confidence
interval
(using
a
normal
distribution
and
1
minute
averages)
for
opacity
measurements
from
the
boiler,
considering
an
hour
of
operation, within which compliance with the applicable
limit in Condition
7.1 .4(b)
is
assured,
with
supporting
explanation
and
documentation,
including
results of historic
emission tests.
At
a
minimum, these records
shall be
reviewed and revised as necessary following performance ofeach
subsequent
PM
emission
tests
on
an
affected
boiler.
Copies
of these
7
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—
--
~-
—
records
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Illinois
EPA
in
accordance
with
Condition 5.6.2(d).
(b)
Standing
on
its
own,
this
provision
requires
calculation
of
a
statistical limit based on the incorrect assumption that the opacity readings and .particuiate
emission rate bear a consistent mathematical
relationship to each other across a range of
operating
conditions.
The relationship between opacity
and
particulate
mass
emissions
varies
with
changes
in
fuel
supply
(different
coals),
the performance
of the
particulate
control equipment (electrostatic precipitator), the
fly ash particle size distribution, arid..the
refractive index of the
fly ash particles.
Thus,
no direct
correlation exists
between stack
opacity
and
particulate
mass
emissions.
It also
assumes that
the data will
fit
a
normal
distribution which may not be
the
case.
This
requirement
is not based
on
sound
science
or statistical methods, even if the relationship was
established.
In addition,
particulate
emission testing pursuant
to
USEPA
Method
5
is
done under very
controlled conditions
not necessarily representative of a normal range of
operating
conditions.
Such testing
has generally been performed under
normal operating
conditions
rather
than
at
maximum
allowable
particulate
emission
rates
typically
resulting
in
emission rates which
are a fraction of the allowable emissions.
Opacity data
representing
opacity
readings
taken
when
the
particulate
emissions
are
at
or
near
compliance
limits
are not
available.
Therefore,
even assuming
that
there was a realistic
mathematical relationship between opacity
and
particulate
mass
emissions
and
that
this
relationship
is
properly characterized,
the confidence limit
that
would
be
calculated
for
opacity
would
represent a mass emission rate that
is a
fraction of the emission limit
and
not
in
any
meaningfully
correlation
to
the
allowable
particulate
emissions
under
the
permit.
8
Printed on Recycled Paper
-
--
-
-
---
24.
(a)
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(ii) further provides that
the records
required by
that
section
“shall
be
submitted
to
the
Illinois
EPA
in
accordance
with
Condition
5.6.2(d).”
Section 5.6.2(d) provides,
inter
alia,
“for
this purpose, the initial
record shall
be submitted within 30 days ofthe effectiveness ofthis permit.”
(b)
In
essence
the
two
sections
together
require
the
Permittee
to
calculate
the
upper
bound
of the
95
confidence
interval
for
opacity
for each
boiler
under the Permit, maintain the records,
and
submit them to
the Agency within
30
days of
the effective date. This
is not possible.
In order to
attempt the mandated calculation and
develop the
records,
there
would
need
to
be
a
current valid
particulate
emission
test,
including
correlated
opacity
data, reflecting current operating
conditions.
Such tests
are
not presently available
for all
facilities subject to
this requirement and
could-not-be-done
within the
30
day period.
To
obtain
such data for all the facilities subject to the identical
requirements
could
require
several
years
depending
upon
the
availability
of
the
generating units, the availability
of qualified stack testing teams and Agency persormel to
observe
the
tests. If the requirements
of Condition
7.1 .9(c)(ii) are
to
be
retained in
some
form,
it
or Condition
5.6.2(d) must
be
modified
to
provide
that
what
ever calculations
must
be
done,
will
be
done
180
days
following the
report
of the
next
stack
test
for
particulate matter required under the permit.
25.
(a)
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(iii)(B)
provides
that
for
each
hour
when
the
upper
bound
specified
in
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(ii)
is
exceeded
a
record
must
be
made
indicating
the
date,
time,
operating
condition
occurring
at
that
time
and
“whether
particulate
matter
emissions
may
have
exceeded
the
applicable
limit.I”
Moreover
9
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—
Condition 7.1.1 0-2(a)(i)(E) requires that
all records pursuant to
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(iii)(B)
be
submitted with the quarterly report.
(b)
As
set
forth
above,
exceeding
the
upper
bound
specified
in
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(ii)
cannot reasonably be
correlated
to
consistent
particulate emission
rates and
therefore maintaining these records
will not provide any
useful infcnmation and
merely
impose
an
unreasonably burden
upon the Permittee.
Moreover,
there
is
no basis
on
which
Permittee can estimate whether the particulate emission limits
may
have been
exceeded other than by
looking at operating
records and
determining
whetherequipment
is
significantly
malfunctioning.
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(iii)(B)
is therefore
unreasonable and
contrary to law.
26.
(a)
Conditions
7.1.10-1(a)(ii)
and
7.1.10-3(a)(i)
require
immediate
notification
by
telephone
“for
each
incident
in
which
...
the
opacity
from
an
affected
boiler
exceeds
30
percent
for
five
or
more
6-minute
averaging
periods
unless
the
Permittee has begun the shutdown...
(b)
As
originally
proposed,
this
condition
applied
to
five
or
more
consecutive
readings
in
excess
of
30
percent.
As
written
it
is
overly
vague
and
burdensome.
It
would
appear
to
apply
to
five or more such
readings over
any
period of
time including days, weeks or months.
Additionally,
the
use
of
the
term
“immediately”
is
inappropriate
and
vague.
Without the benefit
of a more thorough
definition, it could
be
claimed that
the notification
must
take place
the
exact
moment
after the
event occurs.
This
would
compromise
resources
that
should,
at
that
critical
moment,
be
performing a
number of
other tasks
to
remedy the
situation.
Further, the review necessary
to
determine whether
10
Printed
on Recycled Paper
or not the reporting
is necessary must be
performed by
those
who may not always
be on
the premises.
This
standard of “immediate” notice also
fails to
recognize that the Agency
is not always available
for notification.
27.
(a)
In
addition
to
the
foregoing
condition-by-condition
objections,
there are numerous
conditions in the permit that are overly vague and
do
not provide fair
notice
of what
is
required
or
even
a
method
by
which
Permittee
could
provide
the
requested information.
i.
Condition 7.1.1 0-2(a)(i)(E) requires
Permittee to report instances
when
a
condition
“may
have
exceeded
the
PM
limit.
.
.
.“
Similar
conditions
appear
elsewhere.
ii.
Condition
7.1.1 0-2(d)(v) requires
information “for each type of
recurring
opacity
exceedance”
including
elaborate
analysis
of the
possible
causes
and
also requires
information of “any new type(s) of opacity exceedances
(b)
Each of these conditions
is overly vague
and burdensome.
They do
not
provide
fair notice of what
is
required;
they
use terms
which
are
not
defined
in
the
permit or in practice;
and provide
no guidance as to how they are to
be
met. As such they
violate Due Process.
28.
(a)
Condition
7.1 .9(g)(ii)(C)(V)
requires
records
of
estimates
of the
magnitude of emissions
of PM
and
CO
during
startups
in
exceedence
of certain
time
limits
and
whether
these
emissions
may
have
exceeded
applicable
limits.
Condition
7.1 .9(h)(ii)(D)(III)
requires
that
the
same
records
and
estimates
be
made
during
malfunctions and breakdowns.
11
Printed on
Recycled Paper
(b)
There
is
no
reasonable
basis
in
law
or
fact
for
making
these
determinations, either
in the amount of emissions or whether they violated any applicable
conditions.
There may
be
some
basis
of making
general
estimates of CO
under
some
circumstances, but there
is no way to make accurate, reliable measurements that could
be
the
basis
of determinations
of exceedences.
There
is
no
accurate method
for
making
realistic
estimates of PM
and
CO
emissions
during
startups
or
during
malfunctions
and
breakdowns, including
no test data or emission factors.
29.
(a)
Condition 7.1.1 0-2(d)(iii) contains a
note which states
in part:
“Because
the
Permittee
is
subject
to
the
reporting
requirements ofthe NSPS, 40
C.F.R. 60.7(c)
and (d) for an
affected boiler...
(b)
This facility is not
subject to the NSPS, 40 C.F.R. Part
60, and
this
reference
and
any
requirements
or
conditions
expressly
or
impliedly
based
on
it
are
contrary to law.
30.
(a)
Condition
7.1.12(b)
provides:
“Compliance
with
PM
emission
limits of Condition
7.1.4(b) is
addressed by continuous opacity monitoring in accordance
with
Condition
7.1.8(a),
PM
testing
in
accordance
with
Condition
7.1 .7,
and
the
recordkeeping required by Condition 7.1.9.”
(b)
Condition
7.1.1 0-2(d)(iv)
under
the
general
caption “Reporting of
Opacity and
PM
Emissions” requires quarterly
reports
“for
periods when PM
emissions
were
in
excess of the limitation
in
Condition
7.1.4(b),”
including
a detailed reporting of
opacity
measurements for each six
minute
period during
the exceedances,
“flhe
means
by
which the exceedance
was indicated or identified, in addition
to
the level of opacity,”
“a
detailed
explanation
of
the
cause,”
and
a
detailed
explanation
of the
corrective
12
Printed on Recycled Paper
measures taken.
When read together
with
the
other conditions
in
the permit
set
forth
above, these sections clearly indicate that there is
at least a presumption that
the PM limit
was violated when the opacity readings exceed the
95
upper tolerance bound calculated
pursuant to
the permit and that the Agency will expect the opacity reading to
be
reported
as such.
In essence,
it appears
that
the 95
upper tolerance bound
becomes a surrogate
for a new PM
limit if not
the enforceable limit itself.
Moreover,
as discussed above,
this
new
limit
will
not
bear
any
necessary
relationship
to
the
limit established
in
Illinois
regulations
for PM
emissions
from
the boilers.
This
is
in
fact contrary
to
the statements
made
in the
September
29
Agency
Responsiveness Summary
(found
in
Record)
which
stated
that
such
limits
could
not
be
established.
This
new
limit
is
not
based
on
any
legally applicable requirements and is therefore not a legally defensible
requirement.
Furthermore,
this
new
limit will
be
established
without
any
consideration
of its
reasonableness
or
achievability under
the normal range
of operating
conditions
for
the
boilers,
normal
fuel
supply
variability
and
the
normal
range
of
control
equipment
performance
and
fly
ash characteristics designed
to
achieve
consistent
compliance
with
the State’s
duly established emission limits.
VI.
CARBON MONOXIDE
31.
(a)
Condition 7.1.6 provides:
As
part
of
its
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
affected
boilers,
the
Permittee shall perform a formal
“combustion
evaluation”
on
each boiler
on
at
least
a
quarterly
basis,
pursuant
to
Section
39.5(7)(d)
of
the
Act.
These
evaluation
sic
shall
consist
of
diagnostic
measurements
of the
concentration of CO in
the flue gas ofthe affected boiler, with adjustments
and
preventative
and
corrective
measures
for
the
boiler’s
combustion
systems to maintain efficient combustion.
13
Printed on Recycled Paper
(b)
This
condition
purportedly
requires
a
quarterly
formal
“Combustion
Evaluation”
tied
to
CO
measurements in the
flue
gas to
maintain
efficient
combustion.
“Combustion
Evaluation”
is
not
a
term of art
or science
in
the
coal
fired
boiler industry
and
is
not
defined
in the permit
and
is
therefore
overly vague.
It
is well
known
that
CO
levels in
a boiler vary
continuously
over
the normal range of operating
conditions.
It is not feasible to
make boiler adjustments for CO at a single load point that
will thereafter be
maintained throughout the
entire
range of boiler operation.
Moreover,
tuning a boiler to
minimize
CO may have the
effect of increasing
NOx
emissions
which
are more tightly
regulated
and of greater
environmental
concern.
There
is
no
evidence
that the CO emissions exceed or even approach their allowable limits. Furthermore, there
is
no
regulatory requirement or basis
for inclusion of this requirement
in
the permit.
As
set forth
in this Condition, these evaluations require periodic testing of CO in the exhaust.
Such tests are not
necessary or useful
for compliance or operation.
CO concentrations in
the
exhaust during
stack tests
are
a
small
fraction of ambient
limits.
This
requirement
would
require
installation
and
operation
of
unspecified
monitoring
equipment
at
considerable cost.
It is unreasonable and not supported by law or fact.
VII.
START
UP
32.
(a)
Condition 7.1 .9(g)(ii)(C) states:
If this elapsed time
is more than 4
hours
for Boiler
1
or
6
hours for
Boiler
2
or
8
hours
for
Boiler
3
or
if
the
Permittee’s
startup
procedures are not followed:
I.
A
detailed
explanation
why
startup
of the
boiler
was
not
completed sooner or startup procedures were
not followed.
II.
Documentation
for
the
startup
procedures
that
were
followed.
14
Printed on
Recycled Paper
—
-
--
—
—
—
---
III.
The
elapsed
time
from
initial
firing
of
auxiliary
fuel
until
firing of the principal thel was begun.
IV.
The
flue gas temperature
at which the ESP
was energized, if
coal was fired before the ESP was energized.
V.
Estimates
of
the
magnitude
of
emissions
of
PM
and
CO
during
the
startup,
including
whether
emissions
may
have
exceeded
any
applicable
hourly
standard,
as
listed
in
Condition 7.1.4.
(b)
In essence,
this
requirement treats any startup exceeding 4,
6,
or
8
hours at this
facility as being
out of the ordinary and
requiring extensive
explanation.
On
the contrary,
as repeatedly pointed out
to the Agency
on the record,
in excess of
16 hours
is
far
more
typical
of startups
as both
the
boiler
and
turbine
generator
are
brought
to
appropriate temperatures and coal
is gradually added to
the fuel
mix. There is no basis for
requiring
the
substantially
greater
records
required
by
this
condition
or
creating
an
impression that startups over 4, 6, or 8 hours are out of the ordinary.
VIII.
TESTING
33.
(a)
Condition
7.1 .7(a)(ii) provides as follows:
“PM emission measurements shall
be made within 90
days ofoperating an
affected boiler for more than 30 hours total
in a calendar quarter at a loadt
that
is
more than
2
percent
higher than
the
greatest
load
on
the
boiler,
during
the
most
recent
set
of
PM
tests
on
the
affected
boiler
in
which
compliance
is
shown
(refer
to
Condition
7.1 .7(e)(iii)(D)),
provided,
however,
that the Illinois EPA may upon request of the Permittee
provide
more
time
for
testing
(if such time
is
reasonably needed
to
schedule and
perform testing
or coordinate testing with seasonal conditions).
*
For this purpose, load shall be
expressed in terms of
either
gross
megawatt
output
or
steam
flow,
consistent
with
the
form of the records
kept
by the
Permittee pursuant to Condition 7.1.9(a).”
(b)
This
condition
requires
retesting
the
boiler
if
it
operates
for
30
hours in
a calendar quarter at a load that
is more than 2
greater than that during
its most
15
Printed on Recycled Paper
recent
PM
test.
As
the Agency
is well
aware
and as has been pointed
out
in
comments,
there
are periods of peak demand on
the electric
grid
including
periods
when
the
grid
may
be
in danger ofcollapse
because of loading
or loss of other generating capacity that
it
may be
necessary
to
operate boilers
over
their rated capacity
to
protect the integrity of
the
electric
grid.
Furthermore,
a
90
day
window
for
conducting
stack
tests
is
not
reasonable
because arranging
for tests, scheduling with
the Agency and
conducting
such
tests
cannot generally
be
accomplished
in
that time
frame.
This
condition
penalizes the
owner/operator for responding to
potential emergency
situations
and
otherwise fulfilling
its legal obligations.
34.
(a)
Condition
7.l.7(b)(iii)
provides
that
USEPA
Methods
5
and
202
from 40
CFR 60 Appendix A must be
used for sampling Particulate Matter.
In the note it
provides:
“Measurements
of condensable
PM
are
also
required by
USEPA
Method
202
(40
CFR
Part
51,
Appendix
M)
or
other
established
test
method
approved by the Illinois EPA, except
for a test conducted prior to
issuance
of this permit.”
(b)
Method
202
and
similar
methods
are
designed
to
test
for
“condensable
particulates,”
i.e.,
materials that
are
not
particulates
as
emitted
from
the
stack
but
which
may
later
condense
to
form
particulates.
These
“condensable
particulates” are not governed by
any applicable emission limitation in law,
regulation or
permit.
The test is expensive and complicated. It is also not reliable.
Alternative methods
are being developed.
There is not
basis
in
law for requiring Method
202
testing
and
it is
not
necessary or
useful
in
demonstrating
compliance
with
applicable
regulations
or the
permit itself.
16
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
--
--
IX.
COAL HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
—
coal receiving, coal transfer, coal
storage operations
Opacity
35.
(a)
Condition 7.2.4(b) provides that coal handling operations including
coal
receiving,
coal
transfer
and
coal
storage
are
subject
to
the
30
percent
opacity
limitations
recited
in Condition 5.2.2(b) pursuant to 35
IAC 2 12.123.
Condition
7.2.7
provides
that
the same
operations shall
be
subject
to
USEPA
Method
9
for
opacity
on
the
schedule
and
methodology
set
forth
in
this
condition.
Condition
7.2.9(g) requires records of the opacity measurements
to
be
kept.
Condition
7.2.12(a)
provides
that
compliance
with
7.2.4
is
addressed by,
inter alia,
7.2.6(a), 7.2.7
and 7.2.9.
(b)
These
conditions
are
improper.
Emissions
from
coal
handling
equipment
not
exhausted through
a stack or control
device
are strictly
fugitive
in
nature
in
that
they are not emitted
from
stacks
or other similar
confined openings
suitable
for
controls. As
such these emissions
are subject to the fugitive
emission standard in
35
IAC
2 12.301.
There is
no basis
in the
law or regulations to
subject these emissions to
opacity
limitations, testing or monitoring.
Inspection Requirements
36.
(a)
Condition
7.2.8(a)
provides
that
monthly
inspections
of
the
operations
including
control
measures
must
be
monitored
by
“personnel
not
directly
involved in the day-to day
sicj
operations ofthe affected
operations.”
17
Printed on Recycled Paper
Condition
7.2.12(a)
provides
that
compliance
with
7.2.4
is
addressed by
7.2.8.
(b)
There
is
no
reasonable
basis
for requiring
inspection
by
persons
not
involved
in
the
operation.
Only
those
people
involved
in
the
operations
have
the
detailed
knowledge
of the
equipment
and
processes
to
adequately
carry
out
such
an
inspection safely.
To require third parties lacking such familiarity with the process would
defeat the purpose ofthe inspection.
37.
(a)
Condition
7.2.8(b)
requires
detailed
inspection
of
the
dust
collection
equipment
at
least every
15
months while
the operation
is
out of service
and
further requires an
inspection before and after any
maintenance and repair.
Condition
7.2.12(b)
provides
that
compliance
with
7.2.6(a)
is
addressed by 7.2.8.
(b)
Requiring
the
equipment
to
be
out
of service
imposes
a
severe
burden
on
operations
and
requiring
an
inspection
before
and
after
each
repair
is
unnecessary
and
wasteful.
Inspections
and
maintenance
should
be
carried
out
in
accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations or industry experience.
Moreover,
requiring
the facility
to
be
taken
out
of service
for
such inspections
and
to
require an
inspection
before and after any
repair or maintenance
is unnecessary,
unreasonable and
it
does
not
bear
a
reasonable
relationship
to
environmental
compliance.
These
requirements are overly burdensome and
serve no valid purpose.
38.
(a)
Condition
7.2.9(e)(ii)
provides
that
the
Permittee
must
maintain
records
of estimates
of the
magnitude
of
PM
emissions
“for
each
incident when
any
affected operation operated without the established control measures.”
18
Printed on Recycled Paper
(b)
The determination of the magnitude of PM
emissions
as attempted
to
be
enforced here does not
correlate with other relevant
conditions or common
industry
practices.
PM
emissions
from
this
operation
are
generally
fugitive.
There
is
no
reasonable
basis
for making
estimates
of emissions
during malfunctions
or breakdowns.
They cannot be
measured and there are
no
applicable
emission factors
on
which
to
base
such estimates.
39.
(a)
Condition 7.2.10(b)(i)(A) provides
that during continued
operation
of an
affected process during malfunction or breakdown the Permittee must “immediately
notify”
the Agency
“for
each incident
in
which
the opacity
from
an
affected
operation
exceeds or may have exceeded the applicable
opacity
standard for five or more 6-minute
averaging periods.”
(b)
Emissions
from
coal
handling are
typically
fugitive.
As
set
forth
herein opacity
limitations
do
not
apply
to
fugitive
emissions
and there
is
no
reasonable
basis
for measuring opacity
under these circumstances.
Moreover,
there
is
no
basis
for
counting
the
“five
or
more”
exceedences,
if they
could
be
measured,
unless
they
are
continuous or within a certain period oftime.
Additionally,
the
use of
the
term
“immediately”
is
inappropriate
and
vague.
Without
the benefit of a more
thorough
definition,
it could
be
claimed that
the notification
must
take
place
the
exact
moment
after the
event occurs.
This
would
compromise
resources
that
should,
at
that
critical
moment,
be
performing a
number of
other
tasks to
remedy the
situation.
Further,
the review necessary
to
determine whether
or not the reporting is
necessary must be
performed by
those
who may not always
be
on
19
Printed
on
Recycled Paper
—-
—
-
—
•
—
—-
-—
,--—
—
-.
the premises.
This standard of “immediate”
notice also
fails to
recognize that the Agency
is not always
available for notification.
40.
(a)
Condition
7.2.10(a)(ii) states that
“notification
within 30
days for
operation
of
an
affected
operation
that
was
not
in
compliance
with
applicable
requirements
in
Condition 7.2.6(a) that continued
for more than
12
operating
hours
from
the time that it was identified.”
Condition
7.2.6(a)
deals
with
the
implementation
of
emission
control measures
and the accompanying work practices and operational limits.
(b)
The nature of fugitive emissions
compliance measures required by
Condition 7.2.6(a) makes such reporting meaningless.
For example, many such measures
are
periodic,
i.e.,
every
so many days
or as needed,
(e.g.,
one
need
not
spray water
on
coal
handling
when
it
is
raining).
Certain
such
measures
may
not
be
needed
for
compliance with applicable requirements.
41.
(a)
Condition 7.2.1 0(b)(ii)(C) requires the Permittee to
submit with the
quarterly
reports
the
aggregate
duration
of
all
incidents
during
the
quarter
in
which
affected operations
continued
to
operate
with
excess
emissions
during
malfunction
or
breakdown.
(b)
The determination of the magnitude of PM emissions,
as attempted
to be
enforced here, does not correlate with other relevant conditions or common
industry
practices.
PM
emissions are generally fugitive.
Under Condition 7.2.8(a), the Permittee
is
only
required
to
make
monthly
inspections
of affected
operations
and
associated
control measures.
There are
a
number of reasons why monthly
inspections,
rather than
continuous inspections,
are enforced, and it is
well-established that this monthly standard
20
Printed on Recycled Paper
is
reasonable,
sufficient,
effective,
and
fair.
Therefore,
it
does
not
correlate
that
the
Permittee
should
be
asked
to
make
estimates
of emissions
during
each
instance
when
operations continue without control measures.
X.
FLY ASH HANDLING
42.
(a)
Condition
7.3.4(b)
imposes
the
opacity
standards
in
Condition
5.2.2(b) based on
35
IAC 212.123
on affected
sources at the fly ash handling operations.
(b)
To
the
extent
that
these
standards
are
being
applied
to
fugitive
emissions
sources
as
opposed
to
sources
such
as
stacks,
this
condition
is
improper.
Fugitive
sources
are
subject
to
35
IAC
212.301
and
not
35
IAC
212.123
opacity
standards.
43.
(a)
Condition
7.3.4(c)
imposes
particulate emissions
limitations
based
on process weight
from
35 IAC 212.321(a).
(b)
Fly
ash handling
equipment
is
a materials handling
operation
and
not
a process within the meaning of the regulations.
Therefore
35
IAC
212.321
does not
apply.
44.
(a)
Condition
7.3.8(a)
requires
weekly
inspections
of
the
fly
ash
handling
equipment
by
“personnel who are
not
directly
involved in
the day-to
day
sic
operation ofthe affected processes.”
(b)
The requirement that
the
inspections
be
conducted
by
personnel
not directly involved with the equipment in question is unreasonable and contrary to good
practice.
Only
persons
familiar
with
the
equipment
are
in
a
position
to
carry
out
a
reasonable
inspection
safely
and
recognize
both
areas
requiring
attention
and
the
corrective actions
that
should
be
undertaken.
There
is
no
objection to
carrying out the
21
Printed on Recycled Paper
reasonable
basis for making estimates of emissions during malfunctions.
They cannot be
measured and there are no applicable emission factors
on which to
base such estimates.
48.
(a)
Condition
7.3.10(b)(i)(A) provides that
during continued
operation
of an affected
process during malfunction or breakdown the Permittee must “immediately
notify” the Agency
“for
each incident
in
which
the opacity
from
an
affected
operation
exceeds or may have exceeded the applicable opacity
standard for four or more 6-minute
averaging periods.”
(b)
Emissions
from
fly
ash handling equipment
are typically
fugitive.
As
set
forth
herein opacity
limitations
do
not
apply to
fugitive
emissions
and
there
is no
reasonable
basis for measuring opacity
under these circumstances.
Moreover, there
is no
basis
for counting the “four or more” exceedences, if they
could
be measured, unless they
are continuous or within a certain period of time.
Additionally,
the
use
of the
term
“immediately”
is
inappropriate
and
vague.
Without
the benefit of a
more thorough
definition,
it
could
be
claimed that
the
notification
must
take
place
at
the
exact
moment
the
event
occurs.
This
would
compromise
resources
that
should,
at
that
critical
moment,
be
performing a
number
of
other
tasks
to
remedy the
situation.
Further,
the review necessary
to
determine whether
or not the reporting
is necessary must
be performed by those who
may not
always be
on
the premises.
This
standard of “immediate” notice also fails to
recognize that the Agency
is not
always available for notification.
49.
(a)
Condition 7.3.10(a)(ii) states that
“notification
within 30
days for
operation of an
affected process that was not in compliance
with applicable
requirements
23
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—
—
in
Condition 7.3.6(a) that continued for more than four operating hours from the time
that
it was identified.”
Condition
7.3.6(a)
deals
with
the
implementation
of
emission
control measures and the accompanying work practices and operational limits.
(b)
The nature of fugitive compliance measures required by Condition
7.3.6(a)
makes
such
reporting
meaningless.
For
example,
many
such
measures
are
periodic,
i.e.,
every
so
many
days
or
as
needed.
Certain
such
measures
may
not
be
needed for compliance with applicable requirements.
50.
(a)
Condition 7.3.10(b)(ii)(C) requires the Permittee to submit with the
quarterly
reports
the
aggregate
duration
of
all
incidents
during
the
quarter
in
which
affected
operations
continued
to
operate
with
excess
emissions
during
malfunction
or
breakdown.
(b)
The determination of the magnitude of PM emissions, as attempted
to be
enforced here, does not correlate with other relevant conditions or common industry
practices.
PM
emissions
are generally
fugitive.
Under Condition
7.3.8(a)
the Permittee
is
only
required to make monthly
inspections
of PM
emissions.
There are a
number of
reasons why monthly
inspections, rather than continuous
inspections, are enforced, and
it
is well-established that
this monthly
standard is reasonable,
sufficient, effective, and fair.
Therefore,
it does not
correlate that
the Permittee
should be
asked
to
make estimates of
emissions
during each instance when operations continue without control measures.
51.
Petitioner
also
objects to
any
other Condition of the Permit
related
to
or
incorporating
the Conditions objected to herein.
24
Printed on
Recycled Paper
52.
Furthermore,
many
of
the
Conditions
were
included
in
the
Permit
in
violation
of
Section
39.5(q)
of the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/39.5(q),
as
well
as
40
C.F.R.
§
70.7(a)(5)
in
that
the
Agency
failed
to
provide
notice
to
the
public,
including
an
opportunity for public
comments
and a hearing on these conditions
of the
Permit;
failed
to
“prepare a draft permit and
a statement that sets forth the legal and factual
basis for the
draft
CAAPP
permit
conditions,
including
references
to
the
statutory
or
regulator
provisions...”
and
also
failed
to
give
notice of a
draft
CAAPP
permit
including
these
conditions
to
the
applicant.
Inclusion
of
these
conditions
without
the
notice
and
opportunity
to
comment provided by
law
deprives the Permittee of Due Process
of Law
in
violation of the Illinois
and
United
States
Constitutions.
This
failure
is
so
pervasive
that
the entire
Permit
should
be remanded
for proper
notice and
comment
in
accordance
with the Board’s findings.
25
Printed on Recycled Paper
This
Petition for Review is timely filed within thirty-five (35) days of final permit
action on the CAAPP permit pursuant to 415
ILCS
5/40.40.2.
WHEREFORE, Ameren requests that that Board:
1.
Enter an
Order that
the Permit
is
not
final
and
effective pending the final
decision of the Board and the actions of the Agency
implementing it or, in the alternative,
an
Order staying the effectiveness of the Permit
or,
at a minimum,
staying the contested
terms of the CAAPP
Permit as set forth above;
2.
Conduct a hearing on the contested terms of the CAAPP Permit; and
3.
Reverse
and
remand the Permit
and the contested
terms
to
the Agency
to
delete or modify in accordance with
Petitioner’s objections and the Board’s Order.
Resp
ctfully submitted,
Dated:
_____
14I0?A441
(1141
McGuireWoods LLP
77
West Wacker,
Suite 4100
Chicago, IL
60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
26
L.
Rieser
Printed
on Recycled Paper
