1~~ti_=1N
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
NOTICE
TO :
Dorothy Gunn
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
Virginia Yang
Deputy Legal Counsel
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, IL 62702
DATED: March 14, 2006
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P. 0. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED
217/782-5544
ON RECYCLED PAPER
R06-
P~J
(RulemakiW46
.
E 11
V E D
CLERK'S OFFICE
MAR 1 4 2006
STATE
Coot
ILLINOIS
Boa
d
Matthew Dunn P
Chief
Division of Environmental Enforcement
Office of the Attorney General
188 West Randolph St ., 20`h Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board the RULEMAKING PROPOSAL entitled 'PROPOSED NEW
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225, CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM LARGE COMBUSTION
SOURCES," MOTION TO HOLD REQUIRED HEARINGS IN SPRINGFIELD, MOTION
FOR WAIVER OF COPY REQUIREMENTS, AND APPEARANCES of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, a copy of which is herewith served upon you
.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROT
By
Jo
J. Kim
Managing Attorney
Air Regulatory Unit
Division of Legal Counsel
044 o~VF
*4,f
'`'~r~FO
7
a
sUg,
0
2009
THIS IS A
FAST TRACK
R ULEMAKING
FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 28 .5
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION ACT
(415 ILCS 5/28 .5)
O
RIGINAL
RIE .
r
1
VED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD C
~ E~ %~~ICE
'.' .
.
l
2J8a
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
STATEOILL
R06-
:;L~~
Pollution Control Board
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
(Rulemaking-Air)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
,.e
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF REGULATORY SUBMITTAL
1
.
Cover sheet indicating submittal under Section 28 .5 of the Environmental
Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/28.5]
2 .
Notice of Filing
3
.
Appearances of John J. Kim, Managing Attorney, Charles E . Matoesian, Assistant
Counsel, and Gina Roccaforte, Assistant Counsel, for the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
4 .
Statement of Submittal by Director Douglas P. Scott
5 .
Motion to Hold Required Hearings in Springfield
-5 .
Motion for Waiver of Copy Requirements
6 .
Statement of Reasons
7 .
Attachments to Statement of Reasons
Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants: Report to the House and Senate Environment
and Energy Committees,
IEPA/BOA/04-020, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, September 2004
.
State of New Jersey, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Docket No. 05-1097 and consolidated cases, Per Curiam Order, December 8,
2005 .
'Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units; Final Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 28606 (May 18, 2005) .
Argus Air Daily,
Volume 13, 036, February 23, 2006 .
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Resource Management,
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) Preliminary Proposal,
March 2, 2006
.
Regulating Mercury from Power Plants : A Model Rule for States and Localities,
STAPPA/ALAPCO, November 2005 .
Meeting with Stakeholders, Sign-in Sheet (January 24, 2006)
Meeting with Stakeholders, Sign-in Sheet (January 31, 2006)
Meeting with Stakeholders, Sign-in Sheet (February 7, 2006)
Meeting with Stakeholders, Sign-in Sheet (February 14, 2006)
Meeting with Stakeholders, Sign-in Sheet (February 21, 2006)
Meeting with Stakeholders, Sign-in Sheet (February 28,
2006)
8 .
First Notice Form for New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225
9 .
Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225
10 .
Technical Support Document for Reducing Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
Electric Generating Units, AQPSTR 06-02, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, March 14, 2006 .
11 .
Attachments to Technical Support Document for Reducing Mercury Emissions
from Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units
.
12
.
Documents Relied Upon (See attachment A)
13
.
Incorporations by Reference (See attachment B)
14 .
Certificate of Service
15 .
Disk in Microsoft WORD containing First Notice Form for New Part 225
(FIRSTNOTICE-225.doc) and Proposed New Part 225 (RULE-225 .doc)
2
ATTACHMENT A
Documents Relied Upon
1 . The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (42 U .S.C. § 7401
et seq .)
.
2. Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/1
et seq.) .
3. Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units, 65 Fed. Reg. 79825 (December 20, 2000)
.
4. Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ; and, in the
Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary
Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Proposed Rule, 69 Fed. Reg. 4652
(January 30, 2004)
.
5. Supplemental Notice for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants ; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and
Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Proposed Rule, 69
Fed. Reg. 12398 (March 16, 2004)
.
6. Revision of December 2000 Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and the Removal of Coal- and
Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units From the Section 112(c) List ; Final
Rule, 70 Fed Reg. 15994 (March 29, 2005) .
7. Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources : Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units; Final Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 28606 (May 18, 2005)
.
8. Anderson,H.A., J.F. Amrhein, P. Shubat, and J . Hesse. Protocol for a uniform Great
Lakes sport fish consumption advisory. Great Lakes Fish Advisory Task Force Protocol
Drafting Committee. 1993 .
9. Berry, M ., Irvin, N., Monroe, L., Bustard, J., Lindsey, C., Brignac, P., Taylor, T .,
Schlager, R., Sjostrom, S ., Stams, T., Chang, R., O'Palko, A., 2004. "Field Test Program
for Long-Term Operation of a COHPAC® System for Removing Mercury from Coal-
Fired Flue Gas", Presented at the Joint EPRI DOE EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution
Control Symposium, The Mega Symposium, August 31-September 2, 2004, Washington,
D.C
.
10. Biermann, J., Higgins, B ., Wendt, J.O ., Senior, C., Wang, D. "Mercury Reduction at a
Coal Fired Power Plant at over 2000 °F Using MinPlus Sorbent Through Furnace Sorbent
Injection", 2006 Electric Utilities Environmental Conference, Tucson, AZ, January 22-
25, 2006; Available online at http://www.mobotecusa.com
11 . Bustard, J .; Durham, M .; Lindsey, C .; Starns, T .; Baldrey, K .; Martin, C .; Schlager, R . ;
Sjostrom, S
.; Slye, R
.; Renninger, S
.; Monroe, L
.; Miller, R
.; Chang, R., "Full-Scale
Evaluation of Mercury Control with Sorbent Injection and COHPAC at Alabama Power
E.C ., Gaston," DOE-EPRI-U.S. EPA-A&WMA Power Plant Air Pollutant Control Mega
Symposium, Chicago, IL, August 20-23, 2001 .
12. Cain, Alex, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Presentation, LADCO Mercury
Workshop, O'Hare International Center -Auditorium, Rosemont, Illinois, February 22,
2006 .
13. Dombrowski, K., Richardson, C., "Sorbent Injection for Small ESP Mercury Control in
Bituminous Coal Flue Gas", DOE/NETL's Mercury Control Technology R&D Program
Review, Pittsburgh, PA, July 12-13, 2005
.
14. Dombrowski, K., Richardson, C., Machalek, T., Chapman, D., Chang, R., Monroe, L .,
Berry, M., Irvin, N., McBee, K., Sjostrom, S ., "Sorbent Injection for Mercury Control
Upstream of Small-SCA ESPs", Presented at the Joint EPRI DOE EPA Combined Utility
Air Pollution Control Symposium, The Mega Symposium, August 31-September 2, 2004,
Washington, D.C
.
15. Durham, "Advances in Mercury Control Technology", Pennsylvania Mercury Rule
Workgroup Meeting, November 18, 2005 .
16. "Field Test Program for Long-Term Operation of a COHPAC® System for Removing
Mercury", DOE/NETL's Mercury Control Technology R&D Program Review,
Pittsburgh, PA, July 12-13, 2005
.
17. Hurt, R., Suuberg, E., Yu-Ming, Mehta, A., "The Passivation of Carbon for Improvement
of Air Entrainment in Fly Ash Concrete",
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/00/ubc00/HLIRT.PDF
18. Hutson, N., "Brominated Sorbents: Effects on Emissions of Halogenated Air Toxics",
DOE/NETL's Mercury Control Technology R&D Program Review, Pittsburgh, PA, July
12-13,2005
.
19. Illinois Department of Public Health. Environmental Health Fact Sheet - Fish Advisories
in Illinois. Illinois Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health,
Springfield, IL. 2006 .
20. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency . Illinois 2004 Section 303(d) List .
IEPA/BOW/04-005. Bureau of Water, Watershed Management Section : Springfield, IL.
November 2004
.
21. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency . DRAFT - Illinois Integrated Water Quality
Report and Section 303(d) list-2006. Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314
.
2
Water Resource Assessment Information and Listing of Impaired Waters . Bureau of
Water, Watershed Management Section, Surface Water Section : Springfield, IL
.
22. Institute of Clean Air Companies, "Status and Capabilities of Mercury Control
Technologies," Presentation to EPA Administrator Leavitt, Washington, D.C., July 20,
2004 .
23. Jenkins, R.E., Burkhead, N.M ., 1993. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society. Bethesda, Maryland. Pages732-736 .
24. Johnson, D., Cummings, J., "TOXECONTM Retrofitfor Mercury and Multi-Pollutant
Control", presentation on Clean Coal Power Initiative, downloaded from
www .netl.doe.gov
25. Khan, S . and Srinivasachar, S., "Field Demonstration of Enhanced Sorbent Injection for
Mercury Control", DOE-NETL, Mercury Control Program, Review Meeting, July 12,
2005
.
26. Michigan Electric Utility Workgroup, "Final Report on Mercury Emissions from Coal-
Fired Power Plants", June 20,2005
.
27. Migler, Paul, VanAten, Chris . "North American Power Plant Air Emissions. Commission
for Environmental Cooperation of North America, 2004 .
28. MinPlus Sorbent: Non Carbon Sorbent for Mercury Control in Coal Fired Boilers,
August 2005
.
29. National Wildlife Federation, Getting the Job Done: Affordable Mercury Control at Coal-
Burning Power Plants, October 2004
.
30. Nelson, S ., "Sorbent Technology for Mercury Control", Pennsylvania Mercury Rule
Workgroup Meeting, November 18, 2005
.
31 . Nolan, P., Downs, W., Bailey, R., Vecci, S., "Use of Sulfide Containing Liquors for
Removing Mercury from Flue Gases", U .S. Patent # 6,503,470, January 7, 2003
.
32. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), "Economic
Valuation of Human Health Benefits for Controlling Mercury Emissions from U.S. Coal-
Fired Power Plants", February 2005 .
33. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), "Mercury
Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants. The Case for Regulatory Action," October
2003
.
34. Renninger, S ., Farthing, G., Ghorishi, S.B ., Teets, C., Neureuter, J., "Effects of SCR
Catalyst, Ammonia Injection and Sodium Hydrosulfide on the Speciation and Removal of
Mercury within a Forced-Oxidized Limestone Scrubber", Presented at the Joint EPRI
3
DOE EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution Control Symposium, The Mega Symposium,
August 31-September 2, 2004, Washington, D.C .
35. Richardson, C., Machalek, T., Marsh, B., Miller, S., Richardson, M., Chang, R., Strohfus
M., Smokey, S., Hagley, T., Juip G., Rosvold, R., "Chemical Addition for Mercury
Control in Flue Gas Derived from Western Coals" Presented at the Joint EPRI DOE EPA
Combined Utility Air Pollution Control Symposium, The Mega Symposium, May 19-22,
2003, Washington, D.C .
36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Clean Air
Mercury Rule. Final Report. EPA-452/R-05-003. March 2005 .
37. Sjostrom, S., "ADA-ES/ALSTOM Power Evaluation of Sorbent Injection for Mercury
Control", DOE/NETL Mercury Control Technology R&D Program Review, Pittsburgh,
PA, July 14-15, 2004
.
38. Smith, Philip W. The Fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press. Pages 232-233
.
1979 .
39. Srinivasachar, S., Kang, S., "Field Demonstration of Enhanced Sorbent Injection for
Mercury Control: Quarterly Technical Progress Report", Report Period : July 1 -
September 30,2005, Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy National Energy
Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Under Contract DE-FC26-
04NT42306), November 8, 2005 .
40. Srivastava, R.K.; Sedman, C .B . ; Kilgroe, J.D., "Performance and cost of Mercury
Emission Control Technology Applications on Electric Utility Boilers," EPA-600/R-00-
083, September 2000
.
41. Starns, T., Amrhein, J., Martin, C., Sjostrom, S., Bullinger, C., Stockdill, D ., Strohfus,
TM
M., Chang, R., "Full-Scale Evaluation of TOXECON II
on a Lignite-Fired Boiler",
Presented at the Joint EPRI DOE EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution Control
Symposium, The Mega Symposium, "August 31-September 2, 2004, Washington, D .C
.
42. Staudt, J., "Mercury Allowances and Strategies: Peering Through the Mist", EUCI's
Navigating the Mercury Issue, October 19-20, 2005, Arlington, VA
.
43. Staudt, J., Jozewicz, W., "Performance and Cost of Mercury and Multipollutant Emission
Control Technology Applications on Electric Utility Boilers", EPA/600/R-03/110 ; U.S .
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 2003
.
44. Tran, P., Shore, L., Yang, X., Hizny, W., Butz, J., "Mercury Control: Novel Non-Carbon
Sorbents", Power-Gen International, Las Vegas, NV, December 6-8, 2005
.
4
45. Trasande, L., Landrigan, P., Schechter, C., "Public Health and Economic Consequences
of Mehtylmercury Toxicity to the Developing Brain," Environmental Health Perspective,
February 28, 2005. Available online at http://dx .doi .org
46. "Use of High-Carbon Illinois Fly Ash in Cement Manufacturing Demonstration Phase,"
ICCI Project Number: 99-1/2.1A-1 http://www.icci.org/00final/bhatty99.htm
47. U .S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile of Mercury . Public Health
Service, Atlanta, GA
.
48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study Report to Congress . An
Inventory of Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United States . Volume II (EPA-
452/R-97-004); December 1997
.
49. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Executive
Summary. Volume I (EPA-452/R-97-003); December 1997 .
50. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Health
Effects of Mercury and Mercury Compounds. Volume V. (EPA-452/R-97-007). 1997 .
51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study Report to Congress .
Characterization of Human Health and Wildlife Risks from Mercury Exposure in the
United States. Volume VII (EPA-452/R-97-009). December 1997
.
52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
Electric Utility Boilers: Interim Report", EPA-600/R-01-109, April 2002 .
53. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting
the Installation of Control Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies", EPA-600/R-
02/073, October 2002 .
54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units - Final Report to Congress," EPA-453/R-
98-004, February 1998
.
55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Develoment, "Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Electric Utility Boilers : An
Update", Research Triangle Park, NC, February 18, 2005
.
56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Generation Resource Grid (eGrid),
User's Manual, Prepared by E .H. Pechan & Associates Inc., April 2003; Available
Online at : (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid/index.htm
5
57. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and
Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water
Act. Watershed Branch Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water. July 29, 2005
.
58. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Inspector General . Evaluation Report
.
Additional Analyses of Mercury Emissions Needed Before EPA Finalizes Rules for
Coal-Fired Electric Utilities. Report No. 2005-P-00003. February 3, 2005
.
59. World Health Organization .
Methyl Mercury, Volume 101
.
Distribution and Sales
Service, International Programme on Chemical Safety, Geneva, Switzerland . 1990 .
60. Keating, Martha,
Update on Mercury Control Technologies,
Clean Air Task Force,
February 17, 2004 .
61. Smith, Jeff,
Mercury and Utilities: Current Control Technologies and Multi-Pollutant
Strategies,
Institute of Clean Air Companies, Inc ., July 31, 2001
.
62 . Illinois Estimated Mercury Emissions from Coal-Burning Power Plants,
Environmental
Working Group
.
63. Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia Station Mercury Emissions, Statistics provided
by the Office of Coal Development, Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic
Opportunity on March 24, 2005
.
64. California Environmental Protection Agency . "Chemicals in Fish : Consumption of Fish
and Shellfish in California and the United States ." October 2001
.
65 . Crelling, J . Dr., Carty, R. Dr. "Prediction of Mercury Removal Efficiencies with Current
Coal Washing Practices." Interim Final Technical Report . September 1, 2004 through
August 31, 2005 .
66. Foerter, David C . Institute of Clean Air Companies . Testimony Before the USEPA on
CAIR and CAMR. February 26, 2004 .
67. Illinois Department of Natural Resources. "2006 Illinois Fishing Information ." 2006 .
68. Illinois Department of Public Health. 2006. Environmental Health Fact Sheet-Fish
Advisories in Illinois. Illinois Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental
Health, Springfield, IL
.
69. Nelson, Sid, Brickett, Lynn. Large Scale Mercury Control Field Testing- Phase II
.
"Advanced Utility Mercury-Sorbent Field Testing Program ." Progress Report. July
2005
.
6
70. O'Palko, A., Sjostrom, S., Stares, T. "Evaluation of Sorbent Injection for Mercury
Control. NETL Meeting. July 12, 2005
.
71 . Pellettieri. M.B ., Hallenbeck,W.H., Brenniman, G.R., Cailas, M., Clark, M. "PCB Intake
from Sport Fishing Along the Northern Illinois Shore of Lake Michigan." Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. 1996 .
72. Princiotta, F.T., Technical Memorandum, Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
Utility Boilers. October 25, 2000
.
73. Srivastava, R .K., Staudt, James E., Jozewicz, W. "Preliminary Estimates of Performance
and Cost of Mercury Emission Control Technology Applications on Electric Utility
Boilers: An Update."
74. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Appendix B Background Material of
Methodology Used to Estimate 1999 National Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
Electric Utility Boilers . Electricity Utility Steam Generating Unit Mercury Emissions
Information Collection Effort. September 15, 2000 .
75. U.S. Geological Survey. "Coal Quality Information-Key to the Efficient and
Environmentally Sound Use of Coal ." February 9, 2006
.
7
Attachment B
Incorporations by Reference
1
.
40 CFR Part 60, § 60 .17, § 60.45a, § 60.49a(k)(1), § 60.49a(p), § 60.50a(h), and
§§ 60.4170 through 60.4176 (2005)
.
2
.
40 CFR Part 75 (2005)
.
3
.
ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P .O .
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959 (610) 832-9585
:
a)
ASTM D388-77, 90, 91, 95, 98a, or 99, Classification of Coals by Rank
(Reapproved 2004) .
b)
ASTM D3173-03, Standard Test Method for Moisture in the Analysis
Sample of Coal and Coke (Approved April 10, 2003) .
c)
ASTM D3684-01, Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in Coal by the
Oxygen Bomb Combustion/Atomic Absorption Method (Approved
October 10, 2001)
.
d)
ASTM D5865-04, Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of
Coal and Coke (Approved April 1, 2004)
.
e)
ASTM D6414-01, Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in Coal and
Coal Combustion Residues by Acid Extraction or Wet Oxidation/Cold
Vapor Atomic Absorption (Approved October 10, 2001)
.
f)
ASTM D6784-02, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method) (Approved April 10, 2002)
.
o
r)
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF
:
)
R06-
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
(Rulemaking- Air)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
RF
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
V
APPEARANCE
on OP/
C
p
as
~Wa
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency .
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
DATED: March 13, 2006
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
B
The undersigned hereby enters her appearance as an attorney on behalf of the
Gina Roccafort
`
e
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
DATED: March 13, 2006
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
R06-
a .
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
(Rulemaking - Air)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
IVED
RCLEfik
OFFICE
MAR 1 4 2006
APPEARANCE
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution Contrp1 Board
The undersigned hereby enters his appearance as an attorney on behalf of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
By
ohn J .
Managing Attorney
Air Regulatory Unit
Division of Legal Counsel
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225 )
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM )
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency moves that the Illinois Pollution Control
Board adopt the attached regulations
.
DATED :
3 ~ \310 6
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P. 0. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
217/782-5544
0R1PL I .A I
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROPOSAL OF REGULATIONS
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROT CTION AGENCY
By
Dougla
Sco
Director
F
R06-
c
o
o
VEO
(Rulemaking - Air)
MAR
srA
4 2006
poll~tio C
nti
tIQVI
d
ORIGI\AL
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
STATEMENT OF REASONS
I. INTRODUCTION
R06- ,5
(Rulemakinft
CLeA4I
~~
MAR
PoS
utioon
on/o~~o)
N
r
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA") submits this
Statement of Reasons to the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") pursuant to Sections
9.10, 27, and 28 .5 of the Environmental Protection Act ("Act") (415 ILCS 5/9.10, 27, and
28.5) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102 .302 in support of the proposed new 35 Ill . Adm. Code Part
225, Control of Emissions from Large Combustion Sources . These regulations are proposed
to control mercury emissions from coal-fired electric generating units ("EGUs") beginning in
July 2009 .
This proposed rulemaking is intended to meet certain obligations of the State of
Illinois under the federal Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq . ; specifically, to
satisfy Illinois' obligation to submit a State Implementation Plan ("SIP") to address the
requirements of the Clean Air Mercury Rule ("CAMR"), see, 70 Fed. Reg. 28606 (May 18,
2005), and to meet the applicable requirements of Section 9 .10 of the Act. This proposal
addresses the serious deficiencies present in the CAMR . Specifically, the unnecessary delay
in achieving mercury emission reductions, the inherent concerns associated with a cap and
trade program to control a persistent, bioaccumulative toxin, the inadequate mercury
reductions contained in the CAMR, and the legal basis upon which the CAMR was adopted
.
Included in this proposal are proposed new rules, 35 I11 . Adm. Code Part 225, Control of
Emissions from Large Combustion Sources .
11.STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Mercury in the Environment
Mercury is a naturally occurring trace element found in the environment
.
See, Fossil
Fuel-Fired Power Plants: Report to the House and Senate Environment and Energy
Committees,
IEPA/BOA/04-020, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, September 2004,
at 3
("Section 9.10 Report")
(attached). It is also a pollutant that is released to the
environment by human (anthropogenic) activities, including coal-fired power plants
. Id.
Although mercury is not a criteria pollutant for which USEPA has established a National
Ambient Air Quality Standard ("NAAQS"), it is a hazardous air pollutant ("HAP") and has
adverse health impacts .
See, Technical Support Document for Reducing Mercury Emissions
from Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units,
AQPSTR 06-02, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, March 14, 2006 ("TSD") .
Emissions of mercury occur in three distinct forms : ionic, elemental, and particulate
.
Ionic and particulate forms of mercury compounds have the greatest impact on near-field
deposition . 70
Fed. Reg.
28619 (May 18, 2005). Generally speaking, since these forms of
mercury are water soluble, they are more readily controlled than elemental mercury
. Id.
It is not the inhalation of mercury that is the predominant public health concern for
emissions of mercury, but the eventual deposition of such mercury on the land and into the
waters of Illinois that concerns health officials .
Section 9.10 Report
at 3. Over 50% of the
mercury entering many bodies of water, including Lake Michigan, comes from air
deposition . Id . Once in water, some mercury is transformed into methylmercury through
2
biological processes
. 70 Fed. Reg. 28640 (May 18, 2005) . Methylmercury, a highly toxic
form of mercury, is the mercury compound of concern for the health effects of mercury
. Id.
Once mercury has been transformed into methylmercury, it can be ingested by the lower
trophic level organisms where it bioaccumulates in fish tissue (i.e., concentrations in
predatory fish build up over the fish's entire lifetime, accumulating in the fish tissue as
predatory fish consume other species in the food chain)
. Id.
Therefore, fish and wildlife at
the top of the food chain can have mercury concentrations that are higher than the lower
species, and concentrations of mercury many times higher than that of the water body itself
.
Id. As such, the most common route of exposure to mercury for humans and wildlife is
through the consumption of mercury contained in their food supply
. Id.
When humans consume fish containing methylmercury, the ingested methylmercury
is almost completely absorbed into the blood and distributed throughout the tissues of the
body . Id.
In pregnant women, methylmercury can be passed on to the developing fetus, and
at sufficient exposure may lead to a number of neurological effects
. Id.
Thus, children who
are exposed to even low concentrations of methylmercury prenatally may be at increased risk
of poor performance on neurobehavioral tests, such as those measuring attention, fine motor
function, language skills, visual-spatial abilities, and verbal memory
. Id.
The effects from
prenatal exposure can occur even at doses that do not result in effects in the mother
. Id.
Mercury contamination of Illinois waters has resulted in fish consumption advisories being
issued for everybody of water in the State
. Section 9.10 Report at 4 . Amore comprehensive
discussion of mercury deposition and its effects on human health is set forth in the TSD
.
3
B . Mercury under the Clean Air Act
Mercury is listed as a HAP under Section 112(b) of the CAA . 42 U .S.C. § 7412(b)
.
Section 112 requires the USEPA to establish Maximum Achievable Control Technology
("MACT") standards, which are applicable to both new and existing sources, for various
categories of sources. The stringent system of emissions controls encompassed under the
MACT provisions is intended to ensure control technology is used to minimize emissions of
HAPs from significant sources of HAPs
.
Under Section 112(n)(1)(A) of the CAA, USEPA was directed to conduct a study of
electric utility boilers to assess the hazards to public health from their emissions of HAPs . 42
U.S.C. § 7412(n)(1)(A). USEPA submitted such study to Congress in 1998
. Mercury Study
Report to Congress, Volumes I through VIII, EPA-452/R-97-003 through 010, December
1997
.
On December 20, 2000, USEPA issued a finding under Section 112(n)(1)(A) of the
CAA that it was appropriate and necessary to regulate coal and oil-fired utility boilers under
Section 112 ("Regulatory Finding") .'
See, 65Fed. Reg. 79825 (May 18, 2005). USEPA
concluded that this affirmative determination under Section 112(n)(1)(A) of the CAA
constituted a decision to list coal and oil-fired utility units on the Section 112(c) source
category list . Id . at 79830. Relying on Section 112(e)(4) of the CAA, the USEPA explained
in its December 2000 Regulatory Finding that neither its finding under Section 112(n)(1)(A)
of the CAA, nor the associated listing were subject to judicial review at that time . Id. at
79831. USEPA did not add natural-gas fired units to the Section 112(c) list in December
2000 because it did not make a positive appropriate and necessary finding for such units
. Id .
'As discussed
infra,
on March 29, 2005, the USEPA revised this December 2000 Regulatory Finding and
concluded that it is neither appropriate nor necessary to regulate coal and oil-fired EGUs under Section 112 of
the CAA .
70 Fed. Reg.
15994 .
4
C . Section 9.10 of the Act
All water bodies in Illinois are contaminated with mercury to such an extent that fish
consumption advisories are in effect
.
Section 9.10 Report
at 4. These advisories establish
specific recommendations for the maximum amount of different types of fish that individuals
consume. Responding to these circumstances and other concerns about mercury emissions,
the General Assembly adopted Section 9 .10 of the Act, requiring the Illinois EPA to study
and issue findings on the potential need for the control or reduction of mercury emissions,
along with other pollutants, from fossil-fuel fired electric generating plants . 415 ILCS
5/9.10. Section 9.10(b) of the Act states, in part, as follows
:
(b)
Taking into account the findings and declarations of the General
Assembly .
.
.the Agency shall . . .issue to the House and Senate Committees on
Environment and Energy findings that address the potential need for the control or
reduction of emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric generating plants, including the
following provisions :
r**
(4) reduction of mercury as appropriate, consideration of the availability of
control technology, industry practice requirements, or incentive programs, or some
combination of these approaches that are sufficient to prevent unacceptable local
impacts from individual facilities and with consideration of the developments in
federal law and regulations that may affect any state action, prior to making final
decisions in Illinois; and
415 ILCS 5/9.10(b). Furthermore, Section 9.10(c) states, in pertinent part, the following
:
(c) Nothing in this Section is intended to or should be interpreted in a manner
to limit or restrict the authority of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to
propose, or the Illinois Pollution Control Board to adopt, any regulations applicable
or that may become applicable to the facilities covered by this Section that are
required by federal law
.
415 ILCS 5/9.10(c) .
5
Accordingly, in September 2004, the Illinois EPA published the
Section 9.10 Report
entitled
"Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants: Report to the House and Senate Environment and
Energy Committees ."
The
Section 9.10 Report
indicated that control of mercury emissions
was necessary; however, the specific level of control was not delineated . The
Section 9.10
Report
concluded, in part, as follows
:
Illinois EPA believes that independent, full and complete economic assessments
should be performed on the full economic impacts in Illinois of the final CAIR [Clean
Air Interstate Rule] proposal, the Mercury Reduction Rule, the Carper and Jeffords
Bills, and any others that surface in the next several months . The impact to Illinois'
coal jobs and power industry jobs must be fully understood . Certainly, with the
deregulated electricity market that exists in Illinois, the cost impacts on generation
and, ultimately, to Illinois citizens and businesses needs [sic] to be fully understood
.
Such assessments can only be properly performed once certainty exists at the federal
level. These cost analyses will be vital in fully assessing the appropriate timing and
scope of additional emission reductions from power plants in Illinois .
Section 9.10 Report
at 70 .
As can be seen from the above passages, several bills and rules were being discussed
at the national level, each of which would have had different impacts on the State of Illinois
.
Quite reasonably, the Illinois EPA chose to wait and observe the action in Congress before
proceeding with a rulemaking proposal for the State of Illinois . However, even in September
2004, the Illinois EPA realized that there might be a need for additional reductions from coal-
fired power plants in Illinois .
D. The Clean Air Mercury Rule
1 . Background
On January 30, 2004, the USEPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled
"Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative,
Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units ." 69
Fed. Reg.
4652. In the proposed rulemaking, USEPA set forth
6
three alternative regulatory approaches . USEPA proposed : (1) to retain the December 2000
Regulatory Finding and associated listing of coal and oil-fired utility units and to issue rules
requiring MACT for emissions of HAPs from such units ; (2) to revise the December 2000
Regulatory Finding by removing coal and oil-fired utility units from the Section 112(c) list
and to issue final standards of performance under Section 111 of the CAA for new and
existing coal-fired units for emissions of mercury and new and existing oil-fired units for
emissions of nickel; or (3) to retain the December 2000 Regulatory Finding by regulating
mercury emissions from utility units under Section 112(n)(1)(A) of the CAA . Id.
Shortly thereafter, on March 16, 2004, the USEPA published a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking entitled "Supplemental Notice of Proposed National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of
Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources : Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units." 69 Fed. Reg. 12398. In that notice, the USEPA proposed certain additional
regulatory text, which largely governed the proposed Section 111 standards of performance
for mercury and included a cap and trade program . The supplemental notice also proposed
state plan approvability criteria and a model cap and trade rule for mercury emissions from
coal-fired utility units. Id.
In response to the Mercury Proposal and the Supplemental Notice, the Illinois EPA
submitted comments on these rulemakings, which stated that Illinois is very committed to
substantially reducing mercury in the environment, and the State is aggressively encouraging
clean-coal technology that will allow Illinois' abundant coal reserves to be used in an
environmentally responsible manner. In those comments, the Illinois EPA made the
following key points :
7
Mercury is a highly toxic pollutant that needs to be regulated . Mercury is a powerful
neurotoxin that accumulates in the food chain and can cause damage to the brain and
nervous system when ingested, and is particularly harmful to developing fetuses and
young children. In fact, because of methylmercury contamination, all of Illinois'
waterbodies have fish consumption advisories due to elevated concentrations of
mercury in predator fish .
Mercury from power plants must be regulated under section 112(d) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), and as such, the mercury emissions from the power plants must be
subject to a Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standard . Therefore,
USEPA's rule, which regulates those sources under section 111, is inappropriate and
represents an unnecessary legal risk which may further delay the implementation of
controls. USEPA chooses to interpret part of the language in section 112(n),
requiring U.S. EPA to evaluate "alternative control strategies," to justify an approach
to regulation of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from EGUs other than a listing under
section 112(c), standard setting under section 112(d), and compliance deadlines
established under section 112(g) . USEPA did not provide legislative history or case
law that would support such an approach or interpretation .
Under CAA section 112(d), the mercury limits must be more stringent than set forth
in the Mercury Proposal or Supplemental Notice, and as finally adopted by CAMR
.
CAMR requires an interim emissions cap of 38 tons per year to be achieved by 2010
that does not require any additional control of mercury beyond the co-benefits
expected from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
. The interim cap for mercury is
wholly dependent upon CAIR, and does not require any other control measures
specifically designed to address hazardous air pollutant emissions . The national
emissions cap of 38 tons per year is clearly not consistent with the legislative mandate
for calculating MACT under section 112 . We believe the Clean Air Act is clear that
USEPA should determine MACT for existing sources on the average of the top 12
percent of sources .
Any mercury rule for power plants must be fuel neutral, without favoring coal from
any particular region of the country, and thus there should be a common standard for
bituminous and subbituminous coal. The proposed limits for subbituminous coal are
so lax that they are tantamount to no control . Illinois is concerned that facilities may
switch from bituminous to subbituminous coal or blend their fuels simply to escape
stricter controls. The result would be higher emission limits and greater emissions of
mercury .
We oppose emissions trading of mercury allowances unless each affected unit
involved in a trade can demonstrate that mercury hot spots are prevented . USEPA
has not evaluated or addressed whether trading could lead to local "hotspot" problems
in the vicinity of electric utilities that purchase allowances rather than installing
controls to comply
.
8
Mercury emission reductions can and should occur by 2010, and section 112 of the
Clean Air Act has sufficient provisions to accommodate this timeframe . USEPA
gave insufficient support for its extended compliance deadline of 2018, which it has
acknowledged, based on banking and trading. Elements of the trading program could
extend out to 2025 or 2030 . Based on the Florida Everglades experience in which
stringent controls were applied to incineration sources in the 1990s resulting in a
steep decline in fish tissue levels of mercury within less than a decade, we can
conclude that the quicker we start a reduction program, the quicker the risk to our
citizens can be reduced. A 2018 compliance date is far too late for Illinois to use the
federal mercury rule as part of a plan to restore an impaired waterbody under the
Clean Water Act, and we would be looking at 2028 before substantial fish tissue
reductions could occur in the best of cases. That's 25 years before a current public
health risk even begins to resolve, and that's too long .
Comments of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency on the January 30, 2004, Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and the March 16, 2004, Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, Docket No. OAR-2002-0056, April 22, 2004 .
On March 29, 2005, the USEPA promulgated a final rule entitled "Revision of
December 2000 Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and the Removal of Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units From the Section 112(c) List" ("Delisting Action") . 70 Fed
Reg. 15994. In this final rule, USEPA revised the December 2000 appropriate and necessary
finding and concluded that it is neither appropriate nor necessary to regulate coal and oil-
fired utility units under Section 112 of the CAA
.2
On May 18, 2005, this was followed by promulgation of CAMR . See, 70 Fed. Reg.
28606 (See, copy attached). CAMR included standards of performance for mercury for new
z
Along with the CAMR, the Delisting Action is currently being challenged by a number of Petitioners in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
. See, State of New Jersey, et al. v. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, No . 05-1097 and consolidated cases. The State of Illinois filed its
own Petitions challenging the CAMR and the Delisting Action ; however, these cases were consolidated with
State of New Jersey and the other consolidated cases. In addition, the USEPA granted reconsideration of certain
aspects of the CAMR and the Delisting Action as a result of receiving Petitions for Reconsideration
.
See, 70
Fed. Reg. 62200 and 62213 (October 28, 2005) . Both challenges have been consolidated, and the proceedings
are being held in abeyance pending completion of the USEPA's reconsideration proceedings, which the USEPA
anticipates completing by May 31, 2006. Per Curiam Order, December 8, 2005 (See, copy attached)
.
9
and existing coal-fired electric utility steam generating units
. Id.
CAMR utilizes a market
based cap and trade approach under Section 111 of the CAA to reduce emissions of mercury
from these units. 42 U.S.C. § 7411 . Section 111(d) of the CAA authorizes USEPA to
promulgate standards of performance that states must adopt through a SIP . Under CAMR,
states are required to submit SIPs to the USEPA by no later than November 17, 2006 .
See,
70
Fed. Reg.
28649; 40 CFR § 60.24(h)(2) .
In CAMR, USEPA established an annual budget for mercury emissions from coal-
fired electrical generating units for each state for 2010 and thereafter
.
See,
70
Fed. Reg.
28649-50. Each state's plan under the CAMR must contain appropriate control requirements
and compliance procedures to assure compliance with the state's annual mercury budget by
the specified dates
. Id . However, "States remain authorized to require emissions reductions
beyond those required by the State Budget," and nothing in the CAMR "will preclude the
States from requiring such stricter controls and still being eligible to participate" in the
mercury trading program
. Id . at 28632. These provisions evidence the USEPA's intent that
a program of "cooperative federalism" be maintained between the Federal government and
the States for the control of mercury, whereby the States would be allowed, within the
bounds established by minimum federal programs, to enact and administer their own
regulatory programs .
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Association, Inc.,
452U.S. 264, 289, 101
S.Ct.
2352, 2366-2367 (1981)
.
2 . Deficiencies in CAMR
The Illinois EPA determined then, and now, that CAMR will not result in sufficient
reductions of mercury in a timely manner, and that CAMR will impede its efforts to
encourage clean-coal technology that will allow Illinois' abundant coal reserves to be used in
10
an environmentally responsible manner. As demonstrated in Section 8 of the TSD, 90%
reduction of mercury from coal-fired power plants is achievable today with the application of
available technology at a cost that is economically reasonable and that will not significantly
impact electricity rates in Illinois .
For these reasons, the Illinois EPA requested that the Illinois Attorney General's
Office file an appeal of CAMR and the Delisting Action . On May 27, 2005, the State of
Illinois filed Petitions for Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit challenging both rules
.
See, State ofIllinois v. Environmental Protection
Agency, Nos .
05-1174 and 05-1189 (D.C
. Cir.). These cases were consolidated with the
other challenges
.
a. Cap and Trade Program vs. MACT Standard
First, the decision to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired utility boilers under
Section 111 of the CAA, rather than Section 112, is legally deficient . All HAPs are regulated
under Section 112. 42 U.S.C. § 7412. Regulation under Section 111(d) is inconsistent with
the structure of the CAA. USEPA constructs an elaborate interpretation that allows it to
promulgate a trading program under Sections 111(d) and 112(n) ; however, neither section
provides specific authority for promulgating a trading program . Sections 111(b)(1)(B) and
(d) and Section 112(d) require USEPA to promulgate either a performance standard or an
emission standard. A performance standard, as defined by Section 111(a)(1) of the CAA,
means an emissions standard that reflects the best system of reduction . An emissions
standard under Section 112(d)(2) is required to reflect the maximum degree of reduction that
is achievable (MACT). A trading program does not, by its very structure, require a source to
achieve any particular level of emissions reduction
.
1 1
The virtue of the MACT standards under Section 112 is that they ensure that
applicable sources use appropriate technology to minimize HAP emissions . The MACT
process also contains provisions for the review of emission standards to allow for periodic
updating based upon technological advances
.
Id .
CAMR does not contain such a process
.
Although more than 40% of all anthropogenic mercury emissions in the United States come
from coal-fired power plants, the CAMR removes such sources from the continued oversight
provided by Section 112 of the CAA. See, TSD, Figure 2.2, at 30. In place of a MACT
standard, CAMR creates a new structure to control mercury emissions from coal-fired power
plants under Section 111 of the CAA, the New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") .
USEPA begins by establishing a performance standard for new coal-fired utility
boilers and then finds itself required under Section 111 to establish such a standard for
existing coal-fired utility boilers . The centerpiece of this scheme for existing units is a cap
and trade program. As their name implies, cap and trade programs set a "cap" or ceiling on
emissions of a pollutant . The cap is translated into allowances that represent given quantities
of the pollutant. Under CAMR, one allowance equals one ounce of mercury. The
allowances in an amount equal to the cap are distributed to affected sources . Following the
end of each year or other applicable compliance period, sources must hold and turn in
allowances to cover their actual emissions . Prior to this periodic reconciliation, sources and
other parties are authorized to enter into transactions, and to transferring their allowances
from the accounts for one source or party to the account of another .
Under this arrangement, all sources are not actually required to reduce emissions .
Rather, a cap and trade program achieves an overall reduction in emissions. Emission
reductions occur at certain sources that, due to their particular circumstances and control
12
measures, emit less of the pollutant and need fewer allowances than they have received
.
Such sources can then sell these surplus allowances to other sources that need additional
allowances for their emissions . The market will thus decide at which sources reductions in
the emissions of the pollutant will occur
.
Unfortunately, for mercury, a cap and trade program can also result in the
perpetuation of "hot spots." There are several uses of the term "hot spots" in the literature
addressing mercury emissions with no known established definition . A common use of the
term "hot spots" is to define areas that show up on mercury deposition maps with higher
mercury concentrations . The term is also used to define areas in a cap and trade program
where reductions are less likely to occur due to allowances being purchased or use of banked
allowances in order to avoid mercury reductions and installation of mercury controls. In
these areas, the reduction program has less direct benefits for people living in the
surrounding area.
This scenario has not been a great problem for cap and trade programs in the past
because of the pollutants at issue and the environmental problem that was being addressed,
such as the Acid Rain Program. However, hot spots are a concern for emissions of mercury
and its effects .
b . Implementation Schedule
A second issue with the CAMR is that the actual program is phased in slowly . The
first phase begins in 2010 and is expected to reduce mercury emissions by only 20% from
1999 baseline emissions
. 70
Fed. Reg.
28619. This reduction, however, was chosen solely
because it is the mercury emission reduction expected as a co-benefit from other federal
programs
. Id . at 28618. Incredibly, CAMR does not actually require any mercury specific
1 3
action for coal-fired power plants until 2018 . At that date, the cap for mercury emissions
from the power plants is expected to be 69% below the 1999 baseline year
. Id . at 28619 .
However, since CAMR allows the "banking" of mercury allowances before 2018, the 69%
reduction is not expected to actually be achieved until later--USEPA's own modeling for
CAMR only projects a 50% reduction by 2020 from the 1999 baseline year . Id. By
comparison, the Illinois EPA's proposal is based upon implementation of control measures
for mercury emissions from affected sources beginning in mid-2009 . This disparity in timing
is attributable to the USEPA's assertion that mercury control technology is not yet mature,
despite testing of sorbent injection systems that demonstrate such technology already exists
and is economically reasonable
. Id .
c . Disjoint in Regulatory Control Methods
CAMR also creates a logical paradox . Mercury is still a HAP for which an emission
standard must be established under Section 112 of the CAA for fuel combustion sources,
unless it is emitted from a coal-fired EGU, because such units have been removed from the
Section 112(c) list. Thus, only when mercury is emitted from the largest manmade source of
such emissions in the United States is it not regulated under Section 112 of the CAA
.
Mercury emissions from other, smaller sources are still subject to a MACT standards under
Section 112
. 70Fed. Reg. 76918 (December 28, 2005), 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD
.
E . The Illinois EPA's Regulatory Proposal
The Illinois EPA deems that the optimum method to comply with the federal
requirements under the CAMR, and protect the health of Illinois citizens, is to adopt mercury
emission standards for coal-fired power plants in Illinois. Generally, this proposal allows the
owners or operators of such EGUs the option of complying with one of two mercury
14
emission standards, which are discussed in detail
infra,
that reduce emissions more rapidly
than the CAMR and for which the trading of mercury allowances is not allowed . The Illinois
EPA's proposal requires technology to be used to achieve a 90% reduction in mercury
emissions, while providing reasonable flexibility to the owners or operators with EGUs in
achieving those reductions
.
In addition, the Office of Inspector General of USEPA reported that "[e]vidence
indicates that EPA senior management instructed EPA staff to develop a MACT standard
for mercury that would result in national emissions of 34 tons annually, instead of basing
the standard on an unbiased calculation of what the top performing units were achieving in
practice ."
See, Additional Analyses of Mercury Emissions Needed Before EPA Finalizes
Rules for Coal-Fired Electric Utilities,
Report No. 2005-P-00003, Office of Inspector
General, United States Environmental Protection Agency, February 3, 2005 . The Office of
Inspector General's Report further states
:
Because the results of the MACT standard were prescribed and prior estimates were
lower than what was proposed, we believe it likely that the standard understates the
average amount of mercury emissions reductions achieved by the top performing 12
percent of power units. Some Agency officials told us that, in their opinion, the true
MACT floor would result in lower mercury emissions than the 34 [further weakened
to 38 tons in the final rule] tons estimated from current MACT floor limits
.
Therefore, if this proposed MACT standard was adopted, it would not achieve the
maximum emission reductions achievable and the associated health benefits
.
Further, this MACT standard, as proposed, does not provide a reasonable basis for
comparison in determining which of EPA's two proposed regulatory alternatives
(i .e., the MACT standard or the mercury cap-and-trade program) provides the better
cost-benefit
.
Id .
The Report also attacked USEPA's cap and trade program as follows
:
15
EPA's mercury cap-and-trade proposal - a nationwide emissions trading program for
an air toxic - can be strengthened to better ensure that human health is protected and
that anticipated emission reductions are achieved, should this approach to reducing
mercury emissions be adopted
.
Id.
at 18. The Report identified four areas of concern: (1) The interim cap (2010) could
be tightened to force earlier development of mercury-specific control technology ; (2)
USEPA had not fully analyzed the potential for hot spots ; (3) The safety valve
provisions might not encourage reductions (not included in final rule); and (4) The
small emitters exemption needed to be clarified
.
Id.
at 19-23 . As can be seen from the
above excerpts, USEPA's internal Inspector General questioned USEPA's management
decisions in developing CAMR
.
Numerous other states have determined that the provisions of the CAMR are
insufficient. Currently, 15 other states have adopted or are considering state-specific
mercury plans .
Argus Air Daily,
Volume 13, 036, February 23, 2006
(See, copy
attached). Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Wisconsin already have state-
specific plans in place
.
Id.
Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia all
have announced proposals, regulatory actions or have legislation pending
.
Id.
and
Department of Environmental Protection, Division ofAir Resource Management,
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) Preliminary Proposal,
March 2, 2006
(See, copy
attached). In addition, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
("STAPPA") and Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials ("ALAPCO"), a
national organization whose members have the primary responsibility for
implementing the nation's air pollution control laws and regulations, issued a model
16
rule that requires sources to use control technology to reduce inlet mercury by 90 to
95% or meet an alternative output-based emission standard by 2012 without trading,
while allowing for limited averaging throughout the state
.
Regulating Mercury from
Power Plants : A Model Rule for States and Localities,
STAPPA/ALAPCO, November
2005
(See,
copy attached) . Accordingly, the Illinois EPA's regulatory proposal is
consistent with the concerns of a multitude of other states
.
III.SECTION28.5OF THEACT
This regulatory proposal is properly submitted to the Board under Section 28 .5 of the
Act as a "fast-track" rulemaking proceeding . Section 28.5 of the Act "shall apply solely to
the adoption of rules proposed by the Agency and required to be adopted by the State under
the Clean Air Act as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)." 415 ILCS
5/28.5(a). Other requirements for a proposal satisfying the criteria for a fast-track
rulemaking are as follows
:
For purposes of this Section, a 'fast-track' rulemaking proceeding is a proceeding to
promulgate a rule that the CAAA requires to be adopted . For purposes of this
Section, 'requires to be adopted' refers only to those regulations or parts of regulations
for which the United States Environmental Protection Agency is empowered to
impose sanctions against the State for failure to adopt such rules .
415 ILCS 5/28.5(c). Furthermore, Section 28 .5(d) provides, "When the CAAA requires rules
other than identical in substance rules to be adopted, upon request by the Agency, the Board
shall adopt rules under fast-track rulemaking requirements ." 415 ILCS 5/28.5(d) .
In short, in order for the Board to accept proposed rules as a fast-track rulemaking,
the proposal must meet three prerequisites : (1) It must be for rules that are required to be
adopted by the State under the CAAA ; (2) It must be for rules for which the USEPA is
17
empowered to impose sanctions against the State for failure to adopt such rules ; and (3) It
must be for rules other than "identical in substance" rules
.
A . CAAARequirement
Illinois EPA's regulatory proposal to control mercury emissions from coal-fired
EGUs in Illinois is clearly required to be adopted by the CAA. CAMR was promulgated
under Section 111(d) of the CAA . If a state fails to submit a satisfactory plan as required
under CAMR, USEPA will prescribe a Federal plan pursuant to its authority under Section
111(d)(2)(A) of the CAA . 70Fed. Reg. 28632. Accordingly, Illinois EPA's regulatory
proposal is clearly required to be adopted under the CAA
.
Illinois EPA's regulatory proposal imposes standards stricter than the CAMR, as
discussed in detail infra ; however, this fact is inconsequential when interpreting the
provisions encompassing "requires to be adopted." USEPA, under CAMR, specifically
envisions that states may adopt stricter requirements when it specifies that "States remain
authorized to require emissions reductions beyond those required by the State budget," and
nothing in the CAMR "will preclude the States from requiring such stricter controls and still
being eligible to participate" in the mercury trading program . 70Fed. Reg. 28632. The only
conclusion that can be drawn from these provisions is that the adoption of an approvable
state rule that is no less stringent than CAMR will satisfy the State's obligations under
CAMR .
Moreover, USEPA asserts, "The State budgets are not an independently enforceable
requirement. Rather, each State must impose control requirements that the State
demonstrates will limit Statewide emissions from affected new and existing sources to the
amount of the budget. Consistent with CAIR [Clean Air Interstate Rule], EPA is finalizing
18
that Statesmay meet their Statewide emission budget by allowing their sources to participate
in a national cap-and-trade program ." (Emphasis added) . Id.
The focus of the federal
requirements is not enacting the cap and trade program, which is merely optional, but
lowering mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants so as to provide that the overall
national budget will not be exceeded . USEPA further states, "Additionally, States may
incorporate a mechanism for implementing more stringent controls at the State level within
their allowance allocation methodology." Id.
Again, CAMR specifically authorizes states to distribute mercury allowances in a
more restrictive manner than suggested within its framework . Accordingly, the federal
requirement under CAMR on Illinois and other states is to enact a rule governing mercury
emissions from coal-fired EGUs, while keeping mercury emissions from coal-fired power
plants within the State's annual budget. Nothing in CAMR suggests that imposing
requirements beyond the budget is not commensurate with the spirit or letter of CAMR
.
Due to the fact that CAMR envisions states requiring greater reductions than the state
budgets require and provides the ability for states to reduce mercury emissions beyond the
minimum required by the rule, the regulatory proposal will not exceed CAMR requirements
.
Illinois EPA has proposed its own strategy, but the effects are those envisioned under
CAMR. If Illinois takes advantage of the flexibility that CAMR inherently allows, it cannot
be said to be exceeding that which is federally required .
Section 111(d) of the CAA requires all states to adopt plans that establish standards of
performance for any existing source to which a standard of performance under Section 111 of
the CAA would apply if the source were a new source . 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d). On May 18,
2005, USEPA promulgated CAMR under Section 11 I (d) of the CAA. Illinois EPA's
1 9
proposed rule will satisfy the requirements set forth by USEPA in CAMR, thereby meeting
the CAA's underlying requirement that such a rule
(i.e ., either CAMR or an approvable State
rule) be in effect .
B
. USEPA Sanctions
As stated
supra,
under CAMR, states are required to submit SIPs to USEPA by no
later than November 17, 2006. Accordingly, if Illinois fails to timely submit a SIP, USEPA
has the authority to impose sanctions under the principle of "cooperative federalism"
program .
Hodel,
452
U.S.
at 289, 101
S.Ct .
at 2366-2367 ;
Virginia v. Browner,
80
F.3d
869,
883 (4`h Cir. 1996). As part of a program of cooperative federalism in which States are
allowed to enact and administer programs that meet minimum federal requirements, there are
certain "inducements" that are available to the Federal government. The sanctions provided
for in the CAA are examples of such inducements
.
Virginia,
80
F.3d
at 881. One sanction
that may be imposed upon Illinois in the present situation is a reduction in the grant that
Illinois receives under Section 105 of the CAA to administer programs required by the CAA.
42 U.S.C. § 7405 . The use by the Federal government of the "power of the purse" is a
recognized sanction
.
New York v. United States,
505
U.S.
144, 167, 112
S.Ct .
2408, 2423
(1992) ;
Virginia,
80
Fad
at 873-874 and 881-882 .
Further, USEPA has the authority under the following to prescribe a Federal plan
:
(2)
The Administrator shall have the same authority--
(A)
to prescribe a plan for a State as he would under section 110(c) in the
case of failure to submit an implementation plan
.
. .
42 U.S.C. § 7411(d)(2)(A). Section 110(c) of the CAA provides
:
(c)(1)
The Administrator shall promulgate a Federal implementation plan at any time
within 2 years after the Administrator--
20
(A)
finds that a State has failed to make a required submission
.
.
.
42 U.S.C. § 7410(c)(1)(A). If Illinois fails to submit a plan by November 17, 2006, USEPA
has the authority to prescribe a plan for Illinois . CAMR provides, in pertinent part, as
follows :
If a State fails to submit a State plan as proposed to be required in the final rule, EPA
will prescribe a Federal plan for that State, under CAA section 111(d)(2)(A) . EPA
proposes today's model rule as that Federal plan
.
70
Fed. Reg .
28606, 28632 .
Just as the ability to reduce grant funding equates to a sanction, so too would the
imposition of a Federal plan be a sanction .
Virginia,
80
F.3d
at 874-875 and 882-883. The
State's authority to implement the most appropriate control measures would be constrained,
and USEPA would have the authority to reduce the funding that Illinois EPA receives to
administer various CAA programs
.
Consistent with the previously cited case law, the Board has previously recognized
that imposition of a Federal plan is a sanction and for such reason has adopted regulations
under Section 28.5 of the Act. The Board has specifically adopted regulations under the
authority of Section 111(d) of the CAA as warranting the utilization of Section 28 .5 of the
Act. Both R98-28,
In the Matter
of:
Municipal Sold Waste Landfills - Non-Methane Organic
Compounds 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.103, 201.146, and Part 220,
and R99-1 0,
In the Matter
of
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators Adoption of 35I11. Adm. Code 229,
were
based upon the authority of Section 111(d) of the CAA and the Board adopted these
regulations under the provisions of Section 28 .5 of the Act. In R98-28, the Board
specifically ordered, in pertinent part
:
Section 28 .5 authorizes the Board to adopt via a 'fast-track' procedure certain
regulations necessary for compliance with the CAA . The United States
2 1
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established July 31, 1998, as the
deadline for implementation of the instant rules in Illinois
.
3
Additionally, the Board has adopted numerous regulations based upon other authority under
the CAA and under the provisions of Section 28 .5 of the Act
.
4
3
See, R98-28, In the Matter of: Municipal Sold Waste Landfills - Non-Methane Organic Compounds 35 III
.
Adm. Code 201.103, 201 .146, and Part 220, Final Order at 1 (June 17, 1998)
.
4 See, In the Matter of: Amendments to the New Source Review Rules 35 Ill . Adm. Code 203, R92-21 April
30, 1993; In the Matter of: Omnibus Cleanup of the Volatile Organic Material RACT Rules
Applicable to
Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Amendments to 35 III. Adm. Code Parts 203, 211, 218 and 219, R93-9
September 27, 1993; In the Matter of: Reasonable Available Control Technology for Major Sources Emitting
Volatile Organic Materials in the Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area: 25 Tons (Amendments to 35 III. Adm .
Code Parts 211 and 218), R93-14 January 24, 1994 ; In the Matter of: Categories of Insignificant Activities or
Emission Levels at a CAAPP Source (Amendments to 35 Ill . Adm. Code 201 and 211), R94-14, October 17,
1994; In the Matter of: 15% ROP Plan Control Measures for VOM Emissions-Part II Marine Vessel Loading
:
Amendments 35 111. Adm. Code Parts 211, 218 and 219, R94-15, October 25, 1994; In the Matter of: 15%
ROP Plan Control Measures for VOM Emissions - Part III: Air Oxidation and Organic Emissions from Storage
and Loading Operations : Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218 and 219, R94-16 November 15, 1994; In
the Matter of: 15% ROP Plan Control Measures for VOM Emissions-Part IV : Tightening Surface Coating
Standards; Surface Coating of Automotive\ Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts; Wood
Furniture Coating; Reactor Processes and Distillation Operation Processes in SOCMI ; and Bakery Ovens ;
Amendments to 35111 . Adm. Code Parts 211, 218 and 219, R94-21 May 9, 1995 ; In the Matter of: 15% ROP
Plan Control Measures for VOM Emissions - Part V : Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Lithographic Printing: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211, 218, and 219, R94-31 May 9, 1995 ; In the
Matter of: 15% ROP Plan Control Measures for VOM Emissions - Part VI: Motor Vehicle Refinishing
:
Amendments to 35111 . Adm. Code 211, 218 and 219, R94-32 May 9, 1995 ; In the Matter of: 15% ROP Plan
Control Measures for VOM Emissions - Part VII : Batch Operations: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts
211, 218 and 219, R94-33 May 22, 1995; In the Matter of: Clean Fuel Fleet Program
: Proposed 35 111. Adm.
Code 241, R95-12 September 11, 1995 ; In the Matter of: 15% ROP Plan : Clean-Up Part I - Amendments to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 219.585(A) and 219.Appendix E, R96-2 February 15, 1996; In the Matter of: Visible and
Particulate Matter Emissions-Conditional Approval and Clean Up Amendments to 35
III. Adm. Code Parts 211
and 212, R96-5 May 22, 1996; In the Matter of: 15% ROP Plan : Clean-Up Part II: Amendments to 35 Ill .
Adm. Code Parts 218 and 219, R96-13 October 17, 1996; In the Matter of: 9% ROP Plan Control Measures for
VOM Emissions-Tightening Cold Cleaning Requirements : Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm . Code 211, 218 and
219, Subpart E, R97-24 June 9, 1997; In the Matter of: Major Stationary Sources Construction and
Modification (New Source Review Rules) : Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203, R98-10 March 10, 1998; In
the Matter of: Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Regulations
: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 240, R98-24 July 13, 1998; In the Matter of: Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217, Subpart W, The NOx
Trading Program for Electrical Generating Units, and Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211 and 217, R0l-9
December 26, 2000; In the Matter of: Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217. Subpart T, Cement Kilns, and
Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211 and 217, RO1-11 March 15, 2001 ; In the Matter of : Proposed
Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217.Subpart V, Electric Power Generation, ROI-16 April 17, 2001 ; and In
the Matter of.. Proposed New 35111. Adm. Code 217.Subpart U, NOx Control and Trading Program for
Specified NOx Generating Units, Subpart X, Voluntary NO, Emissions Reduction Program, and Amendments
to 35 111. Adm. Code 211, R01-17 April 17, 2001
.
22
C. Not Identical In Substance
As stated
supra,
Illinois EPA's regulatory proposal is not an identical in substance
proposal. CAMR provides for, and Illinois EPA is exercising, the authority to adopt
regulations that meet the requirements of CAMR without being identical in substance
.
Moreover, CAMR requires individual states to exercise their decision-making authority in
deciding how to meet their general obligations under CAMR. For these reasons, this
rulemaking properly appears before the Board under the fast-track provisions of Section 28 .5
of the Act
.
IV. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROPOSAL
As discussed
supra,
this rulemaking proposal has been prepared to satisfy Illinois'
obligation to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAMR and to address the
applicable requirements of Section 9 .10 of the Act
.
In 1999, USEPA determined that nationally coal-fired power plants emitted 48 tons
of mercury per year .
70Fed. Reg.
28619. Under CAMR, USEPA set a mercury emissions
cap in two phases for these plants : 38 tons per year effective in 2010 and 15 tons per year
effective in 2018 .
Id.
at 28606. Such reductions are envisioned to be achieved through a
market based cap and trade program, which distributes mercury allowance that each equate
emissions of one ounce of mercury .
Id .
However, provisions in CAMR that allow the
banking of mercury allowances could delay actual achievement of the 15-ton per year second
phase cap for ten years .
In CAMR, USEPA established an annual mercury budget for each state for 2010 and
thereafter .
Id.
at 28649-50. Each state's plan under CAMR must contain emission control
requirements and compliance procedures and demonstrate that they will result in compliance
23
with such state's annual budget for the appropriate periods
.
Id .
Illinois' annual budget under
CAMR is 1 .594 tons per year for the period 2010 through 2017 and 0 .629 tons per year for
the period 2018 and thereafter
.
Id .
CAMR's 2018 national cap of 15 tons per year equates to
approximately a 70-percent reduction in mercury emissions from the 1999 baseline year
.
Illinois EPA's regulatory proposal aims to achieve maximum mercury reductions in
Illinois from EGUs while providing reasonable flexibility for affected sources . To do this,
the regulations phase in compliance, include temporary provisions for compliance to be
shown in aggregate by the owner of several plants, allow compliance to be shown on a plant-
wide basis, and afford relief for EGUs that will be shut down . These provisions will be
explained in greater detail,
infra .
The regulatory proposal will require Illinois coal-fired EGUs that serve a generator
greater than 25 megawatts producing electricity for sale to begin to utilize control technology
for mercury as necessary to achieve the numerical standards set by the proposed rule
beginning July 1, 2009. To achieve this goal while preserving flexibility, the regulations
provide new and existing sources with two alternative mercury emission standards to
demonstrate compliance. The first alternative allows a source to comply with a mercury
emission standard of 0.0080 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical output for each EGU. In the
alternative, sources may control emissions by a minimum of 90% from input mercury levels
.
These standards are designed to provide similar levels of mercury emission reductions,
considering particular circumstances of the different plants and units
.
These standards apply on a rolling 12-month basis. Each month ends a 12-month
period that includes the previous eleven months . Sources may choose which of the two
standards they wish to meet and may freely switch between standards from month to month,
24
as would most likely occur in conjunction with a change in the coal supply to the boiler
.
That is, a source may reduce input mercury by 90 percent for an EGU one month and attain
an emission standard of 0.008 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical output for each EGU in the
next month .
Further flexibility is built into the regulations as they allow compliance to be shown
on a source-wide basis. Sources may therefore aggregate the mercury emission reductions
from EGUs at the source to demonstrate the 90% reduction of mercury emissions . However,
if a source chooses, it may demonstrate compliance on a unit-by-unit basis . Thus, each EGU
could be addressed separately to determine compliance with the applicable standard
.
In addition, through December 31, 2013, companies with several sources with EGUs
may utilize averaging demonstrations between the sources . Those sources that have no sister
plants are grouped into a "co-op" so that they may also average amongst the listed facilities
.
This flexibility allows sources that would benefit from additional time to achieve compliance
the ability to do so. However, to prevent possible "hot spots," every source in the averaging
demonstration must attain at least a 75% reduction of input mercury or 0 .020 lb
mercury/GWh gross electrical output . Should such a demonstration fail to achieve
compliance, it would be "broken-up" and each source viewed independently to determine its
compliance. On and after January 1, 2014, each source will be required to comply on its
own; however, before that date, the "system-wide" averaging approach provides reasonable
flexibility .
In addition, the mercury emission standards are not applicable to an existing EGU if
an owner or operator plans to permanently shut down the EGU. For this purpose, the target
for shutdown must be by December 31, 2010, or by December 31, 2011, if the owner or
25
operator of the EGU is constructing a new EGU or other generating units to specifically
replace the existing EGU . Additional time to shut down such a unit is also available due to
circumstances that are beyond the control of the source . This will excuse a source from the
expense of installing control technology for mercury on an EGU that it intends to shut down
.
It also encourages sources to carefully consider the replacement of older, less efficient EGUs
with new, modem ones. As the preceding discussion illustrates, the regulations provide
reasonable flexibility while requiring implementation of appropriate control technology for
mercury emissions .
As to monitoring, CAMR mandates that each state plan require EGUs to comply with
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of Part 75 of the Code of Federal
Regulations with regard to monitoring emissions of mercury to the atmosphere . 70 Fed. Reg.
28649. Accordingly, affected sources must comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting provisions of Sections 225.240 through 225.290 of Part 225. These sections
specifically require compliance with 40 CFR Part 75 . In addition, rather than use a
continuous emission monitoring system, an EGU that emits 464 ounces (29 lbs) of mercury
per year or less may use the excepted low mass emissions monitoring methodology under 40
CFR 75 .82(b)
.
Finally, again, CAMR requires that Illinois reduce and maintain mercury emission
levels from coal-fired EGUs at or below 1 .594 tons per year beginning in 2010. 70 Fed. Reg.
28649. Beginning in 2018, the budget for mercury emissions from all coal-fired EGUs
statewide is set at 0.629 tons per year. Id. Even though Illinois EPA's rulemaking proposal
requires greater mercury emission reductions and that such reductions be achieved sooner
than CAMR, it does not impose an "emissions cap" (or annual electrical generating unit
26
mercury budget). Future growth of electric generation by coal-fired EGUs in Illinois could
theoretically cause mercury emissions to increase above the level of the CAMR's emissions
budget for Illinois. Illinois EPA must therefore explain to USEPA how Illinois EPA will
ensure that the CAMR budget will never be exceeded .
Initially, Illinois EPA has prepared a projection of expected mercury emissions in
Illinois from coal-fired EGUs for the first 10 years of the CAMR program (2010-2020)
.
See,
TSD at 193-194. The projection was based upon projected growth in generation and
emissions by coal-fired EGUs during this timeframe and the emission standards contained in
the Illinois EPA's proposal . Then, beginning in 2011, subsequent to the first year of the
CAMR program, Illinois EPA would provide to USEPA on an annual basis a report that
tabulates mercury emissions reported by the affected sources for the preceding year to
demonstrate that actual emissions have not exceeded the applicable CAMR budget. Such
annual report submitted by Illinois EPA will also review projections of mercury emissions
from coal-fired EGUs in Illinois for the next 5- or 10-year period. In the event that annual
emissions exceed or are projected to exceed the applicable Illinois budget under CAMR,
based upon either the previous year's reported emissions or on the future projections, Illinois
EPA would commit to initiating corrective action to reduce mercury emissions as necessary
to comply with the budget. Such corrective action would likely entail the submission of
revised mercury emission standards to the Board . Illinois EPA's submission of annual
reports, including the future year projections, and any necessary corrective action in the event
that the CAMR emissions cap is exceeded would be an integral part of Illinois' plan for
mercury emissions
.
27
V.GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS AND SOURCES AFFECTED
The geographic region subject to the proposed regulations for EGUs is the entire
State of Illinois. There are
59
existing coal-fired EGUs in Illinois . Table 7 .1 of the TSD lists
the sources expected to be affected by the proposed regulations
.
The proposed regulations are generally expected to affect all existing EGUs and any
new EGUs that serve a generator greater than
25
megawatts producing electricity for sale .
VI. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS
The technology for controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired EGUs is readily
available. The Illinois EPA's analysis, explained in detail in Section
8
of the Technical
Support Document and supporting documentation, demonstrates the technical feasibility and
economic reasonableness of this proposed rulemaking
.
VII. COMMUNICATION WITH INTERESTED PARTIES
Illinois EPA engaged in extensive outreach on this proposal . In January
2006,
the
Illinois EPA commenced regular meetings with representatives of the affected sources and
public interest groups. Meetings were held on January
24,
January 31, February 7, February
14,
February
21,
and February
28 .
Illinois EPA distributed working drafts of the proposed
rule to interested parties on January
24
and February 7. In addition, these drafts and a later
draft, as well as presentations and pertinent documents, were made available and remain
available on the Illinois EPA's website. Illinois EPA also stated its willingness to meet
individually with any interested party .
Illinois EPA has received comments on each of these drafts, and this proposal
incorporates many of the concerns and suggestions put forth in these comments. Such
comments can generally be categorized into the following areas : health impacts, deposition,
28
technology, monitoring compliance and averaging, basis for the proposal, and cost
effectiveness .
These regulations are being proposed after the interested parties have had an
opportunity to review the proposal and discuss any issues with Illinois EPA. However,
Illinois EPA asserts that as long as the State annual mercury budget is met and the provisions
of Section 9.10 of the Act are not contravened, Illinois may approach this rulemaking
proposal in the manner it deems best serves the interests of the State and its citizens
.
VIII. THE ILLINOIS EPA'S PROPOSAL
The following is a Section-by-Section summary of the Illinois EPA's proposal
.
35 Ill.Adm. Code 225
SubpartA:General Provisions
Section 225.100
Severability
This Section states that finding a Section, subsection or clause of Part 225 invalid
does not affect the validity of this Part as a whole or any Section, subsection or clause not
found invalid
.
Section 225.120
Abbreviations and Acronyms
This Section sets forth the abbreviations and acronyms used in Part 225
.
Section 225.130
Definitions
This Section provides definitions for terms used in Part 225 and incorporates
definitions found in 35 Ill . Adm. Code 211 . The terms specifically defined in this Section
include many terms that are unique to Part 225
.
29
Section 225.140
Incorporations by Reference
This Section sets forth the documents that are incorporated by reference in this Part
.
Subsection (a) incorporates by reference a number of sections of Part 60 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations,
40 CFR Part 60, which address Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources. Specifically, Section 60.17, Incorporations by Reference, Section
60.45a, Standard for Mercury, Section 60.49a(k)(1) and (p), Emission Monitoring, Section
60.50a(h), Compliance Determination Procedures and Methods, and Sections 60 .4170
through 60.4176, which address monitoring and reporting, are being incorporated by
reference .
Subsection (b) incorporates by reference Part 75 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal
Regulations,
40 CFR Part 75, which addresses continuous emission monitoring . State plans
under the CAMR must require that EGUs comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting provisions of Part 75 . Subsection (c) incorporates by reference a number of
standard test methods that are to be utilized under Part 225
.
Subpart B: Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
Electric Generating Units
Section 225.200
Purpose
The Illinois EPA proposes to add new Part 225, Subpart B, to control mercury
emissions from coal-fired electric generating units in Illinois
.
Section 225.202
Measurement Methods
This Section sets forth the measurement methods for mercury under Part 225
.
30
Section 225.205
Applicability
This Section addresses the applicability of new Part 225, Subpart B . Subsection (a)
provides that the Subpart applies to all stationary coal-fired boilers and stationary coal-fired
combustion turbines serving a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe
producing electricity for sale . Subsection (b) provides that for a unit that qualifies as a
cogeneration unit during the 12-month period starting on the date the unit first produces
electricity and continues to qualify as a cogeneration unit, this Subpart applies to a
cogeneration unit serving at any time a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25
MWe and supplying in any calendar year more than one-third of the unit's potential electric
output capacity or 219,000 MWh, whichever is greater, to any utility power distribution
system for sale. In addition, if a unit qualifies as a cogeneration unit during the 12-month
period starting on the date the unit first produces electricity but subsequently no longer
qualifies as a cogeneration unit, the unit shall be subject to subsection (a) starting on the day
on which the unit first no longer qualifies as a cogeneration unit
.
Section 225.210
Compliance Requirements
This Section specifies the compliance requirements for EGUs subject to Subpart B
.
Subsection (a) addresses permit requirements and states that the owner or operator of each
source with one or more EGUs at the source must apply for a CAAPP permit that addresses
the applicable requirements of Subpart B
.
Subsection (b) addresses monitoring requirements . It requires the owner or operator
to comply with the monitoring requirements of Sections 225 .240 through 225.290 of Subpart
B. In addition, it states that the compliance of each EGU with the mercury requirements
under Section 225 .230 or 225 .237 of Subpart B shall be determined by the emissions
3 1
measurements recorded and reported in accordance with Sections 225 .240 through 225 .290
of Subpart B
.
Subsection (c) requires the owner or operator of an EGU to comply with the mercury
emission reduction requirements set forth under Section 225.230 or 225.237. Subsection (d)
sets forth the recordkeeping and reporting requirements that require the owner or operator to
keep certain documents; specifically, all emissions monitoring information, copies of all
reports, compliance certifications, other submissions and all records made or required or
documents necessary to demonstrate compliance with Subpart B, and copies of all documents
used to complete a permit application and any other submission under Subpart B . Such
documents and records must be kept for five years, unless this period is extended for cause,
at any time prior to the end of five years, in writing by the Illinois EPA
.
Subsection (e) governs liability and includes provisions requiring the owner or
operator of each source with one or more EGUs to meet the requirements of Subpart B,
stating that any provision of Subpart B that applies to a source shall also apply to the owner
and operator of such source and to the owner and operator of each EGU at the source, and
further stating that any provision of Subpart B that applies to an EGU shall also apply to the
owner and operator of such EGU .
Subsection (f) provides that no provision of Subpart B shall be construed as
exempting or excluding the owner and operator of a source or EGU from compliance with
any other provision of an approved State Implementation Plan, a permit, the Act, or the
CAA .
32
Section 225.220
Clean Air Act Permit Program (CAAPP) Permit Requirements
This Section contains provisions for EGUs subject to Subpart B to explain how
applicable requirements of this Subpart are to be folded into a source's CAAPP permit
.
Subsection (a) requires each source to submit a CAAPP permit application that addresses all
applicable requirements and sets forth the time frames for submission of such applications
.
Subsection (b) addresses the contents of the permit applications . Subsection (c) requires that
each CAAPP permit issued by the Illinois EPA for a source shall contain federally
enforceable conditions addressing all applicable requirements of Subpart B, which conditions
shall be a complete and segregable portion of the source's entire CAAPP permit
.
Section 225.230
Emission Standards for EGUs at Existing Sources
This Section sets forth the emission standards applicable to existing EGUs under
Subpart B. Subsection (a) sets forth the basic standards, providing that, beginning July 1,
2009, the owner or operator of an EGU shall comply with one of the following standards on a
rolling 12-month basis : (1) An emission standard of 0 .0080 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical
output; or (2) A minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury
.
Subsection (b) provides that as an alternative to compliance with one of the emission
standards in subsection (a), the owner or operator of the EGU may comply with such
emission standards by demonstrating that the actual emissions of mercury from the EGU are
less than the allowable emissions of mercury from the EGU on a rolling 12-month basis
.
This allows the owner or operator of an EGU to transfer from one standard to the other, as
might occur if the coal supply to a unit changes. Subsection (b) further provides the
equations necessary for such compliance
.
33
Subsection (c) provides that if two or more EGUs are served by common stack(s) and
the owner or operator conducts monitoring for mercury emissions in the common stack(s), as
provided for by 40 CFR Part 75, Subpart I, such that the mercury emissions of each EGU are
not determined separately, compliance of the EGUs with the applicable emission standards of
Subpart B shall be determined as if the EGUs were a single EGU . This provision is a logical
consequence of allowing EGUs that share a common stack to conduct monitoring for
mercury in that stack, rather than installing monitors in the ductwork from each EGU
.
Subsection (d) provides that as an alternative to compliance with the emission
standards of subsection (a), the owner or operator of a source with an EGU may comply with
such emission standards by demonstrating that the actual emissions of mercury from all
EGUs at the source are less than the allowable emissions of mercury from all EGUs at the
source on a rolling 12-month basis . Subsection (d) further provides the equations necessary
for such compliance. This Section provides the means for compliance to be shown on a
source-wide basis. Subsection (d) also provides that if an owner or operator of a source with
one or more EGUs fails to meet the requirements of this Section in a given 12-month rolling
period, such source is considered out of compliance with Subpart B for the entire last month
of that period .
Section 225.232
Averaging Demonstrations for Existing Sources
This Section sets forth the provisions relating to utilizing an averaging demonstration
by existing sources under Subpart B . Subsection (a) provides that, through December 31,
2013, as an alternative to compliance with the emission standards of Section 225 .230(a) of
Subpart B, the owner or operator of an EGU may comply with such emission standards by
means of an averaging demonstration that shows that the actual emissions of mercury from
34
the EGU and other EGUs at the source and other EGUs at other sources covered by the
demonstration are less than the allowable emissions of mercury from all EGUs covered by
the demonstration on a rolling 12-month basis
.
Subsection (b) provides that the EGU at each source covered by a demonstration shall
also comply with one of the following emission standards on a source-wide basis for the
period covered by the demonstration : (1) An emission standard of 0.020 lb mercury/GWh
gross electrical output ; or (2) A minimum 75-percent reduction of input mercury. This
assures that technology for control of mercury emissions is utilized at each source that is
covered by a multi-source compliance demonstration
.
Subsection (c) provides that for the purpose of this Section, compliance shall be
determined using the equations set forth in Section 225 .230(a)(2), (a)(3), or (d)(2) of Subpart
B, addressing all EGUs at the sources covered by the demonstration, rather than only EGUs
at one source. Subsection (d) provides that the owners or operators of more than one source
with EGUs can only participate in demonstrations that include other sources that they own or
operate. The owner or operator of certain specified single sources with EGUs
(i.e., City,
Water, Light & Power, City of Springfield; Electric Energy, Inc
.; Kincaid Generating
Station; and Southern Illinois Power Cooperative/Marion Generating Station) can only
participate in demonstrations with the other named owners or operators of a single source of
EGUs. In addition, participation in demonstrations under this Section must be authorized
through federally enforceable permit conditions for each such source participating in the
demonstration. This is intended to assure that the role and the responsibilities of the different
entities involved in the compliance demonstration for Part 225 are well defined
.
35
Subsection (e) provides that a source may be included in only one demonstration
during each rolling 12-month period. Subsection (f) provides that the owner or operator of
EGUs using demonstrations to show compliance with Subpart B must complete the
determination of compliance for each 12-month rolling period no later than 60 days
following the end of the period
.
Subsection (g) provides that if averaging is used to demonstrate compliance with
Subpart B, the effect of a failure to demonstrate compliance shall be that the compliance
status of each source shall be determined under Section 225 .230 of this Subpart as if the
sources were not covered by a demonstration . Subsection (h) provides that if the owner or
operator of any source participates in a demonstration with an owner or operator of a source
that does not maintain the required records, data, and reports for the EGUs at the source, or
does not submit copies of such records, data, or reports to the Illinois EPA upon request, then
the effect of this failure will be deemed to be a failure to demonstrate compliance and the
compliance status of each source shall be determined under Section 225 .230 of this Subpart
as if the sources were not covered by a Demonstration
.
Section 225.235
Units Scheduled for Permanent Shut Down
This Section contains provisions addressing units scheduled for permanent shut down
.
Subsection (a) provides that the emission standards of Section 225 .230(a) are not applicable
to an EGU that will be permanently shut down. In order to comply with this Section, the
owner or operator of an EGU shall by no later than June 30, 2009, have notified the Illinois
EPA that it is planning to permanently shut down the EGU by December 31, 2010, if the
owner or operator of the EGU is not constructing a new EGU or other generating units to
specifically replace the existing EGU, or by December 31, 2011, if the owner operator of the
36
EGU is constructing a new EGU or other generating units to specifically replace the existing
EGU. Such notification shall be accompanied by a description of the actions that have
already been taken to allow the shut down of the EGU and a description of the future actions
that must be accomplished to complete the shut down of the EGU, with the anticipated
schedule for those actions and the anticipated date of permanent shutdown of the unit . In
addition, the owner or operator of such EGU must have applied for a construction permit or
be actively pursuing a federally enforceable agreement that requires the EGU to be
permanently shut down in accordance with this Section and have applied for revisions to the
operating permit(s) for the EGU to include provisions that terminate the authorization to
operate the unit in accordance with this Section
.
The owner or operator must permanently shut down the EGU by the applicable date,
unless the owner or operator submits a demonstration to Illinois EPA before such date
showing that circumstances beyond its reasonable control (such as protracted delays in
construction activity for the new replacement units, unanticipated outage of another EGU, or
protracted shakedown of a replacement unit) have occurred that interfere with the plan for
permanent shut down of the existing EGU, in which case the date for shut down of the
existing EGU may be extended for up to one year if the EGU is not being replaced or up to
18 months if the EGU is being replaced, provided, however, that after December 31, 2012,
the existing EGU shall only operate as a back-up unit
.
Subsection (b) provides that notwithstanding Sections 225 .230 and 225.232, any EGU
that is not required to comply with Section 225 .230 pursuant to this Section shall not be
included when determining whether any other EGUs at the source or other sources are in
compliance with Section 225 .230 .
37
Subsection (c) provides that an EGU that is not shut down after relying on Section
225.235, so as to not be subject to mercury emission standards, shall be considered to be a
new EGU subject to the emission standards in Section 225 .237(a) of this Subpart beginning
in the month after the EGU was required to be permanently shut down . This automatic
consequence for failure to shut down applies in addition to any other penalties that may be
imposed for failure to permanently shut down the EGU in accordance with this Section
.
Section225.237
Emission Standards for New Sources with EGUs
This Section sets forth the emission standards applicable to new sources with EGUs
.
Subsection (a) provides that the owner or operator of a source with one or more EGUs, but
that previously had not had any EGUs that commenced commercial operation before January
1, 2009, shall comply with one of the following emission standards for each EGU on a
rolling 12-month basis: (1) An emission standard of 0 .0080 lbs mercury/GWh gross electrical
output; or (2) A minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury . It further provides that in
complying with such emission standards, compliance may be demonstrated using the
equations set forth in Section 225 .230(a)(2), (a)(3), or (b)(2) of Subpart B
.
Subsection (b) provides that the initial 12-month rolling period for which compliance
with the emission standards of this Section must be demonstrated for a new EGU shall
commence
on
the date that the initial performance test for the mercury emission standard
under 40 CFR 60 .45a also commences. In addition, the continuous emission monitoring
systems required by this Subpart for mercury emissions from the EGU must be certified prior
to this date. Thereafter, compliance shall be demonstrated on a rolling-12 month basis in
terms of calendar months .
3 8
Section 225.240
General Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
This Section requires the owner or operator of an EGU to comply with the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements provided in this Section, Sections
225.250 through 225 .290 of this Subpart, and Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 75 . If the EGU
utilizes a common stack with units that are not EGUs and the owner or operator of the EGU
does not conduct emissions monitoring in the duct to the common stack from each EGU, the
owner or operator of the EGU shall conduct emissions monitoring in accordance with 40
CFR 75.82(b)(2) and this Section, including monitoring in the duct to the common stack
from each unit that is not an EGU, unless the owner or operator of the EGU counts the
combined emissions measured at the common stack as the mass emissions of mercury for the
EGUs for recordkeeping and compliance purposes
.
This Section also sets forth the general requirements for installation, certification, and
data accounting. Subsection (a) requires the owner or operator of each EGU to install all
required monitoring systems, successfully complete all required certification tests, and
record, report, and quality-assure the data from such monitoring systems . If the owner or
operator elects to use the excepted low mass emissions monitoring methodology for an EGU
that emits no more than 464 ounces (29 pounds) of mercury per year pursuant to 40 CFR
75.81(b), such owner or operator must also perform emissions testing in accordance with 40
CFR 75.81(c) to demonstrate that the EGU is eligible to use this excepted emissions
monitoring methodology as well as comply with all other applicable requirements of 40 CFR
75.81(b) through (f), and submit a copy of any information required to be submitted to the
USEPA under these provisions to the Illinois EPA . Furthermore, this subsection sets forth
39
the compliance dates for initial emissions testing to demonstrate eligibility of an EGU for the
low mass emissions excepted methodology
.
Subsection (b) sets forth the deadlines for certification of continuous emission
monitoring systems. Compliance with the emissions monitoring system certification for the
owner or operator of an EGU that commences commercial operation before July 1, 2008, is
required on or before January 1, 2009 . Compliance with the monitoring system certification
for the owner or operator of an EGU that commences commercial operation on or after July
1, 2008, is required by 90 unit operating days or 180 calendar days, whichever occurs first,
after the date on which the EGU commences commercial operation
.
Furthermore, subsection (b) provides that for the owner or operator of an EGU for
which construction of a new stack or flue or installation of add-on mercury emission
controls, a flue gas desulfurization system, a selective catalytic reduction system, a fabric
filter, or a compact hybrid particulate collector system is completed after the applicable
deadline above, recertification of the continuous emission monitoring system is required
within 90 unit operating days or 180 calendar days, whichever occurs first, after the date on
which emissions first exit to the atmosphere through the new stack, flue, or control device
.
Subsection (c) provides that the owner or operator of an EGU that does not meet the
applicable date for certification of any required emissions monitoring system shall, for each
such monitoring system, determine, record, and report maximum potential (or, as
appropriate, minimum potential) values for mercury concentration, stack gas flow rate, stack
gas moisture content, and any other parameters required to determine mercury mass
emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 75 .80(g). For an EGU for which a continuous
emission monitoring system must be recertified because a new stack, flue, or control device
40
is installed, subsection (c) further provides that the owner or operator of an
EGU
that does
not meet the applicable date for recertification of any required emissions monitoring system
shall, for each such monitoring system, determine, record, and report substitute data using the
applicable missing data procedures in 40 CFR 75 .80(f), in lieu of the maximum potential (or,
as appropriate, minimum potential) values, for a parameter if the owner or operator
demonstrates that there is continuity between the data streams for that parameter before and
after the construction or installation of the new stack, flue, or control device .
Subsection (d) lists prohibitions and specifies that no owner or operator of an
EGU
shall use any alternative emissions monitoring system, alternative reference method for
measuring emissions, or any other alternative to the emissions monitoring and measurement
requirements of this Section and Sections 225 .250 through 225.290 of this Subpart, unless
such alternative is promulgated by
USEPA
and approved in writing by Illinois
EPA
or the
use of such alternative is approved in writing by Illinois
EPA
and
USEPA .
In addition, no
owner or operator of an
EGU
shall operate the
EGU
so as to discharge, or allow to be
discharged, mercury emissions to the atmosphere without accounting for all such emissions
in accordance with the applicable provisions of this Section, Sections 225 .250 through
225.290 of this Subpart, and Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 75 . No owner or operator of an
EGU
shall disrupt the continuous emission monitoring system, any portion thereof, or any other
approved emission monitoring method, and thereby avoid monitoring and recording mercury
mass emissions discharged into the atmosphere, except for periods of recertification or
periods when calibration, quality assurance testing, or maintenance is performed in
accordance with the applicable provisions of this Section, Sections 225 .250 through 225 .290
of this Subpart, and Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 75 . Lastly, no owner or operator of an EGU
4 1
shall retire or permanently discontinue use of the continuous emission monitoring system or
any component thereof, or any other approved monitoring system under this Subpart, except
under limited circumstances
.
Subsection (e) provides that the owner or operator of an EGU that is in long-term
cold storage is subject to the applicable provisions of 40 CFR Part 75 for monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for units in long-term cold storage .
Section 225.250
Initial Certification and Recertification Procedures for Emissions
Monitoring
This Section in subsection (a) specifies the initial certification and recertification
procedures for a continuous emissions monitoring system . The provisions for standard
continuous monitoring
(i.e., a continuous emission monitoring system or an excepted
monitoring system (sorbent trap monitoring system) under 40 CFR 75 .15) are contained in
subsection (a) .
The owner or operator of an EGU that qualifies for and for which the owner
or operator elects to use the low mass emissions excepted methodology under 40 CFR
75.81(b) must comply with the procedures in subsection (c) of this Section .
Subsection (b) provides that if a monitoring system has been previously certified in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 75 and the applicable quality assurance and quality control
requirements of 40 CFR 75.21 and Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 75 are fully met, the
monitoring system shall be exempt from the initial certification requirements of this Section
.
In addition, subsection (b) further provides that the recertification provisions of this Section
shall apply to a monitoring system required by Section 225.240(a)(1) exempt from initial
certification requirements under subsection (a)(1) of this Section
.
Subsection (c) references the initial certification and recertification procedures for
EGUs using the mercury low mass emissions excepted methodology under 40 CFR 75 .81(b) .
42
This subsection provides that the owner or operator of an EGU qualified to use the mercury
low mass emissions excepted methodology under 40 CFR 75 .81(b) shall meet the applicable
certification and recertification requirements in 40 CFR 75 .81(c) through (f)
. Subsection (d)
requires the owner or operator of an EGU to submit an application to the Illinois EPA within
45 days after completing all initial certification or recertification tests required under this
Section, including the information required under 40 CFR 75 .63 .
Section 225.260
Out of Control Periods for Emissions Monitors
This Section in subsection (a) states that whenever any emissions monitoring system
fails to meet the quality-assurance and quality-control requirements or data validation
requirements of 40 CFR Part 75, data shall be substituted using the applicable missing data
procedures in Subparts D and I of 40 CFR Part 75
.
Subsection (b) also provides that whenever both an audit of an emissions monitoring
system and a review of the initial certification or recertification application reveal that any
emissions monitoring system should not have been certified or recertified because it did not
meet a particular performance specification or other requirement under Section 225 .250 of
this Subpart or the applicable provisions of 40 CFR Part 75, both at the time of the initial
certification or recertification application submission and at the time of the audit, the Illinois
EPA will issue a notice of disapproval of the certification status of such monitoring system
.
It also provides that by issuing the notice of disapproval, the Illinois EPA revokes
prospectively the certification status of the monitoring system . In addition, the owner or
operator is required to follow the applicable initial certification or recertification procedures
in Section 225.250 of this Subpart for each disapproved monitoring system
.
43
Section 225.261
Additional Requirements to Provide Heat Input Data
This Section provides that the owner or operator of an EGU that monitors and reports
mercury mass emissions using a mercury concentration monitoring system and a flow
monitoring system shall also monitor and report heat input rate at the EGU level using the
procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 75
.
Section 225.263
Monitoring of Gross Electrical Output
This Section provides that the owner or operator of an EGU complying with this
Subpart by means of a provision that requires data electrical output, e.g., Section
225.230(a)(1), shall monitor gross electrical output of the associated generator(s) in MWh on
an hourly basis
.
Section 225.265
Coal Analysis for Input Mercury Levels
This Section specifies that the owner or operator of an EGU complying with this
Subpart by means of Section 225.230(a)(2) or using input mercury levels and complying by
means of Section 225 .230(b) or (d) or Section 225 .232 shall perform daily sampling of the
coal combusted in the EGU for mercury content . The owner or operator of such EGU shall
collect a minimum of one 2-lb grab sample per day of operation from the belt feeders
anywhere between the crusher house or breaker building and the boiler. Such sample shall be
taken in such a manner so as to provide a representative mercury content for the coal burned
on that day
.
In addition, such owner or operator shall analyze the grab coal sample to determine
the heat content using ASTM D5865-04, Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of
Coal and Coke, or equivalent approved in writing by the Agency ; determine the moisture
content using ASTM D3173-03, Standard Test Method for Moisture in the Analysis Sample
44
of Coal and Coke, or equivalent approved in writing by the Agency; and measure the
mercury content using ASTM D6414-01, Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in Coal
and Coal Combustion Residues by Acid Extraction or Wet Oxidation/Cold Vapor Atomic
Absorption, ASTM D3684-01, Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in Coal by the
Oxygen Bomb Combustion/Atomic Absorption Method, or equivalent approved in writing
by the Agency
.
Furthermore, the owner or operator of multiple EGUs at the same source using the
same crusher house or breaker building may take one sample per crusher house or breaker
building, rather than one per EGU. Such owner or operator of an EGU shall use the data
analyzed to determine the mercury content in terms of lbs/trillion Btu
.
In addition, the owner or operator of an EGU that must conduct sampling and
analysis of coal pursuant to this Section shall begin such activity at least 30 days before the
start of the month for which such activity will be required, if the EGU is in daily service, and
if the EGU is not in daily service, on the day that the EGU resumes operation
.
Section225.270
Notifications
This Section provides that the owner or operator of a source with one or more
EGUs shall submit written notice to the Illinois EPA according to the provisions in 40 CFR
75.61 for each EGU or group of EGUs monitored at a common stack and each non-EGU
monitored under 40 CFR 75 .82(b)(2)(ii) .
Section 225.290
Recordkeeping and Reporting
This Section contains the general recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the
owner or operator of an EGU. Subsection (a)(1) provides that the owner or operator and
4 5
designated representative shall comply with all applicable requirements in this Section and
the applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR 75 .84 .
Subsection (a)(2) requires the owner or operator of an EGU subject to emission
standards to keep records for each month identifying the applicable emission standard with
which it is complying or from which it is calculating its allowable emissions. In addition, the
owner or operator of an EGU complying with Subpart B by means of Section 225 .230(a)(2)
or 225.237(a)(1)(B) or using input mercury levels to determine the allowable emissions of
the EGU shall maintain the daily mercury content of coal used and the daily input mercury in
the file required under 40 CFR 75.84(a). The owner or operator of an EGU complying with
Subpart B by means of Section 225.230(a)(1) or 225.237(a)(1)(A) or using electrical output
to determine the allowable emissions of the EGU shall maintain the daily gross electrical
output in the file required under 40 CFR 75 .84(a)
.
Subsection (a)(3) requires the owner or operator to maintain records of monthly
mercury emissions, and if using an averaging methodology, the owner or operator is required
to maintain all other information collected on a daily basis necessary to calculate the average
.
Subsection (a)(4) requires that the owner or operator of an EGU who is participating in an
averaging demonstration pursuant to Section 225 .232 keep records of other sources and other
EGUs that are covered by the demonstration and calculate and record within 60 days of the
end of each month the allowable and actual mercury emissions for the month and the 12-
month rolling period. Subsection (a)(5) sets forth the quality assurance records (e.g., results
of quarterly assessments and daily/weekly system integrity checks) that are required to be
kept on site for emissions monitoring systems and made available to the Illinois EPA upon
request. Subsection (a)(6) requires that records be kept in electronic form of certain
46
submittals of data made to USEPA in electronic form . Subsection (a)(7) contains general
provisions for records, requiring them to be kept at the source unless otherwise in the
CAAPP permit and requiring copies of records to be made available to the Illinois EPA when
requested .
Subsection (b) requires the submission of quarterly reports and sets forth the
information that must be included in such reports. Subsection (c) requires the owner or
operator to submit a compliance certification in support of each quarterly report and specifies
the contents of such certification . Subsection (d) requires the owner or operator to
additionally submit to the Illinois EPA an Annual Certification of Compliance, which is due
no later than May 1 of each year and addresses compliance for the previous calendar year,
and specifies the contents of such certification . Subsection (e) requires, for each EGU, that
the owner or operator promptly notify the Illinois EPA of deviations from requirements of
Subpart B. Subsection (f) requires the owner or operator of an EGU to submit the quality
assurance relative accuracy test audit ("RATA") report for affected EGUs to the Illinois EPA
within 45 days after completing a quality assurance RATA
.
Section 225.295
Treatment of Mercury Allowances
This Section provides that any mercury allowances allocated to the State under
CAMR shall not be allocated to any owner or operator of an EGU or other sources of
mercury emissions into the atmosphere or discharges into the waters of the State . It further
provides that Illinois EPA shall hold all allowances allocated by USEPA to the State, and at
the end of each calendar year, Illinois EPA shall instruct USEPA to retire permanently all
such allowances
.
47
IX. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Illinois EPA hereby submits this regulatory proposal
and requests the Board to adopt these rules for the State of Illinois
.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
DATED: March 14, 2006
1021 N. Grand Ave. East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
48
By :W~
Gina Roccaforte
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
B
:
Charles Matoesian
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
ORIGI\AL
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
R06-
~A_
(Rulemaking - Air)
MOTION TO HOLD REQUIRED HEARINGS IN SPRINGFIELD
NOW COMES the Proponent, the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY ("Illinois EPA"), by one of its attorneys, and pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 101.500 and 102 .402, moves that the Illinois Pollution Control Board
("Board") hold all of the required hearings under this rulemaking proposal in Springfield,
Illinois. In support of its Motion, the Illinois EPA respectfully states as follows
:
Section 102 .304(f) of the Board's procedural rules states, in pertinent part,
"CAAA [Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990] hearings need only be held in one affected
area of the State." 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.304(f). Accordingly, Section 102 .304(f)
specifically confers upon the Board the authority to hold rulemaking hearings in a single
impacted area of the State. For several reasons, the Board should hold all required
hearings in the City of Springfield
.
There are 21 coal-fired power plants in Illinois that consist of 59 coal-fired
electric generating units that fall within the scope of this rulemaking proposal . The
sources affected by this rulemaking proposal are spread throughout Illinois . For instance,
AmerenEnergy Generating Company and AmerenEnergy Resources Generating
Company generally maintain facilities in Central Illinois ; the City of Springfield's facility
is located in Central Illinois; Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc .'s facilities are generally
found in Central and Southern Illinois ; Electric Energy, Inc. is situated in Southern
REQ
,Eo~ED
MAR 14 2006
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
Illinois; Kincaid Generation, LLC's facility is in Central Illinois; Midwest Generation,
LLC generally maintains facilities in Northern Illinois ; and Southern Illinois Power
Cooperative's facility is in Southern Illinois
.
As described above, the power plants subject to this rulemaking proposal reach
from the Chicago metropolitan area to the southern-most tip of the State . As such,
Springfield provides an ideal central location for the required hearings. Moreover, many
of these electric generating units are at facilities located within Central Illinois
.
Specifically, AmerenEnergy Generating Company has facilities in Coffeen, Hutsonville,
Meredosia, and Newton; AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company maintains a
facility in Bartonville; the City of Springfield's facility is located in Springfield; Dynegy
Midwest Generation, Inc . has facilities located in Havana and Oakwood ; and Kincaid
Generation, LLC is situated near Kincaid . As the City of Springfield is not only an
affected area of the State, but is centrally located for all the affected areas of the State, the
City of Springfield is an appropriate hearing location pursuant to Section 102 .304(f) of
the Board's procedural rules
.
In addition to the facts cited above, State administrative and financial constraints
favor a Springfield forum for the hearings . The Board and the Illinois EPA both maintain
offices in Springfield. Presumably, a number of Board members and staff will be in
attendance at the hearings, and having hearings held in the same city as a Board office
would allow for access to all Board resources
.
Similarly, a large number of the Illinois EPA's technical staff located in
Springfield will be testifying and providing technical assistance in this rulemaking
proposal. At this juncture, the Illinois EPA estimates that the attendance of
2
approximately 15 to 20 employees will be required at these hearings . Given the sizeable
number of Illinois EPA's technical staff, in addition to the legal and administrative
support staff, that will be attending the hearings, logistical demands and expenses to the
State of Illinois due to transportation, food, and lodging for a non-Springfield forum will
be considerable
.
The potential expenses to the State will be even more onerous in any protracted
hearing. Thus, holding all of the required hearings in Springfield will allow for the Board
and the Illinois EPA to conserve administrative resources .
Section 102.304 of the Board's procedural rules describes the format of hearings
.
The first hearing "is reserved for the Agency's testimony and questions of the Agency's
witnesses;" "a second hearing will be held to hear comments on Department of
Commerce and Economic Opportunity's economic study of the proposed rules" and
"must also permit the presentation of testimony, documents, and comments by affected
entities and all other interested persons ;" and the third hearing, if held, "shall be devoted
solely to any Agency response to the material submitted at the second hearing and to any
response by other parties ."
The Illinois EPA held public outreach meetings in Springfield for six consecutive
Tuesdays in the past two months. Numerous industry and environmental organization
representatives participated in these meetings and expressed significant interest in this
rulemaking proposal. Consistent with this strong public interest, counsel for the various
electrical generating units stated in the last public meeting that the second hearing would
likely take an extensive period of time, suggesting that the second hearing could take
upwards of two weeks
.
3
Such a protracted hearing beyond the control of State representatives would result
in considerable expense to the State. This is due to the fact that a large number of the
Illinois EPA's technical, legal, and administrative staff will be required at each of the
hearings, including the second hearing . Indeed, although the second hearing is intended
to allow for the affected entities' presentation of "testimony, documents, and comments,"
the Illinois EPA will nonetheless need to have a number of personnel available to
question and record the presentation. And, as noted above, the Board will likely have a
number of its own staff attend each hearing at State expense . For all these reasons, the
Illinois EPA requests that the Board hold all required hearings in Springfield
.
However, if the Board should decide that all required hearings cannot be held in
Springfield, the Illinois EPA requests that the first and third (if necessary) hearings be
held outside of Springfield and the second hearing be held in Springfield . The Illinois
EPA will be largely responsible for the scope and length of the first and third hearings,
and therefore can make travel plans accordingly. Also, those hearings combined may not
take as long as the second hearing alone . The Illinois EPA will not have any direct
control over the scope and length of the second hearing, and thus will be put into a very
difficult position in terms of anticipating and making travel arrangements . Therefore, at
the very least, holding the second hearing in Springfield will alleviate a large part of the
burden on the State's expenses
.
The Illinois EPA recognizes and appreciates the Board's concern that members of
the affected sources and the public have every opportunity to participate in Board
hearings. The Illinois EPA agrees that all practicable efforts to allow for such input be
4
made and that the City of Springfield provides a centrally-located forum for input from
the public stretching throughout the State .
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the Illinois EPA respectfully
requests that the Board hold all of the required hearings under this rulemaking proposal in
Springfield, or in the alternative, in the event that it is infeasible that all of the required
hearings be held in Springfield, the Illinois EPA moves that the second hearing be held in
Springfield .
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: March 14, 2006
1021 N. Grand Ave., East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECT
A
Y
By :
5
J
Kim
Managing Attorney
Air Regulatory Unit
Division of Legal Counsel
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
O
SWL
WP
E
S
pV
ED
IN THE MATTER OF
:
MAR 1 4
2006
)
star
R06-
a
5
p
h
OF I
OI
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
(Rulemaking -
A&
1 Bo
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
MOTION FOR WAIVER OF COPY REQUIREMENTS
NOW COMES the Proponent, the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY ("Illinois EPA"), by one of its attorneys, and pursuant to 35 Ill . Adm. Code 101 .500,
102.110 and 102.402, moves that the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") waive certain
requirements, namely that the Illinois EPA submit the original and nine copies of all documents
upon which it relied . In support of its Motion, the Illinois EPA states as follows :
A . First Request For Waiver Of Copy Requirements
Regulatory Proposal
Section 102.200 of the Board's procedural rules requires that the original and nine copies
of each regulatory proposal be filed with the Clerk . 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.200. This entire
regulatory proposal consists of over 1,000 pages . Given the length of the proposal and the
resources required to provide nine copies, the Illinois EPA requests that the Board waive the
normal copy requirements of Section 102.200 and allow the Illinois EPA to instead file the
original and four complete copies of the proposal, plus five partial copies, the partial copies
consisting of the Table of Contents, Statement of Reasons (with attachments), pleadings and the
proposed rule absent documents relied upon .
B. Second Request For Waiver Of Copy Requirements
Documents Relied Upon
Section 28.5(e)(7) of the Environmental Protection Act requires the Illinois EPA to
submit copies of all documents that it relied upon in the development of the proposal or upon
which it intends to rely at hearing . 415 ILCS 5128 .5(e)(7). A list of those documents relied upon
that are the subject of this motion is found in Attachment A . Some of the items are denoted with
an asterisk .
The items with an asterisk in Attachment A are readily accessible to, or are already
within the possession of, the Board . Given this ease of accessibility, and in most cases the
lengthy nature of the documents, the Illinois EPA requests that the Board waive the normal copy
requirements of Section 102.200 of the Board's procedural rules and allow the Illinois EPA to
not file any copies of the items denoted with an asterisk listed on Attachment A
.
The remainder of the documents listed in Attachment A are quite large in number and in
length. For that reason, the Illinois EPA requests that the Board waiver the normal copy
requirements and allow the Illinois EPA to file an original and four copies of the remainder of
the documents listed in Attachment A .
C . Third Request For Waiver Of Copy Requirements
Documents Incorporated By Reference
Section 5-75(a) of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act ("IAPA") provides in
relevant part that an agency may incorporate by reference the regulations, standards and
guidelines of an agency of the United States or a nationally recognized organization or
association without publishing the incorporated material in full . 5 ILCS 100/5-75(a). Further,
Section 5-75(b) of the IAPA provides in relevant part that the agency adopting a rule or
regulation under the IAPA shall maintain a copy of the referenced rule, regulation, standard or
guideline in at least one of its principal offices and shall make it available to the public upon
request. 5 ILCS 100/5-75(b)
.
In developing this proposed rulemaking, the Illinois EPA has incorporated by reference
certain documents. A list of those documents incorporated by reference that are the subject of
this motion is found in Attachment B
.
2
The items listed in Attachment B are readily accessible to, or are already within the
possession of, the Board. Given this ease of accessibility, and the lengthy nature of the
documents, the Illinois EPA requests that the Board waive the normal copy requirements of
Section 102.200 of the Board's procedural rules and allow the Illinois EPA to not file any copies
of the items listed on Attachment B .
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the Illinois EPA moves that the Board
waive the copy requirement and allow the Illinois EPA to provide the Board with an original and
four complete copies of the proposal, along with five partial copies as described supra
.
Further,
the Illinois EPA moves that the Board allow the Illinois EPA to file either no copies or an
original and four copies of the documents relied upon as listed in Attachment A and as described
supra .
Finally, the Illinois EPA moves that the Board allow the Illinois EPA to file no copies of
the documents incorporated by reference as listed in Attachment B
.
DATED: March 14, 2006
1021 N. Grand Ave., East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECT
N A
By :
3
Job J. Kim
Managing Attorney
Air Regulatory Unit
Division of Legal Counsel
ATTACHMENT A
Documents Relied Upon
1 . * The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 7401
et seq.)
.
2. * Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/1
et seq.) .
3. * Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units, 65 Fed. Reg. 79825 (December 20, 2000) .
4. * Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ; and, in the
Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary
Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units ; Proposed Rule, 69 Fed . Reg. 4652
(January 30, 2004)
.
5. * Supplemental Notice for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and
Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units ; Proposed Rule, 69
Fed. Reg. 12398 (March 16, 2004)
.
6. * Revision of December 2000 Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and the Removal of Coal- and
Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units From the Section 112(c) List; Final
Rule, 70 Fed Reg. 15994 (March 29, 2005) .
7. Anderson, H.A., J.F. Amrhein, P. Shubat, and J. Hesse. Protocol for a uniform Great
Lakes sport fish consumption advisory. Great Lakes Fish Advisory Task Force Protocol
Drafting Committee. 1993 .
8. Berry, M., Irvin, N., Monroe, L., Bustard, J., Lindsey, C., Brignac, P., Taylor, T .,
Schlager, R., Sjostrom, S., Stams, T., Chang, R., O'Palko, A., 2004. "Field Test Program
for Long-Term Operation of a COHPAC® System for Removing Mercury from Coal-
Fired Flue Gas", Presented at the Joint EPRI DOE EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution
Control Symposium, The Mega Symposium, August 31-September 2, 2004, Washington,
D.C .
9. Biermann, J ., Higgins, B., Wendt, J.O ., Senior, C., Wang, D. "Mercury Reduction at a
Coal Fired Power Plant at over 2000 °F Using MinPlus Sorbent Through Furnace Sorbent
Injection", 2006 Electric Utilities Environmental Conference, Tucson, AZ, January 22-
25, 2006; Available online at http://www.mobotecusa.com
10. Bustard, J .; Durham, M .; Lindsey, C
.; Status, T .; Baldrey, K.; Martin, C .; Schlager, R . ;
Sjostrom, S .; Slye, R.; Renninger, S
.; Monroe, L
.; Miller, R
.; Chang, R., "Full-Scale
Evaluation of Mercury Control with Sorbent Injection and COHPAC at Alabama Power
E.C ., Gaston," DOE-EPRI-U.S. EPA-A&WMA Power Plant Air Pollutant Control Mega
Symposium, Chicago, IL, August 20-23, 2001
.
11. Cain, Alex, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Presentation, LADCO Mercury
Workshop, O'Hare International Center -Auditorium, Rosemont, Illinois, February 22,
2006
.
12. Dombrowski, K., Richardson, C ., "Sorbent Injection for Small ESP Mercury Control in
Bituminous Coal Flue Gas", DOE/NETL's Mercury Control Technology R&D Program
Review, Pittsburgh, PA, July 12-13, 2005
.
13. Dombrowski, K., Richardson, C ., Machalek, T., Chapman, D., Chang, R., Monroe, L .,
Berry, M., Irvin, N., McBee, K., Sjostrom, S ., "Sorbent Injection for Mercury Control
Upstream of Small-SCA ESPs", Presented at the Joint EPRI DOE EPA Combined Utility
Air Pollution Control Symposium, The Mega Symposium, August 31-September 2, 2004,
Washington, D.C .
14. Durham, "Advances in Mercury Control Technology", Pennsylvania Mercury Rule
Workgroup Meeting, November 18, 2005
.
15. "Field Test Program for Long-Term Operation of a COHPAC® System for Removing
Mercury", DOE/NETL's Mercury Control Technology R&D Program Review,
Pittsburgh, PA, July 12-13, 2005
.
16. Hurt, R., Suuberg, E., Yu-Ming, Mehta, A., "The Passivation of Carbon for Improvement
of Air Entrainment in Fly Ash Concrete",
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/00/ubc00/HURT .PDF
17. Hutson, N., "Brominated Sorbents : Effects on Emissions of Halogenated Air Toxics",
DOE/NETL's Mercury Control Technology R&D Program Review, Pittsburgh, PA, July
12-13, 2005 .
18. Illinois Department of Public Health. Environmental Health Fact Sheet- Fish Advisories
in Illinois. Illinois Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health,
Springfield, IL. 2006 .
19. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency . Illinois 2004 Section 303(d) List
.
IEPA/BOW/04-005. Bureau of Water, Watershed Management Section : Springfield, IL .
November 2004 .
20. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. DRAFT - Illinois Integrated Water Quality
Report and Section 303(d) list - 2006. Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 .
Water Resource Assessment Information and Listing of Impaired Waters . Bureau of
Water, Watershed Management Section, Surface Water Section : Springfield, IL .
2
21. Institute of Clean Air Companies, "Status and Capabilities of Mercury Control
Technologies," Presentation to EPA Administrator Leavitt, Washington, D.C ., July 20,
2004 .
22. Jenkins, R.E ., Burkhead,N.M., 1993. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia . American Fisheries
Society. Bethesda, Maryland. Pages732-736
.
23. Johnson, D., Cummings, J., "TOXECONTM Retrofitfor Mercury and Multi-Pollutant
Control", presentation on Clean Coal Power Initiative, downloaded from
www.netl.doe.gov
24. Khan, S. and Srinivasachar, S., "Field Demonstration of Enhanced Sorbent Injection for
Mercury Control", DOE-NETL, Mercury Control Program, Review Meeting, July 12,
2005 .
25. Michigan Electric Utility Workgroup, "Final Report on Mercury Emissions from Coal-
Fired Power Plants", June 20,2005
.
26. Migler, Paul, VanAten, Chris. "North American Power Plant Air Emissions. Commission
for Environmental Cooperation of North America, 2004
.
27. MinPlus Sorbent: Non Carbon Sorbent for Mercury Control in Coal Fired Boilers,
August 2005
.
28. National Wildlife Federation, Getting the Job Done: Affordable Mercury Control at Coal-
Burning Power Plants, October 2004 .
29. Nelson, S., "Sorbent Technology for Mercury Control", Pennsylvania Mercury Rule
Workgroup Meeting, November 18, 2005
.
30. Nolan, P., Downs, W., Bailey, R., Vecci, S., "Use of Sulfide Containing Liquors for
Removing Mercury from Flue Gases", U .S. Patent # 6,503,470, January 7, 2003 .
31 . Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), "Economic
Valuation of Human Health Benefits for Controlling Mercury Emissions from U
.S. Coal-
Fired Power Plants", February 2005
.
32. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), "Mercury
Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants . The Case for Regulatory Action," October
2003
.
33. Renninger, S ., Farthing, G., Ghorishi, S.B ., Teets, C., Neureuter, J., "Effects of SCR
Catalyst, Ammonia Injection and Sodium Hydrosulfide on the Speciation and Removal of
Mercury within a Forced-Oxidized Limestone Scrubber", Presented at the Joint EPRI
DOE EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution Control Symposium, The Mega Symposium,
August 31-September 2, 2004, Washington, D .C .
3
34. Richardson, C ., Machalek, T ., Marsh, B., Miller, S., Richardson, M ., Chang, R., Strohfus
M., Smokey, S ., Hagley, T., Juip G., Rosvold, R., "Chemical Addition for Mercury
Control in Flue Gas Derived from Western Coals" Presented at the Joint EPRI DOE EPA
Combined Utility Air Pollution Control Symposium, The Mega Symposium, May 19-22,
2003, Washington, D.C
.
35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Clean Air
Mercury Rule. Final Report. EPA-452/R-05-003 . March 2005 .
36. Sjostrom, S., "ADA-ES/ALSTOM Power Evaluation
of
Sorbent Injection for Mercury
Control", DOE/NETL Mercury Control Technology R&D Program Review, Pittsburgh,
PA, July 14-15, 2004 .
37. Smith, Philip W. The Fishes
of
Illinois. University
of
Illinois Press. Pages 232-233
.
1979 .
38. Srinivasachar, S ., Kang, S., "Field Demonstration
of
Enhanced Sorbent Injection for
Mercury Control: Quarterly Technical Progress Report", Report Period : July 1 -
September 30,2005, Prepared for U.S. Department
of
Energy National Energy
Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Under Contract DE-FC26-
04NT42306), November 8, 2005 .
39. Srivastava, R.K . ; Sedman, C.B . ; Kilgroe, J.D., "Performance and cost
of
Mercury
Emission Control Technology Applications on Electric Utility Boilers," EPA-600/R-00-
083, September 2000
.
40. Starns, T., Amrhein, J., Martin, C ., Sjostrom, S ., Bullinger, C., Stockdill, D., Strohfus,
TM
M., Chang, R., "Full-Scale Evaluation of TOXECON 11
on a Lignite-Fired Boiler",
Presented at the Joint EPRI DOE EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution Control
Symposium, The Mega Symposium, "August 31-September 2, 2004, Washington, D .C .
41. Staudt, J., "Mercury Allowances and Strategies : Peering Through the Mist", EUCI's
Navigating the Mercury Issue, October 19-20, 2005, Arlington, VA.
42. Staudt, J., Jozewicz, W., "Performance and Cost of Mercury and Multipollutant Emission
Control Technology Applications on Electric Utility Boilers", EPA/600/R-03/1 10 ; U.S
.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 2003 .
43. Tran, P., Shore, L., Yang, X., Hizny, W., Butz, J., "Mercury Control : Novel Non-Carbon
Sorbents", Power-Gen International, Las Vegas, NV, December 6-8, 2005
.
44. Trasande, L., Landrigan, P., Schechter, C., "Public Health and Economic Consequences
of Mehtylmercury Toxicity to the Developing Brain," Environmental Health Perspective,
February 28, 2005 . Available online at http://dx .doi .org
4
45. "Use of High-Carbon Illinois Fly Ash in Cement Manufacturing Demonstration Phase,"
ICCI Project Number : 99-1/2.1A-1 http://www.icci.org/00final/bhatty99.htm
46. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile of Mercury. Public Health
Service, Atlanta, GA
.
47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study Report to Congress . An
Inventory of Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United States. Volume II (EPA-
452/R-97-004); December 1997
.
48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Executive
Summary. Volume I (EPA-452/R-97-003) ; December 1997
.
49. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Health
Effects of Mercury and Mercury Compounds . Volume V. (EPA-452/R-97-007). 1997 .
50. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Mercury Study Report to Congress
.
Characterization of Human Health and Wildlife Risks from Mercury Exposure in the
United States. Volume VII (EPA-452/R-97-009). December 1997 .
51 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
Electric Utility Boilers : Interim Report", EPA-600/R-01-109, April 2002
.
52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting
the Installation of Control Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies", EPA-600/R-
02/073, October 2002
.
53. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units - Final Report to Congress," EPA-453/R-
98-004, February 1998 .
54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Develoment, "Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Electric Utility Boilers: An
Update", Research Triangle Park, NC, February 18, 2005
.
55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Generation Resource Grid (eGrid),
User's Manual, Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates Inc ., April 2003 ; Available
Online at: (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid/index .htm)
56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and
Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water
Act. Watershed Branch Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water . July 29, 2005 .
5
57. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Inspector General. Evaluation Report .
Additional Analyses of Mercury Emissions Needed Before EPA Finalizes Rules for
Coal-Fired Electric Utilities . Report No. 2005-P-00003. February 3, 2005 .
58. World Health Organization
.
Methyl Mercury, Volume 101 .
Distribution and Sales
Service, International Programme on Chemical Safety, Geneva, Switzerland . 1990 .
59. Keating, Martha,
Update on Mercury Control Technologies,
Clean Air Task Force,
February 17, 2004 .
60. Smith, Jeff,
Mercury and Utilities : Current Control Technologies and Multi-Pollutant
Strategies,
Institute of Clean Air Companies, Inc., July 31, 2001 .
61
.
Illinois Estimated Mercury Emissions from Coal-Burning Power Plants,
Environmental
Working Group .
62. Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia Station Mercury Emissions, Statistics provided
by the Office of Coal Development, Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic
Opportunity on March 24, 2005
.
63. California Environmental Protection Agency. "Chemicals in Fish: Consumption of Fish
and Shellfish in California and the United States ." October 2001
.
64 . Crelling, J . Dr., Carty, R. Dr. "Prediction of Mercury Removal Efficiencies with Current
Coal Washing Practices." Interim Final Technical Report . September 1, 2004 through
August 31, 2005
.
65. Foerter, David C. Institute of Clean Air Companies. Testimony Before the USEPA on
CAIR and CAMR. February 26, 2004
.
66. Illinois Department of Natural Resources . "2006 Illinois Fishing Information ." 2006 .
67. Illinois Department of Public Health. 2006. Environmental Health Fact Sheet - Fish
Advisories in Illinois. Illinois Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental
Health, Springfield, IL .
68. Nelson, Sid, Brickett, Lynn. Large Scale Mercury Control Field Testing- Phase II
.
"Advanced Utility Mercury-Sorbent Field Testing Program." Progress Report. July
2005
.
69. O'Palko, A ., Sjostrom, S ., Status, T . "Evaluation of Sorbent Injection for Mercury
Control. NETL Meeting. July 12, 2005
.
70. Pellettieri. M.B ., Hallenbeck,W.H., Brenniman, G.R ., Cailas, M., Clark, M. "PCB Intake
from Sport Fishing Along the Northern Illinois Shore of Lake Michigan ." Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology . 1996 .
6
71 . Princiotta, F.T., Technical Memorandum, Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
Utility Boilers. October 25, 2000
.
72. Srivastava, R.K., Staudt, James E., Jozewicz, W. "Preliminary Estimates of Performance
and Cost of Mercury Emission Control Technology Applications on Electric Utility
Boilers: An Update."
73. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Appendix B Background Material of
Methodology Used to Estimate 1999 National Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
Electric Utility Boilers. Electricity Utility Steam Generating Unit Mercury Emissions
Information Collection Effort. September 15, 2000 .
74. U.S. Geological Survey. "Coal Quality Information-Key to the Efficient and
Environmentally Sound Use of Coal ." February 9, 2006
.
7
ATTACHMENT B
Documents Incorporated By Reference
1 .
40 CFR Part 60, § 60.17, § 60.45a, § 60.49a(k)(1), § 60.49a(p), § 60.50a(h), and
§§ 60.4170 through 60.4176 (2005)
.
2
.
40 CFR Part 75 (2005) .
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
4)
Statutory Authority
: The Illinois Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/9 .10, 27 and
28.5 (2005)]
5)
A Complete Description of the Subjects and Issues Involved
:
This rulemaking is proposed to meet certain obligations of the State of Illinois under the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq
. ; specifically, to satisfy Illinois' obligation to
submit a State Implementation Plan to address the requirements of the Clean Air Mercury
Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 28606, and to address the applicable requirements of Section 9 .10 of
e"PNt
-
S
1)
Heading of the Part : Control of Emissions from Large Combustion Sources
2)
Code Citation: 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 225
3)
Section Numbers
:
Proposed Action :
225.100
New
225.120
New
225.130
New
225.140
New
225.200
New
225.202
New
225.205
New
225.210
New
225.220
New
225.230
New
225.232
New
225.235
New
225.237
New
225.240
New
225.250
New
225.260
New
225.261
New
225.263
New
225.265
New
225.270
New
225.290
New
225.295
New
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
the Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/9 .10. This proposal will require Illinois
coal-fired EGUs that serve a generator greater than 25 megawatts producing electricity
for sale to begin to utilize control technology for mercury as necessary to achieve the
numerical standards set by the proposed rule beginning July 1, 2009 . To achieve this
goal while preserving flexibility, the regulations provide new and existing sources with
two alternative mercury emission standards to demonstrate compliance. The first
alternative allows a source to comply with a mercury emission standard of 0 .0080 lb
mercury/GWh gross electrical output for each EGU . In the alternative, sources may
control emissions by a minimum of 90% from input mercury levels . In addition, through
December 31, 2013, companies with several sources with EGUs may utilize averaging
demonstrations between the sources. Those sources that have no sister plants are grouped
into a co-op so that they may also average amongst the listed facilities . However, every
source in the averaging demonstration must attain at least a 75% reduction of input
mercury or 0.020 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical output . This proposal also sets forth
permitting, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for affected sources
.
6)
Published studies or reports, and sources of underlying data, used to compose this
rulemaking : The regulatory proposal included the Illinois EPA's
Technical Support
Document for Reducing Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units
(TSD)
that relied on several published studies and reports . Copies of the documents the
Illinois EPA relied upon are available for review with the Pollution Control Board and
are listed below. The
TSD
includes an executive summary of the results from the
Integrated Planning Model that was performed by ICF Resources, Inc . contracted by the
Illinois EPA. The underlying data used to perform the modeling and the results are also
available for review at the Pollution Control Board
.
Anderson, H.A., J.F. Amrhein, P . Shubat, and J. Hesse. Protocol for a
uniform Great Lakes sport fish consumption advisory . Great Lakes Fish
Advisory Task Force Protocol Drafting Committee . 1993 .
Berry, M ., Irvin, N., Monroe, L., Bustard, J., Lindsey, C., Brignac, P .,
Taylor, T., Schlager, R., Sjostrom, S ., Stams, T., Chang, R., O'Palko, A .,
2004. "Field Test Program for Long-Term Operation of a COHPAC®
System for Removing Mercury from Coal-Fired Flue Gas", Presented at
the Joint EPRI DOE EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution Control
Symposium, The Mega Symposium, August 31-September 2, 2004,
Washington, D.C .
Biermann, J., Higgins, B., Wendt, J.O ., Senior, C ., Wang, D. "Mercury
Reduction at a Coal Fired Power Plant at over 2000 °F Using MinPlus
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
Sorbent Through Furnace Sorbent Injection", 2006 Electric Utilities
Environmental Conference, Tucson, AZ, January 22-25, 2006; Available
online at http://www.mobotecusa.com
Bustard, J
.; Durham, M
.; Lindsey, C .; Starns, T
.; Baldrey, K.; Martin, C
. ;
Schlager, R .; Sjostrom, S .; Slye, R
.; Renninger, S
.; Monroe, L
.; Miller,
R .; Chang, R., "Full-Scale Evaluation of Mercury Control with Sorbent
Injection and COHPAC at Alabama Power E.C., Gaston," DOE-EPRI-
U.S. EPA-A&WMA Power Plant Air Pollutant Control Mega
Symposium, Chicago, IL, August 20-23, 2001
.
Cain, Alex, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Presentation,
LADCO Mercury Workshop, O'Hare International Center -Auditorium,
Rosemont, Illinois, February 22, 2006
.
Dombrowski, K., Richardson, C., "Sorbent Injection for Small ESP
Mercury Control in Bituminous Coal Flue Gas", DOE/NETL's Mercury
Control Technology R&D Program Review, Pittsburgh, PA, July 12-13,
2005 .
Dombrowski, K., Richardson, C ., Machalek, T., Chapman, D., Chang, R .,
Monroe, L., Berry, M., Irvin, N., McBee, K., Sjostrom, S., "Sorbent
Injection for Mercury Control Upstream of Small-SCA ESPs", Presented
at the Joint EPRI DOE EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution Control
Symposium, The Mega Symposium, August 31-September 2, 2004,
Washington, D.C
.
Durham, "Advances in Mercury Control Technology", Pennsylvania
Mercury Rule Workgroup Meeting, November 18, 2005
.
"Field Test Program for Long-Term Operation of a COHPAC® System
for Removing Mercury", DOE/NETL's Mercury Control Technology
R&D Program Review, Pittsburgh, PA, July 12-13, 2005 .
Hurt, R., Suuberg, E., Yu-Ming, Mehta, A., "The Passivation of Carbon
for Improvement of Air Entrainment in Fly Ash Concrete",
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/00/ubc00/HURT .PDF
Hutson, N., "Brominated Sorbents : Effects on Emissions of Halogenated
Air Toxics", DOE/NETL's Mercury Control Technology R&D Program
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
Review, Pittsburgh, PA, July 12-13, 2005 .
Illinois Department of Public Health. Environmental Health Fact Sheet -
Fish Advisories in Illinois . Illinois Department of Public Health,
Division of Environmental Health, Springfield, IL . 2006 .
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Illinois 2004 Section 303(d)
List. IEPAIBOW/04-005. Bureau of Water, Watershed Management
Section: Springfield, IL. November 2004
.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. DRAFT - Illinois Integrated
Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) list - 2006. Clean Water Act
Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 . Water Resource Assessment
Information and Listing of Impaired Waters. Bureau of Water,
Watershed Management Section, Surface Water Section : Springfield, IL
.
Institute of Clean Air Companies, "Status and Capabilities of Mercury
Control Technologies," Presentation to EPA Administrator Leavitt,
Washington,D.C., July 20, 2004 .
Jenkins,R.E., Burkhead,N.M., 1993. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia .
American Fisheries Society . Bethesda, Maryland. Pages732-736
.
Johnson, D., Cummings, J., "TOXECONTM Retrofitfor Mercury and
Multi-Pollutant Control", presentation on Clean Coal Power Initiative,
downloaded from www.netl.doe.gov
Khan, S. and Srinivasachar, S ., "Field Demonstration of Enhanced
Sorbent Injection for Mercury Control", DOE-NETL, Mercury Control
Program, Review Meeting, July 12, 2005
.
Michigan Electric Utility Workgroup, "Final Report on Mercury
Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants", June 20,2005 .
Migler, Paul, VanAten, Chris. "North American Power Plant Air
Emissions. Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North
America, 2004 .
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
MinPlus Sorbent: Non Carbon Sorbent for Mercury Control in Coal Fired
Boilers, August 2005
.
National Wildlife Federation, Getting the Job Done: Affordable Mercury
Control at Coal-Burning Power Plants, October 2004 .
Nelson, S., "Sorbent Technology for Mercury Control", Pennsylvania
Mercury Rule Workgroup Meeting, November 18, 2005
.
Nolan, P., Downs, W., Bailey, R., Vecci, S., "Use of Sulfide Containing
Liquors for Removing Mercury from Flue Gases", U .S. Patent #
6,503,470, January 7, 2003
.
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM),
"Economic Valuation of Human Health Benefits for Controlling Mercury
Emissions from U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants", February 2005
.
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM),
"Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants. The Case for
Regulatory Action," October 2003
.
Renninger, S ., Farthing, G., Ghorishi, S.B., Teets, C., Neureuter, J .,
"Effects of SCR Catalyst, Ammonia Injection and Sodium Hydrosulfide
on the Speciation and Removal of Mercury within a Forced-Oxidized
Limestone Scrubber", Presented at the Joint EPRI DOE EPA Combined
Utility Air Pollution Control Symposium, The Mega Symposium, August
31-September 2, 2004, Washington, D .C .
Richardson, C., Machalek, T., Marsh, B., Miller, S., Richardson, M .,
Chang, R., Strohfus M., Smokey, S., Hagley, T., Juip G., Rosvold, R .,
"Chemical Addition for Mercury Control in Flue Gas Derived from
Western Coals" Presented at the Joint EPRI DOE EPA Combined Utility
Air Pollution Control Symposium, The Mega Symposium, May 19-22,
2003, Washington, D .C .
Rostam-Abadi, M., "Illinois Coal Properties In Regard to Mercury", ICCI
Mercury Meeting, Chicago, IL, November 9, 2005
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis of
the Clean Air Mercury Rule. Final Report. EPA-452/R-05-003. March
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
2005
.
Smith, Philip W. The Fishes of Illinois . University of Illinois Press
.
Pages 232-233 . 1979 .
Srinivasachar, S., Kang, S ., "Field Demonstration of Enhanced Sorbent
Injection for Mercury Control: Quarterly Technical Progress Report",
Report Period : July 1 - September 30,2005, Prepared for U.S .
Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Under Contract DE-FC26-04NT42306),
November 8, 2005
.
Srivastava,R.K . ; Sedman, C.B
. ; Kilgroe, J.D ., "Performance and cost of
Mercury Emission Control Technology Applications on Electric Utility
Boilers," EPA-600/R-00-083, September 2000 .
Stams, T., Amrhein, J., Martin, C., Sjostrom, S ., Bullinger, C., Stockdill,
TM
D., Strohfus, M., Chang, R., "Full-Scale Evaluation of TOXECON II
on a Lignite-Fired Boiler", Presented at the Joint EPRI DOE EPA
Combined Utility Air Pollution Control Symposium, The Mega
Symposium, "August 31-September 2, 2004, Washington, D.C .
Staudt, J., "Mercury Allowances and Strategies: Peering Through the
Mist", EUCI's Navigating the Mercury Issue, October 19-20, 2005,
Arlington, VA .
Staudt, J., Jozewicz, W., "Performance and Cost of Mercury and
Multipollutant Emission Control Technology Applications on Electric
Utility Boilers", EPA/600/R-03/110 ; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC, October
2003
.
Tran, P., Shore, L., Yang, X., Hizny, W., Butz, J., "Mercury Control
:
Novel Non-Carbon Sorbents", Power-Gen International, Las Vegas, NV,
December 6-8, 2005 .
Trasande, L., Landrigan, P., Schechter, C ., "Public Health and Economic
Consequences of Mehtylmercury Toxicity to the Developing Brain,"
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
Environmental Health Perspective, February 28, 2005 . Available online
at http ://dx .doi.org
"Use of High-Carbon Illinois Fly Ash in Cement Manufacturing
Demonstration Phase," ICCI Project Number: 99-1/2.1A-1
http://www.icci.org/00final/bhatty99.htm
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile
of Mercury. Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Mercury Study Report to
Congress. An Inventory of Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the
United States. Volume II (EPA-452/R-97-004) ; December 1997
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mercury Study Report to
Congress, Execute Summary. Volume I (EPA-US 2/R-97-003) ;
December 1197
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Mercury Study Report to
Congress. Health Effects of Mercury and Mercury Compounds. Volume
V. (EPA-452/R-97-007) . 1997 .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study Report to
Congress. Characterization of Human Health and Wildlife Risks from
Mercury Exposure in the United States. Vol. VII (EPA-452/R-97-009)
.
December 1997 .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Control of Mercury Emissions
from Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers : Interim Report", EPA-600/R-01-
109, April 2002 .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Engineering and Economic
Factors Affecting the Installation of Control Technologies for
Multipollutant Strategies", EPA-600/R-02/073, October 2002
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Study of Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units - Final
Report to Congress," EPA-453/R-98-004, February 1998
.
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Air Pollution Prevention
and Control Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Office of Research and Develoment, "Control of Mercury Emissions
from Coal Fired Electric Utility Boilers : An Update", Research Triangle
Park, NC, February 18, 2005 .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Generation Resource
Grid (eGrid), User's Manual, Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates Inc .,
April 2003; Available Online at :
(http://www .epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid/index .htm
U .S. Environmental Protection Agency . Guidance for 2006 Assessment,
Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b)
and 314 of the Clean Water Act . Watershed Branch Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds, Office of Water. July 29, 2005 .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Inspector General
.
Evaluation Report. Additional Analyses of Mercury Emissions Needed
Before EPA Finalizes Rules for Coal-Fired Electric Utilities . Report No
.
2005-P-00003 . February 3, 2005
.
World Health Organization . Methyl Mercury, Volume 101
. Distribution
and Sales Service, International Programme on Chemical Safety, Geneva,
Switzerland. 1990 .
California Environmental Protection Agency. "Chemicals in Fish
:
Consumption of Fish and Shellfish in California and the United States."
October 2001 .
Crelling, J. Dr., Carty, R . Dr. "Prediction of Mercury Removal
Efficiencies with Current Coal Washing Practices ." Interim Final
Technical Report. September 1, 2004 through August 31, 2005
.
Foerter, David C. Institute of Clean Air Companies. Testimony Before
the USEPA on CAIR and CAMR. February 26, 2004 .
Illinois Department of Natural Resources. "2006 Illinois Fishing
Information." 2006 .
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
Illinois Department of Public Health. 2006. Environmental Health Fact
Sheet - Fish Advisories in Illinois . Illinois Department of Public Health,
Division of Environmental Health, Springfield, IL
Nelson, Sid, Brickett, Lynn. Large Scale Mercury Control Field Testing-
Phase II . "Advanced Utility Mercury-Sorbent Field Testing Program
."
Progress Report. July 2005
.
O'Palko, A., Sjostrom, S., Starns, T. "Evaluation of Sorbent Injection for
Mercury Control. NETL Meeting . July 12, 2005
.
Pellettieri .M.B., Hallenbeck,W.H ., Brenniman,G.R., Cailas, M., Clark,
M. "PCB Intake from Sport Fishing Along the Northern Illinois Shore of
Lake Michigan." Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 1996
.
Princiotta, F.T ., Technical Memorandum, Control of Mercury Emissions
from Coal-Fired Utility Boilers . October 25, 2000
.
Srivastava,R.K ., Staudt, James E ., Jozewicz, W. "Preliminary Estimates
of Performance and Cost of Mercury Emission Control Technology
Applications on Electric Utility Boilers : An Update."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Appendix B Background
Material of Methodology Used to Estimate 1999 National Mercury
Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers . Electricity Utility
Steam Generating Unit Mercury Emissions Information Collection Effort .
September 15, 2000 .
U.S. Geological Survey. "Coal Quality Information-Key to the Efficient
and Environmentally Sound Use of Coal." February 9, 2006
.
7)
Will this proposed rule replace an emergency rule currently in effect? No
8)
Does this rulemaking contain an automatic repeal date? Yes X No
9)
Does this proposed rule contain incorporations by reference? Yes
10)
Are there any other proposed rule(s) pending on this Part? No
11)
Statement of Statewide Policy Objectives : This proposed rule does not create or enlarge
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
a State mandate, as defined in Section 3(b) of the State Mandates Act . [30 ILCS 805/3(b)
(2002)] .
12)
Time, Place, and Manner in which interested persons may comment on this proposed
rulemaking
:
13)
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
:
A)
Types of small businesses, small municipalities and not for profit corporations
affected
: None
B)
Reporting, bookkeeping or other procedures required for compliance
:
The proposed rulemaking requires the owner or operator of an affected source to
install required emissions monitoring systems, complete required certification
tests, and record, report, and quality-assure the data from such systems . The
owner or operator of an affected source must also maintain emissions monitoring
information, submit quarterly reports, compliance certifications, and annual
certifications of compliance
.
C)
Types of Professional skills necessary for compliance : No professional skills
beyond those currently required by the existing state and federal air pollution
control regulations applicable to affected sources will be required .
14)
Regulatory Agenda on which this rulemaking was summarized
:
January 2006
ILLINOIS REGISTER
The full text of the Proposed Rule(s) begins on the next page
:
Section
225.100
Severability
225.120
Abbreviations and Acronyms
225.130
Definitions
225.140
Incorporations by Reference
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE B: AIR POLLUTION
CHAPTER I : POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER c: EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR
STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 225
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
SUBPART A : GENERAL PROVISIONS
ORIGINAL
SUBPART B: CONTROL OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED
ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS
Section
225.200
Purpose
225.202
Measurement Methods
225.205
Applicability
225.210
Compliance Requirements
225.220
Clean Air Act Permit Program (CAAPP) Permitting Requirements
225.230
Emission Standards for EGUs at Existing Sources
225.232
Averaging Demonstrations for Existing Sources
225.235
Units Scheduled for Permanent Shut Down
225.237
Emission Standards for New Sources with EGUs
225.240
General Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
225.250
Initial Certification and Recertification Procedures for Emissions Monitoring
225.260
Out of Control Periods for Emission Monitors
225.261
Additional Requirements to Provide Heat Input Data
225.263
Monitoring of Gross Electrical Output
225.265
Coal Analysis for Input Mercury Levels
225.270
Notifications
225.290
Recordkeeping and Reporting
225.295
Treatment of Mercury Allowances
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 9.10 and authorized by Sections 27 and 28.5 of the
Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/9 .10, 27 and 28.5]
.
SOURCE: Adopted at _ Ill . Reg . , effective
SUBPARTA : GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 225.100
Severability
If any Section, subsection or clause of this Part is found invalid, such finding shall not
affect the validity of this Part as a whole or any Section, subsection or clause not found
invalid
.
Section 225.120
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Unless otherwise specified within this Part, the abbreviations used in this Part shall be the
same as those found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211. The following abbreviations and
acronyms are used in this Part :
Act
Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/1 et seq .]
Btu
British thermal unit
CAA
Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.]
CAAPP
Clean Air Act Permit Program
CO2
carbon dioxide
EGU
electric generating unit
GWh
gigawatt hour
hr
hour
lb
pound
MW
megawatt
MWe
megawatt electrical
MWh
megawatt hour
NOx
nitrogen oxides
02
oxygen
RATA
relative accuracy test audit
SO2
sulfur dioxide
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Section 225.130
Definitions
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
The definitions contained in this Section apply only to the provisions of this Part . Unless
otherwise defined herein and unless a different meaning of a term is clear from its
context, the definitions of terms used in this Part shall have the meanings specified for
those terms in 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 211 .
"Averaging demonstration" means, with regard to Subpart B of this Part, a
demonstration of compliance that is based on the combined performance of EGUs
at two or more sources .
"Boiler" means an enclosed fossil or other fuel-fired combustion device used to
produce heat and to transfer heat to recirculating water, steam, or other medium
.
"Bottoming-cycle cogeneration unit" means a cogeneration unit in which the
energy input to the unit is first used to produce useful thermal energy and at least
some of the reject heat from the useful thermal energy application or process is
then used for electricity production .
"Coal" means any solid fuel classified as anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous,
or lignite by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard
Specification for Classification of Coals by Rank D388-77, 90, 91, 95, 98a, or 99
(Reapproved 2004)
.
"Coal-derived fuel" means any fuel (whether in a solid, liquid or gaseous state)
produced by the mechanical, thermal, or chemical process
.
"Coal-fired" means combusting any amount of coal or coal-derived fuel, alone or
in combination with any amount of any other fuel, during a specified year
.
"Cogeneration unit" means a stationary, fossil fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil
fuel-fired combustion turbine :
Having equipment used to produce electricity and useful thermal energy
for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes through the
sequential use of energy; and
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
Producing during the 12-month period starting on the date the unit first
produces electricity and during any calendar year after the calendar year in
which the unit first produces electricity :
For a topping-cycle cogeneration unit,
Useful thermal energy not less than 5 percent of total
energy output; and
Useful power that, when added to one-half of useful
thermal energy produced, is not less then 42 .5 percent of
total energy input, if useful thermal energy produced is 15
percent or more of total energy output, or not less than 45
percent of total energy input, if useful thermal energy
produced is less than 15 percent of total energy output .
For a bottoming-cycle cogeneration unit, useful power not less than
45 percent of total energy input .
"Combustion turbine" means
An enclosed device comprising a compressor, a combustor, and a turbine
and in which the flue gas resulting from the combustion of fuel in the
combustor passes through the turbine, rotating the turbine ; and
If the enclosed device under the above paragraph of this definition is
combined cycle, any associated heat recovery steam generator and steam
turbine .
"Commence commercial operation" means, with regard to Subpart B of this Part,
with regard to an Electric Generating Unit that serves a generator, to have begun
to produce steam, gas, or other heated medium used to generate electricity for sale
or use, including test generation . Such date shall remain the unit's date of
commencement of operation even if the Electric Generating Unit is subsequently
modified, reconstructed or repowered .
"Designated representative" means, with regard to Subpart B of this Part, the same
as defined in 40 CFR 60.4102 .
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
"Flue" means a conduit or duct through which gases or other matter is exhausted
to the atmosphere .
"Gross electrical output" means the total electrical output from an Electric
Generating Unit before making any deductions for energy output used in any way
related to the production of energy. For an Electric Generating Unit generating
only electricity, the gross electrical output is the output from the turbine/generator
set .
"Input mercury" means the mass of mercury that is contained in the coal
combusted within an Electric Generating Unit .
"Nameplate capacity" means, starting from the initial installation of a generator,
the maximum electrical generating output (in MWe) that the generator is capable
of producing on a steady-state basis and during continuous operation (when not
restricted by seasonal or other deratings) as specified by the manufacturer of the
generator or, starting from the completion of any subsequent physical change in
the generator resulting in an increase in the maximum electrical generating output
(in MWe) that the generator is capable of producing on a steady-state basis and
during continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or other deratings),
such increased maximum amount as specified by the person conducting the
physical change.
"Output-based emission standard" means, with regard to Subpart B of this Part, a
maximum allowable rate of emissions of mercury per unit of gross electrical
output from an Electric Generating Unit
.
"Repowered" means, with regard to an EGU, replacement of a coal-fired boiler
with one of the following coal-fired technologies at the same source as the coal-
fired boiler :
Atmospheric or pressurized fluidized bed combustion
;
Integrated gasification combined cycle
;
Magnetohydrodynamics ;
Direct and indirect coal-fired turbines
;
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
Integrated gasification fuel cells; or
As determined by the USEPA in consultation with the United States
Department of Energy, a derivative of one or more of the technologies
under this definition and any other coal-fired technology capable of
controlling multiple combustion emissions simultaneously with improved
boiler or generation efficiency and with significantly greater waste
reduction relative to the performance of technology in widespread
commercial use as of January 1, 2005
.
"Rolling 12-month basis" means, with regard to Subpart B of this Part, a
determination made on a monthly basis from the relevant data for a particular
calendar month and the preceding 11 calendar months (total of 12 months of
data), with two exceptions. For determinations involving one EGU, calendar
months in which the EGU does not operate (zero EGU operating hours) shall not
be included in the determination, and shall be replaced by a preceding month or
months in which the EGU does operate, so that the determination is still based on
12 months of data. For determinations involving two or more EGUs, calendar
months in which none of the EGUs covered by the determination operates (zero
EGU operating hours) shall not be included in the determination, and shall be
replaced by preceding months in which at least one of the EGU covered by the
determination does operate, so that the determination is still based on 12 months
of data .
Section 225.140
Incorporations by Reference
The following materials are incorporated by reference. These incorporations do not
include any later amendments or editions
.
a)
40 CFR Part 60, § 60.17, § 60.45a, § 60.49a(k)(1), § 60.49a(p), § 60.50a(h),
and §§ 60.4170 through 60.4176 (2005) .
b)
40 CFR Part 75 (2005) .
c)
ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959 (610) 832-
9585
:
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
1)
ASTM D388-77, 90, 91, 95, 98a, or 99, Classification of Coals by
Rank (Reapproved 2004) .
2)
ASTM D3173-03, Standard Test Method for Moisture in the
Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke (Approved April 10, 2003)
.
3)
ASTM D3684-01, Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in
Coal by the Oxygen Bomb Combustion/Atomic Absorption
Method (Approved October 10, 2001)
.
4)
ASTM D5865-04, Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value
of Coal and Coke (Approved April 1, 2004)
.
5)
ASTM D6414-01, Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in
Coal and Coal Combustion Residues by Acid Extraction or Wet
Oxidation/Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption (Approved October 10,
2001) .
6)
ASTM D6784-02, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from
Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method) (Approved
April 10, 2002)
.
SUBPART B: CONTROL OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED
ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS
Section 225.200
Purpose
The purpose of this Subpart is to control the emissions of mercury from coal-fired
electrical generating units in Illinois
.
Section 225.202
Measurement Methods
Measurement of mercury shall be according to the following
:
a)
Continuous emission monitoring pursuant to 40 CFR Part 75 (2005) .
b)
ASTM D3173-03, Standard Test Method for Moisture in the Analysis
Sample of Coal and Coke (Approved April 10, 2003)
.
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
c)
ASTM D3684-01, Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in Coal by the
Oxygen Bomb Combustion/Atomic Absorption Method (Approved
October 10, 2001)
.
d)
ASTM D5865-04, Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of
Coal and Coke (Approved April 1, 2004)
.
e)
ASTM D6414-01, Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in Coal and
Coal Combustion Residues by Acid Extraction or Wet Oxidation/Cold
Vapor Atomic Absorption (Approved October 10, 2001)
.
I)
Section 225 .205
ASTM D6784-02, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method) (Approved April 10, 2002)
.
Applicability
The following stationary coal-fired boilers and stationary coal-fired combustion turbines
are EGUs and are subject to this Subpart :
a)
Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Section, a unit serving at any
time since the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with
nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale .
b)
For a unit that qualifies as a cogeneration unit during the 12-month period
starting on the date the unit first produces electricity and continues to
qualify as a cogeneration unit, a cogeneration unit serving at any time a
generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe and supplying in
any calendar year more than one-third of the unit's potential electric output
capacity or 219,000 MWh, whichever is greater, to any utility power
distribution system for sale . If a unit qualifies as a cogeneration unit
during the 12-month period starting on the date the unit first produces
electricity but subsequently no longer qualifies as a cogeneration unit, the
unit shall be subject to subsection (a) of this Section starting on the day on
which the unit first no longer qualifies as a cogeneration unit
.
Section 225 .210
Compliance Requirements
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
a)
Permit Requirements
The owner or operator of each source with one or more EGUs subject to
this Subpart at the source must apply for a CAAPP permit that addresses
the applicable requirements of this Subpart
.
b)
Monitoring Requirements
1)
The owner or operator of each source and each EGU at the source
must comply with the monitoring requirements of Sections
225.240 through 225 .290 of this Subpart
.
2)
The compliance of each EGU with the mercury requirements under
Sections 225.230 and 225.237 of this Subpart shall be determined
by the emissions measurements recorded and reported in
accordance with Sections 225 .240 through 225.290 of this Subpart .
c)
Mercury Emission Reduction Requirements
The owner or operator of any EGU subject to this Subpart shall comply
with applicable requirements for control of mercury emissions under
Section 225.230 or Section 225 .237 of this Subpart
.
d)
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Unless otherwise provided, the owner or operator of a source with one or
more EGUs at the source shall keep on site at the source each of the
documents listed in subsections (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this Section for a
period of five years from the date the document is created . This period
may be extended for cause, at any time prior to the end of five years, in
writing by the Agency .
1)
All emissions monitoring information, in accordance with
Sections 225.240 through 225 .290 of this Subpart
.
2)
Copies of all reports, compliance certifications, and other
submissions and all records made or required or documents
necessary to demonstrate compliance with the requirements
of this Subpart .
e)
Liability
f)
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
3)
Copies of all documents used to complete a permit
application and any other submission under this Subpart
.
1)
The owner or operator of each source with one or more EGUs shall
meet the requirements of this Subpart
.
2)
Any provision of this Subpart that applies to a source shall also
apply to the owner and operator of such source and to the owner
and operator of each EGU at the source
.
3)
Any provision of this Subpart that applies to an EGU shall also
apply to the owner and operator of such EGU
.
Effect on Other Authorities . No provision of this Subpart shall be
construed as exempting or excluding the owner and operator of a source or
EGU from compliance with any other provision of an approved State
Implementation Plan, a permit, the Act, or the CAA .
Section 225 .220
Clean Air Act Permit Program (CAAPP) Permit Requirements
a)
Application Requirements
1)
Each source with one or more EGUs subject to the requirements of
this Subpart is required to submit a CAAPP permit application that
addresses all applicable requirements of this Subpart, applicable to
each EGU at the source .
2)
A)
For EGUs that commenced commercial operation
on or before December 31, 2008, the owner or operator of
such EGUs must submit an initial permit application or
application for CAAPP permit modification that meets the
requirements of this Section by December 31, 2008 .
B)
For any EGU that commences commercial operation after
December 31, 2008, the owner or operator of any such
EGU must submit an initial CAAPP permit application or
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
application for CAAPP modification that meets the
requirements of this Section not later than 180 days before
initial startup of the EGU unless the construction permit
issued for the EGU addresses the requirements of this
Subpart .
b)
Contents of Permit Applications
In addition to other information required for a complete application for
CAAPP permit or CAAPP permit modification, the application shall
include the following information :
1)
The ORIS (Office of Regulatory Information Systems) or
facility code assigned to the source by the Energy
Information Administration, if applicable .
2)
Identification of each EGU at the source .
3)
The intended approach to the monitoring requirements of
Sections 225.240 through 225.290 of this Subpart
.
4)
The intended approach to the mercury emission reduction
requirements of Section 225 .230 or 225.237 of this
Subpart, as applicable
.
c)
Permit Contents
1)
Each CAAPP permit issued by the Agency for a source with one or
more EGUs subject to the requirements of this Subpart shall
contain federally enforceable conditions addressing all applicable
requirements of this Subpart, which conditions shall be a complete
and segregable portion of the source's entire CAAPP permit
.
2)
In addition to conditions related to the applicable requirements of
this Subpart, each such CAAPP permit shall also contain the
information specified under subsection (b) of this Section
.
Section 225 .230
Emission Standards for EGUs at Existing Sources
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
a)
1)
Beginning July 1, 2009, the owner or operator of a source with one
or more EGUs subject to this Subpart that commenced commercial
operation on or before December 31, 2008, shall comply with one
of the following standards for each EGU on a rolling 12-month
basis
:
A)
An emission standard of 0.0080 lb mercury/GWh gross
electrical output ; or
B)
A minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury .
2)
For an EGU complying with subsection (a)(1)(A) of this Section,
the actual mercury emission rate of the EGU for each 12-month
rolling period, as monitored in accordance with this Subpart and
calculated as follows, shall not exceed the applicable emission
standard :
12
12
ER
=1
E ;
Y' O ;
i=1
i=1
Where
:
ER
=
Actual mercury emissions rate of the EGU for the particular
12-month rolling period, expressed in lb/GWh
.
E,
=
Actual mercury emissions of the EGU, in lbs, in an
individual month in the 12-month rolling period, as
determined in accordance with the emissions monitoring
provisions of this Subpart .
O; =
Gross electrical output of the EGU, in GWh, in an
individual month in the 12-month rolling period, as
determined in accordance with Section 225 .263 of this
Subpart .
3)
For an EGU complying with subsection (a)(1)(B) of this Section,
the actual control efficiency for mercury emissions achieved by the
EGU for each 12-month rolling period, as monitored in accordance
with this Subpart and calculated as follows, shall meet or exceed
the applicable efficiency requirement
:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
12
12
CE =100x {1-(IE
1
=Y,I,)}
1-1
t=1
Where
:
CE
= Actual control efficiency for mercury emissions of the EGU
for the particular 12-month rolling period, expressed as a
percent .
E ;
=
Actual mercury emissions of the EGU, in lbs, in an
individual month in the 12-month rolling period, as
determined in accordance with the emissions monitoring
provisions of this Subpart .
Ii =
Amount of mercury in the fuel fired in the EGU, in pounds,
in an individual month in the 12-month rolling period, as
determined in accordance with Section 225 .265 of this
Subpart .
b)
1)
As an alternative to compliance with one of the above emission
standards in subsection (a) of this Section, the owner or operator of
the EGU may comply with the emission standards of this Subpart
by demonstrating that the actual emissions of mercury from the
EGU are less than the allowable emissions of mercury from the
EGU on a rolling 12-month basis
.
2)
For this purpose, for each rolling 12-month period, the actual
emissions of mercury from the EGU, as monitored in accordance
with this Subpart, must not exceed the allowable emissions of
mercury from the EGU, as further provided by the following
formulas :
E12
<_
A12
ILLINOIS REGISTER
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
Where :
E12
= Actual mercury emissions of the EGU for the particular 12-
month rolling period .
A il = Allowable mercury emissions of the EGU for the particular
12-month rolling period .
E;
= Actual mercury emissions of the EGU in an individual month
in the 12-month rolling period
.
A; = Allowable mercury emissions of the EGU in an individual
month in the 12-month rolling period, based on either the input
mercury to the unit (Atn
p
u
t ;)
or the electrical output from the EGU
(Aontpnt ;), as selected by the owner or operator of the EGU for that
given month .
A,,,p ,,, i = Allowable mercury emissions of the EGU in an individual
month based on the input mercury to the EGU, calculated as 10 .0
percent (or 0.100) of the input mercury to the EGU
.
Ao ,,,p ,,, i = Allowable mercury emissions of the EGU in a particular
month based on the electrical output from the EGU, calculated as
the product of the output based mercury limit,
i.e ., 0.0080 lb/GWh,
and the electrical output from the EGU, in GWh .
3)
If the owner or operator of an EGU does not conduct the necessary
sampling, analysis, and recordkeeping, in accordance with Section
225.265 of this Subpart, to determine the mercury input to the
EGU, the allowable emissions of the EGU must be calculated
based on the electrical output of the EGU
.
c)
If two or more EGUs are served by common stack(s) and the owner or
operator conducts monitoring for mercury emissions in the common
stack(s), as provided for by 40 CFR Part 75, Subpart I, such that the
mercury emissions of each EGU are not determined separately,
compliance of the EGUs with the applicable emission standards of this
Subpart shall be determined as if the EGUs were a single EGU
.
d)
I)
As an alternative to compliance with the emission standards of
subsection (a) of this Section, the owner or operator of a source
with an EGU may comply with the emission standards of this
Subpart by demonstrating that the actual emissions of mercury
from all EGUs at the source are less than the allowable emissions
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
of mercury from all EGUs at the source on a rolling 12-month
basis .
2)
For this purpose, for each rolling 12-month period, the actual
emissions of mercury from all the EGUs at the source, as
monitored in accordance with this Subpart, must not exceed the
sum of the allowable emissions of mercury from all the EGUs at
the source, as further provided by the following formulas
:
Es <_ As
n
Es = > E1
1-1
h
As
= Z
A .
1-1
Where :
Es
= Sum of the actual mercury emissions of the EGUs at the
source .
As
= Sum of the allowable mercury emissions of the EGUs at the
source .
E;
= Actual mercury emissions of an individual EGU at the source,
as determined in accordance with subsection (b)(2) of this Section
.
A; = Allowable mercury emissions of an individual EGU at the
source, as determined in accordance with subsection (b)(2)
of this
Section .
n = Number of EGUs covered by the demonstration
.
3)
If an owner or operator of a source with two or more EGUs that is
relying on this subsection to demonstrate compliance fails to meet
the requirements of this subsection in a given 12-month rolling
period, all EGUs at such source covered by the compliance
demonstration are considered out of compliance with the
applicable emission standards of this Subpart for the entire last
month of that period
.
Section 225 .232
Averaging Demonstrations for Existing Sources
ILLINOIS REGISTER
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
a)
Through December 31, 2013, as an alternative to compliance with the
emission standards of Section 225 .230(a) of this Subpart, the owner or
operator of an EGU may comply with the emission standards of this
Subpart by means of an Averaging Demonstration (Demonstration) that
shows that the actual emissions of mercury from the EGU and other EGUs
at the source and other EGUs at other sources covered by the
Demonstration are less than the allowable emissions of mercury from all
EGUs covered by the Demonstration on a rolling 12-month basis
.
b)
The EGUs at each source covered by a Demonstration must also comply
with one of the following emission standards on a source-wide basis for
the period covered by the Demonstration
:
1)
An emission standard of 0.020 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical
output; or
2)
A minimum 75-percent reduction of input mercury
.
c)
For the purpose of this Section, compliance shall be determined using the
equations in Section 225.230(a)(2), (a)(3), or (d)(2) of this Subpart, as
applicable, addressing all EGUs at the sources covered by the
Demonstration, rather than only EGUs at one source .
d)
1)
The owners or operators of more than one existing source with
2)
EGUs can only participate in Demonstrations that include other
existing sources that they own or operate
.
i)
The owner or operator of only a single existing source with
ii)
EGUs (i.e., City, Water, Light & Power, City of
Springfield, ID 167120AAO ; Electric Energy, Inc., ID
127855AAC; Kincaid Generating Station, ID 021814AAB
;
and Southern Illinois Power Cooperative/Marion
Generating Station, ID 199856AAC) can only participate in
Demonstrations with other such owners or operators of a
single existing source of EGUs .
Participation in Demonstrations under this Section by the
owner or operator of only a single existing source with
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
EGUs must be authorized through federally enforceable
permit conditions for each such source participating in the
Demonstration
.
e)
A source may be included in only one Demonstration during each rolling
12-month period .
f)
g)
The owner or operator of EGUs using Demonstrations to show compliance
with this Subpart must complete the determination of compliance for each
12-month rolling period no later than 60 days following the end of the
period .
If averaging is used to demonstrate compliance with this Subpart, the
effect of a failure to demonstrate compliance shall be that the compliance
status of each source shall be determined under Section 225 .230 of this
Subpart as if the sources were not covered by a Demonstration
.
h)
For purposes of this Section, if the owner or operator of any source that
participates in a Demonstration with an owner or operator of a source that
does not maintain the required records, data, and reports for the EGUs at
the source, or does not submit copies of such records, data, or reports to
the Agency upon request, then the effect of this failure will be deemed to
be a failure to demonstrate compliance and the compliance status of each
source shall be determined under Section 225 .230 of this Subpart as if the
sources were not covered by a Demonstration
.
Section 225.235
Units Scheduled for Permanent Shut Down
a)
The emission standards of Section 225 .230(a) of this Subpart are not
applicable to an EGU that will be permanently shut down as further
specified below
:
1)
The owner or operator of an EGU for which this Section is being
relied upon shall by no later than June 30, 2009 :
A)
Have notified the Illinois EPA that it is planning to
permanently shut down the EGU by the applicable date
specified in subsection (a)(3) or (4) of this Section. This
notification shall be accompanied by a description of the
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
actions that have already been taken to allow the shut down
of the EGU and a description of the future actions that must
be accomplished to complete the shut down of the EGU,
with the anticipated schedule for those actions and the
anticipated date of permanent shutdown of the unit .
B)
Have applied for a construction permit or be actively
pursuing a federally enforceable agreement that requires the
EGU to be permanently shut down in accordance with this
Section .
C)
Have applied for revisions to the operating permit(s) for the
EGU to include provisions that terminate the authorization
to operate the unit in accordance with this Section
.
2)
The owner or operator of an EGU for which this Section is being
relied upon shall by no later than June 30, 2010
:
A)
Have obtained a construction permit or entered into a
federally enforceable agreement as addressed by subsection
(a)(1)(B) of this Section ; or
B)
Have obtained revised operating permit(s) in accordance
with subsection (a)(1)(C) of this Section .
3)
The plan for permanent shut down of the EGU must provide for
the EGU to be permanently shut down by no later than the
applicable date specified below :
A)
If the owner or operator of the EGU is not constructing a
new EGU or other generating units to specifically replace
the existing EGU, by December 31, 2010
.
B)
If the owner or operator of the EGU is constructing a new
EGU or other generating units to specifically replace the
existing EGU, by December 31, 2011
.
4)
The owner or operator of the EGU must permanently shut down
the EGU by the date specified in subsection (a)(3) of this Section,
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
unless the owner or operator submits a demonstration to the Illinois
EPA before such date showing that circumstances beyond its
reasonable control (such as protracted delays in construction
activity, unanticipated outage of another EGU, or protracted
shakedown of a replacement unit) have occurred that interfere with
the plan for permanent shut down of the EGU, in which case the
date for shut down of the EGU may be extended as follows
:
A)
If the owner or operator of the EGU is not constructing a
new EGU or other generating units to specifically replace
the existing EGU, for up to one year,
i .e., permanent shut
down of the EGU to occur by no later than December 31,
2011
.
B)
If the owner or operator of the EGU is constructing a new
EGU or other generating units to specifically replace the
existing EGU, for up to 18 months,
i.e ., permanent
shutdown of the EGU to occur by no later than June 30,
2013, provided, however, that after December 31, 2012, the
existing EGU shall only operate as a back-up unit to
address periods when the new generating units are not in
service
.
b)
Notwithstanding Sections 225 .230 and 225.232 of this Subpart, any EGU
that is not required to comply with Section 225 .230 of this Subpart
pursuant to this Section shall not be included when determining whether
any other EGUs at the source or other sources are in compliance with
Section 225 .230 of this Subpart
.
c)
If an EGU for which the owner or operator of the source has relied upon
this Section in lieu of complying with Section 225 .230(a) of this Subpart is
not permanently shut down as required by this Section, the EGU shall be
considered to be a new EGU subject to the emission standards in Section
225.237(a) of this Subpart beginning in the month after the EGU was
required to be permanently shut down, in addition to any other penalties
that may be imposed for failure to permanently shut down the EGU in
accordance with this Section
.
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
Section 225.237
Emission Standards for New Sources with EGUs
a)
1)
The owner or operator of a source with one or more EGUs, but that
previously had not had any EGUs that commenced commercial
operation before January 1, 2009, shall comply with one of the
following emission standards for each EGU on a rolling 12-month
basis :
A)
An emission standard of 0.0080 lb mercury/GWh gross
electrical output ; or
B)
A minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury .
2)
For this purpose, compliance may be demonstrated using the
equations in Section 225.230(a)(2), (a)(3), or (b)(2) of this Subpart
.
b)
The initial 12-month rolling period for which compliance with the
emission standards of subsection (a)(1) of this Section must be
demonstrated for a new EGU shall commence on the date that the initial
performance test for the mercury emission standard under 40 CFR 60 .45a
also commences. The continuous emission monitoring systems required
by this Subpart for mercury emissions from the EGU must be certified
prior to this date. Thereafter, compliance shall be demonstrated on a
rolling-12 month basis in terms of calendar months .
Section 225 .240
General Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
The owner or operator of an EGU shall comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements as provided in this Section, Sections 225 .250 through 225 .290 of
this Subpart, and Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 75 . If the EGU utilizes a common stack with
units that are not EGUs and the owner or operator of the EGU does not conduct emissions
monitoring in the duct to the common stack from each EGU, the owner or operator of the
EGU shall conduct emissions monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR 75 .82(b)(2) and this
Section, including monitoring in the duct to the common stack from each unit that is not
an EGU, unless the owner or operator of the EGU counts the combined emissions
measured at the common stack as the mass emissions of mercury for the EGUs for
recordkeeping and compliance purposes
.
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
a)
Requirements for installation, certification, and data accounting. The
owner or operator of each EGU shall
:
1)
Install all monitoring systems required under this Section and
Sections 225.250 through 225.290 of this Subpart for monitoring
mercury mass emissions (including all systems required to monitor
mercury concentration, stack gas moisture content, stack gas flow
rate, and CO2 or 02 concentration, as applicable, in accordance
with 40 CFR 75.81 and 75.82)
;
2)
Successfully complete all certification tests required under Section
225.250 and meet all other requirements of this Section, Sections
225.250 through 225.290 of this Subpart, and Subpart I of 40 CFR
Part 75 applicable to the monitoring systems required under
subsection (a)(1) of this Section; and
3)
Record, report, and quality-assure the data from the monitoring
systems required under subsection (a)(1) of this Section
.
4)
If the owner or operator elects to use the low mass emissions
excepted monitoring methodology for an EGU that emits no more
than 464 ounces (29 pounds) of mercury per year pursuant to 40
CFR 75.81(b), also perform emissions testing in accordance with
40 CFR 75 .81(c) to demonstrate that the EGU is eligible to use this
excepted emissions monitoring methodology as well as comply
with all other applicable requirements of 40 CFR 75 .81(b) through
(f), and submit a copy of any information required to be submitted
to the USEPA under these provisions to the Illinois EPA . The
initial emissions testing to demonstrate eligibility of an EGU for
the low mass emissions excepted methodology shall be conducted
by the following dates
:
A)
If the EGU has commenced commercial operation before
July 1, 2008, at least by January 1, 2009, or 45 days prior to
relying on the low mass emissions excepted methodology,
whichever date is later .
B)
If the EGU has commenced commercial operation on or
after July 1, 2008, at least 45 days prior to the applicable
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
date specified under subsection (b)(2) of this Section or 45
days prior to relying on the low mass emissions excepted
methodology, whichever date is later
b)
Emissions monitoring deadlines . The owner or operator shall meet the
emissions monitoring system certification and other emissions monitoring
requirements of subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this Section on or before
the following dates. The owner or operator shall record, report, and
quality-assure the data from the emissions monitoring systems required
under subsection (a)(1) of this Section on and after the following dates
:
1)
For the owner or operator of an EGU that commences commercial
operation before July 1, 2008, by January 1, 2009
.
2)
For the owner or operator of an EGU that commences commercial
operation on or after July 1, 2008, by 90 unit operating days or 180
calendar days, whichever occurs first, after the date on which the
EGU commences commercial operation .
3)
For the owner or operator of an EGU for which construction of a
new stack or flue or installation of add-on mercury emission
controls, a flue gas desulfurization system, a selective catalytic
reduction system, a fabric filter, or a compact hybrid particulate
collector system is completed after the applicable deadline under
subsection (b)(1) or (2) of this Section, by 90 unit operating days or
180 calendar days, whichever occurs first, after the date on which
emissions first exit to the atmosphere through the new stack or
flue, add-on mercury emissions controls, flue gas desulfurization
system, selective catalytic reduction system, a fabric filter, or
compact hybrid particulate collector system
.
c)
Reporting data
1)
Except as provided in subsection (c)(2) of this Section, the owner
or operator of an EGU that does not meet the applicable emissions
monitoring date set forth in subsection (b) of this Section for any
emissions monitoring system required under subsection (a)(1) of
this Section shall, for each such monitoring system, determine,
record, and report maximum potential (or, as appropriate,
d)
Prohibitions
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
minimum potential) values for mercury concentration, stack gas
flow rate, stack gas moisture content, and any other parameters
required to determine mercury mass emissions in accordance with
40 CFR 75 .80(g) .
2)
The owner or operator of an EGU that does not meet the applicable
emissions monitoring date set forth in subsection (b)(3) of this
Section for any emissions monitoring system required under
subsection (a)(1) of this Section shall, for each such monitoring
system, determine, record, and report substitute data using the
applicable missing data procedures in 40 CFR 75 .80(f), in lieu of
the maximum potential (or, as appropriate, minimum potential)
values, for a parameter if the owner or operator demonstrates that
there is continuity between the data streams for that parameter
before and after the construction or installation under subsection
(b)(3) of this Section
.
1)
No owner or operator of an EGU shall use any alternative
emissions monitoring system, alternative reference method for
measuring emissions, or any other alternative to the emissions
monitoring and measurement requirements of this Section and
Sections 225.250 through 225 .290 of this Subpart, unless such
alternative is promulgated by the USEPA and approved in writing
by the Agency or the use of such alternative is approved in writing
by the Agency and USEPA
.
2)
No owner or operator of an EGU shall operate the EGU so as to
discharge, or allow to be discharged, mercury emissions to the
atmosphere without accounting for all such emissions in
accordance with the applicable provisions of this Section, Sections
225.250 through 225.290 of this Subpart, and Subpart I of 40 CFR
Part 75
.
3)
No owner or operator of an EGU shall disrupt the continuous
emission monitoring system, any portion thereof, or any other
approved emission monitoring method, and thereby avoid
monitoring and recording mercury mass emissions discharged into
e)
Long-term cold storage
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
the atmosphere, except for periods of recertification or periods
when calibration, quality assurance testing, or maintenance is
performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of this
Section, Sections 225.250 through 225 .290 of this Subpart, and
Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 75
.
4)
No owner or operator of an EGU shall retire or permanently
discontinue use of the continuous emission monitoring system or
any component thereof, or any other approved monitoring system
under this Subpart, except under any one of the following
circumstances
:
A)
The owner or operator is monitoring emissions from the
EGU with another certified monitoring system that has
been approved, in accordance with the applicable
provisions of this Section, Sections 225 .250 through
225.290 of this Subpart, and Subpart I of 40 CFR Part 75,
by the Agency for use at that EGU and that provides
emission data for the same pollutant or parameter as the
retired or discontinued monitoring system ; or
B)
The owner or operator or designated representative submits
notification of the date of certification testing of a
replacement monitoring system for the retired or
discontinued monitoring system in accordance with Section
225.250(a)(3)(A) of this Subpart
.
The owner or operator of an EGU that is in long-term cold storage is
subject to the applicable provisions of 40 CFR Part 75 for monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for units in long-term cold storage
.
Section 225.250
Initial Certification and Recertification Procedures for Emissions
Monitoring
a)
The owner or operator of an EGU shall comply with the following initial
certification and recertification procedures for a continuous emissions
monitoring system (i .e., a continuous emission monitoring system or an
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
excepted monitoring system (sorbent trap monitoring system) under 40
CFR 75.15) required by Section 225 .240(a)(1). The owner or operator of
an EGU that qualifies for and for which the owner or operator elects to use
the low mass emissions excepted methodology under 40 CFR 75 .81(b)
shall comply with the procedures in subsection (c) of this Section
.
1)
Requirements for initial certification . The owner or operator of an
EGU shall ensure that for each continuous emissions monitoring
system required by Section 225 .240(a)(1) of this Subpart
(including the automated data acquisition and handling system) the
owner or operator successfully completes all of the initial
certification testing required under 40 CFR 75 .80(d) by the
applicable deadline in Section 225 .240(b) of this Subpart. In
addition, whenever the owner or operator of an EGU installs a
monitoring system to meet the requirements of this Subpart in a
location where no such monitoring system was previously
installed, the owner or operator must successfully complete the
initial certification requirements of 40 CFR 75.80(d) .
2)
Requirements for recertification . Whenever the owner or operator
of an EGU makes a replacement, modification, or change in any
certified continuous emission monitoring system, or an excepted
monitoring system (sorbent trap monitoring system) under 40 CFR
75.15, and required by Section 225.240(a)(1) of this Subpart, that
may significantly affect the ability of the system to accurately
measure or record mercury mass emissions or heat input rate or to
meet the quality-assurance and quality-control requirements of 40
CFR 75.21 or Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 75, the owner or
operator of an EGU shall recertify the monitoring system in
accordance with 40 CFR 75.20(b). Furthermore, whenever the
owner or operator of an EGU makes a replacement, modification,
or change to the flue gas handling system or the EGU's operation
that may significantly change the stack flow or concentration
profile, the owner or operator shall recertify each continuous
emission monitoring system, and each excepted monitoring system
(sorbent trap monitoring system) under 40 CFR 75 .15, whose
accuracy is potentially affected by the change, all in accordance
with 40 CFR 75 .20(b). Examples of changes to a continuous
emission monitoring system that require recertification include
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
replacement of the analyzer, complete replacement of an existing
continuous emission monitoring system, or change in location or
orientation of the sampling probe or site .
3)
Approval process for initial certification and recertification
.
Subsections (a)(3)(A) through (D) of this Section apply to both
initial certification and recertification of a continuous monitoring
system required by Section 225 .240(a)(1) of this Subpart. For
recertifications, replace the words "certification" and "initial
certification" with the word "recertification," replace the word
"certified" with the word "recertified," and follow the procedures
in 40 CFR 75.20(b)(5) in lieu of the procedures in subsection
(a)(3)(E) of this Section .
A)
Notification of certification. The owner or operator shall
submit to the Agency, USEPA Region 5, and the
Administrator of the USEPA written notice of the dates of
certification testing, in accordance with Section 225 .270 of
this Subpart
.
B)
Certification application . The owner or operator shall
submit to the Agency a certification application for each
monitoring system . A complete certification application
shall include the information specified in 40 CFR 75 .63
.
C)
Provisional certification date . The provisional certification
date for a monitoring system shall be determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 75 .20(a)(3). A provisionally
certified monitoring system may be used under this Subpart
for a period not to exceed 120 days after receipt by the
Agency of the complete certification application for the
monitoring system under subsection (a)(3)(B) of this
Section. Data measured and recorded by the provisionally
certified monitoring system, in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 75, will be considered valid
quality-assured data (retroactive to the date and time of
provisional certification), provided that the Agency does
not invalidate the provisional certification by issuing a
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
notice of disapproval within 120 days of the date of receipt
by the Agency of the complete certification application
.
D)
Certification application approval process. The Agency
will issue a written notice of approval or disapproval of the
certification application to the owner or operator within 120
days of receipt of the complete certification application
required by subsection (a)(3)(B) of this Section. In the
event the Agency does not issue such a notice within such
120-day period, each monitoring system that meets the
applicable performance requirements of 40 CFR Part 75
and is included in the certification application will be
deemed certified for use under this Subpart
.
i)
Approval notice. If the certification application is
complete and shows that each monitoring system
meets the applicable performance requirements of
40 CFR Part 75, then the Agency will issue a
written notice of approval of the certification
application within 120 days of receipt
.
ii)
Incomplete application notice. If the certification
application is not complete, then the Agency will
issue a written notice of incompleteness that sets a
reasonable date by which the owner or operator
must submit the additional information required to
complete the certification application. If the owner
or operator does not comply with the notice of
incompleteness by the specified date, then the
Agency may issue a notice of disapproval under
subsection (a)(3)(D)(iii) of this Section. The 120-
day review period shall not begin before receipt of a
complete certification application .
iii)
Disapproval notice. If the certification application
shows that any monitoring system does not meet the
performance requirements of 40 CFR Part 75 or if
the certification application is incomplete and the
requirement for disapproval under subsection
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
(a)(3)(D)(ii) of this Section is met, then the Agency
will issue a written notice of disapproval of the
certification application. Upon issuance of such
notice of disapproval, the provisional certification is
invalidated by the Agency and the data measured
and recorded by each uncertified monitoring system
shall not be considered valid quality-assured data
beginning with the date and hour of provisional
certification (as defined under 40 CFR 75.20(a)(3)) .
The owner or operator shall follow the procedures
for loss of certification in subsection (a)(3)(E) of
this Section for each monitoring system that is
disapproved for initial certification
.
iv)
Audit decertification. The Agency may issue a
notice of disapproval of the certification status of a
monitor in accordance with Section 225.260(b) of
this Subpart .
E)
Procedures for loss of certification . If the Agency issues a
notice of disapproval of a certification application under
subsection (a)(3)(D)(iii) of this Section or a notice of
disapproval of certification status under subsection
(a)(3)(D)(iv) of this Section, then :
i)
The owner or operator shall substitute the following
values, for each disapproved monitoring system, for
each hour of EGU operation during the period of
invalid data specified under 40 CFR 75 .20(a)(4)(iii)
or 75 .21(e) and continuing until the applicable date
and hour specified under 40 CFR 75 .20(a)(5)(i) :
I)
For a disapproved mercury pollutant
concentration monitor and disapproved flow
monitor, respectively, the maximum
potential concentration of mercury and the
maximum potential flow rate, as defined in
Sections 2 .1 .7.1 and 2.1 .4.1 of Appendix A
to 40 CFR Part 75 .
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
Il)
For a disapproved moisture monitoring
system and disapproved diluent gas
monitoring system, respectively, the
minimum potential moisture percentage and
either the maximum potential CO2
concentration or the minimum potential 02
concentration (as applicable), as defined in
Sections 2.1 .5, 2.1 .3.1, and 2.1 .3.2 of
Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 75 .
III)
For a disapproved excepted monitoring
system (sorbent trap monitoring system)
under 40 CFR 75 .15 and disapproved flow
monitor, respectively, the maximum
potential concentration of mercury and
maximum potential flow rate, as defined in
Sections 2.1 .7.1 and 2 .1 .4.1 of Appendix A
to 40 CFR Part 75 .
ii)
The owner or operator shall submit a notification of
certification retest dates and a new certification
application in accordance with subsections (a)(3)(A)
and (B) of this Section
.
iii)
The owner or operator shall repeat all certification
tests or other requirements that were failed by the
monitoring system, as indicated in the Agency's
notice of disapproval, no later than 30 unit operating
days after the date of issuance of the notice of
disapproval
.
b)
1)
If an emissions monitoring system has been previously certified in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 75 and the applicable quality
assurance and quality control requirements of 40 CFR 75 .21 and
Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 75 are fully met, the monitoring
system shall be exempt from the initial certification requirements
of this Section
.
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
2)
The recertification provisions of this Section shall apply to an
emissions monitoring system required by Section 225 .240(a)(1) of
this Subpart exempt from initial certification requirements under
subsection (a)(1) of this Section .
c)
Initial certification and recertification procedures for EGUs using the
mercury low mass emissions excepted methodology under 40 CFR
75.81(b). The owner or operator of an EGU qualified to use the mercury
low mass emissions excepted methodology under 40 CFR 75 .81(b) shall
meet the applicable certification and recertification requirements in 40
CFR 75.81(c) through (f) .
d)
Certification Applications. The owner or operator of an EGU shall submit
an application to the Agency within 45 days after completing all initial
certification or recertification tests required under this Section, including
the information required under 40 CFR 75 .63 .
Section 225 .260
Out of Control Periods for Emission Monitors
a)
Whenever any emissions monitoring system fails to meet the quality-
assurance and quality-control requirements or data validation requirements
of 40 CFR Part 75, data shall be substituted using the applicable missing
data procedures in Subparts D and I of 40 CFR Part 75 .
b)
Audit decertification. Whenever both an audit of an emissions monitoring
system and a review of the initial certification or recertification application
reveal that any emissions monitoring system should not have been
certified or recertified because it did not meet a particular performance
specification or other requirement under Section 225 .250 of this Subpart
or the applicable provisions of 40 CFR Part 75, both at the time of the
initial certification or recertification application submission and at the time
of the audit, the Agency will issue a notice of disapproval of the
certification status of such monitoring system. For the purposes of this
subsection, an audit shall be either a field audit or an audit of any
information submitted to the Agency. By issuing the notice of
disapproval, the Agency revokes prospectively the certification status of
the emissions monitoring system . The data measured and recorded by the
monitoring system shall not be considered valid quality-assured data from
the date of issuance of the notification of the revoked certification status
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
until the date and time that the owner or operator completes subsequently
approved initial certification or recertification tests for the monitoring
system. The owner or operator shall follow the applicable initial
certification or recertification procedures in Section 225 .250 of this
Subpart for each disapproved monitoring system
.
Section 225 .261
Additional Requirements to Provide Heat Input Data
The owner or operator of an EGU that monitors and reports mercury mass emissions
using a mercury concentration monitoring system and a flow monitoring system shall also
monitor and report heat input rate at the EGU level using the procedures set forth in 40
CFR Part 75 .
Section 225 .263
Monitoring of Gross Electrical Output
The owner or operator of an EGU complying with this Subpart by means of Section
225.230(a)(1) or using electrical output (O) and complying by means of Section
225.230(b) or (d) or Section 225 .232 of this Subpart shall monitor gross electrical output
of the associated generator(s) in MWh on an hourly basis .
Section 225.265
Coal Analysis for Input Mercury Levels
a)
The owner or operator of an EGU complying with this Subpart by means
of Section 225 .230(a)(2) or using input mercury levels (I) and complying
by means of Section 225.230(b) or (d) or Section 225 .232 of this Subpart
shall :
1)
Perform daily sampling of the coal combusted in the EGU for
mercury content. The owner or operator of such EGU shall collect
a minimum of one 2-lb grab sample per day of operation from the
belt feeders anywhere between the crusher house or breaker
building and the boiler. Such sample shall be taken in such a
manner so as to provide a representative mercury content for the
coal burned on that day .
2)
Analyze the grab coal sample for the following :
A)
Determine the heat content using ASTM D5865-04 or
equivalent approved in writing by the Agency
.
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
B)
Determine the moisture content using ASTM D3173-03 or
equivalent approved in writing by the Agency
.
C)
Measure the mercury content using ASTM D6414-01,
ASTM D3684-01, or equivalent approved in writing by the
Agency.
3)
The owner or operator of multiple EGUs at the same source using
the same crusher house or breaker building may take one sample
per crusher house or breaker building, rather than one per EGU .
4)
The owner or operator of an EGU shall use the data analyzed under
subsection (b) of this Section to determine the mercury content in
terms of lbs/trillion Btu
.
b)
The owner or operator of an EGU that must conduct sampling and analysis
of coal pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section, shall begin such activity
by the following date
:
1)
If the EGU is in daily service, at least 30 days before the start of
the month for which such activity will be required .
2)
If the EGU is not in daily service, on the day that the EGU resumes
operation
.
Section 225 .270
Notifications
The owner or operator of a source with one or more EGUs shall submit written notice to
the Agency according to the provisions in 40 CFR 75 .61 for each EGU or group of EGUs
monitored at a common stack and each non-EGU monitored under 40 CFR
75.82(b)(2)(ii) .
Section 225.290
Recordkeeping and Reporting
a)
General provisions
.
1)
The owner or operator of an EGU and its designated representative
shall comply with all applicable recordkeeping and reporting
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
requirements in this Section and with all applicable recordkeeping
and reporting requirements of 40 CFR 75.84 .
2)
The owner or operator of an EGU shall maintain records for each
month identifying the emission standard in Section 225 .230(a) or
225.237(a) of this Section with which it is complying or which is
applicable for the EGU and the following records related to the
emissions of mercury that the EGU is allowed to emit :
A)
For an EGU for which the owner or operator is complying
with this Subpart by means of Section 225 .230(a)(2) or
225.237(a)(1)(B) or using input mercury levels to
determine the allowable emissions of the EGU, records of
the daily mercury content of coal used (lbs/trillion Btu) and
the daily and monthly input mercury (lbs), which shall be
kept in the file required under 40 CFR 75 .84(a)
.
B)
For an EGU for which the owner or operator of an EGU
complying with this Subpart by means of Section
225.230(a)(1) or 225 .237(a)(1)(A) or using electrical output
to determine the allowable emissions of the EGU, records
of the daily and monthly gross electrical output (GWh),
which shall be kept in the file required under 40 CFR
75.84(a) .
3)
The owner or operator of an EGU shall maintain records of the
following for each EGU
:
A)
Monthly emissions of mercury from the EGU .
B)
For an EGU for which the owner or operator is complying
by means of Section 225.230(b) or (d) of this Subpart,
records of the monthly allowable emissions of mercury
from the EGU
.
4)
The owner or operator of an EGU that is participating in an
Averaging Demonstration pursuant to Section 225 .232 of this
Subpart shall maintain records identifying all sources and EGUs
covered by the Demonstration for each month and, within 60 days
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
of the end of each calendar month, calculate and record the actual
and allowable mercury emissions of the EGU for the month and
the applicable 12-month rolling period
.
5)
The owner or operator of an EGU shall maintain the following
records related to quality assurance activities conducted for
emissions monitoring systems :
A)
The results of quarterly assessments conducted under
Section 2.2 of Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 75; and
B)
Daily/weekly system integrity checks under Section 2 .6 of
Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 75
.
6)
The owner or operator of an EGU shall maintain an electronic copy
of all electronic submittals to the USEPA under 40 CFR 75 .84(f) .
7)
The owner or operator of an EGU shall retain all records required
by this Section at the source unless otherwise provided in the
CAAPP permit issued for the source and shall make a copy of any
record available to the Agency upon request .
b)
Quarterly reports. The owner or operator of a source with one or more
EGUs shall submit quarterly reports to the Agency as follows
:
1)
These reports shall include the following information for operation
of the EGUs during the quarter :
A)
The total operating hours of each EGU and the mercury
CEMS, as also reported in accordance with 40 CFR Part
75
.
B)
A discussion of any significant changes in the measures
used to control emissions of mercury from the EGUs or the
coal supply to the EGUs, including changes in the source of
coal .
C)
Summary information on the performance of the mercury
CEMS. When the mercury CEMS was not inoperative,
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
repaired, or adjusted, except for routine zero and span
checks, this shall be stated in the report
.
D)
If the CEMS downtime was more than 5.0 percent of the
total operating time for the EGU: the date and time
identifying each period during which the CEMS was
inoperative, except for routine zero and span checks; the
nature of CEMS repairs or adjustments and a summary of
quality assurance data consistent with 40 CFR Part 75,
i.e .,
the dates and results of the Linearity Test(s) and any
Relative Accuracy Test Audit(s) during the quarter; a
listing of any days when a required daily calibration was
not performed; and the date and duration of any periods
when the CEMS was out-of-control as addressed by Section
225.260 of this Subpart .
2)
The owner or operator shall submit each quarterly report to the
Agency within 45 days following the end of the calendar quarter
covered by the report
.
c)
Compliance certification. The owner or operator of a source with one or
more EGUs shall submit to the Agency a compliance certification in
support of each quarterly report based on reasonable inquiry of those
persons with primary responsibility for ensuring that all of the EGUs'
emissions are correctly and fully monitored . The certification shall state
that :
1)
The monitoring data submitted were recorded in accordance with
the applicable requirements of this Section, Sections 225 .240
through 225 .270, and Section 225.290 of this Subpart, and 40 CFR
Part 75, including the quality assurance procedures and
specifications ; and
2)
For an EGU with add-on mercury emission controls, a flue gas
desulfurization system, a selective catalytic reduction system, or a
compact hybrid particulate collector system and for all hours where
mercury data are substituted in accordance with 40 CFR
75.34(a)(1) :
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
(A)(i)
The mercury add-on emission controls, flue gas
desulfurization system, selective catalytic reduction system,
or compact hybrid particulate collector system were
operating within the range of parameters listed in the
quality assurance/quality control program under Appendix
B to 40 CFR Part 75 ; or
ii)
With regard to a flue gas desulfurization system or a
selective catalytic reduction system, quality-assured S0 2
emission data recorded in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75
document that the flue gas desulfurization system was
operating properly, or quality-assured NOx emission data
recorded in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75 document that
the selective catalytic reduction system, was operating
properly, as applicable; and
B)
The substitute data values do not systematically
underestimate mercury emissions .
d)
Annual Certification of Compliance
1)
The owner or operator of a source with one or more EGUs subject
to this Subpart shall submit to the Agency an Annual Certification
of Compliance with this Subpart no later than May 1 of each year
and shall address compliance for the previous calendar year . Such
certification shall be submitted to the Agency, Air Compliance and
Enforcement Section, and the Air Regional Field Office
.
2)
Annual Certifications of Compliance shall indicate whether
compliance existed for each EGU for each month in the year
covered by the Certification and certification to that effect . In
addition, for each EGU, the owner or operator shall provide the
following
:
A)
If complying with this Subpart by means of Section
225.230(a)(1)(A) or 225 .237(a)(1)(A)
:
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
i)
Actual emissions rate, in lb/GWh, for each 12-
month rolling period ending in the year covered by
the Certification ;
ii)
Actual emissions, in lbs, and gross electrical output,
in GWh, for each 12-month rolling period ending in
the year covered by the Certification ; and
iii)
Actual emissions, in lbs, and gross electrical output,
in GWh, for each month in the year covered by the
Certification and in the previous year
.
B)
If complying with this Subpart by means of Section
225.230(a)(1)(B) or 225 .237(a)(1)(B)
:
i)
Actual control efficiency for emissions for each 12-
month rolling period ending in the year covered by
the Certification, expressed as a percent ;
ii)
Actual emissions, in lbs, and mercury content in the
fuel fired in such EGU, in lbs, for each 12-month
rolling period ending in the year covered by the
Certification; and
iii)
Actual emissions, in lbs, and mercury content in the
fuel fired in such EGU, in lbs, for each month in the
year covered by the Certification and in the previous
year.
C)
If complying with this Subpart by means of Section
225.230(b)
:
i) Actual emissions and allowable emissions for each
12-month rolling period ending in the year covered
by the Certification ; and
ii)
Actual emissions and allowable emissions, and
which standard of compliance the owner or operator
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
was utilizing for each month in the year covered by
the Certification and in the previous year .
D)
If complying with this Subpart by means of Section
225.230(d) :
i)
Actual emissions and allowable emissions for all
EGUs at the source for each 12-month rolling
period ending in the year covered by the
Certification; and
ii)
Actual emissions and allowable emissions, and
which standard of compliance the owner or operator
was utilizing for each month in the year covered by
the Certification and in the previous year
.
E)
If complying with this Subpart by means of Section
225.232 :
i)
Actual emissions and allowable emissions for all
EGUs at the source in an Averaging Demonstration
for each 12-month rolling period ending in the year
covered by the Certification; and
ii)
Actual emissions and allowable emissions, with the
standard of compliance the owner or operator was
utilizing for each EGU at the source in an
Averaging Demonstration for each month for all
EGUs at the source in an Averaging Demonstration
in the year covered by the Certification and in the
previous year.
F)
Any deviations, data substitutions, or exceptions each
month and discussion of the reasons for such deviations,
data substitutions, or exceptions
.
3)
All Annual Certifications of Compliance required to be submitted
shall include the following certification by a responsible official
:
f)
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted
.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons directly responsible
for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete . I
am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for
knowing violations
.
4)
The owner or operator of an EGU shall submit its first Annual
Certification of Compliance to address calendar year 2009 or the
calendar year in which the EGU commences commercial operation,
whichever is later. Notwithstanding subsection (d)(2) of this
Section, in the Annual Certifications of Compliance that are
required to be submitted by May 1, 2010, and May 1, 2011, to
address calendar years 2009 and 2010, respectively, the owner or
operator is not required to provide 12-month rolling data for any
period that ends before June 30, 2010
.
e)
Deviation reports . For each EGU, the owner or operator shall promptly
notify the Agency of deviations from requirements of this Subpart. At a
minimum, these notifications shall include a description of such deviations
within 30 days of discovery of the deviations, and a discussion of the
possible cause of such deviations, any corrective actions, and any
preventative measures taken
.
Quality assurance RATA reports. The owner or operator of an EGU shall
submit to the Agency, Air Compliance and Enforcement Section, the
quality assurance RATA report for each EGU or group of EGUs
monitored at a common stack and each non-EGU under 40 CFR
75.82(b)(2)(ii) within 45 days after completing a quality assurance RATA
.
Section 225 .295
Treatment of Mercury Allowances
Any mercury allowances allocated to the Agency by the USEPA shall be treated as
follows :
ILLINOIS REGISTER
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
a)
No such allowances shall be allocated to any o
er or operator of an EGU
or other sources of mercury emissions into the
mosphere or discharges
into the waters of the State
.
b)
The Agency shall hold all allowances
ocated
by
the USEPA to the State
.
At the end of each calendar year, the Agency shall instruct the USEPA to
retire permanently all such allowances.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
)
Dorothy Gunn
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
(Hand Delivery)
Virginia Yang
Deputy Legal Counsel
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, IL 62702
(First Class Mail)
Dated: March 14, 2006
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
Ss
ORIGINAL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served the attached
RULEMAKING PROPOSAL entitled "PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225,
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES," MOTION
TO HOLD REQUIRED HEARINGS IN SPRINGFIELD, MOTION FOR WAIVER OF
COPY REQUIREMENTS, AND APPEARANCES upon the person to whom it is
directed, by placing a copy in an envelope addressed to
:
Matthew Dunn
Chief
Division of Environmental Enforcement
Office of the Attorney General
188 West Randolph St., 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
(First Class Mail)
and mailing it from Springfield, Illinois, with sufficient postage affixed, as indicated
above .
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Job
. Kim
Managing Attorney
Air Regulatory Unit
Division of Legal Counsel
