ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

6,

1986

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

AMENDMENTS TO

35

ILL. ADM.

)

R84-28

CODE

214, SULFUR LIMITATIONS

PROPOSED RULE.

SECOND NOTICE.

PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.D.

Dumelle):

This matter comes before the Board upon a July 13, 1984

proposal

to amend

35

Ill. Adm. Code 214, Subpart

C:

Existing

Solid Fuel Combustion Emission Sources,

filed

on behalf of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).

That proposal

was amended by the Central

Illinois Light Company (CILCO)

on

August

23, 1984,

and

further amended

by joint motion of the

Agency and Caterpillar Tractor Company on September

10, 1985.

First notice was published

in the Illinois Register on November

15,

1985,

(9

Ill.

Reg.

17728),

and the first notice period ended

on January 2,

1986.

During

the first notice period the following

documents were filed with the Board:

1.

Agency Comments filed November

18, 1985;

2.

P.C.#1

filed on behalf of Citizens for

a Better

Environment

(CBE)

on November

20,

1985;

3.

P.C.#2

filed on behalf of CILCO on December

3, 1985;

4.

P.C.#3 filed

on behalf of CBE on December

17,

1985;

5.

Format Memorandum filed on behalf of the Administrative

Code Division of the Secretary of State’s Office dated

December

20, 1985;

6.

P.C.#4 filed

on behalf of Caterpillar

on December

23,

1985;

7.

P.C.#5

filed

by CILCO on December

30,

1985.

These

filings give rise to three issues for Board

consideration:

the applicability of

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 214.101(c)

to new subsections 214.141(c)

and

(d);

the question of the

adequacy of CILCO’s compliance demonstration based

on block

averages rather

than running averages; and format changes

requested by the Administrative Code Division.

Applicability of

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 214.101(c)

The Agency’s original proposal would have established

a new

Subpart G of Part 214

set4ting sulfur dioxide emission limitations

applicable

to sources located

in the City of East Peoria and

in

Hollis Township which were equipped with

flue gas desulfurization

systems as of December

1,

1980.

In its Proposed Opinion of

October

10, 1985,

however,

the Board concluded that placement

of

---

—2—

those

rules as proposed was inconsistent with the format

established

for Part 214 and instead placed them at Section

214.141(c)

and

(ci).

In

its comments the Agency points out that by placing

the

proposed rules

in Section 214.141 the Board has inadvertently

made the coal—averaging provision of Section 214.101(c)

applicable

to them.

It,

therefore,

recommends that the language

of the proposed rules be modified such that the coal—averaging

provision is made specifically inapplicable.

The Agency alleges

that the coal averaging provisions were not contemplated by the

original proposal

and that its suggested modification would

increase

the likelihood of USEPA approval

of the rules.

In PC#4,

however,

Caterpillar opposes the Agency’s proposed modification,

contending that it would

limit management options and that the

issue was not addressed at hearing.

By placing

the proposed rules

in Section 214.141 the Board

did not intend

to make any substantive changes

in the proposal:

the change was for consistency of format, nothing more.

Clearly,

the coal—averaging provision would have been inapplicable

to the

rule as proposed by the Agency

(and

as agreed

to by

Caterpillar).

Further,

as Caterpillar notes, this issue was not

addressed

at hearing; however,

the Board draws

the opposite

conclusion from that fact.

Since

the original proposal would not

have

invoked

the coal—averaging provision and since there

is

nothing

in the record

to support the applicability of that

provision, that provision should not be made applicable.

Therefore,

the Board will amend

its first notice proposal by

making

the word “Section”

plural and adding

the words

“and

214.101(c)”

after

the number

“214.122”

in subsections 214.141(c)

and

(ci).

Running Versus Block Averages

In P.C.#l and #3 Citizens

for

a Better Environment objects

to

the first notice proposal

to relax

the emission limit

for

CILCO’s

E.

D.

Edwards Station

“because the modeling analysis

underestimated the

impact of the plant’s emissions on air quality

in the Peoria area.”

(P.C.#l).

CBE argues that a running

average approach should have been used

to demonstrate attainment

rather than a block average approach.

CILCO responded

to CBE’s

objection

in P.C.#2

and

#5 arguing, essentially, that for

a

period of time block averages were required,

that they remain

federally acceptable, and that given

the conservative aspects

of

the modeling presented,

its proposal

is adequately supported.

The National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS)

for sulfur

dioxide sets maximum allowable concentration limitations for any

24—hour period and specifies that such limits may not be exceeded

more than once each year.

In order

to demonstrate compliance

---

—3—

with the NAAQS

for sulfur dioxide at

its proposed emission rate

of 6.6 pounds per million Btu of actual heat input, CILCO

presented

a modeling analysis based upon a midnight—to—midnight

block average.,

However,

as CBE points

out:

The NAAQS established

by EPA for SO2 set

maximum allowable concentration limits

for

any 24—hour period and specify that such

concentration limits may not be exceeded more

than once per year.

The regulations specify

the duration periods as

“24—hour”

concentrations rather than “daily.”

This

is

consistent with the health basis

for the

short—term standard since the adverse effects

are associated with exposures for

24—hour

periods without reference

to the time of day

that exposure begins.

Repeated

exposures at levels

above

the 24—

hour standard

is prohibited,

regardless of

when exposure begins.

The state must be

equally concerned about

a peak exposure that

occurs between

3 p.m.

one day and

3 p.m.

the

next day,

as about concentrations occurring

between midnight and midnight.

Suppose that

SO2 levels

at some location are low

in the

morning

of a given day, rise to over 365

micrograms per cubic meter by afternoon,

remain high until noon of the following day,

and then fall.

Such

an event could produce

a

24—hour SO2 concentration exceeding 365

micrograms that would

be overlooked

if only

midnight-to—midnight periods were examined.

CBE’s position

is well taken,

and the Board agrees with CBE

that the running average approach

is preferable to

a block

average approach

in that

it more accurately reflects the

realities of sulfur dioxide exposure.

The Board would gladly

consider modeling based on

the running average approach.

However,

no such study has been presented to the Board.

What the Board must consider

in this proceeding is whether

the

record contains sufficient evidence

to support

the adoption

of the proposed rule.

The Board concludes that

it does.

While

CILCO has not presented

the most preferable modeling study,

it

has presented an acceptable

one.

The Agency has had

an

opportunity to examine the study and has supported

it.

USEPA

will have an opportunity

,~to examine it when

it

is submitted as

part of the revision to the State Implementation Plan

(SIP).

While CBE has made much of the fact that the study

is not

consistent with the Clean Air Act, USEPA does not require the use

of running averages and,

in fact, when

it attempted to impose

---

—4—

such a requirement upon PPG Industries,

that requirement was

struck down.

PPG

Industries,

Inc.

v. Costle,

659

F.

2d 1239.

Ultimately,

CBE is contending

that the best evidence

is not

before the Board.

The Board agrees;

however,

it must base its

decisions on what

is before

it.

In determining

that the record

supports the adoption of CILCO’s proposal,

the Board

is mindful

of Section 9.2 of

the Environmental Protection Act which states:

The Agency shall

review all Illinois sulfur

dioxide emission standards for existing fuel

combustion stationary emission sources

located within

the Chicago,

St.

Louis

(Illinois),

and Peoria major metropolitan

areas and, if appropriate following such

review, propose amendments

to such standards

to

the Board...

The standards proposed by

the Agency shall be designed

to enhance the

use

of Illinois

coal,

consistent with the

need to attain

and maintain the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

for sulfur

dioxide and particulate matter.

There

is

no evidence

in the record

to indicate that adoption

of the proposed rules would be

inconsistent with the attainment

or maintenance of the NAAQS,

while there

is considerable evidence

that

it would be consistent.

Therefore, while

the Board

appreciates CBE’s concerns,

it will not require that new modeling

be done using

a running average basis.

Format and Typographical Changes

In P.C.#2 CILCO notes minor

typographical errors and

requests clarification of two statements contained

in

the October

10,

1985 Proposed Opinion.

Further,

the Administrative Code

Division noted

some minor format inconsistencies.

None

of these

matters,

however,

are substantive,

and the Board will,

for the

most part, make the requested changes.

The clarification will

appear

in the Board’s final opinion:

the format changes appear

in

the Order

below.

---

—5—

ORDER

The Board hereby proposes for Second Notice the following

amendments

to:

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE B:

AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER

C:

EMISSION STANDARDS AND

LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES

PART 214

SULFUR LIMITATIONS

SUBPART C:

EXISTING SOLID FUEL

EMISSION SOURCES

Section 214.140

Scope

This Subpart contains rules which establish general sulfur

emissions standards for

existing solid fuel emission sources.

These may be modified by industry and site—specific rules

in

Subparts N,

et

seq.

Section 214.141

Sources Located

in Metropolitan Areas

Th4s see~4one~p~es~e ex4~t~g~

eeffl

4ei~sot~ees~eee~ed

~he

eh4eege7

S~

r~eu4s

*~

4r~e~s3e~

Pee~4e~

ffle~4~81~i

ee~- Except

as otherwise provided

in this Part See~Aet’~,no

person shall cause or allow the emission of sulfur dioxide into

the atmosphere

in any one hour period from any existing fuel

combustion

source,

burning solid fuel exclusively, located

in the

Chicago,

St.

Louis

(Illinois)

or Peoria major metropolitan areas,

to exceed ~

kg 1.8 pounds of sulfur dioxide per MW hf mm Btu

of actual heat input

(774 nanograms per joule).

a)

Sources located

in Kankakee or McHenry Counties shall

not exceed 6.8 pounds of sulfur dioxide per mm ~ Etu of

actual heat input (~G-~

kg/MW Hf)

(2924 nanograins per

joule).

b)

Existing

industrial sources, not equipped with flue gas

desulfurization systems as of December

1,

1980, located

in

the Peoria major metropolitan area, shall not exceed 5.5

pounds of sulfur dioxide per mm b Btu of actual heat input

(~~3kg/MW I~) (2,365

nanograrns per joule)~,provided the

emissions from any such source located

in the City of Peoria

exit from

a stack which

is at least 154

feet

(47 meters)

in

height.

e+

This

See~ien wH~ rte~epp~y

~e

the

V~~egeo~W~e~k~

E~eetf4e U3~y

P3~n~

tit’ik~4~

~

ee~5ei~

efI

R&8—2~7 Beeke~

B7

~

~kei~ ~y the Pe~t~4en?ert~fe~Beefd ~Beefd+T

---

—6—

c)

Section 214.122 shall

not apply to any fuel combustion

emission sources equipped with flue gas desulfurization

systems as of December

1,

1980,

and located

in the City of

East Peoria

as the city boundaries were then defined.

No

person shall cause

or allow the emission of sulfur dioxide

into the atmosphere

in any one hour period from any such

sources

to exceed 1.4 pounds of sulfur dioxide per mm Btu of

actual heat input

(602 nanograms per joule).

d)

Section 214.122 shall not apply to any fuel combustion

emission sources which are capable of firing solid

fuel

at a

heat input of more than 125 mm Btu per hour

(36.6 megawatts)

and which as of December

1,

1980,

are equipped with flue gas

desulfurization systems and are located

in Hollis Township,

Peoria County,

as the township boundaries were then

defined.

No person shall cause

or allow the emission of

sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere

in any one hour period

from any such source

to exceed

1.1 pounds of sulfur dioxide

per mm Btu of actual heat input

(473 nanograms per

joule).

SUBPART

X:

UTILITIES

Section 214.560

Scope

a)

This Subpart contains rules which modify the general

sulfur emission rules

of Subparts A through M as applied

to

a given industry or at a given site.

General rules include:

1.

Subparts

B

through I:

Fuel combustion emission sources

and incinerators

2.

Subparts K through M: Process emission sources.

b)

These

rules have been grouped

for the convenience of

the

public;

the scope

of each is determined

by its language and

history.

Rules placed

in this Subpart include those which

appear

to be primarily directed

at the following major

industry groups:

electric, gas and sanitary services.

Section 214.561

E.

D.

Edwards Electric Generating Station

Units

1 and

3 at the

E.

D.

Edwards Electric Generating Station

shall

not exceed 6.6 pounds of sulfur dioxide per mm Btu of

actual heat input

(2,838

nanograms per

joule).

Aggregate

emissions from

the

E.

D. Edwards Electric Generating Station, on

a 24—hour average basis

shall not exceed 34,613 pounds of

sulfur

dioxide per hour.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

---

—7—

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on

the

______________

day of

~

,

1986

by a vote

of

_______________.

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board