ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 20, 2006
MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC, WILL
)
COUNTY GENERATING STATION,
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 06-156
(Permit Appeal - Air)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by A.S . Moore) :
Petitioner Midwest Generation, LLC, Will County Generating Station (Midwest) filed an
appeal contesting various conditions placed in a construction permit issued on March 3, 2006, by
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) . In its appeal, Midwest requested that
the Board grant a partial stay of the construction permit by staying 14 specified contested
conditions . In its reply to the Agency's response to its request, Midwest submitted an edited
permit identifying the specific contested language within each condition that is truly the basis for
its appeal and request for stay .
Today, the Board is not ruling on the merits of the construction permit appeal but instead
addresses Midwest's request for a partial stay . For the reasons below, the Board grants
Midwest's request for a partial stay consistent with the edited permit filed by Midwest, as
modified by this order.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 7, 2006, Midwest filed an appeal (Pet .) contesting conditions contained in a
construction permit issued to it by the Agency on March 3, 2006 . In its petition for review,
Midwest requested that the Board stay the effectiveness of fourteen specified contested
conditions . In an April 20, 2006 order, the Board accepted the petition for hearing but reserved
ruling on the request for a partial stay .
On April 25, 2006, the Agency filed a response (Resp .) opposing Midwest's request for a
stay. On May 12, 2006, Midwest filed a motion for leave to file a reply and its reply to the
Agency's response (Reply) . On May 26, 2006, the Agency filed a motion for leave to file a
surreply and its surreply
(Sur.)
.
The Board has not received a response to either motion for leave to file
. The Board
grants both motions for leave to file and has reviewed all filings submitted to it
.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Will County Generating Station (Station) is an electric generating station owned by
Midwest Generation, LLC, and operated by Midwest
. Pet. at 1-2. The Station, located at 529
East 135th Road, Romeoville, Will County, went online between 1955 and 1963 and is an
intermediate load plant capable of generating approximately 1100 megawatts
. Pet . at 2 .
At the Station, Midwest operates four coal-fired boilers and associated coal handling,
coal processing, and ash handling activities
. Pet . at 2
. Midwest crushes and prepares coal in a
breaker building and then sends coal through conveyors to bunkers
. Id. From the bunkers,
Midwest transfers coal through pulverizers, which further reduce coal size
.
Id. Midwest then
blows pulverized coal into its boilers
. Id.
The Station is situated within the Chicago nonattainment areas for ozone and particulate
matter less than 2
.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5),
and it "is a major source subject to
the Clean Air Act Permitting Program (CAAPP)
." Pet. at 2
. On September 29, 2005, the
Agency issued Midwest a CAAPP permit for the Station . Id.
On November 2, 2005, Midwest
appealed that CAAPP permit to the Board
. Id.; see
Midwest Generation, LLC, Will County
Generating Station v
. IEPA, PCB 06-60
. In determining Midwest's request for a stay of the
CAAPP permit, the Board found that the automatic stay provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/10-65(b) (2004)) effectively stay Midwest's CAAPP permit by
operation of law .
Midwest Generation, LLC, Will County Generating Station v
. IEPA, PCB 06-
60, slip op. at
7 (Feb. 16, 2006) ; see also
Borg-Warner Corp . v
. Mauzy, 427 N .E.2d 415 (3rd
Dist. 1981) .
Midwest has historically controlled emissions from its bunkers at the Station through the
use of baghouses or rotoclones with water spray
. Pet. at 3
. Midwest sought the construction
permit at issue in this proceeding in order to construct and operate wet dust extractor control
devices as replacements for the rotoclones . Id.
A dust extractor creates negative pressure inside
the bunkers so that it can capture dust-laden air created by drops from the conveyors and by
withdrawal of coal from the bunkers
. Id.
"The dust/air/water mixture passes through a mesh
panel, which separates the dust particles in the air stream
." Id.
Midwest intended to install wet dust extractors during a planned outage beginning
March 4, 2006, and Midwest submitted its construction permit application to the Agency on
February 2, 2006 . Id.
On March 3, 2006, the Agency issued a construction permit including
various conditions
. Pet . at 3 ; see Pet., Exh. 1 .
PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR STAY
Midwest states that, in the course of discussing its construction permit with the Agency, it
"learned that the Agency intended to include provisions that mirrored language that has been
appealed in the CAAPP permit issued to Will County
." Pet. at 3, see
Midwest Generation, LLC,
Will County Generating Station v
. IEPA, PCB 06-60
. Midwest further states that it asked the
Agency to remove from the construction permit the language it had contested in its CAAPP
2
permit appeal but the Agency declined to do so . Id., citing Pet ., Exh. 2 (e-mail correspondence
between Midwest and Agency) .
Midwest notes that condition 11 of the construction permit provides "[t]he affected
operations may be operated with the new control systems pursuant to this construction permit
until an operating permit becomes effective that addresses operation of these operations with the
new control systems ." Pet. at 4, 6 n.3, citing Pet.,
Exh. 1 at 10 . Midwest concludes from this
language that "the operating conditions included in the construction permit will roll into the
CAAPP permit when it becomes effective ." Pet. at 4
. Midwest argues that, even if it must
obtain an operating permit for its wet dust extractors while the CAAPP permit appeal is pending,
the Agency will ultimately have to include the language of that permit in the CAAPP permit .
Pet. at 6 n.3 .
Midwest notes the Board may in a separate appeal strike contested conditions from the
Station's CAAPP permit . Pet. at 4. Midwest argues that it "will suffer irreparable harm" if these
contested conditions remain in the construction permit and then carry forward into the CAAPP
permit when it becomes effective . Pet. at 4. "Inclusion of such language in the construction
permit effectively denies Midwest Generation its statutory right to its appeal of the CAAPP
permit unless the Board stays the contested language ." Id.
Arguing the Board has historically granted petitioners' requests for partial stays in permit
appeals (Pet
. at 4 (citations omitted)), Midwest requests that the Board grant a partial stay of the
construction permit by staying contested conditions 2, 5(a)(1), 5(a)(ii)(b), 5(b)(i), 6(a)(i)(A),
6(a)(ii)(A), 6(b), 7(a), 7(d)(ii), 7(d)(vii), 9(a), 9(a)(ii), 9(b)(i)(A),
and 9(b)(ii) . Pet. at 5 .
AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR STAY
The Agency states "the Board should evaluate Petitioner's stay request by looking to the
traditional factors frequently considered by the Board in prior proceedings ." Resp. at 4 (citations
omitted) . In a case cited by the Agency, the Board has stated that, "[i]n
determining whether a
discretionary stay is appropriate, the Board may refer to four factors
: (1) a certain and clearly
ascertainable right needs protection
; (2) irreparable injury will occur without the stay ; (3) no
adequate remedy at law exists
; and (4) there is a probability of success on the merits ." Resp
. at
4, citing Bridgestone/Firestone Off-Road Tire Company v . IEPA,
PCB 02-31, slip op. at 3
(Nov. 1, 2001) ; see also Community Landfill Company and City of Morris v
. IEPA, PCB 01-48,
01-49, slip op. at 4 (Oct. 19, 2000) .
The Agency acknowledges that Midwest's request presents some of these traditional
factors
: "the Petitioner should not be required to expend significant costs, or run the risk that its
appeal rights be cut short, in complying with the contested conditions of the permit prior to a
Board ruling on the merits of the appeal ." Resp. at 5
. The Agency continues by stating that,
while the Board should review stay requests on a case-by-case basis, it generally favors stays
limited to conditions contested by the permittee
. Id.
3
Nonetheless, the Agency concludes that it cannot support Midwest's request because it is
overly broad . Pet
. at 5 . "Petitioner's stay request would unnecessarily afford stay protection to
matters unrelated to the substance of the appeal ." Id.
The Agency claims that Midwest's request with regard to Condition 5(a)(1) is one
example of this overbreadth
. Resp . at 5. In its entirety, that condition provides
The Permittee shall perform inspection of the affected operation at least once per
month, including the associated control measures, while the affected operations
are in use, to confirm compliance with the requirements of this permit . These
inspections shall be performed with personnel not directly involved in the day-to-
day operation of the affected operations .
The Agency argues that Midwest's petition for review does not specifically challenge the
inspections themselves as required by the first sentence of this condition but only challenges the
type of personnel performing the required inspections as described in the second sentence
. Resp.
at 5, citing Pet . at 7-8
. The Agency suggests that a stay of the entire condition would allow
Midwest to avoid complying with a part of that condition to which it has not objected
. See Resp.
at 5-6
. Consequently, the Agency states in its response that it cannot support Midwest's request
for a stay
. Resp . at 7 .
PETITIONER'S REPLY TO AGENCY'S RESPONSE
Midwest states the same four traditional factors as the Agency that the Board considers in
determining whether to grant a stay . Reply at 6
. Without waiving its claims to a partial stay on
other statutory grounds, Midwest argues that the four traditional factors favor granting its
requested stay . Id. First, Midwest argues that its certain and clearly ascertainable statutory right
to appeal conditions in its CAAPP would be "undercut" if the Board does not stay the contested
conditions in the construction permit
. Reply at 6. Second, Midwest claims that, if the Board
does not grant a stay, it would suffer irreparable injury
. Midwest "would be required to
implement measures that are under appeal in Docket PCB 06-60 and upon which the Board has
not yet rendered a decision
." Reply at 6-7 . Midwest suggests that that Agency shares its
position on this factor because the Agency has acknowledged that Midwest "should not be
required to expend significant costs, or run the risk that its appeal rights might be cut short, in
complying with the contested conditions of the permit prior [to] a Board ruling on the merits of
the appeal ." Reply at 7, citing Resp. at 5 (111)
. Third. Midwest claims that, outside the Board,
it does not have an adequate remedy at law
. Reply at 7. Finally, Midwest believes it has a
probability of success on the merits of its appeal
. Id.
In at least some cases, Midwest accepts the Agency's characterization that Midwest
"objects to only certain limited provisions contained within the conditions and not the entire
condition in all cases."
Reply at 7 . Midwest states that "[i]dentifying only the specific language
that is objectionable appeared to be a level of detail that exceeded the scope of what was
appropriate for inclusion in the Petition for Appeal, though it is a level of detail that would be
addressed in a hearing on the matter."
Reply at 8 .
4
Consequently, Midwest "is agreeable to a `surgical stay' of only certain portions of some
of the identified conditions ." Reply at 8 . As Exhibit 1 of its reply, Midwest attached an edited
permit that strikes "the language that is objectionable and that is truly the object of Midwest
Generation's appeal ." Id. ; see Reply, Exh . 1 . Midwest does state that it cannot indicate the
language in condition 9(b)(i) that it seeks to stay simply by striking it . Reply at 8 . In its entirety,
Midwest's edited condition 9(b)(i)(A) provides:
The Permittee shall immediately notify the Illinois EPA's Regional Office, by
telephone (voice, facsimile or electronic) for each incident in which the opacity
from an affected operation exceeds or may have excee ded the applicable opacity
standard for five or more 6-minute averaging periods .
Otherwise if
opacity
during amalfunction or breakdown incident only excee ds or may have excee ded
periods, the Pormittoo need only report the incident in accordance with Condition
9(b)(ii) . Reply, Exh . 1 at 8 .
Midwest states it "will interpret the condition to imply that the five six-minute periods identified
in the condition are consecutive, even though the word consecutive is not included in the
condition ." Id.
AGENCY'S SURREPLY
Noting that Midwest has indicated it is agreeable to a partial stay and that Midwest has
submitted to the Board an edited version striking the specific conditions to which it objects, the
Agency states that it "is prepared to accept the Petitioner's attachment as an accurate
representation of conditions currently being challenged on appeal ." Sur. at 6.
The Agency notes that it is troubled by Midwest's approach in addressing condition
9(b)(i)(A) . Sur. at 6 . In its petition for review, Midwest argues that the condition is internally
inconsistent because the word "consecutive" should appear in the phrase "five or more 6-minute
averaging periods" in the first sentence just as that word appears in the next sentence regarding
opacity during a malfunction or breakdown incident . See Pet. at 12. "Otherwise, the reporting
requirement could be triggered by any five random six-minute averaging periods of opacity
greater than the limitation ." Id.
The Agency states that, if Midwest believes that the word "consecutive" should appear in
the first sentence of condition 9(b)(i)(A), "then it might be more appropriate to show that
language as contested, and thus stayed, even if it leaves the remaining part of the condition
without meaning." Sur. at 6. Otherwise, argues the Agency, the part of the condition that is not
stayed will have conflicting interpretations based on the explicit language and on Midwest's
"implied" insertion of the term . Id.
BOARDANALYSIS
In Community Landfill Co . and City of Morris v . IEPA, PCB 01-48, 01-49, slip op. at 4
(Oct. 19, 2000), the Board found "that it has the authority to grant discretionary stays from
5
permit conditions
." The Board noted it "has previously granted or denied discretionary stays in
permit appeals, both when the Agency did and did not consent to such stays
."
Id. The Board
elaborated that "[t]he permit appeal system would be rendered meaningless in many cases, if the
Board did not have the authority to stay permit conditions
." Id.
The Board has reviewed Midwest's edited permit filed with its reply as Exhibit 1, which
strikes "the language that is objectionable and that is truly the object of Midwest Generation's
appeal
." The Board has also considered the Agency's surreply and its position on that edited
permit
. On the basis of that review and consideration, the Board grants with only one exception
Midwest's request for a stay of the contested conditions in its construction permit, as those
contested conditions are reflected in the edited permit filed as Exhibit I to Midwest's Reply
.
With regard to that one exception, the Board finds, based on the parties' filings, that the entire
condition 9(b)(i)(A)
is contested and should therefore be stayed in its entirety
. The partial stay
remains in effect until the Board takes final action on of the construction permit appeal, or until
the Board orders otherwise
.
The edited permit filed as Exhibit 1 to Midwest's reply indicates the scope of the partial
stay granted by the Board as plainly as any summary the Board might provide
. Accordingly, the
Board incorporates that document
. For the parties' convenience, that document is attached to
this order as Attachment A.
6
217/782- 2113
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 12, 2006
Aeraahrnegnc
A
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
PERMITTEE
Midwest Generation
EME,
LLC
Location : Will County Generating Station,
Permit is hereby granted to the above-designated Permittee to CONSTRUCT
emission source(s) and/or air pollution control equipment consisting of new
wet dust extractor control devices for the Unit 3 and Unit 4 coal bunkers, as
described in the above referenced application . This Permit is subject to
standard conditions attached hereto and the following special condition(s) :
1 .
This permit authorizes installation of new particulate matter control
equipment on the coal bunkers for Unit 3 and Unit 4, replacing the
existing Rotoclone control devices, as requested by the Permittee to
improve safety and operational performance . For the purpose of this
permit, the "affected operations" are the coal bunkers for Unit 3 and
Unit 4 following installation of the new air pollution control
equipment .
2 The a ffected-
to
ee
Standard
FR 60 Cubpart Y .
q being imposed b ecause coal io prepared atthe
ec;ur..-, and the application did not demonstrate that the changes in the
Notwithstanding the a b ove, a, provided
c), opacity
In c,ccs„ of the above limit during pcr ods of startup ,o):utdowi
end malfunction, as defined by- 0 CFC £0 .2, shall. ntt be
eons :.dcred a violatietr-
it c1'_ t
w'_ED. t
,ih
d
The opaci
o p erat i on
NOPB, -4G--GEC-60' .242 .
C the affcet:cd o c
529 East 135' Street, Romeoville,
moop hcrc from each affcctcd
3a .
Pursuant to 35 IAC 212 .123(a), the emission of smoke or other
particulate matter from each affected operation shall not exceed an
Attn : Andrea Crapisi
440 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3500
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Application No
: 060Z0009
I .D . No .
: 197810AAK
ApplicantsSubject
: Wet
-DesignationDust
Extractors
:
for Unit 3 and
Date Received : February 2, 2006
Date Issued : March 2, 2006
Unit 4 Coal Bunkers
7
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, MAY 12, 2006
Page2
opacity greater that 30 percent, on six-minute average, except as
allowed by 35 IAC 212 .123(b) and 212
.124 .
b .
Subjecr to the following terms and conditions, the Permittee is
authorized to continue operation of an affected operation in violation
of the applicable limit of Condition 3(a) (35 IAC 212
.123) in the event
of a malfunction or breakdown
. This authorization is provided pursuant
to 35 IAC 201
.149, 201 .161 and 201 .262, as the Permittee has applied
for such authorization in its application, generally explaining why
such continued operation would be required to provide essential service
or to prevent injury to personnel or severe damage to equipment, and
describing the measures that will be taken to minimize emissions from
any malfunctions and breakdowns
.
i .
This authorization only allows such continued operation as
related to the operation of the Unit 3 and Unit 4 boilers as
necessary to provide essential service or to prevent injury to
personnel
continued
or
operation
severe damage
solely
to
for
equipment
the economic
and does
benefit
not
of
extend
the
to
Permittee
.
ii .
Upon occurrence of excess emissions due to naifunction or
breakdown, the Permittee shall as soon as practicable repair the
affected operation, remove the affected operation from service or
undertake other action so that excess emissions cease
.
1
The Permittee shall fulfill applicable recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of Conditions 7(e) and 9(b), respectively
.
Following notification to the Illinois EPA of a malfunction or
breakdown with excess emissions, the Permittee shall comply with
all reasonable directives of the Illinois EPA with respect to
such incident, pursoant to 35 IAC 201
.263 .
v .
This authorization does not relieve the Permittee from the
continxing obligation to minimize excess emissions during
malfunction or breakdown
. As provided by 35 IAC 201
.265, an
authorization in a permit for continued operation with excess
emissions during malfunction and breakdown does not shield the
Permittee fron enforcement for any such violation and only
constitutes a prima facie defense to such an enforcement action
provided
conditions
that
connected
the Permittee
with such
has
authorizationfully
complied
.
with all terms and
Note : These provisions addressing continxed operation during a
malfurction
addressing the
or breakdown
affected operationsevent
may
.
be revised in an operating permit
4a .
Particulate matter emissions from the Unit 3 affecred operation shall
not exceed 1 .7 pounds/hour and 7
.6 tons/year and from the Unit 4
affectec operation shall not exceed 1
.6 pounds/hour and 7
.1 tons/year
.
b .
Notwithstanding the above, in the event of a malfunction or breakdown,
the particulate matter emissions from the Unit 3 and Unit 4 affected
operations may exceed 1
.7 and 1 .6 pounds/hour, respectively, subject to
the terns and conditions established in Condition 3(b) for an
exceedance of 35 IAC 212
.123(a) in the event of malfunction or
breakdown .
8
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 12, 2006
5a .
The
Permittee shali perform inspections of the affected
operations at least once per month, including the associated
control measures, while the affected operatiors are in use, to
confirm compliance with the requirements of this permit . Theoc
-wi h
nvolvcd in t
he-oary t
The Permittee shall maintain records of the following for the
above inspections :
A .
Date and time the inspection was performed and name(s) of
inspection personnel .
B .
The observed condition of the control measures for the
affected operations, including the presence of any visible
emissions coal
fine_-
-r
'hc
vioinity of
:ln
operat_
C .
A description of any maintenance or repair associated with
the control measures that is recommended as a result of the
inspection and a review of outstanding recommendations for
maintenance or repair from previous inspection(s), i
.e .,
whether recommended action has been taken, is yet to be
performed or no longer appears to be required
.
D .
A summary of the observed implementation or status of
actual control measures as compared to the customary
control measures .
b .
The Permittee shall perform detailed inspections of the control
equipment for each affected operation at
7cnt every 1'; mor,tha
while the operation is out of service, with an initial inspection
performed before any maintenance and repair activities are
conducted during the period the operation is out of service and a
follow-up inspection performed after any such activities are
completed .
i
The Permittee shall maintain records of the following for the
above inspections :
A .
Date and time the inspection was performed and name(s) of
inspection personnel .
B .
The observed condition of the control equipment
C .
A summary of the maintenance and repair that is to be or
was conducted on the control equipment
.
D .
A descriptior of any maintenance or repair that is
recommended as a result of the inspectior and a review of
outstanding recommendations for maintenance or repair from
previous inspection(s), i .e ., whether recommended action
has been taken, is yet to be performed or no longer appears
to be required .
Page 3
9
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 12, 2006
E .
A summary of the observed condition of the control
equipment as related to its ability to reliably and
effectively coctrol emissions
.
6a .
The Permittee shall have the opacity of the enissions from the
affected operations during representative weather and operating
conditions determined by a qualified observer in accordance with
USEPA Test Method 9, as further specified below
.
A .
For each affected operation, an
initial pcrfermanect
cha'_l. be concr:>:_-.
:.
"
' fol lowing insta llation
of the new control
C1R CO .1e
qandu i pmcnt^~
.
B .
:l w .
i the
initia4 pcrform
"o test,-(Periodic testing
shall be conducted at least annually for each affected
operation .
C .
Upon written request by the Illinois EPA, testing of the
affected operations shall be conducted within 45 calendar
days of the request or on the date agreed upon by the
Illinois EPA, whichever is later .
A .
The i n i t ial-per f ormance tents fo-
opacity chall be
iith 10 CFR GO .254 .
B .
For periodic testing, the duration of opacity observations
shall be at least 30 minutes (five 6-minute averages)
unless the average opacities for the first 12 minutes of
observations (two six-minute averages) are both less than
10
.0 percent .
A .
The Permittee shall notify the Illinois EPA at least 7 days
in advance of the date and time of these tests, in order to
allow the Illinois EPA to witness testing
. This
notification shall include the name(s) and employer(s) of
the qualified observer(s)
.
The Permittee shall promptly notify the Illinois EPA of any
changes in the time or date for testing
.
iv .
The Permittee shall provide a copy of its observer's readings to
the Illinois EPA at the time of tesring, if Illinois EPA
personnel are present .
v .
The Permittee shall submit a written report for this testing
within 15 days of the date of testicg
. This report shall
iccluae :
A
. Date and time of testing .
B
. Name ano employer of qualified observer
C .
Copy of current certification
D
. Description of observation condition, including recent weather
E
. Descriptior of the operaring conditions of the affected operations
.
Page 4
10
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 12, 200
6
a
i .Thc Permit
4C'6&.{e--prior
tr,tooting in act rdcircc w : .th 35 IAC
Par
A .
b
c
thefollo%
;itg-in
oFH-
Asummary of rcoulto .
. .I from
The .l'.1.tIaci
.o EPAoha .
the Iilir:oio--L3PAto o b
ser>c t h ose
_
pr i or
to expected
date . Noti-,
workingdays priertc,
t1 .c mt cl
data . ~f. 'he tent .
The'.' eLs
EPA may,at
itsdiscretion,
accept
notificotior.withohorter
o ti.c c providedthat theIll
.neisSPA will accopt
ouchnoti .Fi .te
ability to
ob o_ . .
ha cra g eofthro
2 C33
I
F .
Raw data .
G
. Opacity determinations
.
H .
Conclusions
.
Page 5
b .
With' :
nois EPA, t--he
vyo-oi a ww
ten
--tacks or vznts of the
request, mcnourcd during rcprcsc
t c opcra
.. .ing condi i no, a-
Set forth bcl-ew-
Me_hedo r
including Method S o pa
ticulate matter
et*onions
.
D .
The . .
f
:mpling or mrnsurc.mcnts
;
d
E
~
deter any analyses
sre
rmcd,
that
The rome of the company
the
P-
performed
en
;aIy3e :
:7
11
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 12, 2006
The detailed rca,
end/or anal-yseo int
44- The name of aft
d"-F4-Page
6
File(s) containing the following data for the equipment, with
supporting information, which file(s) shall be kept up to date
:
1) The design particulate matter control efficiency or
performance specification for particulate matter emissions,
gr/dscf
; 2) The maximum design emission rate, pounds particulate
matter/hour, and 3) The applicable particulate matter emission
factor normally used by the Permittee to calculate actual
particulate matter emissions, if a factor other than the maximum
hourly emission rate is normally used
.
I
Maintenance and repair log(s) for the control equipment, which
log(s) shall list the activities performed on each item of
equipment, with date and description .
c .
The Permittee shall maintain records for the amount of material
handled, operating hours, or other measure of activity of each affected
operation on a monthly and annual basis, which data is in the terms
normally used by the Permittee to calculate actual emissions of each
affected operation .
d .
The Permittee shall maintain records of the following for each incident
when an affected operation operated without the customary control
measures :
The
date of the incident and identification of the affected
operation rhat was involved
.
ii .
A description of the incident, including the customary control
measures that were not present or implemented
; the customary
control measures that were present, if any
; other control
measures or mitigation measures that were implemented, if any
;
and the magnit
t :na
t ter. cm i oo l ona
daring toe
iii
ii ne_ -
The time at and means by which the incident was identified,
e .g .,
scheduled inspection or observatioc by operating personnel
.
IV .
The length of time after the incident was identified that the
affected operations continued to operate before customary control
measures were in place or the operations were shutdown (to resune
operation only after custonary control measures were in place)
and, if this time was more than one hour, an explanation why this
time was not shorter, including a description of any mitigation
measures that were implemented during the incident
.
tccting com .any's
nois EPA or
rcprc
CL, of-he
7e . The .^.crmitt -ohall
. ful.fil.ll
.c urdkceping rc .a= Tz
.'--s
b .
10 CFR G0 .7(b), for the
of the NS2F,
affected operationo .
The Permittee shall keep the following file(s) and log(s) for the air
pollution control equipment for the affected operations :
12
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 12, 2006
The estimated total duration of the incident,
i .e ., the total
length of time that the affected operations ran without customary
control measures and the estimated amount of material handled
during the incident
.
A discussion of the probable cacse of the incident and any
prevectative measures taken
.
V
F. discuco'on
whzthcr an
applicable otandc.rd, ac listed in
condition 2(b ; o 3'a) or a particulate-
-r e-r curio
' n
e .
Pursuant to 35 IAC 201
.263, the Permittee shall maintain records,
related to malfunction and breakdown for each affected operation that,
at a minimum, shall include :
i .
Maintenance and repair log(s) for the affected operation that, at
a micimum, address aspects or components of such operations for
which nalfunction or breakdown has resulted in excess emissiocs,
which shall list the activities performed on such aspects or
compocents, with date, description and reason for the activity
.
Ic addition, in the maintenance and repair log(s), the Permittee
shall also list the reason for the activities that are performed
.
ii .
Records for each incident when operation of an affected operation
continued during malfunction or breakdown, inclnding continued
operation with excess emissions as addressed by Condition
3(a),
that include the following information
:
A .
Date and duration of malfunction or breakdown
.
B .
A description of the malfunction or breakdown
.
C .
The corrective actions used to reduce the quantity of
emissions and the duration of the incident
.
D .
Confirmation of fulfillment of the requirements of Condition
9(b)(i),
as applicable, including copies of follow-up
reports submitted pursuant to Condition
9(b)(i)(B) .
E .
If excess emissions occurred for two or more hours
:
I
A detailed explanatioc why continued operation of the
affected operation was necessary
.
L
A detailed explanation of the preventative measures
planned or taken to prevent similar malfunctions or
breakdowns or redcce their frequency and severity
.
III
. An estinate of the magnitude of excess emissions
occurring during the incident .
Page 7
1' 'tation
ng 6-he
icci
e
6-at ; matter cm
:i.acions (pound
oo tow~a`
.dcnt,
S+i .th
upporting cup=anati.on .
13
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 12, 2006
Page 8
The Permittee shall maintain the following records for the particulate
matrer emissions from each affected operation (tons/month and tons/yr),
with supporting calculations
.
g
. The Permittee shall keep records for any opacity observations performed
by Method 9 that the Permittee conducts or are conducted at its behest,
including name of the observer, date and tine, duration of observation,
raw data, results, and conclusion .
8 .
The Permittee shall retain all records required by this permit at the
source for at least 5 years from the date of entry and these records
shall be readily accessible to the Illinois
EPA for inspection and
copying upon request
.
9a .
The Permittee shall promptly notify the Illinois
EPA
of deviations from
requirements of this permit for the affected operations, as follows
.
Such notifications shall include a description of each incident and a
discussion of the probable cause of deviation, any corrective actions
taken, and any preventative measures taken
.
_ .
Notification and reporting as specified in Condition
9(b)(i) for
certain deviations from an applicable opacity standard
.
7
(e)(ii)
.
Condition9(b)(ii.)
for other dcvaationo,
including
deviations from applicable em-rse;e~-stan
d ar d o, inopeetion
q'
-nto and rccordkecping requirements
.
O, with
the quarto i c
ort, tt.e Pcrmittcc oha 1 al =ddrr_ca
c purpooc, ttc Permittee
need
tion provided in prior
notifi ationc and reoor t o for
eachdE~atieno-
b
Pursuant to 35 IAC 201
.263, the Permittee shall provide the following
notifications and reports to the Illinois
EPA, concerning incidents
when operation of an affected operation continued with excess
emissions, including continued operation during malfunction or
breakdown as addressed by Condition
3(b) .
i .
A.
The Permittee shall immediately notify the Iilinois
EPA's
Regional office, by telephone (voice, facsimile or electronic)
for each incident in which the opacity fron an affected
operation exceeds or
may have, e}
:ee.cde4'-the applicable opacity
standard for five or more 6-minute averaging periods
.
{„tl,erwiac, 1r ooacr .. y
aura . .a a-ma---une
t
0
-__n:~- +, .
;r==axecc~or ma- ha^c cxccc_-d the
--pp]
otandard `_or no more
than five connective
6 minut
14
ii .
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 12, 2006
a (or dancc
withConditief E3-(
)
.)
B .
Upon
conclusion of each incident that is two hours or more
in duration, the Permittee shall submit a written follow-up
notice to the Illinois EPA, Compliance Section and Regional
Office, within 15 days providing a detailed description of
the incident and its cause(s), an explanation why continued
operation was necessary, the length of time during which
operation continued under such conditions, the measures
taken by the Permittee to minimize and correct deficiencies
with chronology, and when the repairs were completed or the
affected operation was taken out of service
.
The Coin
fi-ka t
q uarter irt--% -.c .
A listing of or,
i nc .l.u d es-
(1) the d ate, t
incident,
(2) tRe
4-nvoi-.cd in the i.nc
. . d er.E,
e fo1l ow
up
notice wao
oubmi r
he incident
parcuantt 0
C©nditaon
9(b)(i ),
,i-the
date of the notice .
{}~
at ien-€ef-eec
h
ouch incident required
p , cuant
to Cend :.ti"r,
);a)
t
.
in4©rmationn
For th is~lteprovided
in e prior
rcpor-t---fcr
an
inoidcnt, ao idontif : •d
above, but may
elect:
tonuppicmcnt p
'
ittal .
U .
If
there_ have been no c
k' g
10a
. Unless otherwise specified in a particular condition of this permit or
in the written instructions distributed by the Illinois EPA for
particular reports, reports and notifications shall be sent to the
Illinois EPA - Air Compliance Section with a copy sent to the Illinois
EPA - Air Regional Field Office
.
b .
The current addresses of the offices that should generally be utilized
for the submittal of reporrs and notificarions are as follows
:
i .
Illinois EPA - Air Conpliance Section
Illinois Environmental Protection Ageccy (MC 40)
Bureau of Air
Compliance & Enforcement Section (MC 40)
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P .O . Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Phoce
: 217/782-5811
Fax
: 217/782-6348
me, and du -At on
that
-c 'lu ing
t
Page 9
15
11 .
The affected
operations may be operated with the new control systems
pursuant to this construction permit until an operating permit becomes
effective that addresses operation of these operations with the new
control systems .
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Manish Patel
at 217/782-2113 .
Donald E
. Sutton, P .E .
Manager,
Division
Permit
of Air
SectionPollution
Control
DES :MNP :ps;
cc :
Region 1
C132\ 1425989.1
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, MAY 12, 2006
Illinois EPA -
Air Regional Field Office
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
9511 West Earrison
Des Plaines, Illinois
60016
Phone : 847/294-4000
Fax : 847/294-4018
16
IT IS SO ORDERED .
I, Dorothy M
. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above order on July 20, 2006, by a vote of 4-0 .
Dorothy M . Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
17
