BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARIF~
E C E ~V E D
CLERK’S OFFICE
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
CLEAN-UP PART III
)
AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL.
)
ADM. CODE PARTS 211, 218 AND 219
)
)
TO:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
State ofIllinois
Center
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
NOTICE
JUN
212004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control Board
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
Richard McGill
Illinois Pollution Control Board
State ofIllinois Center
100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
R04-20
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control
Board the POST-HEARING COMMENTS
OF THE ILLiNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY a copy of which is herewith served upon you.
DATED:
June
18, 2004
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217/782-5544
Respectfully Submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC
AGENCY
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
Service List
Robert A. Messina
Illinois Environmental Regulatory
Group
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield, IL 62703
N. LaDonna Driver
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland Avenue,
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield,
IL 62705-5776
Matthew Dunn, Chief
Attorney General’s Office
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph, 20th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Jonathan Fun
ChiefLegal Counsel
Illinois Dept. ofNatural Resources
1 Natural Resource Road
Springfield, Illinois 62702
Claire A. Manning
Posegate & Denes, P.C.
111
N. Sixth Street
Springfield,
IL 62705
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
JUN
212004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN
THE MATTER OF:
)
Pollution
Control Board
)
CLEAN-UP PART III
)
R04-20
AMENDMENTS TO
35
ILL.
)
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
ADM.
CODE
PARTS
211, 218 AND 219
)
)
POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
NOW COMES the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (“Illinois
EPA”), by its attorney, Charles E. Matoesian, and hereby submits comments in the above
rulemaking proceeding.
The Illinois EPA appreciates the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s (“Board”) efforts in
this rulemaking to amend
35 Iii. Adm.
Code Parts 211, 218, and 219.
The Illinois EPA believes
the proposed amendments will ease the compliance burden by clarifying existing regulations,
reducing the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and updating testing practices.
The
changes
are all designed
to be part ofa simple “clean-up” and are considered non-controversial.
The Illinois EPA submitted an enata sheet as an exhibit at the May 6th, 2004 hearing in
Springfield, Illinois.
That sheet made several, minor, changes to the proposal in response to
questions raised by the Board and its staff at the earlier, March
18th hearing.
Though the Illinois
EPA responded to most issues raised at the first and second hearings in this matter on the record
during those proceedings, a few outstanding issues remain to
be addressed in these post-hearing
comments.
These comments
therefore respond to questions proposed by the Illinois
Environmental Regulatory Group (“IERG”) at the May 6th hearing and are based upon the
existence ofthe submitted errata sheet.
RESPONSE
TO QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE MAY 6TH, 2004 HEARING
The questioning from LaDonna Driver ofIERG begins
on page 25 ofthe transcript and
continues through page 39, but the outstanding issues basically consist of the following three
questions and responses.
Comment:
Is theproposed definition ofcarbon adsorber at Section 211.953
too general and
somewhat deceiving as to what media
is being covered?
Response:
As to the part of the comment regarding whetherthis definition is too general, the
commenter felt that the first sentence by its self could “cover a lot ofthings beyond a carbon
adsorber”.
(Transcript, p.
35).
As a result ofthis comment, illinois EPA is revising the
definition at Section 211.953 by including a semicolon between the first and second sentences to
make the definition more specific to the general technology ofadsorption that is being defined.
Therefore, the proposed definition is changed to read as follows:
Carbon Adsorber:
A control device designed to remove and, if desired, recover
volatile organic materials (VOMs) from process emissions~Removal removal is
accomplished through the adherence ofthe VOMs onto the surface ofhighly
porous adsorbent particles such as activated carbon. The term “carbon adsorber”
describes any adsorber technology used as a control device even though media
otherthan carbon may be used as the adsorbent, such as (but not limited to)
oxides ofsilicon and aluminum.
In addressing the second part of the comment regarding this definition being “somewhat
deceiving”, (Transcript, p. 36) the Illinois EPA offers this response:
The term “carbon adsorber” appears throughout
35 Illinois Administrative Code and
separating or altering this basic terminology could have far reaching and unforeseen
ramifications for the Illinois pollution control regulations.
2
Historically carbon has been the predominant media used as the absorbent for the removal and
recovery (if desired) ofvolatile organic materials from process emissions by adsorption.
Asa
result through usage, the term “carbon adsorber” has become accepted as synonymous with
adsorber control technology in general, wherein VOM adheres to the surface of a porous
adsorbent particle, regardless ofthe particle’s
composition.
Recently other materials have been introduced claiming to be a more efficient absorbent
material than carbon, but the physical capturing ofthe VOM is the same basic process.
These
new materials include the oxides ofsilicon
and aluminum in the form ofmolecular sieves with
engineered openings designed to adsorb particular sizes ofVOM molecules.
It has been demonstrated to Illinois EPA
from compliance enforcement discussions with
the manufacturers ofthese new adsorbent media that they recognize that their technology is still
an adsorption process; however, from theirperspective, monitoring such devices pursuant to the
requirements ofSections 218.105(d) and 219.105(d) is not required because these Sections refer
only to “carbon” adsorbers and not any other adsorber.
Therefore, it is the intent ofthis amendment to close that unforeseen ioop hole for
absorbent media other than carbon, and do it in a manner that does not disturb the other areas of
35 Illinois Administrative Code Parts 218 and 219, which might cause pndesired regulatory
repercussions.
The term “carbon adsorber” is
meant to
describe adsorber technology in general
throughout Title 35 ofthe Illinois Administrative Code.
The wording ofthe proposed definition has been chosen so that the regulatory
requirements imposed upon carbon adsorbers is not lessened but that adsorbers using other
media beside carbon are included and required to meet the same regulatory obligations.
3
IERG and
its peer reviewers drew no exception to this
definition in its exhaustive review prior to
the Illinois EPA’s filing ofthis amendment and although a misinterpretation to a casual reader
may occur, the intent ofthe definition to users ofthe rule is evident.
The Illinois EPA assures
IERG and its constituency that it is not trying to deceive
anybody.
The Illinois EPA is only
trying to keep the playing field level for all types ofadsorbers and the various media that might
be used as the absorbent in these control devices, now and in the future.
Comment:
In Sections 218.1 05(c)(2) and 219.105(c) (2),
is
it
theIllinois EPA’s intent that at any
point that a facility wants to establish emission creditsfor offsets or shutdowns that they are
going to
have to do testing to satisfy theDQO?
Response:
The LCL/DQO alternative protocol has been offered by U.S.
EPA in response to
industries request for less costly ways to determine capture efficiency.
The Illinois EPA is
incorporating these alternative protocols at the insistence ofU.S.EPA and as a courtesy to the
regulated community.
The alternative LCL/DQOprotocol need not ever be used. The U.S.EPA
has determined that the standard gas/gas and liquid/gas protocols are
still the most accurate and
reliable methods for determining capture efficiency.
However, if a source chooses to use the LCL/DQO alternative protocol, there are certain
requirements that must be met.
One ofwhich is that if credits for offsets, shutdowns, ortrading
are being established based on data arrived at from using the alternative protocol, the DQO must
be satisfied.
Satisfying the DQO yields a result accurate to a
95
confidence level, whereas
satisfying the LCL yields a result accurate to only a 90
confidence level.
U.S. EPA considered
a higher confidence level to be necessary in such matters as well as in
enforcement matters.
4
This is not
meant to require every source that
is establishing credits for offsets and shutdowns to
test using the alternative LCL/DQO protocol.
This is not an added layer of testing, but if a
source does choose to use this protocol they should be aware that DQO must be satisfied in the
instances mentioned.
Comment:
In Sections 218.1 05(c) (2) and 219.105(c) (2), is
it the Illinois EPA ‘s intent that
proving noncompliance in
an enforcement case where the LCL/DQO alternativeprotocol has
been usedwould require the DQO to be satisfied?
Response:
At the close oftheir study regarding methodologies for determining capture
efficiency, U.S. EPA concluded that the most accurate and most reliable methodologies
are the
standard gas/gas and liquid/gas protocols.
However, U.S. EPA considered the LCL/DQO
alternative methodology as acceptable alternatives. In matters ofenforcement regarding
compliance or for establishing credits for offsets, shutdowns, or trading, U.S. EPA requested that
the DQO be satisfied.
As a result ofthe many discussions that have arisen over the use of DQO in enforcement
cases,
the Illinois EPA proposes to add the following language
at the end Section 218.105(c)(2).
Note that this language shows changes from the errata sheet submitted at the May 6th hearing.
The language reads:
2)
Capture Efficiency Protocols
The capture efficiency of an emission unit shall be measured using one ofthe
protocols given below.
Appropriate test methods to be utilized in each ofthe
capture efficiency protocols are described in Appendix M of 40 CFRPart
51
incorporated by reference at Section
2 18.112. Any error margin associated with
a
test method orprotocol may not be incorporated into the results ofa capture
efficiency test.
Ifthese techniques are not suitable for a particular process, then
an alternative capture efficiency protocol may be used, pursuant to the provisions
ofSection 218.108(b) ofthis Part.
For purposes ofdetermining capture efficiency
using an alternative protocol, sources shall satisfy the data quality objective
(DQO) or the lower confidence level (LCL) statistical analysis methodologies as
5
presented in USEPA’s “Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency”
incorporated by reference at Section 218.1 12 ofthis Part.
LCL can be used to
establish compliance with capture efficiency requirements.
Forpurposes of
establishing emission credits for offsets, shutdowns, trading, and compliance
demonstrations arising in enforcement matters, the DQO must be satisfied.
Ifa sources chooses
to use the LCL/DOO alternative methodology, failure to
satisfy the DOO in matters ofenforcement or for establishing credits for offsets,
shutdowns, or trading shall require capture efficiency to be
determinedusing one
ofthe gas/gas or liquid/gas protocols described in subsections (c)(2)(A), (B), (C),
or(D).
Identical language is presented for Section 219.1
05(c)(2).
However, the errata sheet submitted
on May 6th
inadvertently contained internal references to
Section 218.
This error is corrected
here.
The Illinois EPA regrets this error.
The corrected Section 219.1
05(c)(2)
language reads:
2)
Capture Efficiency Protocols
-
The capture efficiency of an emission unit shall be measured using one ofthe protocols
given below.
Appropriate test methods to be utilized in each ofthe capture efficiency
protocols are described in Appendix M of40 CFRPart 51
incorporated by reference at
Section 219.112 218.112. Any error margin associated with a test method orprotocol
may not be incorporated into the results ofa capture efficiency test.
Ifthese techniques
are not suitable for a particular process, then an alternative capture efficiencyprotocol
maybe used, pursuant to the provisions ofSection 219.108(b) 218.108(b) ofthis Part.
Forpurposes ofdetermining capture
efficiency using an alternative protocol, sources
shall satisfy the data quality objective (DQO) orthe lower confidence level (LCL)
statistical analysis methodologies as presented in
USEPA’s “Guidelines for Determining
Capture Efficiency” incorporated by reference at Section 219.112
218.112 ofthis Part.
LCL can be used to establish compliance with capture efficiencyrequirements.
For
purposes ofestablishing emission_credits for offsets, shutdowns, trading, andcompliance
demonstrations arising in enforcement matters,
the DQO must be satisfied.
Ifa sources chooses to use the LCL/DQO alternative methodology,
failure to satisfy the
DOO in matters ofenforcement or for establishing credits for offsets, shutdowns, or
trading shall require capture
efficiency to be determined using one ofthe gas/gas or
liquid/gas protocols described in subsections (c)(2)(A),(B), (C), or (D).
6
This proposed language is consistent with the language
in Sections 218.1
05(c)(2)(E)
and
219.1 05(c)(2)(E) and should resolve issues regarding proving compliance.
The source that
chooses the LCL/DQO.alternative methodology must satisfy DQO or test under one of the
standard protocols.
CORRECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT
The Illinois EPA would like
to point out two minor errors in the transcript. The first is on
page six, line two.
The transcript states, “the second hearing on amendments to 357 Illinois
Administrative Code...”
This is merely a transcription error, but the
“357”
should be replaced by
“35.”
The line should thus read, “the second hearing on amendments to 35
Illinois
Administrative Code.
.
.“
The second correction concerns page 32, line
17.
The line reads
“.
.
.talking about IERG
here as I understand it.”
The acronym IERG refers to the Illinois
Environmental Resource Group
while the correct acronym is “ERMS” which stands for Emission Reduction Market System.”
The line should thus read
“.
.
.talking about ERMS here as I understand it.”
7
CONCLUSION
The Illinois EPA thanks the Board for the opportunity to participate in this’ rulemaking
proceeding and
encourages the Board to proceed expeditiously towards the adoption ofa first
notice opinion and order amending Parts 211,
218, and 219.
Re~~ubm~ed~
Charles B. Matoesian
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal
Counsel
Dated:
June 18, 2004
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
8
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
CLEAN-UP PART III
)
R04-20
AMENDMENTS TO
35
ILL.
)
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
ADM. CODE PARTS 211, 218
AND
219
)
)
PROOF OF SERVICE
I,
the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached POST-HEARING
COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY upon
the person to whom it is directed, by placing it in an envelope
addressed to:
TO:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Richard McGill
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
State ofIllinois Center
State ofIllinois Center
-
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Chicago, Illinois 60601
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
and mailing it by First Class Mail from Springfield,
Illinois on June 18th, 20
4
ith
sufficient postage affixed.
~___~~l
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
~
1
2~h
d~”
~fTiit~
2004
.
OFFICIAL
SEAL
Notary Public
L
Service List
Robert A. Messina
Illinois
Environmental Regulatory
Group
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield, IL
62703
N. LaDonna Driver
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland Avenue,
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, IL 62705-5776
Matthew Dunn, Chief
Attorney General’s Office
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph, 20th Floor
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Jonathan Fun
Chief Legal Counsel
Illinois Dept. ofNatural Resources
1 Natural Resource Road
Springfield, Illinois 62702
Claire A. Manning
Posegate & Denes, P.C.
111
N. Sixth Street
Springfield,
IL 62705
