ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

July 19,

1984

IN THE MATTER

OF:

PARTICULATE

EMISSION LIMITATIONS

)

RULE

203(g) (1) AND

202(b)

OF

)

R82~1

CHAPTER

2

PROPOSED RULE,

FIRST

NOTICE.

PROPOSED OPINION AND

ORDER

OF

THE BOARD (by J.

D. Dumelle):

On January

1,

1982 the Board proposed the readoption of

Rules 203(g)(1) mow codified as

35 Ill.

Mm. Code 212..201-212.204

and 202(b)

now

codified as

35 Ill.

Adxn.

Code 212.123

of Chapter

2

(now 35 Ill.

Adm,

Code, Subtitle B:

Air Pollution.

These

rules concern limitations upon particulate emissions for fuel

combustion emission sources using solid fuel exclusively.

Hearings were held to consider the merits and economic impact of

these rules on April

13 and April

21, 1982

and August

3, August

12,

and September 29,

1983.

The public comment period closed on

February

2,

1984.

THE PROPOSED RULES

The Board has proposed the Leadoption of Rules 203(g(i)

and

202(b). Rule 203(g) (1)

establishes emission limitations for fuel

combustion sources that use solid

fuel exclusively.

It consists

of four subsections,

three of

which

apply

to sources constructed

before April

13,

1972 (existing sources

and one of which applies

to sources constructed after that date (new sources),

For

existing sources in the Chicago Major Metropolitan Area

(MMA) the

proposed rule sets an emission limitation of 0.1 pounds of

particulates per million British thermal units

(lbs./mBtu) actual

heat input.

Outside of

the Chicago MMA,

a sliding scale operates:

sources larger than

250 mBtu/hr. actual

heat input would be

subject to the 0.1 lbs./mBtu standard,

but

sources under

10

mBtu/hr.

actual heat input could emit up to 1.0 lhs,/mBtu~.

Intermediate—size boilers would he limited

within

that range as

established by a specified

equations

Subparagraph

(C) of

203(g) (1) provides

for

exceptions to

the

strict limits

of

the

rule.

It allows greater emissions for existing sources

if the

rate is consistent

The Boardwishest~expreiiT~sappreciation to late Board

Member

and Vice Chairman Irvin Goodman for

his

work on these regulations

over the years

until his death during this proceeding,

to Marili

McFawn for her service as hearing officer and to Lee R. Cunninghai~

for his assistance in drafting

the

Opinion and Order.

59~83

---

with

or~ginai

doeign

or

perforrnai~c’~’~

The

last

section

of

203(g)(i)

specifies

that

em~sions

from

new

sources

shall

not

exceed

0~i

Jhs~/mill~on Bt!

heat

input~ Rule 202(b)

relates

to

visual

emission

standar

~s

n

general

it

forbids

emissions

With

an opacity greater than

0,

although exceptions

are

provided

during

specified

pe:ioó~

of

time~

INVM~iDATIO~1

OF P1.R~CULATL/ND OPACITY RULES

Regulat~onscontrolling em

S5iOPS

of air pollutants were

adopted by the Board on April U

1)

2

in R71~23as Part II

of

Chapter

2.

Commocwealth Ediso

su

ecuent’y filed a petition in

the First District Appellate Couit eo~ g review of several

of

those rules,

including Rule

203

g

Particulate Emission

Standards and Limitations for ~me1 C rrlustion Emission Sources

Using Solid Fuel ExcIusively~ Tte ~~pe

ate Court in Commonwealth

an

v.

Pollution Controi

oaro,

~5 Ill. App.

3d 271,

323

~

2d

84

(1975)

reverscd tie U

otio’i of those rules and

remanded

them to the Board for

t

r

~erconsUeration with

instructions either to validate th

in dccordance with Section

27 of the Environmental Protection Act

Act) or to prepare proper

rules as substitutes~

In its npinion thc Appellate Court was

~unable to state that the Board took int

account the technical

feasibility of these rules,” and that ~‘thereis no evidence that

the Board took into account tho

c

r~ni ~‘e~onableness of these

rules for a substantial number of ~

generating units in this

state.”

The Court concluded that

tie requlations were not

promulgated in accordance with Section 27 o~the Act and were,

therefore, arbitrary and unreaconible

he Court also instructed

the Board to review ary new e’~’ide~iefr the purpose of validating

or modifying the rues

The Appellate Court decis;o~w

a pealed by the Board to

the

Illinois

Supreme Court,

~

Pollution Control

d’ard~

/

11

)~ I

~

N~E.2d 459 (1976~.

The

Supreme

Court,

rather than re’ iewiag the record and Board

Opinion to determine

qhether the Boa d hU

complied with Section

27 of the Act in promulgating tn?

~ u ~tions

declined “to

determine the velidity of Rules

03(ct

,

,

,

on the basis of

evidence adduced at hearings he~d a U

)

197. and 1972 and. the

Board~sopinion of April

13,

1972

nc4’ead, it affirmed the

Appellate

Court~sreversal and remaUed

for

further consideration,

citing the Appellate Court’s referM~ret

the “wealth of new

information”

that had been gathered

n tae Board’s inquiry hearings

and hearings on Board and Aqencv

ro ~

to amend Rule 204

(R74~2and R75~5,respectively)~

On April

8,

1976, the Board e~tored

ii

Order in R7U~23,

reopening the record for the ourpos~of validating Rule

203(g)

(1)

---

and

ordering

the

record

in

the

C’ i~

~

~

‘

proceedings,

R74—2

and

R75~5,

to

be

incorporated into

tn.

eccrd in

R71—23.

Two

subsequent hearinas were held on

Ri3-~

and R74~2,consolidated,

in May, i976~ The Board took th

no~t;or that further

hearings

were

unnecessary

in order to compi~w~n the Supreme

Court’s

mandate

which

~nvited

the

Board

to

‘~Urda~.the

regulations

in

question

in

light

of

information

gt~

~

at

the

hearings

held

subsequent to

the original ~ro’e~dln

~,

n’~

Board reviewed the

testimony and exhibits in the rhr c

d~nasand, based on the

information available in these rc

L

,

~rd

taking into consider-

ation the issues identified by the

1

alidated Rule 203(g)(1)

on July

7, i977~

The validation of the rule

a

-‘

unsuccessful.

On

September 27,

1978, the Tb’~rd

Di

‘~“~

I ~te Court again

struck

down the rule finding that

red failed to

consider intermittent control ey~

iled to have an

economic impact study prepared, tre~e~

~ed considered and had

improperly considered a report

(tfe

.

~eport”) which

included

references to material

~o

~

‘il, without affording

an

opportunity for opposing viewpcrna

o be presented (Ashland

Chemical Co. v._PoUution Control bo~re(J)781

64 Ill, App.

3d

69).

The Board did not appeal

t

it

UcLi’~r, The Board did,

however, attempt

to appeal

a simfl~deci~inin the First District,

but was

precluded from doing

RO

I’

.‘

~‘

reme Court which held

that

the Board was estopped fron ~aU a~

because it had

failed to appeal the Ashland, ah~v~l~c~-~on

which concerned

the same issues,

(The Illinois

SUte

~1:~~rber

of

Commerce,

et

al,

v.The_Pollution Control Board

(6

L’

‘~

~“‘5

~d~39,

384 N~E,

2a

922(1978),

Tten, on Feb”uary

4

i)82~

urt struck down

Rule 202(b),

the opacity rule,

i~

na

of Ce~~~Cor.

v.

Illinois Pollution Control Board

~,.

a.

(445 N.E.

2d

752

(1983)

~

its finding of eeonoiU

reasonableness and Uchnical feasib~

:j

~‘egordingthe then

invalid Rule 203(g)(l) in suppor~.ci the opacity rule,

The (ourt

concluded that since that finding Ia’ b~enheld invalid regordinq

Rule 203(g)(1),

that it was necoasarilv

,~iialidregarding th’~

opacity rule as well.

Old Rule 203(g)(1)

and 202~b

~ei

~~emainedinvalid ever

since

these

decisions

and

it

is

I’

Ui’

coUexr

that

the

pre~er$

proceeding arose.

ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE

~

I)URiS’ CONCERNS

During the lengthy

legal his~c

i

ni

“a.

invalidated rUe~ at

issue here, the issues which have to~n:U ,~iebacee of the

---

4

invalidations have been the lack of an economic impact study, the

perceived failure to consider the economic reasonableness of

simultaneous compliance with the sulfur dioxide and particulate

rules,

the failure to consider intermittent control systems and

the

reliance on the “Marder Report” ‘without allowing opposing

viewpoints to be heard,

in the present. proceedings, the Board

has attempted to respond to each of these concerns,

First, an economic impact study has been prepared,

submitted,

and considered at hearings~ Entitled “The Economic Impact of

Repromuigating the Remanded Particulate

Regulations

203(g)(i) and

202(b), R82~1,”

it was entered as Exhibit #10 on August

3,

1983,

and was considered at hearings on that date, as well as on

August 12 and September 29,

1983w

An addendum was submitted in

response to the hearing officer’s request at

the September

29,

1983 hearing as Exhibit #17.

Second, the Board hereby incorporates

by reference

the

entire record of proceedings

in R71-23, R74~2and R75—5,

except

for the Marder Report,

which was prepared by Marder and Associates

under contract to the Agency to facilitate validation of the

rules in response to the Supreme Court’s remand,

That report is

an

abstract which reviews the record of three proceedings before

the Board R71~23,R74~2, and R75~5.

It organizes the information

by

subject, summarizes testimony and exhibits, and identifies

where

each item

is

found

in

the

record,

Ithile

it

was

felt

to

be

a useful

tool,

there may be some information in

it

which

was

not

otherwise part of the record, and its deletion should preclude

any

question regarding its propriety in this proceeding,

Third, the Board has considerad the question of simultaneous

compliance with the sulfur dioxide and particulate rules,

The

hearing held on April

13,

1982,

in

particular,

focused

on

that

issue,

largely through the testimony of Berkley Moore, an engineer

with the Air Quality Planning Section of the Division of Air

Pollution Control of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

This issue will be discussed later in this Opinion.

Fourth, the Board has not considered intermittent control

systems since no one has offered such a proposal

in this

proceeding

and

since

“the

degree

of

emission

limitation

required

for control of any~air pollutant under an applicable implementa~

tion plan

.

,

,

shall not be affected in any manner by

any

intermittent or supplemental control of air pollutants” pursuant

to

Section

123

of

the

Clean Air Act

(42 U.S.C.

1857, ets~.),

Additionally, Section 9.1(a) of the Environmental Protection Act

requires the State to avoid the adoption of rules which contradict

the Clean Air Act.

Therefore, even if the Board were ~toconsider

59~86

---

5

such systems,

it

could not allow such

consideration

to affect the

emissions standards

which

it

promulgated.

Finally,

former Section

10(h)

of

the

Environmental

Protection Act (Act),

which mandated

the

Board to consider such systems,

has been deleted

and in

pertinent part has been replaced

with a provision which

states

that “emission standards for

existing fuel combustion

stationary

emission

sources located in all

areas of the State of

Illinois,

except the Chicago, St.

Louis

(Illinois) and Peoria

major

metropolitan areas

.

.

shall allow

all available

alternative

air quality control methods consistent

with federal

law”

(Section

10 of the Act)~

The Board,

therefore, believes that all of the

flaws

perceived

by the courts have been

remedied in this

proceeding.

REGULATORY

NEED FOR THE RULES

Particulates and sulfur

dioxide are criteria

pollutants for

which ambient air quality

standards have been adopted

by the

United States Environmental

Protection Agency

(tJSEPA)

under

Section 109

of the Clean Air Act.

The ambient

standards were set

at levels intended to protect

the health of the

general public

(primary

standards)

and to prevent damage to property,

vegetation,

or

other aspects

of

the

public welfare (secondary

standards).

The

levels set were based on air

quality

criteria

with

“an

adequate

margin of safety”

included for the primary

standard,

(See Board opinion in R72-7

Air Quality Standards,

18

PCB

89,

July

10,

1975).

Under Section 110 of the

Clean Air Act the

states are required

to prepare State Implementation

Plans

(SIPs) containing

control

strategies for attaining the ambient

air quality

standards,

An

important

part of the SIP is to

establish emission

standards for

each of the criteria

pollutants.

See

Section 110(a)(2)(B),

The Board has repeatedly attempted to

establish

such standards7

but all such

attempts

have been

rebuffed by the

court system.

As

a result,

USEPA has twice issued

Notices of Deficiency,

once in

1974

after

Commonwealth

Edison had challenged the

original mime,

and

again

on

July

12,

1979,

after the rules had

been successfully

attacked by Ashland Chemical,

As a

result, USEPA

could impose

sanctions upon Illinois for its failure

to establish

enforceable

particulate standards,

including

impounding federal

highway funds

and

prohibiting

industrial

expansion pursuant to

Sections

176

and

316 of the Clean Air Act,

In order

to avoid

these sanctions,

and

in

order

to

meet

the

mandate

of

the Section 9.1(a)

of the

Environmental Protection Act to

avoid conflicting

State and

federal regulatory systems, particulate

regulations

must be

adopted.

59~87

---

6

PARTICULATE EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

There is substantial documentation in the R71~23record that

technology to control particulate emissions

is well established,

The four principal control devices are cyclones, wet scrubbers,

electrostatic precipitators (ESP),

and fabric filters

(or

baghouses).

These devices can be used alone or in combination to

attain the desired removal efficiencies

(R71~23,

Ex,

32).

When

burning coal. with a 10

ash content and

10,000

Btu/lb heat

content, removal efficiencies

of

90

to

99

are

required for

compliance with the 0,1 lbs./mBtu actual heat input emission

standard, depending on the type of boiler

being

used

(R7i-23,

R.295~303,

Ex.

Ii).

The most widely used technology

for particulate

control on

large boilers is ESP

(R71—23,

Ex,

32) which involves passing the

flue gas through an electric corona as the flue gas flows through

the precipitator, placing a charge on the ash particles,

pulling

the particle out of the gas to collect on plates in the

precipitator, and periodically

rapping the

particles off the

plates.

Collection efficiency of an ESP depends on, among other

factors, the resistivity of the ash being collected, the

temperature of the flue gas,

and the velocity of the flue gas

through the precipitator.

ESP’s are able to achieve more than

99

removal in utility operations

(R71~23,Ex,

32,

33 34,

35),

Testimony of representatives of utilities and industry

verified their ability to achieve the particulate emission standards

(R7U23~pp.

2074—82, 3842~43,2285~6,2308~10,2465~66).

Existing sources which are not presently in compliance with the

proposed rule may require modification of

already

operating ESP~s

to comply with the regulation, and

continued compliance

over time

would require proper operation and

maintenance

of the equipment.

However,

as an example of potential ESP life and efficiency,

a

unit built in 1929 by Commonwealth Edison at a design removal

efficiency of 82—83

was running close to 98

efficiency in 1971

as a result of several rebuildings (R71~23,pp. 3867~68),

As stated above, the effectiveness of an ESP is dependent.

upon the resistivity of the ash being collected,

That

resistivity is,

in turn,

affected by the sulfur content of the

coal which is burned:

the higher

the sulfur content

of the

coal, the less resistive the ash and the higher the efficiency,

However,

the

higher

the

sulfur

content

of the coal,

the greater

the difficulty of meeting the SO2

standards.

This

is one of the

59~88

---

7

problems

ti

~

t~’e

‘ourts found

the Board had not adequately addressed:

simultaneous ~c~piiance with both the particulate and sulfur

dioxide emia~onctandards,

Testimony was given that if

a facility

burned low sulfur coal

(less than 1

sulfur content)

as a means

to oomph

with the SO2 emission standard,

its ESP collection

efficiency would drop substantially because of the higher

resistivity of the fly ash,

Mr. Andrew Bhan,

testifying on

behalf of

the Igercy in R75~5,discussed the difference in

resistivities between high and low sulfur coals,

The generally

accepted theory for this difference is that sulfur trioxde

(SO3)

in the

fInc gas reduces fly ash resistivity, and that SOa

is

virtually abin:i~from the low sulfur coal flue gas.

A cdmparison

of flue gas co~~~e~itrations

shows 50 ppm SO3 from 3.5

sulfur coal

and

5 ppm SO~frea 0.5

sulfur coal

(R75~5,pp. 539~42),

~ test

conducted by”Comricnwealth Edison showed that particulate

emissions increased from 0.16 to 0.26 lbs./mBtu when the coal

sulfur content was reduced from 2.0

to 0.8

(R71~23,pp.

2079~-80)~The ~x~eriences of several other facilities

Uteirp~’ing

to control ~aUiculates

while burning low sulfur coal were

described in

:tner testimony (R71~23,pp. 17O5~10)~

At the April

13,

1982, hearing in R82~1,Berkley

hore

introduced T~’xhibits I and

2 regarding the issue of simnita~ea”

compliance

lie testified that those exhibits “show

ti-at tter~

are a great nurneer of sources that are in fact right now

n

compliance with both’ the sulfur dioxide and particulate

(4/13/82,

p 9).

Exhibits

1 and

2 are tables listing ccrnp~ian”c

data for all sources which must simultaneously comply with

‘~

e

sulfur dioxide and the particulate rules,

Given that the

liain

has now adopted relaxed sulfur dioxide rules applicabe

a.

“crc

of these sur’e’

all sources listed in those exhibit” arc U

compl~ance ~th t’~esulfur dioxide standards.

In the Chicago MMA,

10 of the 52 sources or 19

are

ut

‘~.

compUance

(4~13’82,

R,14 and Ex,1),

Of those 10 whiet

ire

of compliance

8 are not ordinarily operated.

Of the two

remaining sources the Commonwealth Edison~Waukegan3255 nItu

facility requires 98.20

control and is attaining 98.00

‘catin

and its Will County 1728 matu/hr,

facility requires 86 00

ca~r~i’

and

‘s attaining 85.00

control

(4/13/83,

Ex.1).

In

t

e Pe~r ~

and Ot.

touis MMA’s 10 of the 83 sources or 12

are out,

“u

compliance (4/13/82,

R.15 and Ex.2).

Of those

10,

3

a. e

ordinarily not operated.

Celotex has

2 sources reguirinc

control which are attaining 94.00;

CILCO~Edwardshas

twc

facilities requiring 97,98

and 98.48,

both of whici-

~

95.00;

CILCO—Wallace

has

2

facilities

requiring

97.44

wflich

er~

attaining 94.00;

Commonwealth Edison~Powertonhas one facLJt1

requiring

-06.77

control which is attaining 95.71

cortrr1.

~u’i

---

8

the Mascotv~

:~

pant requi~e~

S5~.68

control and is sttaining

8O~OO conur

&/~h/82,Lx 2)~ other sources arouni the State

need not

Cjt~

si

~tueo

sly

qstl

2~3(g)

1) and 7O~(’(1(A)

(4/13’&l,

r~.

Mr

i~

ed

t~~e.

that the number

c

o

-ces not

~ I

i~gwi h the par’iuulate

limit

is pretty ouch the

r

)~

~ t simu tsneous romplianco ~‘ith

I)

i~alc’o an

ssue~

‘~‘c

s~

conpliance aoparentlv doeen

t

~ca ty

~

o1s~ty

or tie willingness of

5

U

~‘PS

tO

i~

he nartJcu~atolimits,

the largcr sources

~tl

eliot o Utic

~ irs

lad

a bit tore dl~±~~

;y

yiiji

with th

particulate

~init

~cr

y

~

I ~ °ulfurrca

The Agen’y

a~

t

rys

u~.

tt

is

isthrcare,

But

q

a

~

tn-’

on a~dd

c n~ly~

(41

3

The

re

u~

~~L’at~s,as the Board found

ii

R~1 2

-e

esp~ 27 ?(~B

-r

cy~)j

tiat

there

ar?

available

cornt

facil~.es

~

no

3P equipner~which are tccl~

feasihle a~L.

)z

ic~ ly reaconable to attain simults cc

i’

comp~an-e

r~

ii

a~orahlebeing flue gas cordit crt

u

t

least four ccii

s

/

-c ditionarg are available

rd

?

use ot

sui

r

d

qui

sulfar dioxide

oulfi.

bnri’ro

and liquth

d~

As

th _o rI

o nd ~n

‘~1

.thon presented to the Board readily

al’~

g

t

conclude that narticulate control

cc. ~

s~

i..~

cry we

1 developed, and it is

~auab

acI:~

~:nultaneous compliance witl part~cu~r

0

s

~

d.

i

is emiasior standards,

The ~worst

~

1

f

t.

~

*

~a

sous rotplie~se is when an e3Cst’rq

ri

one

)f

tic three major metropo

t

a ~:

r&d’

-

~ owitched frs high (3~5)

to lc?

at

i

a

-

~o comp y with the 1,8 lbs

/MJBfl

j

SC

o

1-;is

~ rc gas -onditioning is

~Uc~it

b~

P

t~

in

t

~a~es, end ca~be installed

cithin

li

t

ii.

it~iodsci-d witi nodest costs,

sta

athc

Ic.

rY-n

—~

reourewts

Pot precip~°.er~

~

-

-c

-:

ii

,1~

thing on site design and cos~.s nunsve4~

Jr

/

cc

Cc

thut there are many source’

•jr

~o

~

worst crse

-onditions

Simu ~

58-90

---

9

ccii

~a~e

fcr smalle- exathing sou ces ray not be

a

1cc.

or they are not using an ESP for

part

culate

t~:.itro1, hut rather are ussng another devin

tot

s,~

~u

by

changes

in ash conductivi ~

N~i

f~ccntj-.c

timing

low sulfur coal wil

be able to

~-

:lk)r

particuate

cortrol

syste

s

usrnj

the

a

r-~~eVe

revival

devices

as

necessary

to

cinpiv

with

tre

cuc’dc~th

Large

sources

outs~deo~the

MMA

s

are

5u

tdc U,

6 lbs,/MMrU

aBtu

sulfur dioxm

e standard,

C

yl nt

they

would rrobably ire wa°bd

c

*

3

The

di.

rue

th

resis

isity

would be emall at

the sulfur

cc~£nt

if

washed coal, with a simUarly sral’

effect

i~ rr*cienc,es

Tnere mai also be

wc

ising

a

4c~

r~.lrurcoal which has

a by

ash cot

uch that

ever,

at

lower ESe efficiency tnere woube

i.e

x

s

ish

to

from

the

gas

with

no

ret

change

ii aa~saons,

27 FOB Ci-

Nothing

in

Jr,

ec-rd cf this oroceciding mer

s

ar

NI

those

findi’-r

Based

r

U

evidence,

the Bard

finds U

clearly

tec1

‘:c

II-

feasible to simultaneously c

p ~

Ut

the

propose~

~..

thc’ilate rule and the su’fur dioiad~

since

the

*

-.

e~

r,,Uy

of affe-ted

s u”ec ar

a~.

-

doing

so,

-,

+

r~i°

ev5dence

also

goe”

cc

onj

way

th

demonstrat’

.‘

~.e nrnic

reasrnal

eness

f the

am

‘-

..

o

rule,

Ho

r

(F

e

,s

consderably more infc

at

M

consider

r

...

~ard

:

iJr

IMPACt (~

PU) thE

R*LE

The

F’cc

‘ut.

.~mmaryof

the

Econom.c Impact St cy

$**~rI9r~in

this matteu ccr~nto.as’

Becausr,

w

iources

remain

out-~othcon~e’i’-~,

~

ulgation

of

muths

203(g)(1) and 202(b)

is not e

,aethec

impact

v~ry

ctrceab’ly

on

the

Illinois

economy

i~

Board

aoprovi.r.

of

P82—i

should

have

little

effec

ii

t

overt

~ai

tb+lity

of

goods

and

services

Fe

tie

ner

~e

of

the

state

o”

should

it

hava

much

impact

on

ag~i~

-

tare,

~o-J

-nvsmnrent,

commerce

or

rndustry,

1.

- -

-

if

the

avoidance

of

nearly

5400

million

in

Clean

\

Ac

penaU-~es

Ia

assumed

to

result

from

revabidation

it

fcfl”w°

C

U)

a11

of those

sect’ rs wit

tX~ai~

..

-

sign~f:c~.r

o~cefi”

in

the

form

of

averted

f

nd

cc

i.~

ses

and

tt

*

s’

~ai

ted

secondary

effects

(Ex,

U

59-91

---

to

ftc

‘~‘

t~~••

StQh fiSet5XCai

,cq1tt

r

‘

Rule

P31

,

r

Ut

t tie Açercy, -r

itt.

pen.tt

.rj p

‘

c~

has

acted ~

Phoiijh

the ruI°~

h&d

rrnr bee

in’

-

rot.ed

Despse

:‘

tv

-P.c

Pgcr

7

flO

W~

Pd

.‘

I

whicht

bac

r~tteee.rtpvt~uj’

a

..

•~t.

establ~sPec

c

.

wtich

itt

‘et

nat

I

~1.

t

Statei

“C.’

~ cceirerotY~

a

~n

ia.c’n

-.swath

203(g’

I

a

..‘

wouti

usu~J1y

~

cc.

ga4

ut.

to

assure n~sp

C4..tt.

v

~t

tie

r ~

‘t’

-

.0

~

‘13

‘

the

Act

‘

F’c~r~~

Pore

u

eels

cc

-

r.

naj

‘~

.s

punt

byetharcat

ctya

qc.Aaplton*

a.a

~

orby

pertormsw~.(

..

e

~1 torque

,~

lo

o

-‘ate

that

alt.

t

-

‘on’

U’

1 rp

~..

qualit

‘ta’

~.c’

5

icc-

ii

c

poll v

Pet

een

.

the W~rne.ka

s~

‘-s..

vc. Plait haag be r

r atc’

r

standard

The

.h.

•

Ic

43

t

‘7

-

55

assum

4

-act or ft

•e

i,

e~

r at

r

)

.1

rice’

(Ex

‘.

.

.ezcurc

1

Gb

•

)se

facsV

~

-

P

l~evd

-

presen’y

s us ~.et

enit a~ntct”

b

3

203(g)()

.

a’

w

ch v.11 ul4nate.ly b

r cu

r

~

w th

astr&tet

w-..~.

3

tIt11_t

kopl tv’

cl

‘

under a

-.

‘

‘-.‘~

.

ni.on,

rd

ret

aotrce

•

3

OfthO3L

-

•

‘

iaenctprtc.r

7

operate

a

•

9

-re

aed cn a star

y

Dl.

-

4

i

shut dc n

.

-

rev~na

r~ 0 ~a

e

forptr’

t

~ercLnottanme’~

-.

x

r56

to

i

.

.

tcl

‘4i.

-

value

-

bei4ett

iat

3

s

diffs3ult

c st

oi4e,

etroc’ ansi

“

oa’

cP.

..

emiqr-)n

~e1’C

~

.-4tagy.

“ha ct-;ly a~samed

cs

o

itrt’

fiie.

•‘C

efl.tl’173

‘u

u

&.

-

for

htj~’~..1’

‘esofabout$4

ral’

*

r

uit’t

a

r

•z.

r

of

abrut

~

pe-cez~

¶ow~v

~.,

30 i’urce’

s

‘-‘

t~poiulg

tsor

tav~stu

-

1

y

sfnotvst

say

dY

3)

-

reqatdsc ~

t

t’urd’a ru.sna

st

S(t~

n~

..z

I

--

equa

nufl~’

s

-cc

4

e used

c.

‘

r

whici’

the.

o*rat-r;

nay

r.oos.

to

•t’r~

ft e

s’

•a

•

cs

which are o

‘se-a “ig’ls nec

is th tha

-

‘c Mc.

u

.-outneb.~c

it indnnu4tzed~ontrt

3

3’

eC

rtllion,

•

~•

s1~

‘t*ttrt3t.

I

“

The

be

.f

t.’ o

‘epros’u gat4Qr

t

C.

a~

) •rj

50

‘P

---

Ii,

cons’i~.

~

*

ttm

es;n.

r~

,

:~‘~ ai~itat

ma

a~

reduced

dama;a

1,

‘,

vu

-ve3m~re,

~e’r

r

nodebta;

ndicates

that

Ui

a

i

Ui,

:tree

locations

prcmubaatitn

of

the

proposed

3

rules

will

eo

icc

a~abient

T~Pconce atrat

~s

by

less

tha

a

I

ug/m

on

an

anpuat

se

~e,

with

the

grc. ate’

*

are

tic

ted

in

rement

being

5,4

uci’r’~

lh~ c

-timated

he;l

ii

~c~

ethc

teia

o

$73,000

per

vaar

i~

c;17 )Llars,

althoun

n at

ycto

m

st

be

ngarded

as

a

1ower

“i’

c~ice only

tiuta

p’ct

gra

c

that

-

ug

were

evalcUal

~‘

U

ant

errors

i~j

~

rv,

~

r

i

at

es

in

the

dun

c~

-

c

ic’entc

tn~~ns

-r

a

a’

e’

a

work

of

Dr,

A

*

(F

U

Nat

canceC’c

F

-

-

**

cc

better

than

cr/N’,

ccu

tade”ac,ir

t

F

irybya

factu’r

‘a

a

,

i

~

cay

o

impact

wh

at

N)

3d

‘csutt

fron

a

of

USE~

,)

i)j’

the Clean A

deficier’

-

I

‘ma

SIP lue

U

for the

s

~r’

-

Cane there

t

that ruch

a: thoac

wall

be impone

i

a

inabiU’y t

.Lo’

‘

tamnment with

‘

*

exposes tbt

State Cc a possible

en

U

w’

highwa~f’

r,r

,

Y

--

ii lion in sew

‘je

*

-.

r

$12

cv’

t

‘r-r.

‘

‘

-~

operatinq

at

of read

F

*

-

a y

dutwe)OF

-F

VT OAT

Er&’SUOti

-

(F)

CU)

6’

cc

*

pon the v~

-a

~—a

are

C

a

U’

r

tag

familiar, and

a

la1,

-e

7

vc~

Ut

ssailed by

5

ci”

—a,--’ d ~

*

U ry

S

F

,ct

i

if their

maC- ±(-tt’fl

-

r

F

Armcu~,a ~

(FOr

(R 70—15, ~

61) 21, 6a2—5

,

2’

the o

a

—r

I-aU)

pending considerable ia-proven at

‘c

mcn~t1~~ng

pa’cctices,

in many case: the appeara

&

opagr plum

nay be the best a”aliable evidence of

ope- at on,

With all its dratba-k,,

t-re’ore,

th

standard

i~an indispensable er’c:acrc-

tool,

a

the apnrarnc’ of an emission reS

-s

~tl

U)

cc

concerns

hich should not be ovoricokec

t

Ui

TOT

control

-n

a

‘-ic ated,

ma-

Jr

—

—I

—

in

accent4,fic

F

‘u

per

ri-ca,

th-atac

en

‘lie to Tcico,

fcasiblility of

orply

tUE tic

-

opacLy

standard was ~-‘tahLshed in P73—23

(1.

8/

-

pp,

25

257

and 300)

‘~

1,,ad Cam Reddl, an A en

v

‘mild

a

dec

rib

*a cal—

a

5

-5

~

a

,

a

in RU

-,

is the

i

ator

-

the

ion

-lL,nois

ax

in

n

-

d r”arly

F

macfits

a

tcards

c_ag. naT

u

-ac-

r

r~c

--

-ç-

April

14

~-

-

59-93

---

12

culata

*

F-a p~-rforrv

and

a

of bo

cc

-*

rang cod

of difthre-a ~

N

the prclo”c:

-

ac aty Dtandard of

) ~

perma’

a-- U,,

:rU’iJed ‘~at~

-a

-

boilu

*

‘,

a p

£

-

rulat_

lii

i~’

-

30

o

-t

a. Rule 2021k

Urn

t

-

a

ource

U n-

S ma

30

c4ar-C

a lt’turs,

tEe a”

*

thee

-*

part cu’

£

was

sri

-_

-

standar

-.

the

)oa

econo

ii

-

plianc’ w

comply

that

c-r

-

reaso

a-b

e-

of th

c r

-

‘IF Fri PT’

V

*

P

‘-nrc

-

prova.

-

a’

-

that

equi

cer

-inc

‘

-

perfo

prov.

‘on

-

hay

therm

a

U

-

CC’

7Cc

na

Li-,

a

U)’

-

Coipany

(IPC

-

a-”-

ax

f

U)

rui-

could

Fe

underm

~,.

b

a

‘Ta

‘

accu

ed

r

CU)

a

cc

methods,

-

I

a

ma

C

t

perfo

a

no

t

-,t’

d

n~ bj

IPC

nd

axac

ma

at

dint-

U’~’

lose

astheAgencya

nu

,anA

tests

ray

n

:‘

r4-aningfuliy

cot

ma

~

r,

I

ma

Uov~

-

a

eg

4,pantperf

n-n

es

an

*

thar

tuth

4cU

terefore

190

re~

t~

aat

ax

a

prono°

4

S

ct

an

2.203

to

al

ow

s-

f

a

a

-

tin’1

U

-

Ii

cr

g3nma

dcig

‘

-r

iii.,

-

c

pu

poac

o

taR

tat

~-‘

~rcaxguaifies

North

&

a

a

ent

types

art

nC

ax,

d

meet

‘U

car

-

gency

t_z

‘be”

a

t

r,

U)s

Lhe

rrher,

the

c

çroposed

/

u~atoc-

a

U

he

Liadirig

of

e-~

a

Un’

was

p,

iii

c

adaad0

and

opaci’y

ma

ço

c~’rtr

‘cit~

a

also

set

aside

wa

a.

to

ac’oir

found

tic’-

a

v

s

abe

and

technc

‘csc

-tandards

wall

-

c’y

Umitat’c~s

a’

-Ci.

tie

opacity

i

a

cc

n

cal~y feasia

e

1-

U

C

t

I

.1*

511

,Adm

Cc.

-

a

Ic.

203

g

(1)

C

-

*

a-

t

ccUs~,io

ra

-

‘

,-

c

cstcond

ci

—‘-an

on

aopting

-tween

the

-

rding

*1

tawever,

‘F-c

a

-

a

Na

c-ax

lax

of

-

F

-to

‘

a

Ft

ci,

jar

t-

Cc

a-~

it

otron

aides

datons

at

~

•

cagnize

“the

eqa

‘ax

~s

I

ul stan-nab

‘xc

17

‘ii

‘

ma

‘-0

Hat

n

t

c-a

*

-

le”

(P71—23

Op

1

c-I

N

U)

N

—

—t~

1

C,

~,nD

i

at

F

N

oaenta~

4-1-

--

‘

at

59

*

---

-

‘~.

f-artier

argues

that

cu’re--~

-a

degraca—

-Ia

than

the

test

method-

-

CilP

-

origir

a’

ax ui-pee at

performance

te’

-

-

a

degradathon

tiny

be

caused

by

the

cn~1 y,.

-‘

than

by

artn:,~

urgradation,

190

-a

~

*

meant-”

o

ca

ang

this

problem

is

1-

--

demon

traCe

a

lack

of

excessive

degr

perfo~ccd

inSet

load

conditions

ej:av

ax

perfom’nanc’-

test

conditions,

but

-‘

woucd

irma’-

added

costs

and

be

ci

brief,

2/Iu/83,

pp,

9~10),

It

thai

~

silapler

mcans”

of

allowing

sources

.

*

2l2,20~

exemption

except

for

failcax

criteria

to

be

subjected

to

a

hit-

-

mea -urea

hy

cnrrent

test

methodolmm

design

or

perlormance

standards,

The

brency

opposes

these

chancax

data

‘aili

to

support

its

conclusi

a

radatioa

p

ovision

is

being

circumy

~a

testing

rout

ements

either

as

tc

I

-

-

tnere

are

numerous

sources

which

cuat

provisicn

as

originally

adopted,

‘a’

has

no’

witnessed

any

significant

ax

plant

ralle

to

‘rect

the

degradat~c

differ

cc

In

he

tests

and

that

C:

c-

so

dc’s

mU

-Un

nce

(R~ 9/29/83

1

argues

that

tie

record

does

not

supp

IPC’s

,r’pond

amendments

would

to’

‘ax

,k

-

‘-‘

ac-mats

that

the

-*

pe

y

--

aay

indicate

La

a

incrase

euiasiors

by

0,1

lbs,/mB

u

art

aoa

impactinc

air

quality,

but

that

the

a:

em

appLe

to

marrceo

in

MMA5

and

ax

tatta

n

“a,

regulations

whr’h

would

permit

am

ore-

a

or

sources

in

such

areas,

it

arjuca

~u

he

\goncy

aas

idc’ntified

sources

in

tae

Ha

-

riss’aoa

I

icr’

ts

could

be

increased

-

r

t’~

an’ndmentr

(Ex,

15),

and

point

ar

axcreaaea

ataye

not

been

addressW

a

..genr

urjea

t1-e

Board

to

,adopt

th~

U

i’-4

oiler

0”‘

January,

1982,

pm

m

ax

Seas’

a

-ai

ecoaomically

reasonat

-

-

a

cc-u)’

wi ~-h

_t,

Ha-a

Boar-cd

cress

with

IPC

that

F

a’

*

C

-

aom~vi~g

Cia-

coAts

of

the

mar

a

a

a

*

‘

-

a..

13

1,

-~

,er

ac

-

the

a

*

~

accessiye

-

tier

*

p

-aces

*

-

~asto

-

PC

-

utah

-

a

a”tion

-

dation

a—

‘

own

a

deg~

ci

‘-ncy

s

-

I__c

-c

Ft

.4-/

ma

ai

a

i

-

a

r

My

‘“cc)

I

,

ax

tans

/

-

cite

I’

a

—

I

U’

n-ar

-

a’-”

-

-

-

ar~cd

a

/1

1

-Y

59-95

---

:~~2s5

~d

~

The

Board

also

agrees

that

thss~ th~le:

have

not

been

quantified,

although

there

is

reason to

hei~.ev~that

current

test

methods

yield higher

emission

levei~

~

~l

The

l3oath

does not

agree,

however,

with

all

o~

~

aietthtonts

~oposed

to remedy this

problem.

~:?c

~

pr~po~ol

that

allowable

degradation

be

calculated

in

ccp~rit~n

to

the

more

representative

of

either

the

original

design

or

-

nipoent

performance

test

conditions

rather

than

the

of

~s

i’~nhas

merit,

hut

is

also

rather

vague.

Therefore,

the

Board

wri)

Dr~oae

language

which

will

mandate

the

use

of

the

str.icter

~onditions,

except that

if

the

equipment performance

test

cond~Aons

are

stricter,

but

are

based

upon

less

than

full

load

operation,

~ihiie

the

orginal

design

conditions

are

based

upon

full

Load

operation,

the

original

design

conditions

may

be

used

to

~ietermine

the

level

of

degradation0

The

~3oard

does

not,

however,

agree

that

sources

qualifying

for

the

~ecti’n

212

203

exemption

should

be

simply

limited

to

0.2

lbs~/m3tr

as

measured

by

the

current

test

method

rather

than

that

of

an

increr~ent

of

0

05

lhs~ImBtu

up

to

a

limit of 0.2

lbs./ml3tu.

While

there

l~ evidence

demonstrating

that

the

IPC

proposal

should

not

:~eoparthze air

quality

standards

(R0

8/12/83,

302—303),

comrnon

sense

dictates

that

an

increase

in

allowable

emissions

wilI

have

sons

ii~pact upon

air

quality.

Such

an

increase

should

not

be

perw~tted

absent

some

showing

that

it

is

necessary

to

ef±ecbuate

tic

intent

of

the

exemption~

The

present

record

contains

n~ ~oh

evidence

The

vi: :~

o?

of

Winnetka

argues

that

simply

limiting

gual-~

if

y:~ng soir~~

1~ fl

25

lbs.

/mBtr

wou~d he

appropriate

rather

than

the

0

2

:,h~

‘ar-s

fagure~

Wh~le the

Board

has

rejected

both

“s~mp:iP~

appracies~.

the

Village’s

comment

does

point

out

an

ambiguity

o± the

rule

as

proposed,

The

introductory

language

of

Section

222

if

2

copears

to

prohibit

emissions

greater

than

0~

2

lbs~/rn33tu, whereas

subseotion~

(a~ and

(b)

appear

to

allow

0~2

nius

0~05 or

~2l

ihs~/mBtu~

The

Board

finds

that

the

Viilage~s

jer~retsti

e~ is

the

correct

one

and

will

ai~end

the

introductory

:nq-~iaq~o~ i~c~

ion

212

20

~

to

c ~arity

the

ambiguity~

Pinal

Ly

l~~C

s

suggestion

iCwhich

it

has

not

proposed

due

to

the

exi~ensa of

te~ting)

that

a

source

he

allowed

to run emission

tests

under

tb~ tame

condit:~ona as

the

original

test

(i3e,

at

~uw~e pe~:cc~ntaf

e

~

F:il

load;

would.

eLfectuate the

intent of the

~

r~r~rejore,

the

Boarc~wrll

:r~

opose

to

allow

sources

to

use

~-~omr~arison

testing

to

establish

compliance with

the exemption.

---

15

~DJUDTCATORYSITE~SPECIFIC

RELIEF

‘P~ also

proPoses

adding

a

mechanism

to

Section

212,203

whereby

site-~specific

alternative

standards

could be established

to

givo

reliti

t~ those

emission

sources

otherwise

unreasonably

impacled

by

~net

eection~

The

proposed

mechanism would allow an

alternative

standard

to

be

set in

an

adjudicatory proceeding

patterned

after

similar

provisions

contained

in

35 Ill. Adm, Code

2i4~185 and

302~21L

The

IPC

proposal

would

apply to emission

sources

lo’ated

in

attainment

areas

and

would

require the source

to

prove

t±d~

the

r~quested

emission

rate

would

not, under worst

case

c~r~rnstances

cause

or

contribute

to

a violation of the

National

Anbicn~t

A

Quality

Standards

for

particulates

or

exceed

any

applicanle

i~rement

for

particulates

under the Prevention of

Sign

fic~nt

no

~r~lration

provisions

of

the

Clean

Air

Act,

1PC

arg~ ~

that

the

emissions

standards

contained in Section

212~2O3 w~rt

~t~thlished

on

a

state—wide

basis

and have not been

set

~o

as

to

thre

into

account

the

special

conditions

which

may

concern

ird~ ‘ift:al

sources

(See

R

8/12/83,

405—07).

Consequently,

the

standards

nay

be

more

stringent

than

are

necessary for certain

sources

to

at~ain

and

maintain

air

quality

(R,

8/12/83

355—56)~

Senate

Bill

~2;

which

has

recently

gone to the Governor’s desk

for

his

signatu~s

specifically

allows

the

Board to provide

by

regulation

fez

ti

subsequent

determination

of

an adjusted

standard

for

persons

the

c~n justify

such

an

adjustment

consistent

with

Section

27(-~

2

he

Act,

The

regulation

of

general

applicability

shall

;pei.

~l

level

of

justification

required

of

a

petitioner

to

qua’ ify

rot

an

adjusted

standards

Establishing

such

a

procedure

by

rule

ls~ ho

‘ever,

discretionary,

and

the

Board finds that

the

record

conthi

i

Icc

ufficient

support

for

the

establishment

of

‘uch

~n

t1~is rulemak~ng

IPC

ecit-~n~nl~y

argues

two

points:

first,

an adjudicatory

proceeding

i~ f~t?:

and

less

expensive

than a

regulatory

proceeding,

and

‘~ecord

-~-1cLt if the proposed standards

will

leave some

increment

fo

growth

in

attainment

areas,

such increment

could

prop~rly

he

~sed

by

a

source

which

is

unreasonably impacted

by

the

particulate

standards,

These

same

two

points could be

raised

~n

any

pro

~di’g

regarding

emission

standards

for criteria

pollutants,

~nd

sir,~ilar points

could

probably

be

made with

respect

to

any

rule

of

thneral

applicability~

Thus,

unless SB 1862

is

to

he

read

to

~liO~

the

nearly

wholesale

avoidance

of the otherwise

pp)icable

r~gu~tcn’yprotections,

there

must

be

a

greater

just~

---

ificatzo:

tL~n

iat

which

has

been

presented

in

this

record.

As

the

Age

~

a~gues,

there

must

be

some

showing

of

special

circum-

stances

to

~ustify

such

expedited

procedures,

and no such showing

has

be~az

ii

nc3

her~

hflNETKA~TE-EClFlC~Q~T

The

Vi. laqo

cf

Winnetka

argues

that

the

record

in

this

matter

~enon~trates

that

there

is

no

environmental

need

for

furth~.

par~cu~’a5e controls

at

its

power

plant, that the proposed

rules

would

impose

an

unreasonable

economic hardship upon

it,

and

that

th~ adoption

of

rules

which

would

require greater control of

emissions

f’on

its

electric

plant

would

be unlawful,

the

Village

contends

that

an

August

10,

1983,

Hearing Officer

Order,

gether

~ith

evidentiary

rulings

at

the

hearings

held

Auguth

1983

improperly

limited

its

rights

to

have the

Board

~make

different

provisions

as

required by cireum—

s

ances

for

different

contaminant

sources

and

for

different

geog

aphical

areas”

and

otherwise

to

take

into

account

site

specific

facts

in

this

general

rulemaking,

all

as

mandated

by

SEction

2’(a)

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act,

La~d

that

if

Rule

203(g)(1)IA;

and

203(g)(1)(C) are adopted

as

th

ti’s

village’s

plant,

the

Board

will not have

performed

its

duty

to

4take

into

account

the existing

physical

conditions

the

char~cer

of

the

area involved,

including the

character

of

surro’

nd

ng

land

uses,

zoning

classifications, the nature

0’

ext~

~i’ij

ai~ quility

,

•

and

the

technical

feasibility

ard

ceo

u

reasonableness

f

measuring

or

reducing

the

part~u~. r

type

of

air

pollution,~

all

of which it

must

do

before

i~

ray

lawfully

adopt

a

rule.

‘Clueing

Submissions,

12/10/83, p.7)

The

Board

disagrees.

The

Village

has

no ~rights~

to

have

the

Board

make

dfferent

provisions

for

different sources,

rather

the

Board

“may

do

so”

(Section

27(a)

of

the

Act).

Further,

sirnp~y b~

use

the

Board

must

“take

into

account.

•

the

chara~’ter

t

‘—he

area

involved,”

it

need

not

allow

the full

presentatl)’

‘f

what,

in

effect,

is

a

showing

for

site~specifrc

relief.

This

proceeding

can

be

considered

to

have

been

in

progr~sa

,zuce

1371,

Not

until

August

of

1983 did

the

Village

requesl.

an

ad~rF~n~al

hearing

to

consider

its

facility.

That

request

was

denied

by

the

August

10,

1983,

Hearing Officer

Order,

The

Aigust

3,

1983

evidentiary

rulings

referred to

were

also

basel

upon

the

hearing

officer’s

perception

that

the

Village

was

---

17

attempting

to

enlarge

the

scope

of

the

proceeding

to

include

site—specific relief for the

Village.

The

hearing

of

fi.cer~s

rulings

are

upheld.

The

Village

was

allowed

sufficient,

latitude

to

present

evidence

which

is

relevant

to

the

pro~ulgatJ.on

of

a

rule

of

general

applicability

which

was

the

purpose

of

this

rulemaking.

The

Village

has

no

right,

and

the

Board

has

no

duty,

to

go

beyond

that.

If

the

Village’s

reasoning

were

taken to

its

logical

extreme,

the

Board

would

be

forced

to

allow

detailed

testimony

regarding

each

specific

source

in

the

State

which

could

concievably

be

affected by a rulemaking

proceeding.

In

effect,

the

Board

could

be

forced

to

adopt

site-specific

rules

for each affected source.

The Act, through

its provisions for variance and site-specific regulations,

recognizes that such specificity is not possible.

The Board

will

not,

on

the basis of this record, exempt the

Village from

the

proposed general

rule,

In a related matter George

E. Bullwinkel,

on his own behalf

and on

behalf

of certain citizens of the Village of Winnetka,

filed a

motion

on February

2,

1984,

to

incorporate by reference

the hearing

record in

R80—22,

a site—specific sulfur dioxide

proceeding filed

by

the Village,

That motion

includes

objections

to

any

site—specific

relief being granted

to

the Village

in this

proceeding,

and

the

motion

to

incorporate appears

to

be directed

at

insuring

that

no

such

relief

is

granted.

As

stated

earlier,

the

hearing

officer

has

attempted

to

distinguish

testimony

directed

toward

site-specific

relief

and

information

directed

toward

a

regulation

of

general applicability

and

has

attempted

to

exclude

site-specific

testimony.

The Board

has

upheld

that

effort.

and

has

declined

to propose site—specific relief

in this

proceeding0

Therefore, the Board finds that the record in R80—22

is

irrelevant and the motion

is hereby denied.

PROPOSED

ACTION

The

Board

proposes

to readopt the particulate

and

opacity

rules

generaLly

as

proposed

and

exactly

as

they

have

been

codified.

at

35

Ill.

Mm.

Code

212.201

—

212,204

and

212.123,

except

that

the

Board

Notes

relating

to

the

invalidation

of those

rules

will

be

deleted

and as noted in this Opinion.

The

Board

declines

to

eetabLi~h

any expedited procedure

for

site—specific

relief

as

proposed

by

Illinois

Power

and further

declines

to

grant

any

site’~’specific

relief

to the

Village

of Winnetka

in

this

procseding~.

Winnetka

may

seek

relief

in

a

separate proceeding

where a

narrower

focus

is

possible,

or

through

a

variance,

which,

if

filed

within

20

days

of

the

adoption

of

these

rules

would

stay

the

application

of

the

rules

to

it.

---

ORDER

The

Board

hereby

proposes

for

first

notice

the

repromulgation

of

35 Ill.

Ada.

Code

212.201

a

(deleted language is lined

through);

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

B;

AIR

POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

SUBCHAPTER

c:

EMISSION

STANDARDS

AND

LIMITATIONS

FOR

STATIONARY

SOURCES

PART

212

VISUAL AND

SUBPART A:

GENERAL

Section

212.100

Scope

and

Organization

212.110

Measurement Methods

212.111

Abbreviations and Units

212.112

212.113

Incorporations by Reference

SUBPART B:

VISUAL

EMISSIONS

Section

212.121

Opacity

Standards

212.122

Limitations for Certain

New

Sources

212.123

Limitations for All Other Sources

212.124

212.125

Determination of Violations

SUBPART

D:

PARTICULATE MATTER

EMISSIONS

FROM

INCINERATORS

Section

212.181

Limitations

for

Incinerators

212.182

Aqueous

Waste

Incinerators

212.183

Certain

Wood

Waste

Incinerators

212.184

Explosive

Waste

Incinerators

SUBPART

E:

PARTICULATE

MATTER

EMISSIONS

FROM

FUEL

COMBUSTION

EMISSION

SOURCES

59-100

---

19

Sect

ion

212.201

Existing

Sources Using Solid Fuel

Exclusively

Located in the Chicago Area

212.202

Existing Sources Using Solid Fuel

Exclusively

Located

Outs

ide

the

Chicago

Area

Existiny

Controlled Sources Using Solid

Fuel

Exclusively

New

Sources

Using Solid

Fuel

Exclusively

Existing Coal-fired

Industrial

Boilers

Equipped

with

Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems

Sources Using

Liquid

Fuel

Exclusively

Sources Using More Than One

Type

of Fuel

Fugitive Particulate Matter

Geographical Areas

of Application

Conveyor Loading Operations

Traffic Areas

Materials

Collected by Pollution Control Equipment

Spraying

or

Choke-Feeding Required

Operating Program

Minimum Operating Program

Amendment

to Operating Program

Emission

Standard for Particulate Collection Equipment

Covering for Vehicles

SUBPART

L:

PARTICULATE

MATTER EMISSIONS

FROM

PROCESS

EMISSION

SOURCES

Sect

ion

212. 321

212.322

212

323

New

Process

Sources

Existing

Process

Sources

Stock

Piles

SUBPART N:

FOOD MANUFACTURING

Sect ion

212.361

Corn Wet Milling Processes

212.203

212.204

212.205

212,206

212.207

212.208

SUBPART

K:

FUGITIVE

PARTICULATE

MATTER

Section

212.301

212.302

212.304

212.305

212.306

212.307

212.308

212.309

212.310

212.312

212. 313

212. 314

212.315

b9-1O1

---

20

SUBPART

0:

PETROLEUM REFINING,

PETROCHEMICAL

AND CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING

Section

212,

381

Section

212,441

212,442

212.443

212.444

212.445

212.446

212.447

212.448

212.449

212.450

212.

451

212,452

212.455

212,456

212.457

Catalyst

Regenerators of Fluidized Catalytic

Converters

SUBPART

Q:

STONE,

CLAY,

GLASS

AND

CONCRETE

MANUFACTURING

New

Portland

Cement

Processes

Portland

Cement Manufacturing Processes

SUBPART

R:

PRIMARY

AND

FABRICATED

METAL

PRODUCTS

AND MACHINERY MANUFACTURE

Steel Manufacturing Processes

Beehive Coke Ovens

By~Product

Coke

Plants

Sinter

Processes

Blast

Furnace

Cast Houses

Basic

Oxygen

Furnaces

Hot

Metal

Desulfurization

Not

Located

in the BOF

Electric

Arc

Furnaces

Argon~OxygenDecarburization

Vessels

Liquid

Steel

Charging

Hot

Scarf ing

Machines

Measurement

Methods

Highlines

on

Steel Mills

Certain

Small

Foundries

Certain

Small

Iron—melting

Air

Furnaces

SUBPART

S:

AGRICULTURE

Grain

Handling

and Drying

in

General

Grain

Handling

Operations

Grain

Drying

Operations

ST~J3PART T:

CONSTRUCTION AND WOOD PRODUCTS

Section

212.421

212.422

Section

212.461

~12.462

212.463

Sect~on

212,681

Grinding,

Woodworking,

Sandblasting

and

Shotbiasting

59-102

---

21.

Appendix

A

Rule

into

Section

Table

Appendix

B

Section

into

Rule

Table

Appendix

C

Past

Compliance

Dates

Appendix

D

Required

Emission

Reduct:ou

Actions

Illustration

A

Allowable

Emissions

fro~a

Solid

Fuel

Combustion

Emission

Sources

Outside

Chicago

Illustration

B

Limitations

for

all

Now

Process

Emission Sources

Illustration

C

Limitations

for

all

Exi~tinq

Process

Emission

Sources

AUTHORITY:

implementing

Section

10

and

authorized

by Section

27

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat,

1981,

ch.

lii

1/2, tars~ 1010

and 1027)

SOURCE:

Adopted

ae

Chapter

2:

Air

Poliutio:n,

Rules

202

and

203:

Visual

and

Pat~Lculate

Emission

Standarde

and

Limitations,

R71—23,

4

PCB

191,

filed

and

effective April

14,

i972~

amended

in

R77—15,

32 PCB

403,

at

3

111.

Reg.

5,

p.

798,

ef.Ueetive

February

3,

1979;

amended in

R78i0~

35

PCB

347,

at

3 IlL deg~ 39,

p,

184,

effective

September

28,

1979;

amended.

in

R78~i1,

35 PCB 505,

at

3

Iii.

Reg.

45,

p.

100,

effective October

26f

1979;

amended in

R78~9, 38

PCB

4:~L, at

4

Ill. Reg.

24, p~

~14,

effective June 4,

1980; amended

in R79-~11, 43 PCB 481,

at

5

111.

Reg.

11590,

effective

October 19,

1981; codified at

7 IlL

Reg.

_________

as amended

at

8 ill,

Reg,

______

Section

212.123

Limitations for All

Other

Sources

a)

No

rerson

shall

cause or

allow

the

emission of smoke

or

ether

particulate

matter

from

any

other

emission

source

int.o

the

atmosphere

of

an

opacity

greater

than

30

percent.

h)

Exception:

The

emission

of

smoke

or

other

particulate

matter

from

any

such

emission

source

may

have

an

opacity

greater

than

30

percent

but

not

crreater

than

60

percent

for a period

or periods

aggre~aring8

minutes

in

any

60

minute

period

provided

that

auch

more

opaque

emissions

permitted

during

any

60

minute

period

shall

occur

from

only

one such

emission

source

located within

a

305

m

(1000

ft)

radius

from

the

center

point

of

any

other

euch

emission

source

owned

or

operated

by

such

person,

and

provided

further

thai

such

more

opaque

emissions

permitted

from

each

ouch

emission

source

shall

he

limited

to

3

times

in

any

24

hour

period.

Readopted

at

B

111.

Reg.

___

effective

59-103

---

22

SUBPART

B:

PARTICULATE

~4A~’TER

EMISSIONS

FR)M FUEL COMBUSTION EMI~SIONSdURCES

Existing Sources tj~inn~iid

Puel

Exclusively

Located

in

the

Clv eag~ A~ea

No

person

shall

cause

or

allow

the

cmi

~

L r

~e

particulate

matter

into

~nc

atmosphere

from

any

exi~tirg

fuel

combustion

source

usine

oo.td

fuel

exclusively

o~ t

d

i

he

Chicago

major

metropoli~an

area,

to exceed 0

L

kg

particulate

matter

per

MW-hr

of

actual

heat

input

~n

any

one

hour

period

(0.1

lhs,/aBtu’t

~)

except

as

provided

in

Section

212,203.

+Be

Note?-

-

4ens-29~-~g~

2 ~T29S nave-

een-~~e4

inviid—by

-the

~Faeat

B~sr~e~-Appe1-late-thaet

emme~wea~th

Esen-v-FeU~,

7ppT-y~P-Nu-~

84-a

?~emiea?e~-v- -P8BI-?4-

-App~~---~34-449

,~-5e ion.

1~4~—was

adopte

-after

e-’8onf~—tha~en~ee—an.~&-’

a

a-

Source.

R~adcpted at

8

Ill.

Reg,

effective

Existing

Sources

t~

i.

~oiid

Fuel

Exclusively

Located

Outside

the

“hlcago

Area

No

pereon

shL

.ii~eeor

allow

the

ciii

0

i

f

particulate

mattei

int

L

a~.mosphere from

any

exis

i

~uel

combustion

sou

cc

uei~

.

eel

exclusively

lo

a

o4tside

the

Chicago

major

metropolitan

area,

to

exceed

the

Jiritetions

specified

in

the

table

below

and

Illustration

A

in

any

on’~hour

period

except

as

provided

in

Jection

212,203.

59404

---

23

______

____

METRIC

UNITS

___—

Megawatts

~orams~~per

m~~watt

Less than or equal

to

2. 93

Greater

than 2.93 but

~

smaller

than

73.

2

3.33

H

Greater

than

or

equal

to

73,2

__________________

ENGLISH

UNIS

__________

~ar~_

_

S

__

Million

Btu

per

hour

Pounds

iter

million

btu

Less

than

or

equal

to

10

1,0

Greater than

10

but

~

smaller than

250

5,18

n

Greater

than

or

equal

to

250

0,1

where:

S

=

Allowable

emission standard

in

lbs~./mBtu/hr

or

kg/MW

of

actual

heat

input,

and

H

=

Actual

heat

input

in

mil

lion

Etc

per

hour

or

megawatts

Section

212.203

Existing

Controlled

Sourcea

Using

Solid

Fuel

Exclusively

Notwithstanding

Sections

212.201

and

212,202,

any

existing

fuel

combustion

source using

solid

fuel

exclusively

may,

in

any

one

hour period,

emit

up

to,

but

not

exceed

0.39

kg/MW—hr

(0.25 lbs.!

mBtu),

if,

as

of

April

14,

1972,

either

of

the

following

conditjons

was

iietz

a)

The

emission

source has

an

hourly

enission

rate

based

on

original

design or

equipment

erformance

test

conditions,

whichever

is

stricter,

which

is

less than

0.31

kg/MW—hr

(0.2

lbs.

/mBtu)

of

actual

heat,

input,

and

the

emission

control

of

such

source

is

not

allowed

to

degrade

more

than

0.077

kg/MW—hr

(U~05 lbs,/mBtu)

from

such

original design or

equipment.

performance

test

conditions;

or,

59-105

---

24

b)

The

‘-ource

iS

in

full

compltai.

&

condat

iOnS

of

a

variance

g~

Coitro

Board

(Board)

suff’cj

emaesi.o~ .ate

tess

than

0

~

r.

ana

oO~

~t~uct~onhas

comr

-

fier

ian~~

prescribed

under

u.

contro’

r.

such

source

i

than

0.

kg/MW-hr

(0.03

desi

~iprrent

perf~

wflic,Ic~-~.s

stricter.

~.tl

he

terms

and

-r~

tIe

Polution

hi~ve an

hourly

.2

Jbs./mBtu),

ment

or

modi—

r

;

end

emission

t

degrade

more

ci.,

origi~nal

~..

ions,

Provided ,howc,

~iftheori

C.i~

~cformance

test

conditions

are

~t~i

..

cc

than

the

or arur

I

1’

c

r d’ tions_and

~~jifl5i

-

ditionsare~

~.at

~

than

the

oriçj~p I

~

~R~onaa’~’

1

~

us,

the

9~in~Ldesi~~

c or,

-

tiq~~~

be

us

-

I

-

r

.

the

revel_of

~,~~ationfo~

t.’-

ourppse

of

this

Sc

to

ided

further

that

a_source

~

L~~mentpe

..

-

-

~ ,~t

antaload

-

I

r’

oed

level

atwhi

-I

..

formance

test

v

-

ii

for

use

in

‘J-’~’

.

-vol

of

~g~adation

foi

tI”

~

this

S

-

r.

-

-

teu

of

any~9~her

odfordeteili

~g

Ihe

level

of

d-

Id

I 1owedby,jj~4s

Section.

Section

212

iO’

No

person

~l

I

into

the

at

i

combustion

0.15

kg

of

(0~

Ii

,/1i

-

O’

allow

the

-

I

“cy

one

hoc’

~rce

using

-

I

utter

pe.

-t

~,.ulate

matter

~

ew

fuel

~v~.ly

to

exceed

t

inpul

IT

IS

SO

IL

,F

‘U

I,

D~r t~’y

.i

r

Clerk

of

tr~

Bcard,

herebi

cc~’~y

~.lat

the

abo

e

I

on

the

/f~J-t

f

~r’

~

Dorct’

Pc’ I

-‘ii-

on

Control

‘rr

r

L-”sr

w

s

adopted

v

±

erk

1,

Bard