ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
~pri1 24,
1986
IN THE MATTER OF:
AMENDMENTS TO
35
ILL. ADM.
)
R84—28
CODE 214, SULFUR LIMITATIONS
ADOPTED RULE.
FINAL OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
D.
Durnelle):
This matter comes before the Board upon
a July 13, 1984
proposal
to amend
35 Ill.
Adni.
Code 214,
Subpart
C:
Existing
Solid Fuel Combustion Emission Sources,
filed on behalf of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).
That proposal
was amended by the Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO)
on
August
23,
1984,
and further
amended
by joint motion of the
Agency and Caterpillar Tractor Company on September
10,
1985.
Hearings were held on August
30,
1984,
in Peoria; September
5,
1984,
in Chicago;
and September
18, 1985,
in Peoria.
By letter
of December
4, 1985,
the Department of Energy and Natural
Resources
informed the Board of
its determination that no formal
economic
impact study would
be necessary
in this proceeding.
First notice was published
in the Illinois Register on November
15, 1985
(9
Ill. Reg.
17728), and
the first notice period ended
on January 2,
1986.
The second notice period commenced on March
3,
1986,
and ended April
17, 1986.
The Agency’s original proposal would have established
a new
Subpart G of Part 214 setting
forth sulfur dioxide emission
limitations
applicable
to sources located
in the City of East
Peoria and
in Hollis Township (both
of which are located
in the
Peoria major metropolitan area) which were equipped with flue gas
desulfurization
(FGD)
systems
as of December
1,
1980.
Proposed
Section 2l4.XXX
(later numbered as 214.140) would have simply set
forth
the scope
of Subpart G.*
Proposed Section 2l4.XXY (later
numbered as 214.141(c)) would have established
a one hour
limitation of 1.4 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million Btu actual
heat input
for new or existing FGD sources
in East Peoria.
Proposed Section 2l4.XXZ
(later numbered as 214.141(d)) would
have established
a
0.6 pound standard for new FGD sources
in
Hollis Township.
It would have also modified the 5.5 pound
standard
of
35 Ill.
Adni.
Code 214.141(b)
for
sources located
in
*
The Agency did not propose specific section numbers,
but
rather proposed generic numbers 214.XXX, 2l4.XXY and 2l4.XXZ and
left
it
to the Board
to assign specific numbers.
The placement
of the rules
is discussed below.
214.XXX becomes 214.140,
214.XXY becomes 214.141(c) and 2l4.XXZ becomes 214.141(d).
69-298
—2--
the City of Peoria which did not have FGD systems as
of December
1,
1980,
to make the applicability of that standard contingent
upon
a stack height of 47 meters or more.
CILCO’s amendment
would have added subsection
(C)
to Section 214.141
to provide
that Units
1 and
3
at CILCO’s
E.
D. Edwards Electric Generating
Station cannot emit more
than 6.6 pounds of sulfur dioxide per
million Btu
of actual heat input.
Finally,
the
joint amended
proposal filed by Caterpillar and the Agency would have modified
the originally proposed Section 214.XXZ
(later numbered
as
214.141(d))
to allow FGD—equipped sources
in Hollis Township
to
emit 1.1 rather than 0.6 pounds per million Btu.
The primary purpose of this rulemaking is
to assure that the
sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) are
achieved and maintained
in the Peoria major metropolitan area
(MMA)
thereby allowing the state
to obtain federal approval for
its State Implementation Plan
(SIP).
The Board had hoped that
its present rules
(adopted under R80-22 on February 24,
1983,
at
51 PCB 217) would result
in an approvable SIP.
That, however,
has not happened.
Peoria, Hollis
and Groveland Townships have
remained non—attainment for sulfur dioxide.
Therefore, the
Agency has done additional modeling of
the Peoria MMA using
a
wider
and more detailed data base than was available
to the
Agency when similar
rules were proposed
(and rejected by the
Board)
in the R80—22 proceeding.
This modeling, however,
continues
to predict potential violations of the NAAQS under
existing rules.
Therefore,
the Agency analyzed the predicted
violations
for culpability and ~identifiedthe critical
contributors.
The Agency’s original proposal
in this proceeding
was developed to eliminate the potential violations.
CILCO’s August
23,
1984, proposed amendment was allowed into
this proceeding since
the Agency’s modeling which supports
the
Agency’s proposal also serves
to support CILCO’s request for
a
relaxation of the sulfur dioxide
limitation applicable to Units
1
and
3 at its
E.
D. Edwards Station
to 6.6 pounds per million
Btu.
In PCB 83—100
(57 PCB 417, April
19,
1984) CILCO sought
similar relief which was rejected by the Board based upon
its
conclusion that
the modeling data presented failed
to adequately
support the requested relief.
CILCO believes that the present
modeling and proposed rules
fully support
its
request.
The September 10, 1985,
joint motion
to amend the proposal
arose
as
a result of
a site—specific study conducted by
Caterpillar
for its Mapleton Plant.
Caterpillar believed that
the Agency’s modeling which supported the originally proposed 0.6
pounds per million Btu standard was flawed with respect
to
revised data regarding topography,
background air quality and
plant boundaries.
Using
the Agency’s model and this revised
data, Caterpillar
and the Agency believe that
a
1.1 pound
standard
is appropriate
for Section 2l4.XXZ
(later numbered as
214.141(d))
rather than
the 0.6 pound standard.
69-299
—3—
RULE PLACEMENT
The proposal includes amendments
to 35
Ill. Adm. Code
214.141 and
the addition of new Subpart G.
Placement
of these
rules as proposed runs counter
to the format established for Part
214.
Therefore,
the Board proposes
a placement of
the proposed
rules which
is consistent with that format.
Pursuant
to
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 214.120, Subparts B through F
of Part 214
are
to contain general rules
for sulfur emissions,
which
in turn are
to
be modified by industry and site—specific
rules
in Subparts N,
et
seq.
CILCO’s proposal to add a
site—specific rule as
a subsection of Section 214.141
is,
therefore,
inappropriate:
it
is properly placed
in Subpart N, et
~
The Board proposes
to add CILCO’s proposed rule to new
Subpart
X:
Utilities, which
is proposed
to cover industry and
site—specific rules
for electric, gas and sanitary services.
A
section regarding the scope of that Subpart will be proposed as
new Section 214.560.
CILCO’s proposed rule will
be
at Section
214.561.
Also, present Section 214.141(c)
regarding the Village
of Winnetka’s electric utility plant will be deleted.*
Adding
the remaining proposed rules as
a new Subpart G
is
also inappropriate.
Since those
rules are more
in the nature
of
general rules
rather than industry
or site—specific standards,
they are properly placed
in Subparts B through
F.
Subpart
C
is
clearly the appropriate subpart and Section 214.141
is the
appropriate section.
Since the~erules will not
be proposed
as
a
new subpart, proposed Section 214.XXX regarding the scope of the
rules will become 214.140.
Proposed Section 214.XXY regarding
sources
in East Peoria will become Section 214.141(c) and
proposed Section 214.XXZ will become Section 214.141(d).
Some
non—substantive rewording of the proposed rules will
be made
to
conform with the present structure of Section 214.141.
SECTION 214.141
The proposed changes
to Section 214.141 include
“housekeeping” measures,
a stack height limitation on subsection
(b)
and the proposed
limitations
for FGD—equipped facilities
in
the Peoria MMA.
The “housekeeping” changes simply consist of
converting
the present limitations, expressed
in kg/mw—hr
to
nanograms per joule which would make the rules consistent with
*
That section exempted the Winnetka plant from the general
sulfur dioxide rules pending final action
in R80—22 which has now
been completed.
This rule,
therefore,
no longer serves any
purpose and
is proposed to
be deleted as unnecessary.
69-300
—4--
common practice.
(R.
1, pp. 77~~79).*The stack height
limitation of
47 meters
in subsection
(b)
is proposed
to be added
to avoid possible NAAQS violations caused
by Westinghouse Air
Brake Company (WABCO).
The Agency’s model shows that due
to
downwash WABCO would have
to limit
its emissions
to 1.8 pounds
per million Btu
to avoid potential NAAQS violations based upon
the Industrial Source Complex model.
However,
if the stack
height were raised
to 47 meters,
a
5.5 pound standard would
assure acceptable
air quality.
(R.
I,
pp.
47—48 and 79—82).
Thus, WABCO (apparently
the only affected facility) has the
option of meeting the general 1.8 pound standard or
raising
its
stack sufficiently
to take advantage of the relaxed
standard.
WABCO has not objected
to this amendment and apparently has been
meeting
the 1.8 pound standard since
1973.
(R.
I,
pp.
82).
Proposed Subsections
214.141(c)
and
(d), despite being
written as general rules,
are intended by the Agency
to
specifically limit sulfur dioxide emissions from the East Peoria
and Mapleton (Hollis Township)
coal burning boilers of
Caterpillar.
As written,
they
apply
to fuel combustion
emission
facilities equipped with flue gas desulfurization systems as of
December
1,
1980.
Subsection
(c) which
is applicable
to
facilities located
in East Peoria establishes
a sulfur dioxide
limitation of 1.4 pounds per million Btu.
Subsection
(d) which
is applicable
to sources located
in Hollis Township was amended
to establish
a standard
of
1.1 pounds per million Btu.
The levels originally proposed
by the Agency were developed
through computer modeling
in
an attempt
to assure attainment of
the NAAQS
for sulfur dioxide and
to evaluate possible sulfur
dioxide limitations
that would enhance the use
of Illinois
coal.
(See Exhibit
5).
The Agency used the RAMU and MPTER
models recommended by USEPA,
five years of hourly meteorological
data from the Weather Service Station at the Greater Peoria
Airport,
an emissions inventory including all major
sulfur
dioxide sources
in Peoria, Woodford and Tazewell counties
(all
assumed
to be operating
at their currently allowed maximum rates)
and background concentrations determined from continuous
monitoring
in the Peoria area during 1976 and 1977.
(Ex.
5,
pp.
3—12).
The first step
in analyzing the data was
to identify
potential violations
of the primary and secondary NAAQS.
(Ex.
5,
p.
12).
Next,
culpability was investigated to determine
the
*
The transcripts
of each hearing are numbered consecutively
beginning with page
1.
To distinguish references
to those
transcripts,
references
to
the August
30,
1984,
transcript will
be
in the form of
(R.
I,
pp.
),
references to the September
25,
1984 transcript will
be
(R.
II,
pp.
),
and references
to
the
September
5,
1985, transcript will be
(R.
III,
pp.
_).
69-301
—5—
primary sources which were responsible
for the potential
violations.
(Ex.
5,
p.
12).
Finally, the violation
for each
such source which caused
the most restrictive rate for that
source which was necessary to assure compliance with the
standards was determined.
(Ex.
5,
pp.
12—13).
As
a result of this analysis,
the Agency reached several
conclusions which
it used as the basis
for
its original proposal:
——
The current emissions regulations are not sufficient to
ensure attainment
of
the SO2 national ambient
air
quality standards
in all portions of the Peoria area.
——
Violations of
the NAAQS
for SO2 are possible north of
Caterpillar’s Mapleton facility at the current allowable
emissions limit
of 1.8 1b/MBtu
for
boiler
1
and with
the
limit
of
1.2 lb/MBtu
for
boilers
2 through
5.
The
violations are the result of plume impaction on the
bluffs north of the Illinois River Valley.
——
Emissions limits
of 1.4
lb/MBtu as applied
to the
coal—fired boilers at Caterpillar’s East Peoria facility
and 0.6 lb/MBtu
as applied
to Caterpillar’s Mapleton
facility would be sufficient
to attain the NAAQS
in the
vicinity of those
facilities.
——
An emissions limit of
1.8 lb/MBtu at WABCO would ensure
maintenance
of the N~AQSin the vicinity of that
facility.
——
The SO~emissions
limit
of 5.5 lb/MBtu for all
coal—fired industrial boilers, with the exception of
those Caterpillar and WABCO facilities
already
mentioned,
will ensure attainment and maintenance
of the
SO2 NAAQS in the Peoria area.
(Ex.
5,
p.
14)
While none of the participants
in this proceeding have
questioned the Agency’s methodology used
to develop its original
proposal, questions have been raised regarding some of
the
underlying data.
Caterpillar’s amended proposal, which
establishes
a
1.1 pound per million Btu standard for sources
located
in Hollis Township rather than the originally proposed
0.6 pound standard
is premised upon disagreement with the
Agency’s data concerning
the terrain elevations,
base elevations
of
the stacks, and background
levels,
as well as inclusion
of
receptors located
on Caterpillar property.
(R.
III,
p.
29).
At
Caterpillar’s request, ETA,
Inc. performed dispersion modeling
in
the vicinity
of
the Mapleton plant
using corrected
factors and
taking
into consideration the mandated derating of boilers
2
through
5
to 249.9 million Btu maximum rated
heat
input.
(R.
69-302
—6—
III, pp.
29—30 and
Ex.
15).*
Other than these changes, the
methodology and data used were the same as those used by the
Agency.
Background levels were established using
the Agency’s
Pekin Derby Street monitor data from 1982 and 1983.
(R.
III,
p.
34).
This monitor was chosen due to its proximity to the
Mapleton plant.
(R. III,
p.
34).
Survey data was used to
establish stack height and topography.
(R.
III, pp.
31—32).
Using
this corrected data,
ETA concluded
that Caterpillar
could assure attainment
of the sulfur dioxide standards
by
reducing its emission by 6.94
of the modeled 1.2 pounds per
million Btu.
(R.
III,
p. 35).
As Alan Junk,
Manager
of
Environmental Services for ETA, testified,
“an appropriate way to
do this would
be to reduce
the allowable sulfur dioxide emission
rate to 1.1 pounds per million Btu for boilers
2,
3,
4,
and
5.”
(R.
III,
pp.
35—36).
The Agency,
through the testimony of John
Schrock of
the Air Quality Planning Section
of the Division
of
Air Pollution Control,
found ETA’s “modeling methodology to be
correct and consistent with USEPA’s modeling guidelines as well
as prior IEPA studies.”
(R.
III,
pp.
40—41).
He concluded that
the Agency concurs with Caterpillar’s conclusions that the
proposed SO2 limits
for Mapleton’s boilers will not cause
or
contribute
Eo an air quality violation.”
(R.
III, p.
42).
The Board concludes that
the amendments
to Section 214.141
are justified by the record
and will adopt
the amendments as
submitted, and amended, with
two exceptions.
First,
the
reference to “new or existing” sources will be deleted from
Section 214.141(c).
Since
these
terms have caused confusion
in
the past,
and they do not appear
to be necessary,
they have been
deleted
in the amended proposal
to Section 214.141(d).
Second,
the Agency’s original proposal would have established
a new
Subpart G of Part
214 setting sulfur dioxide
emission limitations
applicable
to sources located
in the City of East Peoria and
in
Hollis Township which were equipped with flue gas desulfunization
systems
as of December
1,
1980.
As noted
above
the Board
concluded that placement of those
rules
as proposed was
inconsistent with the
format established
for Part 214 and instead
placed them at Section 214.141(c)
and
(d).
However,
in its
comments the Agency points out that by placing the proposed rules
in Section 214.141 the Board has inadvertently made the coal—
averaging provision of Section 214.101(c)
applicable
to them.
It,
therefore,
recommends
that the language of the proposed rules
be modified such that the coal—averaging provision is made
specifically inapplicable.
The Agency alleges that the coal
*
Caterpillar entered into a consent decree with USEPA
Caterpillar
Tractor Co.,
v.
Adamkus, Central District of
Illinois,
Civil
Action No. 83—1083
(1985)1 which requires this
derating and physical changes
to the boilers
to insure that the
maximum rated heat input
is not exceeded.
69-303
—7--
averaging provisions were not contemplated by the original
proposal and that
its suggested modification would increase the
likelihood of USEPA approval of the rules.
In P.C.#4, however,
Caterpillar opposes the Agency’s proposed modification,
contending that
it would limit management options
and that the
issue was not addressed at hearing.
By placing the proposed rules
in Section 214.141 the Board
did not intend
to make any substantive changes
in the proposal:
the change was for consistency of
format,
nothing more.
Clearly,
the coal—averaging provision would have been inapplicable
to the
rule as proposed by the Agency
(and as agreed
to by
Caterpillar).
Further,
as Caterpillar
notes,
this issue was not
addressed
at hearing; however,
the Board draws
the opposite
conclusion from that fact.
Since the original proposal would not
have invoked the coal—averaging provision and since
there
is
nothing
in the record
to support the applicability of
that
provision,
that provision should not be made applicable.
Therefore,
in adopting this section the Board will amend
its
first notice proposal
by making
the word “Section” plural
and
adding
the words
“and 214.101(c)” after
the number
“214.122” in
subsections
214.141(c)
and
(d).
SUBPART X
In the Agency’s model
the CILCO Edwards boilers
1 and
3 were
assumed
to be
operating at 6.6 pounds per million Btu, as
requested
in PCB 83—100,
since that proposal had not been acted
upon by the Board at the time the study was done.
(Ex.
5,
p.
13).
The Agency made the following findings regarding that
facility:
Although the CILCO Edwards facility at the proposed rate of
6.6 lb/MBtu interacts with the CAT East Peoria and WABCO
facilities
to produce violations
on some days,
it
is not
a
significant factor during
the critical violations.
In other
words,
the CILCO proposal does not affect the emissions
limits computed
to meet the standard
for CAT East Peoria or
WABCO.
However,
if CILCO would have been allowed
the 6.6
lb/MBtu for boilers
1 and
3 as per their petition
to the
Illinois Pollution Control Board,
it would have required the
rate at the Bends facility
to be
lowered
to 5.0 lb/MBtu
instead
of the limit presently allowed by the IPCB of
5.5
lb/MBtu.
A
rate of 3.8 lb/MBtu for
the CILCO Edwards boilers
1
and
3 would protect the NAAQS and would not affect
the
emissions limit at Bemis.
(Ex.
5,
p.
13).
CILCO disagreed with the Agency,
and
it also prepared
a new
study
to investigate
the sulfur dioxide emissions rate which
would have
to be met by boilers
1
and
3 of
its Edwards Station
to
meet the NAAQS.
The Agency’s analysis
(Ex.
5) predicted
69-304
—8—
violations
to which CILCO contributed based upon presently
allowable emissions
rather than on emissions which would be
allowed
under
the Agency’s present proposal.
Since
the proposal
is more restrictive than the present limitations, CILCO argues
that the Agency’s modeling would establish that it could
be
allowed
to emit 6.6 pounds per million Btu without causing
NAAQS
violations
if the modeling took into consideration the proposed
regulatory changes.
CILCO commissioned Enviroplan to perform such
a study.
(R.
II,
p.
64).
Mr. Howard Ellis, President of Enviroplan,
testified
concerning that study.
Enviroplan reviewed the Agency’s modeling
and adjusted the maximum emission rates
to reflect the proposed
limits.
(R.
II,
pp.
64—66 and Exs.
8—11).
This analysis showed
“that all violations
are eliminated with Edwards Units
1 and
3 at
6.6 pounds SO2 per million Btu and other sources
at the IEPA
proposed emission limits.”
(R.
II,
p.
66).
A second analysis
was conducted to review all predicted NAAQS violations from
Enviroplan’s earlier
studies of CILCO
to determine whether those
violations would
also be eliminated.
The study found
that they
are eliminated when the new standard applicable
to WABCO
is
included and corrected stack
location co—ordinates are used for
Bends.
(R.
II,
pp.
67—68).
Furthermore, allowing
a relaxed
standard of 6.6 pounds per million Btu
for CILCO was found
to
have no effect on the appropriate standards for other facilities
affected by this proceeding.
(R.
II,
pp.
71—77).
However, during
the first notice period Citizens for
a
Better Environment
(CBE)
filed two public comments
in which
it
objected
to the first notice proposal
to relax
the emission limit
for CILCO’s
E.
D. Edwards Station “because the modeling analysis
underestimated the
impact of
the plant’s emissions on air quality
in the Peoria area.”
(P.C.#1).
CBE argues
that
a running
average approach should have been used
to demonstrate attainment
rather
than a block average approach.
CILCO responded
to CBE’s
objection
in P.C.#2 and
#5 arguing, essentially,
that for
a
period of time block averages were required,
that they remain
federally acceptable,
and that given
the conservative aspects
of
the modeling presented,
its proposal
is adequately supported.
The National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS)
for sulfur
dioxide sets maximum allowable concentration limitations for any
24—hour period and specifies that such limits may not be exceeded
more than once each year.
In order
to demonstrate compliance
with the NAAQS
for sulfur dioxide at its proposed emission rate
of 6.6 pounds per million Btu of actual heat
input,
CILCO
presented
a modeling analysis based upon a midnight—to—midnight
block average.
However, as CBE points
out:
The
NAAQS
established by EPA for S02 set maximum
allowable concentration limits
for ~
24—hour period
and specify that such concentration limits may not
be
69-305
—9—
exceeded more than once per year.
The regulations
specify the duration periods as “24—hour” concentrations
rather than “daily.”
This
is consistent with
the health
basis
for
the short—term standard since
the adverse
effects are associated with exposures
for
24—hour
periods without reference to the time of day that
exposure begins.
Repeated exposures at levels above the 24—hour standard
is prohibited,
regardless of when exposure begins.
The
state
must be equally concerned about
a peak exposure
that occurs between
3 p.m.
one day and
3 p.m.
the next
day,
as about concentrations occurring between midnight
and midnight.
Suppose that SO2 levels at some location
are low in the morning of
a given day,
rise to over 365
micrograms per cubic meter
by afternoon,
remain high
until
noon of the following day,
and then
fall.
Such an
event could produce
a 24—hour SO2 concentration
exceeding 365 micrograms that would be overlooked
if
only midnight—to—midnight periods were examined.
CBE’s position
is well taken, and the Board agrees with CBE
that the running average approach
is preferable
to
a block
average approach
in that
it more accurately reflects the
realities of sulfur dioxide exposure.
The Board would gladly
consider modeling based on the running average approach.
However,
no such study has been presented
to the Board.
What the Board must consider
in this proceeding
is whether
the record contains sufficient evidence
to support the adoption
of
the proposed
rule.
The Board concludes that
it does.
While
CILCO has not presented the most preferable modeling study,
it
has presented
an acceptable
one.
The Agency has had an
opportunity
to examine the study and has supported it.
USEPA
will have an opportunity
to examine
it when it is submitted as
part of
the
revision
to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP).
While CBE has made much
of the fact that the study
is not
consistent with
the Clean Air Act, USEPA does not require the use
of running averages and,
in fact,
when
it attempted
to impose
such
a requirement upon PPG Industries,
that requirement was
struck down.
PPG
Industries,
Inc.
v. Costle,
659
F.
2d 1239.
Ultimately, CBE
is contending that the best evidence
is not
before the Board.
The Board agrees;
however,
it must base
its
decisions on what
is before
it.
In determining that the record
supports
the adoption of CILCO’s proposal,
the Board
is mindful
of Section 9.2
of the Environmental Protection Act which states:
The Agency shall review all Illinois sulfur
dioxide emission standards for existing fuel
combustion stationary emission sources
located
within the Chicago,
St. Louis (Illinois),
and
69-306
—10—
Peoria major metropolitan areas and,
if
appropriate following such review, propose
amendments
to such standards
to the Board...
The standards proposed by the Agency shall
be
designed
to enhance
the use of Illinois coal,
consistent with
the need
to attain and
maintain the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
for sulfur dioxide and particulate
matter.
There
is
no evidence
in the record
to indicate that adoption
of
the proposed rules would be inconsistent with the attainment
or maintenance of
the NAAQS, while there
is considerable evidence
that it would be consistent.
Therefore,
while the Board
appreciates
CBE’s concerns,
it will not require that new modeling
be done using
a running average basis.
The Board
finds that the
record supports
a 6.6 pound per
million Btu standard for CILCO’s
E.
D. Edwards Station Units
1
and
3, and
it will adopt
the amendment
as submitted as new
Section 214.561.
The Board will also add new Section 214.560
which will indicate
the
scope of
new Subpart
X: Utilities,
which
will include
industry and site—specific exceptions to the
otherwise applicable sulfur dioxide rules.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
No economic impact
stateme’nt has been prepared
for this
proceeding
and none
is necessary.
On December
4,
1985 the Board
received
a
letter from the Department
of Energy and Natural
Resources (DENR) which included
a negative declaration.
In
making that determination the DENR concluded:
“that
a Negative Declaration
is appropriate
in this case on
the basis
of the following statutory criteria:
1.
The net economic impact
of the regulation is favorable
and the costs
of compliance
are small
or are borne
entirely by the proponent of
the regulation;
2.
The cost of making
a formal study
is economically
unreasonable
in relation
to the value of the study to
the Board
in determining
the adverse economic impact
of
the regulation.”
The economic Technical Advisory Committee concurred
in that
determination
at its December
6,
1985 meeting.
There was
no testimony
at hearing regarding any adverse
economic impact:
i.e.,
there
is no compliance cost.
Each
of the
affected facilities
is presently emitting below
the emission
limits
the Board is adopting today.
(See Ex.
11).
This also
69-307
—11—
demonstrates that meeting
the limitations
is technically
feasible.
In addition,
the rules will give support for the
redesignation
of the Peoria—Pekin area
as attainment
for purposes
of
the Clean Air Act, thereby avoiding any federal sanctions, and
benefiting
the state’s economy.
Finally,
as
the Board recognized
in PCB 83—100,
granting the requested relief
to CILCO “would
likely result
in increased coal usage of about 850,000 tons
annually, creating direct benefits
to the state of 200
to 300 new
jobs and additional
revenues of over $20 million.”
(57 PCB
418).
Mr. Gerald Hawkins, legislative director for the United
Mine Workers in the State
of Illinois testified that the
UMW
strongly supported these
rules
in order
to aid the Illinois
mining
industry.
(R.
II,
pp.
8—10).
FORMAT
AND TYPOGRAPHICAL CHANGES
In P.C.#2 CILCO noted minor typographical errors and
requested clarification of two statements contained
in the
October
10, 1985 Proposed Opinion.
Further, the Administrative
Code Division noted
some minor format inconsistencies.
None
of
these matters,
however, are substantive, and the Board has,
for
the most part, made the requested changes.
Finally,
based upon
a
recommendation by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules,
the Board has added
the language
“in any one hour period”
to
Section 214.141(a)
and
(b).
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts
the following amendments to:
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
B:
AIR POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER
c:
EMISSION STANDARDS AND
LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 214
SULFUR LIMITATIONS
SUBPART
C:
EXISTING SOLID FUEL
EMISSION SOURCES
Section 214.140
Scope
This
Subpart contains rules which establish general sulfur
emissions standards for existing solid fuel emission sources.
These may be modified by industry and site—specific rules
in
Subparts N, et seq.
Section 214.141
Sources Located
in Metropolitan Areas
~
ex~~rtg~
eemb
s~4enset~~ees
~ee~ed
~ege~
S~ ~t~i~s
~
er Peer~
Th~øf
me~repe34~er~
69-308
—12—
~
Except as otherwise provided
in this Part See~er~,no
person shall
cause
or allow
the emission of
sulfur dioxide
into
the atmosphere
in any one hour period
from any existing fuel
combustion
source,
burning solid fuel exclusively, located
in the
Chicago,
St.
Louis
(Illinois)
or Peoria major metropolitan areas,
to exceed 2~89kg 1.8 pounds
of sulfur dioxide per MW I~mm Btu
of actual heat input
(774
nanogranis
per
joule).
a)
Sources
located
in Kankakee
or McHenry Counties shall
not exceed 6.8 pounds of sulfur dioxide per
mm
b Btu of
actual heat input (~9~5
kg71MW Hr)
(2924 nanograms per
joule)
in any one hour period.
b)
Existing industrial
sources,
not equipped with flue gas
desulfurization systems as
of December
1, 1980,
located
in the Peoria major metropolitan area, shall not exceed
5.5 pounds
of sulfur dioxide per mm b Btu
of actual heat
input (87S~kg7’MW hr)
(2,365 nanograms per joule)~in
any one hour period, provided the emissions
from any
such source located
in the City of Peoria exit from
a
stack which
is
at least
154
feet
(47 meters)
in height.
e)
Ph4s See~4er~
w~3~
ne~
epp3y ~e
the
V4~3~egee~
W4ru~e~ke
E~ee~f~e
~34~y
P3~~ ~43~ ~
ee~4erter~R80—227
Beeke~ B7
3~~aker~by
the
Pe~4e~?e~fo3~Bo~d
C)
Sections 214.122 and 214.101(c)
shall
not apply to any
fuel combustion emission sources equipped with flue gas
desulfurization
systems
as
of December
1, 1980,
and
i~ated in
the City of East Peoria as
the city
boundaries
were
then defined.
No person
shall cause
or
allow
the emission of sulfur dioxide
into the atmosphere
in
any one hour period from any such sources
to exceed
1.4 pounds
of sulfur dioxide per mm Btu of
actual heat
input
(602 nanograms per
joule).
d)
Sections
214.122 and 214.101(c)
shall not apply to
an~y
fuel combustion emission sources which
are capable
of
firing
solid fuel at a heat
input of more than 125 mm
Btu per hour
(36.6 megawatts)
and which
as
of December
1,
1980,
are equipped with flue gas desulfurization
systems and are
located
in Hollis Township, Peoria
County,
as the township boundaries were
then defined.
No person shall cause or allow
the emission
of sulfur
dioxide into the atmosphere
in any one hour period from
such source
to exceed 1.1 pounds of
sulfur dioxide
mm Btu
of actual heat input
(473 nanograms per
joule).
69-309
—13—
Section 214.560
a)
b)
SUBPART
X:
Scope
UTILITIES
Section 214.561
E.
D.
Edwards Electric Generating
Station
Units
1
and
3
at the
E.
0.
Edwards Electric Generating Station
shall
not exceed
6.6 pounds
of sulfur dioxide per mm Btu
of
actual heat input
(2,838
nanograrns per joule).
Aggregate
emissions from the
E.
0.
Edwards Electric Generating Station,
on
a 24—hour average basis
shall not exceed 34,613 pounds
of sulfur
dioxide per hour.
IT
IS SO ORDERED
Board Member
B.
Forcade concurred.
I,
Dorothy
M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted
on the
_______________
day of
~
,
1986 by
a vote
of
7-c
.
,1
~
~
12~,
Dorothy M. Günn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
This Subpart contains rules which modify the general
sulfur emission
rules of Subparts A through M as applied
to
a given industry or
at
a given
site.
General rules
include:
1.
Subparts
B through
I:
Fuel combustion emission
sources and incinerators;
2.
Subparts
K through
M:
Process emission sources.
These
rules have been grouped
for
the convenience
of the
~blic;
the scope
of each is determined
by
its
language
and history.
Rules placed
in this Subpart include those
which appear
to
be primarily directed
at the following
major
industry groups:
electric,
gas and sanitary
services.
69-310
