ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
August 22,
1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
PM-b
EMISSION LIMITS FOR THE
PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING
J
R91-6
PLANT AND
ASSOCIATED
QUARRY
(Rulemaking)
OPERATIONS LOCATED SOUTH OF
THE ILLINOIS RIVER IN LASALLE
COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
)
PROPOSEb RULE
SECOND NOTICE
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD by
(B.
Forcade):
This matter comes before the Board on a regulatory proposal
filed on January 10,
1991 by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
to establish the PM-b
emission
limits for the portland cement manufacturing plant and associated
quarry operations located in LaSalle County,
Illinois.
The
proposed regulations are applicable to a single facility owned
and operated by Lone Star Industries in Oglesby,
Illinois.
The
proposed regulatory changes would amend 35
Ill. Adm. Code 212,
Visible and Particulate Matter Emissions,
35 Ill.
Adm. Code
212.110, 212.423, and 212.424, and Part 211, Definitions General
Provisions,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 211.122.
The Agency has certified, and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(“USEPA”) has confirmed and
certified, that the proposed rule is a federally required rule as
defined in Section 28.2(a)
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act
(“Act”).
Section 28.2 was amended by P.A. 86-
1409,
effective January
1,
1991, requiring the Board to accept or
reject an Agency certification within 45 days.
Th~Board
accepted the certification on February 7,
1991.
On February 28,
1991 the Board determined that an Economic Impact Study was not
necessary and adopted the First Notice Opinion and Order
in this
proceeding.
The First Notice appeared in the Illinois Register on March
29,
1991.
15
Ill. Reg. 4668 and 4573.
On April
17,
1991,
a
public hearing was held in Chicago,
Illinois and on April 19,
1991,
a second public hearing was held in Oglesby,
Illinois.
BACKGROUND
USEPA established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(“NAAQS”)
for PM-lU
in
1987.
The 24—hour PM—b
standard is 150
ug/m3 and the annual PM-1O standard is 50 ug/m3.
See 52 FR 24634
(July
1,
1987).
These standards were authorized pursuant to
125—427
2
Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
7408,
7409.
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act requires that a state have an
approved State Implementation Plan (“SIP”)
to achieve federal air
quality standards.
42 U.S.C.
7410.
The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments require submission of a PM-10 SIP by Illinois by
November 15,
1991.
The proposed rube before the Board is intended to satisfy
the federal requirements for an approveable PM-iD SIP for the
Oglesby,
Illinois area,
which area
is designated as a “moderate”
or Group II nonattainmentt area,
based on past air quality
violation.
See 55 FR 45799.
On May 16,
1990,
the USEPA directed
that the Ogelsby area in LaSalle County also be subject to a
Group
I analysis.
55 FR 20265.
A Group
I area for PM—b
is so
designated by USEPA if that area has a 95
or greater probability
of not attaining the PM-b
NAAQS.
The Board notes that on August
8,
1991, the USEPA published a list of nonattainmentt areas for
PM-b.
The list included Oglesby, with the following comments:
The Governor of Illinois submitted
information to EPA requesting that an
additional section be added to that portion
of Oglesby designated nonattainmentt for PM-
10 Consistent with the definition of
nonattainmentt area in section
b07d)l)AiJ,
EPA has added the section
and announces that the Oglesby PM-lU
nonattainmentt area is as described in Table
I.
In the January 28,
1991 correspondence to the
Governor of Illinois, the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region V had initiated
the process to redesignate as nonattainmentt
this portion of LaSalle County.
That process
has been mooted by the action announced in
today’s notice.
(56 FR 37662)
As previously stated, these proposed regulations are
applicable to a single facility owned and operated by Lone Star
Industries in Oglesby, Illinois.
Lone Star operates a Portland
Cement manufacturing plant.
Mr. John Krolak,
a field engineer
testified as to the process used by Lone Star.
(Tr.
1 pp. 80-
81).
Portland Cement
is a material which
is mixed with sand or
gravel and water to make concrete.
Portland cement is produced
by burning a finely ground mixture of limestone and shale to the
fusion point and then grinding the resulting clinker with a small
percentage of gypsum.
Limestone and shale are obtained from a quarry known as the
Lehigh quarry owned by Lone Star in Deer Park Township, LaSalle
County,
located adjacent to the northern boundary of Oglesby.
125—428
3
The quarrying operation begins with the clearing of the land.
Unused land is farmed.
Lone Star presently has contracts with
another company specializing in earth moving to carry out the
clearing or stripping operations.
Heavy equipment is used to
remove the top soil and subsoils; these are used or set aside for
later reclamation work.
The shale is set aside for use in the
process.
Stripping continues until the usable limestone bedrock
is exposed.
As limestone is needed,
a group of 6—inch diameter holes are
drilled into the stone to a depth of about 30 feet
in an area
adjacent to the working face (where rock has previously been
removed), explosive charges are set in the holes and detonated to
fracture and dislodge about 8,000 tons of rock.
According to Mr. Chris Romaine, Manager of the New Source
Review Unit with the Agency, Lone Star has undertaken a full
scale modernization program in an attempt to comply with this
proposed regulation.
Changes at the facility include raising
stack heights and “replacement of the raw mill department,
installation of new feed for the kiln,
and replacement of the
separator in the finish department”
(Tr.2
p.
32).
DISCUSSION
At hearing, the Agency presented testimony by several of the
Agency’s experts in support of the Agency’s proposal.
Mr. Dave
Kolaz, Manager of the Air Systems Management Section for the
Division of Air Pollution Control, described the PM-b
monitoring
which was conducted in Oglesby.
Th~actual monitoring point was
located in Oglesby north of the Lone Star facility.
The
monitoring indicated that the Oglesby area had exceeded the 24-
hour standard numerous times and the annual standard had been
exceeded four times.
(Tr.
1
p.
29 and 39).
Mr. Kolaz testified
that:
One technique that is useful in the analysis
of particulate matter
is the generation of a
wind direction frequency table or wind rose.
This establishes the frequency of time that
the wind blows from
a particular set of
directions on days when particulate levels
are high.
(Tr.
1 p.
35).
Mr. Kolaz further testified that the data used in developing the
wind rose was obtained from an Agency monitoring site in Peoria
and the data indicated that the most frequent directions
associated with the high PM-bc values were from the sector to the
southwest.
(Tr.
1 p. 37-38).
Mr. Kolaz also stated:
125~429
4
This type of analysis provides a good
indication of the general geographical area
from which the high values are generated.
***
The sources of the high PM-b
are most likely
within the cross—hatched areas which includes
the Lone Star Industries’ facility, located
approximately .5 kilometers south-southwest
of the monitoring site.
The fact that light winds were associated
with the high PM-b
levels is an indication
that wind-blown fugitive dust is not a major
contributor; however, mechanically—induced
fugitive emissions are a possible
contributor.
(Tr.
1
p.
38).
In studying the air quality in the Oglesby area, the Agency
used dispersion modeling in an effort to develop a control
strategy for achieving and maintaining PM-b
air quality
standards.
(P.C.
3 p.
4).
The Agency presented testimony from
Robert Kaleel and Jeffrey Sprague regarding the dispersion
modeling used in this proceeding.
According to Mr.
Sprague,
the
Agency’s modeling indicated that with the modernization program
and control technologies being added to the Lone Star facility,
the area would meet the ambient air quality standards for PM-b.
(Tr.2 p.
155).
The Agency believed that the initial proposal submitted to
the Board was agreed to by Lone Star.
However,
at hearing,
Lone
Star enunciated several concerns with the proposal.
Specifically, Lone Star questioned both the monitoring at the
Oglesby site and the modeling which took place to determine what
control strategies would be necessary to achieve compliance.
In
addition, Lone Star expressed concern and continues to be
concerned with Method 202, which the Agency is proposing for the
measurement of condensible PM-lU,
would make it unlikely that
Lone Star could meet the PM-b
standards set forth in the
proposal.
Lone Star at hearing questioned the Agency’s witness
regarding wind direction and the location of the monitoring
equipment.
Lone Star was concerned that other sources might also
contribute to the high PM-b
values recorded in Oglesby.
Lone
Star raised questions which were an attempt to elicit from the
Agency that another cement manufacturer in LaSalle County,
as
well as the nearby LaSalle County landfill, were also major
sources for PM-b
in Oglesby.
Lone Star also raised specific questions with regard to the
modeling done by the Agency.
The first question raised was
125—430
5
whether the meteorological data from Peoria used in the modeling
was representative of the meteorological conditions in Oglesby.
(P.C.
3 p.
4).
The Agency states that:
The purpose of the modeling study performed
by the Agency is not to replicate the
conditions on a specific day or year.
Rather, the objective is to evaluate the
ability of the emission limits proposed in
the regulations to protect the ambient
standards in future years under
meteorological conditions that are typical of
the area.
(P.C.
3 p.
5).
The Agency indicates that the weather conditions in Peoria
are similar to those occurring in Oglesby. in that the mean annual
precipitation varies by less than two inches, temperatures vary
by less than
1 degree
F,
and wind directions show little
variation.
(P.C.
3 p.
5).
Thus,
the use of the meteorological
data from Peoria
is appropriate.
Lone Star also raised the issue of the size of the modeling
domain and the emissions sources included in the analysis.
The
Agency points out that the air quality problem in Oglesby is of a
long standing nature and is not a problem evidenced in other
portions of LaSalle County.
(P.C.
3
p. 5-6).
The Agency
specifically referred to the absence of complaints by residents
who did not live
in the Oglesby area as an indicator that the
remainder of the County does not have a significant PM-bc
problem.
Mr. Kolaz presented testimony which indicated that the Lone
Star facility is
located such that the monitoring equipment
reflects Lone Star as the major contributor to the air quality
problem.
Further, Mr. Kaleel and Mr. Sprague testified that
other possible contributors to the air quality for PM-b
were
considered when the modeling took place and included as
“background concentrations”.
(P.C.
3 p.
6).
The Agency stated:
Emissions from the Lone Star Cement Plant are
the primary reason that the particulate
matter air quality standards have been
violated every year since 1976, the year the
Agency first installed air quality samplers
in Oglesby.
Reasonable emission controls at
the Lone Star facility are necessary to
achieve attainment of the air quality
standards.
(P.C.
3
p.
6-7)
125—4 3
1
6
Therefore,
the Board feels that the monitoring and modeling
performed by the Agency appropriately considered other sources of
possible emissions.
Further, the Board believes that the record
clearly supports the Agency’s position that Lone Star is the
major contributor of PM-b
emissions
in Oglesby.
Lone Star near the close of the second hearing and in its
post—hearing comments raised two issues in the proceeding.
With
regards to the first issue, Lone Star informed the Board and the
Agency at the April 19,
1991 hearing that there was a significant
issue r~mainingwith regards to the proposal.
Lone Star has
serious concerns regarding measurement of condensible PM—b
using
the USEPA proposed test Method 202
for the measurement of PM-b.
Mr. Daniel Goodwin testified on behalf of Lone Star and stated
the following:
We do not know if the Lone Star process sources
can comply with the proposed emission limits
if
condensibles are included, and the proposed test
method
(202
for condensibles is not suitable.
(Tr.2 p.
199).
Mr. Goodwin further testified that he had been in contact with
USEPA and that “significant changes in the test method are being
incorporated in response to the identified problems with ammonium
chloride and ammonium sulfate.”
(Tr.
2 p.
197).
The Agency, upon cross—examination,
elicited the fact that
Lone Star was aware that condensibles would be included in the
measurement for PM—b
(Tr.
2
p.
205).
Lone Star asked for
additional time to perform stack tests and measure the
condensible PM-b
levels at the facility.
After the hearings were concluded in this matter, the Agency
and Lone Star filed comments to further elaborate on points
raised at hearing.
The Agency stated in its post-hearing
comments that it “recognizes the necessity of further addressing
the measurement of condensible PM-b”.
(P.C.
3 p.
9).
The
Agency offered a resolution of the issue to the Board.
The
Agency recommends “excluding the clinker cooler and the finish
mill high efficiency air separator from the requirement of
testing with Method 202 while lowering the allowable limits
in
the Proposed Rule to account for any possible condensible
emissions.”
(P.C.
3 p.
10).
The Agency further stated that the
“newly developed proposed language” allows Lone Star to exclude
annuonium chloride from the Method 202 measurement.
(P.C.
3 p.
10).
The Agency’s comments were received by the Board on July 25,
1991.
Lone Star submitted comments on July 26,
1991, which
requests that the Board “defer final action with respect to
proposed Method 202 until the technical issues raised” are
125—43
2
7
resolved.
(P.C.
4 p.
2).
Lone Star included several supporting
documents detailing the technical issues with its comment.
In
addition, USEPA filed comments which state that “(there
should
be some indication that Method 202 is the test method for
‘Condensible particulate matter’.”
(P.C.
5 p.2).
The second major issue raised by Lone Star in its post—
hearing comments is that Lone Star is requesting “a compliance
date of April 30,
1992 be included in the rule.”
(P.C.
4 p. b-
3).
As this issue had not been discussed on the record and
further~elaborationon Method 202 seemed appropriate, on July 30,
1991 the Hearing Officer asked for additional comments from the
participants elaborating on the issue of Method 202 and on the
issue of a later compliance date.
In addition, the Hearing
Officer asked for specific comments on certain suggested
language.
On August 19,
1991,
the Board received comments from the
Agency,
USEPA, and Lone Star addressing the issues raised by the
Hearing Officer Order of July 30,
1991.
With regards to the
issue of a later compliance date, the Agency and USEPA agreed
that the date suggested by Lone Star was acceptable.
(P.C.
6 P.
2;
P.C.
7
P.
2).
The USEPA indicated that compliance must be
achieved under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments by December 10,
1993; therefore, the later compliance date of April 30,
1992
is
acceptable.
(P.C.
7
P.
2).
Therefore, the Board will add to the
rulemaking language indicating that the rule as it applies to
Lone Star will not be effective until April 30,
b992.
As to the issue of whether Method 202
is appropriate for
condensible PM-b
as opposed to condensible particles, USEPA
states:
The Board questioned if Method 202
is an
appropriate method for measuring PM less than
10 microns alone
(without also measuring
other sizes).
The answer
is yes.
All
condensible PM is considered to be PM less
than 10 microns.
(P.C.
7 P.
2).
The Agency states,
in part,
that:
“Method 202
.
.
.
is the
appropriate method for measuring condensible PM—b.
.
Furthermore, there
is no acceptable alternative test method for
measuring condensible PM—bO at this time.”
(P.C.
6
P.
2).
Further the Agency and the USEPA both attached a letter from
Candice Sorrell to Mr. Goodwin dated July b8,
1991,
which states:
To summarize,
USEPA
believes that none of
the issues raised in your letter indicate
that Method 202 may not be appropriate for
Portland cement kilns or that the test data
collected a Lone Star are invalid.
(P.C.
6
125—433
8
Attachment
1;
P.C.
7 Attachment).
Lone Star continues to state that it “does not believe
USEPA’s proposed Method 202 is technically sound as a test method
for measuring condensible PM—b
from some categories of sources,
including those at Portland cement manufacturing plants.”
(P.C.
8 P.
7).
Lone Star asks that the Board either defer action on
Method 202 or incorporate by reference any future changes to
Method 202.
(P.C.
8
P.
8).
Loi!~eStar’s concerns may or may not be valid; however,
both
the Agency and USEPA have indicated that Method 202
is ~
test
method for measuring condensible PM-bO.
Additionally, USEPA has
stated in a letter to Lone Star that USEPA does not believe the
concerns enunciated by Lone Star are valid.
The Agency has
offered a compromise regarding Method 202 which is acceptable to
USEPA.
Lone Star also agrees that the compromise would be
acceptable and would alleviate some of Lone Star’s concerns.
Therefore, the Board will adopt Method 202 by reference and will
add the additional language recommended by the Agency regarding
Method 202.
The Board notes that the Board cannot incorporate
future amendments to Method 202 under the Illinois Administrative
Procedure Act.
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1990 supp.,
ch.
127, par.
1006.02).
However, after the USEPA has taken final action on
Method 202 Lone Star or the Agency could propose an amendment to
this rule to incorporate the new Method 202.
The Agency’s comments included several suggested language
changes to the proposal.
Except for issues outlined in the
foregoing discussion, Lone Star agreed with the comments made by
the Agency.
Lone Star also requests that Section 212.424(c) (1)
be modified so that it shall not apply after the roadway is
paved.
(P.C.
4 p.
1-3).
In addition to the aforementioned comments, the comments
filed by USEPA included the following:
1.
The definition for “Condensible particulate
matter”
in Section 211.122 does not refer to
a test method in Section 212.110.
The phrase
“Condensible particulate matter”
is not
spelled out
in Section 212.110.
There should
be some indication that Method 202 is the
test method for “Condensible particulate
matter.”
*
*
*
3.
It is USEPA’s understanding that the unpaved
road,
where calcium chloride was going to be
used as a dust suppressant,
is going to be
paved.
Paving the road is a more effective
125—434
9
control measure and could more easily
demonstrate
a specific, level of control
efficiency.
USEPA is concerned about the
control efficiency of calcium chloride as a
dust suppressant.
If the road remains
unpaved, than there needs to be some
justification for the control efficiency of
the calcium chloride.
*
*
*
5.
To reduce potential ambiguity, we recommend
that Section 212.423(c)
state than “No person
shall cause or allow
~j~y
visible
emissions...”.
6.
Section 212.110(d)
must indicate that 40 CFR,
Appendix A, Method 22 will be used for both
stack emissions and fugitive emissions even
though Method 22 states that it
is not to be
used for stack emissions.
7.
As to Section 212.423(e) (2), the quarterly
reporting requirements for malfunctions are
vague.
Reporting should be required promptly
following the start of the malfunction.
*
*
*
(P.C.
5 p.2)
The Hearing Officer’s July
30,
1991 Order also asked that the
participants comment on the use of Method 22 for stack emissions.
All of the comments received on August
19,
1991 indicate that
Method 22
is appropriate for the visual determination of stack
emissions when the standard for such emissions is “no visible
emissions”.
(P.C.
6 P.4; P.C.
7
P.
2;
P.C.
8,
P.
2).
The last issue which the participants have not agreed on
relates to reporting of malfunctions of the pollution control
equipment.
The Board proposal,
as sent to First Notice by the
Board,
requires that the owner or operator deliver quarterly
reports on malfunctions.
Lone Star objected to quarterly reports
and the Agency suggested annual reports as an alternative.
The
Hearing Officer Order of July 30,
1991, asked that the
participants provide justification for not requiring prompt
reporting.
The Agency responded that permit conditions of the
Agency require prompt reporting of malfunctions and therefore,
annual reporting would be sufficient.
(P.C.
6
P.
6).
Lone Star
submitted information on the costs of quarterly reports and again
requested that the provision be deleted.
(P.C.
8 P.
5).
The
125—435
10
USEPA stated that its position is that there must be prompt
reporting following the start of a malfunction.
(P.C.
7 P.3).
The Agency has indicated that permit conditions will require
prompt reporting of malfunctions.
Further, under language
submitted in the initial proposal, Lone Star would be required to.
prepare records documenting such malfunctions.
Lone Star has not
objected to any of these requirements.
Thus, Lone Star’s
information regarding the costs of reporting would be necessary
expenses.
Submission of annual and even quarterly reports are not
unusual in Board regulations.
Therefore the Board will require
Lone Star to photocopy and mail these already prepared documents
to the Agency on a quarterly basis.
However, the Board does not
see’a need for reports on malfunctions if none occur.
Therefore,
the Board will amend the language in Section 212.423(e) (2) to
mirror the original proposal filed with the Board.
In addition,
the Board will require the filing of one copy of the documents
during any quarter in which a malfunction occurs.
After consideration of the comments received and based on
the discussion above,
the Board will amend the proposal to
incorporate certain of the language changes suggested by the
participants.
A break down of the specific language changes
follows.
Section 212.110(a)
by deleting the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers
(ASME)
Power Test Code and replacing it with
a reference to 40 C.F.R.
60 Appendix A Method
5.
Section 212.110(d) will be amended to make clear that Test
Method 22
is to be used for both stack and fugitive emissions
testing.
Section 212.110(e) delete all references to Method 202 and
create anew subsection
(f)
incorporating Method 202.
Section 212.110(f)
will be relettered
(g)
and last line will
be changed to allow for an agreed alternative time for submittal
of test results.
Section 212.110(g) and (h~will be relettered
(h) and
(i)
and minor changes added.
Section 212.110(i)
will be relettered
(j)
and the words
“recordkeeping,
inspections, monitoring,
and entry” will be
deleted.
Section 212.113 by deleting the reference to the ASNE test
and adding Method 202.
125—436
11
Section 212.423(a)
and 212.424(a)
the last sentence will be
deleted and minor corrections made.
Section 212.423(b) will be amended so that the Clinker
Cooler and Finish Mill High Efficiency Air Separator are separate
from the Raw Mill Roller Mill and the Kiln.
Section 212.423(e) (2)
the last sentence will be deleted and
a requirement for prompt reporting will be inserted.
Seátion 212.423(f) will be amended to reflect the exclusion
of ammonium chloride from the measurement of condensible PM—bc.
Section 212.424(c) (1)
a sentence reflecting that the section
will not apply if the road is paved will be added.
Section 212.424(e) (2) (D),(e) (2) (E)
arid
(e)(5) will be
amended to read as in the Agency’s proposal.
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes for Second Notice the following
amendments to 35
Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle B:
Air Pollution,
Chapter I,
Pollution Control Board,
Subchapter
c:
Emissions
Standards and Limitations for Stationary Sources Part 211,
Section 211.122 and Part 212, Sections 212.110, 212.423, and
212.424.
The Clerk of the Board is directed to file these
proposed amendments with the Joint Committee on Administrative
Rules.
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
B:
AIR POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER c:
EMISSION STANDARDS
AND
LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 211
DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
SUBPART B:
DEFINITIONS
Section 211.122
Definitions
“Condensible partlculQte matter PM—ID”
particulate matter ~M—
~
formed immediately or shortly after discharge to the
atmosphere, as measured by the applicable test method specified
in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 212.110.
Condensible particulate matter
exists in gaseous and/or vapor form prior to release to the
atmosphere.
e.g.,
in the stack,
and forms particulate matter upon
125—437
12
condensation, when sub-ject to conditions of cooling and dilution
in the atmosphere.
“PM—b”:
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers,
as measured by
the applicable test methods specified in 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
212.110.
“Portland Cement Manufacturing Process Emission Source”:
any
items of process equipment or manufacturing processes used in or
associated with the production of portland cement,
including, but
not limited to,
a kiln,
clinker cooler, raw mill system,
finish
mill system, raw material dryer, material storage bin or system,
material conveyor belt or other transfer system, material
conveyor belt transfer point, bagging operation,
bulk unloading
station, or bulk loading station.
“Portland Cement Process” or “Portland Cement Manufacturing
Plant”:
Any facility or plant manufacturing portland cement by
either the wet or dry process.
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE B:
AIR POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER c:
EMISSION STANDARDS
AND
LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 212
VISIBLE
AND
PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS
SUBPART Q:
STONE, CLAY,
GLASS AND CONCRETE MANUFACTURING
212.423
Emission Limits for th~~
Portland Cement Manufacturing
Plant9 Located in LaSalle County,
South of the
Illinois River
212.424
Fugitive Particulate Matter Control for
h~
Portland Cement Manufacturing Plantgr andAssociated
Quarry Operations Located in LaSalle County,
South of
the Illinois River
SUBPART A:
GENERAL
Section 212.110
Measurement Methods
125—43 8
13
Particulate Matter Measurement.
Particulate matter
emissions from stationary emission sources subject to
this Part shall be conducted inaccärdanôewith
40
CFR 60AppendixA Method S as.incdrporated by
reference in Section 212.113 determined by the
prbcedt*res described in the American Cociety of
Mechanical Engincer3 Power Test Code 27 1957
(Determining Dust Concentration in a Gas Ctream)
as
revised from time to time,
or by any other equivalent
procedures approved by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency).
..
.
The
~j
Flow Rate and Gas Velocity
M~iipc~m~r~
volumetric flow rate and gas velocity shall be
determinec~in accordance with 40 CFR 60, Appendi~
Methods
1,
1A,
2.
2A,
2C,
2D,
3 and 4,
incorporated
by reference in Section 212.113.
I-
çj
Opacity Measurement.
Measurement of opacity shall be
conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 60, Appendix A,
Method
9 and
40 CFR 60.675(c)
and
(d), incorporated
by reference in Section 212.113.
~
Visible Emissions Measure~ei~.Detection of visible
emissions
frem all process emission sources and
fugitive particulate matter emission sources required
to meet a “no visible emissions” standard shall be
conducted
in accordance with 40 CFR 60, Appendix A,
Method 22, incorporated by reference in Section
212
.
113.
~j
Test Methods for PM—b
Emissions.
Emissions of PM-
10 shall be measured by any of the following methods
at the option of the owner or operator of an
emissions source.
fl
40 CFR 51, Appendix M, Method 201 and 55 FR
4154G. Method
202, incorporated by reference in
Section 212.113.
ZL
40 CFR 51, Appendix M, Method 201A and 55 FR
4154G. Method 202,
incorporated by reference in
Section 212.113.
40 CFR 60, Appendix
reference in Section
A, Method
212.113,
5,
and
incorporated
55
rn
41546,
by
Method 202,
incorporated by reference in Cection
212.113, provided that all Particulate Matter
measured by Method
5 shall be considered to be
PM-b.
125—439
14
jj~. Test Methods for Condensible PM-bO Emissions.
Emissions of condensible PM-bO shall be measured by
55 FR 41546 Method’ 202 incorporated by reference in
Section 212.113.
~g)
Upon
a written notification requeat by the Agency,
the owner or operator of a PM—b
emission source
subiect to this Section ~
shall conduct the
applicable testing specified in this Section for PM-
10 emissions, çond~n~ibl~
PM—~.O
emissi~.çn~
opacltvL
or visible emissions at such person’s own expense, to
demonstrate compliance.
Such test results shall be
submitted to the Agency within 30 days of conducting
the test
aaya or receipt or rina~rc~u~~
whichever i~later unlessan::alternative time for
submittal is agreed to by the Agency.
~erson
planning to conduct testing for PM-lU or
con ensible p i—~~
emissions to demonstrate compliance
shall give written notice to the Agency of that
intent. ~:Süchnotification shall begivén at least 30
days prior~tothe before the planned initiation of
the test
30
that the Agency may ob3ervL the teat
unless
a
shorter pre-notificat on peri’ d
is agreed to
bythe Agency.
.
-
-
specific
test
methods
from
this
Section
that
will
be
used.
~j)
The owner or operator of an emission source sub-iect
to this Section
Part
shall retain records of all
tests which are performed.
These records shall be
retained
for
at
least
three
years
after
the
date
a
test
is
performed.
~jJ
This
Section
shall
not
affect
the
recordkceping,
inspçctions, monitoring,
and entry authority of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency under
Section 114 of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C.A. par.
7401 et seq.
(1990)).
Section 212.111
Abbreviations and Units
a)
The following abbreviations are used in this Part:
btu
British thermal units
(60¼ F)
dscf
dry standard cubic foot
ft
foot
fpm
feet per minute
gr
grains
gr/scf
grains per standard cubic foot
Such notirieat~
on
sh~I.1
state
the
125—440
15
gr/dscf
grains per dry standard cubic foot
J
Joule
kg
kilogram
kg/MW-hr
kilograms per megawatt-hour
km
kilometer
1
liter
lbs
pounds
lbs/hr
pounds per hour
lbs/mmbtu
pounds per million btu
m
meter
mph
miles per hour
mg
milligram
mg/scm
milligrams per standard cubic meter
mg/dscm
milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter
mg/i
milligrams per liter
Mg
megagram, metric tone or tonne
mi
mile
itunbtu
million British thermal units
mmbtu/hr
million British thermal units per hour
MW
megawatt; one million watts
MW-hr
megawatt-hour
rig
nanogram; one billionth of a gram
ng/J
nonograms per Joule
scf
standard cubic foot
scfm
standard cubic feet per minute
scm
standard cubic meter
T
English ton
b)
The following conversion factors have been used in
this Part:
English
Metric
2.205
lb
1 kg
1 T
0.907 Mg
1 lb/T
0.500 kg/Mg
mmbtu/hr
0.293 MW
1 lb/mmbtu
1.548 kg/MW-hr or 430 ng/J
1 mi
1.61 km
1 gr
64.81 mg
1 gr/scf
2289 mg/scm
1 square foot
0.0929 square meter
1 foot
0.3048 m
Section 212.113
Incorporations by Reference
The following materials are incorporated by reference.
These incorporations do not include any later amendments
or editions.
125—44
1
16
a)
ACME Power Teat Code 27-1957, Determining Dust
Concentration in a Gas Stream, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, United Engineering Center,
345
E. 47th Ctreet, New York, NY
10017.
~)
Ringelmann Chart,
Information Circular 833
(Revision
of 1C7718)’, Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of
Interior, May 1,
1967.
ek)
40 CFR 60, Appendix A ~1’)C7)(1990)--:
fl
Method 1:
Sample and Velocity Traverses for
Stationary Sources
21
Method 1A:
Sample and Velocity Traverses for
Stationary Sources with Small Stacks or Ducts
~j.
Method 2:
Determination of Stack Gas Velocity
and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type S pitot tube)
4j
Method 2A:
Direct Measurement of Gas Volume
Through Pipes and Small Ducts
~j
Method 2C:
Determination of Stack Gas Velocity
and Volumetric Flow Rate in Small Stacks or
Ducts
(Standard Pitot TubeI
~j
Method 2D:
Measurement of Gas Volumetric Flow
Rates
in Small Pipes and Ducts
fl
Method
3:
Gas Analysis for Carbon Dioxide,
Oxygen, Excess Air, and Dry Molecular Weight
~j.
Method 4:
Determination of Moisture Content in
Stack Gases
.~j.
Method
5:
Determination of Particulate
Emissions From Stationary Sources
3~Qj. Method 9:
Visual Determination of the Opacity
of Emissions from Stationary Sources
111
Method 22:
Visual Determination of Fugitive
Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke
Emissions from Flares.
~)
40 CFR 51 Appendix M
(1990):
fl
Method 201:
‘Determination of PM—b
Emissions
21
Method 201A:
Determination of PM-b
Emissions
125—442
17
(Constant Sampling Rate Procedure).
ed)
40 CFR 60.672
(b)
,
(C)
(d) and
(e)
(1990)
40 CFR 60.675(c) and
(d)
(1990).
~g~) ASAE Standard 248.2, Section
9, Basis for Stating
Drying Capacity of Batch and Continuous-Flow Grain
Dryers, American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
2950 Niles Road,
St.
Joseph, MI
49085.
e~) U.S. Sieve Series,
ASTM—Ebl, American Society of
Testing Materials,
1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103.
f)
‘mis Part incorr~r~ratesno furrn~-eaicions or
amendments.
~h)
55 FR 41546,
(October 12,
1990),
Method
202:
Determination of Condensible Particulate Emissions
from Stationary Sources.
(Source:
Amended at
Ill. Reg.
____,
effective
____________)
SUBPART
Q:
STONE, CLAY, GLASS AND CONCRETE
MANUFACTURING
Section 212.423
Emission Limits for Portland Cement
~‘e
Manufacturing Plants Located in LaSa’Il’è County,
South of the Illinois River.
~j
Applicability.
This Section shall apply to~th~”
portland cement manufacturing plants in operatIon
before September 1,
1990 located in LaSalle County,
south of the Illinois River.
This Section shall not
alter the applicability of Sections 212.321 and
212.322 to portland cement manufacturing processes
other than those for which alternate emission limits
are specified in subsection
(b).
This Section shall
not affect the applicability of 35
Ill. Adm. Code
201 140
~his Sectbon ~haI1 ~
~co~e
~fective
ur~t1l
April
3O~.l992~
No
person shall cause or allow emissions of PM-b
to
exceed either of the emission limits specified for
each portland cement manufacturing process emission
1
1 ~tc’~1hr~1r~u’
125—44 3
18
NI
10 flmi~sionLimits
Rate
Concentration
kalhr
(1bs/hr~
mp/5cm
tarIBcfI
fl
flaw Nih
Roller
Nill(rU~Inrfl
6.08
(13.4)
27.5
(0.012)
~,
Kiln
without
PJIflhI
opcratinq
19.19
(42.3)
91.5
(0.040)
~J.
Kiln with
lU1flJ~I operating
11.43
(252)
09.2
(0.030)
j)~.
Clin)tcr Cooler
4.85
(10.7)
32.0 (0.014)
~27.5
(0.012)
b
Prohibitions.
fl~
No person shall cause or allow emissions of PM—hO to
exceed the emission limits
set
forth below
for each
process.
PM—hO Emission Limits
Rate
Concentration
ka/hr
(llb/hr)
mp/scm
(qr/scf)
~.
Clinker Cooler
4.67
(10.3)
28.147
(0.012)
~.
Finish Mill High
2.68
(5.9)
26.087
(0.011)
Efficiency Air
Separator
2.1
No person shall cause or allow emissions of PM—la
including condensible PM-hO to exceed the emission limits
set forth below for each process.
PM—hO Emission Limits
Including Condensible PM—hO
Rate
Concentration
kg/hr
(llbs/hr)
mg/scm
(gr/acf)
A.
Raw Mill Roller
6.08
(13.4)
27.5
(0.012)
Mill
(R.MRM)
B.
Kiln without
19.19
(42.3)
91.5
(0.040)
RNRM Operating
C.
Kiln with RMRM
11.43
(25.2)
89.2
(0.039)
125—444
19
~j
No person shall cause or allow ~
visible emissions
from any portland cement manufacturing process
emission source not listed in subsection
(b).
~j,,.Maintenance and Repair.
The owner or operator of any
process emission source subiect to subsections
(b)
or
(c)
shall maintain and repair all air pollution
control equipment in a manner that assures that the
applicable emission limits and standards in
subsections
(bi or
(c)
shall be met at all times.
Proper maintenance shall include at least the
following requirements:
jj
Visual inspections of air pollution control
equipment shall be conducted:
21
An adequate inventory of spare parts shall be
maintained:
,~j,,,
Prompt and immediate repairs shall be made upon
identification of the need:
flj..
Written records of inventory and documentation
of inspections, maintenance, and repairs of all
air pollution control equipment shall be kept in
accordance with subsection
(e).
~j
Recordkeeping of Maintenance and Repair.
fl
Written records shall be kept documenting
inspections, maintenance, and repairs of all air
pollution control equipment.
All such records
required under this Section shall be kept and
maintained for at least three
(3) years,
shall
be available for inspection by the Agency,
and,
upon request,
shall
be copied and furnished to
Agency representatives during working hours.
21
The owner or operator shall document any period
during which any process emission source was in
operation when the air pollution control
equipment was not in operation or was not
operating properly.
These records shall be
delivered to the Agency at least quarterly and
shall include documentation of causes for
pollution control equipment not operating or not
operating properly.
and shall state what
corrective actions were taken and what repairs
were made
In any quarter during which such a
125—445
20
fl
A written record of the inventory of all spare
parts not readily available from local suppliers
shall be kept and updated.
~j
Upon written request by the Agency, the owner or
operator shall submit any information required
pursuant to Subpart 0,
for any period of time
specified in the request.
Such information
shall be submitted within ten
(10) working days
from the date on which the request is received.
Compliance vetermizi~ion. Determination of
compliance
wi’cn
i’r.i
iv,
opacity and detection of
visible particulate emissions limitations shall be
made in accordance with. the measurement methods
specified in Section 212.110
Testing to determine
compliance with the emission limits specified for PM-
10,
condensible
PM—b,
and detection of visible
emissions shall be
in accordance with the measurement
methods specified in Section 212.110(d).
(e),
and
(f).
Ammoniuin chloride shall
be excluded from the
measurement of condensibbe PM—b.
(Source:
Added at
—
Ill.
Reg.
—
,
effective
___________
)
Section 212 424
Fugitive Particulate Matter Control for the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Plants and
Associated quarry Operations Located in LaSalle
County,
South of the Illinois River.
~j
Applicability
This section shall apply to th~
portland cement manufacturing plants in operation
before September
1,
1990 and associated quarry
operations located in LaSalle County,
south of the
Illinois River.
Associated quarry operations are
those operations involving the removal and disposal
of overburden,
and the extraction, crushing, sizing,
and transport of limestone and shale for usage at the
Portland cement manufacturing plant
This
S~ct~ion
sball not become e~ectwe until April 3G
1~92.
~J,
Applicability of Subpart K of this Part.
This
Section shall not alter the applicability of Subpart
K:
Fugitive Particulate Matter.
g,,j
Fugitive Particulate Matter Control Measures For
125—446
21
Roadways at the Plant.
fl
For the unpaved access roadway to the Illinois
Central Silos Loadout, the owner or operator
shall spray a 30 percent solution of calcium
chloride once every 16 weeks at an application
rate of at least 1.58 liters per square meter
(0.35 gallons per square yard)
followed by
weekly application of water at
a rate of at
least
1.58 liters per square meter
(0.35 gallons
per
square
yard).
This
subsection
~h
~
after
the
roadway
~s, paved.
21
The
owner
or
operator of the Portland cement
manufacturing
plant
shall
keep
written
records
in
accordance
with
subsection
(e).
~j
Fugitive
Particulate
Matter
Control
Measures for
Associated quarry Operations.
fl
For the primary crusher, the primary screen, the
#3 conveyor from the primary screen to the surge
pile,
and the surge pile feeders to the #4
conveyor, the owner or operator shall spray a
chemical foam spray of at least
1 percent
solution of chemical foaming agent in water
continuously during operations at a rate of at
beast 1.25 liters per megagram
(0.30 gallons per
ton)
of rock processed.
21
The owner or operator shall water all roadways
traveled by trucks to and from the primary
crusher in the process of transporting raw
limestone and shale to the crusher at an
application rate of at least 0.50 liters per
square meter
(0.10 gallons per square yard)
applied once every eight hours of operation
except under conditions specified in subsection
(d)(3).
Watering shall begin within one hour of
commencement of truck traffic each day.
fl
Subsection
(d) (2)
shall be followed at all times
except under the following circumstances:
~
Precipitation is occurring such that there
are no visible emissions or if
precipitation occurred during the previous
2 hours such that there are no visible
emissions
~j
If the ambient temperature
is less than or
equal to 0°C (32°F);or
125—44 7
22
~j
If ice or snow build—up has occurred on
roadways such that there are no visible
emissions.
.41
The owner or operator of the associated quarry
operations shall keep written records in
accordance
with
subsection
(e).
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
.3J..
The
owner
or operator of any portland cement
manufacturing plant and/or associated quarry
operations sublect to this Section shall keep
written daily records relating to the
application of each of the fugitive particulate
matter
control
measures
required
by
this
Section.
21
The records required under this Section shall
include
at
least
the
following:
~j
the
name
and
address
of
the
plant
~j
the
name
and
address
of
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
plant
and
associated
quarry
operations
~j
a
map
or
diagram
showing
the
location
of
all
fugitive
particulate
matter
sources
controlled
including
the
location,
identification,
length,
and
width
of
roadways
Qj
for
each
application
of
water
or
calcium
chloride
solution,
the
name
and
location
of
the
roadway
controlled,
the
water
capacity
of_each truck, application rate of each
truck,
frequency of each application, width
of each application, start and stop time of
each application, identification of each
water truck used, total quantity of water
or calcium chloride used for each
application, including the concentration of
calcium chloride used for each application
,~j,,
for application of chemical foam spray
solution,
the
application
rate
and
frequency
of
application,
name
of
foaming
agent, and total quantity of solution used
each day
125—448
23
fi
name
and
designation
of
the
person
applying
control measures; and
Q.L
a
boa recording all failures to use control
measures required by this Section with a
statement explaining the reasons for each
failure and,
in the case of a failure to
comply with the roadway watering
requirements of subsection
(d) (2), a record
showing that one of the circumstances for
exceptions
listed
in
subsection
Cd)
(3)
existed
during
the
period
of
the
failure.
Such
record
shall
include,
for
example,
the
periods
of
time
when
the
measured
temperature
was
less than or equal to 0°C
(32°F)
~j,.
Copies
of
all
records required by this Section
shall be submitted to the Agency within ten
(10)
working days of a written request by the Agency.
41
The records required under this Section shall be
kept and maintained for at least three
(3) years
and shall be available for inspection and
copying by Agency representatives during working
hours.
~j,, A quarterly report shall be submitted to the
Agency
stating
the
following:
the dates required
control measures were not implemented, the
required control measures, the reasons that the
control
measures
were
not
implemented,
and
the
corrective actions taken.
This report shall
include
those
times
when
subsection
(e)
is
involved.
This report shall be submitted to the
Agency 30 calendar days from the end of
a
quarter.
Quarters end March 31, June 30.
September 30, and December 31.
(Source:
Added at
—
Ill. Reg.
____,
effective
______________)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
125—449
24
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby ce~~ti11fythat the al~oveOpi~onand Order
was adopted on the
,?~‘~—~
day of
~~~j(#~/
,
1991, by
a vote of
7~’
~orothy M.
3Ann,
Clerk
Illinois Poflution Control Board
125—4 50
