ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

21,

1990

IN THE

MATTER

OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

R87-31

PART 214, MEASUREMENTS

)

(Rulemaking)

METHODS FOR EMISSIONS

OF SULFUR COMPOUNDS

PROPOSED RULE.

FIRST NOTICE

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by B.

Forcade):

This Droposed regulation involves amendments

to

35

111. Adm.

Code

214 Sulfur Limitations;

Section 214.101, Measurement

Methods.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(“Agency”)

proposed the amendments

in response

to objections

raised by

U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(“USEPA”)

to the Illinois State

Implementation Plan

(“SIP”)

for sulfur dioxide.

Subsection

(a)

of

the rulemaking affects the stack testing measurement

techniques

for sulfur dioxide emissions from stationary sources

and the balance of the rule primarily governs measurement methods

for solid fuels. Affected sources

include public utilities,

private businesses, and various other entities

in Illinois.

Procedural History

The proposed amendments

to Part

214, concerning measurement

methods for emissions of sulfur compounds,

were

filed by the

Agency on August

24,

1987.

Merit hearings were held on October

23,

1987

in Chicago and on November

6,

1987

in Springfield.

On

November

9,

1987,

the Agency’s First Amended Proposed regulation

and Statement of Reasons was filed.

On January

1,

1988,

a letter

from the Department

of Energy and Natural Resources (“D~NR”)

was

filed which acknowledged that

an Economic Impact Study (“EcIS”)

would be undertaken.

The EcIS, entitled The Economic

Impact of

Revised Measurement Methods

for Emissions of Sulfur Compounds,

Proposed Regulations R87-31, was filed on June

9,

1989.

The

Economic and Technical Ad7isory Committee (“ETAC”)

opinion

approving the

EcIS was filed

on July

6,

1989.

EcIS hearings were

held on September

8,

1989

in Chicago and on September

19,

1989

in

Springfield.

On June

11,

1990,

the Agency filed

its amended

proposal setting forth

the

rule as currently proposed.

The Board notes

that Deborah Stonich, who

is presently on

the

Board staff, previously

represented

the Agency

in this

proceeding.

Ms.

Stonich

did

not

participate

in

any

of

the

Board’s deliberations on the proposed amendment since

joining the

Board.

112—439

---

—2—

Background

The

central

issue

concerning

the

proposed

rule

arose

from

the refusal of USEPA in 1985

to accept the sulfur dioxide

emission limitations in the Illinois State Implementation Plan

(“SIP”).

USEPA required that Part 214.101, Measurement Methods,

be revised

to assure short—term compliance with the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard

(“NAAQS”)

for

sulfur dioxide.

(See

Merit Hearings, Exhibit

8,

1985.)

USEPA maintained that stack

testing should be included

in measurement methods

to determine

short—term compliance.

The

two

month averaging method

of

existing Section 214.101 was considered inadequate

to establish

short—term

compliance,

i.e.,

3—hour

and

24—hour

compliance.

Stack

testing

is USEPA’s preferred method

to evaluate short-term

compliance.

The Agency estimated that

87 facilities would be affected by

the rulemaking.

DENR revised this number

downward to

78,

of

which

52 facilities would be required to make some changes

in

their existing practices.

(See EcIS discussion below.)

mt roduction

The proposed amendments to Section 214.101 are intended to

address USEPA’S objections by providing that compliance shown by

coal sample averaging techniques could

not be used

to refute

evidence

of non—compliance shown by stack testing~and vice

versa.

Specifically,

the applicable proposed language states:

“A determination of non—compliance based on any subsection of

this Section shall not be

refuted by evidence of compliance with

any other

subsection.”

Thus,

stack testing,

if required by the

Agency,

would be given controlling weight

if stack

testing

revealed non—compliance.

The Agency also proposes

to add USEPA

approved Methods

6A,

6B,

and 6C,

found at

40 CFR

60, Appendix A,

to supplement the existing Method

6 stack testing procedure.

Section 214.101 would also be amended to specify the methods

and frequency of regular

analysis of coal samples, based on the

facility’s capacity

to produce sulfur emissions.

That capacity

would be expressed

in

terms

of total solid fuel—fired heat input

capacity, measured

in meca watts

(MW) or millions

of British

thermal units per hour ~MBtu/hr).

Facilities were not previously

categorized

in this way, but

now each would

fall

into one of

four

groups, with corresponding testing requirements.

For discussion

purposes,

these facilities may be categorized as follows:

112—440

---

—3—

Category

Capacity

Proposed Frequency of

Analysis

Category

1

more than 439.5 MW

Daily analysis

(1,500 MBtu/hr)

Section

214.101(c)

Category

2

146.5

-

439.5 MW

Weekly analysis of

(500

—

1,500 MBtu/hr)

daily samples

(Section 214.101(d)

Category

3

14.65

—

146.5

MW

Monthly analysis of

(50—500 MBtu/hr)

daily samples

Section

214.101(e)

Category

4

less than

14.65 MW

Monthly average

(50 MBtu/hr)

Section

214.101(f)

Under

the existing rule,

the measurement method

for all

facilities

is the same.

Existing Section 214.101(a)

provides for

stack testing

in accordance with USEPA approved Method

6,

found

at

40 CFR 60

(1982), or procedures specified by the Agency,

and

existing Section 214.101(c)

provides

for two—month averages of

coal samples.

This second method demonstrates compliance by

calculating a two—month average of daily samples of low sulfur

fuel when 95

of the samples are no greater than 20

above

the

average.

Stack testing

is rarely performed, and the two-month

average of coal samples

(sometimes

in

the record referred

to as

a

60—day average)

is the method ordinarily used to show

compliance

with sulfur

emissions limitations.

As discussed

in the EcIS summary below,

the proposed rule

would entail more frequent coal sampling and analysis than some

facilities previously performed.

The ECIS concludes

that this

would involve only modest cost increases over amounts already

spent for current procedures.

These incremental costs

represent

one issue

in this rulemaking.

Another

issue

is

the increased importance of stack testing

under the proposed

rule.

This USEPA requirement gave rise

to

many questions pertaining to

the costs and anticipated frequency

of such stack

tests.

However, whether

the rule should be amended

to satisfy USEPA

is not at

issue.

The record shows

that even the

alternative proposal submitted by the Illinois Environmental

Regulatory Group

(“IERG”) provides the same language

that would

prevent refuting stack

test results

showing non—compliance by

evidence of compliance shown by sampling and analysis.

The

record gives much support

for the

proposition that stack testing

has been,

and would

remain,

an infrequently used testing method.

IERG’s alternative proposal would maintain the existing rule

in other respects and add Agency permit conditions

as the vehicle

1 12—44.1

---

—4—

for making changes

in sampling and analysis procedures.

This

concept was rejected by the Illinois Coal Association, which

favored the predictable specified averaging

requirements.

Such

known regulatory standards would be useful

in contracting for

coal requirements.

Proposed Regulation

The Board’s First Notice prooosed rulemaking

is based

primarily on the Agency’s Amended Proposal filed June

11, 1990.

Section 214.101 would be revised and expanded as noted below.

Incorporation by reference

for cited materials

(i.e.,

40 CFR and

ASTM

methods)

requires

amendments

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

214.104,

which are also detailed below.

Minor

language changes

were

made

by the Board and these changes are discussed ~ater.

Section 214.101

Measurement Methods

A

deterpünation

of

non—compliance

based

on

any

subsection

of

this

Section

shall

not

be

refuted

by

evidence

of

compliance

with

any

other subsection.

a)

Sulfur

Dioxide

Measurement.

Measurement

of

sulfur

dioxide

emissions

from

stationary

sources

shall

be

made

according

to

the pr~eedt~ep~b~~hed

an

applicable method specified

in

40 CFR 60,

Appendix

A,

Method

6,

6A,

63,

or

6C

~

incorporated

by

reference

in

Section

214.104(a).,

or

by

measurement

procedures

specified

by

the

~ne±~

En~enme~a±P~e~ee~+~

A~e~eyAgency

~e

the

~

ef 3~

~++~-

~

ee~e

28~ pursuant

to

40

CFR

60.8(b),

incorporated

by

reference

in

Section

214.104(b).

b)

Sulfuric

Acid

Mist

and

Sulfur

Trioxide

Measurement.

Measurement

of

sulfuric

acid

mist

and

sulfur

trioxide

shall

be

according

to

the barium—thorin titration

method a~

~+~hea

specified

in

40

CFR

60,

Appendix

A,

Method

8

~(-±9f~+,

incorporated

by

reference

in

Section

214.104(a)

c)

Solid

Fuel

Averaging

Measurement

Daily

Analysis Method.

This subsection applies

to

sources

at

plants

with

total

solid

fuel—fired heat

input

capacity exceeding

112—442

---

—5—

439.5 MW

(1500

million Btu/hr).

If

~ew

~e~d

daily

fuel

analysis

is

used

to c~mp~ydemonstrate compliance

or non-

compliance

with

Sections

214.122,

214.141,

214.142(a),

214.162,

214.186 and 214.421,

the a

~eab~e

~

ft~e± sulfur

dioxide

~t~tdatd

hourly

emission

rate

or

emission

rate

expressed

as

kg/MW—hr

(pounds

per

million

Btu)

shall

be

me~ by

considered

to

be

the

result

of

a

any

consecutive

two

month

average of daily samples w4th provided no

more

than 95 percent of

the samplea be~~

values

are

~

greater

than

20

percent

above

the

sample

average.

If

samples

from

a

source

cannot

meet

this

statis-

tical

criterion,

each

individual

daiv

sample analysis

for

such source

shall

be

compared

to

the

standard

to

determine

compliance.

The

specific

ASTM

procedures,

incorporated by reference,

in

Section

214.104(c)

shall

be

used

for

solid

fuel

sampling,

sulfur

and heating

value determinations.

ci)

Weekly Analysis Method.

This

subsection

applies

to

sources

at

plants

with

total

solid

fuel—fired

heat

input

capacity

exceeding

146.5

MW

(500

million

Btu/hr)

but

not exceeding

439.5 MW

(1500 million

Btu/hr).

These plants

shall

demonstrate

compliance

or

non-compliance

with

Sections

214.122,

214.141,

214.142(a),

214.162,

214.186 and 214.421

by either

an

analysis of calendar weekly composites

of

daily

fuel

samples

or

by compliance

with

Subsection

(c)

above,

at

the

option

of

the plant.

The specific

ASTM procedures

incorporated

by

reference

in

Section

214.104(c)

shall

be

used

for

sulfur

and

heating value determinations.

e)

Monthly Analysis Method.

This subsection

applies

to

source3

at

plants

with

total

fuel—fired

heat

input

capacity

exceeding

14.65

MW

(50

million

Btu/hr)

but

not

exceeding

146.5

MW

(500

million

Btu/hr).

These plants

shall

demonstrate

compliance

or

non—compliance

with

Sections

214.122,

214.141,

214.142(a),

214.162,

214.186 and 214.421

by either an

analysis

of

calendar

monthly

composites

112—443

---

—6—

of

daily

fuel

samples

or

by

compliance

with

Subsection

(c)

above,

at

the option

of

the plant.

A.S.T.M.

procedures

shall

be

used

for

sulfur

and

heating

value

determinations.

f)

Small

Source

Alternative

Method.

This

subsection

applies

to

sources

at

plants

with

total

solid

fuel-fired

heat

input

capacity

not

exceeding

14.65

MW

(50

million

Btu/hr).

Compliance

or

non-

compliance

with

Sections

214.122,

214.141,

214.142(a),

214.162,

214.186 and

214.421

shall

be

demonstrated

by

a

calendar

month

average

sulfur

dioxide

emission

rate.

~j

Exemptions.

Subsections

(c)

through

(f)

shall

not

apply

to

sources

controlling

sulfur

dioxide

emissions

by

flue

gas

desulfurization

equipment

or

by

sorbent

injection.

h)

Hydrogen

Sulfide

Measurement.

For

purposes

of

determining

compliance

with

Section

214.382(c),

the

concentration

of

hydrogen

sulfide

in

petroleum

refinery

fuel

gas

shall

be

measured

using

the

Tutwiler

Procedure

specified

in

40

CFR

60.648 ~986~-,

incorporated by reference

in Section 214.104(d)

In order

to incorporate the references

to technical

materials noted

in the proposed Section 214.101,

the Board

proposes

to amend Section 214.104 as follows:

Section 214.104

Incorporations

by Reference

The

following

materials

are

incorporated

by

reference.

These

amendments

do

not

include

any later

amendments or editions.

a)

40 CFR 60, Appendix A ~-~982~ (1989):

1)

Method

6:

fflethe~ ~

mee~e~

Determination

of

~Sulfur

dDioxide

eEmissions-r From Stationary Sources

2)

Method

6A:

Determination

of

Sulfur

Dioxide,

Moisture,

and

Carbon

Dioxide

Emissions

From

Fossil

Fuel

Combustion Sources

112—444

---

—7—

3)

Method

63:

Determination

of

Sulfur

Dioxide

and

Carbon

Dioxide

Daily

Average

Emissions

From

Fossil

Fuel

Combustion Sources

4)

Method

6C:

Determination of

Sulfur

Dioxide

Emissions

From

Stationary

Sources

(Instrumental

Analyzer

Procedure); and

~5)

Method

8:

bar m—h~r~

~~en

methed~ Determination

of

Sulfuric

Acid

Mist

and

Sulfur

Dioxide

Emissions From Stationary Sources.

b)

40 CFR 60.8(b)

(1989),

Performance tests.

bc)

American

Society

for

Testing

and

Materials,

1916

Race

Street,

Philadelphia, PA

19103:

1)

For solid fuel sampling:

ASTM D—2234 ~

(1986)

ASTM D—2622

(1976)

ASTM D—20l3 (1986)

2)

For sulfur determinations:

ASTM D—3177 ~-~9~G-)(1984)

ASPM B-~9~~

~98~

ASTM D—3l80

(1984)

ASTM D—4239

(1985)

3)

For heating value determinations:

ASTM D—20l5 ~-~9~6j (1985)

ASTM D—3286

9~6~(1985)

ed)

Tutwiler

Procedure

for

hydrogen

sulfide,

40 CFR 60.648 ‘&~9B6~)-(1989).

112—445

---

—8—

Merit Hearings

At the merit hearing held on October

27,

1987

in Chicago,

USEPA explained its objection to the existing rule and strongly

recommended adoption of the proposed amendments.

Transcript

(Tr.)

of November

10,

1987,

pp.

9-12;

Exh.

1 and

2.

The Agency

fully described the proposed revisions and the rationale for the

revisions and also commented that it received little negative

response after notifying all known affected facilities.

The

Agency

referred to various benefits

of adopting the proposed

amendments,

including better air quality protection from routine

monitoring;

clarity and consistency

with Agency practices;

uniform enforcement; and USEPA approval.

Tr.,

supra,

pp.

19—

40.

The Agency also testified that “nb

Illinois coal

is likely

to be displaced as

a result of the proposed changes.”

Tr.,

supra,

pp.

53,

58.

The Agency explained how a two—month

standard,

in practice, may represent

the most current

two—

calendar months

of data

if

used for permit renewal,

or may

be

a

60-day “rolling average”

if

continuing compliance

is being

considered.

Tr.,

supra,

p.

64.

The methods

of

sampling and

analysis and the probable frequency of stack

testing were

discussed

in detail.

Tr., supra,

pp.

89—96.

The largest

facilities,

in Categories

1 and

2,

would use ASTM procedures

for

sampling, sulfur, and heating value determinations.

ASTM

sampling procedures would not be required of

the smaller

facilities.

Stack

testing,

if required at all, would most likely

be

required when a permit

is renewed.

Various references were

also made to other pending state air regulations which were

dependent on the the proposed sulfur regulations.

See.

e.g.,

Tr., ~pra,

at pp.

12,

44,

45,

73.

The Agency emphasized that

the proposed regulation would reflect current Agency practices,

with more stringent testing being required of

the largest

potential pollution sources.

IERG participated in the hearing

with questions to the Agency on a variety of

subjects.

At the second merit hearing held on November

6, 1987

in

Springfield,

the Agency presented its amended proposal and IERG

presented an alternative proposal.

The Coal Association also

testified as

to the impact of both proposals

on

Illinois coal

producers.

The Agency modified

its proposal with regard

to ASTM testing

procedures based

on input

from a member

of the Coal

Association.

The revised proposal would not require ASTM

sampling procedures

for Category

2 facilities.

Technical

problems and costs would

not

seem to justify requiring such

sampling procedures.

Another

revision calls

for ASTM procedures

for sulfur and heating value determinations

to

be required

for

Categories

1,

2 and

3,

that

is, all facilities with solid fuel—

fired heat

input capacity exceeding

50 MBtu/hr.

Dr.

Harish Rao

had raised a question regarding ASTM procedures

at

the prior

hearing which prompted this revision.

The smallest facilities

112—446

---

—9—

(Category

4)

would not be required

to test according

to ASTM

procedures.

IERG’s testimony and presentation of

its alternative

proposal

focused on limiting amendment of Section 214.101 to only

those changes required to satisfy USEPA.

See Tr. of November

6,

1987,

pp.

17—18.

IERG deleted reference to Method 6

in the

reference to 40 CFR stack testing methods since more than one

method could be used

to satisfy stack

test requirements.

IERG

also stated that “we would urge in its opinion

to remind the

Agency of its own statements and of the constraints of

reasonableness”

on requiring stack

testing.

Tr.,

supra,

at p.

19.

IERG proposed extensive revision

to the Agency’s proposed

Subsection

C

fuel averaging

rule.

Essentially,

IERG proposes

that all regulatory standards be stated uniformly for facilities

of all sizes and that the Agency rely on

the permitting process

to regulate emissions.

IERG argues

that USEPA’s interpretation

of Illinois’

fuel averaging rules has differed from the state

agency’s interpretation.

USEPA’s enforcement actions have

allegedly resulted in

a

“cost and burden on Illinois sources

whichi

would also lead us

to the conclusion

to eliminate

altogether from the Illinois regulations

any compliance method

based on fuel averaging.”

Tr.,

supra,

at

pp.

20,

21.

IERG,

however,

acknowledged that continuing compliance can efficiently

be monitored through fuel averaging requirements.

Therefore,

IERG suggested that the SIP should not include these requirements

to “eliminate

the issuance of notices of violation by

tJSEPA based

on that data,” Tr.,

supra,

p.

22,

and permit conditions could

be

the vehicle for state imposition and enforcement of fuel

averaging requirements.

IERG suggested that this would provide

needed flexibility to

the Agency.

IERG also recommended

a

regulatory constraint on the Agency to maintain the status quo.

Tr., supra,

pp.

24-25.

As proposed by IERG, Section 214.101

would read as follows:

Section 214.101 Measurement Methods

A determination of non-compliance based on any

subsection

of

this

Section

shall

not

be

refuted

by

evidence

of

compliance

with

any

other subsection.

a.

Sulfur

Dioxide

Measure.

Measurement

of

sulfur

dioxide

emissions

from stationary

sources

shall

be

made

.~ccording to

an

appropriate

procedure

in

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

230,

Appendix

A,

published

in

(40

CFR 60, Appendix A)

(1986).

b.

Sulfuric

Acid

Mist

and

Sulfur

Trioxide

Measurement.

Measurement

of

sulfuric

acid

mist

and

sulfur

trioxide

shall

be

112—447

---

—10—

according

to

th~e barium—thorin

titration

method of

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 230, Appendix

A,

Method

8

(40

CFR

60,

Appendix

A,

Method

8)

(1986).

c.

Solid

Fuel Analysis

Method.

The Agency

may

impose,

as

a

permit

condition,

reasonable and appropriate fuel sampling,

analysis

and

reporting

requirements,

including

reasonable

and

necessary

averaging

provisions.

No

such

permit

condition

shall

cause

any

applicable

emission

limitation

to

be

significantly

more

restrictive

•or

impose significantly

increased

samplinc,

analysis

and

reporting burdens

than allowed under

the

prior Section

214.101(c).

In the event that the Board should chose

to adopt

the

Agency’s approach

to Section 214.101,

IERG

raised various

concerns.

Questions arose on whether

to include all the various

stack testing methods

in

40 CFR,

on the

impact of new sampling

and analysis requirements, and on the meanings

of

“daily”

sampling and

“capacity”

of

a

facility.

These issues seem to have

been addressed later

in this hearing and in the EcIS and the EcIS

hearings.

Later testimony by the Agency

in this merit hearing

highlighted the difficulties of relying solely on the permitting

process and the possibilities

of considerable litigation based on

the rule as proposed by IERG.

Testimony on behalf of

the Coal

Association by Peabody Holding Company’s Director

of Research and

Technology also presented support for

coal sampling as a means

to

show compliance.

The Coal Association recommended adoption of

the Agency’s subsections

(e),

(f), and

(g)

as proposed and

adoption of the other sections with minor changes.

Tr.,

supra,

pp.

40—72.

The coal industry expressed concern over

the

uncertainty

of permit conditions and their susceptibility to

change.

Tr.,

supra,

p.

59.

The Coal Industry also asserted that

“the coal supplier

is the party that will ultimately be required

to comply with the provisions of Part 214.”

Tr.,

supra,

at

p.

41.

Other testimony at the November 7,

1987 hearing provided

some explanation as

to how the Agency applied the regulation’s

two—month averaging

rule.

Currently,

and

as proposed,

this

language is interpreted to mean 60 consecutive days

of operations

from which samples and analyses are drawn.

As applied,

then,

the

requirement, that 95

of

the samples fall within 120

of

the

average, means

that

not more than

5

of

60 days or

three days’

samples could exceed the average values by more than

20.

Tr.,

supra,

pp.

76—77.

112—448

---

—11—

The balance of testimony focused on issues of cost

to be

more fully developed later

in the proceeding.

They also

clarified that daily fuel samples meant

“one representative

sample of the day’s

fuel that’s burned

in the plant.”

Tr.,

supra,

at p.

86.

See also pages

86-92.

Reporting

requirements,

which are not covered by the proposed regulation,

were also

discussed.

Tr., supra,

pp.

92—95.

Various questions arose

considering implementation of sampling and analysis requirement

of reporting that information.

Tr., supra,

pp.

92-116.

The

testimony conveyed that

the Agency has authority presently to

require stack

tests and two—month averaging, and reporting

requirements are set, and would be set,

for each individual

facility and structured as part of

its permit,

and not as part

of

the regulations.

EcIS Summary

The EcIS prepared by DENR and filed on June

6,

1989

(with

concurring ETAC Opinion filed on July

6,

1989) concluded that the

proposed rule would have minimal economic impact.

The study

found

that although Agency records suggested that 87 facilities

would be affected, closings of facilities or operational changes

reduced the number to 78 facilities.

Further reductions were

attributable to the fact that the

25 smallest facilities

(with

solid fuel-fired heat

input capacity not exceeding

50 MBtu/hr)

would not be required

to alter

their sulfur measurement

practices.

Thus, only

52 facilities were found

to be directly

affected by the proposed rule changes.

These facilities

included

six large public utilities, private businesses, and small

institutions such as schools.

Of the affected facilities,

21

facilities “would make changes under

the new rule that would

increase operating costs.”

(EcIS,

p.

42.)

Eighteen

(18) of

these facilities would fall

in Category

3 above, and three

facilities would be

in Category

2 above.

Some Category

2 and

Category

3

facilities would

incur increased costs due to more

frequent analyses and more

frequent coal sampling than previously

done.

Weekly or monthly analyses and daily feed samples would be

required

for these facilities under

the proposed

rule.

The

largest facilities already collect daily

feed samples and would

not need

to alter current practices.

Facilities which sampled

coal shipments,

rather

than daily

feed samples, would

be required

to adopt

the new practice.

DENR concluded that the

incremental labor and equipment

costs associated with complying with the rule were modest.

The

aggregate cost

to facilities ranged from $31,000

to $100,900 for

changes

in

the

type

and

frequency

of

sampling

and

analysis

of

coal.

The average cost-per—facility

for the

21

facilities most

affected by

the rule change

was

estimated

to

be

in the $1,500

to

$5,000 range.

The high cost range

for an individual facility

could vary from $600 to $15,000.

(EcIS

,

p.

42,

43.)

Stack

tests,

if

requested at all by the Agency, were estimated as

I

12—44’~

---

—12—

costing

in the range of $3,000

to $10,000.

No measurable

employment impact was expected

in conjunction with these modest

costs.

The rule would not be the basis

for any quantifiable

improvements

in air quality.

The benefits would be

in terms of

greater assurance of compliance with

the national short—term

sulfur dioxide standard.

The study anticipated.no greater

occurrence of violations as

a result of new or more frequent

testing, with the .possible exception of state—operated

facilities.

(EcIS,

p.

49.)

Hearings

•on the EcIS

At the EcIS hearing held on September

8,

1989

in Chicago,

DENR’s witness explained much of

the research and methods used

to

develop the EcIS.

The Agency clarified that the daily

coal

sampling was not of incoming shipments, but

rather, was sampling

of the coal being burned

that day.

DENR’s witness

confirmed that

it was on this basis

(i.e., daily sampling

of coal being burned)

that

it calculated the costs

to he

incurred as

a result

of the

new rule.

DENR also made clear

that

it did not extensively

research stack

testing costs,

notably because of the low

probability that it would used.

Stack

testing costs,

therefore,

were not included

in the $31,000

to S100,900 aggregate costs

to

facilities

to implement the new rules.

The Agency also indicated

that stack testing was rarely required,

and that the Agency

policy

on stack

testing would not

be expected

to change.

At the continued EcIS hearing held on September

19,

1989 in

Springfield,

a DENR witness submitted the economic model used

in

part of

the EcIS and clarified that the EcIS did not contain an

assumption that more frequent coal sampling would eliminate

the

necessity for stack testing.

An Agency

representative also

addressed an earlier question

regarding “standby capacity.”

Transcript

(Tr.)

of September

19,

1989,

p.

9.

The Agency

explained “that

it does not intend

to count

those boilers on a

facility’s property that are never

used” when the Agency

considers the capacity of

a facility

(and,

therefore,

the

applicable testing requirements).

Supra,

at

p.

9.

The Agency

also responded to other earlier questions,

including

the issue of

stack

testing.

On this important issue,

the Agency stated as

follows:

Tjhe

Agency

would

like

to

state

that

it

is

unlikely

that

it

will

require

routine

stack

tests

in

the

future.

The

possibility

of

routine

stack

tests

should

be

minimal

since

the Agency

has

not reauired

them

in

the

past

even

though

it

has

had

the ability

to

do

so

pursuant

to

the

testing

and

monitoring

provisions contained in Section 201.182(a)

and

(b)

of the Air Pollution Regulations.

112—450

---

—13—

Tr., Sept.

19,

1989,

p.

10.

Conclusion

The Agency and the Illinois Coal Association have presented

a persuasive case.

Therefore,

the Board will propose for First

Notice the amendments

to Part 214, Measurements Methods

for

Emissions of Sulfur Compounds,

substantially as requested by the

Agency.

Several considerations were relevant

to the Board’s

decision.

First,

the Board

is cognizant

of the need

to address USEPA’s

objections

to the Illinois SIP.

The participants

in this

regulatory proceeding agree

that stack testing must

be given

greater prominence as

the means

to show short-term compliance

with the sulfur emissions

standards.

Thus,

the amendment

of

Section 214.101 with respect

to stack testing

is not

controverted.

The first sentence

in Section 214.101 and amendments to

214.101(a)

are intended to meet the federal requirement regarding

stack testing.

While the Board finds this language generally

acceptable,

the Board requests that the participants address

JSEPA’s

suggestion at hearing that,

the language,

“d)etermin-

ation of compliance and non—compliance shall be made according

to

the methods

of this section,” be substituted in place

of the

proposed amendment.

Tr., Oct.

27,

1987,

p.

11.

Furthermore,

the

Board requests that the participants respond as to why they

believe the proposed amendments would be

federally approved

absent USEPA’s suggested language.

Second, the Board notes

that Section 214.101(a)

specifies

alternative stack

testing methods found

in 40 CFR 60, Appendix

A,

Methods

6A,

6B and

6C.

Additionally, Section 214.101(a)

makes

reference to other procedures specified pursuant

to

40 CFR

60.8(b).

This means

that alternative procedures would first

be

federally prescribed rather

than prescribed solely

in accordance

with the Illinois Administrative Code,

as the regulation

presently provides.

The Board agrees

with

the

concept

of

making

reference to federally approved procedures,

but asks the Agency

and any other participants

to comment

on how

40 CFR 60.8(b)

would

be employed to develop alternative procedures

to test emissions.

Third,

the Board agrees that the Agency and the Illinois

Coal Association have articulated the preferred position with

respect to the proposed coal sampling and analysis rules

found

in

subsections

(C),

(d),

(e)

and

(f).

The Board

finds that

these

proposed subsections provide clarity,

specificity, and

consistency with Agency practices, which will benefit both the

regulated community and the Illinois coal industry.

112—45 1

---

—14—

IERG’s suggested language, which intends to maintain the

status quo, requires the Agency to use the permitting process as

the means

to regulate coal sampling and analysis practices.

The

Agency’s proposed regulatory framework appears much more

efficient than the individual permitting of 78 facilities

in this

regard.

The predictable and uniform coal sampling and analysis

approaches of subsections

(C),

(d),

(e), and

(f)

also will aid

the coal industry in contracts

for the sale of coal.

The Board

would also envision

a reduced administrative burden for the

Agency and possibly less litigation

if the Agency’s proposal,

rather than IERG’s proposal,

is adopted.

The

Board notes that an argument of

IERG that coal sampling

and averaging rules should not

be part of the Illinois SIP

warrants comment.

The Board’s function

in this matter

is

to

address the Agency’s

request to promulgate regulations,

as

directed by

the Environmental Protection Act (“Act”).

The Act

does not put submittal of

regulations

for SIP approval within

the

Board’s domain.

Fourth,

the Board has made certain changes

in the Agency’s

proposed subsection

c).

The Board chose to rephrase the “two—

month average” with the phrase “consecutive two-month average”

to

clarify and specify the meaning of

the average.

The Board has

also added

the lb/MBtu emission rate along with the hourly

emission rate since both may be determined using subsection

(c).

Also,

the 95/20

language,

as proposed by the Agency,

appears to require further clarification

to accomplish the

intended purpose of limiting the range of daily emissions.

Thus,

the participants will find that the Board has proposed different

language for First Notice than that

in the Agency proposal.

The

Board would also welcome comments on these changes

in subsection

(c).

Fifth,

the Board finds

that the proposed amendment and

related record leave open certain issues which must be

addressed.

The Board requests that the following items be

addressed in First Notice comments:

1.

The

Board has made reference

to the

1989

version

of

40

CFR

in

this

proposed

regulation.

Does

the

1989

version

accurately

reference

the

applicable

federal regulations?

2.

What

is

the

most

up—to—date

version

of

each

of

the

ASTM

procedures

to

be

incorporated

by

reference

in

Section

214.104?

112

452

---

—15—

3.

The record fails to disclose the criteria

under

which

the

Agency

would

require

stack

testing.

The

Board

is considering

the

addition

of

language

in

the

first

full

sentence

of

Section

214.101(a)

that

would

specifically

state

whether

stack

tests

should

be

required:

(1)

at

each

permit

renewal,

or

(2)

annually,

or

(3)

only

where

the analyses

under

(c),

(d),

(e),

or

(f)

reveal

that

a

facility

is

either

exceeding

allQwable

emission

levels

or

nearly

exceeding

those

levels.

Would

any

of

these

criteria

satisfy

the

need

for

specificity

and

certainty

in

application

of

the

stack

testing procedures?

4.

With

regard

to subsection

(c),

the Board

asks for comments regarding the inclusion

of

the

term

“any

consecutive

60—day

average”

instead of “any consecutive two—

month average.”

It

was indicated by Pat

Dennis

of

the

Agency

that

the

use

of

a

rolling average would provide better data

for

continued

compliance

(Tr.

Oct.

27,

1987,

p.

64).

would

the Agency

provide

comments regarding

the

use

of

a

rolling

average for purposes of compliance?

5.

The Board

notes

that reference to Section

214.121

has

been

deleted

from

Section

214.101(c).

Section

214.121

carries

a

Board

notation

that

this

Section

was

invalidated

in various cases.

The Board

requests

that

the Agency

explain what

it

means

by

“standby

status”

in

the para-

graph discussing

the deletion

of

Section

214.121

on

page

7

in

its

Statement

of

Reasons

of

August

24,

1987.

The

Board

also

requests

the

Agency

to

comment

on

whether

•or

not

there

are

any

facilities

previously

affected

by

Section

214.121

which

are

not

no~: regulated

pursuant

to

NSPS.

6.

The

Board

requests

that

the

Agency

comment

on

the

effect

of

revising

the

coal

sampling

and

analysis

measurement

rules

found

in

proposed

Section

214.101(c),

(d),

(e),

and

(f)

with

compliance

or

non-compliance

required

to

be

demonstrated

pursuant

to

Section

112—453

---

—16—

214.142(a),

rather

than

214.142,

as

presently referred to

in existing Section

214.101(c).

ORDER

The Board hereby proposes for First Notice the following

amendments to

35

Ill. Adm. Code 214 and directs the Clerk

to file

these with the Secretary of State.

Section 214.101

Measurement Methods

A determination of non—compliance based on any subsection

of this

Section shall

not

be refuted by evidence of compliance with any.

other subsection.

a)

Sulfur Dioxide Measurement.

Measurement

of sulfur

dioxide emissions from stationary sources shall

be made

according

to ~e

pr~eed~re

~b~4ahed

~2~1icab1e

method specified

in 40

CFP. 60, Appendix A, Method

6,

6A,

6B,

or

6C ~

incorporated

by reference

in Section

214.104(a),

or

by measurement procedures specified by

the

i4n~4~

rei~mem~a±

Pre~ee~er~er~e~’Agency

aeeerd~~~e ~he ~re ±a±en~

ef

3.5 H~-~~d~-~-Ee~e~

pursuant

to 40 CFR 60.8(b),

incorporated by reference

in

Section 214.104(b).

b)

Sulfuric Acid Mist and Sulfur Trioxide Measurement.

Measurement of sulfuric acid mist and sulfur trioxide

shall be according to the barium—thorin titration method

a~

b4she~ specified

in

40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method

8 ~982~,

incorporated by reference in Section

214.104(a).

c)

Solid Fuel Averaging Measurement

Daily Analysis

Method.

This subsection applies

to sources at plants

with total solid fuel-fired heat input capacity

exceeding 439.5 MW

(1500 million Btu/hr).

If ±ewat~f~r

~e+~d daily

fuel analysis

is used

to ee~p±y

demonstrate

compliance or non—compliance with Sections

~

214.122,

214.141,

214.142(a),

214.162, 214.186 and

214.421,

the a

+~eeb±e ~e±4~

ftte~sulfur dioxide

a~a~dardhourly emission rate or emission rate expressed

as kg/MW—hr

(pounds per million

Btu)

shall

be ~

by

considered to be

the result of

a any consecutive

two

month average of daily samples w4th provided

rio

more

than 95 percent of the samplea be±n~values are ~e

greater than 20 percent above

the sample average.

If

samples from a source cannot meet this statistical

criterion,

each individu~1daily sample analysis

for

such source shall be compared

to the standard

to

I 12—454

---

—17—

determine compliance.

The specific ASTM procedures,

incorporated by reference,

in Section 214.104(c)

shall

be used for solid fuel sampling,

sulfur,

and

heating

value determinations.

d)

Weekly Analysis Method.

This subsection applies to

—

sources

at plants with total solid fuel—fired heat input

capacity exceeding 146.5 MW (500 million Btu/hr)

but not

exceeding 439.5 MW

(1500 million Btu/hr).

These plants

shall demonstrate compliance or non-compliance with

Sections 214.122,

214.141,

214.142(a),

214.162, 214.186

and 214.421

b~’either

an analysis of calendar weekly

composites of daily fuel samples

or by compliance with

Subsection

(c) above,

at the option of the plant.

The

specific ASTM procedures

incorporated by reference in

Section 214.104(c)

shall

be used for

sulfur,

and heating

value determinations.

e)

Monthly Analysis Method.

This subsection applies to

sources at plants with total

fuel—fired heat input

capacity exceedinq

14.65 MW

(50 million Btu/hr)

but not

exceeding 146.5 MW (500 million Btu/hr).

These plants

shall demonstrate compliance or non—compliance with

Sections

214.122,

214.141,

214.142(a),

214.162,

214.186

and 214.421 by either an analysis

of calendar monthly

composites of daily fuel samples or by

compliance

with

Subsection

(c) above,

at

the option of the plant.

A.S.T.M. procedures

shall

be used

for

sulfur and heating

value determinations.

f)

Small Source Alternative Method.

This subsection

a~pplies to sources

at plants with

total solid fuel—fired

heat input capacity not exceeding 14.65 MW (50 million

Btu/hr).

Compliance or non—compliance with Sections

214.122,

214.141,

214.142(a),

214.162, 214.186 and

214.421 shall

be demonstrated by a calendar month

average sulfur dioxide emission rate.

~j

Exemptions.

Subsections

(c)

through

(f)

shall

not apply

to sources controlling

sulfur dioxide emissions by

flue

qas desulfurization equipment

or

by sorbent injection.

h)

Hydrogen Sulfide Measurement.

For purposes of

determining compliance with Section 214.382(c),

the

concentration of hydrogen sulfide in petroleum refinery

fuel gas shall be measured using

the Tutwiler Procedure

specified

in 40 CFR 60.648 ~996j~-~,incorporated by

reference in Section

214.10.4(d)

112—455

---

—18—

Section 214.104

Incorporations by Reference

The following materials are incorporated by reference.

These

amendments

do not include any later amendments or editions.

a)

40 CFR

60, Appendix A ‘~982j~

(1989):

1)

Method

6:

~ethed for mea~remen~Determination of

aSulfur dDioxide eEmissions~From Stationary

Sources

2)

Method

6A:

Determination of Sulfur Dioxide,

Moisture, and Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Fossil

Fuel Combustion Sources

3)

Method 6B:

Determination of Sulfur Dioxide and

Carbon Dioxide Daily Average Emissions From Fossil

Fuel Combustion Sources

4)

Method 6C:

Determination of

Sulfur Dioxide

Emissions From Stationary Sources

(Instrumental

Analyzer Procedure);

and

~5)

Method

8:

bat~rn—ther~~ra~4ert

method7

Determination

of

Sulfuric Acid Mist and Sulfur

Dioxide Emissions From Stationary Sources.

b)

40 CFR 60.8(b)

(1989),. Performance tests.

bc)

American Society for Testing and Materials,

1916 Race

Street, Philadelphia,

PA

19103:

1)

For solid fuel sampling:

ASTM D—2234 +~9~6-~

(1986)

ASTM D—2622

(1976)

ASTM D—20l3

(1986)

2)

For sulfur determinations:

ASTM D—3l77

9~6~(1984)

~S~M B—~8~3t~98~

ASTM D—3180

(1984)

ASTM D—4239

(1985)

3)

For heating value determinations:

112—456

---

—19—

ASTM D—20l5 f~9~Gj~

(1985)

ASTM D—3286

9~G~(1985)

ed)

Tutwiler Procedure for hydrogen sulfide,

40 CFR 60.648

fi986~(l~I.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above First N~iceOpinion and

Order was adopted on the

c~’/2-~

day of

__________________

1990, by a vote of

7ô

.

Dorothy M4Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois P’ollution Control Board

112~-457