ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September
22,
1988
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION TO AMEND
35
ILL.
)
ADM. CODE PART 214, SULFUR
)
R86-31
LIMITATIONS (CIPS Coffeen
Generating Station)
)
ADOPTED RULE.
FINAL ORDER.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Marlin):
This matter comes before the Board on
a regulatory proposal
filed
by Central
Illinois Public Service Company
(CIPS)
on July
21,
1986.
Through
its proposal, CIPS
is seeking relief
for
its
Coffeen Generating Station (Coffeen)
from the requirement of
35
Ill. Adm. Code 214.184, which establishes an emission limitation
for sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
in any one hour.
Section 214.184
imposes an emission limit on Coffeen of 55,555 pounds
(lbs.)
of
SO2
in any one hour.
CIPS
is proposing
that Coffeen be exempt
from that standard and instead be subject
to emission standards
of 65,194 lbs. of SO2
in any one hour
and 7.29
lbs.
of SO2 per
million British Thermal Units
(mmbtu)
of heat input.
The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) neither opposes
nor supports CIPS’s proposal.
(R.
85).
On May 19,
1988,
the Board proposed,
for
a second time,
a
rule for First Notice
in this matter.
The proposed
rule was
published
in the Illinois register on June
3,
1988.
12 Ill. Reg.
9337.
After
the June 3rd publication date,
the Board received only
one public comment.
The Department
of Commerc~e~
and CommurUty
Affairs filed
a comment on July
1,
1988 which stated
that the
proposed rule would have no effect on small businesses regulated
by the rule.
The Board notes
that the proposed rule only
regulates Central Illinois Public Service company’s Coffeen
Generating Station.
By its Order
of August
4,
1988,
the Board proposed
a rule
for Second Notice which was unchanged from the May 14th
version.
On September
20,
1988,
the Joint Committee
on
Administrative Rules filed
its Certificaiton of No Objection
to
Proposed Rulemaking
The rule that the board adopts today
is
unchanged
from the version which was proposed by the Board’s May
19,
1988 Order.
Due to an illness of
counsel
for CIPS,
a hearing
in this
matter could
not be held until February
23, 1987.
On that date,
a hearing was held
in Hillsboro;
members of the public were
92—557
present.
At hearing,
the Board
requested that CIPS submit
additional information, marked
as Exhibits
#4 and
#5, within two
weeks of the hearing.
By his Order of March
18, 1987,
the
Hearing Officer held the record open until April 6,
for comments,
since CIPS had informed the Hearing Officer
that it could not
submit Exhibits ~4 and
#5 until March
20.
However,
the Board did
not receive those exhibits until April
2.
As
a result,
the
Hearing Officer ordered that the record remain open until April
20,
1987 to give
the public
a chance
to comment upon the late
CIPS filings.
On June
12,
1987,
the Department
of Energy and Natural
Resources
(DENR)
filed
its finding that an economic impact study
was not necessary in this matter.
The Economic and Technical
Advisory Committee filed
its concurrence with DENR’s finding
on
June 26, 1987.
On August
6,
1987,
the Board issued an Interim Order
requesting
that CIPS and the Agency further address several
issues concerning CIPS’s proposal.
Responses to the Order were
filed
by CIPS and the Agency filed on August
25 and September
15
respectively
(hereafter cited
as CIPS Response and Agency
Response).
Coffeen utilizes two coal fired Babcock and Wilcox cyclone
boilers, Units
3. and 2.
Unit 1, which came on line in 1965, has
a net generating capacity of 325 megawatts (MW).
Unit
2 has a
net generating capacity of 550 MW and came on line
in 1972.
CR.
11).
There
is presently no SO2 controd equipment used at
Coffeen.
(R.
14).
However, both boilers are fitted with
electrostatic precipitators
to remove fly ash from the flue gas.
CR.
11).
Although Coffeen’s total net generating capacity
equates
to 875 MW, Coffeen is currently operating under
a load
limit of 765 net MW
in order
to achieve compliance with the
55,555 lbs.
standard.
(R.
15).
Based
on stack tests conducted
in October
of l~74,Coffeen
was expected
to emit
a maximum of 55,555
lb.
of SO2 per hour.
A
subsequent test conducted at t~e insistence of the tJSEPA
in June,
1986,
showed that the actual emissions were about 65,194
lb. per
hour
CR.
14—16
p.
70).
Since
1985,
CIPS has been involved in
a
dispute with USEPA over SO2 emissions.
CR.
14).
On December
19,
1986,
the USEPA filed
a complaint against CIPS
in the United
States District Court, Central District of
Illinois.
The
complaint alleges that from at least October
11, 1985 CIPS has
allowed emissions from Units
1 and
2 at Coffeen
to exceed the SO2
emission limitation of 55,555 pounds per hour
in violation of the
federally approved State Implementation Plan
(SIP)
for Illinois.
(CIPS’
Response,
p.
6; Exhibit
1 of CIPS’
Response).
Subsequently, CIPS and ~JSEPAagreed
to a settlement of the
controversy.
CIPS pursued
a site—specific rule change rather
than an Alternative Emission Rate under
35
Iii. Adm. Code 214.185
partially because
it believed that
this route would
lead to a
more timely resolution of the dispute.
CR.
22—23).
92—558
3
CIPS asserts
that the coal used during the 1986 test was
actually lower
in sulfur content than the coal used
in the 1974
test.
CIPS cannot explain the discrepancy
in the
test results
other
than stating that less sulfur
in the 1974 coal was
converted
to SO2 when compared with the 1986 coal.
(CIPS
Response,
p.
1).
The Agency states that “the 1974
test results
were anomalous
in that
it appeared to show much less of the
sulfur in the coal was converted to sulfur dioxide and emitted
than theoretical calculations would
indicate.”
It
is the
Agency’s position that the 1986
results were “more
in line with
rates expected based
on the sulfur content of the coal used.”
(Agency Response,
p.
1).
The Agency concludes that although the
1974 and 1986 test results indicated an increase in emissions,
there has been no real increase in SO2 emissions over those
years.
(Agency Response,
p.
2).
In 1981, CIPS entered into
a long term contract with
Monterey Coal Company (Monterey)
for
the purchase of
coal.
The
contract, which
is effective until
the year 2003, calls
for CIPS
to purchase
a minimum of 1,980,000
tons of coal per year
from the
Monterey’s No.
1
Mine.
(R.
12,
17).
That mine produces
approximately 8,500 tons per day.
(R. 17).
According
to a public
comment submitted by Monterey,
over 99 percent
of Monterey’s No.
1 Mine shipments
for the years
1985 and 1986 went
to Coffeen.
(P.C.
#2).
In
its Interim Order
of August
6,
1987,
the Board requested
that CIPS and the Agency address the issue of whether there has
been
a change at Coffeen,
resulting
in the higher emission
levels, which could be considered “modification” or
a
“major
modification” under
the Clean Air Act and federal regulations
promulgated thereunder.
CIPS responded by stating that there has
been
no physical or operational change at Coffeen.
CIPS asserts
that its 1981 switch
to a lower sulfur coal would not constitute
a modification.
(CIPS’
Response,
p.
2—4).
As stated above,
the Agency believes that no real inàrease
in emission has occurred.
The Agency concurs with CIPS
in
its
conclusion that the switch
to Monterey coal would not be
considered
a modification under
federal
law.
(Agency Response,
p.
2).
The Board also inquired whether CIPS’s proposal would
trigger
the prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD)
provision of Part C of the Clean Air Act.
CIPS contends
that the
PSD provisions are not applicable in this instance even though
the proposed rule would result
in an increase
in the allowable
emissions which
is a
relaxation of
the Illinois SIP.
According
to CIPS,
under
40 CFR 51.24(a)(2),
a
SIP relaxation must be
evaluated against
a concentration baseline
in order
to
demonstrate that no allowable increment of ambient air quality
is
exceeded.
CIPS states
that no baseline has been established and
concludes that no PSD analysis
is
necessary.
(CIPS Response,
p.
92—559
4
5).
The Agency also concludes that a PSD analysis
in this
instance
is not triggered due to the definitions and exemptions
of
40 CFR
51.24.
The Agency claims that this would hold true
for
CIPS even
if there had been an actual increase in emissions.
(Agency Response,
p.
2).
Economic Effect of Compliance Alternatives
At hearing, CIPS presented three alternatives that would
enable CIPS to comply with the existing 55,555 lbs.
per hour
standard:
permanent load reduction; blending of coal; and use of
scrubbers.
Essentially, CIPS asserts that these three
alternatives are economically unreasonable when considering
the
extent of the environmental impact.
As stated above, CIPS
is able
to achieve compliance with the
existing regulation by limiting its load to 765 net MW, as
it
is
presently doing.
However, CIPS claims that such
a load limit,
if
adopted on a permanent basis, would cost CIPS up to $10,000 per
day due
to the purchase of energy during a capacity shortage or
due
to lost sales opportunities.
CIPS also asserts that since
energy costs are quite variable,
the actual cost of such
a load
limit
could be much higher
if emergency replacement energy had to
be purchased.
CIPS also expresses concerns that the Illinois
Commerce Commission might remove Coffeen from the rate base.
(R.
15—16).
According to CIPS,
in order
to maintain the compliant load
limit on
a permanent basis, CIPS would reduce its coal take from
Monterey by 12 percent.
(R.
25).
CIPS
states that using
1,980,000 tons per year
as the base take,
a 12 percent permanent
reduction would result
in the lay—off
of thirty Monterey
employees and the scheduling of production operations on a five
day per week basis.
CIPS claims that Monterey would likely not
find additional customers
to offset the 12 percent reduction in
CIPS’s take.
CR.
17—18).
According to Monterey, a permanent load
limit,
to ensure compliance, would reduce CIPS’s take by only six
percent.
However, Monterey concurs with CIPS’s position
that
it
would
not be able to find replacement customers due
to the flat
demand for coal.
Monterey concludes that a permanent load limit
would reduce the production which
in turn would result in four—
day work weeks as well
as unused capacity at Monterey’s ~o.
I
Mine
(P.C.
#2).
The second alternative
to achieve compliance
is for
CIPS
to
burn
a blended mixture of
low sulfur, non—Illinois coal with
Illinois coal, which has
a higher sulfur content.
CIPS
states
that neither Coffeen nor Monterey currently have the facilities
to blend coal.
In addition, CIPS claims that higher
transportation costs
for
the non—local,
low sulfur coal would
increase the overall expense of this option.
CIPS also
takes the
position that blending would reduce Monterey’s production by 20
percent.
According to CIPS,
such
a reduction
in production would
“reduce employment at the mine and might even jeopardize
its
continued viability.”
(R.
18—19).
92—560
5
Based on information supplied by Exxon Corporation
(a parent
corporation
to Monterey),
CIPS claims that additional
annual
costs
for Monterey
to provide
a Wyoming—Illinois coal blend would
amount to $10.5 million per year.
This figure includes the costs
for the acquisition and transportation of Wyoming coal,
unloading,
blending,
as well
as an annualized capital charge
to
recover and provide
a return on the amount invested
in
a new
blending facility and related equipment.
The facility and
additional equipment would cost approximately $9 million.
(Exh.
#4).
CIPS further asserts
that blending could have the impact of
reducing Monterey’s No.
1 Mine workforce by
30 people.
(Exh.
#4).
Monterey presents the same conclusions.
(P.C.
#2).
Utilizing figures from a 1977 Study that CIPS conducted on
blending coal,
CIPS estimates that
if the coal were blended at
Coffeen, capital costs would
total approximately $10 million.
(Exh.
#4).
The third compliance alternative discussed was the use of
flue gas desulfurization controls, commonly referred
to as
scrubbers.
At hearing, CIPS expressed its reservations
concerning the use of scrubbers.
CIPS claims that based on
its
experience with scrubbers at its Newton generating
facility
it
expects significant capital and operating costs
to be associated
with
this control option.
In particular, CIPS stresses that the
use of scrubbers would result
in reduced unit availability due
to
scrubber malfunctions and that derating of the plant would occur
because of auxillary electrical use by the scrubbers.
(R.
19—
20).
However when questioned about Newton,
the CIPS witness
stated, “There were many problems during the first year or
so of
operation.
Basically most
of the bugs have been worked out.
It
has a high availability”.
He went
on
to say that the Newton
scrubbers malfunction between 250 and 300 hours per year
(R.
26).
CIPS estimates that a retrofit of
a forced oxidation
scrubber at Coffeen, capable of removing
90 percent of the SO2
from 20 percent of the plant’s total emissions would entail
a
capital expenditure of $196 million dollars.
(Exh.
#4).
The
Board notes
that Attachment #2
of Exhibit #4 sets “total
investment” figure
for such
a scrubber at $110,492,951.
CIPS
informed the Board,
in its January
4,
1988 comments,
that the
estimate of Attachment
2
is the correct estimate.
Each of the above alternatives,
if
implemented, would impose
significant economic costs upon either CIPS or Monterey.
At
hearing, CIPS acknowledged that it believed the proposed
regulatory change was
the most feasible alternative since
it
is
a
no cost alternative.
(R.
25).
92-561
6
Environmental Impact
CIPS has conducted modeling studies
in order
to assess the
proposed emission standard’s effect upon the ambient air quality
for SO2.
An initial study was completed in January,
1986
(Exh.
#3).
In response
to concerns of
the Agency and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
relating
to the
methodology of the modeling study,
a revised modeling analysis
was drafted
in June,
1986.
(Exh.
#1).
In an effort
to address
further questions by the USEPA,
a supplement
to the June report
was issued
in November, 1986
(Exh.
#2).
(R.
35—36).
The proposed standard of 65,194
lbs.
of SO2
in any one hour
is approximately equivalent to the rate of emissions that was
determined by
a stack
test conducted at Coffeen
in June 1986.
(R.
70).
There
is no evidence
in the record
to suggest that this
emission rate was initially selected by CIPS on the basis of
environmental impact.
However, CIPS asserts that
if Coffeen were
subject
to that standard,
its emissions would not cause any
violations
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for SO2.
CIPS relies on
its modeling studies as support for this
conclusion.
(R.
14,
37).
The June study was
a revised analysis of the January study
utilizing procedures suggested by the Agency and USEPA.
The
study concludes that maximum ambient air SO2 concentrations,
resulting from Coffeen’s operation
at the proposed emission
standard, would still
be
in compliance with the NAAQS.
(R. 42—
43).
The November supplemental report also confirms this
conclusion.
(R. 48).
The Agency states that CIPS’s showing of compliance with the
NAAQS
is consistent with USEPA modeling guidelines.
In addition,
the Agency takes
the position that the modeling performed by CIPS
“sufficiently demonstrates”
that the proposed emission limits of
65,194 lbs.
of SO2
in any one hour and 7.29 lbs. per million
BTU’s
“will
not endanger the air quality.”
CR. 74—75).
The Board notes
that Coffeen operated above
764 MW an
average of 104 days. per year between 1982 and 1986
(Exh.
5).
If
this
trend’ continues
the plant will be
in compliance with the
current regulation during
a substantial portion of each year.
On October
29,
1987,
the Board proposed
a rule for First
Notice which would give relief to CIPS.
That proposed
rule was
published
in the Illinois Register
on November 20,
1987.
11
Ill.
Reg.
18925.
That proposal conditioned relief upon the exclusive
use of coal from the Monterey coal Mine No.
1,
certain ambient
air monitoring
and modeling,
and stack
tests.
On January 4,
1988, CIPS
filed comments on that version of the proposed rule.
The Board
notes that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed
no comment.
92—562
7
CIPS’
January 4,
1988 Comments
In its comments, CIPS first expresses concern over the
wording of the proposed rule which conditions
the applicability
of
the rule to the exclusive use of coal from Monterey’s No.
1
Mine.
CIPS states that there are circumstances
in which CIPS
might be unable to use Monterey coal exclusively but would still
wish
to be subject
to the proposed rule’s emission limitations.
For example, CIPS points
to
a strike or natural disaster at the
mine which may temporarily interrupt the mine’s productivity,
thereby not allowing CIPS
to utilize its coal.
Similarly,
an
anomoly
in Monterey coal seam might temporarily force Monterey
to
blend
the Monterey coal with lower sulfur coal
in order
to meet
the proposed rule’s emission limitations.
Finally, CIPS claims
that when nearing the end of contract with Monterey,
it may need
to perform test burns with coal from a different source.
According
to CIPS,
the proposed rule is written
to preclude such
test burns.
CIPS also would like the Board
to clarify its position with
regard
to the period
of applicability of the proposed
rule.
CIPS
is concerned that
if
it has
to use some coal which
is not from
the Monterey mine,
the proposed rule will terminate permanently.
CIPS has proposed the following change
for subsection
(a),
which
it believes resolves all of these
issues.
(The underlined
portion is the proposed addition):
The
emission
standards
of
this
subsection
shall
apply
only
if
the
requirements
of
subsections
(b),
(C),
and
(d)
are
fulfilled.
Notwithstanding
any
other
limitation contained
in this
Part,
whenever,
except
if
necessitated by force majeure,
the
coal
burned
is
mined
exclusively
from
the
mine that is presently known as Monterey coal
Company’s
No.
1
Mine
located
south
of
Carlinville,
emission
of
sulfur dioxide
from
Units
1
and
2
at the Central Illinois Public
Service
Company’s
(CIPS)
Coffeen
Generating
Station
(Coffeen),
located
in
Montgomery
County,
shall
not
exceed
either
of
the
following emission standards:
(P.C. #11,
p.
4—5)
According to CIPS these changes are necessary:
The addition of
the
force majeure clause will
address
those
situations
that
prevent
100
use
of Monterey coal
for reasons beyond
CIPS’
control.
The addition of the word “whenever”
will address situations,
such as a test burn,
not
covered
by
the
force
majeure——in
this
92—5E3
8
situation
the
applicable
limit
would
revert
to
the
general,
more
restrictive
standard
when
the
exclusivity
requirement
was
not
being
met
but
once
compliance
with
the
exclusivity
standard
can
be
restored
the
site—specific
limit
again
would
be
applicable.
(P.C.
#11,
p.
5)
It was the intention of the Board
to draft the rule so that
CIPS would be subject
to a less stringent emission standard only
when it used Monterey coal exclusively.
It
is not the Board’s
position that the less stringent emission standards would be lost
forever
if CIPS failed
to utilize Monterey coal
in
a continuous
and exclusive manner.
That
is, during
any time
that CIPS does
not exclusively use Monterey Coal,
the general emission
limitation will once again
be applicable.
However, once Monterey
does resume an exclusive use of Monterey coal,
the site—specific
limitation of proposed Section 214.562 will once again apply.
Consequently,
the Board agrees with CIPS that the word
“whenever”
further clarifies
the rule.
The Board
is not convinced,
though,
that
it should allow
CIPS
to be subject to the less stringent emission standards if
CIPS must utilize non—Monterey coal due
to circumstances beyond
CIPS’s control.
CIPS states that “the record demonstrates that
the site—specific emission limit will not cause
a violation of
any applicable ambient standard so,
for
that purpose the source
of the coal
is
irrelevant.”
(P.C.
#11, p.
5).
CIPS seems
to
imply that the only relevant consideration in granting site—
specific emission relief
is the resulting
impact on ambient air
quality.
The Board
is not granting relief
for
CIPS merely
because CIPS’ modeling studies concluded
that the ambient air
standard would not be violated
if CIPS were granted relief.
Rather,
the Board
is granting CIPS relief due
to
the, totality of
the circumstances encountered here.
Much of the justification
for the rule concerns
the negative economic impacts which would
result
if CIPS could no longer utilize Monterey coal.
Throughout
this proceeding, CIPS has discussed the hardships which Monterey
would
incur
if CIPS were denied relief.
In short, CIPS has tied
its own request
for regulatory relief
to the viability of the
Monterey mine.
CIPS should not be allowed
to break that
connection during circumstances which are
“beyond CIPS’
control.”
According
to Black’s Law Dictionary,
Fifth Edition,
the term
force majeure
is “common
in construction contracts to protect the
parties
in the event that
a part of the contract cannot be
performed due
to causes which are outside the control
of
the
parties and could
not be avoided by exercise
of due care.”
However, unlike a contract, the rule only binds one person,
CIPS.
Given
that fact,
the use of the term force majeure would
only describe circumstances which are beyond CIPS’
control.
It
describe circumstances that are beyond Monterey’s
92—564
9
Monterey
is not owned by CIPS.
To the extent of
the Board’s
knowledge, CIPS does not have any legal influence over Monterey
beyond present contractual arrangements.
It seems to
the Board
that the fate of Monterey’s mining operations would always be
beyond CIPS’
control.
The Board can envision various circumstances which would
halt the supply of coal
to CIPS and which would also be beyond
CIPS’s control.
Monterey could breach
its contract to supply
coal
to CIPS.
Monterey could
sell the mine to another company
which would refuse
to honor
the CIPS coal supply contract.
A
strike could cease production,
indefinitely, at Monterey.
The
owners of Monterey could shut down the mine due to failing
profits.
Although these scenarios are merely hypothetical, they
illustrate circumstances
in which CIPS would continue to be
subject
to the less stringent emission standards
if
the force
majeure language were
included in the proposed rule.
Since the intent of the Board
is
to have the less stringent
emissions limitations
apply only when CIPS
is using Monterey coal
exclusively,
the Board will not include the term force majeure
in
the rule.
CIPS’ next major objection
in the January
4,
1988 comments
involved the proposed rule’s requirement that CIPS conduct an
ambient air monitoring and modeling study
in order
to verify that
the increased emissions do not violate any primary or secondary
sulfur dioxide ambient air quality standard.
CIPS claims that this requirement,
set—forth in the First
Notice version of the proposed
rule,
could create
an impossible
dilemma for CIPS.
That version of the rule requires that CIPS
begin an ambient air monitoring
and modeling program six months
after
the effective date of
the
rule.
CIPS’
concerns stem from
the federal enforcement case currently being litigated against
CIPS.
CIPS anticipates “that any order enteredby the Dis?rict
Court will require CIPS
to comply with the 55,555 pound per hour
limitation probably for
a fixed period of two years or, possibly,
until
a SIP revision
is approved by USEPA authorizing
a higher
limitation.”
Therefore,
CIPS concludes
that its operations at
higher levels during
the monitoring period, would likely be
in
violation of
a District Court order.
Also, CIPS claims that
if a
settlement agreement were not reached with the USEPA,
a District
Court decision will likely not be issued within six months
of the
effective date of the
rule.
Consequently, CIPS claims that
if
it
is going to “comply” with the Board’s Order, by emitting
at
higher emission
levels,
it will violate the SIP.
CIPS also
asserts that if
it complies with the SIP,
it will lose the site—
specific rule.
CIPS states, and the Board generally agrees,
that
a SIP revision approval concerning
the proposed rule will likely
not
be granted
within
six months of the effective date of
the
rule.
(P.C.
#11,
p.
7—10).
9
2—565
10
Also, CIPS claims that the ambient air monitoring
and
modeling will
likely make the new standard “conditional”
in the
eyes of the USEPA.
According to CIPS, USEPA’s reaction
to such
a
requirement
is unclear.
However, CIPS does blame an ambient air
monitoring and modeling requirement for the delay
in USEPA’s SIP
revision approval for Illinois Power Company’s Baldwin Station
SO2 emission standards.
According to CIPS,
this delay influenced
CIPS
in choosing
to pursue an alternative SO2 emission standard
via
a site—specific rulemaking rather
than determination pursuant
to Section 214.185.
(P.C.
#11, p.
9—10).
Finally, CIPS argues
in its January 4, 1988 comments
that
the ambient air monitoring and modeling
is unnecessary.
CIPS
states
that the modeling results already presented to the Board
are far more conservative than what would
be generated from a
monitoring study.
According to CIPS, the Board should consider
this conservatism when viewing the
fact that CIPS’
models showed
a concentration level close
to the three—hour ambient air
standard.
(P.C. 410—11).
CIPS asserts that the inherent
limitations on monitoring studies,
including the determination on
where to locate the monitors, are reasons why monitoring
is
rarely done
for isolated sources.
(P.C.
#11, p.
12).
It
is the Board’s position that the ambient air monitoring
and modeling requirement of the proposed rule has value
irrespective of the fact that CIPS’ Coffeen Generating Station
is
located
in
a rural area.
Such a requirement
is consistent with
the procedures
for determining alternative emission standards
pursuant to Section 214.185.
The Board does not view the
emission standards
of subsection
(a)
of the proposed
rule as
being contingent upon the results of
the ambient air monitoring
and modeling.
Like the stack tests,
the purpose of the
monitoring and modeling
requirement
is to provide more
information which can be utilized
in evaluating the actual impact
of CIPS’
emissions on
the environment.
This
is especially
important since
the proposed rule will allow CIPS
to emit 17
more SO2 than what
is presently allowed.
The Board has
substituted
the word “demonstrate”
for the word “verify” in an
effort to clarify the Board’s position.
Much of CIPS’
arguments against the ambient air monitoring
and modeling program merely involve the timing of program not
its
utility.
Essentially, CIPS
is concerned that it will
be required
by the rule
to conduct the monitoring and modeling program at
a
time when CIPS might not be able
to emit SO2 at the elevated
levels allowed by the proposed rule.
That
1.5,
the situation
could exist when CIPS may be permitted by the Agency to emit
65,194 pounds of SO2
in any one hour but
it will
in fact only be
emitting 55,555
lbs.
per hour due
to the constraints
of
a federal
court decision.
On March
10,
1988 the Board proposed
a rule for
Second
Motice which attempted
to resolve CIPS’
difficulties with the
timing of
the ambient air monitoring and modeling.
However, on
92—566
11
April
21, 1988,
after JCAR had already filed
its Certification of
No Objection for the March
10th rule, CIPS filed
a Motion
for
Reconsideration
(hereafter
cited as “CIPS’ Motion”).
April
21,
1988 Motion by CIPS
On May 4,
1988, the Hearing Officer entered
a Hearing
Officer Statement stating that he had been
in contact with
representatives
of the Agency and Monterey.
According to the
Hearing Officer,
neither the Agency nor Monterey objected
to
CIPS’ April
21st motion.
Monterey filed
a statement to this
effect on May 11,
1988.
The Hearing Officer also issued an Order
on May 9,
1988 in
which he ordered CIPS
to file by May 13,
1988, proposed language
which would,
if adopted,
remedy CIPS’
problem concerning
the
triggering of the monitoring
actions imposed by the rule.
Also,
CIPS was given
the opportunity to address
the general
issue of
whether
it
is appropriate for the Board
to grant motions
for
reconsideration subsequent to the Board’s proposing
a rule for
Second Notice.
The Hearing Officer ordered interested persons
to
file comments upon CIPS’
filing by May 18,
1988.
Monterey filed
a comment with the Hearing Officer on May 18,
1988.
The Board
accepted this filing.
Although Monterey agrees with CIPS’
proposed change,
it believes that the Board should not have
to go
back
to First Notice
in order
to make that change.
The Agency
filed no comment.
In
its motion, CIPS
requests that the Board alter its
proposed rule so that the ambient air monitoring and stack
testing will be triggered by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s approval of
a State Implementation Plan revision which
allows CIPS
to emit
a level
in excess of 55,555 pounds per any
hour.
The March 10th version of the rule triggers the monitoring
actions upon CIPS’
operating
at
a level
in excess of 765 net
megawatts.
As its motion recounts,
CIPS had expressed concern regarding
the timing
of the monitoring requirements in its January 4,
1988
comments:
CIPS
pointed
out
in
the
Comments
that
it
could
not
undertake
the
monitoring
program
the
Board
was
requiring
until
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(USEPA)
had
approved
the
higher
emission
limit
because
the
current
State
Implementation
Plan
(SIP),
at
least
in
USEPA’s view,
contains
a lower emission limit
and
the
Board’s
monitoring
program
is
required
to
be
conducted
while
CIPS
is
operating,
or
at
least
able
to
operate,
at
the
new,
higher
limitation.
In
explaining
this
problem,
CIPS
pointed
Out
that
in
its
92—567
12
pending
litigation with USEPA
it anticipated
being constrained by a Federal District Court
order not
to exceed
the current SIP limit of
55,555
pounds
of
sulfur
dioxide
per
hour.
CIPS
had calculated
that
this
limit
equated
to
a maximum
load
on
the Coffeen Station
of
approximately
765
net
megawatts.
In
November,
1987,
CIPS
recalculated
this
and
determined that the emission limit equated
to
a
load
limit
of
759
megawatts
based
on
the
worst case coal.
CIPS may have erred
in not making clearer
to
the Board exactly what that means....
(CIPS’
Motion,
p.
2)
In its March 10th decision,
the Board had sought
to remedy
the timing problem as follows:
CIPS
is
currently
operating
under
a
load
limitation of 765 net megawatts
(MW)
in order
to
achieve
compliance
with
55,555
lbs.
standard.
The
Board
will
require
CIPS
to
begin
its ambient air monitoring and modeling
program
6 months after it begins operating at
a level
in excess
of
765 net
MW.
By linking
the
timing
of
the
monitoring
and
modeling
program
to
an
event
within
CIPS’
control,
CIPS
will
not
be
forced
into
non—compliance
with either
a Board
rule
or
a
federal
court
order.
(Proposed
Opinion
and
Order, March 10,
1988,
p.
5)
CIPS now asserts that when utilizing “normal quality of coal
from Monterey, CIPS would be able
to exceed 765 megawatts without
ever exceeding
the 55,555 pound limitation.”
(CIPS’
Motion,
p.
5).
In its motion, CIPS also informs the Board of the status of
the federal enforcement action brought against CIPS.
CIPS
now
has
reached agreement on
a Consent
Order
with
USEPA
which
was
noticed
for
30
days
for
comment
in
the
March
23,
1988
Federal Register and will be entered sometime
thereafter by the
District Court.
A copy of
the
Consent
Decree
is
attached
for
the
Board’s
information
as
Exhibit
A.
For
a
period
of
two
years
after
the
Court
enters
the Consent
Decree,
it will
limit
emissions
from the Coffeert Station
to 55,555 pounds
per
hour.
Of
course,
if during
that
two
years,
13
USEPA
approves
the
revised
emission
limit,
CIPS would
request
that
the Court modify
the
Consent Decree
and CIPS would expect USEPA to
concur.
(CIPS’
Motion,
p.
2)
In response
to the Hearing Officer’s Order, CIPS filed
proposed language which would resolve
its concerns
regarding the
timing of the monitoring and stack
test.
In addition, CIPS
asserted that nothing
in the Act or Board regulations precludes
the Board
from considering a motion
for reconsideration
subsequent
to
a Board’s Second Notice proposal.
In
fact, CIPS
states
that there
is even a policy need to allow such motions at
this juncture
in light of the procedures enunciated in the
Board’s Resolution 88—1.
At the time of the filing
of CIPS’
Motion,
the
regulatory scheme set forth by Res.
88—1 provided
that the Board would take
a substantive position with regard
to
a
rulemaking,
for the first
time, when it proposed
a rule for
Second Notice.
Resolution 88—1 has since been amended by the
Board’s Order
of Septemnber
22, 1988.
The amended Res.
88—1 now
provides for a pre—hearing First Notice only when
it
is
practicable.
In proposing
the March
10, 1988
version of the
rule,
it was
the intention of the Board to cause CIPS
to conduct ambient air
monitoring after
it began emitting SO2
at levels
in excess of
currently allowed limits.
This would provide data
to illustrate
the impact of the higher emissions level upon
the ambient air
quality.
Given the record,
the Board believed that an operation
level of 765 net MW was equivalent
to an emission level
of 55,555
pounds per hour,
which
is the current emission limitation.
Since
an operating level
is generally more readily determinable than an
emission level,
the Board triggered the monitoring upon CIPS’
operating
in excess
of 765 net MW.
Now,
it
is apparent from
CIPS’ motion that the 765 net MW trigger
is not appropriate.
CIPS proposed change
is consistent with the Board’s
intention concerning
this rulemaking.
The Board notes that the
draft consent decree
if entered by the Federal District Court,
would impose
a requirement that CIPS install,
by September
30,
1988,
a continuous emission monitor
(CEM) which would measure
CIPS’ SO2 emissions.
After installation of
a CEM, CIPS would be
able
to determine,
with relative ease, Coffeen’s exact level of
emissions at any point
in time.
Since JCAR had already issued Certificate of No Objection
for the Board’s March 10,
1988 version of the rule it was
necessary to go back
to First Notice with a proposal
that would
resolve CIPS’
concerns as set forth
in
its April
21,
1988
motion.
Consequently, the version of the
rule proposed
for First
Notice on May
19, 1988, contained the language requested by CIPS
on the
issue of the timing
of the stock test and the ambient and
monitoring and modeling requirements.
Specifically the Board
is
92—569
14
utilizing the phrase “no later
than six months after Coffeen
is
legally able and begins to operate at an emission rate greater
than 55,555 pounds
of sulfur dioxide per hour.
Conclusions
There are three paths by which a source may seek to be
subject
to an SO2 emission limitation standard other
than the one
provided
in the general •rule.
A source may petition for short
term relief
(five years or
less)
through
a variance proceeding.
See Central Illinois
Light Company v.
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency,
57
PCB 417
(1984).
Secondly,
a source may
choose to seek an alternative standard utilizing the Alternative
Emission procedures set forth
in 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 214.185.
The
alternative emission
rate determined
by the Board under this
provision is imposed as
an operating permit condition.
In
addition,
further monitoring and modeling
of ambient air quality
is also required as
a condition
to the permit.
See Illinois
Power Company
v. Environmental Protection Agency,
32 PCB 563
(1979)
(The Board designated this matter as
a proceeding under
Rule 204(e)(3) which was in substance the same as
the current
Section 214.185).
Finally,
a source may seek an actual
rule
change
in order
to be relieved from the general requirement.
See
In re. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limitations; Village of Winnetka,
R80—22(B)
(April
19,
1984)
and
In
re. Amendments
to
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 214, Sulfur Limitations, R84—28,
(April
24,
1986).
(As a
part of
a general rulemaking, Central Illinois Light Company’s
E.D. Edward’s Electric Generating Station was granted
a site
specific rule).
The Board
notes
that the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act
(Act)
specifically addresses instances when the Board
is
making
a determination regarding an alternative SO2 emission
standard.
Section 9.2(b)
of the Act states:
In granting any alternative emission standard
or
variance
relating
to
sulfur
dioxide
emissions
from
a
coal—burning
stationary
source,
the
Board
may
require
the
use
of
Illinois
coal
as
a
condition
of
such
alternative,
standard
or
variance,
provided
that
the
Board determines
that Illinois
coal
of
the
proper
quality
is
available
and
competitive
in
price;
such
determination
shall
include
consideration
of
the
cost
of
pollution
control
equipment and
the economic
impact on the Illinois coal mining
industry.
Ill. Rev. Stat.
1985,
ch.
111
½
par.
1009.2(b)
Several different compliance methods available to CIPS have
been discussed
in the record.
A permanent load limitation,
blending of coal, and
the exclusive use of
low sulfur western
92—570
15
coal, although providing compliance,
are all options which would
have
a significant adverse impact on the Illinois coal mining
operation at Monterey Coal Company’s No.
1 Mine.
The only
compliance option that would preserve the present level
of
Coffeen’s Illinois coal consumption
is the implementation of
scrubbers.
CIPS has provided the Board with an estimate as
to the
capital cost
for installing a scrubber which would control
20
percent
of Coffeen’s total
SO2 emissions.
Attachment #2
to that
Exhibit
4, which
is an item by item cost estimate, provides a
“total investment” figure of $110,492,951.
The Board must view
this cost
in light of the expected environmental impact that
would
result
if CIPS’s
proposed standard was adopted.
After
considering
the environmental and economic information presented
in
the record,
the Board
finds that it would be economically
unreasonable to require CIPS
to comply with the general standard
at this time.
The Board
finds that granting relief will have
a
favorable economic impact on the State due
to the savings to CIPS
and the retention of coal mining
jobs.
The Board will grant CIPS
relief as requested.
In the record CIPS made clear
its intent
to use Illinois
coal from the Monterey Mine.
Indeed
the support
for the rule
change
is
largely based on the favorable economic impact of
continued use of coal from this specific mine.
Accordingly, the
Board will condition the.rule change on continued use
of coal
from the Monterey mine.
That
is, whenever CIPS
is using coal
from this mine exclusively,
the less stringent emission limits
will apply.
The Board
further notes that the relief
it
is granting today
is based upon regulations and data which do not address the long
range transport problems associated with SO2 emissions.
The
Board’s decision in this matter
is based on the local impact of
SO2 emissions.
The modeling studies presented by CIPS only
evaluated ambient air quality
to
a distance of
20 kilometers
(12.4 miles)
from Coffeen.
(R.
28,65—66).
The Board
is aware of
the controversy surrounding
the impact of SO2 transported
over
long distances and anticipates
that this topic will be the
subject of future rules.
The rule adopted today may be modified
or
repealed
in response
to future state or federal regulations
in
this area.
The Board specifically does not intend that this rule
be used
to allow Coffeen
to circumvent any future
regulation by
“grandfathering
in” the 65,194
lb. per hour limitation.
The Board will require as part
of this rule that
a stack
test be performed.
The disparity of the 1974 and 1986 stack
tests demonstrate
the advisability of
testing
to determine
whether the plant
is operating as expected.
This provision shall
in no way be interpreted
as preventing the Agency from ordering
such additional monitoring or
testing as
it determines are
necessary
to carry out
its statutory functions.
92—57 1
16
Permanent
relief from the requirements
of
the general
regulations limiting SO2 emissions may be achieved by way of
a
site—specific rule change or
an alternative standard set pursuant
to
35
Ill. Adm. Code 214.185.
Section 214.185 requires ambient
air sulfur dioxide monitoring and modeling studies subsequent
to
the imposition
of an alternative standard.
The additional
monitoring and modeling are required
in order
to verify that
emissions under
the new standard will not cause or contribute
to
violations of the NAAQS.
The Board believes that such monitoring
and modeling requirements are extremely useful
in ensuring that
areas currently attaining NAAQS remain in attainment even after
the allowable emissions for that area are increased.
The Board
is
in no position
to require any person
to seek an
alternative standard under Section 214.185 rather than
a site—
specific rule change.
In this instance, CIPS rejected the
Section 214.185 procedure due
to perceived time advantages of
a
site—specific
rule change.
(R.
22—23).
However,
the Board
believes
it should act consistently in its determination of SO2
emissions
relief irrespective of whether
relief
is sought via
Section 214.185
or
a site—specific rulemaking.
The additional
monitoring and modeling requirements as
required by Section
214.185 do not lose their
value or become unnecessary merely
because the person seeking relief chooses
to pursue
a site—
specific rulemaking.
This
is especially true
in situations where
modeling studies predict ambient air quality values that approach
the NAAQS.
At hearing,
a witness for CIPS stated that one of
CIPS’s modeling studies predicted a 3—hour SO2 concentration of
1291 micrograms per cubic meter;
the NAAQS standard
is 1,300
micrograms per cubic meter.
(R.
44).
Given these considerations,
the Board will grant relief conditioned on additional monitoring
and modeling.
These requirements are consistent with
the
requirements that would have been imposed had CIPS pursued
relief
pursuant
to Section 214.185.
Additionally the Board notes
that CIPS’ Newton’facility
is
equipped with scrubbers.
This rule change
is not intended
to
enable CIPS
to use Coffeen to reduce generation at Newton
in
order to avoid
the cost
of scrubber operation at that facility.
The Board proposes granting this rule change based on the
combination of circumstances which
exist
in this instance.
A
favorable monitoring study
alone
is not sufficient reason
for
granting
a rule change.
The Board will add the proposed
rule to Subpart X which
concerns site—specific
SOC, emissions limitations
for utilities.
Such placement
is logically consistent with the structure of the
existing Part 214.
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts,
as
final,
the following amendments
to
be filed with the Secretary of State.
92—572
17
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
X:
UTILITIES
Section 214.562
Coffeen Generating Station
a)
The emission standards of this subsection shall apply
only
if the requirements of subsections (b),
(c), and
(d) are fulfilled.
Notwithstanding any other limitation
contained
in this Part, whenever
the coal burned
is
mined exclusively from the mine that
is presently known
as Monterey Coal Company’s No.
1 Mine located south of
Carlinville, emission of sulfur dioxide from Units
I and
2 at the Central Illinois Public Service Company’s
(CIPS)
Coffeen Generating Station (Coffeen),
located
in
Montgomery County,
shall not exceed either
of the
following emission standards:
1)
29,572 kilograms of sulfur dioxide
in any one hour
(65,194
lbs/hr); and
2)
11.29 kilograms of sulfur dioxide per megawatt—hour
of heat input
(7.29 lbs/mmbtu).
b)
CIPS shall conduct an ambient sulfur dioxide monitoring
and dispersion modeling program designed
to demonstrate
that the emission standards of subsection
(a)
will not
cause or contribute to violations
of any applicable
primary or
secondary sulfur dioxide ambient air quality
standard as set forth
in Section 243.122.
Such ambient
monitoring and dispersion modeling program shall be
operated for at least one year commencing no later than
6 months after Coffeen
is legally able and begins
to
operate atan emission rate greater than 55,555 pounds
of
sulfur dioxide per hour.
c)
No more than 15 months after
the commencement
of the
ambient monitoring and dispersion modeling program of
subsection
(b), CIPS shall apply for
a new operating
permit.
CIPS shall submit to the Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency),
at the time of the
application,
a report containing the results of the
ambient monitoring
and dispersion modeling program of
subsection
(b)
and
the
results of all
relevant stack
tests conducted prior
to the report’s submission.
d)
No later
than six months after Coffeen
is legally able
9 2—57
3
18
and begins
to operate
at an emission rate greater than
55,555 pounds of sulfur dioxide per hour,
a stack test
shall be conducted
in accordance with Section
214.101(a),
in order
to determine compliance with
emission standards set forth
in subsection
(a).
After
the stack
test is conducted,
the results shall
be
submitted
to the Agency within 90 days.
The
requirements’ of this subsection do not preclude the
Agency from requiring additional stack
tests.
(Source:
Added at
Ill. Reg.
effective
)
Section 41 of
the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1985
ch.
111 1/2
par.
1041,
provides
for appeal of final
Orders
of the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme
Court
of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
J.D. Dumelle 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
ç~rj~f,~J
,
1988,
by
a vote
of
~7—~
.
Dorothy M.
unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
9 2—574
