ILLINOIS POLLtJTION CONTROL BOARD

June

30,

1988

IN THE MATTER OF:

PARTICULATE EMISSION LIMITATIONS,

)

R82—l

(Docket

B)

RULE 203(g)(l)

AND 202(b) OF

CHAPTER 2

ADOPTED RULE.

FINAL ORDER.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.

D.

Dumelle):

This Opinion and Order brings

to

a close

a long and

complicated rulemaking proceeding.

Early procedural activities

are set forth

in the Board’s Final Opinion and Order dated July

2,

1986

in R82—l(Docket A):

Particulates.

On March

14,

1986,

the Board adopted an Interim Order

in R82—l separating

that

proceeding

into two dockets: Docket A:

Particulates and Docket

B:

Opacity.

At that time the Board intended

to proceed

to second

notice on the particulate

rules while further considering the

opacity

rules.

However,

the Joint Committee on Administrative

Rules

(JCAR)

refused

to

allow the Board

to proceed

in that

manner.

Therefore,

on May

9,

1986,

the Board adopted

a Fourth

Second Notice order including both the opacity and the

particulate rules.

Second notice was received by JCAR on May 16, 1986,

and was

considered by JCAR on June

23,

1986,

at which

time

it objected

to

each of

the opacity

rules but none

of the particulate

rules.

In

response the Board determined

that it would withdraw the opacity

rules but proceed

to adopt and file the particulate rules.

The

Board adopted

a Resolution and Order

to that effect on July

2,

1986,

and indicated

that

a new first notice order would be

adopted concerning

the opacity

rules

in the near

future under

Docket

B.

On August 14,

1986,

the Board adopted

a Third First

Notice Order.

As more

than one year passed since

the date

of

that first notice,

Section

5.01(d)

of

the Illinois ~dministrative

Procedure Act

(APA) precluded

the rule from being adopted,

or

from being filed with

the Secretary of State.

Therefore,

the

Board sent the proposed rules

to Fourth First Notice on December

17,

1987.

In

the interest of expediency,

the Board adopted

for Fourth

First Notice the same proposal as was adopted

for Third First

Notice

——

but with

a few amendments.

First,

in its comments,

the

Agency suggested certain revisions

to Section 212.124(d),

the

defense provision,

based

on issues that arose at hearing.

The

Agency stated

its position that

the record does

not

support

extending

the Adjusted Opacity Standards Procedures

to “process

sources” and offered revised language.

90—589

---

—2—

Also,

the Board proposed

a Subpart

B

to

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

106 entitled

“Air Adjusted Standards Procedures”.

Proposed

Subpart

E

is similar

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

106.

Subpart

D, which

relates to RCRA adjusted standards procedures.

The sections

which comprise Subpart

E are generic

procedural rules which the

Board will reference whenever adjusted standards procedures

are

provided for

in the Board’s

air pollution

regulations.

The Board

believes that

a separate Subpart

for air adjusted standard

procedures

is appropriate

to address

the particular

requirements

associated with the air regulations.

Accordingly,

those

provisions previously

set forth

in Section

212.126 which address

generic procedures are now located

in 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

106.

Subpart

E.

Fourth First Notice was published

at 12

Ill.

Reg.

1722,

1729,

January 15,

1988.

The first notice comment period

concluded

on March

2,

1988.

The Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (Agency) submitted the only comment during the

Fourth First Notice on February 26,

1988.

On March

21,

1988,

the

Department

of Commerce and Community Affairs filed

its Impact

Analysis

stating

that

the proposed amendments

will have no

economic effect on small businesses.

The Administrative Code

Division of the Secretary of State’s Office

filed comments on

February 11,

1988.

Those comments have been incorporated into

the Second Notice Order.

Pre—Fourth

First Notice Comments

In the Fourth First Notice Order

the Board stated:

“The

Board

believes

that

the

revisions

may

affect

the

continued

applicability

of

the

previously filed

cormiients and requests further

comment

on

these

issues.

For

the

sake

of

efficiency,

the Board notes that comments need

not

be

duplicated.

Previous

comments,

if

still

applicable,

may

be

incorporated

by

reference.”

As noted above, only the Agency filed comments on the Fourth

First Notice Order.

Despite

the Board’s clear request

for

additional comment, none

of the previous comrnenters opted

to

address

the Fourth First Notice proposal.

As

the Board cannot

and will not second—guess

those commenters,

the Board

can only

assume that the Fourth First Notice proposal does not meet with

disapproval

other than that noted

by the Agency.

Third First Notice History

On August

14,

1986 the Board issued

the Third First Notice

Order

in this Docket (R82—l(B)).

The Board noted

that several

issues remained

from the Fourth Second Notice Order

and requested

‘jo—

591)

---

—3—

comment

on

them.

On October

2, 1986,

the Administrative

Code

Division

of the Secretary of States Office

filed comments.

On

November

20,

1986,

the Agency submitted

a revised opacity

proposal.

The final hearing was held on November

24, 1986.

Seven comments were filed between May,

1986 and February,

1987.

In

the~

Third First Notice Order,

the Board asked whether

“Reasonable Time” in Section 212.124(c)

(now renumbered

to

subsection

(d))

should be defined.

At hearing on November

24,

1986,

the Agency suggested

the language

“a reasonable

time not

to

exceed

60 days.”

This was the language proposed at Fourth First

Notice.

In reviewing previous comments,

the Board determined

that this language could be clarified further.

The Board added

“after written notification from the Agency

of

a violation”

after

“60 days.”

The Board

takes

this action consistent with

the

expressed intentions

of

the Agency.

(Tr.

16, November 24,

1986).

In Third First Notice,

the Board asked whether

“similar

operating conditions” should be defined.

At hearing

on November

24,

1986,

the Agency agreed that “similar

operating conditions”

is vague.

Further,

the Agency noted that there might be

similar

operating conditions

that would decrease mass emissions but not

opacity.

This,

the Agency noted, could

be viewed

as

a relaxation

of the State Implementation

Plan

(SIP) without

a demonstration

that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards would not be

jeopardized.

The Agency proposed,

therefore,

to amend “similar”

to “same.”

The Board did so

at Fourth First Notice,

and received

no comment on

this action.

As the Board believes that the “same

operating conditions”

at

the time of the violation

is more

definite than “similar operating conditions,”

the Board will

retain the language as proposed

at Fourth First Notice.

At Third First Notice,

the Board asked whether levels of

justification must be established

under

then Section 212.126(1)

regarding how the factors

of Section 27(a)

of

the Environmental

Protection Act (Act) will be considered

in deciding whether

to

adopt an

adjusted standard.

JCAR had indicated that such levels

of

justification were necessary.

The Board notes

that this

subsection

no longer exists

in Part 212,

rather

a similar section

was proposed

in the Part 106 procedures

for an adjusted

standard.

Section 106.507, requires the Board

to adopt an

opinion and order consistent with Section

27(a)

of

the Act.

As

the text of this Section was based

on Section 106.416, already

adopted and already past JCAR review,

the Board does not

anticipate any further problem with the language proposed

at

Fourth First Notice.

As previously noted,

after

Third First Notice, several

comments were submitted on the proposed rules.

As

a result of

changes made at hearing

and thereafter,

the Board believes that

many concerns raised

in the comments have been resolved.

However, one of the commenters,

the Illinois Power Company,

took

the position

that

90-59 1

---

—4—

“there

is

no

statutory

mandate

that

the Board

adopt

opacity

as

an

independently enforceable

air emission

standard.

Furthermore,

there

is

no federal

requirement under

the Clean Air Act

that

the

Illinois

State

Implementation

Plan

(SiP)

contain

an

independently

enforceable

opacity

standard.

In

any

event,

the

Record

does

not support

such

a

standard.”

(P.C.

No.

42, filed February

19,

1987).

The Board does not agree.

By Interim Order dated March

14,

1986,

the Board noted

that

a

letter was filed by Mr. Steve

Rothblatt of United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA), indicating USEPA’s position that the rule

as then

proposed were unapprovable.

The Board stated that

“these communications

from USEPA place

a cloud

over the opacity rules:

the state

is required

to

comply

with

the

Clean

Air

Act

and

regulations

adopted

thereunder,

and

USEPA’s

interpretation

of

its own

rules must be given

some deference.”

Further,

the Board set another hearing

and requested

testimony

regarding

the

“legal

requirements

of

the

state

implementation

plan

regarding

visual

emissions,

what

type

or

types

of

rules

would

or

should

be

federally

approvable,

the

adequacy

of

the

present

record

to support

the

adoption of such rules

...

.“

(Interim Order,

March

14,

1986,

p.

2).

Hearing was held on April

28,

1986,

at which William L. MacDowell

testified on behalf

of USEPA.

It was Mt. MacDowell’s testimony

that Federal regulations,

40 CFR 51.19(c)

(now codified

at 40 CFR

51.212(b))

require enforceable visible emissions limitations

in

order

to ensure that particulate control equipment

is properly

operated and maintained on a continuing

basis.

Mr. MacDowell

offered much testimony to support

the notion that opacity

rules

are federally required.

Further,

in its comments on

the Fourth

First Notice,

(P.C.

No.

44),

the Agency submitted

a letter dated

November

6,

1987,

from

Mr.

Michael

Hayes,

Manager

of the the

Division

of Air Pollution Control,

to Jacob Dumelle, Chairman of

the

Pollution

Control

Board.

The

letter

notes

that

the

previous

First

Notice

in

the

rulemaking,

R82—l(B),

expired

on

September

5,

1987

and

urges

the

Board

to promptly promulgate opacity standards

because

it

believes

that

such

standards

remain

necessary.

To

support

this

belief,

the

Agency

also

submitted

an

Agency

memorandum

from

Dan

D’Auben

to

Susan

Schroeder

on

the

necessity

issue.

The

memo

states:

90—592

---

—5—

“The

State

of

Illinois

will

be

submitting

three

types

of

PM10

SIP5.

The

first,

for

Group

I

areas,

may

include

new

process

and

fugitive

emission

rules

for

sources

in

SE.

Chicago,

S.W.

Cook

County,

Oglesby,

and

Granite

City.

These

areas,

because

of

previous

TSP

monitoring,

PM10

monitoring,

or

previous

studies

are

presumed

to

not

be

in

compliance

with

PM10

NAAQS.

The second

type

of

PM10

SIP

(Group

II)

is

for

areas

the

compliance

with

the

NAAQS

is

uncertain.

The

last

type of PM10 SIP (Group

III)

is for areas

that

it

is

assumed

that

the

TSP

SIP

is

adequate

to protect the PM10 NAAQS.

This type

of

SIP would

cover

the majority

of

the

State

of

Illinois.

A

major

SIP

requirement

for

Group

II

and

III

areas

is

that

the

TSP

SIP

must

be

viable

and

enforceable.

This

is

required

because

it

is

assumed

that

the

TSP

emission

regulations

are

adequate

to

protect

the

PM10

NAAQS.

If

an

opacity

rule

is

not

promulgated

for

TSP

(R82—1)

we

feel

that

the

USEPA will

hold

that portions

of

our TSP SIP

are

unenforceable

and

therefore

the

PM10

SIP

is

not viable.”

(Agency’s Fourth First Notice

Comments,

P.C.

No.

44,

filed

February

26,

1988,

Attachment

2).

The

Board

believes

that

the

Record

is

sufficient

to

support

the

adoption

of

these

opacity

rules.

Fourth

First

Notice Comments and Revisions

The

Agency

commented

that

in

proposed

Section

2l2.124(d)(1)

certain

words

were

“mistakenly

deleted

from

the

Fourth

First

Notice”

Order.

The

Board can only note that

the language

proposed

to

Section

2l2.124(d)(l)

at

Fourth

First Notice was

taken

verbatim

from

the

Final Agency Comments filed February 11,

1987,

at

page

5.

The

Board

accepts

the

Agency’s

suggestion

and

has

amended

“Section

212.123”

to

become

“Sections

212.122

and

212.123.”

The

Agency

commented

that

Section

2l2.124(d)(2)

contains

a

reference

to

Section

212.110.

The

Agency

noted

that

it

has

proposed

to change this particular provision

in Board rulemaking

R79—14

to the procedures

of 35

Ill.

Adrn. Code

230, Appendix A (40

CFR 60, Method

5).

Because R79—14 has not yet been sent to First

Notice,

this proceeding will most

likely result

in finalized

regulations first.

Therefore,

the Board will

include the

amendment

in this proceeding.

However, because

the Environmental

Protection Act

(Act)

no longer authorizes

the Board

to

90—593

---

—6—

peremptorily amend

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 230 and

231,

the Board will

Cite directly

to the Code

of Federal Regulations

for

incorporation of procedures therein.

As a result,

“Section

212.110”

is deleted and the following

language

is added

to

Sections 212.124(d)(2)(A)

and

(B):

“Method

5,

40

CFR 60,

incorporated

by reference

in Section 212.113.”

The Agency suggested the following modifications

of Section

2l2.126(c)

and

(e)

for clarity:

“Section

212.126(c):

Any

request

for

the

determination

of

the

average

opacity

of

emissions shall

be

made

in writing,

including

the

time

and

place

of

the

performance

test,

all

test

specifications

and

procedures,

and

submitted

to

the Agency

at

least

thirty days

before the proposed

test date.”

“Section

212.126(e):

The

owner

or

operator

shall

allow

Agency

personnel

to

be

present

during

the performance test.”

The Board accepts

the Section 212.126(e)

suggestion.

However,

the Board believes that Section 212.126(c)

requires

further grammatical clarification.

The Board

thus amends Section

212.126(c)

as follows:

“Section

212.126(c):

Any

request

for

the

determination

of

the

average

opacity

of

emissions

shall

be

in

writing,

shall

include

the time and place

of the performance

test and

all

test

specifications

and

procedures,

and

shall

be

submitted

to

the

Agency

at

least

thirty days before the proposed test date.”

The Agency also noted

its concerns regarding

the Board’s

amendment

of

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 106.Subpart

B:

Air Adjusted

Standard Procedures.

The Agency states that although the general

idea of

a standardized procedure has merit,

there are currently

at least two regulations other

than the opacity rules that

contain important specialized procedures for obtaining

an

adjusted air standard.

The Agency argues that these and all

other existing specialized procedures should

take precedence over

a general

air adjusted procedure.

The Board does not dispute

the

Agency’s arguments.

However,

the Board does believe that the

general procedures

for obtaining

an adjusted standard should be

located among

the Board’s procedural

rules.

Therefore,

the Board

will retain

the

35

Iii.. Mm.

Code 106 amendments, but will make

them applicable at this time only

to the

35

Ill.

Adm. Code

212.

Subpart B rules.

The Board

is persuaded

that

there is

insufficient information

in the

record

to

justify utilization of

these rules

for other existing specialized procedures.

As future

90—59 4

---

—7—

adjusted

standards provisions

are adopted,

these general

procedures can be referred

to and utilized.

In addition

to providing comments regarding Part 106

procedures

in general,

the Agency commented on certain specific

aspects of the Part 106 proposal.

First,

the Agency opposes

a

certain part

of Section 106.503(b).

The Agency states that

it

has “limited access

to source

information and limited procedures

to enforce information gathering,”

and that “this section should

not be construed as requiring the Agency to assist

in the proof

of the petition,

as the Agency has the right

to prioritize

its

use of resources

to meet its statutory obligations under

the

Environmental Protection Act.”

The Board

notes

that Section

106.503(a)

clearly and explicitly states

“the Agency may,

in

its

discretion, act

as

a co—petitioner.”

Thus,

the Agency will not

be required

to assist

in the proof of

the petition.

The Agency further argues that

“to require written

notification of

the Agency’s position regarding whether

or not

it

will

be

a co—petitioner and

its underlying reasons

is unnecessary

and places

an added burden on the Agency.”

In support

of its

argument,

the Agency states that

it and potential petitioners are

“well aware”

of

the identity of each other

and that “the Agency’s

position

is

clear

from

its

pleadings

and

hearing

participation.”

The Board notes

that this requirement

is not new

to

adjusted

standard

procedures.

Similar

requirements

can

be

found

in

the

RCRA

adjusted

standard

procedures

(35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

106.412)

and

in

the

CSO

exception

proceeding

(35

Ill.

Adrn.

Code

306.352(b)).

Because

this decision

is discretionary (proposed

Section 106.503(a))

and not appealable

to the Board

(proposed

Section 106.503(c)),

and because

the Agency has expressed

opposition

to the requirement in this context,

the Board

has

determined

that

a compromise

is

in order.

The Board will retain

the written notification requirement

(1)

to maintain consistency

with the above—noted regulations and

(2)

to ensure that the

applicant receives

a prompt response.

However, the Board

believes

that

it

is

perfectly

appropriate

for

the

Agency

to

decline

to

co—petition

in

the

event

that the Agency

is faced with

a

lack

of

resources

with

which

to

investigate

and

co—petition.

Therefore,

a simple statement

to that effect

is

the minimum that

would

be

required

by

Section

106.503(b).

The Agency states that in Section l06.504(b)(2)

the written

statement should

be signed by only the petitioner

and not the

Agency, even

if the Agency

is

a co—petitioner

or approves

of the

proposed standard.

The Agency argues

that

it cannot,

from

its

own independent knowledge,

verify all

of the various elements

that this written

statement contemplates.

The Board appreciates

the

Agency’s

concerns

and

has

revised

Section

106.504(b)(2)

to

require

only

the

petitioner’s

signature.

90—595

---

—8—

As regards

the Section 106.505 time for response to the

filing of

a petition,

the Agency argued that twenty—one

(21)

days

is too short.

The Agency believes

that

a minimum of

forty—five

(45)

days

is necessary

for

an effective evaluation.

In the

absence of any evidence

to the contrary,

the Board defers to

the

Agency’s

knowledge

of

its internal processes,

and accepts the

forty—five

.i~45) day

response

period.

In

addition,

the

Board

has

made

certain

clarifications

to

the

text

of

the

proposed

rules

on

its

own.

These changes

are

in

no

way

intended

to affect

the substance

of

the proposed rules,

but

rather

are

intended

to

make

the

language of

the

rules

more

precise.

First,

in

Section

2l2.214(d)(l),

the

Board

removed

“and

either”

and replaced

it with “but subject to.”

This action was

taken

to correct the internal logic

of the subsection.

Second,

the Board notes that Section 2l2.214(d)(1)

and

(2)

are defense provisions

for different

types of sources.

Section

2l2.2l4(d)(1)

is applicable

to sources

not subject

to Sections

212.201 through 212.204, but subject

to 212.122 or

212.123.

The

Board has added

language

to clarify that Section 212.124(d)(1)

does not apply

to sources

subject to New Source Performance

Standards,

i.e.,

subject

to Section

111

or

112 of

the Clean Air

Act.

Section 212.124(d)(2)

is applicable

to sources subject

to

Section 212.201 through 212.204

and either

212.122 or 212.123.

Language was added here also

to clarify that Section

2l2.l24(d)(2) does not apply

to sources subject

to New Source

Performance Standards.

The difference between Section

2l2.l24(d)(l)

and

(2)

lies

in the defense mechanism.

Section

212.124(d)(2)(A)

and

(B) state:

A)

An exceedance

of the limitations of

Section 212.122 or 212.123 shall

constitute

a violation of

the applicable

particulate

limitations

of this Part.

It

shall

be

a defense

to a violation of the

applicable particulate limitations

if,

during a subsequent performance test

conducted within

a reasonable time not

to

exceed

60 days,

under the same operating

conditions

for

the source and the control

device(s),

and

in accordance with Method

5,

40 CFR 60, incorporated by reference

in Section 212.113,

the owner

or operator

shows

that the source

is in compliance

with the particulate emission

limitations.

B)

It shall

be

a defense

to an exceedance

of

the opacity limit

if, during

a subsequent

performance test conducted within

a

reasonable

time not

to exceed

60 days,

90—596

---

—9—

under

the same operating conditions

of

the source and the control

device(s),

and

in accordance with Method

5,

40 CFR 60,

incorporated by reference

in Section

212.113,

the owner

or operator shows

that

the source

is

in compliance with the

allowable particulate emissions

limitation while,

simultaneously, having

visible emissions

equal

to

or greater

than the opacity exceedance

as originally

observed.

Section 212.l24(d)(l) states

“The opacity limitations of Sections 212.122

and 212.123 shall

not apply

if

it

is shown

that the emission source was,

at the time

of

such emission,

in compliance with

the

applicable particulate emissions limitations

of this Part.”

One reason for the different defense provision between

these two

subsections

is

that the performance test conducted

in accordance

with Test Method

5,

40 CFR 60, Appendix A,

is clearly designed

for accurate measurement

of stack particulate emissions from

sources

subject

to

Sections

212.201

through

212.204

(i.e.

Section

212.124(d)(2)),

while

for

other

sources,

e.g.,

process

emission

sources, Method

5

may

not

be

applicable

because

such

sources

(1)

may not have

a stack

or

(2) may be allowed

to use other methods

in lieu of the stack

test

to show compliance.

However,

the lack

in Section 212.124(d)(1)

of specific defense requirements,

i.e.,

subsequent performance

test,

under same operating conditions,

while having visible emissions greater

than or equal

to the

opacity exceedance originally observed,

is

in no way intended

to

imply that those showings would

not be appropriate

to

a

demonstration

of compliance with the particulate emission

limitations.

In fact,

such showings

(as prescribed under

Section

2l2.124(d)(2)) would be the preferred method

of demonstrating

compliance

under Section 212.l24(d)(l).

Third, subsection

212.124(a) was amended

to include

exceptions

for times

of malfunction and breakdown,

in addition

to

start—up.

This was suggested

in comment previously

received.

The commentor stated that

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

20l.Subpart

I

allows

for permission

to be granted

to operate during any

of these

three

events.

The commentor pointed out that,

to be consistent,

Section

212.214(a)

should include exception

for malfunction and

breakdown.

The Board agrees and

has added

the exceptions at

Second Notice.

Fourth,

the Board agrees with

the Agency’s comments and will

retain the upper

limit of

60

in the adjusted opacity

90—597

---

—10—

standards.

The Board also notes

that sources obtaining

an

adjusted opacity

limit pursuant to 212..121(a)(6)

are allowed

to

exceed

the standard

for one six—minute

averaging period

in any

60—minute period rather than pursuant

to the exception

in

existing Sections 212.122 and 212.123.

The adjusted opacity

limitation exception contained

in Section 212.126(a)(4)

is

consistent with the measurement methods

of Method

9,

40 CFR 60,

Appendix

A.

Second Notice Review

The Second Notice Opinion and Order was adopted

on May

5,

1988.

The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules considered the

proposed rules

at its June 14,

1988 Meeting.

On that date,

the

Joint Committee issued

a Certificate

of No Objection

to the

proposed amendments

to

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

212.

Pursuant

to

discussions with the Joint Committee,

the Board agreed

to make

certain non—substantive

language changes

to clarify

the intent of

the rules.

Those changes

are noted below.

Also on June

14,

1988,

the Joint Committee

issued a Certificate of Objection

to

the rules proposed for inclusion into

35

Ill. Adm.

Code

106.

By

separate Resolution and Order,

also adopted

today,

the Board set

forth

its formal response

to the JCAR Objection refusing

to

modify or withdraw the proposed

rules.

Pursuant

to second notice review discussions with the Joint

Committee,

the Board agreed

to make the following non-substantive

modifications

to the proposed

rules:

35

Ill. Mm.

Code

106:

1.

To amend Section 1O6.505(a),

the

last sentence

to

read:

“This response shall include

the Agency’s

recommendations concerning

the Board’s proposed action

on the petition.”

2.

To add a citation to Section 28.1 of

the Environmental

Protection Act

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1987,

ch.

111 1/2,

par.

1028.1) after

Sections 106.507(c) and

(d).

3.

To update its statutory citations

to the 1987 Illinois

Revised Statutes.

35

Ill.

Mm.

Code

212:

1.

To insert “Subparts D—T of”

in Sections

212.l24(d)(l)

and 212.l24(d)(2)(A)

after “applicable particulate

emission limitations.”

2.

To insert “of Sections 212.121—212.125” after “otherwise

applicable standards”

in Section 212.126(a).

90—598

---

—11—

3.

To replace

the word “may”

with “shall”

in Section

212.126(b)

so the last sentence

of the Section

reads:

“The Agency shall

refuse

to accept the results of

emissions tests

if not conducted pursuant

to this

Section which

are conducted without prior review and

approval of the test specifications and procedures by

the

Agency.”

4.

To replace the word “devise(s)” with

“device(s)”

in

Section 212.124(d)(2)(A).

5.

To update

the “Statutory Authority” citation

to “1987”

in

the

Authority

Note.

Economic

Impact of Proposed Rules

Finally,

the Board notes

that the existing Opacity

regulations were declared

invalid as they applied

to sources

regulated

by the Particulate

rules

in Celotex

Corp.

v.

Pollution

Control Board,

94

Ill.

2d

107,

445 N.E.2d

752,

68

Ill.

Dec.

108

(1983).

The basis

for

the invalid declaration was that in

adopting the Opacity regulations,

the Board had relied on the

economic reasonableness justification provided

in the adoption

of

the Particulate rules

formerly

Rule 203(g)(1).

Because

the

Particulate rules were declared invalid based

on

a failure to

consider economic reasonableness

in Commonwealth Edison Company

v.

Pollution Control Board,

25

111.

App.

3d

271,

323 N.E.2d

84

(1975),

the Supreme Court

ruled

in Celotex that the Opacity rules

were also invalid.

Subsequent

to that holding,

the Board

revalidated the Particulates

rules.

Analysis

of the economic

reasonableness

is set forth

in the Final Opinion and Order dated

July

2,

1986

in R82—l (Docket A).

There

the Board stated

in

part:

The

Executive

Summary

of

the

Economic

Impact

Study (EcIS)

in this matter concludes:

Because

so

few

sources

remain out—

of—compliance,

repromulgation

of

rules

203(g)(l)

and

202(b)

is

not

expected

to

impact

very

noticeably

on

the

Illinois

economy.

Hence

Board

approval

of

R82—l

should

have

little

effect

on

the

overall

availability

of

goods

and

services

to

the

people

of

the

state,

nor

should

it

have

much

impact

on

agriculture,

local

government,

commerce or

industry.

Of course,

if

the avoidance of

nearly $400 million

in

Clean

Air

Act

penalties

is

assumed

to result from revalidation,

90—599

---

—12—

then

it

follows

that

all

of

those

sectors

will

experience

a

significant

benefit

in

the

form

of

averted

funding

losses

and

the

associated

secondary

effects.

(Ex.

10,

p.

vi).

The

reason

for

such

widespread

compliance

with

invalid

Rule

203(g)(l)

is

that

the

Agency,

in

its

permitting

process,

has

acted

almost

as

though

the

rules

had

never

been

invalidated.

Despite

the

fact

that

the

Agency

no

longer

had

valid

rules

on

which

to base permitted levels

of

particulate

emissions,

it

established

a

policy,

which

it

filed

with

the Secretary

of

State’s

Office

in

December

of

1977,

stating

that

compliance

with

203(g)(l)

still

would

“usually

be

deemed

...

sufficient

to

assure

compliance

with

air quality provisions

...

of

the

Act.”

According

to

these

guidelines,

a

plant

may

obtain

a

permit

by

either

demonstrating

compliance

with

the

remanded

rules

or

by

performing

comprehensive

air

quality

evaluations

to

demonstrate

that

alternative

emissions’

limitations

would

not

threaten

air

quality

standards.

Since

this

policy

has

been

in

effect,

only

the Winnetka

Electric Plant has been granted

an alternative

standard.

The

EcIS

proceeded

on

the

assumption

that

“repromulgation

is

assumed

to

have

no

impact

on those sources already

in compliance.”

(Ex.

10,

p.

14).

It,

therefore,

discusses

costs

imposed

on

those

facilities

which

have

not

achieved compliance,

those which are presently

permitted

to

emit

as

much

as

0.2

lbs/MBtu

under

203(g)(1)(C)

but

which

will

ultimately

be

required

to

comply

with

a

stricter

limitation,

the

Winnetka

plant

which

is

operating under

a relaxed

limitation,

and new

sources.

(Ex.

10,

pp.

16—18).

Of

the

30

sources which are not presently

in compliance,

12 operate

routinely,

9

are

used on

a standby

basis

and

none

are

shut

down.

(Ex.

10,

p.

53).

Eleven

are

in

non—attainment

areas

for

particulates;

five

are

in

attainment

areas.

(Ex.

10, pp.

53—56).

The

authors

of

the

EcIS

admit

that

assigning

an

economic

value

to

the

costs

and

benefits

involved

in

this proceeding

is

difficult.

On

90—600

---

—13—

the

cost

side,

errors

arise

from choosing

an

emission

reduction

strategy.

The

study

assumed

the use

of

fabric

filters

or cyclones

resulting

in

an annualized cost

of control

for

the

affected sources

of

about

$4.4 million

in

1982 dollars with

a range

of error

of

about

50

percent.

However,

some

of

the

30

sources

impacted

by

repromulgation

have

shut

down

within

the past

five

years

and

many,

if

not

most,

may

never

operate

again,

regardless

of

the Board’s

ruling

in

this

matter.

Further,

an

equal

number

of

sources

are

used

as

emergency

standby

units,

which

operators

may

choose

to retire.

Thus,

only 12 sources which

are out—of—compliance

with

the

remanded

rules

operate on

a routine basis, with

an annualized

control

cost

of

about

$4.42 million,

most

of

which

is

attributable

to

CILO’s

Wallace

Station.

The

benefits

of

repromulgation

are

also

subject

to

considerable

uncertainty,

especially

in

the

estimation

of

reduced

damages

to

health

and

welfare.

Dispersion

modeling

indicates

that

in

all

but

three

locations,

promulgation

of

the proposed

rules

will reduce a~bientTSP concentrations by less

than

1

ug/m~.

The

estimated

health

and

welfare benefits

are $73,000

per

year

in 1982

dollars,

although that figure must be regarded

as

a

lower

limit

since

only

those

impacts

greater

than

1 ug were evaluated.

Significant

errors

may

arise

for

uncertainties

in

the

damage coefficients themselves which are based

on

the

work

of

Dr.

Allen

Cohen

who

has

conceded

that

they could

offer

no better

than

“order

of

magnitude”

accuracy:

i.e.

they

could

vary

by

a

factor

of

ten.

Potentially

overriding

any

of

these

costs

or

benefits

is the impact which would result from

a

decision

by

the

Administrator

of

USEPA

to

impose

the

Clean

Air

Act’s

sweeping

penalties.

The

deficiency

in

Illinois’

SIP

due

to

judicial

remand

is

cause

for

the

sanctions.

Illinois’

inability

to

show

attainment

with

TSP

air

quality

standards

exposes

the

State

to

a

possible

annual

loss

of

up

to

$335

million

in

highway

funds,

$35

million

in

sewage

treatment

grants,

and

nearly

$12

million

in

Agency

operating

funds

per

year.

In

that

case

the

benefits

of

revalidation clearly outweigh

the costs.

90—61)1

---

—14—

Based on this analysis and on the absence of any indication

in

the

record

that

these

rules

are

not

economically

reasonable,

the

Board

concludes

that

it

is

economically

reasonable

to

comply

with the underlying Opacity

rules

as well as

today’s adopted

rules

ORDER

The

Board

hereby

adopts

the

following

amendments

to

the

Illinois

Administrative

Code:

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

A:

GENERAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 106

HEARINGS PURSUANT TO SPECIFIC RULES

SUBPART

A:

HEATED EFFLUENT DEMONSTRATIONS

Section

106.

101

106. 102

106.

103

106.104

106.105

106.

106

106.107

Petition

Requirements

for Petition

Parties

Recommendation

Notice and Hearing

Transcripts

Opinion and Order

SUBPART

B:

ARTIFICIAL COOLING LAKE DEMONSTRATIONS

Section

106.201

106.202

106.203

106.204

Petition

Notice and Hearing

Transcripts

Effective Date

Section

106.301

106.302

106.303

106.304

106.305

106.

306

Section

Petition

Requirements

for

Petition

Part ies

Recommenda tion

Notice and Hearing

Transcripts

SUBPART

D:

RCRA ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURES

106.401

Petition

(Repealed)

SUBPART

C:

SULFUR

DIOXIDE

DEMONSTRATIONS

90— 602

---

Notice of Petition

(Repealed)

Recommendation

(Repealed)

Response (Repealed)

Public Comment

(Repealed)

Public Hearings

(Repealed)

Decision

(Repealed)

Appeal

(Repealed)

Scope and Applicability

Joint

or Single Petition

Request

to Agency to Join as Co—Petitioner

Contents

of Petition

Response and Reply

Notice and Conduct of Hearing

Opinions and Orders

SUBPART

E:

AIR ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURES

Section

106.

501

106.502

106.503

106.504

106.505

106.506

106.

507

Scope and Applicability

Joint

or Single Petition

Request

to Agency to Join As Co—Petitioner

Contents of Petition

Response and Reply

Notice and Conduct of Hearing

Opinions and Orders

Appendix

A

AUTHORITY:

authorized

(Ill.

Rev.

1028.1

and

Old

Rule Numbers Referenced

Implementing Sections

5,

22.4,

27,

28 and 28.1 and

by

Section

26

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

Stat.

1987,

ch.

1111/2,

pars.

1005,

1022.4,

1027,

1028,

1026).

SOURCE:

Filed with Secretary of

State January

1,

1978; amended

at

4

Ill.

Reg.

2,

page

186,

effective

December

27,

1979;

codified

at

6 Ill.

Reg.

8357;

amended

in R85—22

at 10

Ill.

Reg.

992,

effective February

2,

1986; amended

in R86—46 at 11

Ill.

Reg.

13457,

effective August

4,

1987;

amended

in R82—1 at ______Ill.

Reg.

_______

,

effective

_________________

SUBPART

E:

AIR ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURES

Section 106.501

Scope

and Applicability

This

Subpart applies only whenever

an adjusted standard,

as

provided

in Section 28.1

of

the Environmental Protection Act

(Act),

is sought pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 212.126.

Ill.

Reg.

________

__________

Section

106.502

Joint

or

Single

Petition

—15—

106.402

106.403

106.

404

106.405

106.

406

106.407

106.408

106.410

106.411

106.412

106.413

106.414

106.415

106.416

(Source:

Added

at

effective

)

90—603

---

—16—

A person may initiate

an adjusted standard proceeding either by

filing

a petition

jointly with the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

(Agency),

or by filing a petition singly.

(Source:

Added

at

Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

Section 106.503

Request

to Agency

to Join As Co—Petitioner

a)

The Agency may,

in its discretion,

act as

a co—

petitioner

in any adjusted standard proceeding.

b)

Any person may request Agency assistance

in initiating a

petition for adjusted standard.

The Agency may require

the person

to submit

to the Agency any background

information

in the person’s possession relevant

to the

adjusted standard which

is sought.

The Agency shall

promptly notify the person

in writing of

its

determination either

to join as

a co—petitioner,

or

to

decline

to join as a co—petitioner.

If the Agency

declines

to join as

a co—petitioner,

the Agency shall

state

the basis for

this decision.

c)

Discretionary decisions made by the Agency pursuant

to

this

Section

are

not

appealable

to

the

Board.

(Source:

Added

at

Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

Section 106.504

Contents

of Petition

a)

The petitioner

shall

file ten copies

of the petition for

adjusted standard with the Clerk of

the Pollution

Control Board

(Board),

and

shall

serve one copy upon the

Agency.

b)

The petition shall

contain the following information:

1)

Identification

of the regulation of general

applicability

for which an adjusted standard is

sought

2)

A written statement, signed by the petitioner,

or

an

authorized

representative, outlining

the scope

of

the evaluation,

the nature

of,

the reasons

for and

the basis

of the adjusted

standard, consistent with

the level

of justification contained

in the

regulation

of general applicability

3)

The nature of the petitioner’s operations and

control equipment;

and

4)

Any additional

information which may be required

in

the regulation

of general applicability.

90—604

---

—17-

(Source:

Added at

Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

Section 106.505

Response and Reply

a)

Within

45 days after

the filing of

a petition,

the

Agency shall

file

a response

to any petition in which it

has not joined as

a co—petitioner.

This response shall

include

the Agency’s recommendations concerning

the

Board’s proposed action on the petition.

b)

The petitioner may file

a reply within 14 days after

the

filing of any Agency response.

(Source:

Added at

Ill.

Reg.

effective

Section 106.506

Notice and Conduct

of Hearing

a)

The Board will hold

at least one public hearing prior

to

granting an adjusted standard.

b)

The hearing officer will schedule the hearing.

The

Clerk will give notice of hearing

in accordance with 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 102.122.

c)

The proceedings

will be

in accordance with

35

Ti!. Mm.

Code 102.160

through 102.164.

(Source:

Added at

Ill.

Reg.

effective

__________)

Section 106.507

Opinions and Orders

a)

The Board will adopt an order

and opinion stating

the

facts

and reasons leading to the final Board

determination,

consistent with any considerations which

may be specified

in the regulation

of general

applicability or Section 27(a)

of

the Act.

b)

The Board will issue such other orders as the Board

deems appropriate,

including,

but not limited

to,

accepting or

rejecting

the petition,

requiring

the

submission

of further

information or directing that

further hearings be held.

c)

SUCH BOARD ORDERS AND OPINIONS WILL

BE MAINTAINED

FOR

PUBLIC INSPECTION

BY THE CLERK OF THE BOARD AND A

LISTING OF ALL DETERMINATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THIS

SUBPART WILL

BE PUBLISHED

IN THE ILLINOIS REGISTER AND

THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTER AT THE END OF EACH FISCAL

YEAR.

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

ch.

111 1/2 par.

1028.1).

90—60 5

---

—18—

d)

A FINAL BOARD DETERMINATION MADE UNDER THIS SUBPART MAY

BE

APPEALED

PURSUANT

TO

SECTION

41

OF

THE

ACT.

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

ch.

111

1/2

par.

1028.1).

(Source:

Added at

Ill.

Reg

,

effective

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

B:

AIR

POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER c:

EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS

FOR

STATIONARY

SOURCES

PART

212

V~SE~M~

VISIBLE AND PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS

SUBPART

A:

GENERAL

Section

212.121

212.122

212.123

212.124

212.125

212.126

Opacity

Standards

Limitations

for

Certain

New

Sources

Limitations

for

All

Other

Sources

Exceptions

Determination of Violations

Adjusted Opacity Standards Procedures

SUBPART

D:

PARTICULATE

MATTER

EMISSIONS

FROM

INCINERATORS

Section

212.181

212.182

212.183

212.184

Limitations

for

Incinerators

Aqueous Waste Incinerators

Certain Wood Waste Incinerators

Explosive

Waste

Incinerators

SUBPART

E:

PARTICULATE

MATTER

EMISSIONS

FROM

FUEL

COMBUSTION

EMISSION

SOURCES

Section

212.201

Existing

Sources

Using

Solid

Fuel

Exclusively

Located

in

the

Chicago

Area

212.202

Existing Sources Using Solid

Fuel Exclusively Located

Outside

the

Chicago

Area

212.203

Existing

Controlled

Sources

Using

Solid

Fuel

Exclusively

Section

212.100

212.110

212.111

212.112

212.113

Scope

and Organization

Measurement Methods

Abbreviations and Units

Definitions

Incorporations by Reference

SUBPART

B:

V~SUAE~VISIBLE EMISSIONS

90—606

---

—19—

212.204

New Sources Using Solid Fuel Exclusively

212.205

Existing Coal—fired Industrial Boilers Equipped with

Flue

Gas

Desulfurization

Systems

212.206

Sources Using Liquid Fuel Exclusively

212.207

Sources

Using

More

Than

One

Type

of

Fuel

212.208

Aggregation of Existing Sources

SUBPART

K:

FUGITIVE PARTICULATE MATTER

Section

212.301

Fugitive Particulate Matter

212.302

Geographical Areas

of Application

212.304

Storage Piles

212.305

Conveyor Loading Operations

212.306

Traffic Areas

212.307

Materials Collected by Pollution Control Equipment

212.308

Spraying or Choke—Feeding Required

212.309

Operating Program

212.310

Minimum Operating Program

212.312

Amendment

to Operating Program

212.313

Emission Standard for Particulate Collection Equipment

212.314

Exception

for Excess Wind Speed

212.315

Covering for Vehicles

SUBPART

L:

PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS

FROM PROCESS EMISSION SOURCES

Section

212.321

New Process Sources

212.322

Existing Process Sources

212.323

Stock

Piles

SUBPART N:

FOOD MANUFACTURING

Section

212.361

Corn Wet Milling Processes

SUBPART

0:

PETROLEUM REFINING,

PETROCHEMICAL

AND CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING

Section

212.381

Catalyst Regenerators of Fluidized Catalytic Converters

SUBPART

Q:

STONE, CLAY, GLASS

AND CONCRETE MANUFACTURING

Section

212.421

New Portland Cement Processes

212.422

Portland Cement Manufacturing Processes

SUBPART R:

PRIMARY

AND

FABRICATED METAL

PRODUCTS AND MACHINERY MANUFACTURE

90-607

---

—20—

Section

212.441

212.442

212.443

212.444

212.445

212.446

212.447

212.448

212.449

212.

450

212.451

212.452

212.455

212.456

212.457

Steel

Manufacturing

Processes

Beehive Coke Ovens

By—Product

Coke Plants

Sinter Processes

Blast Furnace Cast Houses

Basic Oxygen Furnaces

Hot Metal Desulfurization Not Located

in the BOF

Electric Arc Furnaces

Argon—Oxygen

Decarbu

r ization

Vessels

Liquid Steel Charging

Hot Scarf ing Machines

Measurement Methods

Highlines on Steel Mills

Certain Small Foundries

Certain Small Iron—melting Air Furnaces

SUBPART

5:

AGRICULTURE

Grain Handling and Drying

in General

Grain Handling Operations

Grain Drying Operations

SUBPART

T:

CONSTRUCTION

AND

WOOD

PRODUCTS

Section

212.681

Grinding, Woodworking, Sandblasting and

Shotbiasting

Allowable

Emissions

from

Solid

Fuel

Combustion

Emission

Sources

Outside

Chicago

Limitations

for

all

New

Process

Emission

Sources

Limitations

for

all

Existing

Process

Emission

Sources

AUTHORITY:

Implementing

Section

10

and

authorized

by

Section

27

of

the

Environmental Protection Act

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1987,

ch.

111

1/2,

pars.

1010

and

1027)

SOURCE:

Adopted

as Chapter

2:

Air Pollution, Rules

202 and

203:

Visual and Particulate Emission Standards and Limitations,

R7l—23,

4 PCB 191,

filed

and effective April

14,

1972; amended

in

R77—l5,

32 PCB 403, at

3

Ill.

Reg.

5,

p.

798, effective

February

3, 1979;

amended

in R78—lO,

35 PCB 347,

at

3

Ill.

Reg.

39,

p.

184, effective September

28,

1979;

amended

in R78—l1,

35

PCB 505, at

3

Ill.

Reg.

45,

p.

100, effective October

26,

1979;

amended

in R78—9,

38 PCB 411, at

4

Ill. Reg.

24,

p.

514,

Section

212.461

212.462

212.463

Appendix

A

Appendix

B

Appendix

C

Illustration

A

Illustration

B

Illustration

C

Rule

into Section Table

Section

into Rule Table

Past Compliance Dates

90—608

---

—21—

effective June

4,

1980;

amended

in R79—ll,

43 PCB 481,

at

5

111.

Reg.

11590, effective October

19,

1981;

codified at

7

Ill.

Reg.

13591;

amended

in R82—l (Docket

A)

at

10

Ill.

Reg.

12637,

effective July

9,

1986; amended

in R85—33 at 10

Ill.

Reg.

18030,

effective October

7,

1986;

amended in R84—48 at 10

Ill.

Reg.

691,

effective December

18,

1986; amended

in R84—42 at

11

Ill.

Reg.

1410,

effec~tiveDecember

30,

1986; amended

in R82—l(Docket

B)

at

_____

Ill.

Reg.

_________,

effective

______________________

Section

212.113

Incorporations

by

Reference

The

following

materials are incorporated by reference:

a)

ASME

Power

Test Code 27—1957, Determining Dust

Concentration

in

a

Gas

Stream,

American Society

of

Mechanical

Engineers,

United

Engineering

Center,

345

E.

47th

Street,

New

York,

NY 10017.

b)

Ringelmann

Chart,

Information

Circular

833

(Revision

of

IC77l8), Bureau of Mines, U.S.

Department

of Interior,

May 1,

1967.

c)

40 CFR 607 A~per~&~x

A7 4~Fed~Reg~-4~7~54~

~8T

~973-~- (1987)

d)

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—Ell, American Society of Testing

Materials,

1916 Race Street,

Philadelphia,

PA 19103.

f)

This Part

incorporates

no future editions

or amendments.

(Source:

Amended

at

Ill.

Reg.

effective

____________)

Section 212.121

Opacity Standards

For the purposes

of this Subpart, all

~ta~r

visible emission

opacity standards and limitations shall

be considered equivalent

to corresponding Ringelmann Chart readings,

as described under

the definition

of opacity

(35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 211.122).

+Be~~Ne4~e~Th5~Stthpa~as ~

app~es ~e se~eee ~egt~a~ed

by

l~asbeer~~

~

by the

4~o5~sSttp~eMe

eo~~7

?e3o~exv~~P?B e~a~ 68 fl~ Beer ~88~

445 HE~

~5~+

(Source:

Amended at

____

Ill.

Reg.

_________

effective

____________

90—609

---

—22—

Section 212.123

Limitations for All Other

Sources

a)

No person shall cause or

allow the emission of smoke or

other particulate matter, ?f~om

arty

ether em~ss~ei’~

seti~ee

~

the a

esp~e~ee~with an opacity greater

than

30

percent,

into the atmosphere

from any emission source

other

than those sources subject

to Section 212.122.

b)

Exception:

The emission of

smoke or other particulate

matter

from any such emission source may have an opacity

greater

than 30 percent but not greater

than

60 percent

for

a period or

periods aggregating

8 minutes

in any

60

minute period provided

that such more opaque emissions

permitted during any 60 minute period shall occur

from

only one such emission source located within a 305 m

(1000

ft) radius from the center point of any other

such

emission source owned

or operated by such person,

and

provided further that such more opaque emissions

permitted from each such emission source shall

be

limited

to

3 times

in any 24 hour period.

(Source:

Amended

at

Ill.

Reg.

_________

effective

____________)

Section 212.124 Exceptions

a)

Startup, Malfunction and Breakdown.

Sections 212.122

and 212.123 shall apply during times

of startup,

malfunction

and

breakdown

except

as provided

in the

operating permit granted

in accordance with

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

201.

b)

Emissions

of water

and water vapor.

Sections 212.122

and 212.123 shall

not apply to emissions

of water or

water vapor

from an emission source.

c)

Adjusted standards.

An emission source which has

obtained

an adjusted opacity standard pursuant to

Section 212.126 shall be subject

to that standard rather

than the limitations

of Section 212.122 or 212.123.

de)

Compliance with the particulate

regulations of this Part

shall constitute

a defense.

1)

For all emission sources which are not subject

to

Chapters

111

or 112

of the Clean

Air Act and

Sections 212.201, 212.202,

212.203 or

212.204 but

which

are subject to Sections 212.122 or 212.123:

The opacity limitations

of

Sections 212.122

and

212.123

shall

not apply if

it

is shown

that the emission source was,

at the time of

9 0—6 10

---

—23—

such emission,

in compliance with

the

applicable particulate

emissions limitations

of

Subparts

D—T

of

this

Part.

2)

For all emission sources which are not subject to

Chapters

111

or

112

of

the

Clean

Air

Act

but

which

are

subject

to

Sections

212.201,

212.202,

212.203

or 212.204 and either Section

212.122

or 212.123:

A)

An exceedance

of the limitations

of Section

212.122

or 212.123 shall constitute

a

violation of the applicable particulate

limitations

of

Subparts D—T

of

this Part.

It

shall

be

a defense

to

a violation of the

applicable particulate limitations

if, during

a

subsequent

performance

test

conducted

within

a

reasonable

time not

to exceed

60 days, under

the same operating

conditions for the source

and the control device(s),

and

in accordance

with Method

5,

40 CFR 60, incorporated by

reference

in Section 212.113, the owner

or

operator shows

that the source

is

in

compliance with

the particulate emission

limitations.

B)

It shall

be

a defense

to

an exceedance

of the

opacity limit

if, during

a subsequent

performance test conducted within

a reasonable

time not

to exceed

60 days,

under

the same

operating conditions

of the source and the

control device(s),

and

in accordance with

Method

5,

40

CFR 60, Appendix A,

incorporated

by reference

in Section 212.113,

the owner

or

operator shows

that

the source

is

in

compliance with the allowable particulate

emissions limitation while, simultaneously,

having visible emissions equal

to or greater

than the opacity exceedance

as originally

observed.

(Source:

Amended

at

Ill.

Reg.

effective

___________

Section 212.126

Adjusted Opacity Standards Procedures

a)

Pursuant

to Section

28.1

of the Act,

and

in accordance

with

35 ill.

Adm.

Code 106.Subpart

E,

adjusted visible

emissions standards

for emission sources subject

to

Sections

212.201,

212.202,

212.203,

or

212.204

and

either

Section

212.122

or

212.123

shall

be

granted

by

the Board to the extent consistent

with federal

law

based upon

a demonstration by such

a source that the

90—6 11

---

—24—

results of

a performance test

conducted pursuant

to

this

Section,

Section 212.110,

and Methods

5 and 9 of

40 CFR

60, Appendix A,

incorporated by reference

in Section

212.113, show

that the source meets the applicable

particulate emission limitations

at the same

time that

the visible emissions exceed

the otherwise applicable

standards of

Sections 212.121—212.125.

Such adjusted

opacity limitations:

1)

Shall be specified

as

a condition

in operating

permits

issued pursuant

to

35

Ill. Mm.

Code 201

2)

Shall

substitute for that limitation otherwise

applicable

3)

Shall

not allow an opacity greater

than 60 percent

at any time;

and

4)

Shall allow opacity for one six—minute averaging

period

in any 60 minute period

to exceed

the

adjusted

opacity standard.

b)

For

the purpose of establishing

an adjusted opacity

standard,

any owner

or

operator of

an emission source

which meets

the requirements

of subsection

(a)

,

above,

may request the Agency

to determine the average opacity

of

the emissions from the emission source during any

performance test(s)

conducted pursuant

to Section

212.110 and Methods

5 and

9 of

40 CFR 60, Appendix A,

incorporated

by reference

in Section 212.113.

The

Agency shall refuse

to accept the results

of emissions

tests

if not conducted pursuant

to this Section.

C)

Any request

for

the determination of

the average opacity

of emissions shall

be made

in writing,

shall

include the

time and place

of

the performance test and test

specifications and procedures,

and shall be submitted

to

the Agency at least thirty days before the proposed test

date.

d)

The Agency will advise the owner

or operator

of

an

emission source which has requested an opacity

determination

of

any

deficiencies

in

the

proposed

test

specifications

and procedures

as expeditiously as

practicable but no

later

than

10 days prior

to the

proposed test date

so as

to minimize any disruption of

the proposed testing schedule.

e)

The owner

or operator shall allow Agency personnel

to be

present during the performance test.

90—612

---

—25—

f)

The method for determining

an adjusted opacity standard

is

as

follows:

1)

A minimum of

60 consecutive minutes

of opacity

readings obtained

in accordance with USEPA Test

Method

9,

40 CFR 60, Appendix A,

incorporated

by

reference in Section 212.113, sha~.1be taken during

each sampling

run.

Therefore,

for each performance

test

(which normally consists

of three sampling

runs),

a total

of three sets of opacity readings

totaling

three hours

or more shall

be obtained.

Concurrently,

the particulate emissions

data from

three sampling runs obtained

in accordance with

USEPA Test Method

5,

40 CFR 60, Appendix

A,

incorporated by reference

in Section 212.113, shall

also be obtained.

2)

After

the results

of the performance tests

are

received from the emission source,

the status of

compliance with the applicable particulate

emissions limitation shall

be determined by the

Agency.

In accordance

with tJSEPA Test

Method

5,

40

CFR 60, Appendix A,

incorporated by

reference

in

Section 212.113,

the average

of the

results of the

three sampling runs must

be less

than the allowable

particulate emission rate

in order for the source

to be considered

in compliance.

If compliance is

demonstrated, then only those

test runs with

results which are

less than the allowable

particulate emission rate

shall be considered as

acceptable

test

runs for

the purpose of

establishing

an adjusted opacity standard.

3)

The opacity readings for each acceptable sampling

run shall be divided

into sets of

24 consecutive

readings.

The 6—minute average

opacity

for each

set shall be determined

by dividing

the sum of the

24 readings within each set

by

24.

4)

The second highest six—minute average opacity

obtained

in

(f)(3) above

shall

be selected as the

adjusted opacity standard.

~j

The owner

or operator shall submit

a written report

of

the results of

the performance

test

to the Agency at

least

30 days prior

to filing

a petition for

an

adjusted

standard with the Board.

h)

If,

upon review of such owner’s

or operator’s written

report of the results of

the performance test(s),

the

Agency determines

that the emission source

is

in

compliance with all applicable emission limitations

for

90—613

---

—26—

which the performance

tests were conducted,

but fails

to

comply with the requirements

of Section 212.122

or

212.123,

the Agency shall notify the owner

or operator

as expeditiously as practicable,

but no

later than

20

days after

receiving the written report of any

deficiencies

in the results

of

the performance

tests.

i)

The owner

or operator may petition the Board for an

adjusted visible emission standard pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Mm.

Code 106.Subpart

E.

In

addition to the

requirements of

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

l06.Supart

E

the

petition shall

include

the following information:

1)

A description of

the business

or activity

of the

petitioner,

including

its location and relevant

pollution control equipment

2)

The quantity and type

of materials discharged from

the source

or control equipment for which

the

adjusted standard

is requested

3)

A copy

of

any correspondence between the petitioner

and the Agency regarding

the performance test(s)

which form the basis

of the adjusted standard

request

4)

A copy

of the written report submitted

to the

Agency pursuant

to subsection

(g) above

5)

A statement that the performance test(s) were

conducted

in accordance with

this Section

and the

conditions

and procedures accepted by the Agency

pursuant to Section 212.110

6)

A statement regarding the specific limitation

requested; and

7)

A

statement

as

to

whether

the

Agency

has

sent

notice

of

deficiencies

in

the

results

of

the

performance test pursuant

to subsection

(h)

above

and

a

copy

of

said

notice.

jj~

In order

to qualify

for

an adjusted standard the owner

or operator must justify

as follows:

1)

That the performance test(s) were conducted

in

accordance with USEPA Test Methods

5 and 9,

40 CFR

60, Appendix

A,

incorporated by reference

in

Section

212.113,

and

the

conditions

and

procedures

accepted

by

the

Agency pursuant

to Section 212.110

2)

That

the

emission source and associated

air

pollution

control

equipment

were

operated

and

maintained

in

a

manner

so

as

to

minimize

the

90—6 14

---

—27—

opacity of the emissions during the performance

test(s);

and

~J

That the proposed adjusted opacity standard was

determined

in accordance with subsection

(f).

k)

Nothing in this Section shall prevent any person from

initiating or participating

in

a rulemaking, variance,

or permit appeal proceeding before the Board.

(Source:

Added

at

Ill. Reg.

,

effective

)

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

Board Member

B.

Forcade concurred.

I, Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Op).~nionand Order was

adopted on the

______________

day of

y_~c..

,

1988 by a vote

of

7-0

.

Dorothy M./Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Eollution Control Board

90—615