ILLINOIS POLLuTION CONTROL BOARD

APRIL 30, 1987

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

 R85—20

35 ILL.

 ADM.

 CODE PART 203

)

FIRST NOTICE

 PROPOSED RULE

PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

 3.D.

 Dumelle):

On September

 4, 1985,

 the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

 (Agency)

 filed proposed amendments to

 35 Ill. Adm. Code

203:

 Major Stationary Source Construction and Modification, more.

commonly referred to

 as New Source Review or NSR.

 The Agency

amended that proposal on December 19, 1985,

 and again on February

5,

 1986.

 Hearings were held

 to consider the proposal on November

13 and December 10, 1985,

 and on February 4

 and May 28,

 1986.

On

~3eptember29,

 1986,

 the Department of Energy and Natural

Resources (DENR)

 filed a negative declaration indicating that no

economic impact study

 (EcIS) would

 be performed regarding this

proposal,

 a determination

 in which the Economic and Technical

Advisory Committee concurred by letter filed on October

 20, 1986.

The primary purpose of the proposal

is

 to enable the State

to obtain approval of

 its New Source Review Rules as part of the

Illinois State Implementation Plan

 (SIP).

 The Clean Air Act

provides that unless

 a state has an approved new source review

program as part of its SIP, no major source may be constructed or

modified

in

 a non—attainment area.

 (See Sections LLL(a)(2)(D),

111

 (a)(2)(I) and 173 of the Clean Air Act).

HISTOR’~

OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW RULES

In April,

1979,

 the Agency submitted its own NSR rules

to

the United States Environmental Protection Agency

 (USEPA)

for

approval as part of the Illinois SIP,

 and they were conditionally

approved

 in 1980.

 (See 45

 Fed.

 Reg.

 11472, Feb.

 21, 1980).

However,

 in May,

 1981,

 that conditional

 approval was reversed by

the Seventh Circuit in the case of CBE v.

 USEPA, 649 F.2d 522

(7th Cir.,

 1981).

 In turn,

 the State became subject to

a

construction moratorium in non—attainment areas.

 Thereafter, the

General Assembly adopted Section 9.1(d) of the t~nvironmental

Protection Act (Act) which mandated the Board

 to adopt

regulations establishing

 a permit program meeting the

requirements of Section 173 of the Clean Air Act

 (42 USC Section

7503) by October

 1, 1981.

 In response

 to that directive,

the

Agency submitted an NSR proposal

 to the Board

 in April,

 1980,

which was docketed as R81—16.

 Final

 rules were adopted under

77-419

that docket

 in July,

 1983, which were then submitted to USEPA for

approval.

 On April

9,

 1984, USEPA proposed to approve

 in part

and disapprove in part.

 (49 Fed. Reg. 13893).

 However,

 in light

of the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Bethlehem Steel v. Gorsuch,

742 F.2d 1028

 (7th Cir,,

 1984), USEPA determined that such action

was impermissible, and that it was obligated to disapprove the

rules

 in their entirety.

At that point the Agency and USEPA agreed

 to jointly develop

draft NSR rules which would be proposed for promulgation by USEPA

and whIch would be filed with the Board

 for adoption as state

rules.

 As stated by the Agency

Under

 the terms of this “parallel processing”

agreement,

 were

the

 Board

 regulations

to

be

finally

 adopted

 before

 USEPA

has

 completed

its promulgation, USEPA would review them for

inclusion in the SIP

 in lieu of

 the Federally

promulgated

 rules.

If

 USEPA

has

 completed

promulgation

 before

 final

 adoption

by

the

Board, upon approval of the Board regulations

for

 inclusion

in

the

 SIP USEPA will rescind

the Federal

 regulations.

 Once NSR rules are

in place,

 whether ~y Federal promulgation

or

approval of the State rules,

 the construction

moratorium will

be

 terminated

to

the

 extent

that

the

SIP

for

a

 particular

 area

and

contaminant

is

not

 found

to

 be deficient

on

other grounds.

(Sept.

 4, 1985 Statement of Reasons at 3).

OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposal before

 the Board is

 intended to eliminate

deficiencies identified

 by USEPA

 in the NSR rules,

 thereby

allowing expeditious approval as a SIP revision.

 It also

includes clarification of certain administrative procedures

contained in the rules, adjustments

 to account for changing USEPA

guidelines, adjustments necessitated by the Board’s decision not

 adopt state Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air

~uality (PSD)

 rules, and minor corrections of the present

:ules.

 Finally, the proposal includes some changes which reduce

 :he stringency of currently existing rules

 to conform to the

federal proposal which is required to impose a program which

is

tinimally required under

 the Clean Air Act.

 The Agency

ummarizes

 the basis

 for these changes as follows:

The complexity

of

 the present

 rulemaking

and

the

 desire

to

 expedite

the

 process

are

certainly

 important,

as

is

the

 lack of major

projects over

 the last few years

 to which

35

77-420

—3—

Ill.

 Adm.

 Code

 Part

203

 would

 apply.

 Most

importantly,

 however,

 IEPA believes

 that the

points

of

 greater

 stringency

in

the

 State

rules

 would

not

 result

in

any

 significant

environmental benefits.

(Sept.

4,

 1985 Statement of Reasons at 4).

35

 Ill. Adm. Code 203 establishes a permit program which

is

designed

 to ensure that the construction of a major new source of

air pollution or

 a large increase of emissions at an existing

source does not interfere with the attainment demonstration and

 does not delay timely achievement of the air quality standards.

The rules specify what projects are “major” and the requirements

which apply to such projects.

 There are essentially four such

requirements imposed on owners or operators of such projects.

The first of these

 is the imposition of LAER (Lowest

Achievable Emission Rate), which

is

 a hardware based

requirement.

 LAER is the most stringent of feasible emission

limits for

 a particular

 source and

 is established on

 a case—by—

case basis in the permitting process.

 In essence,

reflect

the

state—of—the—art

process

emission

control

technology.

The second requirement

 is that a major project must be

accompanied by compensating “emission offsets” from other sources

in the area or by a demonstration that

 it is within the allowance

for major projects already contemplated

 in the attainment

demonstration.

 In other words,

 the source must either

demonstrate that emissions of particular pollutants will not be

increased in the general area of the source

 or that any increase

falls within the growth allowance which is built

 into the

attainment demonstration.

The

third

requirement

present

compliance

other

sources

in the State which are under common ownership or control.

 Unless

this requirement

 is met, the new source cannot be constructed.

The final requirement applies only to areas which are not

in

attainment for ozone

 and carbon monoxide and for which the

attainment deadline has been extended to December

31,

1987

pursuant

Section

172(a)(2)

the

Clean

Air

Act,

USC

Section 7502(a)(2).

 In these

 areas, an analysis of alternatives

to a particular major project must be made which demonstrates

that the benefits of the project outweigh the environmental and

social

costs.

The most intricate aspect of

 the NSR rules regards

applicability.

 A project must be evaluated independently for

each contaminant

 for which the area

 in which the project

is

located

 is designated non—attainment.

 There

 are several types of

projects to

 be considered;

77-421

—4—

1)

 The construction of a new major source;

 A “significant” modification

 to a major source;

3)

 A physical change at a non—major source, that by itself

constitutes

 a major source, and

4)

 Reconstruction of a major source.

Finally, there are specialized applicability provisions concerned

with changes in the status

 of projects and the handling of

fugitive emissions.

“SOURCE” DEFINITION AND VESSEL EMISSIONS

Two major issues have arisen during the course of this

proceeding.

 The first

 is whether the dual definition of source

should

 be replaced by

 a plant—wide definition.

 The other

 regards

whether, and to what extent, vessel emissions should be included

in the NSR rules.

The Steel Group has argued that the Board cannot retain the

dual definition of “Source”

 absent an economic impact study

addressing that issue.

 The argument

 is that at the

 time the dual

definition was adopted

 in R81—l6,

 it was

 in essence done on a

“pass—through” basis:

 that

 is, since USEPA would not approve NSR

rules absent inclusion of a dual definition, such a definition

would have

 to be adopted regardless of the economic impact,

thereby negating the worth

 of an economic analysis of the impact

of adoption of

 the dual definition.

 The argument continues that

USEPA no longer requires a dual definition,

 thereby negating the

“pass—through”

rationale

and

reinstituting

the

necessity

 economic evaluation of that issue.

 Therefore,

 the argument

concludes,

the

Board

cannot

retain

the

dual

 definition absent an

EcIS

analysis.

The

E~oarddisagrees.

The

present

 proposal before the Board

does not contain any modification of the existing definition.

While

the

original

proposal

did,

that

has

 now been withdrawn.

Furthermore,

no

one

has

 contended that the rule was not properly

adopted

 in RBl—l6.

 To carry the Steel Group’s argument

 to its

logical extreme, whenever the economic considerations underlying

a properly adopted existing rule change,

 the Board would

be

required

 to reconsider that rule.

 The Board does not believe

that either the Act or the Administrative Procedure Act requires

such a result.

Furthermore, the Steel Group’s argument

 is factually suspect

in that it

 is probably fairer

 to say that USEPA has taken no

position

whether

the

 dual definition would

 be required

 in the

context

the

Illinois

rules.

While

USEPA

has

indicated

that

77-422

the rules would not be automatically disapproved

 if a plant—wide

definition were adopted,

 it is either unwilling or unable to

state that such definition would

 be approved.

 What USEPA has

indicated is that if the plantwide definition were adopted,

it

would be approvable only

 to the extent that the State could

support a certification that the adoption of such definition

would not undermine the State’s attainment demonstration.

The

likelihood that such a showing could be made is uncertain, and

the requirement of making such a demonstration would add

considerable delay in obtaining approval.

Even

 if an economic analysis were done (and the DENR has

determined that

 it will not perform an EcIS

 in this matter),

the

best that could

 be hoped

 for would be

 a range of possible

increased costs from $0 to some upper

 limit which would

 be based

largely upon conjecture due to the difficulties inherent

in

estimating how many major new sources would be proposed to be

built

 in non—attainment areas

 of Illinois

 in the future.

Not

even the Steel Group, which may well be the industry most

affected

 by the choice of definition, has made any attempt

to

quantify the costs associated with that choice,

 and there

is

certainly nothing

 in the record before

 the Board

to

 indicate that

such costs,

 if any, are unreasonable.

The other major area of contention regards the proposed

rules concerns vessel emissions.

 Representatives of the terminal

operators industry have strongly urged that vessel emissions not

be

 included

 in the NRS program.

 Under the Agency’s proposal,

vessels are to

 be considered to the extent that they are involved

with “the transfer of materials

...

 to or

 from a building,

structure,

 or facility” and

 to the extent that they take place

“at or adjacent

 to such building, structure,

 or facility

and

are associated with such transfer.”

 (See Sections 203.136 and

203.112).

 This treatment of vessel emissions was worked out

between the Agency and USEPA in an attempt

 to develop an

approvable

 rule.

As with the question of the definition of source,

it

is

difficult

 to determine how far the State must go in including

such emissions since USEPA,

 at present, has adopted

 no vessel

emission policy to replace the policy which was overturned

and

remanded

 to USEPA

 by the Seventh Circuit Appellate Court on

January 17,

 1984.

 NRDC v.

 EPA,

 725 F.2d 761.

 USPEA has taken

the position that the Agency’s proposal

 is sufficiently

conservative to be approvable no matter what policy USEPA finally

adopts, and that any other

 treatment may not meet the minimum

requirements and,

 in turn, may not be approvable.

if there were a clear vessel emissions policy to which the

Agency proposal could be compared, this would

 be an easy issue

to

resolve

 in that the Agency has taken the position that all

 that

is sought

 is the minimum stringency required

 for federal

77-423

approval.

This

based

the

Agency’s

determination

that

áu

to the small amount of vessel emissions in the State, there

should be little impact upon air quality regardless of the vest

emissions rule which

 is adopted.

 That position has not been

subject to contrary testimony.

In the absence of a clearly articulated policy, the Board

could hope to find guidance

 in USEPA’s proposed NSR rules

for

Illinois since those rules are required to be no more or less

stringent than required for approval.

 That route to

enlightenment,

 is, however, considerably darkened by USEPA’s

sidestepping of the issue.

 The USEPA proposal simply includes

“dockside vessel emissions as determined on a case—by—case basis’

 by the USEPA.

See

 proposed rule,

 40 CFR 52.736(b)(l)(i)(O).

All that can really be determined from such a rule

 is that USEPA

requires that there be some rule which leaves open the

possibility that some dockside vessel emissions be included

in

the

NSR

program.

The only other guidance, such as

is,

comes

from

the

NRDC

case,

 above.

 In order

 to understand the import of that case,

it

is useful

 to examine the history of the vessel emissions rules.

In the preamble of the USEPA’s 1980 adoption of NSR rules,

 USEPA

indicated

 its interpretation that the definition of “Stationary

Source”

 included in these

 rules encompassed emissions from docked

vessels.

 (See

 45 Fed.

 Reg.

 52736).

 Furthermore, the emissions

of those vessels coming to and from the terminal

 (“to and fro

emissions”)

 were determined to be “secondary emissions”

 which

were defined as those emissions that “occur as a result of the

construction or operation of

 a major ‘stationary source or a major

modification, but do not come from the major stationary source or

major modification itself.”

 (See 45

 Fed.

 Reg.

 52737).

 Such

emissions are not used

 to determine whether the source

 is major,

but are used for other purposes such as the

 required air quality

impact analysis.

On June 25,

 1982, USEPA revoked the vessel emissions

equirements on the basis that dockside vessels are “Mobile

ources”

 rather than “Stationary Sources” and,

 therefore,

~iissions

from

them

should

not

included

under

the

NSR

program

irsuant

Section

llO(a)(5)

the

 Clean Air Act which

ohibits OSEPA (although not the states) from considering

direct

 sources under

 the NSR program.

The

Court

concluded

that

while

vessels

are

mobile

sources,

does

not

prevent

USEPA

from

attributing

some

 their

ssions to the terminal.

It,

therefore,

vacated

and

remanded

PA’s revocation of the vessel emission rules

 for consideration

thich emissions are properly attributable

 to the terminal.

Court

did,

however,

affirm

the

repeal

the

“to

and

fro

sions”

rules.

Thus,

the

only

conclusions

that

flow

from

this

are

that

“to

and

fro

emissions”

are

not

included

77.424

—7—

the NSR rules

 and that dockside emissions may or may not be

included

 to some extent.

This case

is,

 if anything, less instructive than USEPA’s

present policy

 (if that is an appropriate term to use) that the

NSR rules must include some kind of vessel emissions rule,

in

that the case appears

 to leave open the possibility that no

vessel emissions can be attributable to the terminal.

 However,

the clear implication

 is that some such emissions are

attributable, and USEPA’s position is consistent with that

implication.

The Board concludes that the NSR rules must allow for the

attribution of some vessel emissions to the terminal since the

failure

 to do so would result in a very high likelihood

of

running counter

 to the mandate of the Clean Air Act and an even

higher likelihood of USEPA disapproval.

 Additionally, the record

supports the finding that the proposed rule

 is approvable.

The

remaining question,

 then,

 is whether a rule more restrictive than

the proposed rule is appropriate and approvable.

 It is

 in this

area that the Board ventures into a regulatory haze.

Under

 the proposed rules, only those “pollutant—emitting

activities which belong

 to the same industrial grouping, are

located on one or more adjacent properties, and are under control

of

 the same person

 (or persons under common control)” are

attributable

 to the terminal.

 The fact that emissions are

attributable only to the extent that the terminal owner controls

the vessels should substantially alleviate the concerns of the

terminal operators that they are at the mercy of the vessels

which dock at their terminals:

 to the extent that the operations

of such vessels are beyond

 the terminal’s control, they are not

attributable.

 The Board construes this to mean that if the

terminal

 is determined to be subject to NSR,

 LIAER could not be

imposed upon those vessels except

 to the extent that they are

controlled by the terminal, and the terminal operator could not

be required

 to turn away vessels simply because they do not have

emission controls which represent

LAER.

The question still remains as to what emissions for dockside

vessels will be included.

 Clearly, pursuant to proposed Section

203.122(b)(l)

 and (2), material transfers and associated

activities are covered

 as long as the control and proximity

criteria of subsection

(a)

 are met.

 It might be argued that

subsection

 (a) allows other emissions

 to be covered and that

(b)

simply serves

 to give examples of some emissions which are

covered.

 However,

 the Board construes the structure

 of the

definition as

 it relates to vessels to be limited to those

activities delineated

 in subsection

 (b).

 Comment on this

interpretation is invited, including suggestions as to how the

language

might

clarified.

77-425

—8—

As stated above,

 it may be that even these limited emissions

go beyond what is necessary for approval.

 However, the Board

believes that if any vessel emissions are

 to be attributable

to

the terminal,

 those resulting from material transfer should be.

This activity of necessity involves some control by the terminal

even if only to specify where the material transfer takes place

and what the materials are transferred into or onto.

 In this

activity, the terminal’s facilities and operations will have an

impact upon the emissions and should

 be required

 to comport with

LAER

requirements.

 Therefore,

 the Board believes that this

provision should be retained.

The question of whether activities associated with such

 transfer, such as the operation of engines,

 is less straight-

forward, and the record before the Board sheds little light on

either

 the propriety or the necessity of such further

regulation.

 However, the Board believes that

 the control and

proximity requirements of subsection (a) provide a reasonable

limitation on these associated activities, and will retain the

proposed language.

In making these determinations regarding both the question

of the definition of “Source” and vessel emissions,

 the Board is

mindful of the present construction moratorium and the

unfortunate history of these

 rules.

 The Board has weighed the

very real necessity to adopt approvable rules against the rather

vague and, for the most part,

 theoretical arguments in opposition

to these aspects of the proposal

 and has concluded that the most

prudent course

 is to proceed as proposed by the Agency.

The

Board cannot find that the proposal

is

 so unreasonable as to

counter—balance the need for expeditious adoption of approvable

rules.

 On the contrary, the Board commends the Agency for the

work

 it has done

 to fashion approvable rules within an ill—

defined context.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

The Board’s proposal

 is based upon the Agency’s recommended

changes to

 its second amended proposal and a draft of the federal

NSR program for Illinois.

 The Board has reviewed these proposals

and for the most part has based

 its proposal on the Agency’s

proposal.

 Certain differences between the federal and the Agency

proposal are unavoidable due to the difference

 in the format of

the rules and the

 federal and state environmental structure.

Such differences are not noted

 in the following analysis.

The

Board has, however,

 identified some minor differences between the

proposals which may be significant and has noted them in its

analysis.

 The Board has also made some changes

 to the Agency

proposal for purposes of clarity.

 Those changes are not intended

to have any substantive affect,

but

 if inadvertent substantive

changes have been made, comment

 is requested.

 The Board has

further asked some questions about language which it believes may

be questioned by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

77-426

—9—

(3CAR)

 and comments on these questions are requested.

 Finally,

in some instances the Board is uncertain of the intended

substantive meaning

 of some rules

 or the Board has questioned

whether the rules accurately state the intent.

 Comment is also

requested regarding such questions.

 Where

 “no change”

is

indicated,

 the Board means that no change has been made to the

 Agency’s latest proposal.

Section 203.103:

 No change.

Section 203.104:

 In line 3,

 the federal language

 is “average

annual rate;” Agency proposal

 is “average rate.”

 Some minor

language changes have been proposed solely for purposes of

clarity.

 No substantive change is intended.

 Beyond that,

the

Board

 reads this section as meaning that actual

 emissions are

to

be determined by the average actual emissions for the previous

two years

 if the Agency has determined that period

 to be

representative of normal operations.

 Further,

 under subsection

(a)

 the Agency must allow the use of an alternative period

 if the

applicant demonstrates that the alternative

 is more

representative of normal operations.

 This appears

 to leave a gap

if the Agency has not determined the previous two years

 to be

representative and

 the applicant has not demonstrated that an

alternative period

 is more representative.

 The proposed rule

does not appear

 to allow the Agency to determine actual emissions

on any basis other than the previous two year average unless the

applicant accepts its burden of demonstrating that an alternative

period is more representative.

 Yet,

would

seem

that

the

Agency

should

have

the

ability

demonstrate

that

some

other

period

 representative and to’make its calculation of

actual emissions on that basis.

 The Board would appreciate

comments on these

 issues.

 It may be that additional language is

needed

 to clarify this section.

Section 203.107:

 In subsection

(a)

 the federal language

is

“allowable emissions

 rate.-;” Agency proposal

 is simply “emission

rate;” the federal language is “other such enforceable limits;”

Agency language

 is simply “other such limits.”

 In the first

instance the Board has proposed the federal language, while

in

the

second

instance,

has

followed

the

Agency

proposal.

subsection

(C)

 the Agency language is “Chapter” while the Board

has proposed “Subtitle.”

Sections 203.110 and 203.112:

 No change.

Section 203.113:

 In subsections

(a)

 and (b), what would

constitute a “substantial loss” and what is a “reasonable

time.”

 The Board suspects that JCAR will desire some

specification of criteria used to make these determinations.

Sections 203.116 and 203.117:

 No change other than

capitalization in Section 203.117.

77-427

—10—

Section 203.123:

 Agency’s proposal of “Chapter” has been changed

to

 “Subtitle;” capitalization has been changed.

Section 203.126:

 Can the words “reasonably pass” be made more

specific?

Section 203.125 and 203.126:

 No change.

Section 203.131:

 The Board has added the word “adopted”

 in the

last line and modified the capitalization.

Section 203.134:

 Only change

 is deletion of the word “otherwise”

(consistent with the federal language)

 which seems redundant.

Can the words “reasonably foreseeable” be made more specific?

Are they necessary?

 They are not included

 in the federal

language.

Section 203.136:

 No change.

Section

203.145:

The

Board

has

deleted

 the clause “The following

compounds

not

 constitute volatile

organic

compounds:”

redundant.

Section 203.150:

 What

 is “notice of the same?”

Is

 it notice of

an intent to issue or notice of application, or something else?

This appears

 to refer

 to “permit application” language which has

been deleted.

 Could

 it be made more specific?

Section 203.201:

 No change.

Section 203.202:

 No change except deletion of

 “B”

 after

“Subpart.”

Section 203.203:

 Wording changes have been made to subsections

(a) and

 (ci) which are intended to be non—substantive.

Section 203.205:

 No change.

Section 203.206:

 In subsection

 (c) what does “approximately

half” mean?

 Why not simply “half.”

 Minor wording changes have

been made

 to subsections (a)(2) and

(d)

 which should not have any

substantive effect.

Section 203.207:

 Minor, non—substantive language changes have

been made to paragraphs (c)(5)

 and (c)(6).

 The Board notes that

in (c)(5)(A) and

 (c)(6),

 “40 CFR 52.21” has been deleted, but not

in (c)(5)(B).

 Is this intended?

Section 203.208:

 In line

1

 of the introductory paragraph,

 “sum”

has been replaced with “total.”

 In the last line of that

paragraph,

 what does

 it mean that “an increase or áecrease

in

77-428

—11—

emissions

 is available.”

 That term should be further explained

or rephrased.

 Is there any distinction between that term and the

term “creditable”

 in subsections

 (b) and

(c)

and

 in the

 introductory paragraph?

 If not,

 can the final sentence of the

introductory paragraph

 be deleted or rephrased?

 Paragraph (b)(1)

is confusing and should be reworded.

 The proposed replacement of

“in effect” with “permitted” adds to

 the confusion.

 The essence

of the paragraph (“only if no other permit has been issued

for

the source

...

 which relied on the same increase or decrease

in

actual emissions”)

 is clear,

 but the middle clause, as proposed,

is not.

 Must the

 “other permit” have been

 in effect when the

change occurred, or at the time “credit”

 is attempted to be

taken,

 or both?

The

 tenses are confusing and the sentence does

not appear

 to be grammatically correct.

 In paragraph (c)(l),

what does “approximately the

 same qualitative significance for

public health and welfare” mean?

 Would

 it be appropriate to

reword this as follows:

 “It offsets any threat

 to the public

health and welfare which may be attributed to

...“?

Section 203.209:

 Federal language includes a significance level

for lead.

 The Agency’s proposal does not.

 Since lead

 is a

criteria

pollutant,

the

Board

has

followed

 the federal

 language.

Sections

203.110

and

203.111:

The

only

changes

are

that

“this

Part

203”

has

been

replaced

with

“this

Part”

for

 consistency of

format

with

other

rules.

This

 change has been made at several

points

the

proposal.

Sections

203.301

and

203.302:

change.

Section

203.303:

subsection

(b)

the

same

 “qualitative

significance”

language

appears

Section

203.208(c)

(2)

and

the

same

comment

 applies.

 In paragraph

 (d)(l), what constitutes

an “appropriate analysis”?

 Also, how will the Agency determine

whether

 to “decline”

 to make an analysis?

 In paragraph

 (d)(3),

could the language “be

 in the broad vicinity of the proposed new

or modified source”

 be deleted?

How

is

 it to be determined which

“other

 areas

...

 may be contributing to the ozone problem”?

Finally, minor, non—substantive language changes have been made

throughout this section.

Section 203.305:

 No change.

Section 203.601:

 No change.

Section

203.602,

203.603

and

203.701:

Minor,

non—substantive

language

changes.

The

Board

concerned,

however,

that

the

changes

 to Section 203.602 may inadvertently affect the

meaning.

 Comment is requested on this point.

77-429

—12—

TITLE

35:

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE B:

 AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER I:

 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER a:

PERMITS

AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

PART 203

MAJOR

STATIONARY SOURCES CONSTRUCTION

AND

MODIFICATION

SUBPART

A:

 GENERAL

PROVISIONS

Section

203.101

203.103

203.104

203.107

203.110

203.112

203.113

203.116

203.117

203.119

203.122

203.123

203.124

203.125

203

.

126

203.128

203.131

203.134

203.136

203.145

203.150

Section

203. 201

203.202

203.203

203. 205

203.206

203.207

203.208

203.209

203.210

203.211

Definitions

Actual Construction

Actual Emissions

Allowable Emissions

Available Growth Margin

Building, Structure or Facility

Commence

Construction

Dispersion

Enhancement

Techniques

Emission

Baseline

Emission Offset

Emissions Unit

Fugitive Emissions

bAER

Installation

LAER

Potential

 to Emit

Reasonable Further Progress

Secondary Emissions

Stationary Source

Volatile Organic Compounds

Public Participation

Se~e~eb~~y

SUBPART

MAJOR

STATIONARY

EM~SS~SNS

SOURCES

 IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS

Prohibition

Coordination with Preeen

 r~e~4ert

 Permit

Requirement and Application Pursuant to Part 201

Construction Permit Requirement and Application

~et~en

o?

een8b~et4ert

Per,n4t

Effect

Preeenetrt~et~et~end

Construction

Permits

Major

Stationary

En~~es~en

Source

Major Modification of a Source

 Net Emission Determination

Significant Emissions Determination

Relaxation of a Source—Specific Limitation

Permit Exemption Based

 on Fugitive Emissions

77-430

—13—

SUBPART

REQUIREMENTS

FOR

MAJOR

STATIONARY

SOURCES

NONATTAINMENT

AREAS

Section

203.301

 Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

203.302

 Maintenance of Reasonable Further Progress and

Emission

Offsets

203.303

 Baseline and Emission Offsets Determination

~8~394

Exem~t~en~

 ?~om

 ~~ens

e?feet

 Reqa~rement

203.305

 Compliance by Existing Sources

203.306

 Analysis of Alternatives

SUBPART F:

 OPERATION OF A MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCE

OR MAJOR MODIFICATION

Section

203.601

Lowest

Achievable

Emission

Rate

Compliance

Requirement

203.602

 Emission Offset Maintenance Requirement

Am~,4entMeMter4n~ Re~femen~

SUBPART G:

 GENERAL MAINTENANCE OF EMISSION OFFSETS

Section

203.701

 General Maintenance of Emission Offsets

AUTHORITY:

 Implementing Section 9.1 and authorized by Sections

5

and

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1985,

ch.

111

1/2,

pars.

1005,

1009.1

and

1027).

SOURCE:

Adopted

and

 codified at

7

Ill.

Reg.

9344,

effective

July

22,

 1983; codified at

7

 Ill.

Reg.

 13588,

 amended

 in R85—20,

Ill. Reg.

_____,

effective

__________

77-431

SUBPART A:

 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 203.103

 Actual Construction

“Actual Construction” means in general, initiation of physical

on—site construction activities

 on an emissions unit which are of

a permanent nature.

 Such activities include, but are not limited

to, installation of building supports and foundations,

 laying of

underground pipework, and erection of permanent storage

structures.

 With respect to

 a change

 in method of operation,

this term refers

 to those on—site activities other than

preparatory activities which mark the initiation of the change.

Section 203.104

 Actual Emissions

“Actual Eemissions” means

 the actual

 rate of annual emissions of

a pollutant from an epe

 t~ene~emissions eo~ee unit ?or

 as of

a

particular date.

 Actual emissions are equal

 to the meen average

rate at which the emissions ee~reeunit actually emitted the.

pollutant during the two—year period which immediately precedes

the particular date end

 if that period

 whteh

 is determined by the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

 to be

representative of normal e,~iee~onsource operation.

 Actual

emissions shall

 be calculated using

 the unit’s actual operating

hours, production rates, and types of materials processed,

 stored

or combusted during the selected time period

 however:

a)

 The Agency shall allow the use of

 a different time perioc

upon a determination by the Agency that

it

 is more

representative of normal ern4ee~onsource operation.

The

burden shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that

another time period

 is more representative.

 Aet~e~

etn~se~ens

ehe~ ~e ee~e~etedt~e~ng

 the em4eMen

 t~ee~L.e

eet~e~operet4n~het~re7pfod~et~en~etee7 end typee of

~ete~e~e

 preeessedy stored7 or eem~ueteddt~r~ng

the

se~eetedt~meper4odT

b~-

 the Ageney determ~nee

thet

 there 4s 4nedeqtiete

 ~rtforntet~ento determine eet~e3em5se~onees ~nd~eeted 4n

the preeed~ngperegrephe-, the Agency she~ t~ee

the

potent~e~ to

emit

the

er~se5~enseuree~

b)

 The Agency may presume

 in the absence of reliable data on

actual emissions that the source—specific allowable

emissions for the emissions unit are equivalent to the

actual emissions of the emissions unit.

c)

 For any emissions unit which has not begun normal

operations on the particular date, the Agency shall

presume that the potential to emit of the emissions unit

is equivalent

 to the actual emissions on that date.

77-432

—15—

Section 203.107

 Allowable Emissions

a)

 “Allowable Eemissions” means the emission rate of en

en~es4ona stationary source calculated using the

maximum rated capacity of the eM4es~onsource

 (unless

the em4se4on source

 is subject

 to enforceable permit

conditions or other such enforceable limits which

restrict the operating rate, or hours of operation, or

both)

and

 the n~eremost stringent of the following:

1)

 The applicable standards set forth

 in 40 CFR 60

or

40 CFR 61.

~+2) The applicable emission standard or limitation

contained

 in the Illinois State Implementation

Plan, as described at 40 CFR 52, Subpart 0, th4s

 ehepter

 including those with

 a future compliance

date

(generally

the

applicable

standards

limitations contained

 in this Subtitle)

or

~-~3)The emissions rate specified as an enforceable

permit condition including those with a future

compliance

date.

b)

 The allowable emissions may be expressed as a permit

condition limiting annual emissions or material or

 fuel

throughput.

c-)

 A~oweb~eem-i~e4ensehe~ ~ne~de

 e reesone~eest4i~tete

of eM~ss4ens~n e~eeseof epp~4eeb~eetenderds dur~ng

etert—~py~ieH~net~ony or ~reekdowny es eppropr~ete7

on’y 4f the prov~e4ensof ~

~

 Adm~eede ~

 heve

seen eomp~edwtth7

d-)’c)

If

 a en e~es4onsource

 is not subject to an emission

standard

under

subsection

(a)

and

not

conditioned

pursuant

 to subsection

 (b), the allowable emissions

shall be the

source’s

potential

emit.

Section

203.110

Available

Growth

Margin

~Aye~eb~e

growth

rt~erg~&’

teens

the

difference

between

tetei

e~eweb~ee~ee~ons eene~stent

with

reesoneb~e ?~rther

progress

end

pro~eeted

eet~e~e~n

one

 4n e nonette4nment eree--

“Available Growth Margin” means

 the portion which remains of any

emission allowance for new or modified major stationary sources

expressly

identified

 in the attainment demonstration approved by

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 (USEPA)

 under

 Section

172(b) (5)

 of the Clean Air Act

 (42 USC 702(b)(5)

 for a

particular pollutant and area.

77-433

—16—

Section 203.112

 Building, Structure or Facility

~j

The

 terms “building”, “structure”, or “facility”

 include

all of the pollutant—emitting activities which belong to

the

same

industrial

grouping,

are

located

one

contiguous

 adjacent properties, and are under

the

control_of_the

same

person

(or

persons

under

common

control).

Pollutant—emitting

activities

shall

considered

part

the

same

“Major

Group”

(i.e.,

which

have

the

same

two—digit

code)

described

the

Standard

Industrial

Classification

Manual,

1972,

amended

the

1977

 Supplement

 (U.S. Government Printing

Office

stock

numbers

4101—0066

and

003—005—00176—0,

respectively).

The

terms

“building”,

 “structure”,

 or “facility”

 shall

also

include

the

transfer

 of materials,

 including but not

limited

 to grain,

 gasoline, petroleum liquids,

coal, fertilizer,

 crushed stone and ore, from

vessels, motor vehicles or other conveyances

 to or

from a building, structure,

 or facility as defined

in subsection

 (a), and

2)

 activities at or adjacent

 to such building,

structure

facility

which

are

associated

with

such

transfer,

 including but not limited

to

 idling

propulsion

 engines,

 the operation of engines

to

provide

heat,

refrigeration

lighting,

operation

 of auxiliary engines for pumps or cranes, and

transfer of materials from hold

 to hold

 or tank to

tank during onloading or offloading operations.

Section 203.113

 Commence

As applied

 to construction of a major stationary source or major

modification “commence” means that the owner or operator has

obtained all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits and

either

 has:

a)

 Begun,

 or caused to begin,

 a continuous program of

actual on—site construction of the source,

 to be

completed within e4~ghteenMonths efter the dete the

perM4t 45 grented~a reasonable time

or

b)

 Entered into binding agreements or contractual

obligations, which cannot be canceled

 or modified

without substantial loss

 to the owner or operator,

to

undertake

 a program of actual construction of the source

to be completed within

 a reasonable time.

77-434

—17—

Section 203.116

 Construction

“Construction” means any physical change or change

 in the method

of operation,

 including but not limited

 to fabrication, erection,

installation, demolition,

 or modification of an emissions eo~ree

unit, which would result

 in a change

 in actual emissions.

Section 203.117

 Dispersion Enhancement Techniques

“Dispersion Enhancement Techniques” mean so much of the stack

height of any source

 as exceeds good engineering practice or any

other dispersion technique, determined by regulations at 40 CFR

51.1 or 51.12 pursuant

 to Section 123 of the Clean Air Act

(42

U.S.C.

 7423).

Section 203.123

 Emissions Unit

“Emissions Unit”

 means any part

 of stationary source which emits

has

the

potential

emit

any

pollutant

subject

regulation

under

this

Subtitle

the

 Clean Air Act

 (42 U.S.C.

7401

seq.).

Section

203.124

Fugitive

Emissions

“Fugitive

Emissions”

means

those

emissions

which

could

not

reasonably

pass

through

stack,

 chimney,

 vent or other

functionally

equivalent

opening.

Section

203.125

Installation

“Installation” means an identifiable piece of equipment.

Section ~

 203.126

 LAER

“LAER”

 is an abbreviation for lowest achievable emission rate.

Section 203.131

 Reasonable Further Progress

“Reasonable

F?urther

~progress”

means

the

annual

incremental

reductions

the

emissions

the

applicable

air

pollutant

sufficient

provide

for

attainment

the

National

Ambient

Air

Quality

Standards

 expeditiously as practicable,

 in accordance

with

Part

the

Clean

Air

Act

(42

U.S.C.

7501

seq.)

and

~

amended

 44 FR ~~69y

May

~0y

 ~9~97

federal

regulations adopted pursuant thereto.

Section 203.134

 Secondary Emissions

“Secondary emissions” means

 the emissions which would occur

as

a

result of the construction or operation of

 a major stationary

source or major modification,

 but do not come from the major

stationary source

 or major modification itself.

 For the purpose

77-435

—18—

of this Part,

 secondary emissions must be specific, well defined,

quantifiable,

 and impact the same general area as the stationary

source

 or modification which causes the secondary emissions.

Secondary emissions may include, but are not limited

to,

emissions from any reasonably foreseeable off—site support

facility which would not etherw4se be constructed or increase its

emissions except as a result of the construction or operation of

the major stationary source or major modification.

Section 203.136

 Stationary Source

“Stationary Source” means any building, structure,

 facilit~’or

installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant subject to

regulation under

 the Clean Air Act

 (42 U.S.C.

 7401 et seq.).

Section 203.145

 Volatile Organic Compound

“Volatile Organic Compound”

 means any chemical compound of

carbon,

 released

 to or present

in

 the atmosphere

 in a gaseous

state,

 including compounds which are liquids at standard

conditions,

 but excluding the following

 compounds:

 methane,

ethane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic

carbonic acid, metallic carbide, metallic carbonates,

 ammonium

carbonate,

 1,1,1 trichloroethane

 (methylchloroform), methylene

chloride,

trichlorotrifluorenthane

(Freon

113),

trichlorofluoromethane

 (CFC—ll), dichlorodifluoromethane

 (CFC—

12), chlorodifluoromethane

 (CFC—22), trifluoromethane

 (FC—23),

trichiorotrifluoroetnane

(CFC—1l3),

dichlorotetrafluoroethane

(CFC—l14), chioropentafluoroethane (CFC—ll5).

Section 203.150

 Public Participation

At the 4n4t4et4on of a perm4t epp~4eat4onPrior to the

 initial

issuance of

 a permit pursuant to Subpart B,

 the Agency shall

provide at

 a minimum, notice of the same and a comment period

pursuant to the Agency public participation procedures found

at

35

 Ill.

 Code 166.

Sect4ert

~9I4S~

 Severe~4~4ty(Repealed)

Notw4~thetand4ng35

 Adm~eode ~6~~Sy

 4f any prev4e4on of

Part ~03 4s stayed or dee~ered4rwa~4d~y a f4na~order-i no

‘onger stt~jeetto eppee~yof any eot~rtof competent ~r4sd4et4on7

then the ent4rety of Part ~93 shaH ~e deemed eteyed or

4n~aHdetedurtt4~the stay 4s Hfted or the Board acts to

revaHdate the Party

77-436

—19—

SUBPART B:

 MAJOR STATIONARY EMISSIONS

SOURCES IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS

Section 203.201

 Prohibition

In any area designated nonattainment,

 as defined at Section

171(2)

 of the Clean Air Act

 (42 U.S.C.

 7501(2)), nNo person shall

cause or

 allow the construction of a new major stationary source

or major modification

 4rt en area des4gnated as that

 is major

for

the pollutant for which the area

 is deisgnated nonattainment as

def4ned

Seet4on

~-f~-)

the

e~ean Mr

 Act *4~BTS~0T

~5~7~)

w4th

respect

that

poHutent,

except

compliance

with

this

Part for that pollutant.

Section 203.202

 Coordination With Preeortstr~et4enPermit

Requirement and Application Pursuant

 to Part

201

For new major sources and major modifications, the fulfillment of

the requirements of Part 201 related

 to construction, including

the

permit

requirements

Ill.

Adm.

Code

201.142,

shall

combined

with

 the requirements of this Subpart.

AppHeat4ons

for

preconstr~ct4ort

perm4ts

shaH

eonte4n

s~ff4e4ent

4nfermat4en

demonstrate

that

the

so~ree

eorist4tt~tes

does

not

eonst4tt~tee

new

me~or ee~ree

me~or mod4f4eat4ert

p~rsuent

th4e

Subpert--

b-)

preeenetrt~ct4on

perm4t

des4gnat4ng

the

proposed

eonstr~et4on

new

maser

so~ree

major

mod4f4eat4or

regt~4red pr4or

to~

Enter4ng

4nte

b4nd4ng

agreements

eontreet~a~

obHget4one7

wh4eh

cannot

eance~ed or

med4f4ed

w4thet~t et~bstant4ai

ioss

the

owner

operator7

undertake

program

aet~a~eonstrt~et4en

source

comp’eted

w4th4n

reesonab~e

t4met

~n4t4et4ng

phys4ea~ on-s4te

construet~on

aet4~4t4e~

wh4eh

are

permanent

nature

4nc~ud4ng but

not

Hm4ted

4nstaHat4on

buHd4ng

supports

end

foundat4ons

iay4ng

underground

p4pewerk

and

eortstruet4on of permanent storage struetureet or

3)

 ~n4t4at4ng a change 4n eperet4ons wh4eh may be

subject to th4s Subpart or

Subpart

e-~

Section 203.203

 Construction Permit Requirement and

Application

a)

 A construction permit

 is required prior

 to hav4ng begun

or hav4ng caused to beg4n a eont4nueus program of actuaJ

77-437

—20—

on—s4te construction of a major new source

 or major

modification.

 or change 4n eperet4ons -of the soureeT

Such perm4t shaH eente4n en?ereeeb~eeend4t4ens

sat4efy4ng the requ4rements of Subparts B end

b)

 Applications for construction permits required under

this

Section

shall

contain

sufficient

information

demonstrate

compliance

with

Ill.

Adm.

Code

201

and

the requirements of this Subchapter

 including, but not

limited to, Subpart C.

c)

 The permit shall

 include conditions specifying

the

manner

 in which

 the requirements of Subparts B and C are

satisfied.

d)

 No permittee shall violate any condition contained

 in a

construction permit issued for

 a new major stationary

source or major modification which

 is subject

 to this

Part.

Seet4on ~63~94

 Burat4on of eenstruet4on Perm4t

A perm4t to construct shaH become 4nveHd 4? the perm4ttee has

not commenced censtruct4on w4th4n ~8 months after reee4pt of such

perm4ty censtruet4on 4s d4eeent4nued for a per4od of ~8

 eonseeut4~emonths or moreT

 However-i th4s prov4s4en does not

epp~yto the

 t4nte per4ed between censtruet4en of the approved

phases of a phased construct4on projectt each phase must beg4n

actua’ construct4on w4th4n 3~8months of the dates cente4ned 4n

the perm4t eppHeat4on--

Section 203.205

 Effect of Preconstruct4ort and Senstruct4on

Permits

The issuance of ne4ther a preeenstruet4en nor

 a conetruct4on

a

permit for

 a source subject to the requirements of this Part

shall not relieve any person of the responsibility to comply

fully with applicable provisions of the Environmental Protection

Act (Ill. Rev.

 Stat.

 l98~5,ch.

 1ll~/2, pars.

 1001 et seq.),

the

regulations contained

 in this ehapter Part,

 the Clean Air Act

(42

U.S.C.

 7401 et seq.)

 and federal regulations adopted thereunder

including the Illinois State Implementation Plan, and

 or other

applicable requirements under local, state and federal

 law.

through the effeet4~edate of th4s Subpart.

Section 203.206

 Major Stationary Em4se4on Source

A major etat4onery em4es4on source that 4s major for organ4e

mater4e3 shaH be cons4dered major for oeone~

 a) The

 following

constitutes a major stationary em4ss4on source:

77-438

—21—

a-)3~jAny stationary em4ss4on source of air pollutants

 which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons

per year or more of any pollutantT subject to

regulation under

 the Clean Air Act for which the

area is designated nonattainment pursuant to

Section 107 of the Clean Air Act

 (42 U.S.C.

 7407).

b-~2)Any physical change that would occur

 at a

stationary em4ss4en source not qualifying under

paragraph

subseet4on

-~e-) as

major

stationary

em4ee4on source,

 if the change would constitute

a

major stationary em4ss4on source by itself.

b)

 A major stationary scource that

 is major

 for volatile

organic

compounds

shall

considered

major

for

ozone.

c)

 The reconstruction of

 a stationary em4es4on source will

be treated as the construction of

 a new major stationary

source

 if the fixed capital cost of new components

exceeds approximately half of the fixed capital cost of

an entirely new stationary source.

 Determining whether

reconstruction will occur

 is based on the following:

1)

 Fixed capital cost shall mean the capital needed

to

provide all the depreciable components;

2)

The

 fixed capital cost for the replacements

in

comparison to the fixed capital cost that would be

required

 to construct a comparable entirely new

source;

3)

 The estimated life of the source after

the

replacements compared to the life of a comparable

entirely new source;

and

4)

 The extent. to which the components being replaced

cause

 or contribute to the emissions from the

 source.

d)

 For purposes of this Part, the fugitive emissions of

a

stationary source shall not be

 included

 in determining

whether

it

is

 a major stationary source,

 unless the

source belongs to one of the following categories of

stationary

sources:

1)

 Coal cleaning plants

 (with thermal dryers);

2)

 Kraft pulp mills;

3)

 Portland cement plants;

4)

 Primary zinc smelters;

5)

 Iron and

 steel mills;

6)

 Primary aluminum ore reduction plants;

7)

 Primary copper smelters

77-439

—22—

8)

 Municipal incinerators capable of charging more

than 250 tons of refuse per day;

9)

 Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric acid plants;

10)

 Petroleum refineries;

11)

 Lime plants;

12)

 Phosphate

 rock processing plants;

13)

 Coke oven batteries

14)

 Sulfur recovery plants;

15)

 Carbon black plants

 (furnace process);

16)

 Primary lead smelters;

17)

 Fuel conversion plants;

16)

 Sintering plants;

19)

 Secondary metal production plants;

20)

 Chemical process plants

21)

 Fossil—fuel boilers

 (or combination thereof)

totaling more than 250 million Btu per hour heat

input;

22)

 Petroleum storage and transfer

 units with a total

storage capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels

23)

 Taconite ore processing plants;

24)

 Glass

 fiber processing plants;

25)

 Charcoal production plants;

26)

 Fossil

 fuel—fired steam electric plants of more

than 250 million Btu per hour heat input;

27)

 Any other

 stationary source category which

 is being

regulated,

as

 of August

7,

 1980,

 under Section 111

or 112 of the Clean Air Act

 (42 USC 7411,

 7412).

Section 203.207

 Major Modification of a Source

a)

 Any physical change, or change

 in the method of

operation of

 a major

 stationary em4ss4on source that

would result

 in a significant net emissions increase of

any pollutant,

 for which the

 area

 is designated

nonattainment pursuant

 to Section 107 of the Clean Air

Act

 (42 U.S.C.

 7407), except as provided

 in subsection

(c). that a phys4ce~change or change 4n the method of

operat4on shaH not 4rie~udeany act4v4ty 34sted be~ow-

b)

 Any net emissions increase that

 is significant for

volatile organic compounds organ4c mater4a~shall

be

considered significant for ozone.

c)

 A physical change

 or change

 in the method

 of operation

shall not include:

a-)-

1)

 Routine maintenance,

 repair, and replacement of

components which does not constitute reconstruction

pursuant

 to Section 203.206(c).

2)

 Use of an alternative fuel or

 raw material

by

reason of any order

 under Sections 2(a)

and

(b)

of

77-440

—23—

the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination

Act of 1974

 (15 U.S.C.

 791),

 the Power Plant and

Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978

 (42 U.S.C.

 8301)

(or any superseding legislation)

 or by reason of

a

natural gas curtailment plan pursuant

 to the

Federal Power Act

 (16 U.S.C. 791, et seq.)

c-)

3)

 Use of an alternative fuel by reason of an order

or

rule under Section 125 of the Clean Air Act

(42

U.S.C.

 7425).

d-)-

4)

 Use of an alternative fuel at a steam generating

unit to the extent that the fuel is generated from

municipal solid waste.

e+

5)

 Use of an alternative fuel or raw material

 by a

stationary source which:

3-)-

A)

 ~t Was capable of accommodating such

alternative fuel or raw material before

December 21,

 1976 and has continuously

remained capable of accommodating such fuels

or materials unless such change would

be

prohibited under any enforceable permit

condition which was established after that

date pursuant to

 CPR ~

 as amended at

FR S~357August ~

 ~989 or this Part or

35

Ill Adm. Code 201.142

or

 201.143.

i-)-

,B

 Is approved for use under any permit issued

pursuant

CFR

52.21,

amended

FR

5~35 August

 ~989 or this chapter Part or

35

 Ill. Adm. Code 201.142 or 201.143..

f-)

6)

 An increase

 in the hours of operation or

 in the

production rate, unless such change wou’d be

is

prohibited under any enforceable permit condition

which was established after December

21,

1976

pursuant

 to 48 ~FR

S~T~3~7

as amended at 4S FR

~~357

 August ~

 3~980-, this Part,

35

 Ill.

 AcIm.

Code

201.142

 or 201.143.

 or th4s Chapter

g3-

 Any 4ncrease 4n em4ss4ons of ergan4c mater4a~due to the

temporary shutdown of a eontre~dev4ee dur4ng seasona’

per4ods

aHowed

fl~

AdMT

Cede

h-)

7)

 Any change

 in ownership at

 a stationary source.

Section 203.208

 Net Emission Determination

A net emissions

 increase

 is the amount by which the sum total

of

any increase

 in actual emissions from

 a particular physical

77-441

—24—

change or

 change in method of operation at a en em4ss4en source,

and any other

 increases and decreases in actual emissions at the

em4es4en source that are contemporaneous with the particular

change and are otherwise creditable,

 exceeds zero. The following

steps determine whether

 the increase or decrease

 in emissions is

available.

a)

 An increase- or decrease in actual emissions

 is contem-

poraneous only if

 it occurs between the date that an

increase from a particular

 change occurs and

 the date

five years before a timely and complete application is

submitted

 for the particular change.

 ~n the case of en

4ncrease

 i~tmust also occur after either April

24,

1979 or the date the area

 is designated by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

 as a

nonattainment area for

 the pollutant, whichever is more

recent;

b)

 An increase or decrease

 in actual emissions is credit-

able:

1)

 Only if no other permit has been issued

 end for

the source, which

 is still 4n effect permitted when

the particular change occurs, which relied on the

same increase

 or decrease

 in actual emissions;

and

~n the case of a shutdown of an em4ss4ort source-,

on~yto the extent that

tt

 4s be4ng rep3aced by

a

s4m4iar eource~end

3+2) Only to the extent the new and old levels differ.

c)

 A decrease

 in actual emissions is creditable

 to the

extent that:

1)

It

 is enforceable at and after the time that actual

construction on the particular change begins;

2)

 It has approximately the same qualitative

significance for public health and welfare as that

attributed

 to the increase from the particular

change;

3)

 That Tthe old level of actual emissions or the old

level of allowable emissions, whichever is lower,

exceeds the new level

 of actual emissions;

and

4)

It

 is demonstrated by the Agency not

 to have been

previously relied on

 in issuing any permit pursuant

 to this Part

or

 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.142

or

201.143

or

 for demonstrating attainment on or

reasonable further progress

 in the nonattainment

77-442

—25—

area which the phys4ca~particular change will

impact.

d)

 An increase

 that results from a physical change at a

source occurs when the emissions unit on which

construction occurred becomes operational and begins to

emit a particular pollutant.

 Any replacement unit that

requires shakedown becomes operational only after a

reasonable shakedown period, not

 to exceed 180 days.

Section 203.209

 Significant Emissions Determination

A net emission increase

 in the pollutant emitted

 is significant

if the rate of emission is equal

 to or

 in excess of the

following:

a)

 Carbon monoxide:

 100 tons per year

 (tpy)

b)

 Nitrogen oxides:

40

tpy

c)

 Sulfur dioxide:

 40 tpy

d)

 Particulate matter:

 25 tpy

e)

 Ozone:

40

 tpy of organ4c mater4a~volatile organic

compounds

f)

 Lead:

 0.6 tpy

g-)-

 Asbe~tos~9--98~tpy

h+

 BeryH4um~ 9~9684tpy

4-)

 Mereury~ G~ tpy

~-)

 V4ny3

 ch~er4de~-.-3~tpy

k~3-

 Per4des-

 3 tpy

3~)-

 Su~fur4cec4d m4sti

 ~ tpy

in-)

 Hydrogen su~f4de*H~S+i~38 tpy

rt+

 Pota~reduced su~fur-~4ne~ud4ng

 H25+i

 ~9 tpy

0+

 Reduced su~furcompounds -~4nc~ud4ng

 H~S-)-~- ~8 tpy

Section 203.210

 Relaxation of a Source—Specific Limitation

Bxcept those mod4f4eat4ons exempted pursuant to Sect4on ~83~8~7

at such t4me that a part4eu~arsource or mod4f4cat4on becomes

a

major stet4onary source

 or major mod4f4cat4on by ,4rtue of a

77-443

—26—

re~axat4on4n any enforeeeb~eHm4tat4on wh4ch estabHshes

a

spee4f4c standard for that source to em4t a peHutant-, th4s

Subpart shaH app’y to the source or mod4f4eet4en as though

construct4en had net yet commenced~

a)

 No person shall

 cause or allow the operation of a source

 so as

 to exceed any enforceable limitation which affects

or defines the applicability of the requirements of this

Part to

 a stationary source or modification,

by

specifying

 the permissible emission rate, operating

hours, the type or amount of material processed!

 stored

or combusted,

 or other aspects of source operation.

b)

 At such time that a particular source or modification

becomes a major stationary source or major modification•

solely by virtue of a relaxation

 in, or expiration of,

any enforceable limitation which was established after

August

7,

 1980, on the capacity of the source or

modification otherwise to emit a pollutant, such as

a

restriction on hours

 of operation,

 then the requirements

of this Part

 shall apply as though construction had not

yet commenced on the source or modification.

Section 203.211

 Permit Exemption Based

 on Fugutive Emissions

The provisions of this Part shall not apply to a source or

modification that would be

 a major stationary source or major

modification only if fugitive emissions,

to

 the extent

quantifiable, are considered

 in calculating

 the potential to emit

of the stationary source or modification and the source does not

belong

any

the

categories

enumerated

Subsection

203.206(c).

SUBPART C:

 REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR STATIONARY

SOURCES

 IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS

Section 203.301

 Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

a)

 For any source,

 lowest achievable emission rate

 (LAER)

will

the

most

stringent

rate

emissions

based

on the following:

1)

 The ~owest most stringent emission limitation which

is contained in the implementation plan of any

state for such class or category of stationary

source,

 unless

it

 is demonstrated that such

limitation

 is not achievable;

or

2)

 The ~owest most stringent emission limitation which

is achieved

 in practice or 4s ach4evab~eby such

a

class or category of stationary source.

 ~ or

 This

limitation, when applied to a modification, means

77-444

—27—

the lowest achievable emissions

 rate for the new or

modified emissions units within the stationary

source.

 In no event

 shall

 the application of this

term permit

 a proposed new or modified stationary

source to emit any pollutant in excess of the

amount allowable under an applicable new source

 performance standard.

3+

 The appHeab~enew source performance standard

eonta4ned 4n 35 H~

 Adm-- Code 338~

b)

 The owner or operator of a new major stationary source

shall demonstrate that the control equipment and process

measures

applied

the

source

will

produce

LAER.

C)

 The owner

 or operator of a major modification shall

demonstrate that the control equipment and process

measures applied

 to the major modification will produce

LAER.

 This requirement applies to at each emissions

source unit at which

 a net e4gn4f4cent increase

in

emissions of the pollutant has occurred

 or would occur

as

 a result of

 a physical change or change

 in the method

of operation.

d)

 The owner

 or operator shall provide a detailed showing

that the proposed emission limitations constitute

LAER.

 Such demonstration shall

 include:

1)

 A description of the manner

 in which the proposed

emission limitation was selected, including

a

detailed listing of information resources,

2)

 Alternative emission limitations,

and

3)

 Such other reasonable

 information as the Agency may

request as--necessary to determine whether the

proposed emission limitation

 is LAER.

Section 203.302

 Maintenance of Reasonable Further Progress and

Emission Offsets

a)

 For part4cu~atematter~su~furd4ox4dey notrogen ox4deey

or carbon monex4de em4ss4ons tThe owner

 or operator of a

new major source or major modification shall provide

emission offsets equal

 to or greater than the allowable

emissions from the source or the net increase

in

emissions from the modification sufficient

 to allow the

Agency to determine demonstrate that the source

or

modification will not interfere with reasonable further

progress.

77-445

—28—

3~+

 Prov4d4ng equai

 or greater em4ss4on offsets for the

aHowaHe

 em4ss4ons from the source or the net

4nereese

 4rt ein4es4ens from the mod4f4cat4on-y and

demenstrat4ng that actua~eve~agea4r quaHty

w4H

be 4mproved 4n the nonatta4nment area and that at

no ioeat4en w4H the 4mpaet exceed the e4gn4f4cant

a4r quaHty 4mpact ieveis eenta4ned 4n Seet4on

~837394~d+t

2-)

 Bemonstrat4ng that a4r quaHty 4n the nenatta4nment

area wtH be 4mproved at every ~eeat4on affected by

the new major source or mod4f4cat4on

 barr4ng the

use of d4spers4en enhancement techn4quest or

3+

 Prov4d4ng 4n the 4mmed4ate v4e4n4ty of the source

or mod4f4cat4on aetua~em4es4on offsets at a rat4o

of ~-25i4 or greater ~

 for each ton of new

aHowab~e em4ss4ons

there

shaH

~eest

~25

tons of aetua~em4ss4on offsets+ prov4ded that.

stack or em4ss4on parameters do not 4nd4eate a

s4gn4f4eant adverse effect on a4r quaHty 4n

accordance w4th Seet4on ~93i-304-~d-)due to the

operat4ort of the source or mod4f4eat4on~-

b-)

 For organ4c mater4a~em4ss4ons-, the owner or operator of

a new major source or major mod4f4cat4on shaH

demonstrate that 4t does not 4nterfere w4th reaeonab~e

further progress by prov4d1ng actua~em4ss4on offsets 4n

excess of the aHowab~eem4se4ons from the new source or

the net 4ncrease 4n em4ss4àns from the mod4f4eat4ort-

b)

 The Agency shall allow the use of all or

 some portion of

the available growth margin

 to satisfy subsection

(a)

if

the owner

 or operator can show that the possible sources

of emission offsets were investigated and none were

reasonably available at that time.

Section 203.303

 Baseline and Emission Offsets Determination

a)

 An emission offset must be obtained from a source

in

operation prior

 to the permit application for the new or

modified source.

 Bm4es4on offsets can be obta4ned from

stat4onary or fug4t4ve sourees~- Emission offsets must

be effective prior

 to start—up of the new or modified

source.

b)

 The emission offsets provided must:

1)

 Must B be of the same pollutant and further

 be of

a

type with approximately the same qualitative

significance for public health and welfare as that

attributed

 to the increase from

 4rt a particular

change;

77-446

—29—

2+

 ~n the case of a shutdown~have occurred s4nce

Apr4~

~4,

~9~9

 or the date the area 4e dee4gnated

by the USEPA as a nonatta4nment area for the

poHutant

wh4ehever

reeent7

and

the

shutdown source 4s be4ng rep~aeedby a s4mHar new

sourcet and Must,

 in the case of a fuel combustion

source,_be_based on the

 type of fuel being burned

at the time the permit application

 is filed,

 and,

if offset

 is to be produced by a future switch to a

cleaner fuel, be accompanied

 by a demonstration

that_long—term supplies of the clean

 fuel are

available and

 a commitment

 to a specified

alternative control measure which would achieve the

same degree of emission reduction if return of the

dirtier fuel

 is proposed

3)

 Must,

 in the case of

 a shutdown of

a

 source or

permanent curtailment of production

 or operating

hours

occurring

after

the

date

permit

application

 is filed for

 a new or modified source,

have

been

made

known

the

affected

work

force

4)

 Must,

 in the case of a past shutdown of a source or

permanent curtailment of production or operating

hours, have occurred since April

24,

 1979 or the

date the area

 is designated by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

as

a

nonattainment area for the pollutant, whichever

is

~more recent, and the proposed new or modified

source must

 be replaced for the shutdown or

curtailment

-~+5)Must, Bbe enforceable by permit--

;

and

6)

 Must not have been previous1~relied on,

as

demonstrated by the Agency,

 in issuing any permit

pursuant

 to 35

 Ill.

 Adm. Code 201.142

 or 201.143

or

this Part,

 or for demonstrating attainment or

reasonable further progress.

c)

 The baselines for determining emission offsets are

as

follows:

 For part4cu~atematter *~SP~ysu’fur d4ox4de

*se

+7

n4trogen

ox4de

*NOM+

and

carbon

monox4de

-eeC-,

the appHcab~eem4ss4on Hm4t conta4ned 4n th4s

?hapter--

 ~f th4s rate 4s greater than the

uncontroHed em4es4on ratey the beseHne shaH be

the uneontroHed rateT

77-447

—30—

2+

 Except for organ4c mater4a~ 4?

 no em4ss4on rate 4s

conta4ned 4n th4s ehapter-, the beseHne shaH be

the eetue~em4se4on rater

1)

 The baseline for determining the extent to which

emission reductions are creditable as offsets shall

be the actual emissions of the source from which

the offset is to be obtained!

 to the extent they

are within any applicable emissions limitations of

this Subtitle or

 40 CFR 60

 and 40 CFR 61, except as

provided

 in subsection

 (2).

2)

 If the demonstration of reasonable further progress

and attainment of ambient air quality standards

approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA)

 as part of the Illinois SIP

 is based

on the applicable emission limitations this

Subtitle or

 40 CFR

 60 and 40 CFR 61,

 for sources

within an area, and the source from which the

offset

 is to

 be obtained

 is subject to such

limitations,

 the baseline for offsets shall

be

the

lesser

 of such limitation or the potential to emit

of the source.

 The baseHne for orgen4c mater4e~shaH be the

‘esser of the actua3 or aHowab3e em4ss4on rate~-

d)

 The location of em4ss4on sources providing the emission

offsets:

 For ~SP7 S&~-,

NO~i

or

ee7

must be s-4gn4f4eant

contr4butors to or ~oeated 4n the nenette4nment

area affected by the new or mod4f4ed sourcet or

1)

Must,

 for particulate matter,

 sulfur dioxide and

carbon monoxide, be such that,

 relative to the site

of the proposed new or modified source, the

location of the offset,

 together with its effective

stack height,

 ensures

 a positive net air quality

benefit.

 This shall

 be demonstrated by atmospheric

simulation modeling, unless the sources providing

the offset are on the same premisses or

 in the

immediate vicinity of the new or modified source

and

 the pollutants disperse

 from substantially the

same effective stack height.

 In determining

effective stack height, credit shall not be given

for dispersion enhancement techniques.

 The owner

or operator

of

 a proposed new

 or moáified source

shall perform the appropriate analysis

to

demonstrate the acceptability of the location of an

offset,

 if the Agency declines

 to make such

analysis.

77-448

—31—

2+

 Per organ4c mater4aFy must be ~oeated w4th4n ~98

m4&es of the new or med4f4ed source7

 ~f the

appHeant can demonstrate us4ng generaHy accepted

a4r quaHty mode~e-,that the effect of the proposed

offsets on a4r quaHty 4e at ~east as great as 4?

the source of the offsets was w4th4n the ~99 m4~e

rad4ue7 these offsets shaH be aeceptab~eT Must,

for nitrogen oxides,

 be in the general vicinity of

the proposed new or modified source.

3)

 Must,

 for volatile organic compounds,

be

 in the

broad vicinity of the proposed new or modified

source;

 that

 is, offsets must be obtained from

within

the

Air

ç.~uality Control

Region

the

new

modified source,

or

 from other

 areas which may

be

contributing

 to the ozone problem at the site of

the new or modified source.

~)

 Replacement of one volatile organic compound with

another

 of lesser

 reactivity does not constitute an

emission reduction.

Seet4en 2937304

 Bxempt4ons from Em-iss4ons 9ffset Regu4rewtent

 (Repealed)

e+

 The Agency shaH aHow the use of aH

 or some port4on o~

the aveHab~egrowth marg4n to sat4sfy Seet4on 2937392

4fi-

 The owner or operator can show that poss4b~e

sources of em4ss4on offsets were 4nvest4gated and

none were reesoneb~yavaHab~eat that tmey and

2)-

The

 owner operator agrees to accept perm4t

eond4t4ons on aH future perm4ts for the source or

mod4f4cat4on

des4gned

prov4de

the

requ4red

em4ss4on effset at the earHest future t4me such

offsets become reasonab’y ava4~ab~e7

b-3~

 Seet4on 2837392 shaH not epp~yto a major stat4onary

source

major

mod4f4cat4en

the

em4ss4ons

from

the

seuree

 or the net em4se4one 4nerease from the

mod4f4cet4on weu~dbe temporary7 that

 4s-, ex4st4ng for

per4od of t4me ieee than two years7

e4

 Sect4on 2837382*a-)- shaH not app’y to a major stat4onar

source or major mod4f4cat4on 4?

 en a4r guaHty ane~ys4s

shows 4t 4s ~oeated 4n a port4on of a g4ven

nonatta4nment area where the a4r guaHty standards are

not be4ng v4o~etedand 4t wH

 not cause an 4mpect 4n

the area

 4rt wh4ch a4r queHty standards are be-mg

v4e~etedgreater than the s4gn4f4cant a4r quaHty 4mpec~

77-449

~eve~s 4n subsect4on

*d-)T

 Such an ana4ye4s shaH be

based upon d4epere4on modeHng and a4r -gueHty

mon4tor4ng performed

 the Agency or 4n accordance w4th

Agency procedures pursuant to ~Ru~es for the Performance

of Mr euaHty impact Ana~yeeeto be used 4n Support of

Perm4t AppHcat4en~and ~Ru~ee Regerd4ng Subm4ee4en of

Amb4ent Mr euaHty ~nformat4en ebte4ned from Amb4ent

Mr QuaHty Mon4ters under the Centre~of Perm4t

AppHeants~as f4~edw4th the Secretary of State

-4n

Becember-,

~9~7

 The date when the em4ee4en offset

requ4rements may be reetr4eted to a Hm4ted pert of the

nonatte4nment area 4s the date that such ena~ys4z4s

eompieted by the Agency or the date such ene~ye4s4s

approved by the Ageney

 end redes4gnet4on of the area

where the major source or major mod4f4eat~on4s to be

~oeated 4s under federe~rev4ew7

~f the em4ss4ons from a major stat4onary source or major

mod4f4eat4on are demonstrated to be greater than the

feHew4rtg

&eve~ey

exempt4on pursuant to sttbsect4on

 *e-)-

4s not eva4~ab3efor the major stet4onary source or

major mod4f4eat4ori7

S~6N~F~CANCB

~BVE~S

PoHute&e

 Annue~ 24—Hour

 9—Hour

 3—Hour

 ~—Heur

S92

 ~-9 ug~’m3 S

 ug,’m3

25

TSP

 ~-9 ug,/m

 S ug~’m3

NCx

 ~78 ug7’m3

9~5mg,”m3

2

e+

 Sect4on 2937392-~e+shaH not app~yto a major stat4onery

source or major med4f4cet4en for part4cu~atematter 4f

4t w4H be ~eceted 4n an area wh4ch Meets the foHow4ng

cr4ter4e-

i-)-

 The area

 atta4nment area for the pr*mary

teta~suspended part4cu~etee4r quaHty ~tanderd~

2-)

 The area te 3ack4ng reesonab~yevaHeb~eem4ss4en

offsetet

3+

 The a4r gueHty of the area 4s dom4neted by egr4-

eu~ture~and re~atedfug4t4ve peHutant sourcee~

4+

 The area ~ecks major 4ndustr4ai~deve~epment~end

5-)-

 The area 4s of a ~ow urban pepu~et4en~4er~e4ty7

77-450

—33—

Section 203.305

 Compliance by Existing Sources

The owner

 or operator shall demonstrate that all major stationary

sources which he or she owns or operates

 (or which are owned or

operated by any entity controlling

 or controlled

 by, or

 under

common control~with the owner

 or operator)

 in Illinois are

in

compliance,

 or on a schedule for compliance, with all applicable

state and federal air pollution control

 requirements.

For

purposes of

 this Section,

 a schedule for compliance must be

federal~yenforceableor contained

 in an order of the Illinois

Pollution Control Board or

 a court decree.

Section 203.306

 Analysis of Alternatives

For emission of volatile organic compounds ergan4e mater4a~or

carbon monoxide, the owner or operator shall demonstrate that

benefits

 of the new major source or major modification

significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed

as

 a result of its location, construction,

 or modification, based

upon an analysis of alternative sites,

 sizes, production

processes, and environmental control techniques for such proposed

source.

SUB~ARTF:

 OPERATION OF A MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCE

OR MAJOR MODIFICATION

Section 203.6ul

 Laowest Achievable Emission Rate Compliance

Requirement

No person shall cause

 or allow the operation of

 a new major

stationary source or major modification subject

 to the

eonstruct4on requirements of Subpart C,

 except as

 in compliance

with applicable LAER provisions established pursuant

 to Section

203.301

for

such

source

modification.

Section 203.602

 Emission Offset Maintenance Requirement

No person shall cause

or

 allow the operation of

 a new major

stationary source or major modification where the owner or

operator has wh4ch 4s reqa4red to demonstrated that

 it would not

 interfere with reasonable

 further progress

 by providing,

or

wi’x4ch must 4nc~udeemission offsets 4n a demonstrat4on pursuant

to Sections 203.302, and 2937393 without maintaining those

emission offsets or other equivalent offsets.

&ect4en 2937693

 Amb4ent Mon4tor4rtg Regu4rement (Repealed)

The owner or operator of a new stat4onary source or major

mod4f~eat4onshaH conduct such amb4ent men4ter4ng as the Agency

deter~t-ines4s reasenab~ynecessary to estabHsh the effect of the

em4sMons from the source or mod4f4eet4on en emb4ent e4r que~4ty

4n the areaT

77-451

—34—

SUBPART

G:

 GENERAL MAINTENANCE OF

EMISSION OFFSETS

Section 203.701

 General Maintenance of Emission Offsets

No person shall cease

 to maintain emission offsets which were

provided for

 a source

 or modification which is subject to this

Part.

IT

 IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy

M.

 Gunn, Clerk of

 the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

 hereby certify that the above Propos~dOpinion and Order

was adopted

 on the

_____________

 day of

___________,

 1987 by a

vote of

_____________

/

~ (~~-~/

/~(

Dorothy M. dunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

77-452