70-410

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 2,

1986

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PARTICULATE EMISSION LIMITATIONS,

)

 R82—l

 (Docket A)

RULE 203(g)(l)

AND

202(b)

OF

CHAPTER 2

ADOPTED RULE

 FINAL ORDER.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

 D. Dumelle):

This proceeding has

a

 long and complicated procedural

history.

 On January 21,

 1982,

 the Board proposed the readoption

of Rules 203(g)(1)

now

 codified

at

 35 Ill.

 Adrn.

 Cpde 212.201

—

212.204: Particulate Matter Emissions

 and 202(b)

now

 codified

at

35

 Iii.

 Adm. Code 212.121

—

 212.125: Opacity

 of Chapter

2

now

35

 Ill.

 Adm. Code, Subtitle

B:

 Air Pollution Rules

 These

proposed rules concerned limitations upon particulate emissions

for fuel combustion emission sources using solid fuel exclusively

and opacity emissions.

 Hearings were held

 to consider the merits

and economic impact of these proposed

 rules on April

 13 and April

21, 1982,

 and August

3,

 August 12,

 and September

 29, 1983.

The

public comment period ended on February 2, 1984.

On July 19,

 1984,

 the Board adopted

 a Proposed Rule/First

Notice Proposed Opinion and Order which was published in the

Illinois

 Register on August 24, 1984,

at

8

 Ill. Reg.

 15561.

 Four

comments were

 filed during the first notice period which closed

on October

 10, 1984.

 In response to those comments,

 the Board

amended the proposal and adopted a Proposed Rule/Second Notice

Order

 on December

 6, 1984.

 However,

 instead

 of filing

 the second

notice proposal with the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

at

 that time,

 the Board allowed

 a comment period since

 the Second

Notice Order differed substantially from first

 notice..

 Motions

to extend the comment period were filed by various participants

to the proceeding

 on January 10, January 14, February 26 and

March 25, l985~.

 Comments and

 a proposed amendment were filed

by

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

 on April

24,

 1985.

Based upon the comments received,

 the Board did not proceed

to file second notice with the Joint Committee on Administrative

Rules

 (JCAR)..

 Rather,

 on May 16, 1985,

 the Board adopted

a

Proposed Rule/Second First Notice Order.

 First notice was

published at

9

 Ill.

 Reg.

 10590, July 12, 1985.

 Hearing was held

August 13, 1985 and various post hearing comments were filed

during October

 8—16, 1985.

70.409

—2—

The Board then adopted

 a Proposed Rule/Second Second Notice

Order

 on December

 20, 1985.

 However, again prior

 to commencement

of

 the second notice period,

 the Agency filed

 a motion to

reconsider which was granted by order of February 6,

 1986,

at

which time the Board again modified the proposal

in

 a Proposed

Rule/Third Second Notice Order.

Thereafter, due to additional problems which arose

concerning

 the opacity rules, on March

 14, 1986,

 the Board

adopted

 an interim order which separated this proceeding into two

dockets:

 one for

 the purpose of proceeding with the particulate

rules

 (Docket

 A) and another

to

 further consider

 the opacity

rules.

 The Board hoped

 to proceed

 to second notice on the

particulate

 rules which

 no longer appeared

 to be subject to

controversy while

 it continued to consider what should be done

with the opacity

 rules.

 Unfortunately,

 the second notice

 filing

regarding the particulate

 rules was rejected by JCAR as

incomplete since

 the second first notice had included both sets

of rules and the second notice did not.

 Therefore,

 the Board was

compelled to complete

 its consideration of

 the opacity rules

prior

 to proceeding to second notice.

On May

9,

 1986,

 the Board adopted

 a Proposed Rule/Fourth

Second Notice Proposed Opinion and Order again modifying the

opacity 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 has determined that

it

will withdraw the opacity rules but will proceed

 to adopt and

file the particulate rules..

 The Board has today adopted

a

Resolution

 and Order to that

 effect..

 A new first notice

 order

will be adopted concerning the opacity rules

 in the near future

under Docket

B.

INVALiDATION OF THE PARTICULATE RULES

Regulations controlling emissions of air pollutants were

adopted by the Board on April

13,

 1972,

 in R71—23 as Part II of

Chapter

2.

 Commonwealth Edison subsequently filed

 a petition in

the First District Appellate Court seeking review of several

of

those

 rules,

 including Rule 203(g)(l):

 Particulate Emission

Standards and Limitations for Fuel Combustion Emission Sources

Using Solid Fuel Exclusively.

 The Appellate Court

in

Comrnonweaith Edison Compafly v. Pollution Control Board

25

 I11.

App..

3d

 271,

323

 N.E..

2d

84

 (1975),

 reversed the adoption of

those rules

 and remanded them to the Board

 for further

consideration with instructions either to validate

 them in

accordance with Section

 27 of

 the Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

or

 to prepare proper rules

as

 substitutes.

 In its opinion

the Appellate Court was “unable to

 state that the Board

 took into

account the technical feasibility

 of these rules,”

 and that

“there

 is no evidence that

 the Board

 took into account

the

70-410

—3—

economic reasonableness of these

 rules

for

 a substantial number

of the generating units in this state..”

 The Court concluded that

the regulations were not promulgated

 in accordance with Section

27 of

 the Act and were,

 therefore,

 arbitrary and unreasonable..

The Court also instructed

 the Board

 to review any new evidence

for the purpose of validating

 or modifying the rules.

The Appellate Court decision was appealed by the Board

to

the Illinois Supreme Court.

 ComnionweaithEdisonCompanyv.

Pollution Control Board,

72

 Ill.

2d

~94,

S43

 N.E. ~d 459

(1976).

 The Supreme ~óurt, rather than reviewing the record and

Board Opinion to determine whether

 the Board had complied with

Section 27 of the Act

 in promulgating

 the regulations, declined

“to determine the validity

 of Rules 203(g)(l).

 on the basis

of evidence adduced at hearings held

 in 1970,

 1971 and 1972 and

the Board’s opinion of April

13,

 1972.”

 Instead,

 it affirmed the

Appellate Court’s reversal and

 remanded for further

consideration, citing

 the Appellate Court’s reference to the

“wealth of new information” that had been gathered

 in the Board’s

inquiry hearings (R74—2 and R75—5,

 respectively).

On April

8,

 1976,

 the Board entered an Order

 in R71—23,

reopening the record

for

 the purpose of

 validating Rule 203(g)(l)

and ordering the

 record in the consolidated proceedings, R74—2

and R75—5,

 to be incorporated into the record

 in R7l—23.

Two

subsequent hearings were held on R75—5 and R74—2, consolidated,

in

 May,

 1976.

 The Board

 took the position that further hearings

were unnecessary in order

 to comply with the Supreme Court’s

mandate which

 invited

 the Board to validate the

 regulations

in

question

 in light of information gathered at the hearings held

subsequent

 to the original proceedings.

 The Board reviewed the

testimony and exhibits in the three proceedings and,

 based on

the

information available

 in these records,

 and taking

 into

consideration the issues identified by the Courts, validated Rule

203(g)(l)

 on July 7, 1977.

The validation of the rule was, however, unsuccessfuL

On

September 27,

 1978;

 the Third District Appellate Court again

struck down the rule finding

 that the Board had failed

to

consider intermittent control systems, had failed to have an

economic impact study prepared, presented and considered

 and had

improperly considered

a

 report

 (the “Marder Report”) which

included references to material not of record, without affording

an opportunity

 for opposing viewpoints

 to be presented.

 (Ashland

chem ca.

 v. Pollution Control Board

 (1978)

64

 Ill. App. 3d~

69).

 The Board did not appeal~h~Ede~ision..The Board did,

however, attempt

 to appeal a similar decision

 in the First

District,

 but was precluded from doing so by the Supreme Court

which held that the Board

 was estopped from such appeal because

it had failed to appeal

the

Ashland

 decision which concerned the

same issues.

The

 Illinois State Chamber

of

 Commerce,

et

 al’.

v.

The Pollution Control Board,

 67 Iii.

 App.

 3d 83973~U N:I. ~d

922(1978)

70-411

—4—

Old Rule 203(g)(l)

 has remained

 invalid ever since these

decisions and

it

is

 in this context that the present proceeding

arose

ACTION TAKEN

 IN RESPONSE TO COURT’S CONCERNS

During the lengthy legal history of

 the invalidated

 rules

at

issue here,

 the issues which have formed the bases of the

invalidations have been the lack of an economic impact study,

the

perceived failure

 to consider the economic reasonableness of

simultaneous compliance with the sulfur dioxide and particulate

rules,

the

 failure

 to consider

 intermittent control systems and

the reliance on the

 “Marder Report” without allowing opposing

viewpoints

to

 be heard..

 In the present proceedings,

 the Board

has attempted to respond to each

 of these concerns.

First,

 an economic impact study has been prepared,

submitted,

 and considered at

 hearings..

 Entitled

 “The Economic

Impact of Repromulgating the Remanded Particulate Regulations

203(g)(l) and 202(b),

 R82—l,.”

 it was entered as Exhibit

 #10 on

August

3,

 1983,

 and was considered

 at hearings on that date,

as

well

 as on August

 12 and September

29,

 1983.

 An addendum was

submitted in response

 to the hearing officer’s request at the

September

 29, 1983 hearing

 as Exhibit #17.

Second,

 the Board incorporated by reference the entire

record

 of proceedings

 in R7l—23,

 R74—2

 and R75—5, except

for

the

Marder Report, which was prepared by Marder and Associates under

contract to

 the Agency

 to facilitate validation

 of the rules

in

response

to

 the Supreme Court’s remand.

 That report

is

an

abstract which reviews the record of three proceedings before

the

Board R71—23, R74—2 and R75—5..

 It organizes the

 information by

subject,

 summarizes testimony and exhibits,

 and identifies where

each item

 is found

 in the record.

 While

 it was

 felt to be a

useful tool,

 there may

 be some information

in

 it which was not

otherwise part of the

 record,

 and its deletion should preclude

any question regarding

 its propriety

 in this proceeding.

Third,

 the Board has considered the question of simultaneous

compliance with the sulfur dioxide and particulate

 rules.

The

hearing held on April

13,

 1982,

 in particular, focused on that

issue,

 largely through the testimony

 of Berkley Moore,

an

engineer with the Air Quality Planning Section of the Division

of

Air Pollution Control of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency..

 This issue will

 be discussed later

 in this Opinion.

Fourth,

 the Board has not considered

 intermittent control

systems since no one has offered such

 a proposal in this

proceeding and since

 “the degree of emission limitation required

for control of any air pollutant under

 an applicable

implementation plan

 shall not be affected

 in any manner by

 any intermittent or supplemental control of air pollutants”

70-412

—5—

seq.).

 Additionally, Section 9.1(a)

 of the Act requires the

State to avoid

 the adoption of rules which contradict the Clean

Air Act.

 Therefore, even

 if the Board were to consider such

systems,

 it could not allow such consideration to affect the

emissions standards which it promulgated.

 Finally,

 former

Section

 10(h)

 of the Act, which mandated.the Board to consider

such systems, has been deleted and inpertinent part has been

replaced with

 a provision which states that “emission standards

for existing fuel combustion stationary emission sources located

in all areas of the State

 of Illinois, except the Chicago,

St.

Louis

 (Illinois)

 and Peoria major metropolitan areas

 shall

allow all available alternative air quality control methods

consistent with federal law” (Section 10 of the Act).

The Board,

 therefore, believes that all of the flaws

perceived by the courts have been remedied in this proceeding.

REGULATORY NEED FOR THE RULES

Particulate matter

is

 a criteria pollutant for which ambient

air quality standards have been adopted by the United Stated

Environmental Protection Agency

 (USEPA)

 under Section 109 of the

Clean Air Act.

 The ambient standards were set at levels intended

to protect the health of the general public (primary standards)

and

 to prevent damage to property, vegetation, or other aspects

of the public welfare

 (secondary standards).

 The levels set were

based on air quality criteria with “an adequate margin of safety”

included

 for the primary standard.

 (See Board opinion

 in R72—7

Air Quality Standards,

 18 PCB 89, July 10,

 1975).

Under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act the states are

required to prepare State Implementation Plans

 (SIPs) containing

control strategies for attaining

 the ambient air quality

standards.

 An important part of the SIP

 is to establish emission

standards

 for each of the criteria pollutants.

See

 Section

l10(a)(2)(B).

 The Board has repeatedly attempted to establish

particulate standards, but all such attempts have been rebuffed

by the court system.

As

 a result, USEPA has twice issued Notices

of Deficiency,

 once in 1974 after Commonwealth Edison had

challenged

 the original rules, and again on July 12,

 1979, after

the rules had been successfully attacked by Ashland Chemical.

As

a result, USEPA could impose sanctions upon Illinois for its

failure

 to establish enforceable particulate standards,

 including

impounding federal highway funds and prohibiting industrial

expansion pursuant to Sections 176 and 316 of the Clean Air

Act.

 In order to avoid

 these sanctions,

 and in order

 to meet the

mandate of the Section 9.1(a)

 of the Act to avoid conflicting

State and federal regulatory systems, particulate regulations

must be adopted.

70-413

—6—

PARTICULATE_EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

There

 is substantial documentation

 in the R7l—23 record

 that

technology

 to control particulate emissions is well

established.

 The four principal control devices are cyclones,

wet scrubbers,

 electrostatic precipitators (ESP),

 and fabric

filters

(or

 baghouses).

 These devices can be used alone

or

in

combination

 to attain

 the desired removal efficiencies.

 (R71-23,

Ex..

 32).

 When burning coal with

a

10

 ash content and 10,000

Btu/lb heat content, removal efficiencies of 90

 to 99

are

required

 for compliance with the 0.1 lbs/MBtu actual heat input

emission standard, depending on

 the type of boiler being

 used..

(R7l—23, R. 295—303,

Ex.

 11)..

The most widely used technology

 for particulate control

on

large boilers

 is ESP

 (R71—23, Ex.

 32) which involves passing

the

flue gas through

 an electric corona

 as the flue gas flows through

the precipitator, placing a charge on the ash particles,

 pulling

the particle out of

 the gas

 to collect on plates

 in the

precipitator,

 and periodically rapping the particles off the

plates.

 Collection efficiency of

 an ESP depends on,

 among other

factors,

 the resistivity

 of the ash being collected,

the

temperature

of

 the flue gas,

 and the velocity of the flue gas

through

 the precipitator.

 ESP’s are able to achieve more than

99

 removal

 in utility operations.

 (R71—23, Ex.

32,

33,

34,

35).

Testimony of

 representatives

 of utilities and industry

verified their ability to achieve the particulate emission

standards.

 (R71—23; pp.

 2074—82, 3842—43, 2285—6,

 2308—10, 2465—

66).

 Existing sources which

 are not presently in compliance ~ith

the proposed rule may

 require modification of already operating

ESP’s

 to comply with the regulation,

 and continued compliance

over time would require proper operation and maintenance of the

 equipment.

 However,

as

 an example of potential ESP life and

efficiency, a unit built

 in 1929 by Commonwealth Edison at

a

design removal efficiency of

 82—83

 was running close

 to 98

efficiency

 in 1971 as

 a result

 of several rebuildings.

 (R71—23,

pp. 3867—68).

SIMULTANEOUS COMPLIANCE

As stated above,

 the effectiveness of an ES?

 is dependert

upon

 the resistivity of the ash being collected.

 That

resistivity

is,

 in turn,

 affected

 by the sulfur content

 of the

coal which is burned:

 the higher the sulfur content of the coal,

the less resistive the ash and the higher the efficiency.

However, the higher the sulfur content of the coal,

 the greater

the difficulty of meeting the SO2 standards.

 This

 is one of

the

problems that the courts found

 tfie Board had not adequately

addressed:

 simultaneous compliance with both

 the particulate

and

sulfur dioxide emission standards.

 Testimony was given that

 if a

facility burned low sulfur coal

 (less

 than 1

 sulfur content

)

as

70-414

—7—

a means

 to comply with the SO2 emission standard,

 its ESP

 collection efficiency would drop substantially because of the

higher

 resistivity of the fly ash.

 Mr. Andrew Bhan,

 testifying

on behalf

 of the Agency

 in R75—5,

 discussed the difference

in

resistivities between high and low sulfur coals.

 The generally

accepted theory for this difference

 is that sulfur trioxide

 (SO3)

in the flue gas

 reduces fly ash

 resistivity,

 and that SO3

is

virtually absent from the low sulfur coal flue gas.

 A comparison

of

 flue gas concentrations shows 50 ppm SO3 from 3.5

 sulfur coal

and

 5 ppm SO3 from 0.5

 sulfur

 coal.

 (R75—5, pp.

 539—42).

A

test conducted

 by Commonwealth Edison showed that particulate

emissions increased from 0.16 to 0.26 lbs/MBtu when the coal

sulfur content was reduced from 2.0

 to 0.8.

 (R7l—23,

pp.

 2079—

80)..

 The experiences of several other facilities attempting to

control particulates while burning low sulfur coal were described

in other

 testimony.

 (R71—23,

 pp.. 1075—10).

At the April

 13, 1982, hearing

 in R82—l, Berkley Moore

introduced Exhibits

 1 and

 2 regarding the issue of simultaneous

compliance.

He

 testified that those

 exhibits “show that there

are

 a great number

 of sources that are

 in fact right now

in

compliance with both”

 the sulfur dioxide and particulate

rules.

 (4/13/82,

p.

9).

 Exhibits

1

and

 2 are tables listing

compliance data

 for all sources which must simultaneously comply

with the sulfur dioxide and the particulate rules.

 Given that

the Board

 has now adopted relaxed sulfur dioxide rules applicable

to some of

 these sources,

 all sources listed

 in those exhibits

are

 in compliance with the sulfur dioxide

 standards..

In the Chicago MMA,

10

 of the

 52 sources or 19

 are out of

compliance..

 (4/13/82,

R.

 14 and

 Ex..

I).

Of

 those

 10 which

are

our of compliance,

 8 are not ordinarily operated.

 Of the two

remaining sources the Commonwealth Edison—Waukegan 3255 MBtu/hr..

facility requires 98.20

 control and

 is attaining 98.00

 control

and its Will County 1728 MBtu/hr.. facility requires 86.00

control and

 is attaining 85.00

 control.

 (4/13/83,

Ex.

1).

In

the Peoria and

 St.. Louis MMA’s

 10 of’the

 83 sources

 or 12

are

out of compliance.

 (4/13/82,

R..

 15 and Ex.

2).

 Of those 10,

3

are ordinarily not operated.

 Celotex has

 2 sources

 requiring

96.44

 control which are attaining 94.00;

 CILCO—Edwards has two

facilities requiring 97—98

 and 98.48,

 both of which are

attaining 95.00;

 CILCO—Wallace has

 2 facilities requiring 97.44

which are attaining 94.00;

 Commonwealth Edison—Powerton has one

facility requiring 96.77

 control which

 is attaining 95.71

control,

 and the Mascoutah power plant requires 85.68

 control

and is attaining 80.00

 control.

 (4/13/82,

Ex.

2).

 Other

sources around

 the State need not comply simultaneously with

203(g)(l) and 204(c)(l)(A).

 (4/13/82, R 16).

Mr.. Moore

 concluded:

70.415

—8—

It

 is pretty clear

 that the number

of

sources not complying with the particulate

limit

 is pretty much the same whether

 or not

simultaneous compliance with 204(c)(l)(A)

is

also

an

 issue..

 The issue of

simultaneous compliance apparently doesn’t

really affect the ability or

 the willingness

of sources

 to comply with the particulate

limits.

To be

 fair.

 the larger sources with

electrostatic precipitators,

had

a

bit more difficulty

in

 complying

 with

the particulate

 limit when they were burning

low—sulfur

 coal.

 The Agency has always

admitted that this

 is the

 case..

 But we

do say that they can and do comply.

(4/13/82,R.

 17—18).

The record demonstrates,

 as the Board found

 in R71—23

 (see

esp. 27

PCB

 61 etse~.), that there are available

 techniques

for

facilities with existing ESP equipment which are technically

feasible

 and economically reasonable

 to attain simultaneous

compliance,

 the most reasonable being flue gas conditioning.

At

least four methods of conditioning are available,

 including the

use of sulfuric acid,

 liquid sulfur dioxide, sulfur burning and

liquid sulfur

 trioxide..

 As the Board found

 in R7l—23:

The

 information presented to the Board

readily allows

us

 to conclude that

particulate control technology is very well

developed,

and

it

 is capable of achieving

simultaneous compliance with particulate and

sulfur dioxide emission standards.

The

“worst case”

 for simultaneous compliance is

when an existing facility

 in one

 of the

 three

major metropolitan areas

 (MMA’s)

 is switched

from high

 (3.5)

 to low (less

 than 1)

 sulfur

coal

 to comply with the 1.8 lbs/ MBtu

SO2

standards.

 Flue gas conditioning is

available for use in these cases,

 and can be

installed within fairly short time periods

and with modest costs,

 installation, and

operating requirements.

 Hot precipitators

may also be used,

 depending on site design

and costs involved.

We also note that

 there are many sources

which do not face the worst case

conditions.

 Simultaneous compliance

for

smaller

 existing sources may not be

 a problem

70-416

—9—

if they are not using an ESP for particulate

control, but rather

 are using another device

not affected by changes

 in ash

conductivity.

 New facilities burning low

sulfur coal will be able to design their

particulate control systems using the

available removal devices

 as necessary to

comply with

 the standard.

 Large sources

outside

 of the

MMA’s

are subject

to

a

 6 lbs/

MBtu

 sulfur dioxide standard,

 for which

they would probably use washed

 coal.

The

change in ash resistivity would

 be small

at

the sulfur content of washed coal, with a

similarly small effect on ESP efficiencies..

There may also be sources using

 a low sulfur

coal which has

 a low ash content, such that

even at lower ESP efficiency there would be

less ash

 to remove

 from the gas, with no net

change

 in emissions.

(27 PCB 63—64).

Nothing

 in the record of this proceeding merits any change

in

those

 findings..

Based on

 this evidence,

 the Board finds that it

 is clearly

technically feasible

 to simultaneously comply with

 the proposed

particulate rule and the sulfur dioxide

 rule since

 the large

majority of affected sources are already doing so.

 That same

evidence also goes

 a long way toward demonstrating the economic

reasonableness of

 the particulate

 rule.

 However,

 there

 is more

information

 in that regard which

 is considered below.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED RULES

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,

 then it follows that

70-417

—10—

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

 the 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 emission’s 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 “repromulgatiori

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)(l)(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,

p..p. 16—18).

Of

 the 30 sources which are not presently

in

compliance,

 12 operate routinely,

 9 are used on a standby basis

and nine 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 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

 the 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 CILCO’S Wallace

Station.

70-418

—11—

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

rule~will

 reduce ambient TSP concentrations by less than

1

ug/ur’.

 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 from 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.

Based upon this evidence,

 the Board concludes

 that it

is

ecornonically reasonable

 to comply with the adopted rules.

A section by section analysis of

 the adopted

 rules

follows:

SECTION

 201..l02

The Agency proposed the amendment of

 the definition of

 “PSD

Increment” and Specified Air Contaminant.”

 The former amendment

was modified

 to make

 the definition consistent with federal

 law;

the latter simply corrects an error

 in rewording the definition

to correspond with the codification format.

 No one commented

adversely

 to these amendments.

SECTION 201.103

The Board’s abbreviation of British Thermal units stated in

35

11.1.

Adm. Code 201.103

 is at odds with most other authorities

and has been used somewhat inconsistently as has the abbreviation

for million British thermal units.

 Therefore,

 the Board will

amend

 that section

 to accommodate “MBtu,”

 “mmBtu,” and “mmbtu.”

When the Board completes its updating of the air pollution rules

under docket R79—l4,

 the abbreviations can

 be made consistent.

No one commented adversely

 to these amendments.

70-419

—12—

SECTION 211.121

This section was simply amended

 to correct a typographical

error.

SECTION 212.201

The Agency requested that the Board amend

 the 0.1

lbs/MBtu/hr standard of Section 212.201

 to 0.10 lbs/MBtu/hr.

It

pointed out that this

 is the number of significant digits used

in

the air quality modeling which supports the standard and that

the

amendment

 is consistent with the Agency’s historical application

of

 these rules both in terms of permitting and the State

Implementation Plan..

 The Board finds the Agency’s argument

persuasive

 and will so amend

 the section.

 The Board notes,

however,

 that by so amending this standard,

 it does not intend

to

imply that the standard

 as originally adopted was intended to

mean anything other than 0.10 lbs/MBtu/hr..

 The abbreviation for

million British thermal units has been changed and the Board

 note

indicating

 the court’s

 invalidation of

 the particulate

 rules

has

been deleted since

 it has

 no continuing validity.

SECTION 212.202

The Board has made

 a minor language change

 for purposes of

clarification.

 This change

 is intended to have no substantive

effect..

SECTION 212.203

The amendments

to

35

 Ill.

 Adin.

 Code 212.203 have generated

the bulk of

 the comments.

 This section

is

 in essence

 a partial

grandfather clause which was intended to equitably treat those

sources for which substantial expenditures were made prior

to

adoption of the original rule which resulted

 in near

compliance.

 The original rule allowed certain sources which

emitted between 0.1

 to 0.2 lbs/MBtu/hr

 to continue

 in operation

so long

 as their emissions did not increase by more than 0,05

lbs/MBtu/hr. from their base emissions and so long as the

emissions did not surpass the 0.2 pound

 limit..

In

the

 first notice order

 the Board made two modifications

to this section.

 The first allowed the grandfathered sources

to

emit

up

to

 a maximum of 0.25 lbs/MBtu/hr.

 This was done

to

remove any ambiguity with respect to

 a source with a base

emission of between 0.15 and 0.20.

 Of course,

 the possible

 ambiguity could have also been resolved by setting the limitation

at 0.20 lbs.

 The Board found that the former action was more

in

accordance with the original intent of the rule.

 The Agency,

however, disagreed, commenting

 that the rule is unambiguous and

that the 0.20 standard has been “applied by the Agency

for

purposes of

 issuing permits and for developing the State

70-420

—13—

Implementation Plan.”

 (See

 P.C..

 No..

19,

p.

3,

 and 5/26/82..

R.

165).

 IPC does not appear

 to disagree.

 Further,

 the Agency

points out that there are

 at least two sources

 in non—attainment

areas whose allowable emissions could increase

 if the Board were

to

 finally adopt this modification and that the potential impact

has not been assessed in the record.

 Finally, the only

participant who argued that the 0.25 limit was

 the appropriate

one was the Village of Winnetka,

 and,

 as more fully discussed

below,

 the Village will be exempted from the application of this

rule pending

 a site—specific determination.

The Board

 is persuaded by the Agency’s comments and

 a review

of the record that

 a 0.25 standard has not been adequately

supported,

 and the Board

 will,

 therefore, adopt

 the 0.20

lbs/MBtu/hr standard.

The second modification of this section was proposed to

minimize,

 so far

 as the record supported

 it, the impact

of

changes

in

the

 test methods

 for the determination of particulate

emissions between 1972 and the present.

 The Board attempted

to

make the rule more flexible by allowing the use of original

design specifications at full load in lieu of performance tests

at part

 load

 (to simplify the rather complex provision).

The

Agency has commented that “the effect is

 to further complicate

a

complicated rule.”

 (P.C.

No.

19,

 p. 4).

 IPC contends that the

modification addresses “only one limited aspect of the

multifaceted problem of changing test conditions and testing

methodologies” and “is so ambiguous that

 it may be unenforceable”

(P.C.

No.

18,

p.

6).

 Bud Meyer

 finds

 the proposed modification

confusing.

 Of the comrnenters only Staley supported this

modification..

The Board

 was aware

 at the time

 it proposed this

modification that

 it was not

 a complete answer

 to the problem of

the changing test methods used to determine degradation.

However,

 in the Board’s first notice opinion,

 the Board found

the

original rule to be unfair in

 light of the changed test methods

and found IPC’s proposal

 to rectify the problem overly vague.

Therefore,

 the Board modified IPC’s proposal

 in the only more

defined manner for which

 it could find adequate support

 in the

record.

 However,

 based upon the comments and a review of

the

record,

 the Board

 found

 its first notice modification

unsatisfactory..

The Agency later offered an alternative

 rule which would

be

essentially the same as the originally proposed rule except that

the emission baseline would be re—established by using

the

results of the most recent stack

 tests.

 The Agency also provided

data demonstrating what the effect of

 the rule would be.

While

 the Agency did not wish

 to go on record as “proposing”

this amendment,

 the Board

 found

 the amendment to be meritorious

70.42 1

—14—

and proposed

 it for

 second first notice.

 The Board decided to

return

 to first notice

for

 three reasons:

 this was the second

amendment of

 the proposal since

 the original first

 notice;

 there

 were numerous comments on the various proposals;

 and IPC

requested

 an additional

 hearing..

IPC proposed the addition

of

 a mechanism to Section 212.203

whereby site—specific alternative standards could be established

to give relief

 to those emission sources otherwise unreasonably

impacted by that section.

 The proposed mechanism would allow

an

alternative standard

 to be set

 in an adjudicatory proceeding

patterned after similar provisions contained

 in 35

 Ill.

 Adrn.

 Code

214.185 and

 302.211..

 The IPC proposal would apply to emission

sources located in attainment areas and would require the source

to prove that the requested emission rate would not,

 under worst

case circumstances,

 cause or contribute to

 a violation of

the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulates under

the

Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions of the Clean

Air Act.

IPC argues that the emissions standards contained

 in Section

212.203 were established on a state—wide basis and have not been

set

 so as

 to take into account the special conditions

 which may

concern individual sources.

 (See R.

 8/12/83, 405—07).

Consequently,

 the standards may be more stringent than are

necessary for certain sources

 to attain and maintain air

 quality.

 (R. 8/12/83 355—56).

 Senate Bill 1862, which was

adopted during the course of this proceeding,

 specifically allows

the Board

 to provide

 by regulation

 for the subsequent

determination of an adjusted standard for persons who can justify

such an adjustment consistent with Section 27(a) of the

 Act..

The

regulation of general applicability shall specify the level of

justification required of

 a petitioner

 to qualify for

 an adjusted

standard.

 Establishing such a procedure by rule

 is, however,

discretionary, and the Board finds

 that the

 record contains

insufficient support for

 the establishment of such a mechanism

in

this rulemaking.

IPC essentially argues two points:

 first,

 an adjudicatory

proceeding

 is faster and less expensive than

 a regulatory

proceeding,

 and,

 second,

 that

 if the proposed standards will

leave some increment for growth in attainment areas, such

increment

 could properly be used by

 a source which

is

unreasonably impacted by the particulate standards.

 These same

two points could be raised

 in any proceeding regarding emission

standards

 for criteria pollutants,

 and similar points could be

made with respect to any rule of general applicability..

 Thus,

 unless SB 1862 is

 to be read

 to allow the nearly wholesale

avoidance of the otherwise applicable

 regulatory protections,

there must be

 a greater justification than that which has been

presented in this record.

 As the Agency argues,

 there must be

some showing

 of special circumstances

 to justify such expedited

procedures,

 and no such showing has been made here.

70-422

—15—

The Agency had no objection

 to that provision as proposed

for Second First Notice.

 However,

 in comments filed on October

8,

 1985, Central Illinois Light Company, Central Illinois Public

Service Company,

 Commonwealth Edison Company, Electric Energy,

Inc..,

 and Illinois Power Company

 (Electric Utilities)

 include

the

following statements regarding the Board’s attempts

 in this

proceeding to recognize the intent of

 the original degradation

provision and the impact of new particulate testing procedures on

the equity

of

 that provision:

The Electric Utilities,

 in the earlier comments

and here, contend that the equitable relief

the

Board intended

 to grant

 by adoption of the

degradation provision may be undermined or even

lost because of this change

in

 test methods..

 Earlier

 in this proceeding

 the Board recognized

this problem (Opinion, December

6,

 1984) and

attempted

 to address

it.

 In its more

 recent Order

(May 16,

 1985),

 the Board apparently gave up on

the attempt.

The Electric Utilities recognized

in

 the earlier

comments that the effects of these factors,

degradation and changed test methods and

requirements, cannot be separated or specifically

quantified.

 Significantly, as Electric Utilities

pointed out, developments in the intervening

13

years can,

 and have

 in many cases,

 offset

or

masked the effects of these two factors (Utilities

Comments at 10—14).

One

 of the Agency’s

witnesses, somewhat reluctantly, agreed that this

could occur.

 (Transcript, August 13, 1985,

at

595—598.)

 Furthermore,

 as Electric Utilities

explained,

 it may

 be impossible

 to continue

to

mask

 or offset

 those effects and Electric

Utilities should not

 be penalized simply because

they have been able,

 to date,

 to offset some

of

those effects.

(Elec. Util.

 Com..,

p.

4).

The Board disagrees with the assertion

 that it has given up

the attempt.

 As proposed for Second First Notice,

Section 212.203(c)

 allows sources which would otherwise be

required

 to meet

 a more stringent standard

 to emit

up

 to 0.2

lbs/MBtu based on the most recent stack test submitted to the

Agency prior

 to April

1,

 1985.

 Since

 such

 a stack

 test would

use

the new test methods,

 this mechanism should serve

 to offset the

effect of

 the change

 in those

 methods..

 While

 the allowable limit

under

 that subsection may differ from what

 it would have been

using with the new test methods originally,

 it does allow the

same margin for degradation though commencing at

 a different

time.

70-423

—16—

The degradation provision applies

 to any source

 subject to

Section 212.201 and 212.202 which qualifies under certain

criteria

for

 a relaxed limitation.

 As of the most recent

updating of affected facilities,

it

 is undisputed that

all

facilities currently emit less than they would

 be allowed

 under

the original rule which

 is essentially retained as Section

212.203(c).

 Thus,

 the Board believes that

 the proposed

 rules

retain

 the original equitable intent of

 the degradation provision

and

 respond

to

 an acceptable degree

 to the changes

 in test

methods.

The Electric Utilities also object to the possibility “that

a source could lose its special emission limitation.”

 (Elec.

Util.

 Com.,

 pp. 1—2),

 and propose modified language

 to avoid that

possibility.*

 The Agency’s response

is

 that:

In interpreting and applying the degradation

provision,

 the Agency has been guided by the

Board’s original intent

 in adopting the rule,

namely,

 to “grandfather” certain sources which

had made good faith expenditures

 in control

equipment just prior

 to the Board’s adoption

of the emission standards.

 However, once

 that

equipment has degraded

 to the point that

it

must be replaced,

 then there

is

 no longer

a

valid reason

 to “grandfather” that source.

The equipment must be replaced anyway and

the

only question left is

 the level of performance

which

 the new equipment should

 be designed to

achieve.

 In these cases,

 the Agency believes

that the new equipment should

 be designed

to

meet the general standard of

 0.10 lb/million

Btu.

(Agency Com.,

 10/11/85, p.

 10).

This concern was also addressed at hearing

(R.

 8/13/85, pp.

777—779), where

 the Agency attorney explained that on the

occasions when the

 relaxed limitation was lost,

 such loss

resulted

 from a consent decree and the old equipment was

replaced.

*The proposed

 language,

 in both sub—paragraphs

 (a) and

(b)

of

212.203,

 states:

“and the emission control

 of such source

 is not allowed

to

degrade more than

....“

The Electric Utilities again urge the Board to modify

the

above—quoted language in

 212.203(a) and

(b)

 to read as follows:

“and

 the emission control

 of such source

 is or can be

operated without de9rad~ more than

....“

70-424

—17—

The Board never intended that the “loss” of a relaxed

limitation should

 “occur

 ‘automatically’

 based on some ex parte

determination” as the Electric Utilities fear.

 Rather,

 the Board

agrees that such “loss” should arise in such a setting “that the

Agency can advance its theory, and present supporting evidence in

an appropriate forum,

 subject to the necessary procedural

 safeguardsj.”

 (Elec. Util.

 Corn.,

pp.

 2—3).

 The Board, however,

declines

 to adopt the recommended language change since

 it agrees

with the Agency that such language

 is overly vague.

 The Board,

therefore, will propose Section 212.203

 in the same form as

it

did

 in its Second First Notice, except that Section

 212.203(c)(3)

will be deleted

 as. unnecessary.

 That section simply required

emission limitations determined pursuant to Section 212.203(c)

to

be submitted to USEPA if the Clean Air Act requires

it.

SECTION 212.204

The only amendments to this section are language changes for

purposes of clarity and changes

 in the abbreviation of million

British thermal units.

 No substantive changes are intended.

SECTION 212.209

This section concerns the village of Winnetka.

 Throughout

this proceeding the Village has attempted to put information into

the record

 to establish a site—specific limitation applicable to

Winnetka’s generating station.

 To some extent,

 such evidence has

been allowed

 as appropriate to an affected facility under the

general

 rule.

 However, the Board has stopped short of allowing

Winnetka to put forth information sufficient

 to establish

site—specific relief.

 Even so, Winnetka has been able to

demonstrate that it

 is unique

 in the state,

 if for no other

reason than it

 is the only facility which has participated in

this proceeding

 which is not

 in present compliance or subject

to

some order or agreement requiring

 it to come into compliance.

Furthermore, evidence

 in the record demonstrates that

 if Wirinetka

emits up to 0.57 lbs/MBtu,

 the ambient air quality standard will

not be threatened.

 (R. 8/3/83,

 pp. 143—149; and R.

 4/20/82,

pp.

61—62).

 Finnaly, Winnetka

 is presently permitted to emit

particulates up to 0.25 lbs/MBtu.

Certainly, the Board

 is under no obligation to establish a

site—specific rule in a regulatory proceeding in which a general

rule

 is under consideration.

 The Environmental Protection Act

recognizes that rules of general applicability will sometimes be

unfair as applied to a particular facility.

 This

 is demonstrated

by the fact that a mechanism exists

 under Section 38(b)

of

the

Act which allows

 a facility which believes that

 it would be

unfairly impacted by a rule

 to petition for variance from that

rule within 20 days of its effective date thereby staying the

rule’s effect during

 the pendency of the variance petition.

 That

avenue of relief would clearly be available to Winnetka were

it

not allowed some relief

 in this proceeding.

70.425

—18—

However,

 since Winnetka has already requested relief from

the rule and been denied the opportunity

 to put forth all of

its

evidence

 in support of

 that relief

 in this proceeding,

it

is

appropriate for the Board

 to establish a new docket for site—

specific relief should Winnetka decide that the

 filing of

 such

a

proposal

 is appropriate..

 This

 is particularly true where,

as

here, the variance mechanism may not.be appropriate due

 to the

difference

 in proof between

 a rulemaking and a variance

proceeding.

In

 a rulemaking

 the Board

is

 to consider the economic

reasonableness and technical feasibility

 of reducing the

particular pollution, whereas

 in granting

 a variance the Board

must find an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

 This record

establishes that compliance with the general standard

is

economically reasonable and technically feasible in that nearly

all

 of the facilities

in

 the state are presently in compliance

and have been for some time.

 Yet,

 the record also discloses that

compliance with the general

 rule would be expensive,

 though

affordable,

 for Winnetka.

 Variances are generally not granted

where

 the sole basis for establishing hardship is affordable

cost, and

 it may

 be that Winnetka could not justify variance

relief.

 On the other hand,

 a site—specific rule could

be

appropriate depending on the entirety of the facts.

 Thus,

Winnetka faces

 a potential

 “Catch-22”

if

it

is

 not granted any

relief in this proceeding.

Under

 these circumstances,

it

 is appropriate

 to exempt

Winnetka from the general standard until

 a decision is reached on

the site—specific rulemaking.

 However,

 in order

 to insure that

Winnetka expeditiously pursues

 a site—specific

if

 it determines

that such relief would

 be appropriate,

 this exemption will not

become effective unless Winnetka files a proposal for site-

specific relief within

 60 days of

 the effective date of

the

general rule, and that relief will be effective for

 a period of

2

1/2 years only.

 Further,

 the Board will establish

 a 0.25 lb/MBtu

standard

 to be applicable during this exemption period since that

is the presently permitted level which

 is the minimum Winnetka

has indicated as acceptable and which should not endanger the

 ambient

 air quality standards.

 The exemption shall become

effective upon Winnetka’s filing of

 a petition for site—specific

relief and shall end upon

 a final determination regarding that

relief

 if that determination

 is made prior

 to the end of

the

2

1/2 year period.

 Finally, Winnetka will be allowed

to

incorporate by reference applicable parts of

 the R82—l

 record,

if

copies

 of the referenced materials are resubmitted

 under

the

site—specific docket.

EFFECTIVE DATE

The last major issue

 is the effective date.

 In the Second

First Notice the Board included

 a compliance date of January 1,

70-426

—19—

1987,

 since

 these regulations

 are,

 at least in theory, new

regulations.

 The Agency strongly opposed this since so few

facilities

 are out

 of compliance and delaying

 the effective date

would correspondingly delay

 final action by USEPA to

 redesignate

several counties as attainment.

The record shows that only one source,

 the Village of

Winnetka’s generating station,

 is in present violation of

Section 212.201.

 The Agency also provided

 information showing

that only three facilities are presently operating

 in violation

of Section 212.202:

 the Galesburg Mental Health Center, the CWLP

Dailman Units

1

&

2,

 and the A.E. Staley Company.

 The Galesburg

Center was scheduled to be shut down

 in late 1985;

 the CWLP Units

are subject

 to a Consent Decree entered into with the Agency and

USEPA that calls

 for new electrostatic precipitators to be

installed by 1987;

 and Staley has entered into a settlement

agreement with the Agency whereby

 it will either retrofit

a

baghouse onto the existing boilerhouse or build

 an entirely new

boilerhouse, depending upon the outcome of engineering studies

presently being

 conducted..

 The remainder of the sources listed

in

 Ex..

10,

p.

 54 are either shut down or

 the noncomplying

equipment

 is not used any longer or

 is used only as emergency

backup equipment.

 Thus,

 except for the Village

 of Winnetka,

there appears

 to be no reason

 to have

 a delayed compliance date,

and the rules will

 be effective when

 filed..

ORDER

The Board adopts

 the following amendments:

TITLE

35:

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

B:

 AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER I:

 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER

c:

 EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS

FOR STATIONARY SOURCES

PART 201

Section 201.102

 Definitions

“Air Contaminant”:

 any solid,

 liquid or gaseous matter,

any odor or any form of energy,

 that is capable of being

released into the atmosphere from an emission source..

“Air Pollution Control Equipment”:

 any equipment or

facility of

 a type intended

 to eliminate, prevent,

reduce or control the emission of specified air

contaminants

 to the atmosphere.

“Air Pollution”:

 the presence

 in the atmosphere of one

or more air contaminants

 in sufficient quantities and of

70-427

—20—

such characteristics and duration as

to

 be injurious

to

human, plant,

 or animal

 life,

 to health,

 or to property,

or to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of

 life

or property.

“Ambient Air”:

 that portion of the atmosphere external

to buildings comprising emission sources.

“Ambient Air Quality Standard”:

 those standards

promulgated from time to time by the Pollution Control

Board

 (Board) pursuant

 to authority contained in the Act

and found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 243, or by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) pursuant

to authority contained

in

 42 U.S.C.

 7401 et

 seq.,

as

amended from time

 to time.

“Clean Air Act”:

 the Clean Air Act of 1970,

 as amended,

including the Clean Air Act Amendments of

 1977, as

amended

 (42 U.S.C.

 7401 et seq.)

“Commence”:

 the act of entering into

 a binding

agreement

 or contractual obligation to undertake and

complete, within a reasonable

 time,

 a continuous program

of construction or modifications.

“Construction”:

 commencement of on—site fabrication,

erection or installation of

 an emission source or of air

pollution control equipment.

“Emission Source”:

 any equipment or

 facility of

 a type

capable of emitting specified air contaminants

 to the

atmosphere..

“Existing Air Pollution Control Equipment”:

 any air

pollution control equipment,

 the construction or

modification which has commenced prior

 to April

14,

1972.

“Existing Emission Source”:

 any emission source,

the

construction or modification of which has commenced

prior

 to April 14, 1972.

“Modification”:

 any physical change

in,

or

 change

in

the method

 of operations of, an emission source or

of

air pollution control equipment which increases the

 amount of any specified air contaminant emitted by such

source

 or equipment

 or which results

 in the emission of

any specified air contaminant not previously emitted.

It shall

 be presumed that an increase

 in the use

 of raw

materials, the time of operation or the rate of

production will change the amount of any specified air

contaminant emitted.

 Notwithstanding any other

70.428

—21—

provisions of this definition,

 for purposes

 of permits

issued pursuant

 to Subpart

ID,

 the Illinois Environmental

Protection

 Agency

 (Agency) may specify conditions under

which an emission source or air pollution control

equipment may

 be operated without causing

 a modification

as herein defined,

 and normal cyclical variations,

before

 the date operating permits are required,

 shall

not be considered modifications.

“New Air Pollution Control Equipment”:

 any air

pollution control equipment, the construction or

modification of which

 is commenced

 on or

 after April 14,

1972.

“New Emission Source”:

 any emission source,

the

construction

 or modification of which

 is commenced on

or

after April

14,

 1972..

“Owner

 or Operator”:

 any person who owns,

 leases,

controls or supervises an emission source or air

pollution control

 equipment..

“Person”:

 any individual,

 corporation, partnership,

firm,

 association,

 trust estate,

 public or

 private

institution,

 group, agency, political subdivision or

agency thereof

 or any legal successor,

 representative,

agent or agency of the foregoing.

“PSD Increment”:

 the maximum allowable increase over

baseline concentration of st~3?t~r~4ex±de any~

contaminant

 as determined by Section 163 of the Clean

Air Act

 (42 U.S.C.

 7473) and regulations adopted

thereunder.

“Specified Air Contaminant”:

 any air contaminant

as

to

which

 this ?h~p~erSubtitle contains emission standards

or other specific lImitations.

“Standard Industrial Classification Manual”:

The

Standard Industrial Classification Manual

 (1972),

Superintendent of Documents,

 U.S.

 Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

PERMITS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 201.103

 Abbreviations and Units

70-429

—22—

a)

 The following abbreviations have been used

in

 this Part:

btu orBtu

 British thermal units (60°F)

gal

 gallons

hp

 horsepower

hr

 hour

gal/mo

 ~aflons per month

gal/yr

 gallons per year

kPa

 kilopascals

kPa absolute

 kilopascals absolute

kW

 kilowatts

I

 liters

mmb~t~i’hr

or

M

 million ~

 per ~e~r

MW

 megawatts;

 one million watts

psi

 pounds per square inch

psia

 pounds per square inch absolute

b)

The

 following conversion factors have been used in

 this

Part:

English

 Metric

1 gal

 3.785

1

1000 gal

 3.785 cubic meters

1 hp

 0.7452 kW

1

 rnrnbtu/hr

 0.293 MW

1 psi

 6.897 kPa

PART 211

DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBPART

B:

 DEFINITIONS

Section 21Ll2l

 Other Definitions

All terms defined

in

35

 Ill...

Adm

 Code 201 which appear

in

35

Ill.

 Adm..

 Code ~

 211—217 have the definitions specified by

35 Ill. Adm. Code 20l..l~2. Otherwise the definitions specified

in Section 211.122 apply.

PART 212

VISUAL AND PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS

SUBPART

E:

 PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS

FROM FUEL COMBUSTION EMISSION SOURCES

Section 212.201

 Existing Sources Using Solid Fuel Exclusively

Located in the Chicago Area

No person shall

 cause or allow

 the emission of particulate matter

into the atmosphere from any existing fuel combustion source

70-430

—23—

using

 solid fuel exclusively,

 located

 in the Chicago major

metropolitan area,

 to exceed 0.15 kg of particulate matter per

MW—hr

 of actual heat input

 in any one hour period

 (0.10

lbs/mmbMBtu/hr) except

 as provided

 in Section

 2l2..~I03..

~Boar~

N~es~

See~4~s

 ret~g1’~~

 have been rt~3~ed

4nva~4dby the F4rs~~4

 r4e~Appe~e~e?o~r~~

 ?emmwea3~th

Ed4sen

P?B7 ~S ~i3~ App7 ~

~

 ~d ?4

and

4n

e~eai

 ?erp~

P?B7

 64 ~

 App~ d ~

 See~4ert2~~~O5

was

adop~ede?~erthe ?e~r~e1’~a3~engesand 4s a ,e34t& rt~3~er~

Section 212.202

 Existing Sources Using Solid Fuel Exclusively

Located

Outside

the

Chicago

Area

No person shall cause or allow the emission of particulate matter

 into the atmosphere from any existing fuel combustion source

using solid

 fuel exclusively, which

 is located outside the

Chicago major metropolitan area,

 to exceed

 the limitations

specified

 in the table

 below and Illustration A in any one hour

period except as provided

 in Section 212.203.

____

 METRIC UNITS

____

H

 (Ran,~9~e)

S

Less than or equal

 to 2.93

 1.55

Greater than 2.93

but

 3.33 flO.715

Smaller than 73.2

Greater than or equal

 to 73.2

 0.155

___

____

 ENGLISH UNITS

H(Ran~e

S

Mi1lion~~I~______

Pounds

Ler

 million_bBtu

Less

than

 or equal

to

10

1.0

Greater than 10 but

smaller than 250

 5.18

Greater than or equal

 to 250

 0.10.1

where:

S

 Allowable emission standard

 in lbs/MBtu/hr

 or kg/MW of

actual heat input, and

H

 Actual heat input in million Btu per hour

 or megawatts

70-43 1

—24—

Section

212.203

Existing

Controlled

Sources

 Using Solid Fuel

Exclusively

Notwithstanding

Section

212.201

and

212.202,

any

existing

fuel

combustion

Source

using

solid

fuel

exclusively

may,

any

one

hour

period,

emit

to,

but

not

exceed

0.31

kg/MW—hr

(0.20

lbs/utmbMBtu),

April

14,

1972,

e4ther

an~ one

the

followii~

conditions

was

met:

a)

 The emission source hasd

hourly

 emission

 rat.e

 based

on original design

 or equipment performance test

conditions, whichever

 is stricter, which 4s was less

than 0.31 kg/MWhr

 (0.20 lbs/mmbMBtu) of actual

 heat

input, and the emission control of such source

 is not

allowed

 to degrade more than 0.077 kg/MW—hr (005

lbs/mmbMBtu) from such original design

 or acceptance

performance test conditions;

or,

b)

 The source 4s was

 in full compliance with the terms

and

conditions of

 a variance granted by the Pollution

Control Board

 (Board) sufficient

 to achieve

 an hourly

emission rate less than 0.31 kg/MW—hr

 (0.20

lbs/i~mbMBtu),and construction hasd commenced on

equipment

 or modifications prescriEed under that

program;

 and emission control of

 such source

 is not

allowed

 to degrade more than 0.077 kg/MW—hr

 (0.05

lbs/mi,tbMBtu) from original design

 or equipment

performance test conditions,

 whichever

 is stricter,

or,

c)

 The emission source had an hourl1 emission rate based

—

 ono~ijinaldesi9nore~ipmentperforInancetest

conditions,

 whichever

 is stricter, which was Ièss than

.°-~l~L~iLL~2

 lbs/MBtu) 2!~ctu~~R~

and

The

emission

control

sucTi

source

not

allowed

that rate demonstrated

 b1 the most

 recent stack

 test,

---..--~----

 ources

subjectto

t~s

subsection shall

a~p!y for

new

o~eratin~r~i~

~ti-x~~

———-———————-——~—~—

—--‘

witnin

 ibO dais or

 the effective

date

th is

section;

and

Thea~piicationforanewo~per

tin9 permit shall~

1~i2!2pL~J~°~.

rate,if9reaterthantheemissionratea11owe~

subsections

(a)

or

(b)

 of this section, will not

under

 any foreseeable o~erati~conditions a~

tentialmeteorolo9ica1condiionscause~

contribute toaviolation o~any~plicable

70.432

—25—

~

 n~qpp~ica

b1e

Y9~92E~

(PSD)

increment,

 violate

Ill..

Adm.

Code_~0l.J4l.

Section

212.204

New

Sources

Using

 Solid

 Fuel Exclusively

person

shall

cause

allow

the

emission

 particulate matter

into

the

atmosphere

 any ane

 ‘~et~r per4od

from

any

new

fuel

combustion emission source using

 solid fuel exclusively to exceed

0.15 kg of particulate matter per MW—hr

 of actual heat input

 (0.1

lbs/m,nbMBtu)

 in a~ one

hour

~eriod..

Notwithstandin9 a~ other

 re9uirements of

 this Part,

if

the

Villa9e

Winnetka

 files a~etitionto establish site-s~eci

 f i c

days

‘Vii1aq~eo~Winnetks9eneratin1

station

shall

not

 emit

particulates

ata

level

 than

O.~5 ibs/MBtu

until

January

until

final

deternTThation

made

that

site—

~pecfficru1emakin~,whicheveroccurs

sooner.

ORDERED.

Dorothy

 Gunn, Clerk

 of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Opipion and Order was

adopted

the

day

of

____

 1986 by a vote

of

,‘

/~-~-

~orothy

d~nn,”ëTerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

70-433