ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December

20, 1985

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PARTICULATE EMISSION LIMITATIONS,

)

R82—1

RULE 203(g)(1) AND 202(b) OF

)

CHAPTER 2

)

PROPOSED RULE.

SECOND SECOND NOTICE.

ORDER

OF

THE BOARD

(by Jacob

D.

Dumelle):

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.

The Village of Winnetkaes comments were accompanied

by a

motion

to

file

instanter since

they were

filed after the close of

the extended co~tmentperiod.

That motion

is hereby granted.

Winnetka also filed

an appeal from a hearing officer order

denying Winnetka’s renewed motion for hearing

to present site—

specific testimony.

The hearing officer order

is hereby

affirmed.

In general the comments address

four areas

of concern with

the proposed rules:

the opacity limitation,

the degradation

provision,

the effective date,

and the ~innetka power

plant.

OPACITY

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

argues

that the opacity standard

(35

Ill.

Adm. Code 212.123)

should be

adopted

as proposed.

(Agency Comments, Oct.

11, 1985,

p.

4).

In

a joint comment,

however, Electric Energy,

Inc.

(EEl)

and

Illinois Power Company

(IPC)

argue

that “there

is

no basis

to

support adoption of the opacity

standard.t’

(EEl and IPC

comments, p.1).

The disagreement centers on

the propriety of an

opacity standard as a “surrogate”

for

the particulate standard:

i.e. whether opacity violations are closely enough correlated

to

particulate violations

to justify an

independent standard.

The

Agency argues that “the opacity rule is an appropriate

substitute

for

frequent stack—testing of emissions from coal—fired boilers”

and that there

is

a

“high correlation with the exceedance

of the

applicable particulate limit.”

(Agency Comments,

Oct.

11,

1985,

p.4).

EEl and

IPC,

however, argue

that

“if the opacity standards

has

the possibility of being violated by a source which is

not,

at

that opacity, violating the particulate standard, then

the

opacity standard

is unsupportable.”

(EEl and IPC comments, p.2).

The facts

are unrebutted that there is not

a perfect

correlation between violations of opacity and particulate

emissions standards,

that

in.

the large majority of cases opacity

87-147

---

—2--

violations

indicate

particulate

violations,

but

that

there

ace

cases

in

which

a

violation

of

the

opacity

limitation

is

not

associated with

a particulate violation.

(R.

8/13/85, pp.

634—

637,

664,

687,

689,

707 and 716—719).

EEl and IPC note that

they

“GO

not

object

to

the use of opacity as

a surveillance or

guidance

technique,

possibly

as

a

trigger

to

a more detailed

investigation

of

a

source”,

but

they

believe

“the

Board

cannot

justify

...

imposing

civil

and

criminal

sanctions

for

violating

the surrogate, opacity standard knowing

that sources will

nonetheless be meeting the underlying standard.”

(EEl

and IPC

comments, p,4)~

The positions of the ~.gencyand EEl and IPC are not actually

far

apart.

As the Agency states~“the opacity limitation,

historically, has not been enforced by the Agency as any precise

measure of particulate emissions but as a qualitative

indicator

of operating situations which should

be

investigated.

For

example, the Agency may condition permits to require that

reporting,

in accordance with

35

Ill, Adm.

Code 201.263,

be done

whenever

the opacity exceeds the allowable

limi.t,”

(Agency

comments, Oct0

11, 1985,

p.5)..

Furthermore, as the Agency points

out,

it

cannot successfully prosecute

a case against

a source

in

violation of the opacity standard where

the

source can

demonstrate

that

it was

in compliance with the particulate

standard pursuant to

the exception of

35

Ill, Adm,

Code

212.124(c)

which establishes a showing of compliance with the

particulate standard as

a defense

to an opacity violation.

If

it

were possible

to readily establish that

a

source qualifies

for

the exception, there would seem to be little disagreement over

the proposed rule.

However, that is not the case.

John Yokom, an environmental consultant who appeared on

behalf of EEl and IPC,

testified at length regarding the

difficulties

involved

in establishing a relationship between

opacity and particulate matter emissions, concluding,

essentially,

that

such a relationship can only be definitively

established on

a site—specific basis.

(R.

8/13/85,

p.

674—

699).

Opacity

is

a function of numerous variables

including the

concentration of particles

in

the plume,

the plume’s diameter,

the particle size distribution,

the particle’s

index

of

refraction,

color

and light absorbing properties,

the

wave length

of

the

incident light, and the presence of uncombined

water.

CR. 8/13/85,

p.

674—675).

Since

the Agency has indicated that

it does not enforce on

the basis of opacity violations alone,

and since there

appears

to

be

substantial difficulty

in establishing qualification for the

exception,

the Board

has proposed the modification of the opacity

rule.

This has been done

in

an attempt

to ensure that

the Agency

can continue

to use opacity violations as a qualitative indicator

of operating situations which should be

investigated and

as

a

basis

for imposing monitoring or reporting requirements

in

permits,

but not

as

a means to impose civil

or criminal

penalties.

67-148

---

—3—

SECTION

212.203

The second major issue

is the

question

of

the

degradation

provision

of

Section

212.203.

The Agency apparently has no

objection.

to

that

provision

as proposed

for Second First

Notice.

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 c~new particuIa~etesting procedures

on the equity of

that provision:

The Electric Utilitie~1in the earlier comments and

here, contend that

the

equitable

relief

the

Board

intended

to

grant

by

ecoption

of

the

degradation

provision

may

be

unde:eined

or

even

lost

because

of

this

change

in

test

methods,

Earlier

in

this

proceeding

the

Board ~e~cognizedthis 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

Elect:ric

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,

Corn.,

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/mmBtu

based

on

the

most

recent

stack

test

submitted

to

the

Agency prior

to April

1,

1985,

Since

such

a

st.ack 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.

67-149

---

The

degradation

provision

applies

to any source subject

to

Section

212,201

and

212,202

which

qualifies

under

certain

criteria

for

a

relaxed

1imitatior~..

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

equit.ahle

intent

of the degradation provision

and

respond

to

an

acceptable

degree

to

the changes

in test

methods..

The

E.ectrie

Utilities eieo ob~ect

to

the

possibility

“that

a

source

could

lose

its

spe

al

emission

limitation.”

(Elec,

Util.

Com,~ pp.

1—2),

and

pr~:pose

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

Corn,,

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

Board

never

intended

that

the

“1oss~’ of

a

relaxed

limitation

should “occur ‘automatically’

based

on

some

ex,~arte

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

*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

tee

emission

concrol

of

such

source

is

or

can

be

~

more than

.

67- 1~5()

---

an appropriate forum, subject

tc

the necessary procedural

safeguards.”

(tiec. UtAh

Corn,,

~

with the Agency that such lariquaqe

ts overly vague.

Board will restate its intent reqarcing this issue

in its final

opinion.

The Board, therefore, vi)

propose Section 212.203 in

the

same

form

as

it

did

in

it.:: Second First Notice, except that

Section 212.203(c)~3Iwill o’

dotted

as

‘innecessar:’.

That

section simply required ea.scon ~.lmttatLons

ietermined pursuant

to Section 2~.203(c)Cc.

.?

;tu.flv..wa

tc USEPA if the Clean Air

Act requires x’.

..?IVE

bitE

The ne;

najor

issue

the effectin

.

4t0.

In the Second

First Notice

.ie Board

i:

ed a cnpliani

*

tate of January 1,

1987, since

:.ese regu~a

6r~,

at leas

in theory, new

regulations.

The

Agency

.

nongly opposed this since so few

facilities

a’ e

out

of

ccli.

nee

and

deaying

the

efEective

date

would

correspondingly

de~.

C:niCt

~ct$on

bj

USEPA

to

redesignate

several

counties

as

attai

-n.

The

record shows that only one source, the Village of

winnetka’s generating stat on.

is

tn present violation of

Section 212.201.

That sou.ce wifl he further discussed below.

The Agency also provided information showing that only three

facilities are presently opedtiaq

in nolation of

Section 212.202:

the Galesbuc~Mental Health Center, the CWLP

Dallman Units I & 2, and the A.E. Staley Company.

The Galesburg

Center is scheduled to be shut down in late 1985;

the CWLP Units

are subject to a Consent De:r4e e’itred into wtth the Agency and

USEPA that calls for new electrostatic ~recspitatorsto be

installed by 1987; and Sta.ey

has entered into

a settlement

agreement with

the Agencj wher.*by it will either retrofit a

baghouse onto

the existing

‘o&snLhcnase

or build an entirely new

boilerhouse,

depending

upon

the

outcome of engineering studies

presently being conducted.

The

‘attainder of the sources listed

in Ex. 10, p.

54 are either shut down or the noncomplying

equipment

is not used

any tonç.OL

o:

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 Board will, thecefoza, propose that the rules be

VILLAGE OF WINIIETIA

The last major issue concecr.s the Village of Winnetka.

Throughout this proceeding the Vil1age has attempted to put

information into the rtc’ord t, es :ahlish s site—specific

limitation applicable to Winne~a’ s

jenerating station.

To some

extent, such e”idence has been allowed as appropriate to an

affected faclUty under

U’.

•.

‘&

ruL..

qoweyec,

the Board has

stopped shc

~..

C

~llow’tu4

..

;i~

:t.

~

:th

anformation

sufficient

~c .etablish a’~~

•‘,~ecsfsc :&.c’.

67-151

---

6-

has been

able

t3 de

for no other

reasc

‘1

participated in

‘

compliance or s

e,t

t

come into compli.

cc

demonstrates th t

.t

ambient

air

quali

‘

s

amar

pp. 143—149; ard R

/

is

presently

p°rn

.e

F

s

ur

que

in the state, if

La Ut y which has

i

s not

present

agreemart requiring it to

“t

he

record

ur

‘0 0.

1

lbs/mmfltu, the

vi.

-

c.

e

ened

a

8/3/83,

)

i

t

.°

a

t

Winnetka

t

0 2’ lbs/maBtu.

d

.

,

c

ion

‘0

establish a

j

ii

w

i

a general

01

1

~ otection Act

ab’

ty wi.1.

sometimes be

a

v

‘tue

i

deirorstrated

aeb)

of

the

ca

‘w

it would be

o

-

or

f

‘*r ance from that

tc.

-~

r~

y ataying the

f

a

pet’

tion.

That

b

tiiret a were it

di.

~

e

I’

c~qiasted relief

from

£

1

utth’t’l of its

ti

i~

cavding

itie

-

‘ket for site—

..ia

filira

f such a

p

t’c.ular

true where

as

a~

t

lue

othe

•

r

h’ economic

4

sb

if

raGucang

the

r

tng

‘a iance the Board

rabli

ia:dsh p

This record

g~e a)

‘ardard is

1

f*asible it t~atnearly

c

a

n

~ly in compliance

$

c rd aLo di’closes that

e

en ive

though

~a

ir’cs

r

ar~rallynot granted

-i’

a

i

Is iç

is

affordable

t

stif,. variance

t -s cc-tic

ru e could be

i

it

ac

f”t..

Thus,

C

‘t Jr not granted any

pp op’ ‘ate

to exempt

c

‘

reached on

o

rure that

Li

s~

it

determines

Ii’

•s

ih

u

)a.

CC

o.O

.1

it.

I

‘It

Certairly

~‘e B a’

site—specific

rule

is

u ider

idq-

.z

recogn’ies

.1

unfairasaop

.1

oo.

by the fact

ti

me’

Act which al

ftctli

unfairly

impa’

b

a

rule

within

0

s

c..

rule’s

effec.

o

a

avenue of ral.

•

1

not all3wed som

.aJie’

However, si.ce V n~e

the rule

and been

len

~o

evidence in support of

appropriate for

the B

itt

t.

specific relief shoild Wi.

proposal

is appropriatc

4h

here,

the variance aectanisi

differeicei oofb

a

proceeding.

In a rule iak

g

i

oar

reasona.e~ees~a.$ ~a

..i

a

a

particilar pollutior

wiercas

must

find

a’t ataitrar

or

c

establishes

thd..

compl’a

econom’ call y

reaso

‘i

tote

a

id

all of the ta

itit.

s ‘r ~ e

and have beer

tot

~

r

ii

compliance wit’

th

;

a

affordable

to’ Wi

-

where the sole baa-s f

c.

cost,

and itma’

t

i

Win.

relief

On th. o her

r~i

appropriatc depend~na

0

c.

Winnetka faces a potertt-l

relief

in this procecJ~

a

a

Under these circuastir

Winnetka fros

t’~

ge e”

the site—ap

ta

-

Winnetka expei

.

.ly ~

“

it

---

that such relief ~

.

e

-(

become effective in e-s Walt

t

specific relief iutrin

6

a

~‘

-,

general rule, and thit

~.

et

two years only.

ku~t’tr,

ti

2o

lb/mmBtu standard to be ~p

t

since that is the

.

a-en

1

e

Winnetka has irdt

,,‘,.

-

endanger

the airbieft a’

q

i.

become effec~i.

‘

,o

~‘

-

I

specific relis

and shal

regardina tia

.e

a .f

i~

t

a

end of the

tv

~.‘

pe

incor

4rate

b’

eferenc.°

~,,

copie-

of

tne

ferenced

lid

site-specific oocket

tie Board lere

Second

Notice:

Section 20

0

C.

t

IIPLE 3~

~N

FUBIJILL P

1

CRAPPER

I

1

1

U

SUBCHAPTER

c:

En ~S’I

F

S~P~C’1

PERMITS t

I

0

I

£

.~sccaptinwillnot

‘-

a p cposal for site-

,

e

Lye date of the

e cftective for a period of

J

establish a 0.25

i,

ttis exemption period

~i Intl

vh4~his the minimum

•

vhicn rhould n~t

C

ir1

The exemption shall

ot

a petition for site—

‘‘a

dc ermination

t

i~

ta’e

prior

to

the

r’ctPa

vill

be

allowed

to

‘s of t)e R82-l record, if

rcsubii ted under

the

ovi~

a.e~dmentsfor

kt

PLCTION

LU ‘ION

‘itR3.

BOARD

IJU

AND

LIMITATIONS

a ~a

fl

S’s.-

It

I

It CONS

‘Air Crtaaina1

odor

or any I

-

into ~hc

a~urp1

‘~

as

‘Air Polluti r Cont”cl Bi

ofatypeint

4,

t

a,

3

the

emission

o

epc3i

u

‘Air Polluti

$

$

la

r

•

more air con -u

r

nte

characteristi s and duro-

r

plant

oraialli*

e

unrca~orat

-

c. e

w,,.

property

‘Ambient

An

•

the,.

-‘

buildtngs~.omc

ij-

‘Ambient

Ar

iality

5’

from

Iga

t

‘i

~.

J

pursu

at

t

Ill.

Ad

..~

43

o

d

Cr

jaseous matter, any

pabl

of being released

c

my

quipmeat

or

facility

ave

,

reduce or control

r

mar

s to the atmosphere.

•

a

c.spht. e of one or

en

ties and of such

~ itjurious to human,

1

t

property, or to

tart of life or

t

tmoapte e external to

•

c.

r

I

mrd (Board)

t e~Fnsironrnental

anj

en

1’

I

ouutc..v

7

---

Protection Ager’

(Ufl

ox., ~

to authority contained

in

42 U.S.C. 7401

ot

seq

,

a~au

•

f

time to time

‘Clean Air &c”:

tie C ea

Air At of 19 0, as amended,

including the Clean Am

*“

;mendn

i

•

o

1977, as amended

(42 U.S.C.

740.. et seq

‘Commence’:

tie a t

C st~

d

ig agreement or

contractual oblmga

r

i

cr ~

a

.1

.

nplete, within a

reasonable tire,

1

1

~10 in of construction or

modifications

‘Constr ucton’:

‘on

.rc

te ctbricition,

erectioi

0:

mnstel a

04.

~

C.

stop source or of air

pollutiot

ontrol eq

‘Emissic..

sour e’•

•c. to cit or

t

ity of a type

capable o

enittina

I ed

3

am’. an-s to the

atmospher.-.

‘Existing

air

Pollu.

it

0~

Epa

pre

t

any air

pollution control equ

i°

t,

ti°

cor

r

ion or modification

which has commenced pri

r to April 14, 1972.

‘Existing Emission So,a

~‘-

•n7 e.,isoiou source, the

construction or modification of vtich ha°commenced prior to

April 14, 1972.

‘Modification’:

any

physic.

thange in, or change

in the

method of operations, of at er

es’ n ~ urce or of air

pollution

co trol

~

c

r

tie

amount of any

specified air con-attn

eat ted

y ~ucrsource or equipment

or which results in

~e cmi.

‘i a of ‘my c’pecified air

contaminant ra

ore

1

cii

d

t shall be presumed

that an incre. e

‘n

it

ta

-

.n

.

teri’.ls, the time of

operation or t

c. rate

5 p

odu

ion will change the amount of

any

specific

air coita’rin-tt emitteC

Notwithstanding

any

other provi~

of

~jt

afiriti

for purposes of permits

issued pursu

to Subpt

-

D

t

Illinois Environmental

Protection Age c

(?gen y

nay

peci..y “ondftions under which

an emission

‘

ucce or air

ollu’

n

crtrol equipment may be

operated wi

t

t c

ama a m diEicati

r as herein defined,

and

normal c’

ica

variati

i.,

before

‘he date operating

permits are reqtired

stall not

e cona dered modifications.

‘New Air Pollution

‘onvrc.l

Lou

fri cit

$

any air pollution

control equi~tent,the cc.tstructioi

a

modification of which

is commenced on or after Aprm

14,

1972.

‘New Emission Sousce’:

a~y a

urce, the construction

or modification of whic’i

i”

c miterceo

n

r after April 14,

1972.

6’-154

---

‘Person’:

dy

i

dividual,

associatior, trust estate,

group, ager’y, political s

legal

succe

bo

,

a

es nt

foregoing.

‘PSD Increr°it’.

th’ ma

r

baseline c~centrati

I

by Section

C3

of the

e

regulaticn~‘dopted the cii

c

‘Standard

s

Industrial

Documents,

20402.

Section 201.10-

I

o’able

increase

over

r

c)

ax

rant

as

determined

Ac

(

2

.b.C.

7473j

and

ustrial C)ae

tior

Lianual’:

The Standard

.aasiftcat on far al

1972), Superintendent of

.5. Governrent I mnting Office, Washington, D.C.

Abbreviatio. a an

Units

a)

The

following

abbreviatto

5

have been used in this Part:

btu or Btu

gal

hp

hr

gal/mo

gal/yr

kPa

kPa absolute

kW

1

mm

or M

MW

psi

psia

English

1

gal

1000 gal

lhp

1

mm~ts./tr

1 psi

British thermal units

(60 F)

cal

ior

‘eoo

icr

10

cairo as

per

morth

ga

one oar year

&i.

opascais

¼ilcpascals absolute

kilowatts

liters

r

‘llioa

teja.

.L,

one million watts

o

-

er square inch

p0 ~d

ye

ii,,

3,

3,..

bic meters

I

1c1

I

it

‘Owner or Opera or’:

any cerso’

h

owns, leases, controls

or supervises or emission a ‘rcc o

a r pollution control

equipment.

tora ion

arthership, firm,

ubii

or private institution,

b i

‘

‘or

or agency thereof or any

.s

aç

t

agency of the

‘Specified .ir Contammnait

ny air contaminant as to which

this Subt”

contairs e irsio

.‘arda ds or other specific

limitatioVs

b)

The foll wmrg conversion facto a

iave been used in this

Part•

67*

---

—10—

PART

211

DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBPART B:

DEFINITIONS

section

211.121

Other Definitions

All

terms defined in

35 Ill. Adm. Code 201 which appear in 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 211—217 hive the definitions specified by 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

201.102.

Otherwise

the

definitions

specified

in

Section 211.122 apply.

PART

212

VISUAL AND

PARTICULATE

MATTER EMISSIONS

SUBPART B:

Section 212.123

Limitations for All Other Sources

a)

No person shall cause or allow the emission of smoke or

other

particulate

matter

with

an

opacity

of

greater

than

30 percent into the atmosphere from

any

emission source

other

than

those

sources

subject

to Section 212.122;

provided,

however,

that

the

exceedance

of

this

standard

shall

only

be

a

violation

for

purposes

of

the

establishment

of

permit

conditions

concerning

monitoring

and

reporting

requirements.

b)

Exception:

The

emission

of

smoke

or

other

particulate

matter

from

any

such

emission

source

may

have

an

opacity

greater

than

30

percent

but

not

greater

than

60

percent

for

a

period

or

periods

aggregating

8

minutes

in

any

60

minute

period

provided

that

such

more

opaque

emissions

permitted

during

any

60

minute

period

shall

occur

from

only

one

such

emission

source

located

within

a

305

m

(1000 ft)

radius from the center point of any other such

emission

source

owned

or operated by such person, and

provided

further

that

such

more

opaque

emissions

permitted

from

each

such

emission

source

shall

be

limited

to

3

times

in

any

24

hour

period.

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

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./MBtu/hr)

except

as provided in Section 212.203.

67-156

---

~li~

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

Megawatts

______

~

~ hour

Less than or equal

to 2.93

1.55

Greater

than 2.93 but

3,33H’715

Smaller than 73.2

Greater

than

or

equal

to 73~20.155

_______________

_________

ENGLISH

UNITS

____

Li9~L___~_~_~__

!_~

___

Million Btu~

__

~~sermillio~tu

Less than or equal

to 10

Greater

than

10

but

0

smaller

than 250

5,18 H~.715

Greater than or equal

to

250

0.1

where

S

=

Allowable emission standard

in lbs/MBtu/hr

or kg/Mw~hr

of

actual heat input,

and

H

=

Actual heat input

in million Btu per hour

or megawatts

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,

in any one

hour period, emit

up to, but not exceed 0.31 kg/MW—hr

(0.20

lbs/mmBtu),

if

as

of

April

14,

1972, any one of the

following

conditions

was

met:

a)

The

emission source had

an hourly emission rate based

on

original design or equipment performance test

conditions, whichever

is stricter, which was less than

0.31 kg/MW—hr (0~20lbs/mmBtu)

of actual heat input,

and

67~157

---

—12—

the emission control of such source is not allowed to

degrade

more

than 0.077 kg/MW—hr (0,05 lbs/mmBtu)

from

such original design or acceptance performance test

conditions; or,

b)

The source 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/mmBtu),

and construction

had

commenced on equipment or

modifications

prescribed

under

that

program;

and

emission control of such source is not allowed to

degrade more than 0.077 kg/MW—hr (0.05 lbs/mmbtu)

from

original

design

or

equipment

performance

test

conditions,

whichever

is

stricter,

or,

c)

The emission source

had

an

hourly

emission

rate

based

on

original design or equipment performance test

conditions, whichever

is stricter, which was less than

0.31 kg/MI—hr (0.20 lbs/mmBtu) of actual heat input, and

the

emission

control of such source has not been allowed

to degrade more than 0.77 kg/NW—hr

(0.05 lbs/mmBtu)

from

that rate demonstrated by the most recent stack test

submitted to

and

accepted by the Agency prior to June 1,

1985, provided that:

1)

Owners and operators of sources subject to this

subsection shall apply for a new operating permit

within 180 days of the effective date of this

section;

and

2)

The application for a new operating permit shall

include a demonstration that the proposed emission

rate,

if greater than the emission rate allowed by

subsections (a) or

(b) of this section, will not

under

any

foreseeable operating conditions and

potential

meteorological

conditions

cause

or

contribute

to

a

violation

of

any

applicable

primary

or

secondary

ambient

air

quality

standard

for

particulate matter, or violate any applicbble

prevention of significant deterioration

(PSD)

increment, or violate 35 Ill. Mm. Code 2Ql.141;

and

Section 212.204

New Sources Using Solid Fuel Exclusively

No person shall cause or allow the emission of particulate matter

into the atmosphere from

any

new fuel combustion emission source

using solid fuel exclusively to exceed 0.15 kg of particulate

matter

per

MI—hr of actual heat input (0.10 lbs/mmBtu)

in

any

one

hour period.

67-158

---

Section 212.205

Village of Winnetka Generating Station

Notwithstanding any other requirements of this Part,

if

the

ViUsge

of ~innetka files

a petition

to establish site—specific

particulate standards

for

its generating station within 60 days

of

the effective date of the rules adopted under docket R82—l,

the Village of Winnetk&s generating station shall

not emit

particulates

at

a

level

more

than

0,25

lbs/mmBtu until ~1anuary1,

1988,

or until

a final determination is made

on that

site—

specific rulemaking, whichever occurs

sooner.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

Board Member

B,

Forcade dissented.

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinoic Pollution ControI~

Boar~,hereby certify

that the

above Order was adopted

on

the

~

day

of

____________,

1985 by

a vote

of

~/

Dorothy M, Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

67459