ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
March
8,
1984
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION
)
R80—22(B)
LIMITATIONS: VILLAGE OF
)
WINNETKA
SECOND NOTICE.
PROPOSED OPINION.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by J.
D.
Dumelle)
The rule proposed at Section 214.141(c) for First Notice in
this matter provided a mass emission limit for the Village of
Winnetka
(Village) power plant.
Alon~with this emission limit
of 57
pounds of sulfur dioxide per million British thermal unit
(lbs/rnBtu),
a limit of 3.2 percent was imposed on the sulfur
content of the coal burned.
During this notice period, three
public comments were received.
Having considered each and the
codification scheme of the Board’s air regulations, the proposed
rule has been relocated and revised.
In commenting, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) was primarily troubled by the measurement method to
demonstrate compliance it believed applicable to the Village.
Pursuant to Section 214.101(c),
sources regulated under Section
214.141 may use
a sixty day averaging period to demonstrate
compliance,
if they are burning low sulfur coal.
The Agency
alleged that under this rule Winnetka could emit 6.8 lbs/mBtu 95
of the time, and still demonstrate compliance with its 5.7 lbs/mBtu
limit.
The Board must assume that the Village would be burning
coal with a sulfur content of 3.2 percent during this time,
since
the Agency goes on to state that during the remaining
5
of the
time there is no numerical limitation on the coal’s sulfur content.
(Public Comment 38)
It had previously been the Board’s belief that burning coal
of 3.2 percent sulfur would allow emissions no greater than 5.7
1bs/mBtu, and that the modeling demonstrated that
in no one hour
of the modeled year would this emission rate cause violation of
the air quality standard.
More importantly,
coal with a sulfur
content of 3.2 percent is not a low sulfur coal. Thus, the Board
did not consider the sixty day averaging rule applicable
to the
Village.
Instead Section 214.101(a) would have been applicable.
That subsection requires that compliance be demonstrated in
accordance with
40 CFR 60, App.
A, Method
6 or Agency rules.
The
federal rule provides for gas sampling.
Since the Village does
not have an on—site sampler, the Board did not believe the Village
would demonstrate compliance by that method.
The only applicable
57-59
—2—
Agency rules are those for coal contracts,*
For the reasons
stated above, the Board believed that enforcement of a 3.2 per-
cent limit, would have sufficiently assured compliance with 5.7
lbs/mBtu limit.
Nevertheless,
the rule proposed for the Village’s power
plant has been relocated to Subpart V:
Electric Power Plants
to coincide with the codification scheme set out at Section
214.100.
Relocation provides a second benefit.
It is now clear
that the measurement methods contained in Section 214.101 are not
applicable to the Village’s power plant.
In accordance with the
Agency’s comment and a letter setting out the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(USEPA) guidance (attached to
Agency Motion of 5/27/83 and Public Comment 38) the proposed rule
now provides that the Village demonstrate compliance based on
daily averages.
Presumably these daily averages shall be calcu-
lated using the coal’s sulfur content.
Citizens for a Better Environment
(CBE) asked that the Board
reduce the sulfur content limit from 3.2 percent to 3.0 percent.
CBE noted that the Village agreed to burn the lowest sulfur coal
available in Illinois, and that coal with a sulfur content lower
than 3.2 percent is
available
from three Illinois companies.
CBE
advised that in so reducing the sulfur content limitation, public
health would be protected.
(Public Comment 36).
At Second Notice,
the limit on the sulfur content of the
coal burned is eliminated,
According to the Agency’s comments,
limiting the coal’s sulfur content does not correspond to limit-
ing sulfur emissions.
For the protection of public health,
it is
important,
as demonstrated by the modeling, that emissions do not
exceed 5.7 lbs /mBtu
in any one hour period.
It is unimportant
what the sulfur content of the coal burned is.
If Winnetka can
demonstrate compliance on a daily average burning coal with a
sulfur content greater than 3.2 percent,
it is free to burn that
coal.
Finally,
in its comments the Village agreed to a 1400 pounds
per hour sulfur dioxide emission limit.
It demonstrated that
this limit was no different than the
5.7
lbs/mBtu limit proposed.
(Public Comment 37)
In the above referenced guidance letter, the
USEPA expressed its reservations about articulating emission
limits in units other than mass emission limits.
Given this, and
since the two limits are comparable,
to avoid redundancy the
proposed rule will not recite the 1400 pounds per hour
limit.
*These
rules
were
filed
on
an
emergency
basis
on
12/31/77
and as of yet are not codified.
Application of the same is
therefore dubious.
(c.f.
Illinois Power Company v.
IEPA,
PCB 83—103,104)
57-60
—3—
The proposed rule as drafted is ordered to Second Notice in
accordance with Section 5.01(b)
of the Administrative Procedure
Act.
(Ill. Rev. Stat.
1981,
ch.
127, par. 1005.01(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member B. Forcade abstained.
I,
Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Bçard, hereby certify that the above Opinion was adopted
on~the_,r’-
day of______
___,
1984 by a vote of
Christan L. Mdf&~t, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
57-61