ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

2,

1983

IN THE MATTER OF:

R81—20

ALTERNATIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES,

)

(Docket B)

FINAL RULE

(DOCKET

B)

)

PROPOSED RULE.

FIRST NOTICE.

PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.

Anderson):

The Final Rule

in

this matter is hereby divided into

two dockets to enable the Board to take final action on the

regulations prescribing

the Alternative Control Strategies

(ACS) permit program, while considering an amendment to Section

202.145 of those regulations.

Docket A contains the Final Rule

in this matter in the exact form in which it was submitted to

the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and published in

the Board’s Second Notice order of December

2, 1982.

Under a

separate Opinion and Order the Board is today ordering that

Docket

A be

adopted and filed with

the

Secretary of State.

This docket, entitled “Docket B”,

contains

a Board proposal

to amend Section 202,145 of Docket

A,

after it

is filed with the

Secretary of State.

This proposal

is made

in response

to

some

of the concerns raised

in the combined economic and technical

hearings held on March

7 and 11,

1983.

It will be published

in the Illinois Register in accordance with Section 5.1 of the

Administrative Procedure Act.

In the Interim and Final Rule

proceedings, the Board received testimony and comments on the

appropriateness of using the “useful

life”

of an emission reduc-

tion credit

(ERC)

as

a limit on its duration,

and on prescribing

a five year maximum life for ERC’s generated by emission source

shutdowrts.*

At this time the Board solicits public comment on

the more flexible approach to determining “useful life” which

is proposed in this docket.

Public comment will be accepted on

this proposal

up to and including August 19,

1983.

The proposed amendment deletes the five year maximum life

for an ERC generated by a shutdown and adds a new subsection

(b)

which mandates that the Agency determine

a specific useful

life

for each shutdown emission source which contributes

an emission

reduction to an ACS.

Subsection

(h) also mandates that the

Agency include consideration of certain factors bearing upon

*The history or

trie development of the “useful

life”

and “5

year limitation” provisions can be reviewed in the Board’s May 13,

1982 Opinion and Order on the Interim Rule and December

2,

1982

Opinion and Order on the Final

Rule.

52-349

---

2

“useful

life”

in making its determination.

It is the Board’s

intention to insure that ambiguity or indefiniteness as to the

lifetime of an ERC be resolved before an ACS permit is issued

by a numerical specification of the duration of any shutdown ERC

used in the ACS.

It

is also the Board~sintention to provide

some guidance as to the minimum demonstration that the ACS

applicant must make with regard to useful life.

The Board agrees with the testimony given in the March

7 and

11,

1983 hearing

(R.

874—878,

892—896,

904—914,

941—943), and

public comment received thereafter

(P.C.

45), which support the

“useful

life” provision, hut recommend deletion of any “across—

the—board”, fixed maximum life in the rule.

In

light of these

comments, as well

as the addendum to the Economic Impact Study

(EcIS)

(Ex.

1 Econ.

Hearings) presented at the March

11, 1983

hearing, the Board agrees that any specification in the rule of

a maximum “useful life” would be arbitrary and inequitable.

The

addendum to the EcIS,

Part B of which focused on the impact of

the five year limitation in the useful

life provision,

concluded

that the percent of polluting equipment with a remaining useful

life of five years or less ranged from 0,5 to 48.9

depending on

the industrial class involved,

The addendum concludes that sub-

stantial cost savings would be foregone for some industries by use

of the

5 year maximum life without a corresponding environmental

benefit.

Since

it is the function of this provision and these

rules in general

to insure “equivalence”, the Board concludes that

it is inappropriate to build into this rule this type of inequity

and disincentive to use of an ACS.

The particular factors which

the

proposed amendment directs

the Agency to consider were developed by the Board from points

raised in the most recent testimony,

For example, witnesses

pointed out that the age of

a piece of equipment alone may not

be determinative of its operational

remaining life.

Thus,

among

other things,

this subsection directs consideration of the level

of use received by and wear

to the principle components as well

as operating efficiency.

The Board believes another relevant

consideration is the actual, documented operational lifetime of

other functionally or catagorically similar pieces of equipment.

Given this information, the Agency can compare the useful life

proposed by an ACS applicant to a “norm” for the same type of

equipment.

The Board particularly solicits comments on the

adequacy of the factors proposed.

ORDER

Section 202.145

Duration

a)

A permit containing an ACS shall he issued for no

—

longer than five years,

or for such shorter period as

the Agency may specify as necessary for periodic review

of the ACS or to accomplish the purposes of the Act or

52-350

---

3

of this Chapter.

However,

an ACS permit may not he

issued for a period of time which

is greater than the

useful

life of

an

emission source which contributes an

emission reduction to the ACS,

The burden of proving

the

useful

life of the emission source is on the

applicant

~

~

e?—~eefe—a~~±ve-yeafs~

b)

Prior to the issuance ~

shall

consider all factors which

it reasonab~ç~~ruesas

~

sion

source,

and

shall determine~~2~ecific

useful life for each shutdown

emission source which contributes an emission reduction

toan ACS,

Factors which the Aa~~considers shall

md

udet~~ollowina:

1)

The

antici ated useful life of

t~~rinc~pj~

p

nts

of the emission sour

onpurchase;

2)

~

aeoft

r~ilecp~p~en~sof_the

emission source;

3)

The level

of use received b~and wear

to the

principle co~p~nentsof_the_emission_source;

4)

The ~

atini_efficiencyof the emission source

atU~en~and

5)

The demonstrated useful

life of emission sources

of ~

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett, Clerk

of

the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereby

certify that

the

above

Opinion and Order

was adopted~onthe

~

day

of

~—i~_~c~

_____,

1983 by

a

vote of

‘F-O

Christan L, Moffek~jClerk

Illinois Pollution

Control Board

52-351