ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

15,

1982

IN THE MATTER OF:

ALTERNATIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES,

)

R81—20

INTERIM

RULE,

)

INTERIM RULE

CHAPTER

2:

AIR POLLUTION.

~oo~ed

Rule.

Second Notice,

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

I.

Goodman):

This rulemaking

is

undertaken pursuant to Section 9.3(h)

of the Environmental Protection Act

(the Act),

as amended by

P,A.

82•-0540 on September

16,

1981.

P.A.

82—0540, known as

the “Bubble Bill”

or HB

1354, was designed to enable owners

and operators of air pollution emission sources, either indi-

vidually or collectively,

to utilize the most economically

advantageous mixture of control

strategies

to achieve environ-

mental goals.

This usually involves overcontrolling at one

emission source and undercontrolling at another.

The statute

provides that the mixture of control strategies used

in an

“alternative control strategy~’ (ACS) permit must provide

equivalent protection

for the environment.

The basic concept

is that an ACS should have no negative impact on the environ—

nient

and should he economically beneficial

to owners and

operators.

To insure that the unique issues involved in ACS

permits

are adequately addressed,

Section 9.3 authorizes the

Board to promulgate standards for issuance of permits and a

permitting program for sources utilizing alternative control

strategies.

Section 9~3(b) authorizes the issuance of

“interim regula-

tions” within 120 days after the effective date of P.A.

82—0540

through an expedited rulemaking process which bypasses Title VII

requirements of the Act,

The purpose of this expedited pro-

ceeding is to provide regulatory guidance which will enable

owners and operators

to begin to plan and implement ACS to

meet imminent compliance deadlines.

Section 9.3(c) mandates

that the Board promulgate final regulations establishing

an ACS

permit program no later than December 31,

1982.

The record

in

this proceeding

will

be consolidated with the final

rulemaking

to avoid unnecessary duplication.

In addition,

the final rule-

making will consider the economic impacts of these regulations

pursuant to Title VII of the Act.

Once effective,

the final

regulations will supersede the interim rules.

The Board acknowledges the assistance of Ms. Patricia

F.

Sharkey in the drafting

of this Opinion and

in acting as

hearing officer in this proceeding.

66

127

---

The

Board

initiated

public comment on

the

interim

rules

by

circulating

a

~puhl:Lc

draft”

proposal

and

inviting

comments

and

alternati:Lve

proposals.

The

Illinois

State

Chamber

of

Com-

merce filed an alternative proposal which

was

consolidated

for

review

w~th the

R~’ard~s

initial

proposal

under

Docket R8l—20

on

September

16,

L981.

The

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(IEPA)

offered

another

alternative

proposal

on

October

9,

1981.

These

three

proposals

were

labeled

Exhibits

1,

2, a~~:3,

respectively,

in

the

record

of

the

proceeding.

(Additional

amendatory

:lar~guaqa

~as

proposed

and

entered

into

the

record

in

the

course

of

rhe

proceeding.)

Hearings

were

held

on

R81—20

on

October

IE,

l6~

and

19,

1981

to

consider

the

merits

of

all

proposals before

the

3oarcl,

The

attached

proposal

contains

elements

of

each

of

the

proposals

before

the

Board

and

also

ref

1

~s the pubIc

comment.

and

testimony

received

-t

.

Overview

Basically,

these

regulations

establish

a

oermitting

program.

They describe

the

standards

for

Agency

issuance

of an ACS permit,

as well

as the information which

must

be

contained

in an ACS per-

mit application to enable the Agency to make its determination.

Due to the nature of

ACS,

several

aspects

of

the ACS permit

program differ from the standard permitting requirements con-

tained in Part

I of Chapter

2.

For example,

an ACS application

must

provide

a demonstration of “equivalence” to other existing

requirements with regard to

emissions,

environmental

quality,

and

methods

of

compliance..

In

addition,

each

ACS emission

source

must

comply

with

unique

limitations

contained

in

its

permit.

These

limitations

are

pred~cated

on

the

compliance

of

all

other emiss:Lon sources

in the

ACS,

Thus,

specialized

provisions

are

necessary

for

recordkeeping

and

reporting,

revision, renewal~ and

describing

the

responsibilities and

liabilities of

partrcipantr

in multi—person ACS,

Because

ACS

permits

are

new

and

potentially

more

complex

than

other Chapter

2

permits,

the

Board

anticipates

that

exten-

sive

communication

:)etween

the

permit

applicant

and

the

Agency

will

occur

prior

to

issuance

of

an

ACS

permit.

The

regulations

have

been drafted

to provide

the

flexibility

necessary

to

tailor

ACS

permits

to

the variety

of

strategies

which

may

be

proposed.

The

application

information,

the recordkeeping and reporting,

and

the

monitoring

and

testing

provisions

provide

that

the

Agency

may

request

any

reasonable

additional

information

which

may

be

needed

to

make

a

determination

and

insure

compliance

under

a

particular

ACS

configuration.

For

example,

an

ACS

proposal

may

Inc lude

nori~~-traditiona1

emission

sources,

such

as

fugitthe

emlss:Lcn

sources,

or

mobile

sources,

Although

these

sources

?resent

special

oroblems

and

will

undoubtedly

require

exLens ive

documentation

and

safeguards

to

insure

equivalency

and

compi~ance,

it.

is

unnecessary

to

address

these

special problems In the

Board

regulations.

The

Agency

46—i

28

---

3

can

review such applications on a case—by—case

basis within

the context

of these regulations.

II.

Definitions

Chapter

2 definitions are made applicable

to this Part.

(The Board notes that definitions are contained in both

Parts

I and

II of

Chapter 2,)

In particular,

the definition

of “emission source”

(Rule

101),

i.e.,

“any equipment or

facility

of a type capable

of emitting specified

air contami-

nents

to

the atmosphere,”

is important

in the ACS

context

because

trades under an ACS would

focus

on each “emission

source”

rather than an entire plant or “source,”

It

should

also be

noted that the definition of “person”

(Rule

101)

includes

any “agency, political subdivision of this State,

any other

state or political subdivision or agency

thereof,”

Thus,

governmental

bodies,

as

“owners

or

operators,”

may

participate

in an ACS.

Several new definitions are made applicable to this Part

only.

Notably,

“Actual Emissions,”

“Allowable Emissions,”

“Emission

Baseline,”

“Potential

to Emit,” and “Alternative

Control

Strategy (ACS)” are essential terms

in an

ACS context.

Some

of these definitions may also be determined to

apply to

“Part

XI:

Major Source Review Programs”

in the course of the

final rulemaking on R81-l6.

If

so,

a change in placement of

the definitions may be appropriate

at the time that regulation

is promulgated.

Definitions

of “Major Stationary Source” and

“Stationary

Source” were

proposed

to be

included in

the

ACS

rules by

Illinois EPA.

However, because ACS focus on “emission

sources,”

the Board

believes these definitions are irrelevant

to this rulemaking and that

it

would he better to focus on them

in R8l—l6.

III.

Standards of Issuance

Each of the four standards in Section

212.120 must he met

for issuance of an ACS permit.

Sections 212.120(a)

and

(b)

reflect the statutory constraints contained in Section

39,1(a)

of the

Act.

Section 212,120(c)

requires that methods

for

determining compliance must be equivalent to those

associated

with otherwise applicable requirements.

The term “environmen-

tally equivalent” has been replaced with the term

“equivalent”

in this section in response to the comment that environmental

equivalence is confusing with regard to methodology.

The func-

tion

of this requirement is to insure appropriate mechanisms

for determining the environmental equivalence of the

ACS as

mandated

by the Act.

Section 212,120(d)

states that certain

regulations cannot be superseded by an alternative

strategy.

These

are:

New Source Performance

Standards

(Part IX),

46—129

---

4

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(Part

X),

and the Major Source Permit Programs

(Part XI),*

The constraint with regard to new sources is required by

the

Clean Air Act as interpreted in Federal case

law.

(See ASARCO,

Inc.

v,

EPA,

11 ERC 1129

(D.C.

Cir,

1978).)

IV.

~pp~j~ation Information

In addition to specific information with regard

to each

emission source, the application must contain an analysis

of

emissions,

environmental quality, and methods of assuring com-

pliance,

This

analysis will provide the basis

for the Agency

determination

of

compliance with the standards of issuance

and

the overall equivalence of the ACS with other regulatory

and

statutory requirements.

In each analysis (Sections 212.111,

212.112,

and 212.113) the applicant must compare the

ACS

with

a “base case,”

i.e.,

the emissions,

impacts, or methods

which

would

exist or be allowed under existing regulations.

Basically, the analysis

of emissions should

compare ACS

emissions to the “baseline emissions,”

for each

source

in-

volved in an ACS.

Contrary to the argument of one

commentor,

the comparison of baseline and ACS emissions for each emission

source

is necessary to insure the equivalence and enforce-

ability of the ACS.

Notably,

U.S.

EPA commented they

will

require submittal of the emission limitations

applicable to

each

emission source in a “generic” type ACS to

insure federal

enforceability.

Air quality analysis

is too cumbersome

to

serve as a mechanism for ongoing oversight of an ACS or

any

other permit.

To insure that emission reductions relied

on

for

other purposes are not “double—counted” and that

other

unanticipated effects will not accompany the ACS, the

analysis

must also describe emission increases from emission

sources

outside the ACS which may accompany the proposed ACS.

In

response to comments,

the additional phrase “or affect”

has

been deleted from Section 212,111(b),

Although the

Agency

may consider any emission increase from an outside source

which affects an

ACS,

it

is not necessary to place the

responsibility

for identifying

such outside sources on the

ACS applicant.

The environmental quality analysis must address air

qual-

ity impacts,

risk

to the public health and welfare,

and

other

*The proposed Major

Source Permit Program regulations

are

the

subject of Docket R81-l6,

A

rule adopting the interim

Non-attainment Area portion of these rules

(Interim Rule

R8l—l6)

was adopted on December 17,

1981,

The final rule

(R8l—l6),

which will cover both Non-attainment and Attainment Areas

is awaiting an

Economic

Impact

Study.

46—

130

---

environmental

impacts associated with

the proposed ACS,

Contrary

to

the argument of one commentor,

the requirement

that

the ACS applicant describe any other

environmental

impacts which may accompany

the ACS

is

not overly broad.

The

scope

of

this analysis is mandated by the language of

P,A,

82-0540 which requires that ACS provide “equivalent

protection of the environment.”

The effect of ACS emissions

on

the environment must be equivalent to that of emissions

which would otherwise occur or be allowed to occur.

V.

~~inE~~ion

One

component of the

environmental quality analysis re-

quired of an

ACS permit applicant under these regulations

is

a comparison of

air quality under

existing regulations and

under the ACS.

Generally, dispersion modeling is required to predict the

impact

of the ACS.

However, because modeling is

expensive

and

may not be necessary

to

insure air quality in some

situations,

Section 212,112(a)

provides that the Agency may exempt an

emission source

from the

general modeling requirement if any

one of three

specified demonstrations

are

made.

First, Section 212,ll2(a)(l)

provides that

if

the pol-

lutant

which

is

the subject of the ACS

is not susceptible

to

modeling or

if,

due to its nature, modeling will not identify

its air

quality

impacts,

the Agency may dispense with the

modeling

requirement.

This,

for example, may apply to VOC

or

NO~

ACS where modeling

is often considered

to

produce am-

biguous

results,

While providing flexibility, this provision

also includes specific standards for the use of administra-

tive discretion.

Second,

Section

2l2,l12(a)(2) provides an exemption

from

modeling requirements

for sources located in close proximity

to one

another.

The

rationale for

this

exemption is that the

accepted

modeling techniques do not

distinguish the impact of

an ACS

trade made between such

sources as long

as

plume

heights

remained

relatively

the

same.

(Local impacts are primarily

a

function of

plume heights, while

long distance impacts are

primarily a function of the distance between emission sources.)

Although

there is discussion in

the record of various other

distances

(R,

129-140),

the Board

is persuaded

by the logic

supporting a

250 meter exemption.

The

250 meter distance

represents

a

reasonable estimate of the

distance that could

occur between

the location of the actual

maximum impact and

the nearest

modeled receptor

if a receptor grid

with 500 meter

spacing

is utilized,

This is the grid spacing

generally

accepted

by U.S.

EPA for

modeling.

Thus,

it should he con-

sistent

with modeling

demonstrations made

in the SIP and

should

provide equivalent protection

of air quality.

46—131

---

6

U.S.

EPA commented that they believe that a

better

“rule

of

thumb”

for the plume height criteria of the

modeling

exemp.-

bion in Section

212,ll2(a)(2) would

be that emission increases

must always be

higher than emission decreases.

Although

this

would generally insure greater dispersion,

it would preclude

reasonable use

of this exemption

where an increase occurred

slightly lower than its

off-setting

decrease,

It would

also

allow a great difference in

plume

heights to be exempted

from

modeling

so long as the increase

was the higher.

The

use of

the

“not significantly different” plume

height criteria

both

provides

reasonable flexibility

and more accurately

addresses

situations

in which modeling is likely to

he irrelevant than

does

the U.S. EPA’s proposed language.

It is

anticipated that sources

qualifying under the

250

meter exemption

will

be considered

to

fall within the U.S.

EPA

“Generic

Bubble” guidelines.

U.S.

EPA has

indicated that it

will

not require

individual

SIP review of ACS permits which

fall within the “Generic

Bubble” guidelines.

(See

46

FR

20552,

April

6,

1981

(Exhibit #10).)

Included

in those

guidelines

is a

modeling exemption

for emission sources located

within

a specified distance from one another (100 to 250 meters).

The Board has provided the

250

meter exemption

as well

as the

alternative

exemption

discussed below,

It

is anticipated

that

both should meet

tJ,S,

EPA “general bubble”

guidelines.

Section

2l2,l12(a)(3) contains an alternative

exemption

from the modeling requirement

which

allows a permit

applicant

to

demonstrate

that the

differences

in location, plume height,

etc.

are

not

likely

to

significantly

affect

ambient

air

qual-

ity.

This

option will enable applicants owning

emission

sources which

are greater

than 250 meters apart to

demonstrate

that modeling is unnecessary for their particular

ACS.

A

permittee

may need to perform limited modeling

or monitoring

to

demonstrate

that significance levels

will not be

exceeded.

Because

this exemption references the actual

concern, i.e.,

the impact

of

the ACS

on air quality,

it need not

specify

distances

between emission sources,

This provision exists

within U.S.

EPA itself as

to the

appropriate distance between

sources and

the fact that testimony

from modelers in the

record of

this proceeding revealed

that in certain situations

distances between sources

cannot be

correlated to air quality

impacts~

It

is anticipated that emission sources qualifying

under this exemption

will

fall within

current “generic bubble”

guidelines

and may be exempt from

individual

SIP review,

Impacts

that are

to be considered

“significant” are estab-

lished

in

Section 212,112(a)(3),

These levels

are taken

from

the

U.S.

EPA Emission Offset Interpretive

Ruling,

Appendix

S

to 40 CFR

51,18(k),

IEPA indicated in the

record that these

are the

significance levels they

would refer to in

determining

whether

modeling is necessary,

(R.

286,

490.)

(Also

see

---

7

Exhibit

#17.)

To

provide

an

enforceable

standard

for

all

parties, these levels are included in the Board rules.

The steel companies argue that the significance levels

in Section 212.112(3) should be used only to specify what is

not significant, while allowing the Agency the discretion to

~Eermine

that higher levels are not significant for other

reasons.

They argue that the fact that one or more receptor

points on a modeling grid exceed threshold levels may not be

conclusive evidence of a significant impact.

(See p.

14-15,

P.C.

#26.)

CBE argues that there must

not

be a significantly

greater impact at any receptor.

They

argue

that local monitor-

ing sites are not necessarily the areas of greatest impact.

(See p.

10,

P.c.

#33.)

Whenever specifying criteria there

is always a danger of being overly restrictive.

However, the

purpose

of including specific criteria in this rule is to

provide

a

quick

and

easily enforceable ‘screening test” to

determine if modeling is necessary to protect the environment.

It is improper to

consider

such

a

mechanism

valid

it it indi-

cates no impact,

but

consider it questionable if it indicates

some impact.

The

method

for proving there is an error in this

procedure is to provide modeling.

CBE commented that the ‘screening tests”,

which

provide

exemptions from modeling,

should be used only where traditional

stack sources

are

involved; that the Board should

set

specific

modeling criteria for fugitive emissions; and that the Board

should

specify

that

emission

sources

use

the

best

and

most

appropriate models.

(See pp. 7—10,

P.C.

#33.)

To insure that

the characteristics of the emission

source

are considered in

each of the “screening’ tests, Sections 2l2.112(a)(l)

and (2)

have been modified to require such consideration.

Also, Sec-

tion 212.112(a) has been modified to state that all dispersion

modeling must be based on the best

and

most appropriate models

for the pollutant and emission sources involved.

U.S.

EPA drafts required that all emission points in-

cluded in the ACS be within a specifl&i distance fran one

another to take advantage of the “close proximity” exemption.

However,

the

justification for this position is unclear in

light of the fact that the focus

of

both

the required model-

ing

and

the exemption is on the “emission sources” involved

in a particular trade, rather than the entire ACS.

(See the

definition of ‘Emission Source’, Rule

101, Chapter 2.)

For

example, under a given ACS, sources A and B

may

increase

emissions on the condition that source C reduces emissions

to the extent necessary to offset both increases.

Since

the emission ‘trades’ are between ‘A and C’ and ‘B and C’,

any change in air quality is a function of those trades.

The distance between sources which are not ‘trading’ emission

increases and decreases is irrelevant if the effect of each

46—133

---

8

On a related point,

Illinois EPA’s proposal required

dispersion modeling only for “major sources.”

Although the

fact

that

a source is a major source is critical

in the

Major

Source

Review Program context

(R8l-l6),

it

should not affect

an ACS.

This is because an ACS is based on trades between

individual

“emission sources”

rather than entire

“sources”,

as noted

above,

The correct focus

in these rules

is

on the

amount of

emissions and the location of the individual

emission

source.

VI,

Baseline

The establishment of the proper emission baseline for

the

crediting of emission increases and reductions under an

ACS

was hotly

debated in this proceeding,

The Board’s

initial

pro-

posal

(Exhibit

I)

tracked the language of

U.S.

EPA

Region V~s

“Generic

Bubble

Rule”

and,

among

other

things,

related

the

baseline

determination to the data base relied

on

in the SIP.

The initial

Illinois State Chamber

of Commerce proposals

(Exhibits

2

and 2(a))

proposed that existing Board emission

limitations

or “allowable” emissions be

used as the baseline

for ACS

determinations,

The Illinois EPA (Exhibit

3) pro-

posed

that the lesser of the actual or allowable

emissions

be

used,

The second amended ISCC proposal

(Exhibit 2(b))

largely

adopted the approach recommended by

the IEPA; however,

it proposed

that

the

definition

of

actual emissions “reflect

those

emission levels existing

prior to reductions beyond the

requirements

of Board regulations

which resulted from the

installation of pollution control equipment,

changes

in process

procedures,

materials

or shutdowns,”

To

resolve

this

issue,

it

is

necessary

to

review

the

purposes

of

P.A.

82—0540

and

the

structure of the air pollution control program.

A,

Statut~y~~o~se

The legislative intent of P,

A.

82—0540 is

stated in

the findings of the General Assembly in Section 9,3(a).

That section indicates an intent to authorize alternative

control strategies which are “environmentally equivalent

to

strategies

required by Board regulations

or the terms

of

this Act” and “assure equivalent protection of the environ-

ment,”

(Section 9,3(a)).

In

both

their testimony and comments, industry repre-

sentatives have

argued

that

this language is an “explicit”

requirement that the allowable emission limitations contained

in

Board regulations be used as the emission baseline for ACS

permits.

Far

from

being

explicit,

the

statutory

language does

not

mention

emission

baseline,

The

General

Assembly did speci-

fically

state that alternative control

strategies must

provide

protection for the environment equivalent to that

which would

46~134

---

9

exist

under

Board

regulations,

A

strategy

which

is

environmen-

tally

equivalent

to

Board

regulations

or

emission

limitations

would

not

generally

utilize

the

allowable

emission

limitation

as

the emission baseline.

In

fact,

if one reads

into the statute

a requirement that allowable emissions be used as the

emissions

baseline,

the statute would be internally

inconsistent because

it

would result in environmental degradation.

Testimony

in the

record indicated that

if owners of emission

sources for which

actual emissions

were utilized

in

the

SIP demonstration were

permitted

to

calculate

decreases

in

emissions

from

the

maximum

allowable

emissions

limit

set

by

Board

rules,

emissions

would

actually

increase

and

that,

as

a

result,

several

areas

of

the

state

which

are

currently

attainment

areas

or

unclassified

areas

would

become

non—attainment

areas.

(R.

201,

441—445,)

B.

Lesser

of

Actual

or

Allowable

Emissions

as

the

Baseline

As aptly

stat.ed

by

the

Agency

in

the

record

of

this

pro-

ceeding:;

“The

major

focus

of

air

pollution

control

efforts

has

been

and

continues to

be on what

is actually happening,

that

is,

the measurement of actual

pollutant

levels,

the

assessment

of

who

is

causing or

contributing

to

those

levels,

and

what reductions in

emissions

are

necessary

to

ensure

attainment

and

maintenance

of

the

national

ambient

air

quality

standards,”

(R.

417.)

The use

of the lesser

of actual

or

allowable

emissions

as the

baseline

to

insure

environmental

equivalence

is

dictated

by

the

language

and structure of the entire

air

pollution

control

program.

The Clean

Air Act,

the Environmental

Protection Act,

the Board’s

Rules*

and

the

State

Implementation Plan all have

*As

stated

in

the

earlier

Opinion,

the Board’s existing

Rule

102

of

Chapter

2

is

a

direct

prohibition on the discharge

of

contamin.ent.s

“either

alone

or

in

combination

with

contami—

nents

from other sources” which

will

prevent

attainment

or

maintenance

of the AQS.

in

the

Opinion of the Board

accom-

panying

adoption of Rule

102, the

Board emphasized the goal

of

ensurinq

the

air

n:ualthy standards:

“Because

even

the tightest

emission

standards cannot assure

that

emissions are

clean

enough

to breathe,

the unlimited

proliferation

of sources

in

a relatively small area

could

result

in violations

of the

air

quality standards

even if

each

source ~net its emission standard

.

,

C

ompliance

with

the emission standards

is a

minimum;

it

is essential

that

whatever

measures

are

necessary,

subject

to proof

regarding economic reasonableness

in the particular

case,

be

taken

to

ensure

that

the air quality standards are

met.”

(See C)pinIon of

the

Board,

R71—23,

p.

4—5.)

---

:t. o

as

their

stated goal

the preservation of

existing

air

resources

and

the achievement

of

the

national

air

quality

standards.

The

emission baseline utilized in

an ACS must be

established

such

that attainment and maintenance of

these

air quality goals

will not he jeopardized

by

emission

increases

projected

under

the ACS.

Although this does

not

mean the emission baseline

used

must always be

“actual emissions,”

it

does require,

as a

minimum,

that no emission reductions

be

credited under an ACS

which

are necessary for the achievement

and maintenance of the

air

quality

goals

in

Illinois,

The

State Implementation Plan

(SIP)

is the

“blueprint”

utilized by the State

to “define the process by

which air

pollut:Lon

goals

will be achieved,”

(Illinois

SIP,

Executive

Summary,

p.

1.)

The original emission limitations

adopted

by

the

Board

in R7l—23 were designed

to

be

a

component

of

the

State

Implementation

Plan,

Both

the

SIP

and

the

Board

regula-

tions

were

designed

to

achieve

and

maintain

the

federally

established

AQS.

(See Opinion

of the Board,

R7l—23,

p.2.)

The air

quality

data, modeling, and projections utilized in

the

SIP

were

a

part

of

the

record

in

R7l-23, and were relied

upon

in

the

Board’s

dec:Lsion.

(See

Opinion

of

the

Board,

R71—23,

pp.

2,

11,

17,

19,

27—29,

32—33,

38,

42,

44).

Therefore,

the data used

as

the

basis

for

both

the

emission

limitations

and

the

SIP

should provide

the

best

available

tool

for

determining

which

decreases

under

an

ACS

can

be

credited

without

disrupting

the

air

quality program.

The

SIP relied

upon

modeling

which

utilized

the

lesser

of actual

or allowable emissions for emission sources.

(See,

for example,

SIP Volume

2,

p.

721;

SIP Volume

3,

p.

813;

and

R.

198.)

The

Board takes notice

of testimony received in the

R7l-23

and

R74-2 proceedings which

outlined the methodology

relied

upon in the development of the SIP and the

emission

limitations.

(See the abstracts of these

proceedings prepared

by Marder and Associates

(the “Marder Report”),

pp.

1—28

to

1-30,

1-51 to 1—53,)

Brief:Ly, the

following

method was used:

1)

the Federal

AQS were taken as the air quality

goal;

2)

exist-

ing air quality

data

was

compiled;

3) an

emission

inventory

of

Illinois emission sources

was

compiled;

4) growth

projections

were

calculated

for

each source;

5) the air

quality

data,

the

emission inventory

(with

growth

projections) and the proposed

emission

limitations were plugqed into a dispersion model;

6)

the model

produced a graph

indicating the

air quality which

could be expected from use of

the

proposed emission limitations

under these

specific

circumstances.

Simply

speaking, this

method

used

actual air quality,

actual

emissions

(generally),

and

a

set

of projections.

Actual emissions

and

actual

back-

ground

levels form the baseline for

the

calculation

of

the

appropriate

allowable emission

limitation.

Thus,

to

assure

the

environmental

equivalence

of

ACS

emissions,

it

is

necessary,

as

a

general

rule,

to utilize the

lesser

of

actual

or

allowable

46—136

---

11

emissions as the baseline for calculating increases and decreases

C.

Allowable Emissions as the Emission Baseline

Use of the allowable emission limitations as

the

emission

baseline in ACS cannot assure achievement and maintenance of

the

State’s air quality goals.

If the allowable emission rate

is substituted for actual emissions as the baseline in the

modeling equation described above, either the

AQS

would not

be

met

or the allowable emission limitation would differ from

that in the

Board

regulations.

The use -Of the allowable emis-

sion rate as the baseline in general for emission sources

using this Part would similarly distort the attainment equation

and thus would

not

be environmentally equivalent to existing

regulations.

It is probable that pollution would increase if allowable

emissions were used as the baseline for ACS because increments

of emission reductions take on an economic value under an ACS.

If a banking system is eventually adopted, even emission sources

which are not involved in an ACS could

“bank”

credit for an

artificial emission reduction equal to the currently unutilized

emission increment or the difference between their actual and

allowable emissions.

Thus, use of an allowable emissions base-

line would create an economic incentive for emission sources

to utilize or “bank” currently unutilized emission increments

up to the

maximum

allowable emissions.

An increase in actual

pollution is inevitable under these circumstances.

Such an

increase would be contrary to the equivalence intended by P.A.

82-0540

and

the basic concept that ACS should be neutral.

D.

Mechanism for Demonstrating Equivalent

Air

Quality

Industry argues that an air quality analysis demonstrating

equivalent air quality would provide an adequate mechanism for

insuring “environmental equivalence.”

(See P.C.

#26,

#28.)

This is incorrect.

The very reason for having emission limita-

tions

is the fact that air qualitjp demonstrations do not provide

an adequate administrative and enforcement mechanism.

Modeling

and

monitoring

are

too

cumbersome

and

expensive to be performed

on

a

regular

basis

to .insure continued compliance.

The admin-

istration of permits utilizing only air quality demonstrations

to show environmental equivalence would be unworkable.

Modeling

and monitoring are also less reliable indicators with regard

E.

More Representative Time Period

Several witnesses in this proceeding expressed concern that

businesses which are currently operating below their normal pro—

duction capacity would be penalized by use of an actual emission

baseline which reflected current conditions.

46—137

---

12

does

not

occur,

the

definition

of

actual

emissions

has been

drafted to require the Agency to utilize

a more representative

time period upon finding that data

from the preceding two

years

does not represent normal source operation.

The burden of

demonstrating that another

time period

is more representative

is on the permit applicant.

To clarify a point raised in the

comments,

“normal operations” refers to historical operations,

rather than hypothetical operations.

If

this were not the case,

a “paper”

credit would exist

for

the

increment between actual

operations

and hypothetical operations.

On

a

related

point,

ACS

permits

should

retain the same

degree of flexibility as a regular permit.

The

use

of

actual

emissions

as

a

baseline should not be

construed as

a new urn—

itation on

hours

of operation

or

production levels.

For example,

an applicant may propose that emissions be calculated as

a

function of

units

of production or process

weight

(R.

203-205).

“Process standards”

such as these are currently used in Chapter

2, e.g.,

Rule 203.

The calculations made from the baseline do

not create any new prohibitions on activities which are other—

wise allowable under existing permits.

Contrary to the argument

of one commentor,

these rules do not “cap” existing emissions

nor usurp

business

decisions,

(P.C.

#26.)

Unlike the proposal

which the

Board rejected

in

R79~~3,the ACS

provisions of the

Act

and regulations

allow businesses to voluntarily enter into

agreements

to trade emission increases and

decreases,

No busi-

ness

is required to do so, and business discretion

is expanded,

not

reduced.

The

limitations

that apply to a business that

decides

to

utilize an

ACS are

1)

that

equivalent protection

of

the

environment

be

assured,

and

2)

that

reductions which

have been committed

to

“offset”

ACS

increases be maintained.

The

first

limitation

is

required

by

the

Environmental

Pro-

tection

Act;

the

second

arises

as

a

result

of

the

contract

existing

between

persons

utilizing

an

ACS.

VII,

Additional

Creditable

Reductions

Notwithstanding

the general

baseline

rule,

there is an

inequity

created

by

disallowing

emission

reduction

credits for

reductions

achieved

by

virtue

of

pollution

controls

implemented

at a time or in a situation where ACS were not available.

Although it

is

impossible to resolve

all inequities,

Section

212,105(b)

limits

this inequity to the extent

possible consis-

tent

with the mandate of “environmental

equivalence.”

Section

212.105(b) creates an exception allowing emission

reductions

to be credited

under an ACS to the extent that

1)

they

were

achieved

as a result of actions taken to reduce emissions,

2)

they reduced emissions below required levels,

and 3)

they

were not

relied upon by the Agency in

the compliance year

demonstration under the SIP.

Such emission reductions are

creditable only “to

the

extent” that they meet the

stated

46~138

---

conditions.

Thus,

that

portion

of

a

reduction

which

is

attributable

to

other factors

or

was

predicted

and

relied

upon in the

SIP is not creditable.

These

three conditions,

taken together, provide an equitable approach to crediting

emission

reductions which would not have been achieved but

~or

actions taken

to

reduce

emissions beyond what is normally

required.

At

the same time,

the

condition that an emission

reduction cannot have been relied on in the SIP demonstration

insures that the crediting of these reductions will not inter-

fere with

the

State’s

achievement

of

air quality goals.

By

crediting

emission reductions

whenever

these

conditions

have

been

met,

this

provision should

encourage

owners

of

sources

to

reduce

emissions

as

quickly

as

they

are technologically

capable

of

doing

so.

Two cornmentors suggested that Section 212.105(b) be re-

worded to indicate that emission reductions are creditable

to the determination of actual emissions,

(pp.

2—3, P.C.

#31;

PP.

3,

Attachment. to P.C.

#28,)

The

suggested

rewording

has

several problems.

First,

the suggested language

is less rather

than more clear.

Second,

it

suggests

a more limited concept.

Subsection

(b)

provides a framework for

the crediting

of all

emission

reductions,

rather

than

simply

a

supplement

to

the

computation

of

the

actual

emission

baseline.

An increment of

emission

reduction

should

be

creditable

as

an

emission

reduc-

tion

for

emission

sources using either

an

actual

or allowable

emission

baseline,

subject,

of

course,

to

the

limitation

in

Section

212,105(h)(2) that

a reduction is

creditable

only

to

the

extent that

it takes

emissions below

the requirements of

Board

regulations.

A.

p

dReduEmission

s

Many of the

comments received during

the First Notice

period

focused

on

the prerequisites

to

utilization

of

Section

212.105(h).

At least one

eommentor argued that the “designed

to

reduce

emission” requirement is

a

“motive

test”

which

is

both inappropriate and unenforceable,

(P.C.

#23.)

This provi-

sion was

riot

designed

to

probe

the

permittee’s intent.

Rather,

it was

designed to insure an air

quality impact equivalent

to that

which

would have otherwise

existed.

Under the existing

rules,

many reductions occur which

accrue

to

the benefit of the

general public

both

in terms

of

cleaner air and in improving

the State’s

margin for growth.

ACS make it possible for this

increment

of

air

quality

improvement to accrue to the benefit

of a private

operator

who

can

offset

this

“naturally occurring”

reduction

with increases which would

not otherwise have occurred.

This would

create a negative

environmental

impact which is

pro-

hibited

by

the

statutory requirement

of

equivalence.

However,

the ACS

concept

is

intended

to

allow owners and

operators

to

benefit

from

t,he

creation

of

reductions

which would not have

otherwise

occurred.

For

example,

if

a piece of equipment

---

14

which

would

normally

have

to

be

replaced after ten years

is

replaced

after five years with cleaner,

new

equipment,

the

owner/operator

has created

a reduction

(of five years in

duration)

which

would

not have occurred

except

for

the

pur-

pose of creating an

c.r.c..

Although determining the purpose

for

which

an

action

is

taken

requires

individual

review

of

the

situation,

it need not

be

a subjective

decision.

Furthermore,

the fact that other factors (such as economic benefits) in-

fluence the decision does not necessarily mean the reduction

cannot

be credited,

To make

it clear that the creation of an

emission

reduction

need

not

he

the

sole

motivation

for

taking

the

action,

but

must

be

determinative,

the language of Sub-

section 2l2,l05(h)(l) has been modified to allow credit for

emission

reductions

“which

would

not

have

occurred

but

for

the purpose

of

creating an emission reduction,”

B.

Rel:Led Upon in the SIP

Both

industrial commentors and

CBE

have

argued

that

the

“relied

upon

in the SIP” parameter is problematic.

Industry

argues

that

the SIP was never intended

to

be

used

for

this

purpose;

that

it

is too vague

to

be

referenced

as

a

standard

(e.g., categories

of reductions

are often relied upon);

that

this

provision

over’~de1egates

authority

to

the

Agency;

and

that, minimally, only reductions “necessary” to show attain—

ment should be unavailable,

On the

other

side,

CBE

argues

that

actual

air

quality

and

therefore

actual

emissions,

not

what was relied on in the SIP, must serve as the maintenance

strategy in attainment areas due to the structure of the PSD

increment program; that emission reductions

made

prior

to

the

SIP monitoring

should

not be available because they were re-

flected

in the monitored background or basis of the SIP; that

uninventoried sources should be excluded from ACS permits until

they are brought into the inventory;

and that sources in NAA’s

without

a SIP demonstrating attainment should not be permitted

to participate in an ACS.

In its comments,

the IEPA agrees

that the SIP criteria

is

problematic,

hut states that it should be

implementable within

the administration of the permit

program.

The Agency states

that the act:Lons on which

it

has relied to predict attainment in

the SIP are for the most part categorical rather than facility

specific,

for example:

1)

reduced emissions as

a consequence

of improved maintenance procedures,

and 2)

reduced fugitive

emissions

through

a

reasonable

fugitive

control

program.

The

Agency states it would also look at the assumptions underlying

the

SIP

demonstration as reflected

in

ambient

air

monitoring

or

typical industrial practice,

and, with regard

to specific facil-

ities,

it

would

primarily

look

at

the

presence

of

equipment

or

control devices

in the

emission inventory.

(P.C.

#31.)

---

1.

The SIP asADecision~Mak

ingStandard

Recognizing the limitations

of the SIP, the proposed

rule does

not

rely

on

the

SIP

inventory for the definition

of

baseline

emissions.

As a general rule,

actual emissions is the

baseline.

The

SIP

is

only

referenced

to

determine

if

additional

emission

reductions,

which are claimed

to

have

been

made,

were

relied

upon

as

a

part

of

the

State’s

air

quality

strategy.

For

example,

if the SIP assumed the

replacement

of older equipment

with

newer, cleaner equipment for a particular

industry

and

the

State relied on that reduction as

a part of

the demonstration,

the

increment

of

reduction

attributable

to

that

action

could

not be

used as an ACS emission reduction

credit by sources in

that industry,

The use of the SIP that

is anticipated

by this

rule,

and

that

the

Agency

has

indicated

it

would

make,

should

be of

a

general, hut verifiable, nature.

Given

the

fact

that

the

SIP

demonstration

must

include

a

certain margin for error in its

projections,

it

would be unreal-

istic

to

say

that

only those reductions

which

were

absolutely

necessary

to show attainment or maintenance should

be considered

to have been

“relied upon.”

(See P.C.

#26,)

However,

the

‘~rden

of proof

with regard to reliance in

the SIP is on the

Agency.

At least one commentor

argues that the reference

to the

reductions

relied upon in the SIP in Section 2l2.l05(b)(3)

represents

an illegal delegation

to

the Agency of the

author-

ity

to

establish

emission

control

requirements

that are more

stringent

than the

Board’s regulations.

(P.C.

#26,)

In

Commonwealth Edison Co.

v.

Pollution

Control

Board,

343 N.E.

2d 459,

461

(1976),

the Illinois Supreme Court

upheld a Board

rule

authorizing

the

Agency

to

make

case—b~’-casedeterminations

altering

the otherwise appiicable air quality requirements

in

accordance

with

the

Board—prescribed

standards of

“justified

by necessary

economic and social developments

and

will

not

interfere with or become injurious

to

human health or welfare.”

Section 212,105(b) (3) contains several similar and,

in

fact,

more definite standards.

Specifically,

a reduction must

have

been

1)

“relied upon,”

2)

“in the State Implementation Plan”

(which

is a fixed and verifiable public document),

and

3)

“to

demonstrate compliance with the ambient air quality

standards”

or “maintenance of air

quality.”

Section 212.105(c)

provides

additional

insurance that the Agency’s case—by—case

determina-

tions

follow the prescribed standard by placing the burden

of

proof

on this issue on the Agency.

Lastly,

all Agency’s

permit

determinations are reviewable by the Board under Section

40

of

the Environmental Protection Act,

As written,

Section

212,105(b) (3) provides both specific standards and

procedural

safeguards

adequately

limiting Agency discretion.

---

16

2.

ç~~~tibility

With PSD

Program

CBE argues

that the additional creditable reductions

referred to in Section 212.105(b)

should not be available to

emission sources located in attainment areas because actual

emissions

form the baseline for the PSD increment program.

If an industry took steps to improve air quality beyond the

“maintenance”

level reflected in the SIP,

that increment of

reduction would be added to the growth increment for new in-

dustry under the PSD program.

Therefore,

there is no apparent

inconsistency in providing that such a reduction can be used

for ACS purposes under these

rules,

The PSD rules were not

intended to favor

new industries over

existing industries,

but

simply to insure a margin

for growth.

As written,

the proposed

rule for additional creditable reductions contains adequate

safeguards for maintenance of a growth increment.

Of course,

a single emission reduction cannot be “double—counted”

or

used

both to offset new growth and ACS increases.

This “double—

counting” is prohibited by Section 212.111(b)

and the Standards

of Issuance.

On a related point, several commentors have pointed

out that both the Environmental Protection Act and the Federal

Clean Air Act require maintenance of air quality,

as opposed to

just attainment of the AQS,

in attainment or clean areas.

One

of the standards of issuance, Section 212.120(b),

states that

the impact of an ACS must be environmentally equivalent to that

which would otherwise be achieved and maintained.

However,

the

former proposed Section 212.105(b) (3)

referenced only compliance

with the AQS and could be interpreted as allowing all attainment

area sources to utilize an “allowable” emissions baseline.

This was not the Board’s intention.

To remedy this,

Section

2.2,105(b)(3)

has been amended to reference “maintenance of

air quality”

for areas

other than non—attainment areas

(i.e.,

attainment and unclassified counties).

3,

Uninventoried Sources and Emission Levels Used

in the

SIP

Monitored and modeled background emission levels form

the

basis

of

the

SIP.

Therefore, emission

reductions

achieved

prior

to or at the

time of such

monitoring are included

in

the

SIP and must be considered to have been “relied upon” to project

attainment or maintenance.

Also,

although

not

individually

identified, the

existence

of

a

certain

number

of

malfunction

emissions and uninventoried sources are presumed

in the SIP

calculations,

Projected emissions from these

sources

have

been included in the monitored background levels.

(R.

373)

While these projections may be inexact,

the

margin

of

error

is limited

by the fact that most

large emission sources are

likely to have been inventoried,

An uninventoried source

should

be considered subject

to

the same categories of

“relied upon” reductions as are similar inventoried sources,

46-~E42

---

17

4.

NAA’s for Which the SIP

Does Not

Demonstrate

Attainment

CBE points out that there is at least one NAA in Illinois

(Southeast Chicago) for which the State has failed to specify

and

commit to controls which will bring that area into attain-

ment

(of the TSP AQS) by the deadlines mandated in the Clean

Air

Act.

CBE argues that emission reductions made in these areas

should not be allowed to be used in ACS because they are needed

for the attainment demonstration.

This

argument

implies that

these emission reductions would exist if the ACS were not avail-

able.

But, to the extent

that

an

ACS

permit

is based on an

“actual’ emission baseline, it would always involve the creation

of a new emission reduction which would not have occurred but

for

the

ACS.

Thus, an ACS based on actual emissions would not

“usurp’ e.r.c.’s which would otherwise be available for the SIP

demonstration. In fact, the availability of ACS in such a NAA

may

enable

sources that are currently

unable

to reduce emissions

at

one

emission

source

to

over—control

another

emission

source

to

come

into

compliance.

This

could

speed

the

attainment

of

the

AQS

for

the

area.

If further reductions are needed in an area to show

attain-

ment

by

mandated

deadlines,

substantive

regulations

requiring

those

reductions

will

be

applicable

to

ACS

permittees

just

as

they

are

to

other

permittees.

(R.

356,

492.)

Under

Section

212.105(a),

the

emission

baseline

is

the

‘lesser

of

the

actual

emissions or the allowable emissions prescribed by this Chapter.’

Thus, if the allowable emission limits are

made

more stringent,

the emission baseline for

ACS

permits is reduced and the

ACS

permit

must be revised pursuant to Section 212.160(a)(2).

An

example of such an emission limitation would be future RACT

requirements.

CBE is

correct

in

stating

that

the

control

obligations for ACS participants cannot be regarded as fixed

any more than the

obligations

of

other

permittees

are

fixed.

(See Rule 103(g) of Chapter 2 re: the Agency’s authority to

revise permits

upon

the revision of the

Act

or Chapter 2

regulations.)

A unique problem does arise, however, if an

ACS

participant

in a

NAA

which does not have a SIP demonstration proposes to

utilize an emission baseline which includes credit for reduc-

tions above its actual .emissions pursuant to Section 212.105(b).

The

difficulty is that no SIP demonstration exists for such an

area and, therefore, the condition in Section 212.105(b) (3)

cannot be complied with.

Absent a SIP demonstration, we have

not identified the reductions which are required for attainment

and

thus

we

cannot

identify

‘surplus’

reductions

that

are

not

necessary

to

assure

attainment.

‘lb

clarify

this

and

insure

that

ACS permits do not create an actual increase in emissions

in an area that is

known

to have unhealthy

air,

proposed

Section

46—143

---

18

tion

shall be creditable

beyond the

baseline in subsection

(a)

only

if the State Implementation Plan demonstrates attainment

for the area

and pollutants involved

by the compliance year.

C,

Emission

Reduction Credits from Shutdown Emission

Sources

The former proposed

rule

did not address

the use of

emisston

reduction credits obtained

from

the shutdown of an emission source

because the Board

felt

that

the issue had

not

been

adequately

discussed

in the

record.

However, comments received

during

the

First Notice Period indicate that a clarification of the appli-

cability of the interim rule

to

shutdowns is necessary.

Some of

the arguments presented

for crediting reductions

from shutdowns

are that they represent a large number of available emission

reduction credits;

that

several industries have relied on the

availability

of these credits;

and that to disallow these

credits would create an incentive for keeping older,

dirtier

plants and lines

in

service longer.

One commenbor argues that

owners of emission sources have a property ~right” to the emis-

sion

increment and

that

State

denial

of the use of this incre-

ment

is an unconstitutional

“taking~’of property,

(P.C.

#26.)

~.nother

commentor argues

that reductions

from a shutdown should

be creditable only

if

the plant or line is shut down before the

end of its expected life and that such reduction credits should

be

limited

in duration to the

difference in time

between

its

actual

shutdown

and

its

expected

life.

(P.C.

#32,)

In response to these comments, Section

2l2.l05(b)(l)

has

been amended to include shutdowns.

An emission reduction

created by

the premature

shutdown of an emission source is

not

essentially

different

from

that

created by the modification of

process,

materials,

etc.

The

duration

of an c.r.c.

created

by

a shutdown

is

determined

by the duration

of the ACS permit,

as

is the

duration

of

any

other

emission

reduction

credit.

The

fact

that an emission source is permanently shut down does

not

mean i~creates

a permanent c.r.c..

Rather,

an emission reduc-

tion credit is available only

in

the context of the

Board~s

permit

rules and from

permitted

emission sources,

If a

source

is prematurely shut

down in

order

to create an emission

reduc-

tion credit,

that

emission

source may be issued a Hzero_discharge~

ACS permit.

Section 212.145 has been amended to indicate that

the

duration of a permit and

its

renewability is linked to

the

life expectancy of the emission source.

This is essential in

order to preserve the “environmental equivalency” of the ACS

over time,

For example, if a product line is shut down three

years early,

under

Its

“zero discharge” permit,

its c.r.c.

can be used to

offset

emission increases for three years.

If

it is shut

down ten years early,

it

can participate in a five

year ACS permit and

renew the

permit for an additional five

years.

When

the lifetime of

the emission source is

exhausted,

the

c.r.c.

is also exhausted

and the ACS permit must

be

revised,

The burden of proving the useful

life

of the emission

source

is on the

applicant.

46~144

---

19

VIII.

Compliance Dates

Section 212.130(a) provides that sources utilizing an Alter-

native Control Strategy generally must meet the same compliance

deadlines

which

are

otherwise

required

by

Chapter

2

•

The

term

~as expeditiously as practicable

is intended to indicate that

sources which can achieve compliance before the stated deadline

are required to do so.

Section 212.130(b) provides an exception to the general

rule for sources

which

are subject to Rule 205 of Chapter 2

(VOC

emissions).

This exception is consistent with Section 172

of the Clean

Air

Act, as amended in 1977, which allows states to

extend

the

compliance

date

for

attainment

of

the

ozone

standard

until

December

31,

1987.

The

record

in

this

proceeding

is

replete

with

testimony

to

the

effect

that

many

sources

which

would otherwise be eligible to utilize an alternative control

strategy will be precluded from doing so in the absence of such

an extension

due

to

the

complexity of preparing and setting up

an Alternative Control Strategy before the currently applicable

December 31,

1982 compliance deadline.

(See R.

29—30, 40, 49—53,

59—60, 87.)

If precluded from utilizing an ACS, many of these

sources will be forced to purchase more expensive controls to

achieve the same emission reductions.

Such a result would be

contrary to the intent of V.A.

82-0540,

and

would result in

injury to the Illinois economy without yielding significant

environmental benefits.

Section 212.130(b)

is intended to provide a narrow

excep-

tion

to

the

general

rule.

The

Board

has

tailored

standards

for

the

issuance

of

ACS permits containing alternative com-

pliance plans to insure that this exception is

no

broader

than

absolutely necessary.

To fall within this limited exception,

the

compliance

plan,

must

be

contained

in

an

Agency—approved

permit, which

is applied for before December 31, 1982, and be

subject to the Agency’s public participation procedures.

To

approve such a plan the Agency must find that an extension

is genuinely necessary, environmentally beneficial, and con-

sistent with the Clean Air Act.

In determining the necessity for extending the compliance

deadline, the Board anticipates that the Agency will consider

factors

such

as the complexity of the proposed ACS, the time

required

for

equipment

purchase

and

installation,

and

the

good

faith efforts of the permittees to implement the ACS as quickly

as possible.

In addition, the Agency must find that the

ACS

will

result

in

a

net

benefit

to

the

environment,

either

in

terms

of

faster

or

greater

emission

reductions

than

would

otherwise

be

achieved.

Finally,

the

requirement

of

consistency

with

the

Clean Air Act’ requires the Agency to find,

among

other

things,

that

reasonable

further

progress

‘toward

attainment

of

the

ambient air quality standard’

46—145

---

20

Commentors

point out that if an

ACS

permit containing

a

compliance

date extension must actually

be issued by December

31,

1982,

ACS applicants must submit

an application to the

Agency by July

1,

1982 in order

to give the

Agency

180

days

to act on

the application as

prescribed by statute.

(P.C.

#28.)

Since it

is

unlikely that this rule

will be effective before

June

1,

1982,

this tight time frame could

preclude the

thorough

review

and analysis

necessary

for submission of a complete

application.

This

time

frame

would

also

place

the Agency under

unnecessary

pressure in reviewing

initial applications under

this new permit

program.

In light

of these considerations,

proposed

Section 212,130 has

been amended to require that the

permit

application be submitted no later

than

December

31,

1982,

rather than that the

permit

actually be issued by that

date.

The Agency points out that the compliance dates for

many

sources subject to

Rule 205

of Chapter

2 have already passed.

(See

Rule

205(j),)

The extension

provision is nob intended to

protect emission sources which are in violation of applicable

compliance deadlines.

Therefore,

the extension provision has

been

modified to

make

it clear that

it applies only to emission

sources with compliance deadlines of December 31,

1982 or later,

One

commentor argues that the

condition in Section

2l2,130(b)(2),

that the ACS

result in greater or faster over-

all

emission reductions,

is more

restrictive

than

the

Federal

Clean

Air Act because U.S.

EPA~sposition papers have

only ap-

plied

this prerequisite

to

compliance extensions

for sources in

non-attainment

areas,

(P.C.

#28.)

This argument

is convoluted

in

several

respects.

First,

it overlooks the

fact

that U.S.

EPA’s

position papers on this

topic are merely guidance and

do not rise to a level of

a

requirement under the Clean Air

Act.

Second,

it overlooks the fact

that Illinois emission

sources

in both attainment and

non—attainment

areas

are

sub-

ject

to Rule 205 requirements and compliance

deadlines.

If

anything, Section 212.130 relaxes existing requirements

for

emission

sources

in attainment

areas.

The function of the

requirement

in Section

2l2,130(b)(2)

is,

as stated in the

proposed

opinion,

to “offset”

the

delay

in emission

reduc-

tions

and

to insure

that the ACS provisions do not

become

an avenue for avoidance

of existing

deadlines,

In response to another related comment,

it

is not incon-

sistent to expect faster overall emission reductions may be

achieved

by use

of an ACS containing

a delayed compliance

schedule than

might otherwise be achieved,

(See P.C.

#31.)

If,

for example,

a

source could not

otherwise meet the appli-

cable

compliance deadline and

would require an

individual

variance,

an ACS may provide a faster

achievement

strategy.

46~i46

---

21

IX.

‘Generic

Bubble

Determination

These rules will be reviewed by U.S.

EPA for compliance

with

the

federal

‘Generic

Bubble’

policy.

As

stated

above,

the

‘Generic Bubble’ policy defines a type of relatively simple ACS

which

U.S.

EPA

has

determined

will

not require individual SIP

revisions.

Although several provisions of these rules go beyond

the current approved U.S. EPA policy, it is the function of these

rules, as a whole,

to provide a framework for all ACS, not just

simple

‘Generic

Bubbles.’

Rather

than

attempt

to

anticipate

changes

in

U.S.

EPA

policy

on

an

issue

over

which

the

State

has

no

jurisdiction,

the

Board will promulgate the rule as a whole

and

allow

U.S.

EPA

to

designate

those

portions

which

meet

their

requirements

for

Generic

Rules.

For

example,

these

rules

make

a

general

provision

for

fugitive

emission

sources

to

participate

in ACS.

U.S. EPA may designate the specific

type

of

fugitive

emission trades which fall under their ‘Generic Bubble’ policy.

ACS falling within those designated provisions will not requite

individual

SIP

revisions.

X.

Severability

Section 212.190 has been added to the proposed rules

stating

that

the

provisions

of

Part

212

are

not

severable.

This

provision

is

essential

due

to

the

interdependence

of

emission sources operating under ACS and the careful balancing

of

emission

increases and decreases which is necessary to

insure

environmental

protection.

XI.

P4iscel

laneous

Revisions

to

the

Proposed

Rule

The

following miscellaneous revisions to the proposed

rule have been made in response to comnents received during

the

First

Notice

Period:

1.

The

definition of ‘Actual Emissions’ has been slightly

amended in the final version of the rules.

To close a potential

‘loophole’

in

Subsection

(b),

the

term

‘allowable

emissions’

has

been

replaced

with

‘potential

to

emit.’

A

rule

requiring

use

of

the

allowable

emission

baseline

where

there

is

inadequate

information

to deternine actual emissions would provide a dis-

incentive for good bookkeeping.

The use of ‘potential to emit,’

a defined term, will also more accurately reflect the capacity

of the particular equipment to emit.

The

same

standard

can

be

used for sources which have been in operation less than

two

years,

thus

subsection

(c) has been deleted as unnecessary.

2.

Section

212.102

has

been

amended

to

clarify the fact

that

all

emission

sources

are

within

the

scope

of

this

Part.

3.

Sections 212.110(f) and 212.120(e) have been added

in response to U.S. EPA’s comment that it must approve ACS

46—147

---

22

which involve an emission source which is subject to a

federal

enforcement action before the State approves the permit.

(P.C.

#29.)

This

provision

anticipates

that

federal

review

will

occur

within

the

time

frame

allotted

for

State

review

of

the

application so that there

is no additional delay.

4,

Section

212,125

(Public

Participation)

has

been

amended

to

clarify

the

standard

for

when

a

public

hearing

is

required.

The availability of

a

public

hearing

should

he

determined

pur-

suant to the criteria in applicable Agency public participation

procedures,

rather than pursuant to

a potentially

conflicting

Board

criteria.

Contrary

to the argument of one commentor,

ACS

permits

do

not

establish

less

stringent

emission

limitations

and

public

hearings

may not he necessary or beneficial

in

all

cases.

5.

Section 212.170

(Revocation) has been deleted as un-

necessary because both the Act and Chapter

2 currently provide

for

permit

revocation

and

other

appropriate

sanctions.

6.

Section

212.211(d)

has

been

deleted

as

unnecessary.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

that

the

following

proposal

to

amend

Chapter

2:

Air

Pollution

Regulations by the addition of Part 212:

Alternative Control

Strategies

be

adopted

for

Second Notice pursuant to Section

5.01(b)

of

Illinois

Administrative

Procedure

Act.

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

B:

AIR

POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART

212:

ALTERNATIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES

SUBPART

A:

ALTERNATIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES INVOLVING ONE

PERSON

Section 212,101

Definitions

Unless

a

different

meaning

of

a

term

is

clear

from

its

context,

the definitions of terms used for this Part shall be the same as

those used in the Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations,

Chapter

2:

Air Pollution.

Actual Emissions:

The actual rate of annual emissions

of a

pollutant from an operational emission source

for a particular

date equal to the mean rate at which the

emission

source

actually

emitted the pollutant during the two—year

period

which

immediately

precedes the particular date and which is determined by the

Agency

to

be

representative

of

normal

emission

source

operation;

however:

46—148

---

23

a)

The Agency shall

allow the use of a different time

period upon a determination that

it is more repre-

sentative of normal emission source operation.

The

burden shall

be on the applicant to demonstrate that

another time period

is

more

representative.

Actual

emissions shall be calculated using the emission

source’s

actual

operating

hours,

production

rates,

and types of materials processed, stored,

or

corn—

busted

during

the

selected

time

period.

b)

If the Agency determines that there is inadequate

information to determine actual emissions as indicated

in the preceding paragraphs,

the Agency

shall use the

potential to emit of the emission source.

Allowable

Emissions:

a)

The emissions rate of an emission source calculated

using

the

maximum

rated

capacity of the emission source

(unless the emission source

is subject to permit condi-

tions or other enforceable limits which restrict the

operating

rate,

or

hours

of

operation,

or

both)

and

the more stringent of the following:

1)

the applicable emission standard or limitation

contained in this Chapter, including those with

a future compliance date; or

2)

the emissions rate specified as

a permit condition

including

those

with

a

future

compliance

date.

h)

The allowable emissions may be expressed as a permit

condition

limiting

annual

emissions

or

material

or

fuel throughput.

c)

Allowable emissions shall

include

a reasonable esti-

mate of emissions in excess

of applicable standards

during start—up, malfunction,

or breakdown,

as

appropriate,

only

if the provisions of

Rule 105 of

this Chapter have been complied with.

d)

If an

emission

source

is

not

subject

to

an emission

standard under provision

(a) and is not conditioned

pursuant to provision (h), the allowable emissions

shall

be

the

sourc&s potential

to emit.

Alternative Control Strategy (ACS):

A specific program of

emissions limitations and requirements which is environmentally

equivalent to that which would otherwise be required by appli-

cable statutes or regulations,

and

under

which

the

owner

or

operator of an emission source increases emissions of

a regu—

lated pollutant beyond the emission baseline at one or more

46—149

---

24

emission sources and correspondingly reduces emissions of the

same pollutant below the emission baseline at other emission

sources.

ç~~ter:

References

to

“this chapter” or “Chapter

2”

in this

Part

shall

mean

Pollution

Control

Board

air

pollution

rules

and regulations as contained

in Chapter

2:

Air Pollution

Regulations

and

as

codified

under

Title

35,

Part

200,

~q.,

of the Illinois Administrative Code.

Emissions Baseline:

The starting point

or

reference

level

from which increases and decreases in emissions

are

measured.

The rules governing determination of emission

offsets,

calcula-

tion

of

net

emission

increases,

and

evaluation

of

alternative

control strategies specify the particular emission baseline

that applies for that purpose.

Multi-person ACS:

An Alternative Control

Strategy

which

includes

emission

sources

which

are

owned

and

controlled

by

different persons who have formed a joint venture for purposes

of the ACS.

Potential to Emit:

The maximum capacity of an emission source

to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational

design.

Any physical

or operational limitation on the capacity of the

emission

source

to

emit

a

pollutant,

including

air

pollution

control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on

the

type

or

amount of material combusted,

stored,

or processed,

shall be treated as part of its design only

if

the

limitation

or the effect it would have on emissions

is enforceable.

Secondary

emissions

do

not

count

in

determining

the

potential

to emit of a stationary source.

~

Micrograms.

Section

2l2~102

Scope

Pursuant to a permit issued by the

Agency

under

this

Part,

a

person

or persons may use an alternative

control

strategy

(ACS)

for

emission

sources,

including

fugitive

emission

sources,

in

lieu of compliance with conflicting requirements which would

otherwise he applicable under this Chapter.

Section 212,105

Emission Baseline for Alternative Control

~eies

a)

The baseline for reviewing decreases or increases of

emissions from emission sources which are the subject

of an alternative control strategy shall be the lesser

of the actual emissions or the allowable

emissions

prescribed

by

this

Chapter.

46—150

---

25

b)

Notwithstanding

subsection

(a),

an increment of

emission reduction shall be creditable under an ACS

to

the

extent

that

it:

1)

was

achieved

as

a

result

of

the

installation

of

pollution

control

equipment,

changes

in

process,

procedures,

or materials, or the shutdown of an

emission source which would not have occured hut

for the purpose

of

creating

an

emission

reduction;

2)

reduced emissions beyond the requirements of

Board regulations;

and

3)

was not relied upon

in the State Implementation

Plan demonstration to demonstrate compliance with

ambient air quality standards in the compliance

year in non-attainment areas

or maintenance of

air

quality

in other areas.

c)

For

purposes

of

subsection

(b),

the

burden

shall

generally be on the permit applicant.

However,

for

the purpose of

subsection

(b)(3) the burden shall be on

the

Agency

to

demonstrate

that

the

emission

reduction

in

question

(from

either

the

particular

emission

source

or the category of emission sources

to which it belongs)

was relied upon

in the SIP demonstration.

d)

Notwithstanding

subsection

(b)(3),

if

an emission

source is located in an area for which the State

Implementation

Plan

does

riot demonstrate attainment

of

the

air quality standards by the compliance year

for the pollutant which

is

the

subject

of

the

ACS,

it

may

utilize

an

emission

reduction

credit

only

to

the extent that that reduction reduces its emissions

below actual emissions,

Section 212,110

Permit Application Information

In addition to other information which may be required under

this

chapter,

a

permit

application

under this subpart shall:

a)

List

the

emission

sources

to

he

included

in

the

ACS,

the emission baseline the applicant believes to be

applicable

to

each

emission

source,

and

the

remaining

useful

life

of

each emission source.

h)

Describe

the

proposed

modifications

to

the

emission

sources and quantify the emission increases and

decreases anticipated to occur as

a result of each

modification.

46—151

---

26

c)

Identify the Board regulations and the terms of ~he

Environmental Protection Act to which the applicant

believes the ACS provides an alternative.

d)

Describe the methods currently used to assure com-

pliance and the methods proposed to be used under the

ACS.

Such methods may include,

but are not limited to

recordkeeping, equipment or emissions monitoring,

source testing,

and material or process specifications,

e)

Provide an analysis

of the ACS purusant to Sections

212,111,

212.112,

212.113.

f)

Contain a certification, signed by all ~CS applicants,

stating that a copy of the ACS application has been

sent to U.S.

EPA if any of the emission sources

included in the ACS are presently the subject of

federal enforcement actions under the provisions

of the Clean Air Act,

as amended August,

1977 (in-

cluding civil

actions filed under §113(b), criminal

actions filed under §113(c),

a notice imposing non-

compliance penalties issued under §120,

administrative

orders issued under §113(a),

or a citizen suit filed

under §304 where EPA has intervened).

g)

Provide such other information as the Agency may re-

quire to determine compliance with the standards of

issuance

in Section 212.120,

including the results

of any source tests or ambient air monitoring.

Section 212.111

Analysis of

Emissions

a)

A permit application under this subpart shall provide

a comparison of the baseline emissions and the emis-

sions which would be permitted under the proposed ACS

for each emission source involved in the ACS.

Where

appropriate, this analysis shall address differences

between the emission sources to he covered by the ACS

with

regard

to:

1)

methods of determining emissions;

2)

consistency and reliability of the performance

of the emission sources and any associated

control devices;

3)

frequency and duration of operation during

malfunction

or

breakdown,

or

excess

emissions

during start—up;

46—152

---

27

4)

methods

of

operation,

including

operating

schedules,

range of raw materials or products,

etc.;

and

5)

other

characteristics

of

the

emission

sources

or

their

operation

which

may

affect

equivalance

of

emissions,

b)

The

analysis

shall

describe

any

increases

in

emissions

from

emission

sources

outside

the

ACS

which

may

accompany

the

proposed

ACS.

Section 212.112

~jy~is_of

Environmental Quality

a)

A permit application

under this subpart shall provide

a

comparison

of

the

ambient

air

quality

under

e~cisting

requirements

and

the

ambient

air

quality

which

would

exist under the proposed ACS.

This analysis shall

include dispersion modeling based on the best and most

appropriate

models

for

the

pollutant

and

emission

sources involved, unless the Agency finds that:

1)

due to the characteristics of the pollutant

and

emission

source,

dispersion

modelin9

is

inappropriate

or

unnecessary

for

determining

effects

on air quality; or

2)

the location of emission sources included in the

ACS are not more than 250 meters apart, the ef-

fective plume height of the emission increases

and

decreases

are

not

significantly

different,

and the differences

in the characteristics of

the

emission

sources

are

not

likely

to

affect

ambient air quality, or

3)

differences in location, plume height, operating

practice,

and other characteristics of the emis-

sion sources subject to the ACS are not likely

to significantly affect ambient air quality.

An

effect

on

ambient

air quality is significant

if

it

equals

or

exceeds

the

levels

specified

in

the following table:

SIGtIIFICANCE

LEVELS

Pollutant

Annual

24-Hour

8-Hour

3-Hour

1—Hour

so

1,0

ug/rn~

5

ug/m~

25

ug/m3

TS~

1,0 ug/m3

5 ug/m

NO2

1.0

ug/m

CO

0.5

mg/rn

2

mg/rn

46—153

---

28

b)

The

applicant

shall

analyze

the

air

quality

impacts

resulting from trades between emission sources, in-

cluding the impact of emissions which differ in their

qualitative impact on health or the environment.

c)

The analysis shall describe any other

iirtpacts on the

environment which may accompany the proposed ACS.

Section 212.113

Analysis of Methods

of Assuring~Compliance

A permit application under this subpart shall provide a com-

parison of the methods of assuring compliance under existing

requirements and the methods

of assuring compliance which would

he used under the proposed ACS.

As a minimum, the analysis

shall address the effectiveness, reliability, and accessibility

of these methods.

Section 212.120

Standards for Issuance

The Agency shall

issue a permit containing

an ACS if,

and only

if,

the permit applicant demonstrates that:

a)

The ACS provides,

in the aggregate with respect

to

each regulated pollutants equivalent or less total

emissions than would otherwise be required.

b)

The

impact

of

the

ACS

is

environmentally

equivalent

to that which would otherwise he achieved and main-

tained under existing requirements.

c)

The

methods

for

assuring

compliance

with

the

condi-

tions and requirements of the permit under the ACS

are environmentally equivalent to those that are

associated with otherwise applicable requirements.

d)

The

ACS

complies with any applicable requirements

contained in Parts IX,

X, or XI of this chapter.

e)

U.S.

EPA

has

not

disapproved

the

proposed

ACS

or

any compliance schedule

it may contain due to

the

existence of

a

federal

enforcement

action

pending

against a participant in the ACS.

Section 212.125

Public~~a~ion

The initial

issuance of

a permit containing an ACS shall

he

subject to applicable Agency public participation procedures

prior to issuance.

At a minimum,

the Agency shall provide an

opportunity

for public comment.

46—154

---

29

Section 212.130

Compliance Dates

a)

No owner or operator subject to

a permit utilizing

an Alternative Control Strategy is relieved of ~he

responsibility for achieving and maintaining a re-

duction of emissions as expeditiously as practicable,

hut not later than the compliance date required under

other applicable regulations.

b)

Notwithstanding subsection

(a),

an owner or operator

may demonstrate compliance with Rule 205 of this

Chapter pursuant

to an Agency-approved alternative

compliance plan contained in a permit utilizing an

Alternative Control Strategy which

is applied for

prior to December 31,

1982.

The Agency shall approve

such an alternative compliance plan if, and only

if,

the applicant demonstrates that:

1)

the alternative compliance plan extends the com-

pliance date for each emission source subject

to the ACS no longer than necessary to enable

that emission source to utilize the ACS, hut

in

no

case

later

than

December

31,

1987;

3)

the emission source belongs to a category of

emission sources having a compliance date of

December 31,

1982 or later under Rule 205;

3)

the

use

of

an

ACS

will

result

in

either

greater

or faster overall emission reductions than would

otherwise be achieved;

and

4)

such extension is consistent with the require-

ments of the federal Clean Air Act,

as amended

in 1977.

Section 212.140

Records

and R~orts

a)

The Agency shall require that a permittee operating

under an ACS maintain such records as necessary to

determine compliance with the requirements of the

ACS.

1)

These records shall

include, but not be limited

to the actual and allowable emission rates,

or the parameters from which these

rates are

determined

or

related

operational

parameters

of

the equipment.

2)

The records shall be maintained as precribed in

the permit.

46—155

---

30

3)

These records shall

be available to the Agency

and copies of these records shall be sent to

the Agency upon written request.

The

Agency

shall make such records available to the public

pursuant to Sections

7 and 7.1 of the Act and

regulations

promulgated

hereunder.

b)

A permittee operating under an ACS shall submit

to

the Agency reports containing such reasonable infor-

mation and at such reasonable frequency as the Agency

may specify pursuant to

a condition of a permit or

general procedures established by the Agency, to

assure that the terms of the ACS are met.

c)

A permittee operating under an ACS shall notify the

Agency within 72 hours by telephone or telegram of

circumstances, which will make compliance with the

requirements of the ACS impossible.

1)

This notice

shall be followed within ten days

by written confirmation which describes the cir-

cumstances which prevent compliance with the re-

quirements of the ACS and supplies a preliminary

Compliance Program which will result

in com-

pliance with this Chapter.

2)

The permittee shall take all reasonable steps

to come into compliance with the ACS or this

Chapter as expeditiously as possible.

Section 212.145

Duration

A permit containing an ACS shall be 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 of

this Chapter.

However,

an ACS permit

may not

he issued for

a period extending beyond 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.

Section 212.150

a)

1)

All emission limits which apply to emission sources

under the ACS,

and

2)

Any compliance procedures which

shall be

followed

by the permittee.

46—156

---

31

b)

The permit may be conditioned so that compliance with

the terms of the ACS will continue in the event of

change of ownership of emission sources, and such

terms will be made applicable to the new owner.

c)

The Agency may impose such other pei~mitconditions in

of the Act or of this Part.

Section 212.155

Monitoring and Testing

The Agency may require that equipment testing and monitoring,

as

authorized elsewhere in this chapter, accompany the construction

or operation of emission sources under a permit containing an

~CS.

Section 212.157

Notification to U.S. EPA

The Agency shall notify U.S. EPA of emission limitations,

alternative compliance plans,

and any other permit conditions

Section 212.160

a)

Timing

1)

An application for revision of a

permit

containing

an ACS shall be submitted

at least 180 days

to the date on which the revision

is

required to

go into effect.

2)

If the standard under this Chapter for an emission

source included in the ACS is changed and a revised

ACS is being proposed, an application for revision

of a permit containing the ACS

shall

be submitted

at least 90 days prior to the date a Compliance

Plan must be submitted.

b)

The applicant shall

submit the information specified

in Section 212.110 which

is necessary

to

show that; the

revised ACS will meet the standards of permit issuance

specified in Section 212.120.

c)

Unless the Agency finds that the proposed revisions

to

the ACS are not substantive in nature and do not alter

fundamental details of the ACS which

was approved

under

the prior permit,

issuance of the revised permit shall

be subject to public participation pursuant to Section

46—157

---

32

Section

212.165

Renewal

a)

An application

for renewal of

a permit containing an

ACS shall be submitted at least

180 days prior to the

expiration of the previous permit.

b)

~ppiications for renewal shall contain the information

specified in Section fl2.l10.

However,

an analysis

of the effect of the ACS on air quality pursuant to

Section 212.112 need be provided only if:

1)

The other information submitted pursuant to this

whiàh the permit

was previously issued,

2)

the differences may significantly affect air

quality.

c)

Unless the Agency finds that changes

in the applica-

tion are not substantive

in nature and do not alter

fundamental details of the ACS which was approved

under the prior permit,

renewal of the permit shall

he subject

to public participation pursuant to

Section 212.125.

Section 212.190

Severabil~

Notwithstanding RuleTl3 of this Chapter,

if any provision of

Part 212

is stayed or declared invalid by a final

order, no

longer subject to appeal,

of any court of competent jurisdic-

tion, then the entirety of Part 212 shall

be deemed stayed or

invalidated until the stay is lifted or the Board acts to

SUBPART B:

ALTERNATIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES INVOLVING MORE THAN

ONE PERSON

Section 212.201

~p2lic~~i~

Persons who propose or participate in a multi—person ACS shall

be subject to the rules found

in Subparts

A and B of this Part,

Section 212.202

Permit Application

In addition to the information required in Section 212.110,

persons who propose a multi-person ACS shall:

a)

Identify the persons having ownership and control of

the emission sources to he included in the ACS.

b)

Provide a written agreement showing the participant~.i’

intent to pursue the mu1ti—~ersonACS and to be jointly

bound by the terms and conditions

of any permits which

are issued pursuant

46—158

---

33

Section 212.204

Duration

All permits issued under a multi-person ACS shall have the same

expiration date.

Section 212.206

Permit Conditions

Each participant

in a multi—person ACS shall be issued an

individual permit which shall he conditioned on the continuing

compliance of the other participants with the limitations in

their permits.

Section 212.208

Records and Reports

All records and reports of the participants in a multi—person

ACS which are not confidential

in nature shall

he

available for

inspection to the other participants upon reasonable notice

of

a request to inspect.

Section 212.210

Revocation

Permit revocation or other sanctions may be initiated before

the Board against any and all persons in the multi—person ACS,

regardless of the ownership and control

of the emission source

at which the violations occurred or any contracts or other

Section 212.211

Termination

a)

If

a participant in a multi-person ACS intends

to

terminate involvement

in the ACS,

it shall give

written notice

to the Agency and the other partici-

pants in the ACS at least

180 days prior to the

anticipated termination date.

b)

If the ACS will not meet the standards of issuance

with only the remaining participants, they may:

1)

Propose a revised ACS to include the remaining

sources and persons; this proposal

shall be

submitted to the Agency at least

120 days before

new permits are required; or

2)

Apply for revised permits, pursuant to the other-

wise applicable regulations in this Chapter;

such

applications shall be submitted at least

90 days

before the permits are required.

c)

If the notice of termination of the multi—person ACS

does not allow sufficient time to meet the time periods

ir~Subsection 212,211(b) above,

the participants may

seek variance relief from the Board from the require-

ments of this Chapter and of the Act.

46—159

---

34

IT IS

SO ORDERED.

I,

Christan

L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, he~ebycertify that the above Opinion and Order weçe adopted

on the

/~~_

day of

______

____

,

1982 by a vote of ‘SO.

~hristan

L.

MdY~tt,

C1e~~

Illinois Pollution Control Board

46—160