Section 212.160 Revision
a) Timing

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 23,

1981

IN THE MATTER OF~

)

ALTERNATIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES,

)

 R81—20

INTERIM RULE,

)

 INTERIM RULE

CHAPTER

2:

 AIR POLLUTION,

)

Proposed Rule,

 First Notice.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

I.

 Goodman):

This rulemaking is undertaken pursuant to Section 9.3(b)

of

the Environmental Protection Act

 (the Act),

 as amended by P.A.

No.

 82—0540 on September

16,

 1981.

 P,A~No.

 82-0540, known as

the “Bubble Bill” or RB 1354,was designed to enable owners and

operators of air pollution emission sources, either individually

or collectively, to utilize the most economically advantageous

mixture of control strategies to achieve environmental 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 environment and should be economically

beneficial

ownctr~ ~ncl

op~r.~to~.

i~inure 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

regulations” within 120 days after the effective date of P.A. No.

82—0540 through an expedited rulemaking process which bypasses

Title VII requirements of the Act.

 The purpose of this expedited

proceeding 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

 rulemaking 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,

44—277

2

The Board initiated public comment on the interim rules by

circulating a “public draft” proposal and inviting comments and

alternative

 proposals..

 The Illinois State Chamber of Commerce

filed

alternative

proposal

which

was

consolidated

for

review

with

the

Board’s

initial

proposal

under

Docket

No.

R8l-20

September 16,

 1981.

 The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA)

 offered another alternative proposal on October

9,

 1981.

These three proposals were labeled Exhibits

1,

 2, and

 3, respec-

tively,

 in the record of the proceeding.

 (Additional amendatory

language was proposed and entered into the record

 in the course

of the proceeding.)

 Hearings were held on R8l—20 on October 15,

16,

and

 19, 1981

 to consider the merits of all proposals before

the Board.

 The attached proposal contains elements of each of the

proposals before the Board and also reflects the public comment

and testimony received.

Overview

Basically,

 these regulations establish a permitting program.

They describe the standards for Agency issuance of

 an ACS permit,

as well as the information which must be contained

 in an ACS

permit 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

contained 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 predicated on the compliance of all other emission

sources

 in the ACS.

 Thus,

 specialized provisions are necessary

for recordkeeping

 and reporting,

 revision,

 renewal, and describing

the responsibilities and liabilities of participants in multi-

person ACS.

Because ACS permits are new and potentially more complex

than other Chapter

 2 permits,

 the Board anticipates that extensive

communication between the permit applicant and the Agency will

occur prior to issuance of an PICS

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 proposals may include non-

traditional emission sources, such as fugitive emission sources,

or mobile sources.

 Although these sources present special problems

and will undoubtedly require

extensive

 documentation and safeguards

to insure equivalency and compliance,

 it is unnecessary to address

these

 special problems in the Board regulations.

 The Agency can

review such applications on a case—by—case basis within the context

of these regulations..

44—278

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 contaminents 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 ~nit,” and “Alternative Control Strategy

(ACS)” are essential terms in an ACS context.

 Some of these defi-

nitions may also be determined to apply to Part XI:

 Major Source

Review Programs

 the course of the final rulemaking on R8l-16.

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 largely irrelevant to this rulemaking and that

 it would be

better to focus on them in R81—16.

Standards of Issuance

Each of the four standards in Section 212.120 must be 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.

 This requirement is necessary to insure the environ-

 mental equivalence 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),

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 Federal case law.

 (See

ASARCO,

 Inc.

 EPA, 11 ERC

 1.129

 (D.C. Cir. 1978).)

*The proposed Major Source Permit Program regulations are

the subject of Docket No.

 R81-16.

 A rule adopting the interim

Non—attainment Area portion of these rules

 (Interim Rule R8l-16)

was adopted on December 17,

 1981.

 The final

 rule

 (R8l—16), which

will cover both Non-attainment and Attainment areas

 is awaiting

an

Economic Impact Study.

44—279

4

Application 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 involved

in an ACS.

 In addition,

 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 or affect the proposed ACS.

The environmental quality analysis must address air quality

impacts, risk to the public health and welfare,

 and other environ-

mental impacts associated with the proposed ACS.

 The scope of this

analysis is mandated by the language of PA.

 82—0540 which requires

that ACS provide “e~uiva1entprotection of the environment.”

The

effect of ACS emissions on environment must be equivalent to that

of emissions which would otherwise occur or be allowed to occur.

Modeling Exemption

One component of the environmental quality analysis required

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 one of three specified

demonstrations are made.

First, Section 212.112(a) (1) provides that if the pollutant

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 ambiguous results.

Second, Section 212.112(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

44—280

made

between

such

sources

long

plume

heights

remained

relatively the same.

 (Local impacts are primarily a function

plume

heights,

while

long

distance

impacts

are

primarily

function of the distance between emission sources.)

 Although

 there is discussion in the record of various other distances

(R.

129—140),

the

Board

persuaded

the

logic

supporting

250

meter exemption.

The

250

meter

distance

represents

the

greatest

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

the

grid

spacing

generally

accepted

USEPA

for

modeling.

Thus,

should

consistent

with

modeling

demonstrations

made

the

SIP

and

should

provide

equivalent

protection

air

quality.

It

 is anticipated that sources qualifying under the 250 meter

exemption will

 be considered to fall within the USEPA “Generic

Bubble” guidelines.

 USEPA has indicated that it will not require

individual

 SIP review of ACS permits which fall within the “Generic

Bubble”

guidelines.

(See

20552,

April

1981

(Exhibit

#10).)

 Included in those guidelines

 is a modeling exemption for emission

sources

located

within

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 antici-

pated that both should meet USEPA “generic bubble” guidelines.

Section 2l2.ll2(a)(3) contains an alternative exemption from

the modeling requirement which allows a permit applicant to demon-

strate that the differences in location, plume height,

 etc. are not

likely to si9nificantly affect ambient air quality.

 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

provides needed flexibility

 in light of the

 fact that a question

exists within USEPA itself

 as to the appropriate distance between

sources

and

the

fact

that

 testimony from modelers in the record

this

proceeding

revealed

that

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

exempt

from

individual

SIP

review.

Impacts that are to be considered “significant” are

established in Section 2l2.l12(a)(3).

 These levels are taken from

the USEPA 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.

 Also see Exhibit #17).

 To provide

an enforceable standard for all parties, these levels are included

in the Board rules.

44—281

6

USEPA drafts required that all emission points included in

the ACS be within a specified distance from one another to take

advantage of the “close proximity” exemption.

 However, the justi-

fication for this position

 is unclear in light of the fact that

the focus of both the required modeling 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”

 arid

 “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 trade within the

ACS is adequately considered.

On a related point, Illinois

 EPA’s proposal would require

dispersion modeling only for “major sources.”

 Although the fact

that a source is a major source

 is critical

 :Ln the Major Source

Review Program context (R81—16),

 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 location of the individual emission source.

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~sinitial proposal

(Exhibit

 1) tracked the language of USEPA Region Vts “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) proposed 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~O540and the

underlying assumptions of the air pollution control program.

The legislative intent of P.A. No.

 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 Istrategies

 required

by Board regulations or the terms of this Act” and “assure

equivalent protection of the environment.”

 (Section 9.3(a)).

44—282

7

Although Section 9.3(d)

 indicates that the Board may not impose

requirements which are more stringent than those required for

compliance with the Clean Air Act, the Act, or other Board

regulations, the Board must insure that ACS are environmentally

equivalent to all otherwise applicable Board regulations, not

simply the Part II emission limitations.

Rule 102 of Chapter 2 establishes the limitation that “No

person shall

 cause or threaten or allow the discharge or emission

of any contaminent into the environment in any state

 so as either

alone or in combination with contaminants from other sources,

•

 to prevent the attainment or maintenance of any applicable

air quality standard.”

 Thus, the emission baseline utilized in

an ACS must he established such that attainment and maintenance

of the air quality standards will not be 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 he

credited under an ACS which have been used as the basis for

predicting achievement of the air quality standards in Illinois.

The State Implementation Plan

 (SIP)

 is the “blueprint”

utilized by the State to “define the process by which air pollution

goals will be achieved.”

 (Illinois SIP, Executive Summary, p.

1.)

Thus, the data used as the basis for air quality projections

in

the SIP provides the appropriate baseline for crediting increases

and decreases under an ACS.

 To predict achievement and maintenance

of the air quality standards in the compliance year, the SIP relied

upon modeling which utilized the lesser of actual or allowable

emissions for emission sources.

 (See SIP Volume

2,

pp.

 721; SIP

Volume 3,

pp.

 813;

 and R.

 198.)

 Thus,

 to assure the environmental

equivalence of ACS emissions,

 it is necessary, as a general rule,

to utilize the lesser of actual or allowable emissions as the

baseline for determining creditable increases and decreases.

This conclusion is dictated by the structure of the entire

air pollution control program.

 Testimony in the record also

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, actual emissions would

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).

 As was also pointed out by

commentors, the Illinois emission limitations were promulgated as

an upper limit on the assumption that many,

 in fact most,

 emission

sources were emitting under the maximum allowable,

 The general

use of the allowable emissions as a baseline for ACS might require

the re—evaluation and possible modification of the Board’s Part II

emission limitations.

Furthermore, it is probable that pollution would increase if

allowable emissions were used as the baseline because increments

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

44—283

8

Under a banking system,

 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 baseline would create an economic

incentive for sources to utilize or “bank”

 current:Ly unutilized

emission increments up to the maximum allowable emissions,

An

actual increase in pollution is inevitable under these circum-

stances.

 Such an increase would be contrary to the “environmental

equivalence” intended by P.A.

 No. 820540 and the basic concept

that ACS should not negatively affect the environment,

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,

 To insure that this

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.

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 limitation on hours

of operation or production levels.

 For examp1e~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 otherwise allowable under

existing permits.

 The only new requirement is that reductions

and corresponding modifications which have been committed

to

“offset” increases be maintained.

 This type of commitment is not

a regulatory requirement, but rather arises as

 a contractual

relationship between persons utilizing an ACS.

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 consistent with the

mandate of “environmental equivalence.”

 Section 212.105(b)

creates an exception allowing emission reductions to he 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 conditions.

 Thus, that portion of a reduction

which is attributable to other factors or was predicted and relied

44—284

9

upon in the SIP is not creditable.

 Where applicable this

authorizes a case by case determination of the appropriate emission

baseline and does not necessarily mean that the

 baseline will

be

the “allowable”

 level.

These three conditions, taken together, provide an equitable

approach to crediting emission reductions which were achieved as

a result of good faith 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 interfere 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 emission

sources to reduce emissions as quickly as they are technologically

capable of doing so.

 The Board notes that the encouragement of

technological innovation is one of the stated purposes of P.A.

#82—0540.

This subsection may allow certain previously banked

emissions to be credited.

 It also provides a potential framework

for crediting emission reductions which cannot be used in an ACS

immediately.

 Although a complete “banking” system is beyond the

scope of this interim rule, this initial

 framework may provide a

basis for consideration of a “banking” system in the final rule

in R81—20.

Compliance Dates

Section 212.130(a) provides that sources utilizing an

Alternative 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 P.A.

No.

 82-0540, and would result in injury to the Illinois

economy without yielding significant environmental benefits.

44—285

10

Although the extension of the compliance deadlines could be

achieved by a number of individual variance proceedings brought

before the Board pursuant to Title IX of the Act, the variance

mechanism is unworkable in this case because it would entail the

lengthy federal SIP approval process.

 This approval process could

extend beyond the 1982 deadline and, thus, would prevent many

sources from utilizing an ACS.

 During this approval period,

sources proposing ACS would have no assurance they could legally

implement the strategy consistent with federal

 law.

 Once “generic”

ACS rules are federally approved, SIP approval of individual ACS

which are of a “generic” nature is not required.

 Thus,

 emission

sources which

 fall within the “Generic” guidelines and Section

212.130(b)

 can avoid the SIP process and can begin implementing

the ACS upon issuance of the permit.

It should be noted that Section 212.130(b)

 is intended to

provide a narrow exception to the general rule.

 The Board has

tailored standards for the issuance of ACS permits containing

alternative compliance 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 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

consistent 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.

 This is justified by the fact that when compliance with

existing compliance deadlines is delayed, more pollution is added

to the environment over time than would otherwise be the case.

In

addition,

 this requirement, like the “necessity” requirement, is

designed to insure that the ACS permit provisions do not become a

route

 for avoiding existing compliance dates.

 Finally, the require-

ment 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” is not

jeopardized.

“Generic Bubble” Determination

These rules, once finalized,

 will be reviewed by USEPA for

compliance with the federal

 “Generic Bubble” policy.

 As stated

above, the “Generic Bubble” policy defines a type of relatively

simple ACS which USEPA has determined will not require individual

SIP revisions.

 Although several provisions of these rules

go

44—286

11

beyond the current approved USEPA 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 attempting to antici-

pate USEPA,

 the Board will submit the rule as

 a whole and allow

 USEPA to designate those portions which meet their requirements

for Generic Rules.

 Proposals failing within those designated

provisions will not require individual

 SIP revisions.

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 published for First Notice pursuant to Section

5.01(a)

 of Illinois Administrative Procedure Act.

TITLE 35:

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

AIR

 POLLUTION

CHAPTER

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 source operation;

 however:

a)

 The Agency shall

allow

the

use

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

combusted 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 allowable emissions of the emission

source.

44—287

12

c)

 For any emission source which ha~not begun normal

operations on the particular date,

 actual emissions

shall equal the potential to emit of the emission

source on that day.

Allowable Emissions:

a)

 The emissions rate of an emission source calculated

using the maximum rated capacity of the emission source

(unless the so~irceis subject to permit conditions or

other enforceable

 limits which restrict the operating

rate,

 or hours of operation,

 or both)

 and the most

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.

b)

 The allowable emissions may be expressed as a permit

condition limiting annual emissions or material or fuel

throughout.

 Allowable emissions shall include a reasonable estimate

of emissions in excess of applicable standards during

start—up, malfunction, or breakdown, as appropriate.

d)

 If an emission source ~s not subject to an emission

standard under provision

 (a) and is not conditioned

pursuant to provIsion

 ,(b), the allowable emissions

shall be the potential emissions of the source.

Alternative Control Strategy

 (ACS):

 A specific program of

emissions limitations an4 requirements which is environmentally

equivalent to that which would otherwise be required by applicable

statutes or regulations, and under which the owner or operator of

an emission source increases emissions of a regulated pollutant

beyond the emission baseline at one or more emission sources and

correspondingly reduces emissions of the same pollutant below the

emission baseline at other emission sources.

Chapter:

 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, et seq., of the Illinois

Administrative Rules.

Emissions Baseline:

 The starting point or reference level from

which increases an decreases in emissions are measured.

The

rules governing determination of emission offsets, calculation of

net emission increases,

 and evaluation of alternative control

strategies specify the particular emission baseline that applies

for that purpose.

44—288

13

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 a stationary source to

emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design.

Any

physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the 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 212.102

Pursuant to a permit issued by the Agency under this Part,

a

person or persons may use an alternative control strategy (ACS)

for process or fugitive emission sources in lieu of compliance

with certain requirements otherwise applicable under this Part.

Section 212.105

 Emission Baseline for Alternative Control

Strategies

a)

 The baseline for reviewing decreases or increases of

emissions from emission sources proposing to utilize

an alternative control strategy shall be the lesser

of the actual emissions or the allowable emissions

prescribed by this chapter.

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 or changes in

process, procedures, or materials designed to

reduce emissions;

and

2)

 reduced emissions beyond the requirements of

Board regulations; and

3)

 was not relied upon by the Agency to demonstrate

or attempt to demonstrate compliance with ambient

air quality standards in the compliance year in

the State Implementation Plan demonstration.

44—289

14

 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.

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 be included in the ACS

and the emission baseline the applicant believes to be

applicable to each emission source.

b)

 Describe the proposed modifications to the emission

sources and quantify the emission increases and decreases

anticipated to occur as a result of each modification.

c)

 Identify the Board regulations and the terms of the

Environmental Protection

 Act to which the applicant

believes the ACS provides an alternative.

d)

 Describe the methods currently used to assure compliance

and the methods proposed to be used under the

 ACS.

 Such

methods may include 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,

Provide

such

other

information

the

Agency

may

require

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

 ~~~spf

 Emissions

a)

 A permit application under this subpart shall provide

a

comparison of the baseline emissions and the emissions

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 be

 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;

44—290

3)

 frequency and duration

operation

during

malfunction or breakdown,

 or excess emissions

during start-up;

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

or affect the proposed ACS.

Section 212.112

 Analysis

 of Environmental Quality

a)

 A permit application under this subpart shall provide

a

comparison of the ambient air quality under existing

requirements and the ambient air quality which would

exist under the proposed ACS.

 This analysis shall

include dispersion modeling, unless the Agency finds

that:

1)

 due to the characteristics

 of the pollutant,

dispersion modeling

 is inappropriate or unneces-

sary for determining effects on air quality; or

2)

 the location of emission sources included in the

ACS are not more than 250 meters apart,

 and the

effective plume height of the emission increases

and decreases are not significantly different, or

3)

 differences

 in location, plume height,

 operating

practice, and other characteristics of the emission

sources subject

 to the ACS are not likely to signi-

ficantly affect ambient air quality..

 An effect on

ambient air quality

 is significant if

 it equals or

exceeds the levels specified in the following table:

SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS

Pollutant

 Annual

 24-Hour

 8—Hour

 3—Hour

 1-Hour

SO

 1.0 ug/m~

 5 ug/m~

 25 ug/m3

TS~

 1.0 ug/m3

 5 ug/m

NO2

 1.0 ug/m

3

CO

 0.5 mg/rn

2

 mg/rn

b)

 The analysis shall demonstrate that emissions permitted

under the ACS will result in equivalent or less quali-

tative risk to public health and welfare than those which

would occur without the ACS.

44—29 1

16

 The analysis shall describe any other impacts 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 comparison

of the methods of assuring compliance under existing requirements

and the methods of assuring compliance which would be 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 pollutant, equivalent or less total emissions

than would otherwise be required.

b)

 The impact of the ACS is environmentally equivalent to

that which would otherwise be achieved and maintained

under existing requirements.

 The methods for assuring compliance with the conditions

and requirements of the permit under the ACS are environ-

mentally 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.

Section 212.125

 Public Participation

The initial issuance of a permit containing an ACS shall be sub-

ject to applicable Agency public participation regulations prior

to issuance.

 At a minimum, an opportunity for public comment

shall be provided.

 A public hearing shall be held upon a finding

by the Agency that it is merited due to a significant degree of

interest.

Section 212.130

 Compliance Dates

a)

 No owner

 or operator subject to a permit utilizing an

Alternative Control Strategy is relieved of the

responsibility for achieving and maintaining a reduction

of emissions as expeditiously as practicable, but 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

44—292

17

pursuant to an Agency—approved alternative compliance

plan contained in a permit utilizing an Alternative

 Control Strategy issued prior to December

31,

 1982.

The Agency

 shall approve such an alternative compliance

plan upon finding

that:

1)

 it extends the compliance date for each emission

source subject to the ACS no longer than necessary

to enable that emission source to utilize the ACS,

but in no case

 later than December 31,

 1987;

2)

 the use of an alternative control

 strategy will

result in either greater

 or faster overall emission

reductions than would otherwise be achieved;

and

3)

 such extension is consistent with the requirements

of the Federal Clean Air Act,

 as amended in 1977.

Section 212.140

 ~2~dR~jorts

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.

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 Section 7 of the Act and regulations

promulgated hereunder.

b)

 A permittee operating under an ACS shall submit to the

Agency reports containing such reasonable information

and at such reasonable frequency as the Agency may

specify pursuant

 to a condition of

 a permit or general

procedures established by

the

Agency,

assure

that

the terms of the ACS are met.

c)

 A permittee operating under

ACS

shall

notify

the

Agency

within

hours

telephone

circumstances,

which

will

make

compliance

with

the

requirements of the ACS impossible.

44—293

18

1)

 This notice shall be followed within ten days

by written confirmation which describes the

circumstances which prevent compliance with the

requirements of the ACS and supplies a preliminary

Compliance Program which will result in compliance

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.

d)

 It shall be a defense

 to an enforcement action brought

 for failure of any permittee to comply with the terms

of the ACS that compliance was impossible due to extreme

and unusual circumstances which could not reasonably be

foreseen or avoided

 if the notification requirement in

subsection

 (c) has been complied with.

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.

Section 212.150

 Permit

Conditions

a)

 The permit shall specify:

1)

 All emission limits which apply to emission sources

under

the

ACS,

and

2)

 Any compliance procedures which

shall

followed

by the permittee,

b)

 The permit shall 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 permit conditions in

a permit as are necessary

to

accomplish

 the purposes

of the Act or of this Part.

Section 212.155

 ~2~torin

 and Testin

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 ACS.

44—294

19

Section 212.160

 Revision

a)

 Timing

application

for

revision

permit

 containing

an ACS shall be submitted at least

 180 days prior

to the date on which the revision is required to

go into effect.

2)

 If the standard under this Chapter for an emission

source ~nc1uded 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 wil1:~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

nature

and

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

 212.125.

Section 212.165

 Renewal

application

for

renewal

permit

containing

ACS shall be submitted at least 180 days prior to the

expiration of the previous permit.

b)

 Applications for renewal

 shall contain the information

specified in Subsection 212.110.

 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

Subsection is different from the information upon

which

the

permit

was

previously

issued,

and

2)

 the differences may significantly affect air

quality.

c)

 Unless the Agency finds that changes

 in the application

are not substantive in nature and do not alter funda-

mental details of the ACS which was approved under the

prior permit, renewal of the permit shall be subject to

public participation pursuant to Section 212.125.

44—295

20

Section 212.170

 Revocation

Violation of any Rule in this

Part,

 any requirement or condition

ACS

permit

any

other

 applicable

Board

regulation

shall

grounds

for

revocation

 by the

Board of

the

permit

permits

containing

ACS,

 well as

for

application

other

sanctions

provided

the

Act.

SUBPART

ALTERNATIVE

CONTROL

STRATECI~S

:ENVOLVING

THAN

ONE

PERSON

Section

212.201

~

Persons

who

propose

participate

 in a

multi—person

ACS

shall

subject

the

rules

found

 in Subparts

 A and

this

Part.

Section

212.202

 ~_~2~icatio~t

addition

the

information

 required

Section

212.110,

persons

who

propose

multi-person

 ACS shall:

Identify

the

 persons

having

 ownership

and

control

the

emission

sources

 to he included

in

the

ACS.

b)

 Provide a written

agreement showing

the

participants’

intent to pursue the multi~personACS

joint

venture

and

jointly

bound

 by the

terms and conditions of

any permits which are issued pursuant

the

application.

Section

212.204

Duration

All

permits

issued

under

 multi-person AdS shall

have

the

same

expiration

date.

Section

212.206

Permit

 Conditions

Each

participant

multi—person

ACS

 shall

be

issued

indi-

vidual

permit

which

shall

 be conditioned

on

the

continuing

com-

pliance

the

other

participants

 with

the

limitations

their

permits.

Section 212.208

 Record

 eorts

All records and

reports

 of the participants

 in a

multi—person

ACS

shall

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

agreements between the participants.

44—296

21

Section 212.211

 Termination

a)

 If a participant in a rnulti~~person

ACS

intends

terminate involvement in the ACS,

written

notice

shall

be sent to the Agency and to the other participants in

the ACS at least 180 days prior

 to the anticipated

termination date.

b)

 If the ACS will not meet the standards

issuance

with only the remaining participants,

they

may:

Propose

 revised ACS to include the remaining

sources

 and persons; this proposal

 shall be

submitted to the Agency at least

180

days

before

new permits are required; or

2)

 Revert to exclusive operation of their

sources

and

apply

 for revised permits; such

applications

shall

be submitted at least 90 days before the permits

are required.

 If the notice of termination of the multi-person ACS

does not allow sufficient time to meet the time periods

in Subsection 212.211(b) above, the participants may

seek variance

 relief from the Board from

the

requirements

of this Chapter and of the Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Board Members J. Dumelle and D, Anderson concurred.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Boa~ hereby certify that the above Order was adopted

on the

~

‘~

 day of

 1981 by a vote of

Christen L. Moffett,

Cletl7

f”

Illinois Pollution Control Board

44—297