iN THE MATTER OF:
)
CLEAN-UP PART III AMENDMENTS TO 35
ILL. ADM.
CODE PARTS 211, 218,
AND 219
)
)
)
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
TECHNECAL CORRECTIONS TO
FORMULAS IN
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 214
“SULFUR LIMITATIONS”
R04-12
(Rulemaking
—
Air)
(Consolidated)
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
JUN
2
1
200k
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL)
Dated:
June 18,
2004
N. LaDonna Driver
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box
5776
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
Charles E.
Matoesian, Esq.
Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
(VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL)
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORY GROUP,
By:
0
One of Its Attorneys
Robert A. Messina
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORY GROUP
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5776
(217) 523-4942
IERG:OO1/R Dockets/Filing/NOF
—
R04-20 andR04-12
-
Comments
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
R04-20
(Rulemaking
—
Air)
)
)
)
)
(PERSONS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board an original andnine copies each of COMMENTS
OF
THE
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY
GROUP
copies of which are herewith served upon
you.
THIS FILING SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, N. LaDonna Driver, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached
COMMENTS OF
THE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP
upon:
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
Clerk ofthe Board
Illinois Pollution ControlBoard
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Jonathan Fun, Esq.
ChiefLegal Counsel
Illinois Department ofNatural Resources
One Natural Resource Way
Springfield, Illinois
62702-1271
Charles E. Matoesian, Esq.
Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
Matthew Dunn, Division Chief
Office ofthe Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph, 20th Floor
Chicago, Illinois
60601
by depositing said documents in the United States Mail, postageprepaid, in Springfield,
Illinois, on June
18, 2004.
N. LaDonna Driver
IERG:OO1/R DocIFiIICOS
—
R04-20 and R04-12
-
Comments
I)
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JUN212004
iN THE MATTER OF:
)
STA
)
PoIiutjo~°0~-L~l0IS
CLEAN-UP
PART
III
AMENDMENTS
TO
35
)
R04-20
Oarcj
ILL.
ADM.
CODE
PARTS
211, 218, AND 219
)
(Rulemaking
—
Air)
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO
)
R04-12
FORMULAS
iN
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 214
)
(Rulemaking
—
Air)
“SULFUR LIMITATIONS”
)
(Consolidated)
COMMENTS OF THE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP
NOW COMES the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORY GROUP
(“IERG”), by one ofits attorneys, N. LaDonna Driver of HODGE DWYER ZEMAN,
and submits its
Comments in the above-captioned matters to the Illinois Pollution Control
Board (“Board”), stating as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION
IERG is a not-for-profit Illinois
corporation affiliated with the Illinois State
Chamber ofCommerce.
IERG is composed of
65
member companies regulated by
governmental agencies that promulgate, administer or enforce environmental laws,
regulations, rules or other policies.
A number of IERG’s member companies conduct
activities governed by the regulations set forth in 35
Ill. Admin. Code Parts 211, 214,
218, and 219.
IERG submits the following comments in response to the proposed rulemaking
entitled “In the Matter of:
Clean-Up Part III, Amendments to
35
Ill. Adm. Code Part 211,
218, and 219 (R04-20).”
IERG would like to thank the Board for the opportunity to ask
questions regarding the proposed rulemaking during the May 6, 2004 hearing.’
A.
Capture Efficiency Testing Alternatives
IERG appreciates and
supports the proposal’s efforts to provide less burdensome
alternatives to the task ofestablishing capture
efficiency.
These alternatives include
utilizing a statistical approach that may reduce testing time and effort, by meeting the
Data Quality Objective (“DQO”) or Lower Confidence Limit (“LCL”), Tr. at 27, 28.
The
Illinois
EPA has proposed revisions to Parts 218
and 219, primarily at Sections
218/219.105, to accommodate the DQO and LCL approach.
At the May 6, 2004 hearing, Illinois EPA provided an Errata Sheet that contained
a revision to the language proposed for Section 218/219.105(c)(2).
Illinois EPA deleted
the sentences that stated: “In
enforcement cases, LCL can not be used to establish
compliance.
Sufficient tests must be performed to satisfy the DQO.”
Illinois EPA
revised what is
now proposed to be the last sentence in
Section 218/219.105(c)(2), to
state:
“for
purposes ofestablishing emission credits for offsets, shutdowns, trading, and
compliance demonstrations arising in enforcement matters, the DQO must be satisfied.”
IERG has two main concerns with this provision,
as set forth below.
First, at the May 6, 2004, hearing, Gary Beckstead, ofthe Illinois EPA, testified
regarding this change in proposed Section 218/219.
105(c)(2).
Mr. Beckstead stated that
the “onus is on the source to demonstrate, in an enforcement case, to
demonstrate that
they are in compliance.
They would have
to do so to the DQO level.”
Tr.
at
18,
19.
IERG’s concern with this statement is that it could be read to improperly shift the
burden ofproof in an enforcement case to the respondent source to prove that it is in
All references to “Tr, at_”
referto the transcript for the May
6, 2004
hearing.
2
compliance.
Underquestioning by IERG, Mr. Beckstead stated that the complaining
party in an enforcement case would have to prove a source’s noncompliance to the DQO
level and that the LCL would not be sufficient in that regard.
Tr. at 33, 34.
IERG requests that the Board consider removing the enforcement language in
Section 218/219.105(c)(2) as set forth in the Illinois EPA’s errata sheet, and insert an
additional sentence to the erid of that section,
whiOh would state:
“In
enforôement cases,
LCL can not be used to establish noncompliance, as sufficient tests must be performed to
satisfy the DQO.”
IERG supplies its proposed revision to the entire section later in this
comment.
Second, IERG continues to have concerns with the language in Section
218/219.105(c)(2) that requires meeting the DQO in order to establish emission credits
for offsets, shutdowns and trading.
Under questioning by IERG, Mr. Beckstead
confirmed that even with the streamlining that the DQO can provide, physical testing is
still required.
Tr. at 29.
Therefore, a requirement to satisfy the DQO in order to establish
emission credits for offsets, shutdowns
and trading, necessarily requires that physical
testing occur before those credits can be granted by Illinois EPA.
IERG raised its concern in this regard at the May 6,
2004 hearing.
Illinois EPA
representatives seemed to imply, in response, that Illinois EPA was not intending to
require all sources, in
all circumstances where -capture efficiency is involved, to
establish
emission credits via physical testing and satisfaction ofDQO.
Tr
at 31.
Yet, Mr.
Beckstead stated that where a source has used DQO or LCL to establish its emissions
and
capture efficiency, DQO criteria would have to be
satisfied in order to
establish emission
credits.
Tr. at
3 L.
3
IERG’ s concern with this apparent approach can be illustrated with an example of
a unit that, when originally permitted, was required to establish capture efficiency via
testing, and the testing was conducted according to the DQO.
For years afterward, the
source would report actual emissions based upon the capture efficiency results from the
original testing.
Now, testing would again have to
be conducted when the unit is shut
down to establish emission credits, without regard for how historical emissions had been
calculated and reported.
IERG believes
that such additional testing at the time ofshutdown has not been
uniformly required in the past and is even inconsistent with historical practice.
For
instance, 35
Ill.
Admin.
Code 203
specifies how emission offsets are to be determined, at
Section 203.303.
There is no mention of a testing requirement for Volatile Organic
Material (“VOM”) in Section 203.303.
Similarly, Part 205, which contains the
regulations forthe VOM Emission Reduction and Market System, specifies at Section
205.500(d)
that the appropriate demonstration for tradable VOM emission reductions
include calculations and such supporting information as material usage.
Testing is
noticeably absent from the requirements for emission reduction demonstrations in
Section
205.500(d).
IERG believes that it is unnecessary and confusing to even reference the
requirements for establishment of emission credits in Parts 218 and 219, which Parts are
focused on setting emission limits and standards.
It would be advisable to let the issues
concerning emission credits remain with tne regulatory Parts that deal specifically with
those issues.
Thus, IERG urges the Board to amend the Illinois EPA’s proposed errata
sheet revisions to
Section 218/219.1 05(c)(2) by
deleting the sentence concerning the
4
establishment ofemission credits and adding the sentence referenced earlier in this
comment as to
enforcement, to state as follows:
2)
Capture Efficiency Protocols
The capture efficiency ofan emission unit shall be measured using one of
the protocols given below.
Appropriate test methods to. be utilized in each
ofthe capture efficiency protocols are described in Appendix M of 40
CFR Part
51 incorporated by reference at 218.112.
Any error margin
associated with a test method or protocol may not be incorporated into the
results ofa capture efficiency test.
Ifthese techniques
are not suitable for
a particular process, then an alternative capture efficiencyprotocol may be
used, pursuant to the provisions ofSection 218.108(b) ofthis Part.
For
purposes ofdetermining capture efficiency using an alternative protocol,
sources shall satisfy the data quality objective (DQO) or the lower
confidence level (LCL) statistical analysis methodologies as presented in
USEPA’s “Guidelines forDetermining Capture Efficiency” incorporated
by reference at Section 218.112 of this Part.
LCL can be used to establish
compliance with capture efficiency requirements.
For purposcs of
cstablishing emission_credits for offsets, shutdowns, trading, and
compliance demonstrations arising in enforcement matters, the DQO must
be satisfied.
In enforcement cases, LCL can not be uGed to cstabli3h
compliance.
Sufficient tests must be performed to satisfy the DQO. j~
enforcement cases,
LCL can not be usedto
establish noncompliance as
sufficient tests
must be performed to satisfy the DQO.
B.
Definition ofCarbon Adsorber
Finally,
the proposal, as drafted, has revised the definition of“carbon adsorber” at
Section 211.953.
The first sentence ofthe revised definition would state that a carbon
adsorber is a “control device designed to remove and, if desired, recover volatile organic
material (VOM) from process emissions.” This sentence would encompass many more
control devices than carbon adsorbers, including condensers, flares, oxidizers, etc.
IERG
believes that the next sentence in the definition properly restricts the intent ofthe
definition.
Thus,
IERG suggests that the two sentences be joined to state that a carbon
adsorber is:
5
a control device designed to remove and, if desired, recover volatile
-
organic material (VOM) from process emissions;, via rPcemoval of VOM
-
is accomplishbd through the adherence ofthe VOM onto the surface of
highly porous adsorbent particles such as activated carbon.
IERG also pointed out, at the May 6, 2004 hearing, that the definition of“carbon
adsorber” is being expanded, in the last sentence of the proposed revised definition, to
include other media besides carbon, such as oxides of silicon and aluminum.
While
IERG appreciates Illinois EPA’s desire to
encompass all relevant media, IERGvoiced its
concern that the title of the definition “carbon adsorber” could be deceptive as to the
types ofdevices covered by the definition.
-
As was then discussed by Illinois EPA and Board personnel, the term “carbon
adsorber” is utilized throughout the Part 218/219 rules to impose substantive
requirements.
Tr. at 37-39.
For example,
see
Section
2 18/219.105(d), which requires
continuous monitoring ofVOM concentration from carbon adsorber bed exhaust; Section
2l8/219.434(d)(3), which requires steam flow monitoring
and carbon bed temperature
monitoring (Subpart
Q
leaks); Section 218/219.481, which requires 90
VOM emission
reduction for carbon adsorbers (Subpart T, Pharmaceutical); and Section
2
18/219.505(e),
which requires monitoring ofsteam flow, monitoring of carbon bed temperature and
monitoring ofduration ofcarbon bed steaming cycle for carbon adsorbers (Subpart V,
Batch Operations and Oxidation).
IERG wonders whether sources, reviewing monitoring requirements for “carbon
adsorbers” in Subparts
Q,
T,
and V, would understandthat such requirements would also
extend to adsorbers with media containing oxides of silica and aluminum.
IERG requests
that the Board consider the need to readily understand and follow the Part 218/219
requirements.
Thus, IERG suggests that if the Illinois EPA insists upon expanding the
6
adsorber definition, the title ofthe definition should be
changed to more generally
represent the media covered by the definition.
While this may invQlve revising uses of
the term “carbon adsorber” in other subparts, this effort would result in much more
straightforward regulatory requirements.
II.
CONCLUSION
In the event that the Board adopts the proposed rulemaking, IERG requests that it
be amended consistent with the above comments.
TERG appreciates this
opportunity to
participate in this rulemaking.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORY GROUP,
~
One ofIts Attorneys
Dated:
June 18, 2004
N. LaDonna Driver
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield,
Illinois
62705-5776
-
(17)
523-4900
-
IERG:OO1/R DocketsfFiling/R04-20 and R04- 12/Comments
-
Robert A. Messina
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield, Illinois
62703
(217)523-4942
7
