ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

13, 1972

In the

Matter

of

•

)

#R

71—23

EMISSION STANDARDS

)

Opinion of the Board

(by Mr. Currie):

New regulations for emission control of sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and particulate

matter have been adopted by this Board.

Highlights of the

regulation are as follows:

•

significantly tightens the limits on the emission of particulate

matter from such operations

as steel mills, oil refineries,

electric power plants, cement plants and corn wet milling

facilities;

•

for the first time requires sophisticated new equipment to con-

trol emissions from coke ovens;

greatly strengthens existing standards for emissions from incin-~

erators;

for the first time limits emissions of sulfur dioxide in the

Chicago, East St.

Louis and Peoria regions to the equivalent

of 1

sulfur coal,

and imposes a series of limitations designed

to assure compliance with ambient air quality standards for

sulfur dioxide elsewhere;

• requires the control of dust escaping from stockpiles;

•

limits

the

emissions of

sulfur

dioxide and sulfuric acid from

industrial processes;

• requires such practices as floating roof tanks, submerged loading

pipes,

tight seals, and waste—heat boilers

to prevent offensive

hydrocarbon emissions from oil refineries;

• restricts the emission of photochemically reactive organic ma-

terials from such activities

as painting and printing in order

to prevent Los Angeles-type smog conditions, and further limits

emissions of organic materials where local nuisances would

result;

• for the first time requires the control of carbon monoxide

emissions from stationary sources such as incinerators,

iron

and steel processes, and oil refineries;

4

—

298

---

---

• for the~first time imposes limits on the emission of nitrogen

oxides from power plants in the Chicago and East St. Louis

areas, and from other industrial processes throughout

the State;

adopts

a statewide nondegradation standard to prevent the un-

necessary deterioration of air that is now clean,

and to pre-

vent new pollution sources from being located

in areas where

they will do the most damage;

• prohibits any emissions that cause a violation of the air quality

standards established to protect the public health and welfare;

•

institutes a statewide requirement of operating permits for all

pollution sources as an aid to enforcement;

• requires sources

to monitor their emissions, to keep detailed

records,

to adequately maintain their equipment, and to make

regular reports to the State.

An additional provision imposing strict limits on particulate

emissions from residential and cortgnercial coal burning has been

suspended by a temporary injunction and cannot be adopted until

further court order.

With this exception we believe today’s new

package of air pollution regulations, together with the federal

controls on motor vehicle emissions, will enable Illinois to achieve

compliance with the federal air quality standards for these

important. air contaminants.

In December of 1970 this Board published its initial

implementation plan containing proposed regulations for achieving

compliance with air quality standards for sulfur oxides and

particulate matter in the Chicago Metropolitan Interstate Air

Quality Control Region

(*R 70-15).

Extensive hearings were

held on this proposal, which was supplemented by a more stringent

proposed table for particulate emissions from process sources

(#R 71-4).

We also published for hearing purposes a similar

implementation plan for our portion of the St.

Louis region

(#R 71-8).

Before hearings could be held, however, the federal

Environmental Protection Agency, acting under authority newly

granted by the Clean Air Act amendments of December 1970,

adopted new air quality standards,

Under the ~ame statute,

it became the responsibility of the States to devise implementation

plans to meet the new federal standards.

These standards apply to

the entire State and cover carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, photo—

chemical oxidants, and nitrogen oxide,

as well as sulfur and

particulates.

We asked the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

with the aid of the Institute for Environmental Quality, to con-

duct further studies to determine what measures were necessary and

reasonable in order to achieve compliance with the federal standards,

and to propose and defend before us a set of new regulations that

would give us a satisfactory basis for controlling air pollution.

Thereafter, upon preliminary study, the Board published for hearing

purposes two further proposals, one dealing with permits for air

contaminant sources

(#R

71—IS)

,

and the other with emission limitations

for hydrocarbons and other organic substances, carbon monoxide,

and nitrogen oxides from stationary sources

(#R 71-17),

Hearings

however, awaited receipt of more definitive Agency drafts.

4

—

299

---

we received Part I of the Agency’s proposal in October

and Part II in November, 1971.

Part

I, which dealt with

permits

and other general provisions, was designated #R 71—18, and hearings

were held on it in November.

Part II, containing substantive

limitations such as emission standards, was designated #R 71-23.

All the above proceedings were consolidated with #R71—23, and

extensive further hearings were held through December and

January.

Following this set of hearings the Board published a

proposed final draft embodying a number of changes based upon

evidence received and scheduled further hearings, which were

held in March.

After studying the final transcripts and

other evidence submit?ed in written form, we have today adopted

the final set of regulations.

This opinion explains the

basis for what we have done.

Before discussing the specific provisions in detail,

a

general wora of appreciation is in order.

In the Board’s

view the entire process of developing these complicated standards

illustrates how the Illinois environmental program can operate

successfully and in accordance with the intentions of the

General Assembly.

These regulations as adopted represent the

best thinking and the combined, cooperative efforts of all

three environmental agencies working together, each according

to

its special function, with a full opportunity for public

participation responsibly availed of with the result of numerous

improvements in the regulations in response to evidence given

by persons affected.

This Board can function best on the basis

of concrete proposals,

as in the present case, made and supported

by another agency such as the EPA.

The Institute’s assistance

was invaluable, in providing expert technical guidance for

the Agency in assessing the available technology and,

through

the special services of Argonne National Laboratory,

in furnisti—

ing impressive evaluations of the effectiveness of various

possible control strategies in advance of their application.

The record is as a result extretAely solid in telling us what is

needed to assure satisfactory air quality and what is technically

and economically reasonable in terms of control technology.

We

trust that the numerous constructive changes made in the proposed

regulations, many with the concurrence of the Agency, demonstrate

that both the Agency and the Board view the public hearing

process as

a meaningful opportunity for the acquisition of

additional relevant information and that we are more than willing

to alter a proposal in the light of new information.1

A detailed discussion of individual provisions follows.

PART I

Rule 101:

Definitions.

Most of these definitions are

self-explanatory.

Additional definitions appear in Rule 201

since they are most directly applicable to the emission

limitations of Part II, but both sets of definitions apply

to both Parts.

a

1.

A special word of thanks is needed for Dr. Richard Wadden

of the Board’s staff for his tireless and expert efforts

in the consideration of these regulations.

4

—

300

---

Among the more significant definitions is that distinguish-

ing

between new and existing sources, a distinction that in

some cases determines which of two alternative standards must

be set and which also relates to the need for a construction

permit.

On the basis of the testimony we have adopted the

federal definition of a new source, which recognizes that once

binding contracts have been entered for construction of a facility

there is a significant reliance interest in treating the source

as an existing one.

Also of importance is the definition of

~specified” air contaminant, which means that permits are

required only for facilities capable of discharging certain

listed contaminants for which specific standards are provided.

Without this provision the broad definition of “contaminant”,

which is entirely appropriate for enforcement purposes, might

require permits for the emission of water, for example, which

would distract the Agency from its more serious concerns and

impose unnecessary paperwork costs on all concerned.

Rule 102:

ProhIbition of Air Pollution restates the

statutory prohibition against air pollution,

so that all relevant

prohibitions appear in a single document, and states the general

statutory principle that emissions shall not violate the

regulations.

As we have held, the statutory prohibition is

directly enforceable without regard to the regulations.

It

means that substances not covered by numerical standards may

not be emitted so as to cause a nuisance, since no code of

rules could ever provide numerical standards for all contaminants.

See EPA

V.

City of Springfield,

# 70—9

(May

12,

1971).

More-

over, as the statute specifies in Section 49(e), compliance

with a numerical standard constitutes only a prima facie de-

fense to a charge of air pollution even with regard to the

same contaminants.

For numerical limits only state what is

acceptable in ordinary situations; under special circumstances

of geography, meteorology, or configuration, emissions meeting

the standards may cause a nuisance, and that the statute

flatly forbids.

EPA v. Granite City Steel Co.,

#70-34 (March

17, 1971); EPA v.

Southern Illinois Asphalt Co.,

# 71—31,

(June 9, 1971).

Rule 102 also incorporates the important additional

provision,

inherent in the idea of air quality standards,

that emissions shall not prevent the attainment or maintenance

of any ambient air quality standard.

Such a provision is

required by federal regulations for the approval of any

implementation plan,

as the very purpose of the plan

is to assure

that the air quality standards are met.

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 met its emission

standard.

The air quality standards themselves are based on

4

—

301

---

expert assessment of health and other adverse effects of given

levels of pollution and of the technology for reducing emissions,

assessments that are in the present record.

As we recently

stressed in adopting a corresponding provision respecting

water quality standards

(PCB Regs,

Ch.

3, Rule 402, adopted

Jan.

6,

1972, sub nom. Effluent Standards,

#R 70-8), compliance

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 en-

sure that the air quality standards are met.

Under this

provision enforcement action may be undertaken against an emission

source even if

it is in compliance with numerical emission

standards,

if such compliance

is insufficient to assure that

the air is ~f satisfactory quality.

Rule

103:

Permits.is the heart of a comprehensive permit

system both to aid in obtaining emission information necessary

for an evaluation of the control program and as an effective

enforcement mechanism.

Existing regulations promulgated by the

old Air Pollution Control Board

(APcB)

and preserved by section

49

of the Environmental Protection Act require permits for

the construction of new equipment that would cause or control

contaminant emissions, but there was no provision for operating

permits.

See EPA v.

Southern Illinois Asphalt Co.,

#71-31

(June 9, 1971).

This omission meant that older facilities were

allowed to operate without permits, and

therefore without

adequate state supervision.

This situation is remedied in

the new regulations.

Paragraph

(a) restates the existing requirement of a

construction permit, which allows review of the pollution

potential of a proposed installation before expensive invest-

ments are made and should result in catching many improper

projects before they begin, to the benefit of all concerned.

Basic outlines of the information that must be submitted in

an application are provided, with the Agency given authority

to be more specific in light of its familiarity with its own

information needs in administering the program.

The basic

standard for issuance of

a permit is that the installation

will comply with the law and regulations, and the Agency may

impose whatever conditions are necessary to assure that compliance.

Compliance of course means more than meeting the numerical

minimum standards; the applicant must show that his installation

will cause neither statutory air pollution nor a violation

of the air quality standards, and that a new facility will

not cause degradation of the air in violation of Rule 303.

Thus the permit requirement is the

first line of defense against

putting the right~factory in the wrong place,

such as where it

might interfere with the esthetic qualities of a state park~

---

Paragraph

(b) requires operating permits.

In the case of

new equipment for which a construction permit has been obtained,

the basic issue with respect to an operating permit will be

whether or not the terms of the construction permit have been

met, since compliance with them should assure compliance with

the law and regulations,

Joint construction and operating

permits are authorized where appropriate to reduce the paper

burden.

In the case of older sources,

a phased schedule is set

requiring operating permits by various dates beginning November

1, 1972, in order to allow the Agency to distribute its work-

load.

In the case of

an operating permit the applicant must

show not only that he is presently in compliance, but also that

he has an approved compliance program that will assure that

he meets any applicable future compliance date,

as well as an

approved episode control program where applicable.

In this way

the permit requirement serves as a means of enforcing the

requirements of episode control and of an early start toward

meeting future contro’ requirements.

Among the conditions the Agency may impose in an operating

permit are that equipment be properly maintained,

that a written

maintenance program be developed, and that maintenance records

be kept.

It is not enough that good equipment be installed;

it must be adequately maintained

to prevent pollution.

To

prepare a written program assures that an operator in his own

interest gives serious attention to the problem and that his

employees are properly instructed.

This much is merely good

practice.

It also gives the Agency a chance to make constructive

suggestions,

and the record requirement serves as both an

internal and external check to assure the program has been

adhered to.

The further Agency proposal that EPA be empowered

to pass on the adequacy of the program in a permit proceeding

was omitted because the Board majority thought it unnecessary

and

burdensome.

Paragraph

(d) authorizes the Agency to establish design

criteria indicating examples of acceptable design parameters

for the guidance of those wishingto know what the Agency considers

adequate to meet the standards for issuance of a permit.

These criteria are not binding; any applicant is free to de-

monstrate that alternative designs will achieve compliance with

the substantive standards, which is the ultimate goal of the

regulations.

In order to aid the

Agency in

making its

determination whether or not the applicant is entitled to a

permit,

the Agency under paragraph

(e) may conduct a hearing to

elicit facts beyond those presented in the application.

Paragraph

(1) authorizes the Agency to require the posting of

a bond,

~s the Board requires in variance cases, as an additional in-

ducement to assure compliance with the terms of the permit.

4

—

303

---

Permits may be revoked only upon a complaint and order

by the Board as a sanction for violation,

in order to assure

due process to the permit holder.

Permits may be revised upon

any

revision of the Act or regulations.

Paragraph

(h) states

the obvious point that having a permit does not authorize a

violation of the emission standards or other applicable

limitations, any more than a driver’s license authorizes

reckless driving.

Certain classes of emission sources are exempted from

the permit requirements, but not from the substantive

limitations, because the burden of processing permits in

these cases would not be justified by the benefits.

The

exempted classes are basically numerous small sources.

The permit provisions today adopted are very closely

parallel to those relating to water pollution and adopted by

this Board March 7,

1972

(Water Quality Standards,

#R 71-14,

PCB Regs., Ch.

3, Part IX).

Rule 104:

Compliance Programs is a most essential provision,

adapted from the Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program

section of the APCB regulations, for assuring prompt initiation

of programs for achieving compliance with standards whose

effective date is in the future.

Many of the substantive

limitations adopted today impose stringent new requirements

which cannot be met immediately without closing down large

numbers of existing facilities.

While

it is important that

the new standards be met as soon as

is practicable, we have no

wish to obtain clean air at the cost of closing down society.

It is common practice, when standards are tightened,

to allow

a reasonable time in which to construct the necessary equip-

ment or take other necessary measures to meet them, except in

rare cases in which the immediate public danger is so great

as to require a shutdown until the problem is corrected.

Consequently we have in many cases set deferred compliance

dates for new standards adopted today, leaving the emergency

cases for case—by-case determination under the statutory air

pollution section.

At the same time, however, we cannot be content simply to

set a future compliance date and to wait until then before taking

any action to assure that something is being done.

We need

interim checkpoints at which the Agency can determine whether

people are falling behind the pace that is necessary

if compliance

is to be achieved by the prescribed date.

Therefore Rule 104

requires the timely submission of programs spelling out the

steps that are to be taken, and the dates on which they are to

be taken, in order to bring the

facility into compliance.

Agency

approval of such a program will constitute a prima facie defense

—

304

---

to an enforcement action,

since wedo not wish to penalize those

who are doing their best.

The defense cannot be absolute be-

cause Board regulations cannot give the Agency power to allow

violations of the statutory prohibition against air pollution,

and because policy requires that we reserve authority to direct

a shutdown in the rare case in which there

is an immediate and

excessive health hazard.

As a corollary

to the provision that

following an approved program is a defense, the Rule provides

that failure to submit

a program,

to obtain approval, or to

follow an approved program constitutes a violation for which

a complaint may be filed.

Without such a provision the Agency

could do little against a laggard until the deferred compliance

date

is reached.

By that time it would be too late to do any-

thing to accelerate performance short of the drastic remedy

of shutdown.

The regulation is designed to avoid that remedy

whenever possible.

Once again the ~ecently adopted water regulations are

similar.

Rule 105:

Malfunctions, Breakdowns,

and Startups.

No

machine works perfectly all the time.

Further, startup

conditions may result in less than optimum emission control.

The policy of this Rule is that insofar

as

is practicable,

efforts shall be made to reduce the incidence and duration of

startups and excessive emissions during startup periods; and

that, except

in special cases, equipment whose pollution controls

are out of order should not be operated,

just as an automobile

should not be operated when its brakes are out of commission.

Clearly the latter principle cannot be absolute, for it may

not be worth blacking out the entire Midwest to prevent emissions

from a partly malfunctioning boiler precipitator.

We cannot

resolve the myriad of individual variations in a single rule.

The Agency’s admirable proposal, which we have adopted, places

case—by—case discretion in the Agency under its permit

powers, providing that if special conditions warrant permission

to operate during a malfunction,

or if irreducible startup emissions

will somewhat exceed the general standards, EPA may grant

permission for such emissions upon application and proof.

Rule 106:

Monitoring and Testing allows the Agency to

require an operator to measure emissions, either continuously or

periodically,

in order to provide information necessary to

determining compliance.

The cost of acquiring such information

is an appropriate cost of doing business and is placed upon

the operator.

In order to assure that general monitoring

requirements are well—considered and reasonable, the Agency

must allow time for public comment before such requirements

become effective.

In individual cases, however, the Agency

may require monitoring as a permit condition, subject to Board

review under the statute.

Latitude is left

to the Agency in

these matters because, although the record amply supports the

4

—

305

---

desirability of monitoring,

it does not tell us what devices

are available at what cost to do the job.

In matters of this

nature the Agency’s field experience will enable it to make an

expert determination.

Provision is also made for allowing the Agency to conduct

its own tests,

or to require individual stack tests to be

performed as needed by an operator.

These provisions are

indispensable to any enforcement program.

Stack tests are the

best indication of the actual performance of control

equipment;

without them it is often possible to demonstrate violations by

calculation in the absence

of adequate control equipment, but

it is not so easy to prove by calculation whether or not adequate

equipment is operating as

it should.

Rule 107:

Records and Reports implements the statutory

provision authorizing the Agency to acquire information necessary

to the performance of

its functions.

Rule 108:

Proof of Emissions restates formally the Board’s

holding, e.g., EPA v.

Lindgren Foundry Co.,

# 70-1

(Sept.

25, 1970),

that an expensive stack testisnot necessary in

all cases to demonstrate a violation of numerical emission

standards.

Standard emission factors have been developed on

the basis of prior testing that enable

one to make fairly

accurate calculations

as to emissions from equipment similar

to that previously tested.

Relevant considerations include

the nature and amounts of materials processed, the size and

type

of process and control equipment, and the method of

operation.

Such calculations are of course subject to rebuttal

by more direct evidence,

as

in EPA v.

Norfolk

& Western Ry.,

#70—41 (May 26, 1971).

RUle

109:

Circumvention,

as in the APCB rules, prohibits

such practices as dilution, which might result in nominal

compliance with certain standards without reducing the amount

of contaminants emitted or their adverse

effects.

Rule

110:

Design of Effluent Exhaust System requires

a stack or other outlet to be constructed so as to minimize

adverse effects of an emission.

Emissions controlled by

sophisticated equipment are much better than uncontrolled emissions,

but nobody should have to breathe them directly.

Rule 111:

Burden of Persuasion Regarding Exceptions

states the otherwise implicit rule that special exceptions must

be proved applicable by the party claiming them.

4

—

306

---

Rule 112:

Annual Report, as in the water regulations,

requires the Agency annually to assess progress in controlling

pollution and to provide the Board and the public a status

report so that the actual operation of the program can be

assessed.

Rule 113:

Severability is a standard severability provision.

Rule 114:

Repealer specifically avoids any gap in

enforcement by preserving the APCB rules until the effective

date of any new standard.

That is, any source required to

meet a new rule at a future date must continue to comply with

the old standard in the meanwhile.

4

—

307

---

PART II: EMISSION STANDARDS

Air quality standards, based upon evidence as to the

harmful effects

of various concentrations of air contaminants

in the ambient air,

are sometimes said

to state

the

goals of an

air pollution control program.

More properly,

they should be

viewed as outer limitsof tolerability,

They constitute a

commitment by both state and federal government that the air

will not long be permitted to remain, nor ever allowed to re~’

turn,

to a worse condition than that prescribed in the standard.

Thus air quality standards are minimum benchmarks against

which to test the success of

a program of air pollution control.

Moreover, since one principal goal of a control program must be

to keep the standards from being exceeded, air quality standards

are a valuable tool in determining the requirements of such a

program and an eloquent justification for the imposition of

controls.

But air quality standards are not in themselves

a control

program.

They tell us the limits of tolerable air, but they

do not tell us how we are to avoid worse.

We cannot punish the

air if the standard is exceeded,

and in many~cases we cannot

without difficulty enforce the standard itself against those

whose emissions—-often from a great many disparate sources-—

may have contributed to the overall problem.

Rather the heart

of any control program, and thus the working part of an imple-

mentation plan,

is

a set of regulations more directly limiting

emissions from individual and area sources.

Such limitations

constitute Part II of today’s regulations.

We find that compliance

with the provisions of Part II,

in combination with federal

vehicle control requirements, will suffice

to achieve and to

maintain the air quality standards for the foreseeable future.

The record amply demonstrates that in portions of the State

existing pollutant concentrations grossly exceed those prescribed

by federal air-quality standards.

Annual mean concentrations

of particulate matter in Granite City and in Chicago Heights,

for example~have recently exceeded 190 micrograms per cubic

meter (ug/m~)

,

as contrasted with federal primary and secondary

standards of

75 and 60 ug/m3, respectively (Implementation Plan,

Appendix II, p.

42).

Similarly, despite the favorable effects

of the sulfur limitations enacted by the City of Chicago, sulfur

dioxide concentrations there and elsewhere continue to exceed

the air quality standards

(Ex. 82, Implementation Plan, Appendix

II,

PP.

50,

51,

59,

60).

Moreover, expert mathematical analyses

make

it clear that in some areas full compliance with all existing

numerical limitations will not suffice to meet the air quality

standards.

Clearly some tightening of those limitations

is

necessary, since any acceptable control strategy must at a minimum

assure that the air quality standards are met.

4

—

308

---

Beyond this, however, an acceptable control strategy must

protect against unnecessary degradation of areas that are now

cleaner than the standards require.

This

is true for two reasons.

The first is to make allowance for anticipated growth and develop-

ment,

so that the standards continue to be met in the future with-

out forbidding desirable expansion.

Where we can reasonably

do so, we must provide

a margin for the installation of new facilities

by requiring controls that may be tighter than the minimum needed

to meet the standards today.

We cannot allow present emission sources

to use up the entire assimilative capacity of the air without

robbing the future of the opportunity for growth.

Second,

air

quality standards are set not at the optimum level of air quality,

but at the worst level we are prepared to tolerate if we must.

Whenever we can reasonably make the air cleaner than that, we

ought

to do

so.

In short,

to adopt regulations that barely suffice

to meet air-quality standards today would be intolerably short-

sighted if technology permits us to do substantially better

without imposing exorbitant costs.

For these reasons, and because uniform minimum standards are

of utility in preventing local nuisances and in discouraging

competitive discrepancies that might tend to concentrate sources~

in areas now clean, we have

in a number of cases imposed state-

wide emission standards that must be met everywhere as

a mqdicurn

of good practice.

This action has precedent in the ~PCB’s generally

uniform emission standards for particulate matter,

and in the

uniform requirement of secondary sewage treatment adopted by

our other predecessor, the Sanitary Water Board

(see Rules and

Regulations SWB-7 through SWB—l5).

We have recently followed the

same philosophy in adopting state—wide minimum standards for a

number of additional water contaminants

(see Effluent Standards,

#R 70-8,

Jan.

6,

1972, now PCB Regs.,

Ch.

3,

Part IV).

This

is not to say that different regional needs have been overlooked.

Quite a number of today’s regulations specifically impose more

stringent requirements in parts of the State in which they are

necessary to prevent violation of air quality standards.

Rule

201:

Definitions is largely self-explanatory.

References

to important items are made in connection with the substantive

provisions to which they refer, below.

Rule 202:

Visual Emission Standards.

Standards based upon

the visual appearance of an emission are long—standing, familiar, and

relatively unsophisticated.

They were much assailed by industry

during our hearings, largely because of their subjective

nature,

E.g., Bergren, Armour, and Quon

(R 70—15, pp.

619—21,

656-57,

1128).

On the other hand, pending considerable improvements

in scientific monitoring practices,

in many cases the appearance

of an opaque plume may be the best available evidence of improper

4

—

309

---

operation.

With all its drawbacks, therefore, the visual standard

is an indispensable enforcement tool.

Moreover, the appearance

of an emission relates directly to esthetic concerns, which

should not be overlooked in air pollution control.

For these

reasons, as well as the encouragement of citizen participation

in bringing pollution cases, we have retained and broadened the

APCB prohibition on excessive visible emissions.

The prohibition is broadened in that, unlike the APCB ban,

it

applies not only to smoke but to other particulate matter as well.

Although the familiar Ringelmann chart for determining opacity

was designed for gray and black emissions characteristic of smoke,

there

is equal need for an equivalent opacity standard for

other particulate emissions.

The numerical standard for opacity,

40

in the APCB regulations, has been lowered for most sources

to

30

on the basis

of Agency evidence

(R.

30,

31,

496,

501)

that this level will generally be achieved or bettered by facilities

complying with the numerical standards for particulate matter in

Rule 203.

Since we have found compliance with the latter economically

reasonable, it follows that the corresponding opacity standard

is reasonable too.

Paragraph

(a)

imposes a more restrictive 20

opacity standard for certain large new fuel combustion sources

and 10

for new cement plants.

These provisions are taken directly

from applicable federal standards for such sources

(Fed.

Req.,

Dec.

23,

1971,

pp. 24876-95).

In order to ensure

the reasonable-

ness of these limitations, paragraph

(c) provides that compliance

with the more specific particulate standards at the time of the

alleged violation

is

a defense to an opacity charge.

We stress

that such compliance must be shown at the time of the alleged

violation;

it is no defense that the condition causing the opacity

violation has since been corrected.

This provision is protection

for industries

in which the emission of particles of high reflectivity,

such as glass

(Sharf,

R.

939—41)

or iron oxide

(Krikau,

R.

767—

68), may result in relatively opaque emissions despite the use of

the best available controls.

Limited exemptions from the opacity limits are provided

in recognition of special conditions that will preclude compliance

at certain times.

The first

is

startup, during which the evidence

CR.

2053 ~54,

2285)

is that excessive emissions may necessarily

occur.

Protection against abuse of this exemption is provided by

the Part

I requirements, earlier discussed, that the Agency limit

startup excesses to the minimum practicable in issuing permits.

Considerable variations

in alleged startup times preclude our setting

any specific time limit in the regulations.

The APCB regulations attempted to list other specific excuses

for emissions in excess of the opacity standard, but we think the

danger of inadvertent omission and the rather minimal nature of the

problem justify a more general allowance of not over eight minutes

in any hour and not more than three times daily, with a 60

maximum opacity 1im~teven during those periods, and with more

stringent new—source limits once again derived from the federal.

4—310

---

Federal testimony

(Walsh,

R.

2697-98)

indicated that the times

specified for new boilers should be adequate for such activities

as soot blowing and trip outs.

There was a great variety of

testimony as to the time required for blowing soot from existing

boilers

(see Geers,

R.

1587; Dodge,

R. 1519—20; Johaningsmeir,

R.

2053).

Soot blowing cannot be eliminated without jeopardizing

both efficiency and safety through buildup

in the boiler

(Sullivan,

R 70-15,

R.1l62-80).

The allowable times we have chosen should,

according to the evidence,be adequate in most cases.

The time

required appears to be

a function of the individual equipment,

and we cannot relax the rule for everyone simply because a few

may have trouble meeting it.

Those who have trouble and can prove

it may seek a variance based on arbitrary or unreasonable hard-

ship.

Rule 203:

Particulate Standards.

Statewide particulate emission

limits were adopted by’the~APCBin 1967, and we have devoted

much of our time to cases concerning their enforcement.

Compliance

with the APCB standards has resulted and will continue to result

in considerable improvement of the air, but more recent information

has shown, as the present record indicates,

that in a number of

respects the standards are in need of further strengthening.

At the same time,

as indicated below,

in several instances the

Agency suggested, or we have adopted on the basis

of ether

testimony, provisions making allowances for people who have made

considerable investments

in reliance on the old regulations, where

it appeared possible to avoid multiple expenditures without un-

duly jeopardizing air quality.

Paragraphs

(a)

,

(h), and

(c)

establish basic emission standards for

particulates from a variety of industrial prbcesses.

The one hour time

period is simply intended to designate the emission averaging time and

not to impose stringent pleading requirements on the Agency.

Incinerators

and fuel—combustion units, such

as furnaces for space heating and boilers

for steam electric generation, are covered separately in subsequent

paragraphs.

The process standards are expressed

in terms of pounds of

particulate that may be emitted in any hour as a function of the weight

if

materials introduced into the process. This “process weight” approach

has

the advantage of relating emissions directly to the productivity of

;~

orocess as well

as discouraging resort

to such evasive practices as

~

~:ior. which must be specially provided for if the earlier

tandard limiting concentration in terms of axhaust

~‘ation

is used,

as suggested by U.S.

Steel (Jackson,

Standards requiring employment of devices with

on efficiency do not take adequate account of al-

of erissionreduction such as fuel or process

and

th~v

too are said to be subject to circum—

Argonn~’sdocument IIPP—2,

p.

83 (~R70-15, Ex.

4).

4— 311

---

The process weight tabl~ in i~ragraph (b)

is in its

most essential feature, the

ai1cw~il~

emission numbers for most

sources,

the

same

as

that

alr-d~i~t~f~orre

ander the APCB regulations.

These

limits

are

in

turn

de~-c~

~

the long-standing Bay

Area

code

in

effect

ir~

th~

San

~n~’

:c~~:ea, which was based upon

a

study

cf

~r!s~on~

&cn~~c

~

~~:ace

by industries with respec-

table

coatt~~s

The ~

~

of remiiririg adherence to such

a table

‘~

~i

i

1Ls~mof —~driottct

in most industries

is amply

sustaio~dby

-o~ ::e~a~

~i

a

~oarn

in

administering

the

APCF

ind~~i~s,

:s

~oro:-

a

-o~‘cu

1-~oa~c.

decisions

approving

pic:~sun

in

~ari

Jo~Th~

Lr~~a

‘~-•.

in

compliance,

as

well

a~

D

~tO~i

~a

.~

u

~c1tey

~nci

by

others

in

~ji;.

nr,ter”

~

~

~

~

ur

t~rlier

decisions

o

tte

ore~ent record.

~

~

~iC

it

appears in

10

-

~c ~:atac~r

~c’!n

e’~emptions for

•~t ~

-

-o

‘.

i-~

~jc1

~ooulations.

No

one

c-

T:o4c~,

~-

-~‘

outtons

for

meat

smoke—

c~.

-

-

~

~o~:-~cturing

,

and

there—

-

:o

ov~~erce

cc

-os

~

~

tIor

~ny

special

exceptions

I

tr

~

ot

noo:

L~ma.

‘1he

-~-~

f~

~

c~ant

exceptions,

~

we_i

::

tnosu

for

corn

ro~.

.

to~

ytic

cracxing,

are

discOsE.Cd

below.

Too

;3cc00d

chdnge

is

to

~‘~e

~xpliciti”,

as

the

old

table

did

not~.

that

similar

soure~

~tc

cc

aa~reoatodfor

purposes

of determining the apnlicaole

~

‘;~s

~ci-ht.

The

significance

of

this

provision

is

that

n~ot~

f~c~’o

toicrols

are

required

on

larger

units,

both

becau~-

b~’~

‘ater

potential

for

harm

and because cf well r.

~-r.

:~aciencies

of

scale in

control equipment.

This

-;ro~ia~co

control

requirement was a

feature of the

oraginal

i~av

~:ea

table.

It

is

important,

there-

fore,

to

treat

multiple o~i~sti

the

seine kind on

the

same premises

as

if

tney

were

r~ne,

both

to

prevent

circumvention

by

building

several

small

units instead

of

one

large

one

and

recause

of

the

practicalilo’

of

app1~’ing a

single

large

control

~v~ce

to

a

number of

smal

like sources.

Because these

la~t~r policies

do

:~.

apply to sourcos of different kind, it is not necessary to

~c~regate

•~

basic oxygen furnace with an asphalt saturator, or

~v~n with

a sincering plant, for purposes of this Rule.

The

Agency

asked

us

to enact

an

absolute

upper

limit

of

70

~ctund~

par

hcur

regardless

of

the

size

of

the

process,

in a commendable

ef~r~

to

avoid

an

undue

concentration

of

emissions that might lead

t~

a

‘iiolaticr

of

air

~uai~ty

standards,

We

agree

with

the

goal,

t.t

tie

reciedy

is

oct

tai1or~d

to

the

need.

Emissions

of

over

~

~.-r~ds

nr:.r

hour

w4ll

not

neceFsariiy

cause

viclations

of

the

-~

c-”

‘~candards .~fthe~cc-,

bhey

can

be

prevented

or

abated

4—312

---

under other provisions of the regulations.

The principal effect

of the absolute limit would be

to encourage the proliferation of

small sources, rather than to reduce emissions.

The Agency’s

latest data show that the 70-pound limit is not necessary to

meet the air-quality standards

(Ex.

113-H), and we have rejected

it.

Not only

is it reasonable to expect compliance with the APCB

process

weight

table

as

revised

in paragraph

(b);. the evidence is

convincing that

that

table

is

a

good

deal

more

lax

than

necessary

in

the middle size

ranges

in

te~ms of

what

can

reasonably

be

ex-

pected by the application of readily available technology.

Pro-

fessor Babcock, who made a preliminary study of technical and economic

feasibility of process particulate controls

(Exs.

28, 29,

30;

R 70—15,

R.

574-608), pointed out that control devices, including

electrostatic precipitators, scrubbers,

and baghouse filters are

readily available and in common use with removal efficiencies of

over 99,

and that small open hearth furnaces, for example,

could comply with the MCB table with as little as 90

control.

At

our

request

he

drafted

a

more

stringent

table,

achievable

by

standard technology, which in essence the Agency proposed as

paragraph

(a)

,

applicable

to new sources and to those not yet

engaged in

a program to meet the more relaxed paragraph

(b)

The Agency corroborated Babcock’s conclusions in Gaddam Reddyts

extensive analysis of twelve different industrial processes

(Ex.

11), demonstrating the degree of control, and the ready avail-

ability of control devices, to achieve compliance with a table

more stringent in some size ranges than that of the A~CB.

Except for a few industries discussed specifically below, there

was virtually no argument that the stricter table

was technologically feasible.

The practicability of meeting

such a table is further confirmed by our own cases, noted above,

in many of which devices installed under the old regulations proved

more than adequate to achieve compliance with the more stringent

requirement.

Industry testimony,

too, for the most part,

confirms

the achievability of themore stringent rule.

Salvage, for example,

testified that an actual 45-ton-per-hour foundry cupola with

a

98

scrubber now installed in Illinois would comply with the

Babcock table

at a point where the latter cuts allowable emissions

to half those permitted under the old table

(R 70-15,

R.

82-83,

90); Feeley (id.,

R.

1243-45) testified that Olin’s phosphoric

acid plant would have no difficulty in complying because of its

existing scrubber.

On the basis of overwhelming testimony

as to

common practice in industry even in the face of less stringent

standards, we conclude that it is feasible and reasonable to impose

the more stringent process weight table of paragraph

(a)

as

a

minimum state-wide standard of good practice in limiting particulate

emissions in the general case.

4—31$

---

This

andlysis

has

led us

to

adopt

the

more stringent

paragraph

(a)

for

new

sources, wherever located,

and

also

for

ex:Lsting

sources

that

have

not

yet

taken

steos

toward

compliance

with

the

more

i~nient

APCB

regulation,

which

is

largely

retained

as paragraph

(b)

The

more

strinoerlt-.

table

is

necessary,

accondiac

to

modeline

anforr~atarn,

iv’

crier

to

ma~ntas

c’csp1i~c-ive

~itO

tno

civ

stancta.rds

in

the

Chicago

region

in

the

lace.

of

continuec

growth

~Iinplementat1on

Plan,

pn.

6—I--lU

•

6-1—22,

6-~l---23).

In

other

parts

of

the

State

we

thin.k

it.

desirable

that

peonle

who

must

now

undertake

to

ccn~ ru~

ccitr~

nr~,/iJ~

tts

noopabl

ivI

~

r

i

by

~oaraq.raph

(a)

in

orde.r

to

reduce

:Lc.cal

nrcbie:ras

to

avoid

unnecessary

degradation

of;

airth

at

can

be

ole-an

and

do

leave

is

~xaiau~

i

u m

it

r

~iivu

a

dci a

o~c-c t

0

~

~

c

t

s

~cr~Lc~

there

appears

no

reason

to

allow

forty

pounds

of

narti

c.ulate

an

LS~

ion

p

r

‘-

on

a

rC

t

~‘~t

c

1

—~

r~

i-b

n~ a

en

ii ±

t.een

,

to

qlve

one

exam

i.e

rosin

toe

•two

tables

-

On

the

other

ha.nd,

in

accordance

with

policies

~expresse.d

earlier

in

this

o~ioaoo,

we

have

retasn.ed.

the

less

demand lop

paracraph

(b)

for

those

sources

xi :Lch

have

mode

cniflcant

expenditures

a

i

thE

~n

c

-o

a

io~’

~der

rl

a

C

cii

u

not

be

waict.od

To•

do

otherwise

might

In

many

cases

open ire

scrapping

of

expensive

new

e

uic~menr. to

achieve

a

r.Ca:cg1na~. .lmcrcorem?~r0:

iLo

sir

~

~t

a

do

OO~

t~

iv

I

L)~

‘

3d

1 ~

~

~

c-

Le

L

applies

II

the

source

is

ocx

in

comploance

with

its

provisions;

or

ii:

the

owner

baa:

entered.

into

contract.s

pursu.a.n.t

to

a

variance

~‘nthod1

pe

a

nrcpe

ir

i

at nrC

nc-b

a

v’

ivich

i

inp~.inric

C~

~C

has

comtic-nced

construction

of

facil,itie.s

to

achieve

such

compl?anco

and

cbtasn.s

a

variance

to

that,

effect

in

the

icc-ediate

future.

doe

Agency

is

contldent,

that

this

relatively

sma:Ll

ccucca.ss

cc

to

those

who

have

built

in

g~yyJ faith

will

not

ieo’pardi.~ze the

air

quality

standards,

Paragraph

(d)

~1)

makes

separate

provision

for

catalyst

rpeemora~ors

Fi

eeL~ l~no

craoc-’~g

tar

ijitmo

~C~?

it

have

enormous

Ic-ocess

xeigi-its,,

up

cc

3500

tnos

per

hour

and

would

he

greatly

hampered

b

the

absolute

70

pounds

per

hour

:Limit

initially

p~0posE~dby

Babcock

The

rule

as

adopted

subjects

ai.l

such

units

,

old

or

new,,

to

the

seine

limitation

as

in

paragraph

(is)

,

specifying

that.

process

weight

is

the

weicrh t

of

catalyst

recirculated,

and

repeals

the

nc-re

lsr~ient

provision

of

99

7

recovery

efficiency

on

the

basis

of

testimony

that.

the

more

strinqent.

requirement

was

already

met

hI

several

Illinois

installations

~in~v1O~

cc 4rosmo-

c :re~Iintctcr9‘M~rsiig, ~ ~

5

1

IS—c-,

1032—34

,

1042—44)

ice

high

degree

of

control

required

Is

:iustified

:Ln

our

opinion

by

tie

value

of

she

reconered

cctac-rsi:

and

by

the

considerable

quai~cities

of

narticula-te

matter

ersicted

by

units

complying

with

the

old.

ccl e~

See

the

testimony

of

Lopez.

R.

3156—57.

9970—71,

that

Shell’s

regenerator

emits

two

tons

of

particulates

per-

day.

To

re.lax

the

new

standard.

for

existing

sources

at

this

kind

,

therefore

wcuid

siermit.

very

consicierotlo

4--314

---

emissions

that

can

be

avojded

,

according

to

the

evidence

~

by

adding

an

additional

control

device

at

the

end

of

the

existing

system,

withoutwasting

investments

already

made.

We

decline

to

do

thts~

The

APCB

regulations

made

special

and

more

lenient

provisions

for

~2t

number

of

pro:cesses

in

the

steel

~.t ndustry

,

aliowing

ver~y

~mihstant±a1

guant

:.

ities

ci:

emission

in,

excc~ss

of

those

that

would

1d~E~

.DeCfl

pnrtt

~d

~

~E

IETe~ns

p

~ces

~~JJlt.

~±~r

furnaces

xcix-:

required

tc::~ control

to

~:)

~ü~

~ lrctiras

~~

its

tztndard

~uabic

foot:

(APCB

P:ule

:

~C3

~

2

:~

)

~

opera

1h~eEti:t:h~

~

b.:~.st:Lc~

C)C/gEtfl

furnaces

10511L

~

r—eccu~1

~

~

OmI

_i

)

~r/’c

l~

1

.3-fl

3.

113.0)

delco

none

w ore

g.iven

a

atl.ll

more

sweeping

exemption

CII

SOUS Soil

be LOW

Viewing

ftc

a Ieel plant excep

i:i..cna

as

ma

j

or

sources

i

ttE!_~rI

~

Sta

e

‘

a

~~so

e

c~

v’

N-

IL

ON-

L

r

~N-

n

cj04_

b

ç~ ~

~ocj~

fu.rnaces

anti

electric

scrn.accs

,

as

well

as

signiiisarr::i

stricter

rw

O’OL

~it~

1

CC

0

iN

ad.opted

t ia

A

once

5

pa eec sal

Nc

.me

•di spul:dd

the

al loins

tier

ci

a

e.cln

~.

iron

alone

icr

open

hearti

is

or

for

beast

fern

ices

As~ in

heated

anove

laNced

j

ea

an

‘

C

0

r

ç

1

CL

I

I

1110

4

1

1~tL~a~

~

NJ—

~li

iS

I’~

—nwi

I

N

0

1

c1 _i’

1~

1

1

a

5

Uti

(LLL1I

tIlt

L

~l4

I

~

v

~,r

Ii’

~is

ricisid

.rece

re

S

sill

:lesii

etticienr

~coritsO

:i.

(331!

,

op

II—

Ii

too

at

1

a

t

‘

—

Ic

~cc

C’3~t

E~

r

~

~

-—c

ISIOt

1~

0

~t~i

p

)t

1,115

r(

rty

4*

fcrt..1b,e

13.121

aI

ii.

e~r

c~eri

si. P

e

ssili

2.

a

t~~çri

Or.!. t5nC~JE1

.5.11

5.J,ist:3 isa ii

~~—‘

55 tN-S

N

It

~

1

r

a

‘~

s

t

I

ci

~

~

N-Li

I

Ii’-~

~i

~‘

5~’

iC~

ct

N-1

15

j

C

I

I

Inc

‘~oi

ii

L.

t?

mra

404

I_~~

1

LI

I

c

.n last

terraces

very

e.lfici

en seas

clean

i.nc~is

rct’.enicen

tc

enable

5c

Lee

5

41

~1

4ahlc

114

n

rc~fl

~

4*

Sitsilti,

carbon

isenesnc3e.~.

,

Silt

ne at .Lng

Pi~

i1i?O!15.

isa

he.cdsz

tee tars

~en

b

I

LiI*

5N’

cc

Li

IlLir

5~t

C

C

1rs

sq

11L

Ia

I

~Ot

;~:x

a

sat

C

~

4

nellIe

ci

N1r11l

_~

.Lo4ad inn,

he

concluded

xcii lb

eel Ii cc

tc

bs:anci

0111155ions

iron

acm

,_J

~‘

e

1

1

N

coop ii area

xi

t.d

P~elEI 20 i~

1

i:d

(13.

271. —722

lx

.123,

PP.

i~

-~

Steal

industry

witnesses

foi..l.ewino

the

lead

of

Ii

S

Sta’el

(

1tNfr~N-

1

‘

asee~

rt

I

C

1511

1

C

/

m.

ode

tmr

h-i

o~

‘

~

r

~cc

s~tEInd!LScieaiC1ni(~T

no

provision

for

tighter

:eonarn 1

ci

l.e.rqe.r

units

are.

11

1

411

CL

IHLL

d

scm

acm1

ci tn oug.n

,Arnc~ur of

n tc r

I axe

stitjTea

eiv

snpner tad.

7

S

Sto of

4

—

so

---

position

(Ex.

114,

No. 170), he responded to our subsequent inquiry by

reaffirming his earlier flat testimony that Interlake’s BOF,

with a 99.7

precipitator,

already complied with paragraph

(b)

(R 70—15,

R.

665—76; Ex.

114, No.

165).

.Reddy’s calculations

confirmed that Interlake would have no difficulty with its basic

oxygen furnace even

if

it were required to meet paragraph

(a)

(Ex.

11.

p.

25).

So did Blank, testifying that for a 500—ton—per

hour BOF 99.66

control would be needed for paragraph

(a) and that

“there would be no difficulty from my experience

in obtaining

99.7,

99.8

percent

efficiency

from

precipitators and to maintain

this efficiency

if

the

equipment

is

well

maintained and operated’s

(R.

458).

In

terms

of

grain

loadings,

the evidence is equally

clear

that

the

O~03 standard

proposed

by

U.S.

Steel

is

far

more

lenient than existing emissions from several Illinois installations.

EPA information is that Interlake’s present grain loading

is 0.008 gr/scf and Wisconsin Steel’s as low as 0.003 to 0.007

(Ex.

113—0).

Thus U.S.

Steel

is asking to be excused from

applying the degree of control already practiced by its competitors

as

a matter of good practice or good citizenship.

It is abundantly

clear that U.S.

Steel can meet the stricter standard.

It is

equally clear that the difference between the

standard

we

adopt

and that proposed by

U.

S.

Steel is too significant to justify

any exception for sources now meeting the APCB standard.

De-

pending upon the effluent gas volume, which under a grain loading

regulation could he increased without limit, with consequent

increases in particulate emissions,

U.S.

Steel’s basic oxygen

shop would

emit anywhere from one half ton to

1. 1 tons per day

more than allowed by 203(b)

if the 0.03 gr/scf standard were

adopted.

Moreover,

Illinois

principal steel-making operations

-are

located

either

on

Chicago’s

far

South

Side

or in the Granite

City area.

The evidence is striking that these areas are among

the dirtiest we have

in terms of particulate concentrations.

Annual mean concentrations near the steel mills in 1970 were as

follows

(Implementation Plan, Appendix II, pp.

30,

33,

34)

Location

Particulate Concentration

(ug/m3)

Granite City

(# 03)

194

Washington

189

Granite City

(4~ 1)

134

Carver

120

Clay

110

Calumet

103

C.V.S.

105

Fenger

96

4

—

316

---

The federal primary standard, essential for health reasons, is

75 ug/m3.

The secondary standard, which we must meet under

federal

law to assure adequate protection of all interests from air

pollution,

is 60.

In areas so grossly exceeding the air quality

standards we cannot afford to allow an unnecessary emission of an

additional half ton or more of particulates per day from a single

plant.

We adopt the Agency’s proposal and eliminate any exception

for basic oxygen furnaces.

With regard to electric furnaces, Armour testified that

Interlake elsewhere was building a 98-plus

baghouse that would

bring an electric

furnace into compliance with the process weight

table

(R 70-15,

R.

665-76).

Laclede Steel, with the same size

electric furnace shop as U.S.

Steel

(2 furnaces each rated at

85

tons per hour), points out that the pollution control equipment it

Is now installing will meet Rule 203(bL(Ex.

114, No.

139).

U.S. Stee1~s

own

evidence

is

that

its

electric

furnaces

will

operate

between

0.02

and

0,03

gr/scf

and

will

at

least

sometimes

meet

Rule

203(b),

which,

for

this plant size, corresponds

to

a grain loading of 0.022 gr/scf.

Thus

U.S. Steel

is already o’perating within the range contemplated by

the Agency~sproposal.

Moreover, emissions from electric furnaces

are

highly

variable

according

to the method of operation.

Exhibit

33

(pp.

570-71)

lists

an

uncontrolled emission range of from 4,5

to

75

pounds

per

ton

of

steel

depending

upon

the

condition

of

the

material

charged,

and

exhibits

31

(p.

96)

and

85A

(Reference

to

Varga

Report

on

Integrated

Iron

and

Steel

Industry,

p.

v—l4)

note greatly increased emissions when oxygen lancing is used.

By

proper operation, therefore,

U.S.

Steel may well be able to meet

the

stricter

standard even ~dth its present equipment, while the

company’s proposed grain loading standard would permit practices

increasing the flow of effluent gas and therefore the quantity

of

contaminants emitted.

We have adopted the Agency’s proposal.

For the main windbox of sinter plants the Agency recognized

a special control problem and proposed a standard of 1.2 times

the emission allowed by paragraph

(a).

This standard was explicitly

based upon the program of Granite City Steel Co., which testified

it would meet the standard

(Ex.

114, No.

166;

R.

3651,

3668).

U.

S.

Steel, once again, took the lead in arguing for-more emissions,

urging a standard of 0.05 gr/scf (Jackson,

R.

3230-31).

Interiake

in its original testimony

(Armour, R 70-15,

R. 665—76)

evinced no

problem in meeting a process weight limitation such

as that the

Agency proposed, stating

•that a 99

multiclone already in operation

should suffice.

Later, however, Interlake stated that its grain

loading was 0.05 and that 0.03 would be required to meet the Agency’s

standard for its size plant

(Ex.

114, No.

165).

Granite City’s

expected grain loading, which will meet the stricter standard,

is

..027

(Ex.

114,

No.

166).

Ii.

S.

Steel specified that its sinter

4— 317

---

plant

wou’d

require

an

O~0169 gr/SCF

outlet

loading

an

meet

the

regulation

~s.Ar

i

electrostatic

precipitator,

presently

in

operation

in

the

~1ant

~Thas

been

improved

to

the

maxirathm

perfc’r~ance

for

this.

deviL a ~

,

and

further

controL

woul•d

he

recruired

t~: corctp~iy

even

~,~it:h.

0

.

0 5

crr1”sof

.

~.J

.

S

.

S

.

ain~i-~tedti~iat technology

was

available

to

reacs

sower

crs.in

loadings

which

•could

•b-a

doria

with

high

oncrcpi

~

b

:u~

F

o~ieo

—~

~eu

nit

~

:t

I

a

a

s.uuj.

uii no

ix.

114

•

Nc.

133):

-

IC

I

s

thus

clear

toot

the

teclsna lacy

~x

ists

•

anit

in;

in

some-

plants

already

ern.plryed

ho

reduce

ale too

1

i

a’r

~

~a

I

a

hi

th~

~ae

c~

m

it. S.

Steel.

c.an

be

expected

to

do

as

well

,

especially

since,

as

Ito

own

err

dance

makes

clear

that:

company

must:

istal:L

not

1

~

0

~

U

1

C

Cc

105

1

0/

1

5

‘

3110

01

~

Cfl~

~

I

1

1~

CI

r~-i

t

U

S

fli~

305

0

F

C

~

~r

oao~i

-.

a

L

~

C

C

so

~

/

i

~

i’~

~

~

~on~-

~~e-

r

ot.onr:s

(Sx~:i3

p.

400

,

113

n-;:l ..Lv

•

the

dii

ferenc

in

e:r;i

is

ii

ta•neeo

t1~

a

1333k

a

ors

::-on;al

nod

that

::CI

13

5,

Steel

is

..3. 23

r

I

-~

c—0

C-—

I

c

~

c-

Cc

r

a

r

I an•ss

are

icc a.ted.

tICs:

I arc-a

3ocorpor

::ted

thin

~q

?:~~:cv

a

o

S to .rc

t

IV

0

So:.

.odas 3

In

.kois

20

3

C

c-C

31

Pa

CO)

(

3

3

1:

tsaRan;

ii C~so

Ia 1.

p :rc,w

:3.s:Lon

fin r

coincot:

P 2ant:

-~

CCII

C

c-

C

a

hi oh

CC S qr

C IC

C Oj.C 0:0 CI I.

ASC

S

•Rn

3. a

3

—

3

.,

2 2:

(I

seoul

r

s-C

inka-c.

:5 eonsCIt

Isoh s con

hr

C

I

to

31

(c

jc~

r

r~.

rij~

~u

Ic-Ic-

LI

I.-~

CI

-c-

~

sn

~o

L~rc

w~di

.RuIa

20 3

;:

0501.

ti-a h:oew

clan to

fri

low

toe

Fe-Ce ion

1.

New

Source

Stand.arCs

or

oh at-:sit

:Ln

Rule

202- (it)

3

)

-

There

are

tihree

OsmotiC:

r

C

£

xc

c-I

11

01)1

00

h

-o

co

C

5

1

~,

7

c-a

F

3

c-

IT

1

Lino

a

C Mar ci

SIC

he

Sont

I anCt

Coin en

t

-

1..

3871— -8 4

cts

in C

hod

to

th a

need

so

•.:COP5Iv

wi hA

20

3 (.b

,

main I:aining

t:nat

t.i-:e:Lr

C;OmparLL

en;

are

in

the

process

C)

f

.sns hailing

contro

Ls

which

inkii

meet:

the

ASCII

5,c-

a

ic-

n.

I

I

no’

‘c-S

‘1

~.

c-’c

a

rc-

c-c-’

I

1~

-~

~C

c-c-

c-

nbc--rid

aisoc.

:soint

our:

that

our

.Dixon

to: inn;

currently

meet.

:no-t

only

the

1X50

ting

Ill:LnohA

st:ninciaiod

(but

Iso.)

the

or-nooses.

tano•r ru,

.as

3-tel I

as

•tha

federal

r~i

poseC

c-

cOO

C

CCC

(it

r~

---

At

the

PCI3’s request, both Marquette and Missaurs submitted

more

-detailed

inforr- ation

on

their individual processes

(Ex,

114

No.

167

a-ed

168).

Thin

data

revealed

that

-the

des ion

value

for

uncontrolled

emissions

from

the

maior

kiln

t~7as

51.3

an-C

32

gr/SCF

i8or

Marsuette

and

Missouri,-

respectlvely.

Neither

firm

maintained.

(shot

these

values

were

based

on

actual,

test

informat,ic-n.

The

hi~,~,est test

grain

loading

for

dry

pc:

I land

cement

plants

resorted

a’i

the

~n~eral

cocurehA

“AtOll

OI’EOlC

Pn~

~150~

CI:

~‘1a of re’-

~c-c

pf

Portland

Cemerild’

,

(Em.

183

is

17

.

8

gr/SCF

.

with

~:~h

:Ls

p1-sin

:IOOd1,fl~

arid,

the

rei?OrteCI

eesi..gn

15-

ficlencies

Ito tin

of

the

ol-ant:s

i.e

quen;tion

will,

meet,

or

001.50

ve.ry

close

to

oCeetincI

,

Rule

20:1 (b)

Si::n;ce

complaance

wi-bk

203 (F)

15

not

rega

med

until

19713,

and

startup

of

control

e—:3uli:iment

for

these

-two:

plants

is

p lar~rc-e3ifor

1st-a

c-~~cr~7

I)

OPTS

dSt50

~P0r

t

~

~

~at

S

c-niL

c-I

~cc

behAo

the

n)nk

oat

c-A

reoc-

~tre

l?~

a-a

1

icl’nU

hA

kdiat

on

a~-

C

a-nc

it

~5ci

i~eok,

c-S

c-’c-

30

Cc

c-

u

1

a

-(the

IOT-E

B

-attention.

On

t.hc-

other

Sc-and

there

is 0

StrC)03C4

j)0-SS

lb.i

I

tO

that

:1:0)

further

cont.rois-

will

inc

reo:.iloo-C

to

meet

Rule

203 (It)

Conx.seciuensly,

at

the

5I~?ISE:C..

t

tCI~

,

he

.pc:s

cannot

Jun.thy

055111

t.he::recou Ia tree

0-fl

the

bits i-s

of

the

above

ci.

C:,ec

den

Ipx: grain

load

i_OS U

The

limitations

of

Rule

203

(‘1)

.(

:3)

(53

aOP1.y

0

00W

ncrtland

e1~I1enc

diUfltr

OIG

rcc-

t~’

i

aC

~

—1

cA

~

c-

c-C

O”

50

onloc-

S

Kestiii

r

cruest:ioned

5350c-.thc-’c-r

.s-

c--C--35

~tandi~~ircC

C-suit:

.a(’~5UalJ:v

Ire

Cent.,

ci

I

C

ft

SC

C’

5c-~

—

c-

1

c

U

~

Ic

~CC11-r31I

c-

on

s-c-

c-c--’

in

on

p1

(Ei:.

1.1.5)

citec:

-t.asts

at

one

plant

which

c-did

meet

these

cOiSt.ICC)I

Oc-ICOOII50sierit.S.

Sara-gre-ph

(it)

(4)

provides

55500:353

rule

for

certain

co:on

milling

proces.ses

The

APCB

reoulatlons

cc-nta.ined

an

ac-—r-Lrc~c-c-eiv

lair

prol.1rlsion

(r~c-c-lac-

3

3

.

2511

except.lng

aI’:ooc~etRer ann-wet

corn

milling

P000:05:5

cxi

thEa

(1051:5

Of

ifl.rtiV-ldUal

proof:

of

hardshio

provided

t.hat

new

processes

not

exceed

a

ç~-ra~n

loao:,n

of

0

75

tin/oct.

c-c-ho

industry

test:ified

that:

-I.kiere

was

sti:Li

need

for

a

i~r

ii

ac-IC

tanaa~j

1503

t

C-~c~

crC-

uteri

1

00150

1

c-~

c-c~n

I

humidity

low

specific

gravity,

and,

small

cort-ic3Le

size

made

scrubbers

.n:reoipi+at:or~s:,

and

baphouses

so

far

UnaCceI?table

:but-

that

ciX~.S

tx-n

irnpi-o’vercce ott;

in

cyclone

t:echnoiociy

m.ade

itpo

55

10

le.

to

pc-var

the

pern~ss hAle

loading

to

0

.-

3

(Coac-merford.

II.

70—15

,

5

.77 9~

3i9

We

have

accepted

this

.sugoesticin

for

iimrxed:i.ate

applicatIon

01000

it.

oepres.ents

currant:

oraot.ice.

4-hr

nave

100

tOri

Agenc-y’

.~

-siIqss,s:-t:..oni

added

a

provision

reraovino~ this

5550151

exce-tioni

in

1975

c-~

on

the

has

c...

di

JC9

~eeu

an1

in

‘c-500

ot th~too

coptr~ ~

Ft

5

3

3

~arioaid

is

looser

by

a

facto:r

of

tr-’~

than

that.

:30

have

rejec-ted

s

too

l.a x

for

stee~: plants

arc-it

are

view

it

as

an

lflteniOt

measure

tolerabl:.e

any

because

of-the

limits

of

present

technology.

The

corrcxxen’as

ox:

the

indusory

as

tO)

future

control

itCchtI-OiO0A’

developments

were

coos

LI

y

cnphA

a-st

L

~

lg

h,

c-el

CI

1

No

7

ro

)

-,

no

II.

1654—95

t-

Commenford

,

supra)

.

If

-t:.hese

developraent.c-s

reOVE1

1C’,y

c-ic-

~

~

hA

tIe

~fld0C

-!

to

1

hA

any

extension

of

tha.

present

ti~

~

stontlard

4—519

---

Rule 203(d)

(5) emphasizes that grinding, woodworking, sand-

blasting, and shotbiastirig are covered under the fugitive particulate

rule

(203(f))

and not by the process weight tables.

Rule 203(d) (8)

does the same for stock piles.

These provisions are based on the

fact that emissions from these sources are riot likely to be ex-

hausted, collected, or measured in such a way as to make

application of the process weight tables feasible.

On

the

other

hand, the definition of fugitive dust in Rule 201, as well as the

circumvention provision of Rule 109 and the exhaust system requirement

in Rule

110,

is meant to make clear that processes otherwise subject

to the process weight rule cannot be exempted simply by leaving

off

the stack.

Rule

203(d)

(6)

contains

strict

new regulations for emissions

from

coke

ovens.

The

development

many

years

ago

of

by—product

coke ovens utilizing the gases that otherwise would have been emitted

to the atmosphere greatly reduced the air pollution potential of

coke ovens.

But conventional byproduct ovens are opened to the

atmosphere both for the charging of coal at the start of the cycle

and for the pushing of the finished coke at the end, At both

these

times

severe

particulate

and gaseous emissions occur.

Moreover, additional emissions occur when the hot coke is quenched

with water after pushing.

See Ex.

11;

R.

733-734.

The APCB

regulations, based upon the then state of technology, despaired of

controlling these emissions, allowing up to twenty minutes per hour

of opaque emissions during charging and as many again during pushing

(Rule 3-3.2121).

These exceptions, as shown by the transcript

in

EPA v. Granite City Steel Co., ~ 70—34, represented a major gap

in particulate control.

The record is clear that the steel industry recognizes the

need for controlling coke oven emissions and that the technology

for doing so

is rapidly advancing.

The Agency

proposed a regulation

based on anticipated performance of the new charging car

(AISI car)

developed by the Iron and Steel Institute and scheduled for immediate

construction by Granite City Steel

(R.

3666-67).

Interlake agreed

that

it

was

reasonable

to

require

now

that

some considerable controls

be

placed

on

charging

in

the

next

few

years

but

objected

that

the

numerical

parameters

proposed

by

EPA

would

confine

the

choice

to

a

single

type

of

control

device

CR.

736).

In

response to this

testimony we rewrote the provision to specify,

in substance,

that

either the AISI car

(which employs negative pressure to keep emissions

inside the oven,

together with mechanical lid lifters to minimize

the time the oven is open)

or some equivalent control system (such

as a scrubber on the charging car, or pipeline

charging

that

would

keep the oven entirely closed during charging)

be utilized by no

later than the end of 1973.

We believe the evidence, not least

the commitment of Granite City Steel, amply demonstrates that the

time has come to require correction of the charging problem.

4—

320

---

With regard to the pushing and quenching end of the coke

cycle, the Agency initially made no proposal pending further

information.

Such information was forthcoming during the hearings-.

Hanley testified to the development of a largely enclosed quench

car into which the coke could be pushed, with potential emissions

captured and treated by a control device mounted on the car itself

(R. 2798—2805).

Interlake testified that it had contracted for

the construction of such a car, which should be

in operation

by the end of 1972

(R.

2797).

We believe it reasonable, based

upon the timetable, to allow others

to await the Outcome of Inter—

lake’s demonstration, recognizing that pushing control technology

is somewhat behind that for charging,

and still to install the

Allen car or an alternative of equivalent effectiveness by the end

of

1974.

Performance standards for such installations, as well

as more

specific ones for charging controls, will have to await

-iesting results.

For now the important thing is

to get the control

equipment installed and in operation.

Until

this

technology

is installed, emissions from coke

ovens

can

be

minimized

b~’ encouraging

good

work

rules

and

operating

procedures.

Hence

203(d)

(6)

(B)

Ci)

(aa)

limits

the

time

allowed

for

replacing

charging

port

lids

to

20

seconds

(Armour,

R.

757);

203(d)

(6)

(B)

(ii)

(aa)

specifies

30

per

cent

opacity

from

quench

towers

as

long

as

water

is not included in the

observation

(a

standard

achievable by using baffles) (Hanley,

R.

569—574);

203(d) (6) (B) (iv)

requires that leakage from coke oven doors must not exceed 30 per

cent opacity

(Cairns,

R.

2012)

and must not last longer than

10 minutes

(Armour,

R.

735 and Ex.

111,

p.

111-48)

and-.that

a

supply of spare doors must be available

(Armour,

R.

738);

and

203(d) (6) (B) (iii)

requires work rules to bring about

the above

control

techniques.

The prohibition of beehive ovens in Rule

203(d) (6) (A)

is merely a recognition that such devices emit all

of

the gaseous products of coke production to the atmosphere.

None presently exists in

Illinois.

Rule 203(d) (7)

incorporates

a rather specific exemption for

small foundries which already have control equipment meeting the

requirements of APCB Regulation-2—2.54.

Biss

(R. 2997—3015),

Blank

CR.

460-464)

and Vanderwalker

(R.

2854—2864)

testified that

technology for control of foundrie~was available to meet

either Table 2.1 or 2.2,

although Blank admitted that control to

the more restrictive standard would probably require switching

to an induction furnace for economic reasons.

Huelson

(R.

200—214)

representing the American Foundryrnen’s Society testified to the

general economic hardship which would be incurred by small foundries

in conforming to Rule 203(b)

but did not specify any economic

figures.

The Board in setting this regulation

took note of the

fact that Table

2.3 for small foundries differs,

at most, by

6

pounds per hour from Table 2.2.

On the other hand,

those

foundries which have not installed control equipment to meet the

special standard must comply with 203(a).

4

-~-

321

---

Rule 203(e) covers the emissions from incinerators. Vander-

walker’s testimony

(R.

2864-2866)

that his company had guaranteed

a grain loading of 0,05 gr/scf on a very large incinerator

is

the

basis for Rule 203(e) (1) ,controlling incinerators with refuse

loadings greater than 60,000 lb/hr.

These large sources should

be controlled as tightly as is practicable, and the old standard

(.2 gr/scf) was so loose that no exception can be made for those

now in compliance.

The value

of 0.08 gr/scf for incinerators

processing

more

than

2000

lb/hr

tracks

the

Federal

New

Source

Standards

(supra)

and was supported by Goder

(986-1000)

and Reed

of the Incinerator Institute

(Ex.

114,

No.

105).

The cutoff value

of 2000 lb/hr and the 0.2 gr/scf limit

for small existing incinerators

were based on Goder~ssuggestion

CR.

1004).

The testimony of Cook

(R. 3823—26), Basic

(3827—29)

and Chiagouris

(Ex.

102)

indicated

that 0.1 gr/scf was reasonable for small new incinerators.

A

more lenient standard is included for rural wood waste incinerators

based on PCB experience with the difficulties of finding alternate

disp~ô~a1

methods

for such materials.

(PCB cases

-

71-17,

71-27,

71-63,

71—56, 71—65,

71—73, 71—84, 71—121, 71—128, 71—135,

71—144, 7l—220~

71-304, and Exhibit 114

—

No.

146).

Industry testimony was that

this standard could be practicably met

CR.

3132

-

3141), and

this is far preferable to the open burning that might otherwise

result.

Most of the testimony on fugitive particulate matter

(203(f))

emphasized

the

difficulty

of

controlling

emissions

from

stockpiles

in

high

winds,

e.g.

Howlett,

cement

plants

CR.

1107—1109,

1114-1116);

Cairns,

coal stockpiles

(R.

2009);

Thomas,

sand,

rock

and

gravel

for asphalt paving

CR. 1916—1917); Smith, grain storage

CR.

2934).

Krikau

(R.

746)

and Cairns suggested 35 mph

as a cut off point,

while Scherrnerhorn

CR.

2968)

pointed out that wind speeds

in excess

of

20 mph will raise dust in open corn fields.

Roberts

CR.

3314)

nbted that with a 25 mph limit, fugitive particulates will be regulated

for 99

of the time per year, and this

is the value which has been

specified.

Rule 203(g) contains the all-important limitations on particulate

emissions from fuel combustion sources, which emission inventories

show constitute

a very substantial percentage of total particulates.

(Implementation Plan,Appendix I).

The APCB regulations, basically

allowing up to 0.6 pounds of emission per million btu of heat input

within metropolitan areas and 0.8 for existing sources elsewhere

(Rules 3-3.112, 2-2.53), were quite lax for large sources.

Common-

wealth Edison Co. conceded that 99.5

collection efficiency was

feasible, that it had ordered a 99.5

precipitator for its new

Powerton

5 plant, and that itcould meet the present

regulatio~ts

with only 90

control

CR 70-15,

R.

941).

Reddy testified for

the Agency that to meet a standard of 0.1 lb/MBtu equipment of

98.5

or greater efficiency was required

(Ex.

11.

pp.

44—50).

4

—

322

---

Edison is already required by the Illinois Commerce Commission

to control to 98

everywhere and had no objection to our

tightening the regulation to that level (R70—l5, R.902-950).

A number of

existing plants throughout the State have been or are in the process

of being controlled

to levels far beyond the requirements of

present regulations.

See, e.g.,

in addition to the Edison testimony,

that of Central Illinois Public Service Co.

(Ex,

114, No.49-

Table

I).

The need for a significantly tightened fuel particulate

standard in certain areas of the State

is shown by the results

of diffusion modeling.

1970 calculations showed that even the

New York City standard, which declines

to 0.1 pounds per million

btu at the upper ranges, would be insufficient to achieve compliance

with

the secondary air quality standard in the Chicago area, even

on the assumption that small fuel emission sources would

be eliminated by another provision discussed below

(See Argonne’s

document IIPP-4,

Ex.

6,

isopleths utilizing strategies 22-7-23

with London Law Phase II and with Citywide Ban on R/C Coal and

Oil).

More recently, t~heAgency’s modeling showed that

in Peoria,

whose particulate problems are less acute than those of either

Chicago or St.

Louis,

a standard of 0.~3.lb/MBtu, half that now

applicable, would probably not suffice to meet the secondary air

quality standard

(Ex.

113-H).

On the basis of the foregoing evidence, we conclude that

many fuel—burning sources throughout the State are presently being

controlled to emission levels far below those in the APCB regulations,

and therefore that a substantial tightening of the limits is desirable

throughout the State to reflect an improved level of standard

practice.

Moreover, the evidence establishes the practicability

of compliance with an 0.1 lb/MBtu standard for coal-burning units,

which are the most in need of control,

as well

as the need for

a

standard in that range

in order to meet the air quality standards

inthemore polluted regions.

In other regions we believe 0.1

represents

a desirable standard of achievement to prevent degradation

or local nuisances and to leave room for new development,

in

light of the clear availability of controls to achieve this level

of emission.

The basic standard we adopt today for larger sources,

therefore,

is 0.1 lb/MBtu, which

is also the federal standard for

large new sources.

For oil-burning units the evidence is that the 0.1 standard

can be met in most cases without the need for controls.

See

Lopez,

FL

1858,

and Mowers,

R.

3398-3402, both testifying

for the oil industry.

The Agency had asked that we impose

a stricter

standard for oil. than for coal because it could clearly be achieved

by utilizing relatively inefficient control technology.

Ultimately,

however, EPA modified its position to request an oil standard of

0.08, which

is not significantly different from the coal standard.

4

—

323

---

We decline to impose a tighter oil standard in this situation

because the 0.1 standard is tight enough to protect air quality

in all present cases, and because we see no reason to discourage

conversion from coal to oil, which can result in significant

reductions

in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions

as well as compliance with the particulate standard.

Rule 203(g) (2)

applies to

the 0.1 rule

to all oil-burning sources.

Two exceptions from the 0.1 rule, however, have been made

in the case of coal burning in response to legitimate claims

of hardship.

The first,

in Rule 203(g) (1) (C), recognizes the

equities in favor of those who have recently made substantial

expenditures

in order to bring their emissions close to but not

quite within those permitted by the new general rule.

The analogy

is

to the somewhat relaxed process weight table in Rule 203(b)

for sources already meeting it.

In the case of fuel combustion

the old rule

is so much more lax than the new that we cannot allow

an exception for all those meeting the former.

A number of

facilities, however, have been brought within the range of 0.2

lb/MBtu in reliance on the old regulation

(See,

e.g., Fancher,

R.

2077-80; Ex.ll4, No.

49, Table I), and the Agency tells us that the

standard may make allowance for them without jeopardizing the

air quality standards

CR.

2642—4).

Accordingly,

Rule 203(g) (1) (C)

allows up to 0.2 lb/MBtu from fuel combustion sources presently

meeting

or engaged in a program to meet that standard, provided

their equipment is maintained so as to avoid excessive deterioration

of present emission rates.

The second exception from the 0.1 lb/MBtu rule relates

to

smaller coal—burning sources outside the Chicago region.

In older

cities such

as Chicago and East St. Louis there remain a considerable

number of small sources burning coal for heating purposes,

especially

in small apartment buildings.

The Agency tells us

that particulate emissions from such sources, which are commonly

uncontrolled,

are as high as 1.0 lb/MBtu

(Ex.

113-H).

Not

only do these emissions grossly exceed what is allowed from

other sources, but Argonne’s diffusion studies show that because

small domestic and commercial sources emit generally at low altitudes

from poorly designed stacks or vents,

their effect on air quality

is disproportionally large in respect to absolute quantities of

emissions

CR.

45-48,

162-3).

In the Chicago area the evidence is

absolutely indisputable that control of small coal-burning sources

is essential.

Regardless of what other feasible controls are

imposed, not even the primary federal standard of 75 ug/m3,

much less the secondary standard of 60, can be met in most of

the

City without control of domestic and commercial coal burning.

See generally the two Argonne documents IIPP-2 and IIPP—4, as well

as the final implementation plan’s figures 6.3.2 and 6.3.4, which

constitute a direct comparison of

air quality with and without

that control, and which are appended to this opinion.

If

uncontrolled domestic and commercial coal burning continues, there

will continue to be bad air in Chicago beyond any shadow of doubt.

4

—

324

---

ó.-3—3

PACE

C0U~TY

r~1t-s’.*at

.,a~

*tCt

Fi~uii~-e6.3.2

C~AO,~R

?~rC1cuiatcLevels

with

R/c’~e;~jlzitjon.

Rule 203 Cb) limit for process

particulates.

(L-r~uua1Cc~c~.;ctr~

l’~-D..ir7 ~/r.3)

—~

‘k—C-

.~.______

CCO)~

cc~u~iy

Implementation Plan

-Q

p

I.

~—

t..

I.

C00~( C0U?~Ty

LI~~COiJ1~~TY

4

—

325

---

6—3—5

Figure

6.3,/~

CMJ~OCRParticul~teLevels

with

1

SnIfur

Coal,

I

•

e.

,

re p~rticulate

c~~a~rols

f.

R,’C fuel

co:~ihu~bon,

Rule

203 (b)

limit

for

process particulates.

LAKE

C0U~TY

(Anrtt31

C

~etr~c~-~ea-~

t.-~/n~)

Implementation Plan

COOK

CCU!~T~

“GE

COU?4T’~

rta..t.

~

COOK

C-0U?~TY

—

326

---

The practicability of eliminating these principal sources of

Chicago’s remaining pollution problem is amply sustained by the

record.

No one suggested~that~the

answer was~toinst~flcontrol

equipment;

apparently the ~ma1l size of the individualoffending

units makes the solution economically less attractive than the

alternative.

The alternative is to convert to the use of cleaner

fuels such as gas or oil.

Such conversions are proceeding for

reasons independent of air pollution control;

in 1970, according

to the Peoples Gas Co.,

some 84,000 dwelling uni-~swere converted

to gas heating in Chicago alone

(R 70-15,

R.

426).

An extensive

Argonne study revealed that, because of the lower price of gas to

the small consumer, the cost of conversion could be recouped within

a very few years even

apart from the increased convenience of gas

heating CIIPP-4,

Ex.

6).

Early doubts

as to the availability of

natural gas to fuel the necessary conversions

CR 70-15,

R.

419-436)

were resolved by the later explicit

testimony of Peoples Gas

in December,

1971, that the. gas is now available:

“Peoples Gas

is confident that it will be able to convert

all present residential and commercial coal users in Chicago

to natural gas within the next three years”(R.

1135).

Moreover, both Argonne

(IIPP-4, supra)

and the oil industry

(R

70-15

FL. 1292—94)testified -that enough distillate fuel oil would. ha avail-

able to do the job even in the absence of natural gas.

The cost of conversion, while

it may be recoverable in lower

fuel costs,

is nevertheless a significant one

($300~-$700per dwelling

unit according

to

Argonne,

IIPP-4,

Ex.

6)

for individuals of modest

means, many of whom will be affected by the conversion requirement.

We think

in the Chicago area these costs simply must be borne if

we are to have clean air.

The federal criteria showing the adverse

effects

of high particulate concentrations

such

as would continue

to be experienced without such a requirement suggest that the cost

would be easily made up

for in savings to

the

entire community

from reduced pollution

(R 70-15, Ex.

8).

We are quite aware that

the limitation will have adverse effects on those who now supply

coal

to

the

dwindling

retail

market.

But

to

refuse

to

adopt

needed control measures for

the

sake of

the coal merchants would

be akin

to fighting a war to keep the soldiers employed.

We

cannot preserve retail coal sellers at the expense of

the public

health.

As urged by citizen witnesses testifying in favor of

a

limitation on domestic and commercial coal-burning

(e.g., H 70-15,

R.

842—44), we think local

and state lawmakers should give serious

consideration to some form of government assistance for all those

adversely affected.

Both

the

limitation

itself

and

government

assistance

have

precedent in the action taken to combat. a similar problem

in

London,

where the use of coal for heating was forbidden

in designated areas

high in pollution and a subsidy provided for conversion.

The

remedy is not without its hardships, but we are convinced that

4

—

327

---

in no other way can we obtain such a great improvement in air

quality at a comparable cost,

and that in no other way can we

obtain acceptable air in the Chicago area.

Rule 203(g) Cl) (A)

accordingly would have imposed a “London Law” or ban on .residential

and commercial use of coal in the Chicago area by limiting emissions

from those sources, as well as from larger fuel—burning units more

susceptible to emission control, to 0.1 pounds of particulate

matter per million btu.

Rule 203 (g) (1) (D) would have made the same

rule applicable state—wide

to new sources, on the ground that there

is no excuse at this late date to begin creating new Londons

or.

Chicagos in light of the obvious advantages even apart from pollution

control in burning cleaner fuels.

We cannot make these provisions

applicable

today

because

of

a

temporary

injunction

issued

by

the

Circuit Court of Cook County in No.

72

CH

1482,

Roth-Adam

Fuel

Co.

v.

Pollution Control Board.

Accordinglywe have added

a proviso

that nothing in Rule 203(g)

shall be construed as inconsistent

with the court’s order so long as

it remains in effect.

The Agency initially proposed that we make the London law

state—wide with respect to existing sources too and later narrowed

its request

to the Chicago and St. Louis regions because

it

was unable to establish, despite probable local nuisance problems

(See Roberts, R.46-48, Ex.

113—B), that significant violations of

the air quality standards would occur as

a result of domestic or

small commercial coal—burning

in less built-up areas

(Ex.

113—H

).

Because the London medicine is relatively drastic,

and because we

do not wish

to create unnecessary pressures on the limited natural

gas supply, we do not at this time impose the residential—commercial

coal ban on a state—wide basis, although we encourage efforts

to phase out such coal burning and may reexamine the desirability

of a wider ban in the future.

With regard to St.

Louis the question

is

a close

one.

The

Agency’s most recent information, based on a revised emission

inventory and additional Argonne modeling,

is that without the

London law the federal primary standard of

75 ug/m3 can be met

throughout

the area and the secondary standard of

60 can be met

everywhere except in the vicinity of East St. Louis.

The

highest predicted concentration in that city without the ban is

about

65 ug/m3 with,

about 56

(Ex.

ll3—P).

The area affected

is relatively small a.~contrasted with the Chicago situation;

the

predicted levels are only slightly above

the

secondary level,

not within the health-danger range as in Chicago; the predicted

excess is so small, especially in.light of a just previous

Agency estimate that the London law would make only

1 ug/m3

difference

(Ex.

113-H), that we cannot say with confidence that

the secondary standard will be violated in the absence of a London

law in the

St. Louis

area.

In light of these factors, the depressed

financial condition of the East St. Louis area

(Ex.

114, No.

141)

the lack of evidence as to the availability of gas in that region,

the desire not to divert gas from the Chicago region where we know

it is needed, and the hardships of the London law on persons with

little money, we decline at this time to extend the London law

to the St.

Louis region.

We shall reassess the situation after

sufficient time has passed to permit a more accurate determination

as

to the adequacy of the other new regulations adopted

today to

achieve compliance with the secondary standard.

4

—

328

---

Our

decision to limit the London Law to Chicago, where it is

most urgently needed,

is reflected in the graduated emission

curve prescribed by Rule 203(g) (1) (B)

,

which begins at 1.0 lb/MBtu

to avoid requiring small sources outside Chicago

to convert, and

which descends to require control to 0.1 lb/MBtu, subject of course

to the special provision for certain existing sources in sub-

paragraph

(C), for larger sources more readily controlled.

The combination of fuels Rule 203(g) (3)

is consistent with

the particulate allowances for users of only one type of

fuel.

However,

203(g)

(4)

takes into account venting of several small

boilers to a common stack where this arrangement already exists.

The allowable emission

limit is then based on the aggregate heat

input for all the boilers.

Because of averaging,

this procedure

slightly relaxes the limit for individual boilers, and allows some

flexibility for those who use several types of fuel to reduce

emissions.

Use of ASME Power test Code

27 for particulate measurement

was generally supported by industry, e.g., Goder

CR.

990).

Under Rule 203(1) new sources must comply at once with all

particulate limitations; the definition

of new sources

is phrased

so as to avoid any undue hardship on sources

or. which work has

begun.

The basic date for compliance by existing sources, except

for

fuel-burning

sources,

is

December

1973.

Fuel-burning sources

are given until May 30,

1975,

in recognition of the fact that

the installation of sulfur removal equipment may take until that

time, as discussed in connection with Rule

204, and that it makes

sense to provide the same date for all controls on the same

units.

A 1975 date

is also provided for certain sources meeting

APCB standards which are not stringent enough to qualify for a

permanent exemption from paragraph

(a)’s process weight table,

again in reliance on good faith expenditures.

Rule 204:

Sulfur Oxides.

Illinois is long overdue in regulating

the emission of sulfur oxides, which constitute

a major pollution

problem in certain parts of

the State.

Emitted principally as

a

result of coal combustion and to a lesser extent from certain industrial

processes, sulfur dioxide

is the gas which,

together with particulate

matter, has

been

responsible

for

such

catastrophes

as

the

London

killer smogs.

The federal government

has

determined,

on

the

basis

of

abundant

scientific

evidence,

that

S02

concentrations

exceeding

an annual arithmetic mean of

80 micrograms per cubic meter

(equivalent to about

70 ug/mJ on a geometric mean)

can be harmful

to human health,

and that concentrations exceeding

60 ug/m3 on

the same basis

(52 geometric)

can have adverse effects on public

welfare, as for example by accelerating the corrosion of materials.

4

—

329

---

See 26 C.F.R. sections 50.4,

50.5, reprinted in 36 Fed.

Reg.

22384

(Nov.

25,

1971), setting those levels, along with short-

term concentrations,

as air quality standards that it is the

States’

obligation to achieve, and the document Air Quality

Criteria for Sulfur Oxides

CR 70-15,

Ex.

7).

Apart from adopting

its own air quality standards for the two most polluted regions

(APCB Rules and Regs.,

Ch.

V)

and special provisions

to control

emissions during emergency conditions

(now PCB Regs., Ch.

III.

Part IV),

the Air Pollution Control Board had not taken action

against sulfur dioxide when replaced by the present Board in

1970.

Developing meaningful emission standards for this

important pollutant has been one of our highest priorities.

That something must be done about sulfur dioxide is plain.

Despite the effects of the City of Chicago’s 1.0

sulfur coal

ordinance,

several stations within the City still report annual

SO2 concentrationsabove the Federal secondary air quality standard

(Ex.

82).

In addition, Argonnets calculations indicate that the

sulfur dioxide concentration over substantial areas of Chicago

is

in excess of this limitation and will so remain unless additional

measures are taken.

(Imp.

Plan,

p.

6-3—4).

In Peoria, and in

the Illinois section of the St. Louis region,

available monitoring

data indicate 502 levels close

to, or above the secondary standard,

and ANL has

determined that large areas of these two regions

are or will be in violation of the standard given an annual growth

rate of about

4

(Cohen,

FL

172-188;

Imp. Plan,

p.

6—2—14, 6—2—16

Ex,

7).

Illinois-mined

coal,

extensively

burned

in

Illinois,

tends

to be high sulfur content,often as high as

5,0

(see Simon,

R.

663);

its uncontrolled burning

is

a principal cause of our

sulfur dioxide problems.

To reduce emissions to a level that will

produce acceptable air in the Chicago region will require either

a shift to cleaner fuels

or the installation of devices to remove

sulfur dioxide from the

exhaust gas.

The switch to cleaner fuels

is in progress in the City of

Chicago and in Cook County under pressure of the City and County pro-

hibitions on the use of fuel containing over 1

of sulfur.

This law has

~ccelerated~the trend toward natural gas and distillate oil in domestic

~ndbther

small installations

(See ImplementationPian, p.6—3-7) and has

induced such large coal users

as Commonwealth Edison Co.

to obtain

low—sulfur coal from the Western states

(Rifakes, R 70—15,

H.

855-57).

It is clear from the diffusion modeling that these trends

must be encouraged beyond the city limits.

It

is

also

demonstrated

that a switch by small users to low—sulfur coal would not suffice

to maintain compliance with the air-quality standards

in Chicago;

conversion to still cleaner gas or oil will be needed unless

4

—

33C

---

growth is to be stifled altogether

(See Implementation Plan,

pp.

6-3-1 and 6-3-4).

Thus the London Law that would have been

in this

region by Rule 203(g) (1) (A)

is necessary,

in addition to other

sulfur control regulations,

to keep sulfur as well

as particulate

levels in line with the air quality standards.

The availability

of fuel and the reasonableness of this requirement are discussed

above.

For larger sources there

is insufficient clean fuel at the

present

to permit a total conversion to oil or to gas.

In the

long run the gasification of coal holds promise that high-sulfur

Illinois coal can be transformed into a safe fuel

(H.

2651—52,

2087—88).

In

the

meantime

Commonwealth

Edison

has

testified

that

it will be able to obtain sufficient Western coal of less than

1

sulfur content to comply throughout

the Chicago region with our

standard some time in 1974

(Rifak~s,R 70-15,

H.

863—64).

Our standard is phrased in terms

of pounds

of emission per

unit of heat input rather than in terms of sulfur content of the

fuel,both to discourage resort to fuels of low sulfur content and

low heating value that might pollute just as badly as that

they replaced,and

to allow for the use of equipment to permit the

combustion of high-sulfur fuels by removing sulfur dioxide from

the exhaust gas.

The testimony as to the availability of such

equipment was hot and controverted.

The dispute, however, -was

not significantly over issues of fact;

it was over the ultimate

question of judgment, which it is this Board’s obligation to decide,

as to whether on the generally agreed state of the technology

it

is appropriate to require the installation of sulfur removal

devices.

It

is undisputed that the chemistry of several processes for

removing sulfur dioxide

is simple and understood.

Sulfur dioxide

reacts with the oxides or carbonates

of calcium or magnesium,

for

example,

to form a solid product that can be separated from the

gas stream by standard collection methods, or it can be oxidized

and combined

with

water to form sulfuric acid that

ca-n be sold

to recoup a part of

the control cost

CR. 630-632).

It

is also

undisputed

that a number of firms have constructed sulfur control

plants of

various sizes employing these and other principles of

sulfur oxide treatment,

quite a number

of which are considerably

beyond the laboratory stage.

For example,

three full—sized units

employing

a wet limestone process were constructed and operated

in England for some time prior to the Second World War

(Walsh

Ex.

83,

p.

5;

Ex.

115).

A Swedish company has installed a similar

4

—

331

---

unit on a hospital

boiler;

the unit has operated continuously

for 6 months at a sulfur dioxide removal efficiency of 95-98

(ibid).

Closer to home, both the federal and the state EPA

gave extensive testimony as to existing demonstration projects

all over

the countr~’embodying various technologies,

several of

them full—scale utility boilers of 100 megawatts or more.

In

Illinois

alone Commonwealth Edison and Illinois Power Company

are about to begin operation of new full-size units based respectively

on limestone scrubbing and on catalytic oxidation

(Ex.

83,

Table

1).

Manufacturers

testified

that

they

were

prepared

to

sell

sulfur

removal equipment and to guarantee that it would meet our regulation

(e.g.,

R.

605-620,

621-656).

Nobody disputes that the time for

demonstration of such units on a full-scale basis has come.

The dispute centers rather on whether it is time to require

additional

units

beyond

those

already

undertaken

to

be

built.

The power industry and other large industrial coal users, as

well as the Illinois coal producers,

argue vigorously that it

is not.

They point to acknowledged operating problems experienced

in some of the existing installations such

as those of Union

Electric and of Kansas Power and Light

(e.g.,

H.

2866,

2870,

Ex.

46).

They observe that the performance guarantees actually

given them extend only to a limited test period

(R.

2949),

and they rely very heavily on a definition of “commercially avail-

able”

technology given in a report of the National Academy of

Sciences in discussing sulfur removal.

According

to NAS,

commercial availability of a control device is defined as

“satisfactory operation on a 100 megawatt or larger unit for more

than one year”

(H.

2280).

We have allowed until May of 1975 for compliance with the

sulfur emission standard in order to give affected persons the

opportunity to study the results of operation of the numerous

units now about to be tested.

On

the basis of testimony as to

the length of time required to design and construct these facilities

(H.

638,

2690), we conclude that this liberal timetable will

permit nearly a year of further information to be accumulated

before commitments must be made.

For those who feel the experience

of

the present demonstration units critical to minimize their

own ri~kS~therefore, we feel we have allowed ample time to

acquire the information.

Unless all of the present demonstrations

fail, which seems

highly unlikely, it is probable that even the

restrictive NAS criteria will be satisfied by the time o’1~

standard requires action.

4

—

332

---

Even should the facts prove otherwise, however, we believe it

imperative to enact a sulfur emission standard for the critical

regions now.

We are of course not bound by the NAS definition

on

what is, after all, not a scientific question but one of public

policy.

Given the seriousness of the sulfur dioxide pollution problem

in certain areas of the State, we believe we cannot continue to

postpone action to bring relief.

We cannot wait until all operating

problems are solved;

if we did,

as observed by Professor Wesley

Pipes in another context, we shOuld even now not be benefiting from

the long—accepted activated sludge process for sewage treatment

(See Effluent Standards,

#R 70-8,

H.

1536—1537).

We agree with

Professor James Stukel Of the University of Illinois, testifying

for the Agency, that on the admitted facts the development of

sulfur control technology has advanced to the point where we are

justified in requiring additional installations to be made,

in

areas suffering from serious sulfur problems

(H. 3473-3488).

The issue of what requi*ements are reasonable is one that can

be resolved only by balancing the benefits of the contemplated

rule against its costs, as the statute makes clear.

This means

that greater costs may be justified, and greater risks of operating

problems taken, when the need for pollution abatement

is greater.

The

time to substitute action for study comes sooner when action

is urgently needed.

Moreover, the adoption of a strict sulfur

regulation today will create needed pressure for the improvement

of the technology.

We must not allow ourselves to fall into the

vicious cycle of no regulation because no technology, and no

technology because no regulation.

In summary, we hold that there is need to limit sulfur

dioxide emissions from coal-burning sources in the Chicago, St.

Louis, and Peoria regions

to 1.8 pounds per million btu as of

May 30, 1975;

that small coal users can be expected to meet this

standard by switching to natural gas, to distillate oil, or,

in St. Louis and Peoria,

to low-sulfur coal;

that larger coal

users can be expected either to utilize low-sulfur coal,

as

Commonwealth Edison is doing,

or to construct additional facilities

for the removal of sulfur dioxide at the stack,

such as

is being

done at the Will County and Wood River power stations and else-

where in this country and abroa~L.

Outside these three metropolitan areas there

is no evidence

of

ac~iteregion-wide sulfur dioxide concentrations in excess of

the air-quality standards.

This is no excuse for permitting

unnecessary nuisances or the creation of new problems, and there-

fore the following regulations are applicable throughout the

State.

First, all new sources must comply with a strict emission

4

—

333

---

standard in order to prevent degradation.

The federal new-source

standard of 1.2 pounds per mi~1ionbtu, which should be attainable

with devices for stack removal of S02,

is applied to the larger

sources already subject to the federal

law; the 1.8 lb/MBtu

standard is applied to other new sources, which have a smaller

pollution potential,

to allow for the alternative of low—sulfur

coal.

Second, oil—burning sources everywhere must conform with a

standard of 1.0 lb/MBtu in the case of residual oil and 0.3 in

the case of distillate, with the largest new residual users limited

to 0.8.

These provisions are in recognition that oil emissions

can be kept substantially lower than those from coal even in

the absence of stack control equipment, and the evidence sustains

the proposition that the oil standards can be met by judicious

choice of fuel

(H,

1054—1068, 2026),

Third, existing coal—burning

sources are limited to 6.0 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million

btu.

This modest improvement on present practice at some facilities

can be met in most cases by the washing of Illinois coal at

relatively

low

cost

(Simon,

H.

657—668,

Ex.

56

a,

b,

c),

and

will

eliminate easily avoidable emissions.

Fourth, Rule 204(e) em-

bodies an equation designed to prevent local violation of

the air quality standards as

a result of emissions from point

sources with short stacks.

Roberts

(R.

54-58)

noted that the

basis for this equation is an analysis of the local dispersion

of SO2 from an elevated stack under various meteorological con-

ditions, and it

is designed to prevent the Federal 3-hour air

quality standard of 1300 ug/m3 from being exceeded

(36 Fed.

Reg.

22384, Nov.

25, 1971).

For stacks greater than 300 feet, the

minimum allowable emission level will almost always be governed

by Rules 204(a),

(b)

or

(c) rather than 204(e).

There was no

particular objection to this aspect of the regulation.

Finally,

Rule 204(c) (1) (B) (ii)

provides that the 1.8 1b/~tuemission

standard will also apply to any source within major metropolitan

areas whose ambient sulfur dioxide concentrations approach the

federal secondary standard.

We believe that this combination of measures will prove

adequate,

in the immediately foreseeable future,

to protect against

violation of the air quality standards throughout the State.

In contrast to particulate matter,

for which stack-cleaning

technology is tried, proven,

and in long-standing common use, we

think it would not be wise to extend the strict sulfur dioxide

emission standard state-wide at the present time.

In the short

term we prefer to permit operators in areas of the State not

faced with acute sulfur problems to await further information on

emerging technology before committing their resources.

The

corollary of the principle that the time for action comes sooner

4—

334

---

in

the face of need

is

that it comes later when the need

is

less.

Moreover,

it would not be prudent to dissipate the

none-too-abundant supply of low-sulfur fuels by requiring -their

use in areas without serious air-quality problems.

The basic equation in Rule 204(d) for sources using a

combination of fuels

is consistent with the limitations for

individual fuels.

One potentially attractive method for

reducing sulfur dioxide emissions

(Roberts,

R.

2651-52; Fancher,

H.

2087—88) is the gasification of

coal.

This approach is

encouraged by 204(d)

by allowing a relaxed emission standard

when such material is used,

and the same reasoning is applied

to refinery off gases and residual oil gasification.

The process sources covered by Rule 204(f) will usually

be sulfuric acid plants and sulfur recovery units.

Rook of

American Cyanamid

(R.

976-985), Weber of Monsanto

CR.

1590-1595)

and Hall of New Jersey Zinc

(Ex.

114, No.

52)

suggested 2000

ppm as a reasonable

le(’el for existing sulfuric acid plants

which could be achieved under normal operating conditions.

A

stricter concentration limit would require plant derating or

addition of auxiliary scrubbing systems and has not been shown

to be i~niformlynecessary to meet air quality standards.

Because

sulfur recovery units

in oil refineries serve as pollution control

equipment greatly reducing emissions of noxious sulfur compounds,

existing sulfur recovery systems are exempted from meeting the 2000

ppm limit provided they are equipped with tall stacks.

Mowers

(H.

3527—28)

indicated that 10,000 ppm was a normal SO2

concentration from such equipment, and the Agency’s calculations

(Ex.

113—I) indicate that stack heights

of less than 150 feet

will cause ground level concentrations to exceed the air quality

standard.

New sulfur recovery units will be required to meet the

2000 ppm level, and control processes are available to bring

this about

(Ex. 114, Nos.3, 162; Ex.

49).

The standard of four pounds of sulfur dioxide per ton of

acid produced

in new sulfuric-acid plants is the Federal New

Source standard.

Objections to this emission rate were voiced

by Rook

(Ex.

114,

No.

116) and Donovan of Monsanto

(Ex.

114,

No.

171)

on the ground

it was based on insufficient data, although

the latter noted that new plants could be designed to meet

this level.

The Federal EPA also cited information on foreign

plants that controlled to this standard

(Ex, 115).

The evidence

available to us does not justify our abandoning the already

applicable federal standard.

4

—

335

---

Rule 204(f) (2)

limits sulfuric acid mist emissions to 0.15

pounds per ton of acid,

for both new and existing plants.

Walsh

of the Federal EPA testified that high efficiency mist eliminators

were adequate to achieve this degree of control for both new

and existing plants

(H.

2693-95) and Palm’s testimony for New

Jersey Zinc tended to confirm this statement

(H.

3268-69).

The

Federal test data show levels well below 0.15 and are contained

in Exhibit 112.

The emission standard for acid mist is quite

dependent on the test method specified.

Weber of Monsanto

(H. 3093-3096)

and Palm

(H.

3273-74) questioned the compatibility

of the Federal test method of 204(g) (2) for acid mist with the

emission standard.

However, they admitted that they had not run

the Federal test as specified in the Federal Register

(36 Fed,

Reg.

p.

24893, Dec.

23, 1971).

The-only actual tests of which

we have evidence indicate the standard will be met.

The Federal

New Source backup information also indicated that most objections

to this test were based on theoretical grounds and not on parallel

testing data.

(Ex.

115;

Fed.

Reg.

p.

5770, March 21,

1972).

Compliance with the process SO2 standards, which

is not

complicated by advancing technology as in the case of fuel

combustion,

is expected of existing sources by the end of

1973.

Rule 205:

Organic Material Emission Standards serves both to

achieve and maintain compliance with the federal ~ir quality standard

for photochemical oxidants

(0.08 ppm for one hour not more than once

per year,

36 Fed.

Reg.22385,

Nov.

25, 1971)

and to prevent local

nuisances.

Certain organic emissions are precursors of the type

of irritating air pol1utior~characteristic of Los Angeles,knownas

photochemical smog, whose existence is indicated by the presence

of oxidants.

The federal standard

is set at a level at which

smog

is actively offensive.

(See Exs,

63 and 64, Criteria for

Photochemical Oxidants and for Hydrocarbons).

This level was

exceeded in the summer of 1971 in both Chicago

(0.135 ppm)

and St. Louis

(0.125)

Automotive sources account forthegreater part of the~organic

(hydrocarbon) emissions, and compliancewith the federal requirements

for exhaust controls on 1975 model vehicles will be necessary

if the air quality standard is to be achieved (Implementation

Plan,

p.

7—3—1).

However, stationary sources are estimated to

contribute 19

and 20

of the total in Chicago and St. Louis,

respectively.

As federal vehicle controls are met and as

stationary sources grow,

the relative contribution of the latter

will increase

Cid.

pp. 7-3—1 to 7—4—12;

Roberts,

H.

66—67).

Control of photochemically reactive emissions frcm these sources

cannot be ignored if the requisite air quality is to be maintained.

4

—

336

---

We conclude that the air quality standard can be met throughout

the State by the regulations in Rule 205 in combination with the

federal vehicle limitations.

Although the federal EPA cautions that the distinction

between more and

le~sreactive compounds is

an uncertain one

and urges that all hydrocarbons should be considered reactive

(36 Fed.

Reg.,

p.

22407, Nov.

25,

1971), we have followed the

example of Los Angeles County, where extensive tests demonstrated

a rough hierarchy of reactivity

(See Ex.

63,pp.2-8,

2-9,

2-10

Ex.

65, pp.3-24,

3-25;

Ex.

60,

pp.4,

7—48-)

and adopted a definition

of reactivity designed to discourage

the use of those materials

generally considered

at the present time to be most reactive.

~t is conceivable

that in the future,

the definition

of photo-

chemically reactive material may be expanded to cover more materials

as further

information

becomes

available

about

the

interaction

of

substances in the atmosphere.

Not all the provisions

of Rule 205, however, are limited

to

reactive materials,’ since photochemical smog

is not the only

adverse result of organic emissions.

Rules 205(a),

(b),

(c),

and Cd), for example,

apply to all volatile organic materials

in light of testimony about such installations as oil refineries. These

provisions are designed to require the use of equipment that

is

already

in use

at numerous facilities even

if there is no substantial

risk of Los Angeles smog.

In addition,

if local odor

nuisances exist,

205(b)

and

(c)call for control of all organic materia~ls.

The storage of petroleum and other volatile organic materials

often results in substantial evaporation losses that can readily

be prevented,

as required for large units under Rule 205(a),

by the use of floating roofs

or vapor recovery systems, which

tend

to

pay

for

themselves

by

avoiding

the

loss

of

valuable

materials

(See Ex.

65,

Control

Techniques

for

Hydrocarbons,

pp. 4-1 to 4-4;

Knowles, Ex.

60 pp.

13—44).

Industrial testimony

generally supported this provision as good engineering and good

economics

(Sullivan,

Ex.

114, No.

37, p.

3; Faith,

R.

2260,

2272).

Based

on

proof

of

hardship

by

the Illinois oil and gas

producers,

we have made an exception for storage tanks used in the

production of Illinois crude oil because of the low vapor pressure

and consequent low emission rate of the oil, the generally re-

mote location of these installations, and the declining nature of

the industry, which increases the burden of building floating roofs

that would have to be abandoned

in a short time

(Brown,

R.

1022-36;

Ex.

114, Nos.

25,

100).

The specification of positive pressure

vent valves and vacuum breakers in such cases was suggested

by the industry,

(ibid).

---

Other witnesses

(Spaeth,

H.

1005-20;

Lahey, Ex.

114, No.

8;

Feldman,

R.

776-82)

argued that to require floating roofs or

equivalent controls at bulk terminals would be destructively

costly,

suggesting that turnovers in the type of material stored

might make it impossible to recoup the cost.

Subsequent testimony

by Spaeth, however, in response to our inquiry for more specific

information,

indicated that only 10

of their storage facilities

are used forVolatile materials and suggested that the restrictions

of 205(b)

and 205(c) be limited to the control of these substances,

(Ex.

114, No.

149,

173).

The evidence before us implies that bulk

terminals have a rather considerable ability

to segregate volatile

organic materials

in order to limit their investment in floating

roofs

to those tanks in which a significant product recovery can

be expected,

and consequently, do not require special consideration.

Other significant sources ot offensive organic emissions are

facilities for the loading of gasoline and other products,•and

for

the

separation

of

hydrocarbons

from

water,

Rules

205(b)

and

(c)

require

such

established

good

practices

as

submerged

loading pipes, gas-tight connections for tank—truck loading, and

enclosed separators with appropriate controls.

See Hydrocarbon

Techniques,

supra,

pp.

4-5 to

4-13;

the supporting testimony of

Conoco and Amoco as

to loading

(Ex.

114, Nos.

29, 37); EPA~s

backup document

(Ex.

60);

and the’ suggestion by Sullivan

(Ex.

114, No.

37) and Knowles

(Ex.

60,

p.

24)

that separators may he

controlled without requiring

the

modification

of

existing

vessels.

Mechanical seals or equivalent measures can prevent leakage

from pumps and compressors (Hydrocarbon Techniques,

supra;

R.

400-401);

Rule 205(d) provides a performance standard for good

practice in this regard based on industry testimony (Lopez,

H.

3161—62).

The foregoing provisions apply principally to large installations

that are likely if uncontrolled to cause nuisances; they can also

generally be met by measures partly compensated for by product

recovery.

The sources affected by Rules

205(e) and

(f), however,

are neither

so certain to be offensive nor so economical to con-

trol.

Consequently in both paragraphs the emphasis is placed

on limiting the useof photochemically reactive material.

Where

no active odor nuisance

is shown, compliance with these provisions

can

be

achieved

by

switching

to

a

less

reactive

substitute,

which

was a principal means

of compliance in Los Angeles and which can

be accomplished without significant hardship.

This is the sole

solution contemplated by 205(e), which flatly restricts the use

of large quantities

of reactive architectural coatings under

circumstances in which, as in outdoor applications,

no emission

control techniques are practicable.

—

---

A great variety of activities are included within the general

limitation on organic emissions in Rule 205(f).

Among them are

?he manufacture and spraying of paint and other coatings, dry

cleaning, printing, degreasing, soybean processing, and other

business in which solvents are employed.

A variety of methods

are available,

at costs markedly variable from one industry to

another,

to reduce emissions from such activities,

if necessary,

by such means as absorption, adsorption,

or incineration.

Some

types of dry—cleaning solvents, for example, are reduced by a

factor of ten by adsorption on activated carbon in a process that

pays for itself within a year or two with capital costs as

low as $2300

(See Ex.

65, Hydrocarbon Techniques, especially pp.

4-31 to 4-33).

However, the evidence establishes that for certain

industries,

such as paint spraying,

some printing processes,

and

dry cleaning with standard solvents,

the

large volumes of exhaust

gas or the low value of the product to be recovered render the

costs

of control very considerable indeed

(H.

2355-65,

2410—14;

Ex.

114, Nos.2,

53, 36~Ex.

103).

Moreover, incineration,

the

only established emission reduction method in some cases, requires

large volumes of scarce’ natural gas or distillate oil that might

be put to good use in reducing particulate and sulfur emissions

(Grotelueschen,

H.

2413-14),

Consequently, while we will not hesitate to require that

such emission controls be undertaken upon a showing that

a

nuisance exists, we have refrained from requiring them uniformly

across the State.

In the absence of such a showing a shift to

less reactive materials,

or to materials such

as high-isolids

coatings or inks containing substantially less total organic

matter, will suffice.

Rule 205(g) requires that hydrocarbons

in the exhaust gases

from catalytic cracking units and other petroleum or petrochemical

processes be reduced to 100 ppm.

These uni-Ls,

like other refinery

facilities covered by Rule 205(a)—Cd), can be major nuisance sources

if uncontrolled and are commonly utilized as a heat source

(Hydrocarbon Techniques, Ex.

65, p.

4-6).

Industry

testimony

shows that

in such installations the standard can be readily a

achieved (Mowers,

R.

3406).

Vapor blowdow:n from other sources

is commonly burned, and

should be,

in smokeless f1a~es (Techniques,

pp.

4—4,

4-5)

, a

practice that has industry support subject to

the

careful

provision

in

205(g)

(3)

for

unregulated

safety

valves,

which was based on information supplied by industry

(Ex.

97)

to allow an

emption for valves that are seldom opened.

4

—

339

---

Rule 206:

Carbon Monoxide.

Federal vehicle regulations

promise significant reductions in carbon monoxide emissions, which,

together with Rule 206’s provisions for control of stationary

sources and the already adopted regulations on open burning

(PCB Regs.

Ch.

2, Part V), should suffice to meet the air quality

standards

(Implementation Plan,

pp. 7—4—1, 7-4—5,

7-4—12,

Ex.

79)

and to prevent local nuisances.

The Agency has announced its

intention to study other measures such as vehicle inspection and

maintenance and to propose additional regulations if they prove

necessary.

Rule 206(a)

limits CO emissions from most fuel combustion

sources to 200 ppm.

According

to Strehlow’s testimony

(H.

1411)

large fuel combustion sources will have no trouble meeting the

200 ppm standard.

He added that existence of CO in power plant

flue gas is an indication of inefficient combustion, which

is

undesirable from an economic as well as a pollution standpoint,

See also Ex.

66, Carbon Monoxide Techniques, pp.

3-3 to 3-7,

6-1, confirming that proper qperation of large sources will avoid

most CO emissions from fuel combustion.

The exemption for

sources less than

10 MB~u/hris

a recognition of the fact

that home furnaces an&~fireplacesoften do not have efficient

combustion.

Because~ofthe relatively small quantity of these

emissions, they need not be everywhere restricted.

Strehiow also testified that a level of 500 ppm, prescribed

by Rule

20-6(b), could easily be achieved by well-designed incinerators

(R.

1413—1422).

However, he noted that some small existing

incinerators would possibly have trouble meeting this level.

Consequently,

an exemption has been given for those small existing

incinerators which still conform to a particulate grain loading

of 0.2 gr/scf, on the ground that such equipment does not consti-

tute a major source of CO.

Major sources of CO,

in contrast, are the effluent gases

from the regenerators of catalyst cracking units in petroleum

refineries.

Mowers of the Illinois Petroleum Council

(H.

3406—

3408), Bruggink of Clark Oil

(H.

~694—3698), and Sullivan of

American

Oil

(Ex.

114, No,

37) questioned the need for control

of this type

of source, arguing that contributions to ground

level CO concentrations would be small from the elevated stacks

of such equipment.

However, Bruggink testified that each of C1ark~s

regenerators emits 12,600 pounds of carbon monoxide per hour

(H.

3720).

Using average automobile emission factors from

4

—

340

---

Exhibit 31,

this emission rate

is equivalent to the CO emitted

from 72,000 automobiles (1970 models)

being driven 20 miles/day.

It would ‘be difficult to assume that such

a large point source

would not substantially reduce the assimilative capacity of the

environment.

Carbon monoxide is commonly burned as fuel in

refineries

in order not to waste its considerable heating value

(CO Techniques, Ex.

66, pp. 4-1 to 4-13), and we think it should

be so used, or controlled by equivalent measures1

in all refineries

to prevent massive emissions.

As a consequence,

Rule 206(c)

calls for control of petroleum and petrochemical processes to a

concentration of 200 ppm,

a level suggested by Strehlow, which

can be reached by various methods of control

(EX.

60, pp.

29-30);

Ex.

108, pp.

2,

3).

Sullivan suggested 90

removal of CO as an

alternative standard.

However, in terms of pounds per hour,

this still results in a considerable and unnecessary emission of

CO to the atmosphere, e.g.

1260 lb/hr using the above example.

Iron and steel-making processes can be significant

sources of CO if not properly controlled.

See Ex.

66,

CO Techniques,

Pp. 4-1 to 4-13;

Ex.

31,

pp.

94-96.

That blast furnace CO is

utilized as fuel has already been mentioned;

in other cases

the 200 ppm standards of Rules 203(d)

and

(e) can be met with the

use of inexpensive afterburners

(See CO Techniques,

pp.

4-9,

6—2, giving $2400 as the cost of

a burner that reduced emissions

from a foundry cupola from 250 pounds per hour

to

8).

The

performance standard of 206(e) for foundry cupolas can also be

easily met with an afterburner

(H.

3012—14;

Ex.

87, 88(a),

(bfl.

The wording has been changed from an earlier draft on the basis

of Armour’s testimony

(Ex.

114, No.

170)

that such

a level of

control may well be attainable for basic oxygen furnaces and sinter

plants without using afterburners or CO boilers.

An exception

has been included for blast furnace slips, based on Armour’s

testimony

(R.

763)

that this condition constitutes an uncontrolled

explosion and that such occurences take place less than

20 times

per year

(H 70—15,

H.

659,

665—66).

Rule 207:

Nitrogen Oxides.

Oxides of nitrogen are among

the precursors of photochemical smog, but hydrocarbon control

is thought to be the preferable method of minimizing smog formation

(36 Fed.

Reg.

22402, Nov.

25,

1971)

.

The federal air—quality

standard for nitrogen dioxide

(0.05 ppm as an annual average)

is based upon adverse implications of that compound itself for

respiratory diseases,

This standard is now being exceeded both

in Chicago

(0.056 ppm)

and in downtown St.

Louis

(0.09

ppm)

(Imp.

Plan,

pp.

7-4-5, 7-4-18).

Concentrations on the Illinois

side of the St.

Louis region are estimated

at 80

of the standard

id., pp. 7—4—12

to 7—4—18)

4

—

341

---

Federal vehicle standards will help, but stationary sources

account for 31.2

of the total NOx emissions in the Chicago region

and a whopping 73

in St. Louis

(Imp.

Plan,

pp.

7-3-28,

7—4—9).

Control of major stationary sources

is necessary to

maintain compliance with the air quality standards,

The Illinois

EPA predicts that, even with the best anticipated vehicle controls,

4

annual growth in stationary sources would leave only a small

margin between

1980 levels in the St.

Louis region and the standard

(Ex.

113—C)

Rules 207(a),

(b),(c)

impose control requirements on electric

power stations, the largest category of stationary NOx sources.

Their intent is to control emissions by burner adjustments or

alterations

in firing procedures, but not to require NO~re-

moval systems on stacks.

The technology for oil and gas firing

control

is well supported by extensive testing in California

(Ex.

58, References

1 and 4).

On the other hand,

the application

of such techniques to coal-fired furnaces is

less clear cut.

Some data indicated that such modifications may be successful

for certain types of burners,

e.g. thc~ewith tangential

firing,

but Stukel testified

(H.

705)

that cyclone burners could not

meet a 0,9 lh/MBtu standard, and another source indicates the

same may be true for horizontally opposed equipment

(Ex.

58,

Reference

1).

Our regulation encourages the development of

designs that will reduce NOx emissions from all new large fuel

combustion units

(207(a) (4)), but specifies somewhat more lenient

standards

for

existing

coal

fired

equipment

(207(b)

(2),

207(c)).

The emission limits of 207(a) for new sources tragkthe Federal

New Source Standards

(supra)

,

although the 0.7 lb/MBtu emission

standard for coal fired units may well require further research

into design methods for such equipment.

The new—source regulation

is applicable state-wide.

New units should all be designed

so as to avoid creating unnecessary new problems, especially

since the control measures required do not involve the construction

of expensive gas cleaning devices.

‘Fancher

(H.

3841-42) raised

the question that new fast start peaking turbines will also be

limited by the PCB regulation; but that these are not presently

covered under

the Federal New Source criteria.

However, since the

purpose of the standard is to control new operations which emit

large concentrations and/or quantities of NOR,

these turbine units

are also included.

The levels for existing sources

in Rule 207 (b) reflect the

previously noted test results, with specific exemptions

(207(c))

for coal fired cyclones and horizontally opposed

burners, and for an oil fired cyclone power station, which

4

—342

---

Commonwealth Edison admits may well

be.the

only

installation

of

this type in existence

(Ex.

114, No.

137,

p.

11),

The 0.9 lb/MBtu

limitation for other coal burner configurations should not re-

quire any controls aside from good opera.ting practice

(Ex.

60,

pp. 16l~216).

Rule. 207(b) applies only ‘~othe Chicago and St.

Louis areas,

in which ambient nitrogen oxide concentrations are

at problem levels.

Rule 207(d) covers nitric acid manutacturing processes.

Rules 207(d) (1) and

(d) (3) follow the Federal New Source Standards

(supra)

for weak and concentrated nitric acid plants.

These

provisions were firmly supported by Weinstein’s submission of a

contract for the Joliet Arsenal which guarantees achievement of

such emission levels

(H.

1377—1382,

Ex. 71).

According to

Weinstein

(H.

1377—1390,

Ex.

60,

p.

249)

existing nitric acid plants

can meet the 5.5 lb/T limitation by installing control equipment

for 2 to 3

of the pro&qct price.

The technology is available

and has been installed at a number of existing plants. Visible

brown emissions, a frequent nuisance at nitric acid operations,

will not ordinarily occur when these emission limits are met.

Rule 207(e)

deals with other industrial processes using

nitric acid.

As with production facilitias, the necessary control

is available and has been installed

(Ex.

60, pp.

236-241).

Hackrnan

of Monsanto

(H.

1600,

1605—6)

asked that the limit

for existing

processes be raised to

15

lbs.

of nitrogen oxides/T ac~id,but

admitted that control to the 10

lb.

level was a feasible alternative.

The exemption of 207(c) (3)

is a recognition that small users are

not big contributors to NO~air pollution problems.

Rules

207(d) and

Ce)

apply statewide to require generally

accepted control practices in order to prevent local nuisances.

Rule 303:

Nondegradation,

embodies the principle, already

found in Illinois air quality standards

(APCB Rules

& Regs.

Ch.

5)

and in water pollution regulations

(SWB-7 through SWB-15;

PCB Hegs.

Ch.

3.

Rule 208),

that parts of the State ndw clean

shall not be unnecessarily degraded.

This does not forbid all

new

facilities,

as some seem to have thought.

It requires Agency

consideration,

in advance of issuing a construction permit, to

assure that degradation not justified by need will not occur

and that new facilities are not put in the wrong place.

Numerical air quality standards will be proposed in the

near future to fill out Part III.

Existing provisions

go~erningepisode control, open burning,

mobile sources, and asbestos~havebeen renumbered and classified

as parts of Chapter

II.

4

—

343

---

ORDER

The following new regulations are nereby adopted and

existing

regulations hereby renumbered to conform to the table of

contents as specified:

ILLINOIS. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

RULES AND REGULATIONS

(May be cited as PCB Regs.)

CHAPTER

2:

AIR POLLUTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part

I:

General Provisions

Part II:

Emission Standards and Limitations for Stationary Sources

Part III:

Air Quality Standards

Part IV:

Episodes

Part.V:

Open Burning

Part VI:

Asbestos

Part VII:

Emission

Standards and Limitations for Mobile Sources

PART VIII:

Odors

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

Board, certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion .and

Order this 13th day of April, 1972 by a vote of 4-0.

4

—

344

---

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Ch.

2:

AIR POLLUTION

PART

I:

GENERAL PROVISIONS

EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER STATED AND UNLESS A DIFFERENT MEANING OF A TERM

IS CLEAR FROM ITS CONTEXT, THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS

CHAPTER SHALL BE THE SAME AS THOSE USED

IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC-

TION ACT.

ALL

TERMS DEFINED

IN

PART

2 OF THIS

CHAPTER WHICH APPEAR IN PART I

OF THIS

CHAPTER HAVE THE DEFINITIONS SPECIFIED BY RULE 201 OF PART

2

OF THIS CHAPTER.

Rule

101:

DEFINITIONS.

Ambient Air:

that portion

of the atmosphere external to build-

ings comprising emission sources.

Ambient Air

Quaj~4

Standard:

those standards promulgated from

time

to time by the Board pursuant to authority contained in the Act,

or by

the United States Environmental

Protection Agency pursuant to

authority contained in Public Law 91-604,

as amended from

time

to time.

Air Contaminant:

any solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any odor,

or any~?~rm

of energy,

that

is capable of being released into the

atmosphere from an emission source.

Air Pollution Control

Equipment:

any equipment or facility of

a typeT~tendedto eliminate, prevent, reduce or control the emission

of specified air contaminants to the atmosphere.

Air Pollution:

the presence in the atmosphere of one or more

air co~~rninantsin

sufficient

quantities

and

of

such

characteristics

and duration as to be injurious

to

human,

plant, or animal life,

to

health, or to property,

or to unreasonably interfere

with

the enjoy-

ment of life or property.

Commence:

the act of entering into

a binding agreement or con-

tractual obligation to undertake and complete, within

a reasonable

time,

a

continuous

program

of

construction

or

modification.

Construction:

commencement of

on—site fabrication, erection or

installation of an emission source or of

ment.

Emission Source:

any equipment or facility of a type capable of

emitti~gspecified air contamir.ants to the atmosphere.

4

—

191

---

Existing Air Pollution Control Equipment:

any air pollution

control equipment,

the construction or modification of which has

commenced prior to the effective date of this

Chapter.

Existing Emission Source:

any emission source, the construction

this Chapter.

New Air Pollution Control Equipment:

any air pollution control

equipment,

the construction or modification of which

is commenced on

or after the effective date of this Chapter.

New Emission Source:

any emission source,. the construction or

modification of which is commenced

on or after

this Chapter.

Modification:

any physical change in,

or’ change in the method

of operation of,

an emission source or

of

.air

pollution

control

equip-

ment which increases the amount of any specified air contaminant

emitted by such source or equipment or which results in

the emission

of any specified air contaminant not previously emitted.

It shall

be presumed that an increase in the use of raw materials,

the time of

operation,

or the rate of production will change the amount of any

specified air contaminant omitted.

Notwithstanding any other provi-

sions

of this definition,

for purposes

of permits issued pursuant to

Rule 103,

the

Agency may specify conditions under which an emission

source or air pollution control equipment may be operated without

causing a modification as herein defined, and normal cyclical varia-

tions, before the

date operating permits

are required,

shall not be

considered modifications.

Owner or Qperator:

any person who owns,

leases,

controls or

supervises

an emission source

or air pollution control equipment.

Person:

any individual,

corporation,

partnership,

firm, associa-

tion,

trust, estate, public or private institution, group, agency,

political subdivision of this State, any other State or political, sub-

division or agency thereof or any legal successor,

representative,

agent, or agency of the foregoing.

Specified Air Contaminant:

any air contaminant as

to which this

Chapter contains emission standards or other specific limitations.

Standard Industrial Classification Manual:

the United States

Office

of

Statistical

Standards,

Standard

Industrial

Classification

Manual

(1967),

as revised from time to time.

4

—

192

---

Rule

102:

PROHIBITION

OF

AIR.

POLLUTION.

No

person

shall

cause

or

threaten

or

allow

the

discharge

or

emission of any contaminant into the

environment in any State so

as,

either alone or

in combination with contaminants

from other sources,

to cause or

tend

to cause air pollution

in Illinois, or so

as to

violate the provisions

of this Chapter, or so as

to prevent the

attainment or maintenance of any applicable ambient air quality

standard,

Rule

103;

PERMITS.

(a)

Construction Permits.

(1)

Prohibition.

No person shall cause or allow the

construction of

any new emission source or any new air pollu-

tion control equipment,

or cause or allow the modification

of

any

existing emission source of air pollution control

equipment, without first obtaining

a Construction Permit from

the Agency,

except as provided in paragraph

(i)

of this

Rule 103.

(2)

Ap~g~on.

An application

for

a Construction

Permit shall contain,

as

a minimum,

the following data and in—

formation:

the nature of the emission source and air pollu-

tion control equipment,

including

the expected

life

and

deterioration rate;

information concerning processes to which

the emission source or air pollution control

equipment is

related;

the quantities and types of raw materials to be

used

in the emission

source or air pollution

control equipment;

the nature,

specific sources,

and quantities

of uncontrolled

and

controlled

air

contaminant

emissions

at

the

facility

which

includes

the

emission

source

or

air

pollution control equip-

ment;

the type, size, eificiency and specifications

(includ-

ing engineering drawings, plans and specifications certified

to by

a registered

Illinois professional

engineer)

of the

proposed emission source or air pollution control equipment;

maps,

statistics, and other

data

sufficient

reasonably

to

describe the location of the emission source or air pollution

control equipment.

The Agency may waive the submission by the

applicant of such engineering drawings, plans,

specifications,

or such other portions of the above data or information as it

shall deem inappropriate

or unnecessary to the Construction

Permit application, provided that any

such waiver by the

Agency shall be given in writinn

to the applicant.

The Agency

may adopt procedures which require data and information in

addition to and in amplification of the matters specified in

4

—

193

---

the

first sentence of

this

paragra~h (a) (2)

,

which are reason-

ably designed to determine compliance with the Act,

this Chap-

ter,

and ambient air quality standards, and which set forth

the format by which

all data and information shall be submitted.

Such procedures and formats,

and revisions

thereto,

shall not

become

effective until filed with the Index Division of the

Office of the Secretary of State as required by

“An

Act concern-

ing administrative rules,’

approved June

14,

1951,

as amended.

(3)

An application shall not be deemed to be filed until

the applicant has submitted all information

arid completed all

aoplication forms required by paragraph

(a) (2)

of

this Rule 103

and procedures adopted and effective pursuant thereto,

Provided,

however,

that

if

the

Agency

fails

to

notify

the

applicant

within

30

days

after

the

filing

of

a

purported

apnlication

that

the

application

is

incomplete

and

of

the

reasons

the

Aqency

deems

it

incomplete,

the

application

shall

ho

deemed

to

have

been

filed

as

of

the

date

of

such

purported

filing.

The

applicant:

may

treat

the Agency~snotification

that

an

application is

incom—

pLate as a denial of the application for purposes of review.

(4)

All applications and supplements thereto shall be

signed

by

the

owner

and

operator

of

the

emission

source

or

air

pollution

control

equipment,

or

thoir

authori

zod

aqcnt,

and

shall

be

accompanied

h

evidence

of

authority

to

sign

the

appli-

cation.

(5)

Standards

for

Issuance.

No

Construction

Permit

shall

be

granted

unless

the

applicant

submits

proof

to

the

Agency

that:

(A)

the

emission

source

or

air

pollution

control

equipment

will

be

constructed

or

modified

to

operate

so

as

not

to

cause

a

violation

of

the

Act

or

of

this

Chapter;

and

(B)

if

subject

to

a

future

compliance

date,

the

applicant has an approved Compliance Program

and Project

Completion Schedule in accordance with the provisions

of

Rule

104.

(6)

Conditions.

The

Agency

may impose such conditions

in

a Construction

Permit as

may

be necessary to accomplish

the

purposes of the Act, and as are not inconsistent with

the regu-

lations promulgated by the Board thereunder,

Except as herein

specified,

nothing

in

this Chapter shall

be deemed

to limit

the

power

of

the

Agency

in

this

regard.

Such

conditions

may

include conditions specifying any testing operations

that

may

be conducted under the Construction Permit.

4

—

194

---

(b)

Ooerating Permits.

(1)

New

Emis~ion

Sources

and

New

Air Pollution Control

Equipment

Prohibition.

No person shall cause or

allow

the

operation

of any

new

emission

source

or

new

air

pollution

control

eeuipment~ of

a

type

for

which

a

Construction

Permit

is

required

by

paragraph

(a)

of

this

Rule

103

without

first

obtaining

an

Operating

Permit

from

the

Agency,

except

for

such

testing

operations

as

may

be

authorized

by

the

Construc-

tion

Permit.

Applications

for

Operating

Permits

shall he

made

at

such

times

and

contain

such

information

(in

addition

to

the

information

required

by

paragraph

(h)

(3)

of

this

Rule

103)

as