BEFORE THE
ILLIN(MS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
CLEAN-UP PART III
AMENDMENTS TO
35
ILL.
ADM. CODE PARTS 211,218
AND
219
REc~vED
CLEt~K’SOFFICE
JUL
072005
STATE OF JLL~NOJS
Poll~tjon
Contro’
Board
)
)
R04-20
)
(Rulemaking
—
Air)
)
(Consolidated with R04-12
)
Rulemaking
—
Air)
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached First Notice Proposed Rule
Comments ofSmurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. upon:.
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
Clerk ofthe Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Richard R.
McGill, Jr.
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Charles E. Matoesian, Esq.
Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Jonathan Fun, Esq.
ChiefLegal Counsel
Illinois Department ofNatural Resources
One Natural Resource Way
Springfield, Illinois 62702-127 1
N. LaDonna Driver, Esq.
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
RoseMarie Cazeau, Bureau Chief
Office ofthe Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph,
20th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60621
Robert A. Messina, Esq.
General Counsel
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
•
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield, Illinois 62703
Claire A. Manning, Esq.
Brown, Hay & Stephens
LLP
•
700 First Mercantile Bank Building
205 South Fifth Street
P.O. Box 2459
Springfield, Illinois 62705-2459
L
by depositing said documents in the United States Mail, postageprepaid, in Clayton,
Missouri, on July .j2., 2005
/
Cobb, Jr.
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S
OFFICE
JUL
072005
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
•
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
•
•
•
•
PolIuti~nControl Board
CLEAN-UP PART
III
•
•
)
R04-20
AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL.
•
)
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
•
ADM. CODE PARTS 211,218
AND
219
)
(Consolidated with R04-12
•
)
Rulemaking
—
Air)
FIRST NOTICE
PROPOSED RULE
COMMENTS OF
SMURFIT-STONE
CONTAINER ENTERPRISES. INC.
Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. (“Smurfit-Stone”), successor by merger to Jefferson
Smurfit Corporation (U.S.), is submitting these comments on the First Notice Proposed Rule in
Rulemaking R04-20, which has been consolidated with Rulemaking R04-12.
Our comments are
addressed to the proposed changes relating to capture efficiency testing.
BACKGROUND
Smurfit-Stone incorporates by reference this portion ofthe “Post-Hearing Comments of
Jefferson-Smurflt Corporation (U.S.),” which is already part ofthe record in this rulemaking.
CAPTURE EFFICIENCY TESTING
PROPOSAL
As indicated in its
earlier comments, Smurfit-Stone has focused on the proposed rule changes
that would expressly allow the use ofall methods and protocols approved by U.S. EPA to test
VOM capture efficiency.
Smurfit-Stone appreciates the Board’s acceptance and consideration of
its earlier Post-Hearing Comments and the changes that the Board has made in the IEPA’s
proposal in response to -concerns raised by IERG and our cômpàny.
We continue to
strongly
support giving IEPA and the regulated community the widest possible rangn of options for
demonstrating capture efficiency.
Language Proposed by Smurfit-Stone
For the convenience ofthe Board, Smurfit-Stone repeats here the language that we proposed to
be adopted in Section 218.1
05(c)(2)
(with equivalent language in Section 219.1 05(c)(2)), with
changes
from Illinois EPA’s proposal in the Enata Sheet, Hearing Exhibit 2, shown by
strikcthrough to
show deletions and underlining to show additions.
The capture efficiency ofan emission unit shall be measured using one ofthe protocols
givcnreferenced below.
Appropriate test methods to be utilized in each ofthe capture
efficiency protocols are described in Appendix M of40 CFR 51
and in USEPA’s
“Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency” incorporated by reference at Section
218.112.
Any
error margin associated with a test method or protocol may not be
incorporated into the results of a capture efficiency test.
Ifthese techniques are not
suitable for a particular process or equipment configuration, then an alternative capture
efficiency protocol may be used, pursuant to
the provisions of218.108(b) ofthis Part.
Forpurposes ofdetermining capture efficiency using a an alternative protocolj~
USEPA’s “Guidelines
forDetermining Capture Efficiency,” but not in Appendix M to 40
-
CFR Part 51,
sources shall satisfy the data quality objective (DQO) orthe lower
confidence level-limit (LCL) statistical analysis methodologies as presented in USEPA’s
“Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency.” incorporated by reference at Section
218.112 of this Part.
LCL can be used to establish compliance with capture efficiency
requirements.
For purposes ofestablishing emission credits for offsets, shutdowns,
trading, and compliance demonstrations arising in enforcement matters, the DQO must be
•
satisfied.
First Notice Proposal: 2l8.l05(c~(2)
In its First Notice Proposed Rule, the Board has moved the discussion ofthe DQO/LCL
protocols to
Subparagraph 218.1 05(c)(2)(E).
Smurfit-Stone concurs that this is appropriate.
Smurfit-Stone also believes that the language the Board has proposedin 218.1
05(c)(2)
accomplishes the intended purpose behind some ofour other suggested changes in the language
proposed by IEPA.
Hence, we generally approve the Board’s proposed language in
218. 105(c)(2).
However, Smurfit-Stone questions two aspects of the language proposed for 218.105(c)(2).
First, in its
earlier comment, Smurfit-Stone requested that the Board delete the sentence:
•
“Any error margin associated with a test method or protocol may not be incorporated into
the results of a capture efficiency test.”
Smurfit-Stone
asks the Board to reconsider our earlier request and delete this sentence from the
•
final rule on the ground that it is both unnecessary and unclear.
Every test method and protocol
has some margin of error.
Ifthere is
a general rule about use ofmargins oftest error, it should
apply
here.
Ifthere is no such general rule, we do not believe that including such a rule as an
incidental matter is appropriate here.
Ifthe intent ofthe statement is that a result of93
±
5
cannot be represented as 98,
or that a measured concentration of200 ppm
±
40 ppm in a gas
stream cannotbe represented as either 160 ppm or 240 ppm, webelieve no statement to this
effect is necessary since either would be an obvious misrepresentation.
But if the statement is
not limited
to this, what does it mean?
Does it mean that a test report cannot include an
estimated or calculated margin oferror?
Is it the intent that a party can never raise the margin of
error of a test in enforcement proceedings?
We do not see a clear reason for including such a
statement in a subsection about testing capture efficiency and believe that in the absence ofsuch
a reason, it is likely to be confusing and subject to
misinterpretation.
Hence, werequest that this
sentence be deleted, or, if not, that it be rewritten so that the intent is
clarified and limited.
A second point raised in our earlier comment was the suggested addition of“or equipment
configuration” at the end ofthe phrase “If these techniques are not suitable for a particular
2
process
.
.
.“
Our intent was to make clear that the suitability of a particular test method or
protocol might depend not only on the type ofprocess involved, but also on the configuration of
the equipment to be tested at a particular facility.
We intended to correct
a potential ambiguity in
the term “a particularprocess,” i.e., that itbe clear that even though the type ofprocess, for
example, rotogravure printing, might be generally suitable to one ormore ofthe listed test
methods or protocols, the specific configuration ofthe equipment at a facility might make them
unsuitable.
We realize that the wOrds “a particular process,” if interpreted reasonably, should
include such a consideration offacility specific factors, but we were striving to avoid
any
possible misinterpretation in this respect.
We therefore again ask the Board to consider this
requested addition.
First Notice Proposal: 218.105(c)(2)(E)
We believe that the Board’s changes have generally addressed the concerns raised in our earlier
comment.
Our remaining concern, as pointed out in our earlier comment, is with the next-to-last
sentence in the Board’s First Notice proposed
218.105(c)(2)(E):
“Where capture efficiency testing
is done to determine emission reductions forthe
purpose ofestablishing emission credits for offsets, shutdowns, and trading, the LCL
protocol cannot be used for these applications.”
In our earlier comment, we discussed what webelieve is the clear meaning ofthis statement.
However, we also raised concerns that IEPA apparently had a completely different interpretation
that would prevent a facility from using an LCL to estimate VOM emissions even if these were
not being used to establish abaseline.
We believe the Board has addressed these concerns in its
direction on page 23 ofits Opinion and
Order:
• “As for the language on
‘establishing’ emission credits foroffsets, shutdowns, and
trading, the Board directs JEPA to specifically address Smurfit’s
contention that the LCL
could be used to calculate actual seasonal emissions, just not the baseline for ERMS.
The
Board further directs IEPA to specifically address IERG’s concerns whether and when
additional
testing would be required.”
It is our view that the language in the Sëitz memo
and EPA guidance, both in its literal words
and in its logical interpretation, only limits use ofthe LCL for establishing an emission baseline;
it does not prevent an LCL being used to
calculate seasonal emissions.
ReQuested Action
We appreciate the Board’s reasoned consideration ofthe record in this rulemaking, including our
earlier comments.
Smurfit strongly supports giving Illinois EPA and facilities in Illinois the
widest possible range ofmethods to demonstrate capture efficiency without case-by-case SIP
revisions.
Smurfit
agrees substantially with the language in 2l8.105(c)(2) and 218.105(c)(2)(E)
that the Board has proposed in its
First Notice Opinion and Order.
3
However, for the reasons stated above, Smurfit-Stone requests that the Board adopt the following
language in Sections 218.105(c)(2) and 21
8.105(c)(2)(E)
(with equivalent language in Section
219.105(c)(2) and
219.105(c)(2)(E)).
Changes from the Board’s First Notice proposal are shown
by strikcthrough to show deletions and underlining to
show additions.
2l8.105(c)(2)
•
The capture efficiency ofan emission unit shall be measured using one ofthe protocols
given below.
Appropriate test methods to be utilized in each ofthe capture efficiency
•protocols are described in Appendix M of 40 CFR 51
incorporated by reference at
Section 218.112.
Any error margin associated with a test method or protocol may not be
incorporated into the results ofa capture efficiency test.
Ifthese techniques are not
suitable for a particular process or equipment configuration, then an alternative capture
efficiency protocol maybe used, pursuant to the provisions of218.108(b) ofthis Part.
218.l05(c)(2)(E~
No change proposed, but we request thatthe Board make clear that there is no restriction
on the use ofan LCL capture efficiency to calculate actual seasonal VOM emissions.
Smurfit-Stone respectfully requests that the Board consider these comments and that the final
rule language adopted by the Board be revised to be consistent with these comments.
Dated: July
(~,
2005
Respectfully submitted,
Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc.
By:
Roy
C. ~bb,
Jr.
Senior ~T(’ironmentalCounsel
Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc.
8182 Maryland Avenue
Clayton, Missouri 63105
Tel.
(314) 746-1154
FAX
(314)746-1333
4
