RECEIVED
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICE
IN THE MATTER
OF:
)
JUL
132005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
CLEAN-UP PART III
AMENDMENTS
TO
35
)
R04-20
pollution Control Board
ILL.
ADM. CODE PARTS 211,218,
AND 219
)
(Rulemaking
—
Air)
________________________________________________________________________
)
)
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
TO
)
R04-12
FORMULAS
IN
35
ILL.
ADM. CODE 214
)
(Rulemaking
—
Air)
“SULFUR LIMITATIONS”
)
(Consolidated)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Ms.
Dorothy M. Gunn
Richard McGill
Clerk of the Board
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100
West Randolph Street
100 West Randolph Street
Suite
11-500
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL)
(VIA FIRST CLASS MALL)
(PERSONS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
that
I
have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board an original
and nine copies each of COMMENTS OFTifE
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORY
GROUP copies of which
are
herewith
served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORY GROUP,
By:
7S~
Q.
One of Its Attorneys
Dated:
July 11, 2005
N. LaDonna Driver
Robert A. Messina
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
3150
Roland Avenue
REGULATORY GROUP
Post Office Box 5776
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5776
Post Office Box 5776
(217) 523-4900
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5776
(217) 523-4942
IERG:O01/R Dockets/Filing/NOF
—
R04-20 and R04-12
—
Comments
07-I I-OS
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, N.
LaDonna
Driver, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached
COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP
upon:
Ms.
Dorothy M.
Gunn
Clerk ofthe Board
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph
Street
Suite
11-500
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
Richard McGill
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite
11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Jonathan Fur, Esq.
Chief Legal Counsel
Illinois
Department ofNatural Resources
One Natural Resource Way
Springfield, Illinois
62702-1271
Claire
A.
Manning
Brown, Hay
&
Stephens,
LLP
700 First Mercantile Bank Building
205
South Fifth Street
P.O.
Box 2459
Springfield, Illinois
62705-2459
by depositing said documents in the
Illinois, on July
11,2005..
Charles E. Matoesian, Esq.
Assistant
Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
Matthew Dunn, Division Chief
Office ofthe Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph, 20th Floor
Chicago, Illinois
60601
RoseMarie
Cazeau, Bureau Chief
Office ofthe Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph, 20th Floor
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Ray Cobb
Senior
Environmental
Counsel
Smurfit-Stone
Container Corporation
8182
Maryland Avenue
Clayton, Missouri
63105
United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Springfield,
~
0:
N. LaDonna Driver
IERG:OO hR
Doc/Fil/COS
—
R04-20 and R04-12
—
Comments 07-11-05
IN THE MATTER OF:
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO
FORMULAS
IN 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 214
“SULFUR LIMITATIONS”
)
R04-12
)
(Rulemaking
—
Air)
)
(Consolidated)
FIRST NOTICE COMMENTS
OF THE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP
NOW COMES the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP
(“IERG”), by one ofits
attorneys, N. LaDonna Driver of HODGE DWYER ZEMAN,
and submits its Comments
in the above-captioned matters to the Illinois
Pollution Control
Board (“Board”), stating as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION
IERG is a not-for-profit Illinois corporation affiliated with the Illinois
State
Chamber ofCommerce.
IERG is composed of58
member companies
regulatedby
governmental agencies that promulgate, administer or enforce environmental laws,
regulations, rules or other policies.
A number ofIERG’s member companies conduct
activities governed by the regulations set forth in
35
III. Admin. Code Parts 211,214,
218, and 219.
IERG participated in the May 6, 2004,
hearing in this
matter, and filed
post-hearing comments.
On April 21, 2005, the Board issued its First Notice Opinion
and Order in this
proceeding (hereinafter referred to
as “First Notice”).
On May27,
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
CLEAN-UP PART III AMENDMENTS TO 35
)
ILL.
ADM. CODE PARTS 211,218, AND 219
)
)
)
CONTROLBOARDRECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
JUL
t
32005
R04-20
STATE OF ILLINOIS
(Rulemaking —PdH~itionControl Board
)
)
2005, the First Notice amendments in this proceeding were published in the Illinois
Register.
IERG submits
the following comments on the First Notice Opinion and Order.
LI.
DISCUSSION
A.
Capture Efficiency Testing Alternatives
As stated at hearing and in
its post-hearing comments, IERG appreciates and
supports the rulemaking’s
efforts to provide less burdensome alternatives to the task of
establishing capture efficiency.
These alternatives include utilizing a statistical approach
that may reduce testing time and effort, by meeting the Data Quality Objective (“DQO”)
or Lower Confidence Limit (“LCL”).
IERG had two main concerns with the different versions of the DQO and LCL
language proposed by Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”) in its
rulemaking proposal, errata sheet and post-hearing comments.
First, IERG believed that
the language could be read to improperly shift the burden ofproofin an enforcement case
to the respondent source to prove that it is in compliance.
Second, IERG believed that
the language imposed a new requirement to conduct testing
in order to establish emission
credits for offsets, shutdowns
and trading.
The Board satisfactorily addressed IERG’s concerns in
the language it ultimately
utilized in the First Notice Opinion and Order.
However, the Board sought additional
comment from the parties, particularly on the issue oftesting for emission credits.
IERG
has discussed this issue with Illinois EPA.
IERG ubderstands, from those
discussions,
that, barring any other reason to require additional testing:
•
where a source had originallyperformed testing at an emission unit using
standard methods, and then later seeks emission credits for that emission
unit, no
additional testing will be required by this rulemaking to
establish
credits for that emission unit;
2
•
where a source had originally performed testing
at an emission unit using
the DQO, and then later seeks emission credits for that emission unit, no
additional testing will be required by this
rulemaking to establish credits
for that emission unit;
•
where a source has not been requiredto
perform testing at an
emission
unit, and then later seeks emission credits for that emission unit, no
additional testing will be required by this rulemaking to establish credits
for that emissionunit;
•
where
a source had originally performed testing at an emission unit, has
relied upon the LCL, and then later seeks emission credits for that
emission unit,
additional testing will be required for that emission unit.
Thus, testing to establish emission credits will onlybe required when the source
had previously conducted testing and relied upon
the LCL.
IERG suggests that
a Board
note be included on this point, and has provided one below.
IERG also understands,
through its discussions with Illinois EPA on the testing
issue, that Illinois EPA would prefer that the full federal guidance language be utilized
in
the rule, as to the enforcement issue originally raised by IERG.
This would provide for
meeting the DQO in
showing non-compliance in an
enforcement case.
Illinois
EPA
apparently would also like
to provide for utilizing standard test methods in
such
situations.
IERG had included the full federal guidance language in
its post-hearing
comment and
is still supportive of that language.
IERG also does not object to including
use ofstandard test methods as
an option in this situation.
IERG’s
suggested revisions to
the Board’s First Notice language
is:
Where capture efficiency testing is done to determine emission reductions
for the purpose of establishing emission credits for offsets, shutdowns, and
trading, the LCL protocol cannot be used for these applications.
In
enforcement
cases,
the LCL protocol cannot confirm non-compliance~
sufficient tests must
be
performed to satisfy the
DQO;
failure
to
satisfy the
DOO
shall reciuire capture efficiency
to be determined using one of the
standard protocols described in subsection
(c)(2)(A),
(B).
(C)
or (D)
above.
3
(Board note:
Sources should be aware
that where LCL was utilized in
testing emission units that are the subject of later requests for establishing
emission credits for offsets, shutdowns and trading, prior LCL results may
not be relied upon in determining the appropriate amount of credits, such
that additional
testing at the DOO or standard method level may be
required to establish the appropriate
amount of credits.)
B.
Definition of Carbon Adsorber
Finally, the First Notice rulemaking contains a definition of “carbon adsorber”
at
Section
211.953.
IERG appreciates the Board’s resolution
ofIERG’s concerns with the
first sentence ofthe proposed definition.
However, IERG remains concerned that the
definition of “carbon adsorber” includes other media besides carbon, such as oxides of
silicon and aluminum.
Thus, the title of the definition “carbon adsorber” could be
deceptive as to
the types ofdevices covered by the definition.
The term “carbon adsorber”
is utilized throughout the Part 218/219 rules to
impose substantive requirements.
For example,
see
Section 218/219.105(d), which
requires continuous monitoring ofVOM concentration from carbon adsorber bed
exhaust; Section 218/2l9.434(d)(3), which requires
steam flow monitoring and carbon
bed temperature monitoring (Subpart
Q
leaks); Section 218/219.481, which requires 90
VOM emission reduction for carbon adsorbers (Subpart T, Pharmaceutical);
and Section
218/219.505(c), which requires monitoring of steam flow, monitoring of carbon bed
temperature and monitoring ofduration ofcarbon bed steaming
cycle for carbon
adsorbers (Subpart V, Batch Operations and
Oxidation).
IERG is concerned that sources, when reviewing monitoring requirements for
“carbon adsorbers” in Subparts
Q,
T, and V, would not understand that such
requirements would also extend to adsorbers with media containing oxides of silica and
aluminum.
The Board responded to this
concern by stating that the term “carbon
4
adsorber”
is “commonly understood to refer to adsorbent technology generally.”
First
Notice at
13.
Yet, the Board also refers to
Illinois EPA’s statements regarding its
enforcement difficulties with parties believing that non-carbon adsorber technologi-es-are
not subject to requirements for carbon adsorbers.
Id.
While a definition that
is inclusive
ofall media seems to “close that unforeseen loop hole,” it does
so at the expense of
regulatory requirements that are readily understood.
The Board has, in
its First Notice Opinion, requested that Illinois EPA propose an
omnibus rulemaking to replace the term “carbon adsorber”
with a “more accurate term”
if the First Notice Opinion and Order approach “does not work as intended.”
IERG
suspects that such a trigger will only occur after some sources have suffered the
enforcement consequences of not understanding that “carbon adsorber”
refers to
“adsorbent technology generally.”
IERG believes that the better approach is to avoid
such a situation and make the regulations clear from the outset.
IERG does not
seek, in this proceeding, to reopen all
regulatory provisions
that
carry requirements for “carbon adsorbers.”
Rather, the simplest approach at this time is
simply to amend the “carbon adsorber” definition, until such time
as anotherrulemaking
can be conducted to change the title and scope of the definition and the corresponding
references in the substantive regulatory requirements.
Thus, IERG proposes
that the First
Notice definition of “carbon adsorber” be revised as follows:
“Carbon adsorber” means a control device
designed to remove and, if
desired, recover volatile organic material (VOM) from process emissions
where removal ofVOM is accomplished through the adherence ofthe
VOM onto the surface of highly porous adzorbent particles, such as
activated carbon.
The term “carbon adsorber” describes any adsorber
technology used an a control device even though mcdiu othcr than carbon
may be used as the adsorbent, such an oxides of silicon and
aluminum.
5
LII.
CONCLUSION
IERG
requests that the rulemaking in this proceeding be
amended consistent with
the above comments.
IERG appreciates this opportunity to participate in
this rulemaking.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
-
REGULATORY GROUP,
By:/~
~
One of Its Attorneys
Dated:
July
11,2005
N. LaDonna Driver
Robert A. Messina
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
3150
Roland Avenue
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois
62703
Springfield,
Illinois
62705-5776
(217)
523-4942
(217) 523-4900
IERG:OO I /R Dockets/Filing/R04-20 and R04- 12/Comments 2
revised
6
