AMEREN ENERGY
GENERATING COMPANY,
COFFEEN POWER STATION,
Petitioner,
BEFORE
THE ILLiNOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
ORIGINAL
PCBfi~’0
)
CAAPP Appeal
)
)
)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
RECE!VED
CLERK’S OFFiCE
NOV
032005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
To:
Division ofLegal
Counsel
NOTICE OF FILING
1021
North Grand Avenue
Post Office Box
19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
Ms. Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson
Center
1000
West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
Please take notice
that on
‘7/3
2005,
the undersigned caused to
be filed
with the
Clerk of the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
Petitioner’s
Petition
for Review
and Motion for Stay,
and Appearance, copies ofwhich are herewith served upon you.
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
ósiXM~aazc4~
Chicago, IL
60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
V
James T. Harrington
David L.
Rieser
McGuireWoods LLP
One of its attorneys
\\REA\286550
Printed on Recycled Paper
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE°
P
I
G
I
NA
L
I, James T.
Harrington, one of the attorneys for Petitioner, hereby certify that I
1.
Motion to
Allow Filing of Less ThanNine Copies;
2.
Notice of Filing;
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
NOV
032005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
3.
Petition for Review and Motion to
Stay; and
4.
Appearance;
Division ofLegal
Counsel
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
1021 North
Grand Avenue
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
on November 3, 2005
via Federal Express.
ofthe Attorneys for
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Telephone: 312/849-8100
served
copies of:
upon the
Harrington
Petiti
tcGuireWoods LLP
\\REA\287270.
1
I
CHECK DATE
CHECK
NO.
238509
11/01/05
I
MCGUIREWcXDDS
__________________
ONE
JAMES CENTER
68-1
901
EASTCARY STREET
510
Bank of Amedca
RICHMOND,
VA 23219-4030
Atlanta. GA
www.mcguirewoods.com
CHECK AMOUNT
VOID
AFTER
180 DAYS
FIVE
HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE
AND
00/100 Dollars
PAY
Illinois
Pollution Control
Board
TO
THE
TWO SIGNATURES REQUIRED
IF
OVER $1000000
Chicago,
IL
5IGNATUR~
u’ 238509’
I:o~
~
~ 2?B8’:
003 2998099?
2’’
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
Transaction
Date.
100W.
RANDOLPH
ST.
INVOICE
SUflE11-500
28208
CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS
60601
I PURCHASER/FILER:
Name:
~
~L;
~: ~
Firm:
~ G-~~11~
t~
Lt)~
o
b
Address:
77
Lu.
LCfriL~ctE/~
~~IVL~
~r~’
~-b/CO
..
City/State/Zip:
~I~l
(L-60
L
.~
.
Phone:
/
~/Q~i~
~/
~±_
:\
TRANSACTION TYPE
PAYMENT TYPE
Opinionltnmscripi
Fiting Fee
Cash
Check
BiLlable
Document Sale
~/
~~3Z~
Description
C4-3~7~~J~
Unit
Price
Unit
A mon nt
~Du&-uL~
~jL~0~
—
(J5
a.&LGDZF&’-/
~ooL
—
bc,.
*Q~~t~
e~i
~
~
~-~“---.
o
\
~.
‘~
-~ç~o
.—-~
~oOL4
-V/
4MeR~E~ur(
t?5
.
~po&
-C~~A-met—pc&~’n
.0
~•o~
~
—c~‘i
A~t~?lZE1~’-
M-t-j2~
bcs,4
—
7
O1tiv~iraELT0Ts41~s,tv1a1e
~
J- t
4
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AMERENENERGY
)
p,~
A
I
NOV
032005
GENERATING COMPANY,
)
~N
IA ~
COFFEEN POWER STATION,
)
~~ii~To~
Control Board
Petitioner,
)
4
v.
)
PCBØ-
t~
)
CAAPP Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
MOTION TO ALLOW FILING OF LESS THAN NINE COPIES
Ameren Energy Generating
Company (“Ameren”),
by
and
through
its
attorneys,
McGuireWoods
LLP,
respectfully requests that the Board
allow it to
file less
than
nine
copies
of its
Petition
for
Review
of a
CAAP
Permit.
The
Petition
includes
lengthy
exhibits,
including
the
Permit.
Ameren has
attached the
original
and
four
copies
and
submits
that
submitting
five
additional
copies would
be
an
unnecessary expense
and
a
burden to both Petitioner and the Board.
WHEREFORE,
for
the
reasons
stated
in
this
Motion,
Ameren
respectfully
requests that it be allowed to
submit an original and
four copies ofits Petition for Review
and Exhibits instead ofnine copies otherwise required by Board rules.
AMEREN ENERGY
GENERi3’I’ING COMPANY
/
By:______________
One of its Attorneys
James T. Flarrington
David L. Rieser
McGuire Woods LLP
77
West Wacker,
Suite 4100
Chicago, IL
60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
\\REA\286550. I
Printed on Recycled Paper
PEC!~!VED
CLERKS OFFICE
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
NCV
U
J
2005
AMEREN ENERGY
)
GENERATING
COMPANY,
~ 0 R
I G
I
N
A L
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
COFFEEN
POWER STATION,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
~
)
v.
)
PCBQ
)
CAAPP Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
APPEARANCE
We
hereby
file
our
appearances
in
this
proceeding,
on
behalf
of
Petitioner,
Coffeen Power Station.
Dated:
November 3, 2005
$ayhes
.
Harrington
David L
Attorney ARDCNo.:
3128590
~(ttorney ARDC No.
113280
McGuireWoods
LLP
77 West Wacker Drive,
Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
\\REA\287274. I
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AMEREN ENERGY
)
GENERATING COMPANY,
)
OFFICE
COFFEEN POWER
STATION,
Q R
I
G
I
Nd
A
i
NOv
032005
STATEO
Petitioner,
)
P011w:0,-,
COd~~OIS
)
I
ILL
Oara
v.
)
PCBo~cOtr~/
)
CAAPP Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
PETITION FOR REVIEW
AND
MOTION FOR STAY
NOW COMES
Petitioner, Ameren Energy Generating
Company (“Petitioner”
or
“Ameren”)
pursuant to
Section
40.2
of Illinois Environmental
Protection
Act
(“Act” or
“15
ILCS
5/40.2”
and
“35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
105.300
ci
seq.”).
Petitioner petitions
for
hearing before the Board to contest the decisions of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(“Agency”)
to
include
certain
conditions
and
make
other
decisions
in
the
issuance of the permit
dated September
29,
2005
(“Permit”)
and
issued
under the
Clean
Air Act
Permit
Program
(“CAAPP”)
or (“Title V”) set
forth
at Section
39.5
of the
Act
(415
ILC
5/3.9.5) for the Coffeen Power Station (“Coffeen”).
Petitioner requests that
the
Board
recognize that the Permit
is
not
final
and
effective as a
matter of law
or, in
the
alternative,
stay
this
Permit
pursuant
to
35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
105.304(b)
during
the
pendency of this
Petition
for
Review.
In
support of this
Petition,
Petitioner
states
as
follows.
1
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
-.-
—
—
-
p
-
—
-
.
..-
—
I.
BACKGROUND
1.
Petitioner owns and operates a coal-fired power plant for the generation of
electricity known
as
the Coffeen
Plant located at
134
CIPS
Lane,
Coffeen, Montgomery
County, Illinois.
2.
This
Plant
consists
of
two
boilers,
Boiler
CBI
(a
Babcock
&
Wilcox
Boiler with
nominal capacity of 3,282 mmBTU/hr) and
Boiler CB2
(a
Babcock &
Wilcox
Boiler
with
nominal
capacity of 5,544
mmBTU/hr),
as well as
an
auxiliary boiler,
CB-
AUX4
(with
a
nominal
capacity of 226
mmBtulhr),
along
with
ancillary
equipment,
including coal handling, coal processing, and fly ash handling equipment.
3.
The
Coffeen
Plant
has
a
nominal
capacity
of
about
950
megawatts
of
electricity.
It employs approximately 188 people.
4.
Coffeen
is
a
major
source
subject to
the Clean
Air Act
Title V
Permit
Program. On September
01,
1995,
Ameren
filed an application for a CAAPP Permit
with
the
Agency.
The Agency
issued
a
draft/proposed
Permit
for the
public
and
USEPA’s
review on June 26, 2003.
That review ended on September 28, 2003.
The
Agency issued
a draft Permit
and
draft responsiveness summary
on July
19,
2005.
It provided for a 10
day
comment
period
ending
August
1,
2005.
The
Agency
issued
a
draft
Permit
for
USEPA
review on August
15,
2005.
5.
Ameren
filed
comments
on
various
proposed
permits
on
January,
2005
(Exhibit
A),
and
August
1,
2005
(Exhibit
B),
as well as participating in joint
comments
filed by the Air Utility Group of Illinois (“AUGI”) on
September 23, 2003
(Exhibit
C).
6.
On September 29,
2005,
the USEPA Region V posted a document
entitled
“Clean
Air Act
Permit
Program
(CAAPP) Permit”
for the Coffeen Power
Station
dated
2
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—
—
-s_.
--
......
,.-,
—
.
-
-
—
.....
!,..,.
,,..
—
—
September
29,
2005
with
an
expiration
date
of September
29,
2010,
Application
No.
95090009; ID.
No.
135803AAA
on
its
website,
a
copy of which
is
attached hereto and
made a part hereof as Exhibit D.
7.
Ameren received the Permit in the mail on October
11, 2005.
8.
Ameren
hereby
petitions
for
review
of
the
issuance
of the
Permit
and
particularly
the
inclusion of the
following
identified
terms and
conditions
thereof and
asks
the
Board
to
reverse
and
remand
the
Permit
to
the
Agency
specifically
for
the
purpose ofremoving said conditions or revising the Permit as requested herein.
9.
Ameren further requests
that the Board enter its order recognizing that
the
Permit
is
not
final
and
effective pending
a
final decision of the Board
and
the action by
the Agency
implementing
that
decision or,
in
the alternative,
issue
its
Order staying the
Permit.
10.
Ameren specifically petitions
for review of the Permit
as a whole
and
the
conditions set forth below for the reasons stated.
II.
STAY
11.
The
Permit
is
a
license
within
the
meaning
of
the
Administrative
Procedure ActS
ILCS
100/10-65.
12.
As
a license,
it is subject to
5
ILCS
100/10-65(b) which provides:
When
a
licensee
has
made
timely
and
sufficient
application
for the renewal of a license
or
a new license
with reference to
any
activity of a continuing nature, the
existing
license
shall
continue
in
full
force
and
effect
until
the
final
agency
decision
on
the
application
has
been
made
unless
a
later
date
is
fixed
by
order
of
a
reviewing court.
3
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
.—
—
.a~
.
.
....-
..,
—
.,-——..—
—
,..,,
—,..
—
...
.
-,
13.
No
“final
agency decision on
the
application”
on
the Permit
occurs
until
the
Pollution
Control
Board
rules
on
this
Petition
for
Review.
See
Borg-Warner
v.
Mciuzy,
100 Ill. App.
3d
862 (1981), 427 N.E.2d 415
(Ill.App.Ct.
1981).
14.
Therefore, pending a decision by this
Board, the Permit
is not in
effect or,
at a minimum, the contested terms are not in effect.
15.
The Board
should
issue
its
order
finding
that
the terms of the Permit
are
not
in
effect
pending
its
final decision and
any
final action of the Agency
implementing
the Board’s decision.
16.
If the Board
does not
enter an
order
as requested, it
should
enter its
own
order
staying the
Permit
or,
in
the
alternative,
staying the
contested
terms
pending
its
final decision.
17,
As
set
forth
herein,
the Permit
contains
numerous
Conditions which
are
illegal,
unsupported
in
law or fact or otherwise unreasonable.
Many of these Conditions
are impossible with which to
comply or impose an
unreasonable
burden upon Petitioner.
Moreover,
a
stay
would
not
impose
a severe
burden
on
the Agency
or the public
since
this
Permit
Application has
been pending
since
1995
and
a
further
delay
in
imposing
these Conditions,
to
the extent
they
are
valid,
will prejudice neither the Agency
nor the
public.
Moreover,
Petitioner
will
remain
subject
to
all
requirements
of the
law
and
regulations
and
prior
Permits
during
the
pendency
of this
Petition.
Furthermore,
as
documented
below,
Petitioner
has
a
substantial
likelihood
of
success
on
the
merits.
Various
critical
Conditions
were
imposed
in
violation of the
law,
without proper notice
and
an
opportunity
to
comment,
and
without
basis
in
law
or
fact
or
are
otherwise
unreasonable.
4
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—
—
.
.~
--.—
III.
EFFECTIVE DATE
18.
a.
The Permit
states
that
it was
issued
September
29,
2005.
An e-
mail
dated September
29,
2005,
7:18
PM,
stating
the Permit
was posted
on
the USEPA
website was effectively received
by Ameren on the next business day.
b.
The Permit
is
apparently
intended
to
be
effective September
29,
2005, the date it was purportedly issued.
The Permit
itself does not contain any effective
date.
The USEPA
Region
V
website where
it was
originally posted
states
that
it
was
effective
September
29,
2005.
It
contains
numerous
terms
and
conditions
which
are
apparently intended
to
be
immediately
effective
or which
require immediate
action
by
Petitioner to
come into
compliance
with very
short deadlines.
Most of these
conditions,
whether
otherwise
contested
or
not,
are
not
contained
in
any
prior
applicable
law,
regulation
or
permit
and
significant
conditions
were
not
contained
in
any
prior
draft
permit issued for public comment.
This purportedly immediately effective permit fails to
give
Petitioner adequate
notice
of what
is
required
or adequate
time
to
take
action
to
comply.
As
such,
it is
unreasonable
and
contrary to
law and
a violation of due
process.
The
Permit
should
be
remanded
to
the
Agency
in
order
to
provide
adequate
time
to
comply with those terms of the Permit that are otherwise found to be valid.
Ameren
did
not receive the signed Permit
until
October
11,
2005.
Posting
on
the
federal
website
and
e-mail
notice
of
such
posting
does
not
constitute
delivery to
Ameren.
The Permit
should not
be
deemed
effective prior to
its
delivery
to
the Permittee in final form
by the Agency.
In particular, if the Permit is deemed effective
on
September
29,
2005,
the
two
days
remaining
in
the
third
quarter
would
require
5
Printed on Recycled Paper
-
~-
-
Ameren to have taken action on these days and to
file reports for the two
days of the third
quarter when the Permit would be deemed
effective. Ameren had no official notice ofthe
Permit, no opportunity
to
comply with the terms and conditions thereof, and
no reason
to
have
created
or
maintained
the
records
required
to
file
such
quarterly
report.
Furthermore,
filing
such
a
quarterly
report
or
other documents
for
a
two-day
period
would be a useless gesture
and impose an
unreasonable burden upon Ameren.
IV.
GENERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
19.
(a)
Conditions
S.6.1(a) and
(b) require record keeping of emissions of
mercury, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride.
(b)
There
is no
basis in state or federal law or regulations for requiring
reporting of mercury,
hydrogen
chloride or hydrogen
fluoride.
These facilities
are
not
subject to
federal
regulations
as
Hazardous Air Pollutants and
there
is therefore
no
basis
for requiring sampling, record keeping or reporting for these substances.
20.
(a)
Conditions
5.6.2(b)
and
(c) require Permittee to retain and print,
on
paper,
records
retained
in
an
electronic
format
and
further
require
Permittee,
upon
request,
to
submit copies of any
electronic
records required
to
be
kept under the permit
but not otherwise submitted to the Agency.
(b)
These
conditions
impose
an
unreasonable
burden
upon
Permittee
and
are
unsupported
by
law.
Paper
copies
of records
retained
in
electronic
format
are
generally neither useful nor required.
21.
(a)
Condition 5.6.2(d) provides:
For
certain
records
required
to
be
kept
by
this
permit
as
specifically
identified
in
the
recordkeeping
provisions
in
Section
7
of
this
permit,
which
records
are
a
basis
for
control
practices
or
other
recordkeeping
required
by
this
6
Printed on Recycled Paper
permit,
the Permittee
shall
promptly
submit a copy
of the
record
to
the
Illinois
EPA
when
the
record
is
created
or
revised.
For
this
purpose,
the
initial
record
shall
be
submitted within 30 days of the effectiveness of this permit.
Subsequent
revisions
shall
be
submitted
within
10
days of
the
date
the
Permittee
begins
to
rely
upon
the
revised
record.
(b)
The requirement to
submit
all
records,
apparently including
forms
of records,
within
30
days or when created or revised,
is
overly vague
and
burdensome,
serves no useful purpose and is otherwise unreasonable and unsupported in law.
22.
(a)
Condition
5.7.1
specifies
General
Source-Wide
Reporting
Requirements.
It requires that,
“tjhe
Permittee shall promptly notify the Illinois
EPA of
deviations ofthe source with the permit requirements.”
(b)
The condition does not define either “promptly” or “deviation” and
is therefore overly vague and
does not give the Permittee fair warning ofwhat is required.
Permittee suggested alternatives during
the comment period but none have been adopted.
Specific
reporting requirements
for the specific
terms of the permit
have been provided
and
should be
sufficient for any reasonable purpose.
V.
COAL FIRED BOILER
Calculated 95
Upper Tolerance Bound for Opacity
23.
(a)
Condition 7.1.9(c)(ii) provides the following records are required:
Records
for the
affected
boiler that
identify the
upper
bound of the 95
confidence interval
(using
a
normal
distribution
and
1
minute
averages)
for
opacity
measurements
from
each
boiler,
considering
an
hour
of
operation,
within which compliance with the applicable
limit in Condition
7.1.4(b)
is
assured,
with
supporting
explanation
and
documentation,
including results of historic
emission tests.
At
a minimum, these records
shall
be
reviewed and revised as necessary following performance of each
subsequent
PM
emission
tests
on
the
affected
boiler.
Copies
of these
records
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Illinois
EPA
in
accordance
with
Condition 5.6.2(d).
7
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
(b)
Standing
on
its
own,
this
provision
requires
calculation
of
a
statistical
limit
based
on
the
incorrect assumpt ion
that
the
opacity
readings
and
the
particulate emission rate bear a
consistent mathematical
relationship
to
each other across
a
range
of operating
conditions.
The relationship between opacity
and particulate
mass
emissions
varies with
changes
in
fuel
supply
(different
coals),
the
performance
of the
particulate
control
equipment
(electrostatic
precipitator),
the
fly
ash
particle
size
distribution,
and
the refractive index of the fly
ash particles.
Thus,
no direct
correlation
exists between stack opacity and particulate
mass emissions.
It also assumes that the data
will fit a normal distribution
which may not
be the case.
This requirement is not based on
sound science or statistical methods, even if the relationship was established.
In addition,
particulate
emission testing pursuant
to
USEPA
Method
5
is
done under very controlled conditions not necessarily representative of a normal range of
operating
conditions.
Such
testing
has generally been performed under normal operating
conditions
rather
than
at
maximum
allowable
particulate
emission
rates
typically
resulting
in
emission rates which are a fraction of the allowable emissions.
Opacity data
when
the
particulate
emissions
are
at
or
near
compliance
limits
are
not
available.
Therefore,
even
assuming
that
there was
a
realistic mathematical
relationship
between
opacity
and
particulate
mass
emissions
and
that
this
relationship
is
properly
characterized, the confidence limit that would be calculated for opacity would represent a
mass
emission rate that
is
a
fraction of the emission limit
and
not
in
any
meaningfully
correlation to the allowable particulate emissions under the permit.
24.
(a)
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(ii) further provides that the records required by
that
section
“shall
be
submitted
to
the
Illinois
EPA
in
accordance
with
Condition
8
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
r
5.6.2(d).”
Section
5.6.2(d)
provides,
inter alia,
“for
this
purpose, the initial record shall
be submitted within 30 days ofthe effectiveness ofthis permit.”
(b)
In
essence
the
two
sections
together
require
the
Permittee
to
calculate
the
upper
bound
of the
95
confidence
interval
for
opacity
for
each boiler
under the Permit,
maintain the records, and
submit them
to the Agency within
30 days of
the effective date. This
is not
possible.
In order
to
attempt the mandated calculation
and
develop
the
records,
there
would
need to
be
a
current valid
particulate
emission test,
including
correlated opacity
data, reflecting
current operating
conditions.
Such
tests
are
not presently available
for all
facilities subject to
this requirement and
could not be done
within the 30
day period.
To
obtain such data for all
the facilities subject to the
identical
requirements
could
require
several
years
depending
upon
the
availability
of
the
generating units, the
availability of qualified stack testing teams and Agency personnel to
observe
the tests. If the requirements of Condition
7.1 .9(c)(ii) are to
be retained
in
some
form,
it or Condition
5.6.2(d) must
be
modified
to
provide
that
what
ever calculations
must
be
done,
will
be
done
180
days
following
the
report
of the
next
stack
test
for
particulate matter required under the permit.
25.
(a)
Condition
7.1.9(c)(iii)(B)
provides
that
for
each
hour
when
the
upper
bound
specified
in
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(ii)
is
exceeded
a
record
must
be
made
indicating
the
date,
time,
operating
condition
occurring
at
that
time
and
“whether
particulate
matter
emissions
may
have
exceeded
the
applicable
limit”
Moreover
Condition
7.1.1 0-2(a)(i)(E) requires
that all records
pursuant to
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(iii)(B)
be
submitted with the quarterly report.
9
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—
(b)
As
set
forth
above,
exceeding
the
upper
bound
specified
in
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(ii)
cannot reasonably be
correlated to
consistent
particulate emission
rates and therefore
maintaining
these records will not provide any
useful
information and
merely
impose
an
unreasonably burden
upon the Permittee.
Moreover,
there
is no
basis
on
which
Permittee can estimate whether the particulate
emission
limits may
have been
exceeded other than by
looking
at operating
records
and determining whether equipment
is
significantly
malfunctioning.
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(iii)(B)
is therefore
unreasonable
and
contrary to law.
26.
(a)
Conditions
7.1.10-l(a)(ii)
and
7.l.10-3(a)(i)
require
immediate
notification
by
telephone “for
each
incident
in
which
...
the opacity
from
an
affected
boiler
exceeds
30
percent
for
five
or
more
6-minute
averaging
periods
unless
the
Permittee has begun the shutdown...
(b)
As
originally
proposed,
this
condition
applied
to
five
or
more
consecutive
readings
in
excess
of
30
percent.
As
written
it
is
overly
vague
and
burdensome.
It
would
appear to
apply
to
five or more
such readings over
any
period of
time including days, weeks or months.
Additionally,
the
use
of the
term “immediately”
is
inappropriate
and
vague.
Without
the benefit
of a more
thorough
definition, it could
be
claimed that
the notification
must
take
place
the
exact
moment after the
event
occurs.
This
would
compromise
resources
that
should,
at
that
critical
moment,
be
performing a
number of
other
tasks to
remedy the
situation.
Further,
the review
necessary
to
determine whether
or not the reporting
is necessary must be performed by those who
may
not
always be
on
10
Printed
on Recycled Paper
the premises.
This star.dard of “immediate” notice
also fails to recognize that the Agency
is not always available for notification.
27.
(a)
~n
addition
to
the
foregoing
condition-by-condition
objections,
there are numerous conditions
in the permit that are overly vague and
do not
provide
fair
notice
of
what
is
required
or
even
a
method
by
which
Permittee
could
provide
the
requested information.
i.
Condition
7.1.1 0-2(a)Ø)(E) requires Permittee to report instances
when
a
conditicn
“may
have
exceeded
the
PM
limit....”
Similar
conditions
appear
elsewhere.
ii. Condition
7.1.1 0-2(d)(v) requires
information
“for
each type of
recurring
)pacity
exceedance”
including
elaborate
analysis
of the possible
causes
and
also r~,1uiresinformation of “any new type(s) ofopacity
exceedances.
.
(b)
Each of these conditions
is overly vague and burdensome.
They do
not
provide
fair notice
of what
is required;
they use terms which
are not
defined
in
the
permit or in
practice; and
provide no
guidance as to how they are to be met.
As such they
violate Due Process.
28.
(a)
Condition
7.1 .9(g)(ii)(C)(V)
requires
records
of estimates
of the
magnitude
of emissions
of PM
and
CO
during
startups
in
exceedence
of certain
time
limits
and
whether
these
emissions
may have
exceeded
applicable
limits.
Condition
7.1 .9(h)(ii)(D)(III)
requires
that
the
same
records
and
estimates
be
made
during
malfunctions and breakdowns.
(b)
There
is
no
reasonable
basis
in
law
or
fact
for
making
these
determinations, either in the amount
of emissions or whether they violated
any applicable
11
Printed on Recycled Paper
-—
-
--.
-—
_c.•
-
-
..--.--.-.
conditions.
There
may
be
some
basis
of making
general
estimates of CO under
some
circumstances, but there
is no way to make accurate, reliable measurements that could be
the
basis
of determinations
of exceedences.
There
is
no
accurate
method
for making
realistic estimates
of PM
and
CO emissions
during
startups
or during
malfunctions
and
breakdowns, including no test data or emission factors.
29.
(a)
Condition 7.1.1 0-2(d)(iii) contains a note which states in part:
“Because
the
Permittee
is
subject
to
the
reporting
requirements of the NSPS,
40
C.F.R. 60.7(c)
and (d) for an
affected boiler...
(b)
This
facility
is not
subject to the NSPS, 40 C.F.R. Part 60,
and this
reference
and
any
requirements
or
conditions
expressly
or
impliedly
based
on
it
are
contrary to
law.
30.
(a)
Condition
7. 1. 12(b)
provides:
“Compliance
with
PM
emission
limits of Condition
7.1 .4(b)
is addressed by continuous opacity
monitoring in
accordance
with
Condition
7.1.8(a),
PM
testing
in
accordance
with
Condition
7.1.7,
and
the
recordkeeping required by Condition 7.1.9.”
(b)
Condition
7.1.1 0-2(d)(iv)
under
the
general
caption “Reporting of
Opacity and
PM
Emissions” requires quarterly
reports
“for
periods when PM
emissions
were
in
excess of the limitations in Condition
7.1.4(b),” including a detailed reporting of
opacity
measurements for each six
minute
period during
the exceedances, “flhe
means
by which the exceedance
was indicated or identified, in
addition to
the
level of opacity,”
“a
detailed
explanation
of
the
cause,”
and
a
detailed
explanation
of
the
corrective
measures taken.
When read together
with
the other
conditions
in
the
permit
set
forth
above, these sections clearly indicate that there is at least a presumption that
the PM limit
12
Printed on Recycled Paper
was
violated
w~enthe
opacity
readings
exceed
the
95
upper
tolerance
bound
calculated pursuan\ to
the permit and
that the Agency
will expect the opacity
reading to
be
reported as such. In essence,
it appears that the 95
upper tolerance bound becomes a
surrogate
for a new PM
limit if not the enforceable limit itself
Moreover,
as
discussed
above,
this
new limit will
not
bear
any
necessary relationship
to
the limit established
in
Illinois
regulations
for PM
emissions
from
the boilers.
This
is
in
fact contrary
to
the
statements
made
in
the
September
29
Agency
Responsiveness
Summary
(found
in
Record)
which
stated that
such
limits
could
not
be
established.
This
new limit
is
not
based
on
any
legally applicable
requirements
and
is
therefore
not
a
legally
defensible
requirement.
Furthermore,
this
new limit will
be
established
without
any
consideration of its
reasonableness
or
achievability under
the normal
range
of operating
conditions
for the
boilers,
normal
fuel
supply
variability
and
the
range
of
normal
control
equipment
performance
and
fly
ash characteristics
designed
to
achieve
consistent
compliance
with
the State’s
duly established emission limits.
VI.
CARBON MONOXIDE
31.
(a)
Condition 7.1.6 provides:
As
part
of
its
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
affected
boilers,
the
Permittee
shall
perform
formal
“combustion
evaluation”
sic
on
each
boiler on
at least a
quarterly
basis,
pursuant
to
Section
39.5(7)(d)
of the
Act.
These evaluation
sic
shall
consist of diagnostic
measurements
of
the
concentration
of
CO
in
the
flue
gas
of
the
affected
boiler,
with
adjustments
and
preventative
and
corrective
measures
for
the
boiler’s
combustion systems to maintain efficient combustion.
(b)
This
condition
purportedly
requires
a
quarterly
formal
“Combustion
Evaluation”
tied
to
CO
measurements
in
the flue gas to
maintain
efficient
13
Printed on Recycled Paper
-
--
—
~-
-.
.-—
..
-
-
—..
., --
--
- . -.
-
- -
combustion.
“Combustion
Evaluation”
is
not
a
term of art or
science
in
the coal
fired
boiler
industry
and
is
not
defined in
the permit
and
is
therefore
overly
vague. It
is
well
known
that
CO levels in
a boiler vary
continuously
over the normal range of operating
conditions.
It is not feasible to make boiler adjustments for CO
at a single load point that
will thereafter be
maintained
throughout the
entire range
of boiler operation.
Moreover,
tuning a boiler to
minimize
CO may have the
effect of increasing NOx
emissions which
are more tightly
regulated
and
of greater
environmental
concern.
There
is
no
evidence
that
the CO emissions
exceed or even approach their allowable limits.
Furthermore, there
is
no
regulatory
requirement or basis
for inclusion of this requirement
in the permit.
As
set forth in this Condition, these evaluations require periodic
testing ofCO in the exhaust.
Such tests are not
necessary or useful
for compliance or operation.
CO concentrations in
the
exhaust during
stack tests
are
a
small
fraction of ambient limits.
This
requirement
would
require
installation
and
operation
of
unspecified
monitoring
equipment
at
considerable cost.
It is unreasonable and not
supported by law or fact.
VII.
START UP
32.
(a)
Condition
7.1 .9(g)(ii)(C)
states:
If this elapsed time is more than
6 hours or if the Permittee’s startup
procedures are not followed:
I.
A
detailed
explanation
why
startup
of the
boiler
was
not
completed sooner or startup procedures were not
followed.
II.
Documentation
for
the
startup
procedures
that
were
followed.
III.
The
elapsed
time
from
initial
firing
of auxiliary
fuel
until
firing of the principal fuel was begun.
IV.
The
flue gas temperature
at which the ESP was energized, if
coal was fired before the ESP was energized.
14
Printed on Recycled Paper
V.
Estimates
of
the
magnitude
of
emissions
of
PM
and
CO
during
the
startup,
including
whether
emissions
may
have
exceeded
any
applicable
hourly
standard,
as
listed
in
Condition 7.1.4.
(b)
In essence, this requirement treats any
startup exceeding 6 hours
at
this
facility as
being
out
of the
ordinary
and
requiring extensive
explanation.
On
the
contrary, as repeatedly pointed
out to
the Agency on the record,
in
excess of 16
hours
is
far
more
typical
of startups
as
both
the
boiler
and
turbine
generator
are
brought
to
appropriate temperatures and
coal is gradually added to the fuel mix. There is no basis for
requiring
the
substantially
greater
records
required
by
this
condition
or
creating
an
impression that startups over
6 hours are out of the ordinary.
VIII.
TESTING
33.
(a)
Condition
7.1
.7(a)(ii) provides as follows:
“PM emission measurements shall be
made within
90 days of operating
an
affected boiler for more than 30 hours total
in a calendar quarter at a loadt
that
is
more
than
2
percent
higher
than the
greatest
load
on
the
boiler,
during
the
most
recent
set
of PM
tests
on
the
affected
boiler
in
which
compliance
is
shown
(refer
to
Condition
7.1 .7(e)(iii)(D)),
provided,
however,
that the Illinois EPA may
upon
request of the Permittee provide
more
time
for testing
(if such time
is reasonably
needed to
schedule and
perform testing or coordinate testing with seasonal conditions).
*
For this purpose, load shall
be expressed in
terms of
either
gross
megawatt
output
or
steam
flow,
consistent
with
the
form of the records
kept
by
the
Permittee
pursuant
to Condition 7.1.9(a).”
(b)
This
condition
requires
retesting
the
boiler
if
it
operates
for
30
hours in a calendar quarter at a load that
is more than 2
greater than that during its most
recent
PM
test.
As
the Agency
is
well aware
and
as has been pointed
out
in
comments,
there
are periods
of peak demand
on
the
electric
grid
including
periods
when
the
grid
15
Printed on Recycled Paper
-
----
—
—
—
---
—
may be
in
danger of collapse because of loading or loss of other generating capacity that
it may be
necessary to
operate
boilers
over their rated capacity
to
protect the integrity of
the
electric
grid.
Furthermore,
a
90
day
window
for
conducting
stack
tests
is
not
reasonable because arranging for tests,
scheduling with
the Agency
and
conducting
such
tests
cannot generally
be
accomplished
in
that time
frame.
This
condition
penalizes the
owner/operator for responding to potential
emergency
situations
and
otherwise fulfilling
its legal obligations.
34.
(a)
Condition
7.l.7(b)(iii)
provides
that
USEPA
Methods
5
and
202
from 40
CFR 60 Appendix
A must be used for sampling Particulate Matter.
In the note it
provides:
“Measurements of condensable
PM
are
also
required
by
USEPA
Method
202
(40
CFR
Part
51,
Appendix
M)
or
other
established
test
method
approved by the Illinois EPA, except for a test conducted prior to
issuance
ofthis permit.”
(b)
Method
202
and
similar
methods
are
designed
to
test
for
“condensable
particulates,”
i.e.
materials
that
are
not
particulates
as
emitted
from
the
stack
but
which
may
later
condense
to
form
particulates.
These
“condensable
particulates” are not
governed by
any applicable emission limitation in law,
regulation or
permit. The test
is expensive and
complicated. It is also not
reliable.
Alternative methods
are being developed.
There
is
not
basis
in
law
for requiring such testing
under
Method
202,
and
it
is
not
necessary
or
useful
in
demonstrating
compliance
with
applicable
regulations or the permit itself.
16
Printed on Recycled Paper
-
IX.
COAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT
—
coal receiving,
coal transfer,
coal storage operations
Opacity
35.
(a)
coal
receiving,
coal
limitations
recited in
to
USEPA
Method
condition.
be kept.
Condition 7.2.4(b) provides that coal handling operations including
transfer
and
coal
storage
are
subject
to
the
30
percent
opacity
Condition 5.2.2(b) pursuant to 35
IAC 212.123.
Condition 7.2.7
provides that the
same operations
shall
be
subject
9
for
opacity
on
the
schedule
and
methodology
set
forth
in
this
Condition 7.2.9(g) requires records
of the opacity measurements
to
Condition
7.2.12(a)
provides
that
compliance
with
7.2.4
is
addressed by
inter alia
7.2.6(a), 7.2.7 and
7.2.9.
(b)
These
conditions
are
improper.
Emissions
for
coal
handling
equipment
not
exhausted through a
stack or control device
are
strictly
fugitive
in
nature
in
that they are not emitted
from
stacks
or other similar
confined openings
suitable
for
controls.
As
such these emissions
are subject to the fugitive emission standard
in
35
IAC
2 12.301.
There is
no basis
in
the law or regulations to
subject these emissions to
opacity
limitations, testing or monitoring.
Inspection Requirements
36.
(a)
Condition
7.2.8(a)
provides
that
monthly
inspections
of
the
operations
including
control
measures
must
be
monitored
by
“personnel
not
directly
involved in the day-to
day sic
operations of the affected operations.”
17
Printed on Recycled Paper
Condition
7.2.12(a)
provides
that
compliance
with
7.2.4
is
addressed by 7.2.8.
(b)
There
is
no
reasonable
basis
for requiring
inspection
by
persons
not
involved
in
the
operation.
Only
those
people
involved
in
the
operations
have
the
detailed
knowledge
of the
equipment
and
processes
to
adequately
carry
out
such
an
inspection safely.
To require third parties lacking such familiarity with the process would
defeat the purpose of the inspection.
37.
(a)
Condition
7.2.8(b)
requires
detailed
inspection
of
the
dust
collection
equipment at least
every
15
months
while
the operation
is
out of service and
further requires an inspection before
and after any maintenance and repair.
Condition
7.2.12(b)
provides
that
compliance
with
7.2.6(a)
is
addressed
by 7.2.8.
(b)
Requiring
the
equipment
to
be
out
of service
imposes
a
severe
burden
on
operations
and
requiring
an
inspection
before
and
after
each
repair
is
unnecessary
and
wasteful.
Inspections
and
maintenance
should
be
carried
out
in
accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations or industry experience.
Moreover,
requiring
the
facility to
be
taken
out
of service
for
such inspections
and
to
require an
inspection before
and
after any repair or maintenance is ulmecessary,
unreasonable
and it
does
not
bear
a
reasonable
relationship
to
environmental
compliance.
These
requirements
are overly burdensome
and serve no valid purpose.
38.
(a)
Condition
7.2.9(e)(ii)
provides
that
the
Permittee
must
maintain
records
of estimates
of the
magnitude
of PM
emissions
“for
each
incident
when
any
affected operation operated without the established control measures.”
18
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
-
(b)
The determination of the magnitude of PM emissions
as attempted
to be
enforced here does not correlate with
other relevant conditions or common
industry
practices.
PM
emissions
from
this
operation
are
generally
fugitive.
There
is
no
reasonable
basis
for making estimates
of emissions
during
malfunctions
or breakdowns.
They cannot be
measured and
there are no
applicable
emission factors
on
which
to base
such estimates.
39.
(a)
Condition
7.2.1 0(b)(i)(A) provides
that during continued
operation
of an affected process during malfunction or breakdown
the Permittee must “immediately
notify” the
Agency
“for
each
incident
in
which
the opacity
from
an
affected operation
exceeds or may have exceeded the applicable
opacity standard for five or more 6-minute
averaging periods.”
(b)
Emissions
from
coal
handling are
typically
fugitive.
As
set
forth
herein opacity
limitations
do
not
apply
to
fugitive
emissions
and there
is
no
reasonable
basis
for measuring opacity
under these circumstances.
Moreover,
there
is
no
basis
for
counting
the
“five
or
more”
exceedences,
if they
could
be
measured,
unless
they
are
continuous or within a certain period of time.
Additionally,
the
use of
the
term
“immediately”
is
inappropriate
and
vague.
Without
the benefit of a more
thorough
definition, it could
be
claimed that
the
notification
must
take place
the
exact
moment
after the
event occurs.
This
would
compromise
resources
that
should,
at
that
critical
moment,
be
performing a
number of
other tasks to
remedy the
situation.
Further,
the review necessary to
determine whether
or not the reporting is necessary
must be
performed
by those
who may not always
be on
19
Printed
on Recycled Paper
the premises.
This standard of “immediate” notice also fails to
recognize that the Agency
is not always available for notification.
40.
(a)
Condition 7.2.10(a)(ii) states
that “notification
within 30 days for
operation
of
an
affected
operation
that
was
not
in
compliance
with
applicable
requirements
in
Condition 7.2.6(a)
that continued
for more than
12
operating hours
from
the time
that it was identified.”
Condition
7.2.6(a)
deals
with
the
implementation
of
emission
control measures and the accompanying work practices and operational limits.
(b)
The nature of fugitive
emissions compliance
measures required by
Condition
7.2.6(a) makes such reporting meaningless.
For example, many such measures
are
periodic,
i.e.,
every
so
many days
or as needed,
(e.g.,
one
need not
spray water
on
coal
handling
when
it
is
raining).
Certain
such
measures
may
not
be
needed
for
compliance with applicable
requirements.
41.
(a)
Condition 7.2.1 0(b)(ii)(C) requires the Permittee to submit with the
quarterly
reports
the
aggregate
duration
of
all
incidents
during
the
quarter
in
which
affected
operations
continued
to
operate
with
excess
emissions
during
malfunction
or
breakdown.
(b)
The determination of the magnitude of PM emissions,
as attempted
to
be
enforced here, does not
correlate with
other relevant conditions
or common industry
practices.
PM
emissions
are generally fugitive.
Under Condition 7.2.8(a), the Permittee
is
only
required
to
make
monthly
inspections
of
affected
operations
and
associated
control
measures.
There are a number of reasons why monthly
inspections,
rather than
continuous
inspections,
are enforced, and
it is well-established that
this monthly standard
20
Printed on Recycled Paper
is
reasonable,
sufficient,
effective,
and
fair.
Therefore,
it
does
not
correlate
that
the
Permittee
should
be
asked
to
make
estimates of emissions
during
each
instance
when
operations continue without control measures.
X.
COAL PROCESSING
EQUIPMENT
42.
(a)
Condition
7.3.4(b) provides that coal
processing operations will be
subject
to
the
opacity
limitation
referenced
in
Condition
5.2.2(b)
pursuant
to
35
IAC
212.123.
Condition
7.3.6
requires
work
practices
and
other
methods
to
assure compliance with Condition 7.3.4.
Conditions
7.3.9(1)
and
(g)
require records of opacity
readings
to
be maintained.
Condition
7.3.12(a)
provides
compliance with
7.3.4
be
assured by
applications of Condition 7.3.6(a).
Condition
7.3.7(a)(i) requires
that
opacity
be
determined pursuant
to
USEPA Test Method
9.
(b)
As
set
forth
above
with
respect to
coal
handling
equipment,
those
emissions
from
coal processing
which
are
fugitive
in
nature and
do
not
exit
through
a
stack or other confined opening are
not
subject to
the opacity
limitations
but
are subject
to
the
fugitive
dust rule
35
IAC
212.301.
As
such they
are
not
subject to
the opacity
limitations of35 IAC 212.123.
43.
(a)
Condition
7.3.7(b)
requires
USEPA
Method
5
sampling
of
all
“stacks or vents” from the coal processing
operations upon request from the Agency.
21
Printed on Recycled Paper
Condition
7.3.12(b)
requires
that
compliance
with
Condition
7.3.6(a) be assured by Condition 7.3.7.
(b)
USEPA
Method
5
is
not
applicable
to
testing
of
vents
or
even
stacks
that
do
not
have regular
flow conditions.
This
requirement
is
therefore
improper
and should be
deleted or limited
to those stacks
for which it is
appropriate such as stacks
from control equipment.
44.
(a)
Condition
7.3.8(a)
requires
weekly
inspections
of
the
coal
processing
equipment
by
“personnel
not
directly
involved
in
the
day-to
day
sic
operation of the affected processes.”
(b)
The
requirement
that
the
inspections
be
conducted
by
personnel
not directly involved with the equipment in question is unreasonable and contrary to good
practice.
Only persons familiar with the equipment are
in a position to safely
carry out
a
reasonable
inspection
and
recognize
both
areas
requiring
attention
and
the
corrective
actions that should
be
undertaken.
There
is
no
objection to
carrying out
the
inspections
and
taking
corrective
action
but that
inspection
should
be
done
by
the personnel
most
likely to correct any
problems.
45.
(a)
Condition
7.3.8(b)
requires
detailed
inspection
of
the
dust
collection equipment for the affected processes “while the processes are out of service.”
(b)
This
condition
is
unreasonable because the equipment
may
not
be
out of service within the
15
months allowed and because inspections
with the equipment
out of service are not the best method
of determining its
proper
functioning.
Moreover,
requiring an
inspection before and
after any repair or maintenance
is unnecessary,
and
it
does not bear a reasonable relationship to
environmental compliance.
22
Printed on Recycled Paper
counting
the
“five
or
more”
exceedences,
if they
could
be
measured,
unless
they
are
continuous or within a certain period of time.
Additionally,
the
use
of the term
“immediately”
is
inappropriate
and
vague.
Without
the benefit of a more thorough
definition,
it
could
be
claimed that
the
notification
must
take place
the
exact
moment after
the event
occurs.
This
would
compromise
resources
that
should,
at that
critical
moment,
be
performing a
number of
other tasks
to
remedy the
situation.
Further,
the review necessary to
determine whether
or not the reporting
is
necessary must be performed by those
who
may
not
always be
on
the premises.
This standard of “immediate” notice also
fails to
recognize that the Agency
is not
always available for notification.
49.
(a)
Condition 7.3.lO(a)(ii) states that “notification
within 30 days for
operation of an affected process that
was not
in compliance with
applicable requirements
in
Condition
7.3.6(a)
that continued
for more than
12 operating
hours
from
the
time
that
it was identified.”
Condition
7.3.6(a)
deals
with
the
implementation
of
emission
limitation measures and the accompanying work practices and operational
limits.
(b)
The nature of fugitive compliance measures required by Condition
7.3.6(a)
makes
such
reporting
meaningless.
For
example,
many
such
measures
are
periodic,
i.e.,
every
so
many
days
or
as
needed,
(one
need
not
spray
water
on
coal
handling
when it
is
raining).
Certain such measures may not be
needed
for compliance
with applicable requirements.
50.
(a)
Condition 7.3.10(b)(ii)(C) requires
the Permittee to submit with the
quarterly
reports
the
aggregate
duration
of all
incidents
during
the
quarter
in
which
24
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—
---
-
affected
operations
continued
to
operate
with
excess
emissions
during
malfunction
or
breakdown.
(b)
The determination of the magnitude ofPM
emissions, as attempted
to be enforced here, does not correlate with other relevant conditions or commonindusity
practices.
PM
emissions are generally fugitive.
Under Condition
7.3.8(a), the Permittee
is
only
required to
make monthly
inspections
of PM
emissions.
There are a
number of
reasons why monthly
inspections,
rather than continuous
inspections,
are enforced, and
it
is well-established that this monthly
standard is
reasonable,
sufficient,
effective, and
fair.
Therefore,
it
does not
correlate that
the Permittee
should be
asked
to
make estimates of
emissions during
each instance when operations continue without control measures.
XI.
FLY ASH HANDLING
51.
(a)
Condition
7.4.4(b)
imposes
the
opacity
standards
in
Condition
5.2.2(b) based on
35
IAC
2 12.123
on affected sources at the fly ash handling operations.
(b)
To
the
extent
that
these
standards
are
being
applied
to
fugitive
emission
sources
as
opposed
to
sources
such
as
stacks,
this
condition
is
improper.
Fugitive
sources
are
subject
to
35
IAC
212.301
and
not
35
IAC
212.123
opacity
standards.
52.
(a)
Condition
7.4.4(c)
imposes
particulate
emission limitations
based
on process weight
from 35
IAC 212.321(a).
(b)
Fly
ash handling
equipment
is
a materials handling
operation
and
not a process within the meaning of the regulations. Therefore
35
IAC
212.32
1
does not
apply.
25
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—
——
—
•
—
—.
•~!
——
—
..
53.
(a)
Condition
7.4.8(a)
requires
weekly
inspections
of
the
fly
ash
handling
equipment
by
“personnel
who
are
not
directly
involved
in
the
day-to-day
operation ofthe affected processes.”
(b)
The requirement that
the
inspections
be
conducted
by
personnel
not directly involved with the equipment in question is unreasonable and contrary to good
practice.
Only
persons
familiar with
the
equipment
are
in
a
position
to
carry
out
a
reasonable
inspection
safely
and
recognize
both
areas
requiring
attention
and
the
corrective actions
that
should
be
undertaken.
There
is
no
objection
to
carrying out
the
inspections
and
taking
corrective
action
but
that
inspection
should
be
done
by
the
personnel most
likely to correct any problems.
54.
(a)
Condition
7.4.8(b)
requires
detailed
inspection
of
the
dust
collection equipment for the affected processes “while the processes are out of service.”
(b)
This condition
is unreasonable
because the equipment may not
be
out of service within the
15
months
allowed and
because inspections
with
the equipment
out of service
are not
the
best
method
of determining its proper functioning.
Moreover,
requiring
the
facility to
be
taken
out
of service
for
such inspections
and
to
require an
inspection before and after any repair or maintenance
is unnecessary
and it does not bear
a
reasonable
relationship
to
environmental
compliance.
Moreover,
requiring
an
inspection before and after any
repair or maintenance
is unnecessary,
unreasonable and
it
does not bear a reasonable
relationship to environmental compliance.
55.
(a)
Condition
7.4.9(d)
requires
records
related
to
inspection
pursuant
to Condition 7.4.8.
26
Printed on Recycled Paper
(b)
It
should
be
modified
in
accordance
with
changes
to
Condition
7.4.8.
56.
(a)
Condition
7.4.9(e)(ii)
provides
that
the
Permittee
must
maintain
records
of estimates
of the
magnitude
of PM
emissions
“for
each
incident when
any
affected operation operated
without the established
control measures.”
(b)
The determination of the magnitude ofPM
emissions, as attempted
to
be enforced here, does not correlate with other relevant conditions or common industry
practices.
PM
emissions
from
this
operation
are
generally
fugitive.
There
is
no
reasonable
basis for making estimates of emissions
during malfunctions.
They cannot be
measured and there are
no applicable emission factors
on which to base such estimates.
57.
(a)
Condition 7.4. 10(b)(i)(A) provides that during
continued operation
of an affected process during malfunction or breakdown the Permittee must “immediately
notify”
the
Agency
“for
each
incident
in
which
the
opacity
from
an
affected
process
exceeds or may have exceeded the applicable opacity
standard for four or more 6-minute
averaging periods.”
(b)
Emissions
from ash handling equipment are typically
fugitive.
As
set
forth
herein,
opacity
limitations
do
not
apply
to
fugitive
emissions
and
there
is
no
reasonable
basis for measuring opacity
under these circumstances.
Moreover, there
is no
basis for counting the “four or more” exceedences, if they could be measured, unless they
are continuous or within a certain period of time.
Additionally,
the
use
of the
term
“immediately”
is
inappropriate
and
vague.
Without the benefit of a more thorough
definition,
it
could
be
claimed that
the
notification
must
take
place
at
the
exact
moment
the
event
occurs.
This
would
27
Printed on Recycled Paper
reasons why monthly
inspections, rather than continuous
inspections,
are enforced, and
it
is well-established that this monthly
standard
is reasonable,
sufficient,
effective, and
fair.
Therefore,
it does not
correlate that
the Permittee
should
be
asked
to
make estimates
of
emissions during
each instance when operations continue without control measures.
XII.
AUXILIARY BOILER
60.
(a)
As
stated
above,
Condition
7.5.6(a)(ii)
requires
“combustion
evaluations”
for CO at the auxiliary
boiler.
(b)
This Condition purportedly requires quarterly
formal
“Combustion
Evaluation”
tied
to
CO
in
the flue
gas
to
maintain
efficient
combustion.
“Combustion
Evaluation”
is
not
a
term
of
art
or
science
in
the
coal
fired
boiler
industry
and
is
not
defined
in
the
Permit
and
is
therefore
overly vague.
Moreover,
as
is
well
known
to the
Agency,
tuning
a
boiler
to
minimize
CO
may
have
the
effect
of
increasing
NOx
emissions which are more tightly
regulated and of greater
environmental concern.
There
is
no
evidence
that
the
CO
emissions
exceed
or
even
approach
their
allowable
limits.
Furthermore, there
is no regulatory requirement or basis for
inclusion of this requirement
in the Permit.
As
set forth in this Condition, these evaluations require
periodic testing of
CO
in the
exhaust.
Such
tests
are
not necessary
for compliance.
CO concentrations
in
the exhaust
during
stack
tests
are
a
small
fraction of ambient
limits.
This
requirement
would
require
installation
and
operation
of
unspecified
monitoring
equipment
at
considerable cost.
At this
facility,
based on
the limited operation of the boiler,
requiring
such
an
evaluation
every
100
hours
of operation
would
require
that
almost
all
of
its
limited operating time
would be
taken up
with combustion evaluations.
The
Condition is
unreasonable in general and
as applied
to
this boiler
in
particular.
29
Printed on Recycled Paper
