BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
CLec~~I
~
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES
)
PP/ce
GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Nov
03
20o
DUCK CREEK POWER STATION,
B
\ G
\ N f\ L p~i~~
g~LJN~1~
Petitioner,
)
8oard
)
v.
)
PCBO____
)
CAAPP Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Division of Legal Counsel
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
1/73
/~C,
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 of which are herewith served upon yo
By:7
af~H~on
/
/One of its attorneys
6~
James T.
I-Iarrington
David L. Rieser
McGuireWoods
LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, IL
60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
\\REA\286554
Printed on Recycled Paper
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James T. Harrington, one of the attorneys for Petitioner, hereby certify that I
served copies of:
1.
Motion to Allow Filing ofLess Than Nine
Copies;
2.
Notice of Filing;
3.
Petition for Review and Motion to
Stay; and
4.
Appearance;
upon the
Division ofLegal Counsel
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
on November 3, 2005
via Federal Express.
J91n
s
.
Flarrington
n
of the Attorneys for Petiti
er
cGuireWoods LLP
77
West Wacker,
Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Telephone: 312/849-8100
\\REA\287270.
I
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
James T. Harrington
David L. Rieser
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker,
Suite 4100
Chicago, IL
60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
)
N0y032005
STATE
)
)
oL~0
PCBQ~____
)
CAAPP Appeal
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES
GENERATING COMPANY,
DUCK CREEK POWER STATION,
Petitioner.
ORIGINAL
Respondent.
)
MOTION TO ALLOW FILING OF LESS THAN NINE COPIES
AmerenEnergy Resources
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.
WI-IEREFORE,
for
the
reasons
stated
in
this
Motion,
Ameren
respectfully
requests that it be allowed to
submit an original and four copies of its Petition for Review
and Exhibits instead of nine copies otherwise required by Board rules.
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES
,~
GENERATING COMPANY
I
By:________
(7ne
of its Attorneys
Printed on Recycled Paper
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
CLERK’S
OFFICE
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES
)
GENERATINGCOMPANY,
)
ORIGINAL
NOV
~~2flQ5
DUCK CREEK POWER STATION,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB”~b~-~4
)
CAAPP Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
APPEARANCE
We hereby
file our appearances
in this
proceeding,
on
behalf of Petitioner,
Duck
Creek Power Station.
Dated:
November 3,
2005
Jrnu4.
~id
L.
Rièser—
Jq~es
T. Hanington
1132806
Attorney ARDC No.:
3128590
~orne~
ARDC No.
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
,r;g.:Iaa:
fltlu,,i.~
.u...i.,u.~
fl:a,.
.n;:~
.:....,.,~...,.,.
tI~.
V
•
~I~JI
•.
I.,i
•s•
.~:j:,
ca...
ci.
••nJ~i.
4.’
r
•~.-.-
—
OH:EOK
DATE
11/01/OS
Bank
of America
Atlan:a.
GA
CHECK
NO.
238509
68-i
510
CHECK AMOUNT
FIVE HUNDRED
TWENTY-FIVE
AND 00/100
Dollars
Illinois Pollution
Control
Board
TWO SIONATURz~k~OUIRED
IF
cDVErs
S1U,00u
00
Z/- I
,,.H~mZE3~aNATUAE
‘:06
~ I
~
003
~R~809~?
2’’
Transaction
Dale.
/1
/
~3/(
:~
PLRCHASER/FILER:
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
100W.
RANDOLPH
ST.
SUITE
11
500
INVOICE
CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS
60601
2 82
0
8
N:il~
5f~
~7a1~L~/(~
—
Firm:
~
C
L~-’C:
0
Address:
7
~
L~’
~
fl
~
.
--~-i-&/_L-~&I~C
City/State/Zip:
~R6C
,~
L
~
~
/
.~
Phone:
i
—
—-
.~
.
I
TRANSACTION
TYPE
I
I
Opinion/Traiiscripl
I
Filing
Fee
Cash
I
~
PAYMENT
TYPE
!
Check
Billable
I
Docuiiienr
Sale
I
L
.
~
VOID
AFTER 180
DAYS
McGUIREWWDS
ONE
JAMES
CEiITER
901
EAST CARY
STREET
RICHMOND,
VA 232~9-4O3O
www.rnoguirewooas.com
Chicago,
IL
a ;a
EUThI’
—-
•--—
—-
.-
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES
)
GENERATING COMPANY,
)
DUCK CREEK POWER STATION,
)
OR/GINA
lED
Petitioner,
)
C
Art,
“(iv
032005
v.
)
PCB~’b~C_oL-çç
p~TEOF
ILLINOis
)
CAAPP Appeal
‘°~
Con~r0~
Board
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
PETITION FOR REVIEW
AND
MOTION FOR
STAY
NOW
COMES
Petitioner,
AmerenEnergy
Resources
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
et
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
5/39.5)
for
the
Duck
Creek
Power
Station
(“Duck
Creek”).
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
—
—
—
—
I.
BACKGROUND
•
Petitioner owns
and operates a coal-fired power plant for the generation of
electricity known as the Duck Creek Power Station located at
17751 North CILCO
Road,
Canton,
Fulton County, Illinois.
2.
This
Plant consists
of two
boilers,
Boiler
B-I
(a
Riley
Stoker
Boiler
with
nominal
capacity of 3,712
mmBTU/hr),
and
Boiler
NB-i
(a
distillate
oil
fired
heating
boiler
with
nominal
capacity
of
63
mmBTU/hr),
along
with
ancillary
equipment,
including coal handling, limestone handling equipment and
fly ash equipment.
3.
The Duck Creek
Plant has
a
nominal
capacity of about
384
megawatts of
electricity.
It employs approximately 90 people.
4.
Duck Creek is
a major source
subject to the Clean Air Act
Title V Permit
Program.
On
July
10,
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 27, 2003.
That review ended
on September 28,
2003.
A public hearing was held
on
August 21, 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 ofIllinois (“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
Duck
Creek Power
Station
dated
September
29,
2005
with
an
expiration
date
of September
29,
2010,
Application
2
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—V
—
—
•,—
—
-•,,,
..,..
--
—
No.
95070025;
I.D.
No.
057801AAA 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 4, 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 of removing 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
ii.
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
—
—V.-
~•
-—,
—V.-
—
-.-
—
.,
—
—
—
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.
Mauzy,
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
•
!I~
•i
—
•~~•
-
.---
—
-
•~I
—
—
—
—
-
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 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
4,
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 of the
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 5.6.1(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.
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,
“the
Permittee shall promptly notify the Illinois EPA of
deviations of the 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 of what 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
the
boiler,
considering
an
hour
of
operation,
within
which
compliance
with
the
applicable
limit
in
Conditions 7.1 .4(a)(ii) and 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
assumption
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
representing
opacity
readings
taken
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 ofthe emission
limit
and
not
in
any
meaningfully
correlation
to
the
allowable
particulate
emissions
under
the
permit.
8
Printed
on
Recycled Paper
-—
—-
..---
—V
~
~..
—
~-
—-
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
5.6.2(d).”
Section 5.6.2(d) provides,
inter alia,
“fjor
this purpose, the initial record shall
be submitted within 30 days ofthe effectiveness of this 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
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
9
Printed on Recycled Paper
-—
--.--
—V
•
—
—
——V
—
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.
(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
7.1.10-1 (a)(ii)
and
7.1.10-3(a)(i)
require
immediate
notification
by
telephone
“for
each
incident
in
which
...
the opacity
from
the affected
boiler
exceeds
20
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
20
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
10
Printed on Recycled Paper
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 fornotification.
27.
(a)
In
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)ffl(E) requires Permittee to report instances
when
a
condition
“may
have
exceeded
the
PM
limit.
.
..“
Similar
conditions
appear
elsewhere.
ii. Condition
7.1. l0-2(d)(v)
requires information “for
each type of
recurring
opacity
exceedance”
including
elaborate
analysis
of the
possible
causes
and
also requires
information of “any new type(s) of opacity
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)(JV) 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)(II)
requires
that
the
same
records
and
estimates
be
made
during
malfunctions
and breakdowns.
11
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—
--
--
—
. -
.—
--
(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
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
7.1.12(b)
provides:
“Compliance
with
PM
emission
limits
of
Conditions
7.1 .4(a)(ii)
and
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
7.1.10-2(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 limit
in
Conditions
7.1 .4(a)(ii) and
7.1.4(b),”
including
a
detailed
reporting
of opacity
measurements
for each
six
minute
period during the
exceedances,
“the
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
was
violated
when
the
opacity
readings
exceed
the
95
upper
tolerance
bound
calculated pursuant
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
12
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—_
—
—.
—
~
—
—
—
•~
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
normal
range
of
control
equipment
performance
and
fly
ash characteristics designed
to
achieve
consistent
compliance
with
the State’s duly
established emission limits.
30.
(a)
Condition 7.1.1 0-2(a)(iv) requires
quarterly reports to
be submitted
within 30 days ofthe end of the quarter.
(b)
40 C.F.R. 60.45(g) requires
quarterly reports of certain information
as set
forth
in
Condition
7.1.10-2(b),
(c),
(d) and
(e) within thirty
days of the end
of the
quarter.
Petitioner has no
objection to
submitting such information within thirty
days as
required by
federal regulations.
However, the quarterly reports
required under Condition
7.1.10-2(a)(iv) require substantially more information than 40 C.F.R. 60.45(g) which will
require substantial
additional
time
and
effort to
compile.
Other CAAPP Permits for this
industry allow sixty days to submit such reports for the first four quarters and allow forty-
five days thereafter.
It is
unreasonable
to
allow less
time
in permits
which also
must file
reports pursuant to
40 C.F.R. 60.45(g).
13
Printed on Recycled Paper
-—
——
—
.-
--..
•
—
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 the 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
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 of CO 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.
14
Printed on
Recycled Paper
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 ofthe principal fuel was begun.
IV.
The flue gas temperature
at which
the ESP
was energized, if
coal was fired before the ESP was energized.
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.
V.
Emissions
of NOx
and
boiler load during
the
startups,
on
an hourly basis,
as monitored.
(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.
15
Printed on Recycled Paper
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 load*
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
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:
16
Printed on Recycled Paper
-—
—
—
.
.—
-—
—
“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
of this
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 no
basis
in
law for requiring Method
202
testing
and
it is
not
necessary or useful
in
demonstrating
compliance
with
applicable
regulations
or the
permit itself
IX.
COAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT
—
coal receiving, coal transfer,
coal storage operations
Opacity
35.
(a)
Condition
7.2.4(b) provides that coal handling operations including
coal
receiving,
coal
transfer
and
coal
storage
are
subject
to
the
30
percent
opacity
limitations
recited in Condition 5.2.2(b) pursuant to
35
IAC 2 12.123.
Condition 7.2.7
provides that the
same operations
shall
be
subject
to
USEPA
Method
9
for
opacity
on
the
schedule
and
methodology
set
forth
in
this
condition.
Condition 7.2.9(g) requires
records of the opacity
measurements to
be
kept.
Condition
7.2.12(a)
provides
that
compliance
with
7.2.4
is
addressed by,
in/er a/ia,
7.2.6(a), 7.2.7 and 7.2.9.
17
Printed on Recycled Paper
(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
212.301.
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 ofthe affected
operations.”
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.
18
Printed on Recycled Paper
(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 unnecessary, unreasonableandit
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.”
(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
7.2.10(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 operation
exceeds or may have exceeded the applicable
opacity standard for five or more 6-minute
averaging
periods.”
19
Printed on Recycled Paper
(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
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
20
Printed on Recycled Paper
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
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.
HEATING BOILER
42.
(a)
Condition 7.3.6(a)(i) provides:
As
part
of
its
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
affected
boiler,
the
Permittee shall
perform formal “combustion evaluation”
sic
on the boiler
in
each
calendar
quarter
in
which
the
boiler
operates
for
at
least
100
hours*, 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.
*
If the affected boiler does not
operate
for
100 hours
in
a
calendar
quarter,
the
interval
between
combustion
evaluation
shall
be
no
greater than 100 hours of boiler operation.
21
Printed on
Recycled Paper
(b)
This
condition purportedly requires a “Combustion
Evaluation” of
the
heating
boiler
tied
to
CO
measurements
in
the
flue
gas
to
maintain
efficient
combustion
either
every
quarter
or
every
hundred
hours
of
operation.
“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 of CO 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.
XI.
LIMESTONE HANDLING EQUIPMENT
Opacity
43.
(a)
Condition
7.4.4(b) provides that
limestone handling operations are
subject to the
30
percent opacity
limitations
recited in Condition 5.2.2(b) pursuant to
35
IAC 212.123.
22
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—
—-
—
—
-—
—
.
—
. -
Condition
7.4.7
provides
that the
same operations
shall
be
subject
to
USEPA
Method
9
for
opacity
on
the
schedule
and
methodology
set
forth
in
this
condition.
Condition 7.4.9(g) requires records of the opacity measurements to
be
kept.
Condition
7.4.12(a)
provides
that
compliance
with
7.4.4
is
addressed by,
inter a/ia,
7.4.6(a), 7.4.7 and
7.4.9.
(b)
These
conditions
are improper.
Emissions
for limestone 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
212.301.
There
is
no
basis
in the
law or regulations
to
subject these emissions
to
opacity
limitations, testing or monitoring.
Inspection Requirements
44.
(a)
Condition
7.4.8(a)
provides
that
monthly
inspections
of
the
operations
including
control
measures
must
be
monitored
by
“personnel
not
directly
involved in the day-to-day operations of the affected operations.”
Condition
7.4.12(a)
provides
that
compliance
with
7.4.4
is
addressed by 7.4.8.
(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
23
Printed on Recycled Paper
inspection safely.
To require third parties lacking such familiarity with
the process would
defeat the purpose of the inspection.
45.
(a)
Condition
7.4.8(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
7.4.12(b)
provides
that
compliance
with
7.4.6(a)
is
addressed by 7.4.8.
(b)
The limestone
handling
equipment at
this
plant,
referred
to
in
the
Condition
as the “affected operations,”
do
not
utilize
dust
collection equipment,
making
compliance
with
this
Condition
an
impossibility.
Even
if the equipment subject to
the
Condition
existed, 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,
unreasonable
and it does not
bear a reasonable
relationship to
environmental compliance.
These
requirements
are
on
their
face
impossible
to
accomplish,
inapplicable,
overly
burdensome
and serve no valid purpose.
46.
(a)
Condition
7.4.10(b)(i)
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 four or more 6-minute
averaging periods.”
(b)
Emissions
from
limestone 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
24
Printed on Recycled Paper
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
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.
47.
(a)
Condition 7.4.10(b)(ii) states that:
Upon
conclusion
of
each
such
incident,
the
Permittee
shall
submit
a
follow-up
report
to
the
Illinois
EPA,
Compliance
Section
and
Regional
Office, within
15
days providing a detailed description of the incident and
its
cause(s),
an
explanation
why
continued
operation
of
an
affected
operations sic
was necessary,
the
length of time
during
which
operation
continued
under
such conditions,
the measures
taken by
the Permittee to
minimize
and
correct
deficiencies
with chronology,
and
when the repairs
were completed or the affected operations was
sic
taken out of service.
(b)
These
requirements
are
overly
burdensome,
unreasonable
and
unnecessary.
Handling
and
processing
the
limestone
is
necessary
for
flue
gas
desulfurization required to comply with
sulfur dioxide limitations.
XII.
FLY ASH HANDLING
48.
(a)
Condition
7.6.4(b)
imposes
the
opacity
standards
in
Condition
5.2.2(b) based on
35
IAC
212.123
on affected
sources at the fly ash handling operations.
25
Printed
on Recycled Paper
(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.
49.
(a)
Condition
7.6.4(c)
imposes
particulate emission
limitations
based
on process weight
from 35
IAC 212.32 1(a).
(b)
Fly
ash handling
equipment
is
a materials
handling
operation
and
not a process within the meaning of the regulations.
Therefore
35
IAC 212.321
does not
apply.
50.
(a)
Condition
7.6.8(a)
requires
weekly
inspections
of
the
fly
ash
handling
equipment
by
“personnel
who
are
not
directly
involved
in
the
day-to-day
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 contiraryitir goud
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.
51.
(a)
Condition
7.6.8(b)
requires
detailed
inspection
of
the
dust
collection
equipment for the affected processes “while the processes are out ofservice.”
(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
26
Printed on Recycled Paper
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.
52.
(a)
Condition
7.6.9(d)
requires records
related
to
inspection
pursuant
to
Condition 7.6.8.
(b)
It
should
be
modified
in
accordance
with
changes
to
Condition
7.6.8.
53.
(a)
Condition
7.6.9(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 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.
They cannot be
measured and there are no applicable emission factors
on which to base such estimates.
54.
(a)
Condition
7.6.1 0(b)(i)
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 30 percent for four or more 6-minute averaging periods.”
27
Printed on Recycled Paper
