BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AMEREN ENERGY
)
GENERATNG
COMPANY,
)
R E C
-
MEREDOSIA POWER STATION,
0 P
I G
I
N
1A
L
CLERKED
Petitioner,
)
NuV
032005
6
9
STATE OF ILLINOIS
v.
)
PCB 0f~
/
Pollution Control Board
)
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
/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
y
B/
ei~kngton
One of its attorneys
James T.
Harrington
David L.
Rieser
McGuire Woods LLP
77
West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, IL
60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
\\REA\28655
I
Printed
on Recycled Paper
CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
I, James T.
Harrington, one of the attorneys for Petitioner, hereby certify that I
1.
Motion to Allow Filing ofLess Than Nine Copies;
2.
Notice of Filing;
3.
Petition for Review and Motion to
Stay; and
4.
Appearance;
Division of Legal
Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
on November 3, 2005 via Federal Express.
77 West Wacker,
Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Telephone: 312/849-8100
served
copies of:
upon the
Harrington
of the Attorneys
for Petiti
icGuireWoods LLP
\\REA\.287270.
I
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
R
Fi C E
V
ED
CLERK’S OFFJCE
AMEREN ENERGY
)
,t-’j
GENERATING COMPANY,
)
naY
2005
MEREDOSIA POWER STATION,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution
Control Board
Petitioner,
)
)
c
v.
)
PCBO
____
)
CAAPP Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
0 R
I
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
GENERAT
G COMPANY
By:___________
,4ne
of its Attorneys
James
T.
Harrington
David
L.
Rieser
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, IL
60601
Telephone:
3 12/849-8100
\\REA\28655
.1
Printed
on Recycled Paper
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AMEREN ENERGY
)
GENERATING
COMPANY,
)
MEREDOSIA POWER STATION,
)
“QPpjc8O
)
Petitioner,
)
cu05
L
v.
)
PCB6
~
‘Gfl
contr/NO/s
)
CAAPP
Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent
OB\G\N~L
APPEARANCE
We
hereby
file
our
appearances
in
this
proceeding,
on
behalf of
Petitioner,
Meredosia Power Station.
Dated:
November 3, 2005
Jptpes
.
Harrington
David L.
Rieser
tiorney ARDC No.
1 13280~
Attorney ARDC No.:
3128590
McGuireWoods
LLP
77
West Wacker Drive,
Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
CHECK DATE
11/01105
Banr
Of Amertoa
AUanta.
GA
MCGUIREWmDS
ONE JAMES CENTER
901
EAST CARY
STREET
RICHMOND,
VA232~9-4O30
www.mcguirew000sccm
Chv/Sate/Zip:
~RC~C
i~
L
C~
£~
/
.
~‘
Phone:
/
‘~/
(~O
TRANSACTION
TYPE
PAYMENT
TYPE
Ofl~U1ScP
Fume
Fee
Cash
I___________________
Check
-~
Billable
~
De~criptuon
Unh
Price
P~P
~
~~_Lnit
i____
Amount
.
~
~Ii7~
~uUL~ucj
~C=7a~-Cc~~
‘~
-
(,‘s_
aELG4tLtf42j
—
L~’4,
~
;~:)o
~_____
,
t
)
~H-~
‘~t
~c~O(~
—1,1
r1L-E~&4~
F
/~
~uO~&~
A-~rnEt-Pc/~7z4
A)
/!
abc’c~
L~__4xflrCE1J-MtQ~tt,
c5,4
:I~ia.
t1.?n.r.i...
rnegi.41 a. ..t~a.
~
•OJP
•:j-ni.’
c.
.1::.
••TT.’.
1;~.:u’.—~pI
a.
~I4~
aIJ~n
~
CHECK
NO.
238509
63-1
510
CHECK AMCUNT
I
V/Li
SILaIIA
~
NELiUIhL~L)
IF
IJVEF
i~IJ
OLe cC
VOID AFTER
180 DAYS
FIVE
HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE
AND 00/100
Dollars
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
C
Chicago.
IL
II’
2
3R
EU
Thr’
‘:o ~
k
2 ?B8’~ U: ~
2
R ~ao
is
‘P 2’
ILLiNOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Tran~uctionDate.
_______
100W.
RANDOLPH
ST.
INVOICE
SLJITE11-500
~)Q9fl
CHICAGO.
ILLINOIS
60601
~
L
I_PLRCHASER/FILER:
-~
____
_________
____
____
NaI11c~.
1~
I ~ ~
Foul:
c
C-cc,,eJ
(~-C’~’~
Ad~ftess:
-7~
L~’
LC~ ~
~~aIc’~
~TE~
t~H~(
—
_7
/~~aTeTa-~t’~:j1e
~
4
S
v
)
)
)
)
)
(“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 ofthe 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 Meredosia Power Station (“Meredosia”).
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
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
flECEIVt~O
CLERK’S OFFl0~
AMEREN ENERGY
)
GENERATING COMPANY,
)
QD
i
r’
~
0
20
MEREDOSIA POWER STATION,
)
\
I
o/f\J/.\
l~.~T~tJOEfl~tiwi2M
Petitioner,
)
PCBØ?
____
)
CAAPP
Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW
AND
MOTION FOR STAY
NOW COMES
Petitioner, Ameren Energy Generating
Company
I.
BACKGROUND
1.
Petitioner owns and operates a coal-fired power plant
for the generation of
electricity
known
as
the
Meredosia
Plant
located
at
800
South
Washington
Street,
Meredosia, Morgan County, Illinois.
2.
This Plant consists of five boilers, Boiler
MBI
(a Combustion Engineering
Boiler
with
nominal
capacity
of
505
mmBTU/hr),
Boiler
MB2
(a
Combustion
Engineering
Boiler
with
nominal
capacity
of
505
mmBTU/hr),
Boiler
MB3
(a
Combustion Engineering Boiler with
nominal
capacity of
505
mmBTU/hr),
Boiler
MB4
(a Combustion Engineering
Boiler with nominal
capacity of505
mmBTU/hr)
and Boiler
MB5 (a Combustion Engineering
Boiler with
nominal capacity of 2,784
mmBTU/hr)
as
well
as
Boiler
MB6
(a
Foster
Wheeler Residual
Oil-Fired Boiler
with
nominal
heating
capacity of 2,052
mmBTU/hr),
along
with
ancillary equipment, including
coal
handling
and coal processing
equipment.
3.
The Meredosia Plant has
a nominal
capacity of about
563
megawatts of
electricity.
It employs approximately 100 people.
4.
Meredosia
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 28, 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.
2
Printed
on Recycled Paper
-
—
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 Meredosia Power Station dated
September
29,
2005
with
an
expiration
date
of September
29,
2010,
Application
No.
95090010;
I.D.
No.
137805AAA 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 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.
3
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—
—
--.
...
I•!
-
-~
•,.,
I~
—
—
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.
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 dedision
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
4
Printed on
Recycled Paper
—
—
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.
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 nextbusiness
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.
5
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—
—
•
—
—
~!!!!!!
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
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
ffirther
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.
6
Printed on Recycled Paper
(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
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 ofthis
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 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.
7
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—
--
.-~
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 boilers that
identif~ithe
upper
bound of the
95
confidence interval
(using
a
normal distribution
and
1
minute
averages)
for
opacity
measurements
from
the
boilers,
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
boilers.
Copies
of these
records
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Illinois
EPA
in
accordance
with
Condition
5.6.2(d).
(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
8
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—
—
—
—
—
-—
—.
-...
.-.-
—
—
—.
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 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
5.6.2(d).”
Section
5.6.2(d)
provides,
inter alia,
“fjor
this purpose, the initial record shall
be submitted within 30 days of the 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
9
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—
—
-
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.
(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. l.9(c)(iii)(B)
is
therefore
unreasonable
and
contrary to
law.
26.
(a)
Conditions
7.1.10-1(a)(ii)
and
7.1.1 0-3(a)(i)
require
immediate
notification
by
telephone
“for
each
incident
in
which
...
the
opacity
from
an
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
10
Printed on Recycled Paper
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
the premises.
This
standard of “immediate”
notice
also
fails to
recognize
that the Agency
is not always
available for notification.
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)(i)(E) requires Permittee to report instances
when
a
condition
“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
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
Ii
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—
—
-
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
cxceedence 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
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
7.1.10-3(a)(i)
requires
opacity
reading
exceeding
20
must be reported to the Agency.
12
Printed on Recycled Paper
-
-
—
—
—
—
-
-
—
(b)
The proper opacity
limit for these boilers MB-l
and MB-4
is 30
and
not
20,
because it
is
not
subject to
NSPS,
and
the
Condition
should
be
corrected
accordingly.
31.
(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 limitation
in
Condition
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 ofopacity,”
“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 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
13
Printed on Recycled Paper
--
--
--
—
—
.—
—
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.
VI.
CARBON
MONOXIDE
32.
(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
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
14
Printed on Recycled Paper
--
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.
VII.
START UP
33.
(a)
Condition 7.l.9(g)(ii)(C) states:
If this
elapsed time
is more than 4
hours for Boilers MBI
-
MB4 or
6
hours
for
MB5
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.
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
4
or
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
15
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—
—
—
-
-
—
—
—
—
—
requiring
the
substantially
greater
records
required
by
this
condition
or
creating
an
impression that
startups over
4 or 6 hours are out ofthe ordinary.
VIII.
TESTING
34.
(a)
Condition 7.1.7(a)(ii) provides as follows:
“PM emission measurements shall be
made within 90 days ofoperating
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
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.
16
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—
—
—
35.
(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
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
36.
(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 212.123.
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.
17
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—
—
~
—
—
-~---
--
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,
inter a/ia,
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
212.301.
There
is no basis
in the
law or regulations to
subject these emissions
to opacity
limitations, testing or monitoring.
Inspection Requirements
37.
(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.”
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
cany
out
such
an
inspection safely.
To require third parties lacking such familiarity with
the process would
defeat the purpose ofthe inspection.
18
Printed on
Recycled Paper
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
--
38.
(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 unnecessary,
unreasonable and it
does
not
bear
a
reasonable
relationship
to
environmental
compliance.
These
requirements are overly burdensome and serve no valid purpose.
39.
(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.
19
Printed
on Recycled Paper
-
—
—
—
.-
S
•
—
-.
—
—
40.
(a)
Condition 7.2.10(b)(i)(A) provides that during continued
operation
ofan
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
notifi~ationmust
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.
41.
(a)
Condition
7.2.1 0(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.”
20
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—
—
-
—
--
--
—
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.
42.
(a)
Condition 7.2.10(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.
21
Printed
on Recycled Paper
X.
COAL PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
43.
(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.
Condition
7.3.9(g)
requires
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
JAC
212.301.
As
such they are
not
subject to
the opacity
limitations of 35
IAC 212.123.
44.
(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.
Condition
7.3.12(b)
requires
that
compliance
with
Condition
7.3.6(b) 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
22
Printed on Recycled Paper
(b)
These conditions
are unreasonable
and unsupported
in law
and fact
for the reasons stated with respect to 7.3.6.
48.
(a)
Condition
7.3.9(e)(ii)
provides
that
the
Permittee
must
maintain
records of the magnitude of PM emissions “for each incident when any affected
process
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.
49.
(a)
Condition 7.3. 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 five or more 6-minute
averaging periods.”
(b)
Emissions
from
coal processing
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 “five or more” exceedences, if they could
be measured, unless they
are continuous or within a certain period oftime.
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
24
Printed on
Recycled Paper
quarter.
Petitioner has no
objection to
submitting
such information within thirty
days as
required by federal
regulations.
However, the quarterly
reports required under Condition
7.4.10-2(a)(iii) 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).
55.
Petitioner
also
objects to
any
other Condition of the Permit
related
to
or
incorporating the Conditions objected to herein.
56.
Furthermore,
many
of
the
Conditions
were
included
in
the
Permit
in
violation
of
Section
39.5(q)
of the
Act
415
ILCS
5/39.5(q),
as
well
as
40
C.F.R.
§
70.7(a)(5)
in
that
the
Agency
failed
to
provide
notice
to
the
public,
including
an
opportunity for public comments
and
a hearing on these conditions of the
Permit; failed
to “prepare
a draft permit and a statement that
sets forth the legal
and factual basis
for the
draft
CAAPP
permit
conditions,
including
references
to
the
statutory
or
regulator
provisions
and
also
failed
to
give
notice
of
a
draft CAAPP
permit
including
these
conditions
to
the
applicant.
Inclusion
of
these
conditions
without
the
notice
and
opportunity
to
comment provided by
law
deprives
the Permittee of Due Process of Law
in
violation of the Illinois
and United
States
Constitutions.
This
failure
is
so pervasive
that the entire
Permit
should be
remanded for proper notice
and
comment
in
accordance
with the Board’s findings.
27
Printed on Recycled Paper
