BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
AMEREN ENERGY
)
NOV
ii
2:5
GENERATING COMPANY,
)
STATE
QF
HUTSONVILLE POWER
STATION,
)
POllution
0Onnuj
b$Qjjr~
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB~-7~
)
CAAPP Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
A
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 yo
gnul
Ikv~
By
ames T. Harrington
One ofits attorneys
James T. Flarrington
David L.
Rieser
McGuire Woods LLP
77 West Wacker,
Suite 4100
Chicago, IL
60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
\\REA\286555
Printed on
Recycled Paper
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James T. Harrington, one of the attorneys for Petitioner, hereby
certifS’ that I
served copies of:
1.
Motion to Allow Filing of Less Than Nine Copies;
2.
Notice of Filing;
3.
Petition for Review and Motion to
Stay; and
4.
Appearance;
upon the
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
on November 3, 2005 via Federal Express.
J
s
.
Harrington
n
ofthe Attorneys for Petiti
er
cGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Telephone: 312/849-8100
\\REA\287270. I
)
)
)
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 of its Petition for Review
and
Exhibits instead of nine copies otherwise required by Board rules.
AMEREN ENERGY
GENEMTING COMPANY
/
By:_______
(june
of its Attorneys
James T.
Harrington
David L. Rieser
McGuireWoods LLP
77
West Wacker,
Suite 4100
Chicago, IL
60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS
AMEREN ENERGY
GENERATING COMPANY,
HUTSONVILLE POWER STATION,
Petitioner,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
CLERKS OFFICE
)
NOV
032005
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
)
)
MvORIGINAL
)
CAAPP
Appeal
\\REA\2865 55.
I
Printed on Recycled Paper
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AMEREN ENERGY
)
GENERATING COMPANY,
)
CLERKS
OFFICE
HUTSONVILLE POWER STATION,
)
ORIGINAL
N0V032005
Petitioner,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution Control Board
v.
)
PCB
05-
)
CAAPP Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
APPEARANCE
We
hereby
file
our
appearances
in
this
proceeding,
on
behalf
of
Petitioner,
Hutsonville
Power Station.
Dated:
November 3,
2005
L.
Rieser
Jam~s
T.
Hanington
13
06
Attorney ARDC No.:
3128590
~/orney
ARDC No.
1
McGuire Woods LLP
77
West Wacker Drive,
Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
~
.~a.
t•
.fl,-rpa...
~
..j’r:.
..,I...
~
~
—
~•~•
_ .,.
-.
p
.~,..
~
CHECK
DATE
11/01/05
Ean~c~
Ameñca
Atar.t~.
GA
McGUIREWmDS
ONE JAMES
CE1
TER
901
EAST GARY STREET
R(CHMCND,
VA 23219-4030
www.rncgulrewoous.com
CHECK
ND.
238509
65-:
CHECK AMOUNT
VOID
AFTER
180
DAYS
FIVE
HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE
AND 00/100
Dollars
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
Chicago. IL
~wC)
CIGNATUF.za RcC~Lj!hEDI~
~i
$1 U.UUU.U()
~
/1.! £~I~
II’
2
~8
EU R’
00
2RREER9?
air’
Trari~aciiunDue.
i’i/_3/(
_______
Nw11e~~
-.~-~,_~/ö()
Ci\/Sate/Zip:
~r~C,cC
i~
L
Cc~~
C
/
.
-
Phuile:
~
TRANSACTION TYPE
.
-
RAYMENT TYPE
Oprniin/Ti~nscripi
Filine
Fee
~Cash
Check
BUhihIe
I
Docunie,,i
Sale
~
,
~
~pescrption
Unil Price
Unit
Amount
I
~,f
~.cHoo
—
~
ff~L.~E~&~/
~
ocL
-
b~
~IL-a~~’~
\
L
I
I
iv&(~
-Vi
~rL—e
I
I
/
I
~oL~-~
~rn~t—pC~7Z4L)
~±ULb’~
AeCa~.J-MtQEtbc5,4
I
I
.______
~o
o
L~
-Jj~)
j~a~GTA
~ic.ttv;~1eILj
-
PIRCHASER/FILER:
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
100W.
RANDOLFH
ST.
SUITE
Ii
-500
CHICAGO.
ILLJNO~S60601
INVOICE
28208
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
C
AMEREN ENERGY
)
:i-1K ~
UFHÔI
GENERATING COMPANY,
)
NOy
0
‘i
20
HUTSONVILLE POWER STATION,
)
~
05
~as4Te
OF
Poiiutj0~
CoU~18
Petitioner,
)
~
v.
)
PCB01’1~
)
CAAPP Appeal
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
0 R
I
G
I
N
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
PETITION FOR REVIEW
AND
MOTION FOR
STAY
NOW COMES
Petitioner,
Ameren
Energy Generating
Company
(“Petitioner” or
“Ameren”)
pursuant
to
Section 40.2
of Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(“Act” or
“15
ILCS
5/40.2” and
“35
Ill.Adm.Code
§
105.300
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 Hutsonville
Power
Station
(“Hutsonville”).
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.
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—
—
—
—
..-
.- -
-
,—
—
—
..—
—
—
I.
BACKGROUND
1.
Petitioner owns and operates a coal-fired power plant for the generation of
electricity
known
as
the
Hutsonville
Plant
located
at
15142
East
1 900th
Avenue,
Hutsonville,
Crawford County, Illinois.
2.
This
Plant
consists
of
two
boilers,
Boiler
HB-5
(a
Combustion
Engineering
—
Superheater,
Inc.
Boiler
with
nominal
capacity
of 695
mmBTU/hr)
and
Boiler HB-6 (a Combustion Engineering
—
Superheater, Inc.
Boiler with nominal
capacity
of 695
mmBTU/hr)
along with
ancillary equipment,
including coal handling
and
fly
ash
equipment.
3.
The Hutsonville
Plant has
a
nominal
capacity of about
168 megawatts
of
electricity.
It
employs approximately 57
people.
4.
Hutsonville
is
a
major source
subject to
the Clean Air Act
Title V
Permit
Program.
On August 24,
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 04, 2003.
That review ended on
September 28, 2003.
The Agency issued a draft
Permit
and
draft responsiveness
summary
on
July
19,
2005.
It provided
for a
10
day
comment period ending August
1,
2005.
The Agency
issued a draft Permit
for USEPA
review on August
15, 2005.
5.
Ameren
filed
comments
on
various
proposed permits
on
January,
2005
(Exhibit
A),
and
August
1,
2005
(Exhibit
B), as well
as participating
in joint comments
filed by the Air Utility Group of Illinois (“AUGI”)
on September 23, 2003
(Exhibit C).
2
Printed
on Recycled Paper
-
6.
On September 29, 2005, the USEPA Region V
posted a document entitled
“Clean
Air
Act
Permit
Program
(CAAPP)
Permit”
for the
Hutsonville
Power
Station
dated September
29,
2005
with
an
expiration date of September
29,
2010,
Application
No. 95080105;
I.D.
No.
033801AAA
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
11.
The
Permit
is
a
license
within
the
meaning
of
the
Administrative
Procedure ActS
ILCS
100/10-65.
12.
As a license, it is subject to
5 ILCS
100/10-65(b) which provides:
When
a
licensee
has
made
timely
and
sufficient
application
for the renewal of a license
or a new license
with reference to
any
activity of a continuing nature, the
existing
license
shall
continue
in
full
force
and
effect
until
the
final
agency
decision
on
the
application
has
3
Printed on Recycled Paper
-
-
r
—
—
~
-
-
--
--
-.
-
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 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
4
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—.~-
-—
—..
—.
--
s—
—
—.-
—
--
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 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 web site
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 ofthe 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
5
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—
.—
—
-
-
..-
-
--
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
ftirther
require
Permittee,
upon
request,
to
submit copies of any
electronic
records
required to
be
kept
under
the permit
but not
otherwise submitted to the Agency.
(b)
These
conditions
impose
an
unreasonable
burden
upon
Permittee
and
are unsupported
by
law.
Paper
copies
of records
retained
in
electronic
format are
generally neither useflfl nor required.
6
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
-----
--~
-
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 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 ofthe source with the permit requirements.”
(b)
The condition
does not define either “promptly” or “deviation” and
is therefore
overly vague and does not give the Permittee fair warning ofwhat is required.
Permittee suggested alternatives
during the comment period but none have been adopted.
Specific
reporting requirements
for the specific terms
of the permit
have been provided
and should be sufficient for any reasonable purpose.
V.
COAL FIRED BOILER
Calculated 95
Upper Tolerance Bound for Opacity
23.
(a)
Condition 7.1.9(c)(ii) provides the following records are required:
Records
for the affected boiler that
identify
the
upper
bound of the 95
confidence
interval
(using
a
normal
distribution
and
1
minute
averages)
for
opacity
measurements
from
the
boiler,
considering
an
hour
of
operation, within which
compliance with the applicable
limit in Condition
7
Printed on Recycled Paper
- -
—
—
—
-.
.-
-
—.
—
—
—
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 ofeach
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).
(b)
Standing
on
its
own,
this
provision
requires
calculation
of
a
statistical
limit
based
on
the
incorrect assumpt
ion
that
the
opacity
readings
and
the
particulate emission rate bear a consistent
mathematical
relationship to each other across
a range
of operating
conditions.
The relationship between opacity
and
particulate
mass
emissions
varies
with
changes
in
fuel
supply
(different
coals),
the performance
of the
particulate
control
equipment
(electrostatic
precipitator),
the
fly
ash
particle
size
distribution,
and
the refractive
index of the fly
ash particles.
Thus,
no
direct
correlation
exists between stack opacity and
particulate mass emissions.
It also assumes that the data
will fit a normal distribution which may not be the case.
This requirement is not based on
sound science or statistical methods, even if the relationship was established.
In addition,
particulate emission testing
pursuant
to
USEPA
Method
5
is
done under very
controlled conditions not
necessarily representative of a normal range of
operating
conditions.
Such testing
has
generally been performed under
normal operating
conditions
rather
than
at
maximum
allowable
particulate
emission
rates
typically
resulting in
emission rates which are a fraction of the allowable emissions.
Opacity data
when
the
particulate
emissions
are
at
or
near
compliance
limits
are
not
available.
Therefore,
even assuming
that
there
was a
realistic
mathematical
relationship
between
opacity
and
particulate
mass
emissions
and
that
this
relationship
is
properly
characterized, the confidence limit that would be calculated for opacity
would represent a
8
Printed
on Recycled Paper
-
-
.-.-—
—-
—
.—-,
- -.
-
--
—....
—
—
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,
“for
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
level
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
equipment and
could
not
be
done
within the 30
day period.
To
obtain such data for all
the facilities subject to the identical
requirements
could
require
several
years
depending
upon
the
availability
of
the
generating units,
the availability of qualified stack testing teams and
Agency personnel to
observe
the tests. If the requirements of Condition
7.1 .9(c)(ii) are
to
be
retained
in
some
form,
it or Condition
5.6.2(d)
must
be
modified
to
provide
that
what
ever calculations
must
be
done,
will
be
done
180
days
following
the
report
of the
next
stack
test
for
particulate matter required under
the permit.
25.
(a)
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(iii)(B)
provides
that
for
each
hour
when
the
upper
bound
specified
in
Condition
7.1 .9(c)(ii)
is
exceeded
a
record
must
be
made
indicating
the
date,
time,
operating
condition
occurring
at
that
time
and
“whether
9
Printed
on
Recycled Paper
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
7.1 .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
30
percent
for
five
or
more
6-minute
averaging
periods
unless
the
Permittee has begun the shutdown...
(b)
As
originally
proposed,
this
condition
applied
to
five
or
more
consecutive
readings
in
excess
of
30
percent.
As
written
it
is
overly
vague
and
burdensome.
It
would
appear to
apply
to
five or more such readings over
any
period of
time including days, weeks or months.
Additionally,
the
use
of the term
“immediately”
is
inappropriate
and
vague.
Without
the benefit of a
more thorough
definition,
it could be
claimed that
the
notification
must
take place
the
exact
moment
after the event
occurs.
This
would
compromise
resources
that
should,
at
that
critical
moment,
be
performing a
number of
10
Printed
on
Recycled Paper
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. 10-2(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)(V)
requires
records
of
estimates
of the
magnitude
of emissions
of
PM
and
CO
during
startups
in
exceedence
of certain
time
limits
and
whether these
emissions
may
have
exceeded
applicable
limits.
Condition
7.1 .9(h)(ii)(D)(III)
requires
that
the
same
records
and
estimates
be
made
during
malfunctions and breakdowns.
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 7.1.1 0-2(d)(iii) contains a note which states
in part:
“Because
the
Permittee
is
subject
to
the
reporting
requirements of the NSPS,
40
C.F.R. 60.7(c) and
(d) for an
affected
boiler
(b)
This
facility is not subject to the NSPS, 40 C.F.R. Part
60,
and this
reference
and
any
requirements
or
conditions
expressly
or
impliedly
based
on
it
are
contrary to
law.
30.
(a)
Condition
7.1.12(b)
provides:
“Compliance
with
PM
emission
limitation
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 of opacity,”
“a
detailed
explanation
of
the
cause,”
and
a
detailed
explanation
of
the
corrective
12
Printed on
Recycled Paper
—
—
—
a
-—
-.-
.-
—-
-.
-
-
—
—
—.
(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.
VII.
START UP
32.
(a)
Condition
7.1 .9(gXiiXC)
states:
If this
elapsed time is more than 4 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.
14
Printed
on Recycled Paper
—
----
-~
-
—
-
-
--~-
—
-.--
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
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 4 hours are out of the ordinary.
VIII.
TESTING
33.
(a)
Condition 7.1 .7(a)(ii) provides as follows:
“PM emission measurements shall be made within 90
days ofoperating 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
15
Printed on Recycled Paper
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:
“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 not
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
16
Printed on Recycled Paper
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(a)
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
inter alia
7.2.6(a), 7.2.7(a) 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
36.
(a)
Condition
7.2.8(a)
provides
that
monthly
inspections
of
the
operations
including
control
measures
must
be
monitored
by
“personnel
not
directly
involved in the day-to
day
sic
operations of the affected
operations.”
17
Printed on Recycled Paper
Condition
7.2.12(a)
provides
that
compliance
with
7.2.4
is
addressed by
7.2.8.
(b)
There
is
no
reasonable
basis
for
requiring inspection
by
persons
not
involved
in
the
operation.
Only
those
people
involved
in
the operations
have
the
detailed
knowledge
of
the
equipment
and
processes
to
adequately
carry
out
such
an
inspection
safely.
To require third parties lacking
such familiarity with the process would
defeat the purpose of the inspection.
37.
(a)
Condition
7.2.8(b)
requires
detailed
inspection
of
the
dust
collection
equipment at
least every
15
months
while
the operation
is
out of service
and
further requires
an inspection before
and after any maintenance and repair.
Condition
7.2.12(b)
provides
that
compliance
with
7.2.6(a)
is
addressed by 7.2.8.
(b)
Requiring
the
equipment
to
be
out
of service
imposes
a
severe
burden
on
operations
and
requiring
an
inspection
before
and
after
each
repair
is
unnecessary
and
wasteful.
Inspections
and
maintenance
should
be
carried
out
in
accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations or industry experience.
Moreover,
requiring the
facility to
be
taken
out
of service
for
such inspections
and
to
require an
inspection before
and after any
repair or maintenance
is unnecessary, unreasonable and
it
does
not
bear
a
reasonable
relationship
to
environmental
compliance.
These
requirements are overly burdensome and serve no valid purpose.
38.
(a)
Condition
7.2.9(e)(ii)
provides
that
the
Permittee
must
maintain
records
of estimates
of the
magnitude
of
PM
emissions
“for each
incident when
any
affected operation operated without the established control measures.”
18
Printed on Recycled Paper
(b)
The determination of the magnitude of PM emissions,
as attempted
to be enforced here, does not correlate with other relevant conditions or common industry
practices.
PM
emissions
from
this
operation
are
generally
fugitive.
There
is
no
reasonable
basis
for making
estimates of emissions
during
malfunctions
or breakdowns.
They cannot be
measured and there
are
no
applicable emission
factors
on
which to
base
such estimates.
39.
(a)
Condition 7.2.10(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.”
(b)
Emissions
from
coal handling
are
typically
fugitive.
As
set
forth
herein opacity
limitations
do
not
apply
to
fugitive
emissions
and
there
is
no
reasonable
basis
for measuring opacity
under
these circumstances.
Moreover,
there
is
no
basis
for
counting
the
“five
or
more”
exceedences,
if
they
could
be
measured,
unless
they
are
continuous or within a certain period of time.
Additionally,
the
use
of the
term
“immediately”
is
inappropriate
and
vague.
Without
the benefit
of a more thorough definition,
it could be
claimed that
the notification
must
take
place
the exact
moment
after the
event occurs.
This
would
compromise
resources
that
should,
at
that
critical
moment,
be
performing a
number of
other tasks
to
remedy the
situation.
Further, the review necessary to
determine whether
or not the reporting is
necessary must be performed by those
who may not always
be
on
19
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—
—
—.
-
.
—
—
—
the premises.
This
standard of “immediate” notice also
fails to recognize that the Agency
is
not always available for notification.
40.
(a)
Condition 7.2. 10(a)(ii) states that “njotification
within 30
days for
operation
of
an
affected
operation
that
was
not
in
compliance
with
applicable
requirements
in
Condition
7.2.6(a) that continued
for more than
12 operating hours
from
the time that it was identified.”
Condition
7.2.6(a)
deals
with
the
implementation
of
emission
control measures and the accompanying work practices and operational limits;
(b)
The nature of fugitive emissions
compliance measures required by
Condition 7.2.6(a) makes such reporting meaningless.
For example, many such measures
are periodic,
i.e.,
every
so
many days or
as needed,
(e.g.,
one
need
not
spray water on
coal
handling
when
it
is
raining).
Certain
such
measures
may
not
be
needed
for
compliance with applicable requirements.
41.
(a)
Condition 7.2.10(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
20
Printed on Recycled Paper
is
reasonable,
sufficient,
effective,
and
fair.
Therefore,
it
does
not
correlate
that
the
Permittee
should
be
asked
to
make
estimates
of emissions
during
each
instance
when
operations continue without control measures.
X.
COAL
PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
42.
(a)
Condition 7.3.4(b) provides
that coal
processing operations will
be
subject
to
the opacity
limitation referenced
in
Condition
5.2.2(b)
pursuant
to
35
IAC
2 12. 123.
Condition
7.3.6(a)
requires work
practices
and
other methods
to
assure compliance with
Condition 7.3.4.
Condition
7.3.9(f)
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
IAC
212.301.
As
such
they
are
not
subject to
the
opacity
limitations of 35 IAC
212.123.
43.
(a)
Condition
7.3.7(b)
requires
USEPA
Method
5
sampling
of
all
“stacks or vents” from the coal processing
operations upon request from the Agency.
21
Printed on Recycled Paper
- -----
-
--
—
—
—
—
—
-
—
—
--
.-.
-
-.
--
—
Condition
7.3.12(b)
requires
that
compliance
with
Condition
7.3.6(a) be assured by Condition 7.3.7.
(b)
USEPA
Method
5
is
not
applicable
to
testing
of vents
or
even
stacks
that
do
not
have regular flow conditions.
This
requirement
is
therefore
improper
and
should be
deleted or limited to
those stacks
for which
it
is appropriate such as stacks
from
control equipment.
44.
(a)
Condition
7.3.8(a)
requires
weekly
inspections
of
the
coal
processing
equipment
by
“personnel
not
directly
involved
in
the
day-to
day
sic
operation of the affected processes.”
(b)
The requirement
that
the
inspections
be
conducted
by
personnel
not directly involved with the equipment in question is unreasonable and contrary to
good
practice.
Only persons familiar with the equipment are in a position to
safely
carry out
a
reasonable
inspection
and
recognize
both
areas
requiring
attention
and
the
corrective
actions that should
be
undertaken.
There
is
no
objection
to
carrying out
the
inspections
and
taking
corrective
action
but
that
inspection
should
be
done
by
the
personnel most
likely to correct any problems.
45.
(a)
Condition
7.3.8(b)
requires
detailed
inspection
of
the
dust
collection equipment for the affected processes “while the processes are out 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
out of service are not the
best
method
of determining its proper
functioning.
Moreover,
requiring an
inspection before
and
after any
repair or maintenance
is
unnecessary,
and
it
does not bear a reasonable relationship to environmental
compliance.
22
Printed on Recycled Paper
—
—
—
—
.
-
46.
(a)
Condition
7.3.9(c)
requires
maintenance
of
records
of
the
inspections required under Condition 7.3.8.
Condition
7.3.12(b)
provides
that
compliance
with
Condition
7.3.6(a) is addressed by the requirements of Condition 7.3.7,
7.3.8, and
7.3.9.
(b)
These
conditions are unreasonable and unsupported
in law and fact
for the reasons stated with respect to 7.3.6.
47.
(a)
Condition
7.3.9(d)(ii)
provides
that
the
Permittee
must
maintain
records
of
estimates
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 non
applicable emission factors on which to base
such estimates.
48.
(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
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
23
Printed on Recycled Paper
--
—
—
~
..~..
counting
the
“five
or
more”
exceedences,
if
they
could
be
measured,
unless
they
are
continuous or within a certain period of time.
Additionally,
the
use
of the
term
“immediately”
is
inappropriate
and
vague.
Without
the benefit of a
more thorough
definition, it could be
claimed that
the
notification
must
take place
the
exact
moment
after the event
occurs.
This
would
compromise
resources
that
should,
at
that
critical
moment,
be
performing
a
number of
other
tasks
to
remedy the
situation.
Further,
the review
necessary
to
determine whether
or not the reporting
is necessary must be
performed by those
who may
not always
be
on
the premises.
This standard of “immediate” notice
also fails to
recognize that the Agency
is
not always available for notification.
49.
(a)
Condition
7.3.10(a)(ii) states that “notification
within 30 days for
operation of an
affected process that was not
in compliance with applicable
requirements
in
Condition
7.3.6(a)
that
continued for more than
12
operating hours
from
the time
that
it was identified.”
Condition
7.3.6(a)
deals
with
the
implementation
of
emission
control measures and the accompanying work practices and operational limits.
(b)
The nature of fugitive emissions
compliance measures required by
Condition
7.3.6(a) makes such reporting meaningless.
For example, many such measures
are
periodic,
i.e.,
every
so
many
days
or as
needed.
Certain
such measures
may
not
be
needed for compliance with applicable requirements.
50.
(a)
Condition 7.3.10(b)(ii)(C) requires the Permittee to submit with the
quarterly
reports
the
aggregate
duration
of
all
incidents
during
the
quarter
in
which
24
Printed on Recycled Paper
affected
operations
continued
to
operate
with
excess
emissions
during
malfunction
or
breakdown.
(b)
The determination of the magnitude 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
7.3.8(a), the Permittee
is
only
required to
make monthly
inspections
of PM
emissions.
There are a number of
reasons why monthly
inspections, rather than continuous inspections,
are enforced, and it
is
well-established that this
monthly standard
is reasonable, sufficient,
effective, and fair.
Therefore,
it does not
correlate that
the Permittee
should be
asked
to
make estimates of
emissions
during each instance when operations continue without control measures.
XI.
ENGINE
51.
(a)
Condition
7.4.7-1 (a)(i)
requires
opacity
testing
for
the
diesel
engine
generator
within the
first
50
hours
of operations
after the effective date
of the
permit and
every 250 hours of operation thereafter and further requires
the duration of the
these observations must be
a least 30
minutes.
(b)
This
is
a
“limited
use”
engine that
operates
less
than
100
hours
per
year
and much of that time
is spent testing the engine effectiveness.
It also requires
Permittee
to
give the Agency
seven
days of advance
notice
prior to
testing.
This
requirement
is
unnecessary and unreasonable.
52.
Petitioner
also
objects to
any
other Condition of the
Permit
related
to
or
incorporating the Conditions objected to herein.
53.
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.
§
25
Printed
on Recycled Paper
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.
26
Printed on Recycled Paper
