BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS FROM

VARIOUS SOURCE CATEGORIES:

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

PARTS

211 AND 217

)

)

)

)

)

)

R08-19

(Rulemaking - Air)

NOTICE

TO:

John Therriault

Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James

R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago,IL 60601

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the

Illinois Pollution Control Board the

SECOND MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING

PROPOSAL and POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY, a copy of which is herewith served upon you.

DATED: March 23,2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.

O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

217/782-5544

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTEC

ION AGENCY .

By:

Gina

----""'i~--~-,--I.f----­

Roccaforte

Assistant Counsel

Division

of Legal Counsel

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

ON RECYCLED PAPER

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS FROM

VARIOUS SOURCE

CATEGORIES:

AMENDMENTS

TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

PARTS 211 AND 217

)

)

)

)

)

)

R08-19

(Rulemaking - Air)

SECOND MOTION TO AMEND

RULE MAKING

PROPOSAL

NOW COMES the Proponent, the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY ("Illinois

EPA" or "Agency"), by its attorneys, and pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code

101.500 and 102.402, moves that the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") amend this

rulemaking proposal that includes amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217. In

support

of its Motion, the Illinois EPA states as follows:

On May 9,2008, the Illinois EPA filed a proposal with the Board to amend 35 Ill. Adm.

Code Parts 211 and 217 to control the emissions

of nitrogen oxides ("NOx") from various source

categories such as industrial boilers, process heaters, glass melting furnaces, cement kilns, lime

kilns, furnaces used

in steel making and aluminum melting, and fossil fuel-fired stationary

boilers. This proposed rulemaking is intended to meet certain obligations

of the State of Illinois

under the federal Clean

Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. § 7401

et seq.;

specifically, to satisfy

Illinois' obligation to submit a State Implementation Plan to address the requirements under

Sections 172 and 182

ofthe CAA for major stationary sources of NO x in areas designated as

nonattainment with respect to National Ambient

Air Quality Standards.

See,

42 U.S.C. §§ 7502

and 7511a. The Board held hearings on this proposal on October 14, 2008, in Springfield, on

December 9 and 10, 2008, in Chicago, and on February 3, 2009, in Edwardsville.

Since the last hearing, the Illinois EPA has continued to engage in negotiations with

interested parties

on remaining unresolved issues. Such negotiations with ConocoPhillips

Company, United States Steel Corporation, and ArcelorMittal

USA, Inc., have led to the further

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

agreed revisions of certain provisions. The amendments set forth in this motion will

memorialize those agreements and resolve issues related to the described subject matter.

Specifically,

in response to comments by the United States Environmental Protection

Agency, under the applicability provisions, so as to determine applicability, the term

"potential

to emit" has been defined for this proposal as the amount of NO x that can potentially be emitted

from emission units at sources

on an uncontrolled basis over the year. Additional amendatory

provisions state that the owner or operator

of emission units subject to Subpart D or E of Part

217 and located at a petroleum refinery must comply with the requirements

of Subpart D or E of

Part 217 as applicable, beginning January 1, 2012, except that the owner or operator of emission

units listed

in a new appendix, Appendix H, must comply with the requirements of Subpart C,

including the option

of demonstrating compliance with the applicable Subpart through an

emissions averaging plan under Section 217.158, and Subpart D or E, as applicable, for the listed

emission units beginning on the dates set forth in Appendix H.

In

addition, with Agency

approval, the owner or operator

of emission units listed in Appendix H may elect to comply with

the requirements

of Subpart C and Subpart D or E, as applicable, by reducing the emissions of

emission units other than those listed in Appendix H, provided that the emissions limitations of

such other emission units are equal to or more stringent than the applicable emissions limitations

set forth in Subpart D or E, as applicable,

by the dates set forth in Appendix H.

Under Section 217.156, the recordkeeping and reporting requirement as it pertains to

performance testing has been amended to apply to all performance testing conducted under

Section 217.157 and not

just certain testing as under the original proposal.

Und~r

Section

217.157, the provisions applicable to the installation

of continuous emissions Iponitoring systems

("CEMS") have also been amended to allow for additional time to install such CEMS.

In

addition, provisions have been added to allow for a predictive emission monitoring system, in

2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A, and Appendix B, Perfonnance Specification 16, as

an alternative to the

CEMS requirements for the owners or operators of certain emission units

who are not otherwise required

by any another statute, regulation, or enforceable order to install

a

CEMS on an emission unit. Additional time is also provided to install a predictive emissions

monitoring system

("PEMS"), similar to the CEMS provisions.

Provisions are also being proposed to more clearly describe the types

of "replacement

units"

that may be included in an emissions averaging plan under Section 217.158. The new unit

must be used for the same purpose and have substantially equivalent or

less process capacity or

be pennitted for less NO

x

emissions on an annual basis than the actual NO

x

emissions of the unit

or units that are replaced.

In

addition, within 90 days after pennanently shutting down a unit that

is replaced, the owner

or operator of such unit must submit a written request to withdraw or

amend the applicable pennit to reflect that the unit is no longer in service before the replacement

unit may be included in an emissions averaging plan. Also, under the emissions averaging plan

provisions under Section 217.158, the provision under subsection (a)(2)(C) describing certain

units that may not be included in an emissions averaging plan has been slightly modified to

exclude units that are required to meet emission limits or control requirements for

NO

x

as

provided for in an enforceable order, unless such order allows for emissions averaging. Nothing

in that subparagraph is intended to prohibit a petroleum refinery from including industrial boilers

or process heaters, or both, in an emissions averaging plan where an enforceable order does not

prohibit the reductions made under such order from also being used for compliance with any

rules

or regulations designed to address regional haze or the non-attainment status of any area.

Furthennore, under Section 217.158, provisions have been added to allow the owner

or

operator of an emission unit located at a petroleum refinery who is demonstrating compliance

with an applicable Subpart through an emissions averaging plan to exclude from the calculation

3

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

demonstrating compliance those time periods when an emission unit included in the emissions

averaging plan is shut down for a maintenance turnaround, provided that such owner or operator

notify the Agency

in writing at least 30 days in advance of the shutdown of the emission unit for

the maintenance turnaround and the shutdown

of the emission unit does not exceed 45 days per

ozone season or calendar year and NO

x

pollution control equipment, if any, continues to operate

on all other emission units operating during the maintenance turnaround. Similar provisions

were also added to allow the owner

or operator of an emission unit that combusts a combination

of coke oven gas and other gaseous fuels and located at a source that manufactures iron and steel

who is demonstrating compliance with an applicable Subpart through an emissions averaging

plan to exclude from the calculation demonstrating compliance those time periods when the coke

oven gas desulfurization unit included

in the emissions averaging plan is shut down for

maintenance, provided that such owner

or operator notify the Agency in writing at least 30 days

in advance of the shutdown of the coke oven gas desulfurization unit for maintenance and such

shutdown does not exceed 35 days

per ozone season or calendar year and NO

x

pollution control

equipment,

if any, continues to operate on all other emission units operating during the

maintenance period.

. The emissions limitation for an industrial boiler, circulating fluidized bed combustor,

with a rated heat input capacity greater than

100 mmBtuIhr has been changed from 0.10

Ib/mmBtu to 0.12 Ib/mmBtu under Subpart D. During discussions with affected parties,

,

emissions information from an existing source with such a unit was provided to the Illinois EPA,

and such information necessitated a modification of the emissions limitation.

In

addition, a

formula has been added to allow for an emissions limitation to

be calculated for an industrial

boiler combusting a combination

of natural gas, coke oven gas, and blast furnace gas under

Subpart D.

4

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

In

addition, the emissions limitation for a process heater with a rated heat input capacity

greater than

100 mmBtu/hr combusting natural gas or other gaseous fuels has been amended

from

0.07lb/mmBtu

to 0.08

Ib/mmBtu

under Subpart E. Furthermore, the emissions limitation

for a recuperative reheat furnace combusting natural gas has been changed from

0.05

Ib/mmBtu

to 0.09

Ib/mmBtu

under Subpart H. Additionally, an emissions limitation has been added for a

recuperative reheat furnace combusting a combination

of natural gas and coke oven gas under

Subpart H.

A new appendix to Part 217, Appendix H, is being proposed to set forth the compliance

dates

for certain emission units at petroleum refineries. This Appendix is referenced in Section

217.152, as described above.

Two additional minor amendments are also the subject

of this Motion. First, under

Section

211.3100, the definition of the term "industrial boiler" has been amended to include the

exclusion pertaining to

"a heat recovery steam generator that captures waste heat from a

combustion

turbine." This change was proposed by the Illinois EPA in the Post-Hearing

Comments

ofthe Illinois EPA that were filed with the Board on November 5, 2008, but was

inadvertently not included in the Illinois

EPA's Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal that was

filed with the Board on January

30,2009, and subsequently granted by the Board on February

19,

2009. Second, under Section 217 .160( c), the modifying commencement of operation date of

January 1, 2008, has been removed in the non-applicability provisions pertaining to certain

fluidized catalytic cracking units located at a petroleum refinery.

Therefore, the Illinois EP A is now proposing to amend the rulemaking proposal as set

forth

in this Motion. Accordingly, the Illinois EPA recommends the acceptance by the Board of

the following amendments to the rulemaking proposal:

5

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

1.

Amend Section 211.3100 to read as follows:

Section 211.3100

Industrial Boiler

"Industrial boiler" means, for purposes of Part 217, an enclosed vessel in which

water is heated and circulated either as hot water

or as steam for heating or for

power,

or both. This term does not include a heat recovery steam generator that

captures waste heat from a combustion turbine and boilers serving a generator that

has a nameplate capacity greater than 25 MWe and produces electricity for sale,

if

such boilers meet the applicability criteria under Subpart M of Part 217.

[Note: This proposed amendment includes the exclusion pertaining to "a heat

recovery steam generator that captures waste heat from a combustion

turbine"

that was proposed by the Illinois EPA in the Post-Hearing Comments of the

Illinois EPA that were filed with the Board on November

5,

2008, but was

inadvertently not included

in the Illinois EPA's Motion to Amend Rulemaking

Proposal that was filed with the Board on January 30, 2009, and subsequently

granted by the Board on February 19,2009.]

2.

Amend the Part

217

Table of Contents to add Appendix Has follows:

217.APPENDIX H

Compliance Dates for Certain Emission Units at Petroleum

Refineries

3.

Amend Section 217.150 by adding subsection (a)(3) to read as follows:

Il

For purposes of this Section, "potential to emit" means the quantity of

NQx

that potentially could be emitted by a stationary source before add-on

controls based

on the design capacity or maximum production capacity of

the source and 8,760 hours per year or the quantity of NO

x

that potentially

could be emitted

by a stationary source as established in a federally

enforceable permit.

4.

Amend Section

217.152

by adding subsection (c) to read asfollows:

£1

Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, the owner or operator of

emission units subject to Subpart D or E ofthis Part and located at a

petroleum refinery must comply with the requirements

of this Subpart and

Subpart D or E

of this Part, as applicable, for those emission units

beginning January 1, 2012, except that the owner or operator

of emission

units listed

in Appendix H must comply with the requirements of this

Subpart, including the option

of demonstrating compliance with the

applicable Subpart through an emissions averaging plan under Section

217.158

of this Subpart, and Subpart D or E ofthis Part, as applicable, for

the listed emission units beginning on the dates

set forth in Appendix H.

6

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

With Agency approval, the owner or operator of emission units listed in

Appendix H may elect to comply with the requirements

of this Subpart

and Subpart D

or E of this Part, as applicable, by reducing the emissions

of emission units other than those listed in Appendix H, provided that the

emissions limitations

of such other emission units are equal to or more

stringent than the applicable emissions limitations set forth

in Subpart D

or E of this Part, as applicable, by the dates set forth in Appendix H.

5.

Amend Section

217.156

by amending subsection

(f)

to read as follows:

.0.

The owner or operator of an emission unit subject to Subpart D, E, F, G,

or H of this Part must provide the following information with respect to

performance testing pursuant to Section 217.157:

II

Submit a testing protocol to the Agency at least 60 days prior to

testing;

21

Notify the Agency at least 30 days in writing prior to conducting

performance testing for

NO

x

emissions and five days prior to such

testing;

J)

Not later than 60 days after the completion ofthe test, submit the

results

of the test to the Agency; and

1}

If, after the

3~-days'

notice for an initially scheduled test is sent,

there is a delay (e.g., due to operational problems) in conducting

the test as scheduled, the owner

or operator of the unit must notify

the Agency as soon as practicable

of the delay in the original test

date, either

by providing at least seven days' prior notice of the

rescheduled date

of the test or by arranging a new test date with the

Agency

by mutual agreement.

6.

Amend Section

217.157

by amending subsection (e) to read asfollows:

ru.

Compliance with the continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)

requirements by an owner or operator of an emission unit who is required

to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS

on the emission unit

under subsection

(a)(!), (a)(2), (a)(3), or (b)(!) ofthis Section, or who has

elected to comply with the CEMS requirements under subsection (a)(5)

or

(b)(5) of this Section, or who has elected to comply with the predictive

emission monitoring system (PEMS) requirements under subsection

(f) of

this Section, is required by the following dates:

II

For the owner or operator of an emission unit that is subject to a

compliance date in calendar year

2012 under Section 217.152 of

this Subpart, compliance with the CEMS or PEMS requirements,

7

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

as applicable, under this Section for such emission unit is required

by December 31, 2012, provided that during the time between the

compliance date and December 31, 2012, the owner

or operator

must comply with the applicable performance test requirements

under this

Section and the applicable recordkeeping and reporting

requirements under this Subpart.

For the owner or operator of an

emission unit that is

in compliance with the CEMS or PEMS

requirements, as applicable, under this Section on January

1.

2012,

such owner

or operator is not required to comply with the

performance test requirements under this Section.

II

For the owner or operator of an emission unit that is subject to a

compliance date in a calendar year other than calendar year 2012

under

Section 217.152 of this Subpart, compliance with the CEMS

or PEMS requirements, as applicable, under this Section for such

emission unit is required

by the applicable compliance date, and

such owner

or operator is not required to comply with the

performance test requirements under this Section.

7.

Amend Section

217.157

by adding subsection (j) to read as follows:

D

As an alternative to complying with the requirements of this Section, other

than the requirements under subsections (a)(1) and ec) of this Section, the

owner

or operator of an emission unit who is not otherwise required by

any another statute, regulation, or enforceable order to install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a

CEMS on the emission unit may comply with the

specifications and test procedures for a predictive emission monitoring

system

ePEMS) on the emission unit for the measurement of NO x

emissions discharged into the atmosphere in accordance with the

requirements

of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A, and Appendix

B,

Performance Specification 16. The PEMS must be used to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable emissions limitation

or emissions

averaging plan

on an ozone season and annual basis.

8.

Amend Section

217.158

by changing subsection (a)(l)(c) to read as follows:

g

Units that commence operation after January 1, 2002, if the unit replaces a

unit that commenced operation

on or before January

1.

2002, or it replaces

a unit that replaced a unit that commenced operation

on or before January

1, 2002. The new unit must be used for the same purpose and have

substantially equivalent

or less process capacity or be permitted for less

NQx emissions on an annual basis than the actual NO

x

emissions ofthe

unit or units that are replaced. Within 90 days after permanently shutting

down a unit that is replaced, the owner

or operator of such unit must

submit a written request to withdraw

or amend the applicable permit to

reflect that the unit is no longer

in service before the replacement unit may

8

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

be included in an emissions averaging plan.

9.

Amend Section

217.158

by changing subsection (a)(2)(c) to read as follows:

g

Units that are required to meet emission limits or control requirements for

NQx

as provided for in an enforceable order, unless such order allows for

emissions averaging. Nothing

in this subparagraph (C) is intended to

prohibit a petroleum refinery from including industrial boilers or process

heaters, or both, in an emissions averaging plan where an enforceable

order does not prohibit the reductions made under such order from also

being used for compliance with any rules or regulations designed to

address regional haze or the non-attainment status

of any area.

10.

Amend Section

217.158

by adding subsection (h) and (i) to read asfollows:

hl

The owner or operator of an emission unit located at a petroleum refinery

who is demonstrating compliance with an applicable Subpart through an

emissions averaging plan under this Section may exclude from the

calculation demonstrating compliance those time periods when an

emission unit included in the emissions averaging plan is shut down for a

maintenance turnaround, provided that such owner or operator notify the

Agency in writing at least

30 days in advance of the shutdown of the

emission unit for the maintenance turnaround and the shutdown

of the

emission unit does not exceed 45 days per ozone season

or calendar year

and

NO

x

pollution control equipment, if any, continues to operate on all

other emission units operating during the maintenance turnaround.

II

The owner or operator of an emission unit that combusts a combination of

coke oven gas and other gaseous fuels and located at a source that

manufactures iron and steel who is demonstrating compliance with an

applicable Subpart through an emissions averaging plan under this Section

may exclude from the calculation demonstrating compliance those time

periods when the coke oven gas desulfurization unit included in the

emissions averaging plan is shut down for maintenance, provided that

such owner

or operator notify the Agency in writing at least 30 days in

advance

of the shutdown ofthe coke oven gas desulfurization unit for

maintenance and such shutdown does not exceed 35 days

per ozone

season or calendar year and

NO

x

pollution control equipment, if any,

continues to operate on all other emission units operating during the

maintenance period.

II.

Amend Section 217.160 by changing subsection (c) to read as follows:

£1

The provisions ofthis Subpart do not apply to fluidized catalytic cracking

units, their regenerator and associated

CO boiler or boilers and CO furnace

9

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

or furnaces where present, if such units are located at a petroleum refinery

and such units are required to meet emission limits

or control requirements

for

NO

x

as provided for in an enforceable order.

12.

Amend Section

217.164

to read as/ollows:

Section 217.164

Emissions Limitations

On and after January 1, 2012, no person shall cause or allow emissions of NO x

into the atmosphere from any industrial boiler to exceed the following limitations.

Compliance must be demonstrated with the applicable emissions limitation on an

ozone season and annual basis.

Emission Unit Type and

Rated Heat Input Capacity

(mmBtulhr)

NO.!

Emissions

Limitation

Ob/mmBtu)

or Requirement

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ill

Natural Gas

"1)

Industrial boiler

0.08

or Other Gaseous

greater than 100

Fuels

n

Industrial boiler

Combustion tuning

less than or equal to

100

hl

Distillate Fuel Oil

1)

Industrial boiler

0.10

greater than 100

n

Industrial boiler

Combustion tuning

less than or equal to

100

0

Other Liquid

1)

Industrial boiler

0.15

Fuels

greater than 100

n

Industrial boiler

Combustion tuning

less than

or equal to 100

Q}

Solid Fuel

1)

Industrial boiler

0.12

greater than 100,

circulating fluidized bed

combustor

n

Industrial boiler

0.18

greater than 250

J}

Industrial boiler

0.25

10

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

greater than 100 but

less than

or equal to 250

Industrial boiler

Less than

or equal to 100

Combustion tuning

~

For an industrial boiler combusting a combination of natural gas, coke

oven gas, and blast furnace gas, the

NO

x

emissions limitation shall be

calculated using the following equation:

NQx emissions limitation for period in IbIMMBtu=

~G

*

BTUNG

+

NOxcOG

*

BTU

cOG

+

NOXBFG

*

BTU

BFG

} /(BTU

NG

+

BTUcoG

+

BTUBFG)

Where:

NOXNG == 0.084 IblMMBtu for natural gas

BTUNG = the heat input of natural gas in BTU over that period

NOxCOG = 0.1441b1MMBtu for coke oven gas

BTUcoG = the heat input

of coke oven gas in BTU over that

period

NOXBFG = 0.0288 IblMMBtu for blast furnace gas

BTUBFG = the heat input of blast furnace gas in BTU over that

period

13.

Amend Section

217.184

to read asfollows:

Section 217.184

Emissions Limitations

On and after January 1, 2012, no person shall cause or allow emissions of NO x

into the atmosphere from any process heater to exceed the following limitations.

Compliance must

be demonstrated with the applicable emissions limitation on an

ozone season and annual basis.

Emission Unit Type and

Rated Heat Input Capacity

(mmBtuIhr)

NO

x

Emissions

Limitation

(lb/mmBtu)

or Requirement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ill.

Natural Gas

or Other Gaseous

Fuels

hl

Residual Fuel Oil

1}

1}

11

Process heater

greater than

100

Process heater

less than

or equal to 100

Process heater

Combustion tuning

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

greater than 100,

natural draft

~

Process heater

0.15

greater

than 100,

mechanical draft

~

Process heater

Combustion tuning

less than

or equal to 100

£1

Other Liguid

D

Process heater

0.05

Fuels

greater than 100,

natural draft

D

Process heater

0.08

greater

than 100,

mechanical draft

~

Process heater

Combustion tuning

less than

or equal to 100

14.

Amend Section

217.244

to read as/ollows:

Section 217.244

Emissions Limitations

~

On and after January 1, 2012, no person shall cause or allow emissions of

NO

x

into the atmosphere from any reheat furnace, annealing furnace, or

galvanizing furnace used in iron and steel making to exceed the following

limitations. Compliance must

be demonstrated with the applicable

emissions limitation

on an ozone season and annual basis.

Emission Unit Type

NO

x

Emissions

Limitation

(lb/mmBtu)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D

Reheat furnace, regenerative

Reheat furnace, recuperative,

combusting natural gas

Reheat furnace, recuperative,

combusting a combination

of

natural gas and coke oven gas

Reheat furnace, cold-air

12

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

it

Annealing furnace, regenerative

0.38

Ql

Annealing furnace, recuperative

0.16

7J

Annealing furnace, cold-air

0.07

ID

Galvanizing furnace, regenerative

0.46

2)

Galvanizing furnace, recuperative

0.16

lQ}

Galvanizing furnace, cold-air

0.06

hl

On and after January 1, 2012, no person shall cause or allow emissions of

NO

x

into the atmosphere from any reverberatory furnace or crucible

furnace used in aluminum melting to exceed the following limitations.

Compliance must be demonstrated with the applicable emissions

limitation

on an ozone season and annual basis.

Emission Unit Type

NO~

Emissions

Limitation

(lb/mmBtu)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reverberatory furnace

Crucible furnace

15.

Add Appendix H to Part

217

as/allows:

Section 217.APPENDIX H: Compliance Dates for Certain Emission Units at

Petroleum Refineries

ExxonMobil

Oil Corporation (Facility ID 197800AAA)

Point

Emission Unit Description

Com~liance

Date

0019

Crude Vacuum Heater (13-B-2)

December

31,2014

0038

Alky Iso-Stripper Reboiler (7-B-1 )

,

December 31,2014

0033

CHD Charge Heater (3-B-1)

December

31,2014

0034

CHD Stripper Reboiler (3-B-2)

December 31, 2014

0021

Coker East Charge Heater (l6-B-1A)

December 31, 2014

0021

Coker East Charge Heater (l6-B-1B)

December 31, 2014

0018

Crude Atmospheric Heater (l-B-1A)

December 31, 2014

0018

Crude Atmospheric Heater (1-B-1B)

December 31, 2014

13

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

ConocoPhillips Company Wood River Refinery (Facility ID 119090AAA)

Point

Emission Unit Description

Compliance Date

0017

BEUHM-1

December 31, 2012

0018

BEUHM-2

December 31,2012

0004

CR-1 Feed Preheat, H-1

December 31, 2012

0005

CR-11

st

Interreactor Heater, H-2

December 31,2012

0009

CR -1 3

ra

Interreactor Heater, H -7

December 31,2012

0091 CR-3 Charge Heater

December 31,2012

0092

CR-3 1

st

Reheat Heater, H-5

December 31,2012

0082 Boiler 17

December 31, 2012

0080 Boiler 15

December 31,2012

0073

Alky HM-2 Heater

December 31,2012

0662

VF-4 Charge Heater, H-28

December 31, 2012

0664

DU-4 Charge Heater, H-24

December

31,2014

0617

DCU Charge Heater, H-20

December

31,2014

0014

HCU

Fractionator Reboil, H-3

December

31,2016

0024

DU-1 Primary Heater South, F-301

December 31, 2016

0025 DU-1 Secondary Heater North, F-302

December 31, 2016

0081 Boiler 16

December 31, 2016

0083 Boiler 18

December 31, 2016

0095

DHT Charge Heater

December 31, 2016

0028

DU-2 Lube Crude Heater, F-200

December 31, 2016

0029

DU-2 Mixed Crude Heater West, F-202

December 31, 2016

0030

DU-2 Mixed Crude Heater East, F-203

December 31, 2016

0084 CR-2 North Heater

December 31, 2016

0661

CR-2

South Heater

December 31, 2016

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the Illinois EPA moves that the Board

amend Parts 211 and 217 as set forth herein.

DATED: March

23,2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P. O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

217/782-5544

14

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

By:Ji~--

Gina Roccaforte

Assistant Counsel

Division

of Legal Counsel

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

ON RECYCLED PAPER

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS FROM

VARIOUS SOURCE CATEGORIES:

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

PARTS

211 AND 217

)

)

)

)

)

)

R08-19

(Rulemaking - Air)

POST -HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA"), by its

attorneys, and respectfully submits its post-hearing comments in the above rulemaking

proceeding. The Illinois

EPA appreciates the efforts of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

("Board") in this rulemaking proposal to amend 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217 to control

the emissions

of nitrogen oxides (''NO

x

'') from certain major stationary sources in areas

designated as nonattainment with respect to National Ambient Air Quality Standards

("NAAQS").

The Illinois EPA witnesses testified and provided evidence in support of the rulemaking

proposal at the first hearing that was held in Springfield on October

14,2008. The second

hearing that was held in Chicago on December

9-10, 2008, gave the other participants to the

rulemaking the opportunity to present testimony. During the course

of this rulemaking, a

number

of issues arose, and as a result, the Illinois EPA engaged in negotiations with interested

parties on these issues.

Such negotiations led to the revision of certain provisions, and on

January

30, 2009, the Illinois EPA filed a Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal with the

Board to reflect such amended provisions.

On February 3,2009, a third hearing was held in

Edwardsville to receive testimony

on the proposal and any participants' responses to questions

raised on the record and reflected in the transcripts

of the earlier hearings in this proceeding. At

this hearing, counsel on behalf of participant Midwest Generation stated on the record that the

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

company has reviewed the motion and that it accepts the motion as it applies to Midwest

Generation. Furthermore, the representative

of Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., stated on the

record that the company supports the motion.

On February 19,2009, the Board granted the

Illinois

EPA's Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal.

These post-hearing comments

ofthe Illinois EPA address the following areas: Finding of

Failure to Make Required State Implementation Plan Submissions, Clean Air Act Requirements,

Recent Developments Related to This Rulemaking, and Discussions with Interested Parties.

Since the February hearing, the Illinois

EPA has continued to engage in negotiations with

interested parties on remaining unresolved issues. Such negotiations have led to the further

revision

of certain provisions, and the Illinois EPA has filed a Second Motion to Amend

Rulemaking Proposal with the Board along

with these post-hearing comments. The Illinois EPA

believes that the proposed amendments have addressed all substantive comments submitted

during this rulemaking and the Illinois EPA respectfully urges the Board to proceed to First

Notice under the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act, 5 ILCS

10011

et seq.,

as expeditiously as

possible.

Finding

of Failure to Make Required State Implementation Plan Submissions

By letter dated March 17, 2008, the United States Environmental Protection Agency

("US EPA") notified the State of Illinois that it had failed to make required submissions under the

Clean Air Act

("CAA"), and that USEP A would be publishing a rulemaking notice to announce

this finding. Letter from Mary A. Gade, Regional Administrator,

USEP A, to Douglas P. Scott,

Director, Illinois

EPA. Specifically, and to reiterate again, as the Illinois EPA stated in its

Statement

of Reasons and at hearing, on March 24, 2008, USEPA made a finding that Illinois,

among other states, failed to make a Reasonably Available Control Technology

("RACT")

2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

submittal required under Part D of Title I of the CAA for its two moderate nonattainment areas.

See,

73

Fed. Reg.

15416 (March 24,2008). Such finding starts the 18-month emission offset

sanctions clock and 24-month highway funding sanctions clock under Section 179(a) and (b)

of

the CAA and the 24-month clock for the promulgation by USEPA of a Federal Implementation

Plan ("FIP") under Section 11O(c) of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7509(a) and (b) and 741O(c).

On March 12,2009, to ensure that the CAA's requirements are met in a timely manner

and to avoid adverse consequences

of failure to do so, the USEP A informed Director Douglas P.

Scott

of the Illinois EPA that the State needs to address the findings of failure to submit the

required ozone

State Implementation Plan ("SIP") elements previously identified by the USEP A

in the March 17,2008, letter and in the March 24,2008, final rule (73

Fed. Reg.

15416). Letter

from Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator,

US EPA, Region 5, to Douglas P. Scott,

Director, Illinois

EPA ("March 12,2009, letter"). By this letter, USEPA further reaffirmed that

the final rule started a sanctions clock that,

if not terminated or stayed by USEP A, will result in

the implementation of several sanctions in the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis 8-hour ozone

nonattainment areas, as early as September

2009.

Id.

USEP A sent this letter "to request expedited action" by the Illinois EPA and the Board

"to complete the ozone SIP development and adoption process for the missing SIP elements

* *

*

to avoid implementation of sanctions."

Id.

On March 18, 2009, the Illinois EPA submitted the

attainment demonstration for the Chicago area, thereby leaving only the NO

x

RACT submittal

for the Chicago and Metro-East nonattainment areas as the

only outstanding requirement to be

submitted to USEP A.

USEPA reiterates in the letter that if, by September 24,2009, Illinois has not submitted

all

of the required SIP elements, pursuant to Section 179(a) ofthe CAA and 40 CFR 52.31, the

3

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

new source offset sanction, identified in Section 179(b)(2) of the CAA, will apply in the Chicago

and Metro-East

St. Louis areas. March 12,2009, letter. The increased new source emissions

offset ratio (2: 1) will make it more difficult for new sources to locate in the nonattainment areas.

Id.

Furthermore, ifby six months after imposition ofthe first sanction, Illinois has not submitted

the required

SIP elements, highway sanctions will be implemented in accordance with 40 CFR

52.31. Id.

This may adversely affect Federal funding of new highway projects, including

highway project funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

of2009, and

would restrict the types

of highway projects that the State and local governments can implement.

Id.

Finally, ifby March 24, 2010, Illinois has not submitted the required SIP elements and

USEP A has not approved these SIP revisions, Section 11 O( c) of the CAA provides for USEP A to

promulgate FIPs to replace the missing

SIP elements.

Id.

If it is necessary for USEP A to

promulgate a FIP,

USEP A may pay the costs of developing and promulgating this plan with

section

105 funds that would otherwise be given to Illinois.

Id.

USEP A is very concerned that the time available to avoid the implementation of

sanctions is very short.

Id.

Illinois must ensure that sanctions are not imposed and the Illinois

EPA believes that the appropriate means to accomplish this is to expedite the adoption and

submittal

ofthis proposal. Accordingly, if this proposed rulemaking is not promulgated and a

complete submittal made to

USEPA by September 24,2009, the offset sanction will apply in the

two nonattainment areas. If,

by six months after the offset sanction is imposed, USEP A has not

affirmatively determined that Illinois has made a complete submission, then the highway funding

sanction will apply in the two nonattainment areas.

For the reasons stated above, and due to the impending date

of September 24,2009, so as

to avoid the imposition

of sanctions, this rulemaking proposal needs to be adopted in an

4

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

expedited manner, and accordingly, on March 19,2009, the Illinois EPA filed a Motion for

Expedited Review with the Board.

As set forth in that motion, the Illinois EP A urges the Board

to grant the motion and proceed to First Notice under the Illinois Administrative

Procedure Act,

5

ILCS 100/1

et seq.,

as expeditiously as possible. On March 20, 2009, Midwest Generation, a

participant in this rulemaking, both before the Board and in the Illinois

EPA's outreach efforts, and

part

of the community regulated by the proposed rule, filed its response to the lllinois EPA's motion

supporting the motion and urging the Board to adopt the proposal as it has been amended over the

course

ofthe rulemaking as soon as possible.

Clean Air Act Requirements

Under Section 110 of the CAA and related provisions, states are required to submit, for

USEP A approval, SIPs that provide for the attainment and maintenance of standards established

by USEP A through control programs directed to sources of the pollutants involved. 42 U.S.C.

§7410.

The CAA also provides for the State to address emissions sources on an area-specific

basis through such requirements as reasonably available control measures

("RACM") and

RACT.

See,

42 U.S.C. §§7502 and 7511a. For each nonattainment area, the CAA requires the

State to demonstrate that it has adopted

"all reasonably available control measures as

expeditiously as possible (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the

area as

may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control

technology) and shall provide for attainment

ofthe national primary ambient air quality

standards." 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(I). This rulemaking proposal has been prepared to satisfy

Illinois' obligation to submit a

SIP to address the requirements under Sections 172 and 182 of the

CAA for major stationary sources of NO x in areas designated as nonattainment with respect to

the 8-hour ozone and

PM2.5 NAAQS.

5

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

USEP A designated two areas in Illinois as nonattainment for the 8-hour and PM2.5

NAAQS, respectively, the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN designated area and the St. Louis,

MO-IL designated area. Such designations triggered requirements under the CAA for adopting

regulations that reduce emissions sufficiently to demonstrate attainment

of the standards. Under

Section 172( c )(1), states with nonattainment areas are required to submit, in part, SIPs that

provide for the adoption

ofRACM for stationary sources in all nonattainment areas as

expeditiously as possible. 42

U.S.C. § 7502(c)(I). Section 172(c)(I) of the CAA provides, in

relevant part, as follows:

(c) Nonattainment plan provisions

The plan provisions (including plan items) required to be submitted under this part shall

comply with each

of the following:

(1 )

In

general

Such plan provisions shall provide for the implementation

of all reasonably

available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such

reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as

may be obtained

through the adoption, at a minimum,

of reasonably available control technology)

and shall provide for attainment

of the national primary ambient air quality

standards.

***

42 U.S.C. §7502(c)(1). A subset ofRACM is the RACT requirements. RACT is defined as the

lowest emission limitation that a particular source can meet

by applying a control technique that

is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.

See,

44

Fed. Reg.

53762 (September 17, 1979). Section 182(b )(2) of the CAA requires states to adopt RACT rules

for all areas designated nonattainment for ozone and classified as moderate or above. Section

182(b)(2)

of the CAA states, in part, as follows:

(b) Moderate Areas

Each State

in which all or part of a Moderate Area is located shall, with respect to the

Moderate Area, make the submissions described under subsection (a)

of this section

6

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

(relating to Marginal Areas), and shall also submit the revisions to the applicable

implementation plan described under this subsection.

***

(2)

Reasonably available control technology

The

State shall submit a revision to the applicable implementation plan to include

provisions to require the implementation

of reasonably available control

technology under section 7502(c)(1)

of this title with respect to each ofthe

following:

(A)

Each category

ofVOC sources in the area covered by a CTG document

issued by the Administrator between November 15,

1990, and the date of

attainment.

(B)

All

VOC sources in the area covered by any CTG issued before November

15,

1990.

(C)

All other major stationary sources ofVOCs that are located in the area.

Each revision described in subparagraph (A) shall be submitted within the period

set forth

by the Administrator in issuing the relevant CTG document. The

revisions with respect to sources described in subparagraphs (B) and (C) shall be

submitted

by 2 years after November 15, 1990, and shall provide for the

implementation

ofthe required measures as expeditiously as practicable but no

later than May 31, 1995.

***

42 U.S.C. §7511a(b)(2).

In

addition, under Section 182(f) ofthe CAA, an overlapping

requirement in each state in which all or part

of a "moderate" area is located is the adoption of

RACT for major NO

x

sources. 42 U.S.c. § 7511a(f). Section 182(f) ofthe CAA states, in

pertinent part, as follows:

(f) NO x requirements

(1)

The plan provisions required under this subpart for major stationary sources

of

volatile organic compounds shall also apply to major stationary sources (as

defined in section

7602 ofthis title and subsections (c), (d), and (e) ofthis

section) of oxides of nitrogen.

* * *

7

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

42 U.S.C. §7511a(f). Section 302 of the CAA defines "major stationary source" as any

stationary facility or source

of air pollutants that directly emits, or has the potential to emit, one

hundred tons per year

or more of any air pollutant. 42 U.S.C. §7602.

These sections

of the CAA, taken together, establish the requirements for Illinois to

submit

NO

x

RACT regulations for all major stationary sources of NO

x

in PM

2

.5 nonattainment

areas and ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above.

See also, Clean Air Fine

Particle Implementation Rule; Final Rule,

72

Fed. Reg.

20586 (April 25,

2007), and

Final Rule

To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Final Rule,

70

Fed.

Reg.

71612 (November

29,2005).

Recent Developments Related to This Rulemaking

On March 9, 2009, as required under the CAA, the Illinois EPA submitted the State

designation recommendations to USEP A for the 2008 revised ozone standards. The Illinois EPA

recommended that portions ofthe Chicago and Metro-East metropolitan areas be designated as

nonattainment for the revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As violations

ofthe revised ozone

standard have been measured in these areas during

2006-2008, designating them as

nonattainment is appropriate. The remainder

of Illinois is attaining the revised ozone standard

and should, therefore, be designated as attainment. The

CAA requirements regarding

implementation

ofRACT in ozone nonattainment areas will again be triggered for the areas so

designated for the

2008 ozone standard.

The recommended nonattainment boundaries are the same as the boundaries established

pursuant to the 1997 revisions

ofthe ozone NAAQS, with the exception of Jersey County. The

Illinois

EPA recommended that Jersey County, which is located in the Metro-East area in

southwestern Illinois, be designated as attainment for the revised ozone standard even though it

8

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

is currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 version of the standard. Jersey County is

rural, with virtually no emission sources, and does not contribute to nearby nonattainment areas.

Jersey County was included in the nonattainment area established

in 2004 because violations of

that standard were measured in 2001-2003 at Illinois EPA's monitoring station located in

Jerseyville. Based on

2006-2008 data, the monitoring station located in Jerseyville is attaining

not

just the level of the standard established in 1997, but attaining the level of the revised

standard as well.

On February 24,2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit

("D.C. Circuit") remanded the annual air quality standard for fine particulate matter

("PM") to the US EPA, but upheld the USEPA's standard for larger particles.

See, American

Farm Bureau Federation

v. EPA,

--- F.3d ----, 2009 WL 437050 (C.A.D.C.). The court ordered

USEP A to reconsider both the primary and secondary air quality standards for fine PM.

Id.

According to the decision, as to the primary annual fine PM standard, the USEP A "failed to

explain

adequately" why an annual level of standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air is

"requisite to protect public health, "including the health of vulnerable subpopulations, while

providing

"an adequate margin of safety."

!d.

at 13. The court also remanded USEPA's

secondary air quality standard, also set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter and meant to protect

public welfare, because

USEP A unreasonably concluded that the standard is adequate to protect

the public welfare from adverse effects on visibility.

Id.

The annual air quality standard for fine PM is likely to be strengthened under President

Obama's Administration. A strengthened annual standard would further decrease the major

health risks, such as heart disease, lung cancer and asthma attacks, caused

by PM emissions.

9

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

On July 11, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the

North

Carolina

case issued its decision regarding petitions for review challenging various aspects

of

the CAIR.

North Carolina

v.

EPA,

531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The court vacated the rule in

its entirety and remanded to USEPA to promulgate a rule consistent with the court's opinion. On

September 24, 2008, USEP A filed a petition for rehearing or, in the alternative, for a remand of

the case without vacatur, and parties were directed to file responses to USEPA's petition. On

December 23,2008, the court granted USEPA's petition only to the extent that it remanded the

case without vacatur for

USEPA to conduct further proceedings consistent with the court's

opinion.

North Carolina

v.

EPA,

550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). As a result, the CAIR remains

in effect while USEP A remedies the deficiencies identified by the court. Accordingly, as of

January 1, 2009, the requirements ofthe NO

x

SIP Call have been replaced by the CAIR. Since

the Board has already adopted, and

USEP A has approved, regulations that comply with CAIR

for electric generating units ("EGUs") in Illinois, the Illinois EPA is developing revisions to the

Illinois CAIR to sunset the provisions

of the NO

x

SIP Call affecting EGUs. These revisions will

be submitted to the Board in the next few weeks. Illinois must also correct its SIP to ensure that

non-EGUs affected

by the NO

x

SIP Call meet the emissions budget contained in the NO

x

SIP

Call, even though Illinois did not opt to include non-EGUs

in the CAIR trading program. The

Illinois EPA is also developing a regulatory proposal to resolve this deficiency and hopes to

submit this proposal to the Board in the near future.

On December 22, 2008, the USEP A designated areas throughout the United States,

including areas in Illinois, as nonattainment for the 24-hour

PM2.5 air quality standard established

in

2006. Areas in Illinois that were designated by USEP A as nonattainment in December 2008

include both the Chicago area and the Metro-East area, the same areas designated previously as

10

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

nonattainment for the annual PM2.5 standard. USEP A also listed portions of Rock Island and

Massac Counties based

on air quality violations in adjoining states. Based on 2008 monitoring

data, however, the Illinois EPA has requested that USEP A amend the nonattainment designations

for some areas

in Illinois, specifically the Chicago area, Rock Island and Massac Counties.

Assuming USEPA agrees, the Metro-East area would be the only area

in Illinois to be designated

nonattainment for the 24-hour

PM

2

.

5

standard. Illinois must develop an attainment plan and

adopt control measures needed to attain the

74-hour PM

2

.

5

standard

in the Metro-East area within

three years

ofthe effective date of US EPA's decision, and Illinois must attain the standards

within five years

ofthe effective date.

The Illinois EPA acknowledges that recent developments regarding the ozone and

PM2.5

NAAQS provide a complicated landscape for addressing regulatory requirements. As Illinois

has made continued progress in meeting the NAAQS, the standards have been tightened and

Illinois can reasonably expect that they will be tightened further. Illinois must therefore continue

to seek reasonable emission reduction measures to address the NAAQS, which in the Illinois

EPA's opinion, argues strongly for adoption of this proposal.

Discussions with Interested Parties

The Illinois EPA has diligently attempted to address the concerns

of interested parties

and believes that it has addressed the concerns

of all such parties, except for the Illinois

Environmental Regulatory Group and ArcelorMittal USA, Inc.

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

The Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

("IERG") contends that the proposal being

considered is too stringent to be considered RACT, is not reasonable

or cost effective, and that

11

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

the rule may not be necessary. As an alternative, IERG recommends that Illinois rely upon

existing CAIR and

NO

x

SIP Call rules for EGUs and non-EGUs to meet the RACT requirement.

The Illinois

EPA strongly disagrees with IERG's position on these issues.

As stated in the Illinois

EPA's Statement of Reasons for this rulemaking, RACT is

defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source can meet

by applying a control

technique that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.

See,

44 Fed. Reg.

53762 (September 17, 1979). The Illinois EPA has provided extensive

documentation and testimony justifying the proposed emissions limitations as both technically

and economically feasible, and can be achieved with technology that is reasonably available.

IERG has not provided any information about the technical feasibility

of meeting the proposed

limitations, although it has argued that the proposal

may not be economically reasonable because

of the time allowed in the original proposal for companies to install emission reduction

measures. The Illinois

EPA has addressed this concern with several amendments addressing

compliance deadlines. Illinois

EPA has recommended delaying the compliance deadline for

most emission units until January 1,

2012, and has also recommended delaying the deadline for

installation

of continuous emissions monitoring systems ("CEMS") until December 31, 2012.

See,

the Illinois EPA's Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal that was filed with the Board on

January

30,2009, and subsequently granted by the Board on February 19,2009. To address

concerns expressed

by petroleum refineries, and to mitigate the potential for unplanned

shutdowns which

may result in gasoline shortages in Illinois, the Illinois EPA has recommended

extending the compliance deadlines for certain emission units at affected refineries to reflect

planned maintenance turnarounds.

See,

the Illinois EPA's Second Motion to Amend

Rulemaking Proposal that was filed with these post-hearing comments.

12

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

IERG has offered a comparison of the Illinois EPA's proposed emission limits to those

adopted

in other states to support its contention that the proposed emission limits are too

stringent.

See,

Exhibit 5, Pre-Filed Testimony of Deirdre

K.

Himer on Behalf ofthe Illinois

Environmental Regulatory Group, Exhibit A.

The last page of the attachment compares Illinois

EPA's proposed NO

x

RACT limits to those adopted or proposed in other states.

It

is noted that

the

NO

x

RACT limits in several of the states listed, in particular the northeast states of Delaware,

Pennsylvania,

and Virginia (as well as other northeast states not listed in the table), are less

stringent

than the limits proposed in Illinois. The limits in the northeast states were originally

agreed to

in a Memorandum ofDnderstanding ("MOD") signed by the states in the Ozone

Transport Commission ("OTC") in 1994. As testified by Dr. James Staudt in this proceeding,

NO

x

control systems have advanced substantially since the time the northeast states adopted

these rules, so cost-effective technologies available today will yield significantly

lower NO

x

emissions. In 2001, the OTC issued a "model rule" for further controlling NO

x

emissions in

northeast states which recommends emission limits for industrial fuel combustion sources that

are

much lower than the limits contained in the 1994 OTC MOD. More recently, the States of

Wisconsin and Ohio have adopted NO

x

RACT emission limits that are similar to those proposed

by the Illinois EPA that reflect the improvements in NO

x

control technology since the northeast

states adopted their

NO

x

RACT rules.

The Illinois EPA's Technical Support Document ("TSD") provides detailed performance

and cost information that demonstrates that

the proposed emissions limitations contained in its

NO

x

RACT proposal are feasible technologically and economically. For example, Table 2-17a

of the TSD demonstrates that using control technologies costing less than $3000 per ton of NO x

removed, NO

x

emission rates as low as 0.024 Ib/mmBtu have been achieved on medium sized

13

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

boilers burning natural gas. Controlled emission rates of 0.05

Ib/mmBtu

to 0.10

Ib/mmBtu

using

other cost-effective technologies are also shown in the table. The Illinois

EPA's proposed

emissions limitation for natural gas industrial boilers greater than

100 mmBtulhr is 0.08

Ib/mmBtu,

which is well within the range (in fact at the upper end of the range) of emission rates

achieved using cost effective control technologies. For industrial boilers using distillate fuel oil,

the range

of controlled emission rates listed in Table 2-17b of the TSD using cost effective

controls is

0.03

Ib/mmBtu

to 0.10

Ib/mmBtu.

The Illinois EPA's proposed emissions limitation

for industrial boilers greater than

100 mmBtu/hr using distillate fuel oil is 0.10

Ib/mmBtu,

which

again is within the range (again at the upper end

of the range) of emission rates achieved using

cost effective control technologies. For industrial boilers using residual fuel oil, the range

of

controlled emission rates listed in Table 2-17b ofthe TSD using cost effective controls is 0.045

Ib/mmBtu

to

0.191b/mmBtu.

The Illinois EPA's proposed emissions limitation for industrial

boilers greater than

100 mmBtulhr using residual fuel oil is 0.15

Ib/mmBtu,

which again is

within the range (again at the upper end

of the range) of emission rates achieved using cost

effective control technologies. For coal-fired boilers, the range

of controlled emission rates

listed

in Table 2-17c ofthe TSD is

0.141b/mmBtu

to 0.35

Ib/mmBtu,

depending on the boiler

type (based on control efficiencies

of 50-80% control listed in the table and an average

uncontrolled emission rate

ofO.691b/mmBtu).

The Illinois EPA's proposed emissions limitation

for coal-fired industrial boilers greater than 100 mmBtu/hr but less than or equal to 250

mmBtulhr is 0.25

Ib/mmBtu,

which is within the range of emission rates achieved using cost

effective control technologies. For circulating fluidized bed combustor

("CFBC") boilers, the

range

of controlled emission rates listed in Table 2-17 c of the TSD using cost effective controls

is

0.08

Ib/mmBtu

to 0.12

Ib/mmBtu.

The Illinois EPA is proposing to amend the emissions

14

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

limitation for industrial boilers, CFBC, greater than 100 mmBtulhr to 0.12 Ib/mmBtu.

See,

the

Illinois

EPA's Second Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal that was filed with these post-

hearing comments. Thus, IERG's contention that the Illinois

EPA's proposed emissions

limitations are too stringent, and are not reasonable

or cost effective, is unfounded.

As stated previously, IERG contends that the Illinois

EPA's proposal may not be

necessary and that Illinois should rely upon existing CAIR and

NO

x

SIP Call rules for EGUs and

non-EGUs to meet the RACT requirement. The Illinois

EPA strongly opposes reliance on these

Federal trading programs to meet local nonattainment area requirements. The United States

Court

of Appeals, in its decision on the CAIR rule clearly indicated that a regional trading

program should not be relied upon to address local nonattainment problems, and nonattainment

problems due to transport between adjoining states.

North

Carolina

v.

EPA,

531 F.3d 896 (D.C.

Cir.

2008). The court determined that CAIR is not adequate and remanded CAIR to USEP A.

North Carolina

v.

EPA,

550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). USEPA must therefore revise CAIR,

and it is unlikely that the trading program will be used to address local nonattainment problems.

Thus, IERG's recommendation to use CAIR to address

NO

x

RACT is founded on an assumption

that the court has deemed incorrect, that CAIR as originally issued was adequate for attainment

and could therefore serve asRACT.

In

NRDC

v.

EPA,

No. 06-1045,2007 WL 836786 (C.A.D.C.), the National Resources

Defense Council

("NRDC") alleges that under the

Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone

National Ambient

Air Quality Standard--Phase

2, 70

Fed. Reg.

71612 (November 29,2005),

USEPA's

waiver ofRACT requirements for all sources covered by the NO

x

SIP Call is illegal

and arbitrary. NRDC claims that

USEPA's waiver ofRACT for sources covered by the NO

x

SIP

Call plainly violates the CAA's express requirement for RACT at existing sources in each

15

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

nonattainment area. Section 172( c )(1) of the CAA.

Final Opening Brief of Natural Resources

Defense Council.

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires each state's SIP to prevent

emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment in other states.

Id.

Although the NO

x

SIP Call helps to address interstate transport of air pollution, it is not a substitute for the CAA's

separate requirements for pollution controls within individual nonattainment areas.

Id.

NRDC

further alleges that USEP A cannot substitute market-based methods of controlling pollution for

congressionally mandated methods.

!d.

NRDC claims that US EPA tries to obscure its violation

ofthe statutory RACT mandate by asserting that it deems a source's participation in the NO

x

SIP

Call program to constitute RACT, and that such an approach is unlawful and arbitrary.

Id.

Oral

arguments were held on November 20, 2008, but the case has not yet been decided.

The Illinois

EPA strongly opposes reliance on the NO

x

SIP Call to address NO

x

RACT

for non-EGUs for the same reason,

but for other reasons as well. At the Federal level, the NO

x

SIP Call has been replaced by CAIR as of January 1, 2009. As mentioned previously, Illinois

must sunset its existing

NO

x

SIP Call provisions for EGUs (Subpart W of Part 217) and must

amend its rules for non-EGUs (Subpart

U of Part 217) to ensure continued compliance with the

State's non-EGU

NO

x

budget. Although the Illinois EPA intends to make a regulatory proposal

soon to address this deficiency, it is inappropriate to rely

on a rule for purposes of NO x RACT

that does not yet exist,

or has not even been proposed.

The

NO

x

SIP Call, as adopted in Subpart U of Part 217, does not adequately address

major

NO

x

emission sources in Illinois' nonattainment areas. Subpart U of Part 217 only

addresses industrial boilers with a capacity greater than

250 mmBtuIhr.

It

does not address

boilers with less capacity, even

if those boilers are located at a major NO

x

source located in a

nonattainment area.

It

does not address process heaters, glass melting furnaces, or reheat

16

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

furnaces at iron and steel plants, even though such units can be controlled using cost effective

controls. Further, the

NO

x

SIP Call trading program is an ozone season control program, and

cannot be relied upon to address

PM

2

.

5

RACT, since the PM

2

.

5

air quality standards exist on both

an annual and daily basis. Subpart

V

of Part 217 is not, nor was it intended to be, an appropriate

program to address

NO

x

RACT.

IERG's comments throughout this rulemaking ignore the potential air quality benefits

to

be derived from implementation of NO x RACT. NO

x

is a precursor to the formation of both

ozone and

PM

2

.

5

,

so reducing NO

x

emissions has a beneficial effect on reducing ozone and

PM

2

.

5•

Even though the Chicago area may be attaining the 1997 ozone standard based on the

three most recent years

of data, and the Metro-East metropolitan area is expected to attain this

year, Holland, Michigan, which is located downwind

of Chicago, is not meeting the standard.

In

testimony before the Board in this proceeding, Michael Koerber, Executive Director of the Lake

Michigan Air Directors

Consortium ("LADCO"), indicated that Holland, Michigan, will not

attain the 1997 ozone standard

by its 2009 attainment date. Modeling conducted by LADCO

indicates that Holland, Michigan, will not attain until 2012, when additional emission reductions

are implemented from a number

of control programs, including NO

x

RACT in Illinois.

Mr. Koerber also testified that VSEP A has recently released a study

of the ozone problem

in western Michigan that concluded that

NO

x

emissions from northeastern Illinois significantly

contribute to the western Michigan ozone problem.

See,

Exhibit 19, Western Michigan Ozone

Study: Draft Report (January 21, 2009). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required VSEP A to

conduct a demonstration project to address the effect of transported ozone and ozone precursors

in Southwestern Michigan. 42 V.S.C.A.

§ 16360. Accordingly, VSEPA, in its Western

Michigan

Ozone Study: Draft Report, addressed this requirement by reviewing the ozone

17

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

problem in Western Michigan and what is required to meet the federal air quality standards for

ozone.

See,

Exhibit 19, Western Michigan Ozone Study: Draft Report (January 21,2009).

Ambient monitoring data for the past three summers (2005-2007) show that the 1997 ozone

standard is not being met at three sites (Holland, Muskegon, and Jenison)

in Western Michigan,

and the

2008 ozone standard is not being met at all monitoring sites in Western Michigan.

Id.

A key finding of the Western Michigan Ozone Study is that ozone levels in Western

Michigan (both at locations

of measured and modeled nonattainment) are dominated by

transport, and Western Michigan is impacted by transport of ozone and ozone-forming emissions

from major urban areas

in the Lake Michigan area, primarily Chicago, as well as regional

transport

of ozone and ozone-forming emissions from other source areas in the Midwest.

As mentioned previously,

USEP A tightened the ozone standard in 2008. Even as the

Chicago and Metro-East areas are attaining

or expected to attain the 1997 ozone standard, these

areas are not meeting the

2008 version ofthe standard. On March 9, 2009, Illinois recommended

to

USEPA that both the Chicago and Metro-East areas be designated nonattainment for the 2008

standard. USEPA is expected to confirm Illinois' recommendation when the nonattainment

designations are finalized in March

2010. With the pending nonattainment designation for the

2008 ozone standard, the CAA requires Illinois to again address requirements to implement

RACT. Adoption and implementation

of the subject NO

x

RACT proposal will likely satisfy the

CAA requirement to implement RACT for the new ozone standard. More importantly, the

resulting

NO

x

emissions reductions will contribute to attainment of the new ozone standard in

these and downwind areas.

Regarding

PM

2

.5, the Chicago area is currently meeting the annual PM

2

.

5

standard

established in 1997, and the Illinois

EPA will soon request redesignation of the Chicago area to

18

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

attainment for this standard. The Metro-East area is not attaining the annual PM2.5 standard, and

will likely not meet the standard

by the required attainment date (April 2010). Illinois must

implement all reasonable control measures to provide for attainment

of the standard in this area

as soon as possible. USEP A also tightened the 24-hour

PM2

.

5

standard

in 2006. At present, the

Chicago area is meeting the new

PM

2

.

5

standard, but the Metro-East area is not. The Metro-East

area is expected to

be designated nonattainment for the 24-hour PM

2

.5 standard by USEP A

within the next few months. The CAA again will require Illinois to implement all reasonably

available control measures, including RACT. Again, adoption and implementation

of the subject

NOx RACT proposal will likely satisfy the CAA requirement to implement RACT for NOx for

the 24-hour

PM2.5 standard.

Finally, as noted

supra,

on February 24, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the

D.C. Circuit remanded back to USEP A its 2006 decision to maintain at its current level the

annual

PM2.5 air quality standard.

American Farm Bureau Federation

v.

EPA,

--- F.3d ----, 2009

WL 437050 (C.A.D.C.). Since the USEPA Administrator's 2006 decision was not consistent

with the findings

of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee or the recommendations of

USEPA's staff, it is likely that USEPA will adopt a more stringent PM2.5 annual standard in the

near future. Illinois will be required to address this air quality standard through implementation

of control measures that reduce precursor emissions, including NO

x•

The Illinois EPA believes

that there is sufficient justification, from both an air quality management perspective and to meet

specific

CAA requirements, to justify adoption of NO

x

RACT at this time.

IERG requested that the rule not contain emission limitations for emission units that are

not currently operating in the nonattainment areas, namely cement kilns and aluminum melting

furnaces. The Illinois EPA requests that the emissions limitations for such units be adopted as

19

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

proposed. Establishing NOx emission limitations will provide a floor for future emission sources

that may seek to locate in these areas. In fact, the Illinois EPA has recently received and is

currently reviewing an application from a company seeking to construct a cement kiln in the

Chicago area.

It

is true that requirements for new sources are generally more stringent than

RACT would require, but it is also true that applicants frequently seek alternatives to such new

source requirements. The Illinois EPA believes that it is reasonable that new sources seeking to

operate in nonattainment areas in Illinois should meet RACT requirements at a minimum.

ArcelorMittal USA, Inc.

Illinois EPA is proposing to amend the NOx emissions limitation proposed for

recuperative reheat furnaces to address comments submitted to the Board

by both United States

Steel Corporation

("US Steel") and ArcelorMittal USA, Inc. ("ArcelorMittal") Although the

Illinois EPA and

US Steel have agreed on the amendments as they relate to operations at US

Steel's Granite City Works, the Illinois EPA and ArcelorMittal have not agreed on the proposed

amendment. However, for the reasons set forth in these post-hearing comments and the Second

Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal filed with these comments, the Illinois EPA believes the

. amendments are justified and urges the Board to accept them as set forth in the Illinois EPA's

Second Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal.

In its comments filed on November 25, 2008, with the Board, ArcelorMittal contends that

the furnace it operates at its Riverdale facility is not a reheat furnace and that the proposed

emissions limitation is inappropriate for its furnace. The Illinois EPA disagrees with

ArcelorMittal's contention that its furnace is not a reheat furnace, and does not believe a specific

definition

of a reheat furnace in the Board's rules is necessary. The description ofthe furnace at

Riverdale provided

by the company is consistent with the description provided in the Illinois

20

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

EPA's TSD (see page 93 of the TSD). Further, the Illinois EPA considers the NO

x

control

technologies identified in the

TSD to be reasonably available, technically feasible, and cost

effective, even recognizing the

"tunnel" design of ArcelorMittal's reheat furnace. The Illinois

EPA contacted both Bricmont, Inc., the supplier

ofthe tunnel furnace, and Bloom Engineering,

the supplier

ofthe burners now in use at the furnace, to confirm that ultra low NO

x

burners can

be used at the Riverdale facility. Based on this information, the burners now in use at

ArcelorMittal were designed in the 1980s and are not considered an

"advanced NO

x

control

technology" as ArcelorMittal claims.

In its review

of control technologies that are appropriate for tunnel reheat furnaces, the

Illinois EPA performed a survey

of NO x emission limits for similar furnaces constructed in other

states in recent years. From the survey, seven such furnaces have recently been permitted with

NO

x

emission limits ranging from 0.03 Ib/mmBtu to 0.10 Ib/mmBtu. Ultra low NOx burners

were the most commonly selected control technology for these furnaces. If ArcelorMittal's

furnaces were using ultra low

NOx burners, as claimed, the Illinois EPA believes that the

emissions from the furnaces would be at the same level as other similar furnaces. Based on this

survey, the Illinois EPA proposes to amend the emission limit for recuperative reheat furnaces

combusting natural gas from 0.051b/mmBtu to 0.09Ib/mmBtu.

ConocoPhillips Company

The Illinois EP A and ConocoPhillips Company ("ConocoPhillips") have continued a

dialogue in discussing issues raised

by the rulemaking proposal and have reached agreement on

these issues. As to the issue

of "replacement units" in the context of an emissions averaging

plan, the Illinois EPA agrees with ConocoPhillips that it may consider the BEU-HM3 unit as

a.

replacement unit for the BEU-HMI and BEU-HM2 heaters, which are scheduled to be shut

21

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

down in 2009. Furthennore, the Illinois EPA has proposed amendatory provisions in the Second

Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal that was filed along with these post-hearing comments

so as to clarify the tenn "replacement unit." According to ConocoPhillips, the replacement

heater for BEU-HMI and BEU-HM2 will be a single heater, BEU-HM3,

of the same

approximate size as

the combined heat input for the two heaters. ConocoPhillips indicates that

the design is approximately

10% larger to accommodate additional heat input required by federal

regulations, and the new unit will have ultra-low

NO

x

burners that will perfonn significantly

better than the emissions limitation set forth under the proposal.

It

is the Illinois EPA's opinion

that the replacement heater is used for the same purpose and has a substantially equivalent

process capacity

of the units that are being replaced.

As to the Steam Methane Refonner

("SMR") located at the Wood River Refinery, the

Illinois EPA is in agreement with ConocoPhillips that the definition

of the tenn "process heater,"

as defined in Section 211.5195, does not encompass the SMR.

In

the Illinois EPA's opinion, the

SMR does not

"indirectly transfer heat to a process fluid or a heat transfer medium other than

water."

As to the CEMS requirements under the proposal, ConocoPhillips has indicated that the

installation

of CEMS on all affected units will add significantly to the costs to comply with this

proposal. As a result, the Illinois EPA has included provisions in its Second Motion to Amend

Rulemaking Proposal to allow for the use

of a predictive emission monitoring system as an

alternative to CEMS. Finally, additional issues that were resolved are further reflected in the

Illinois

EPA's Second Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal and include amendments to the

emissions averaging plan provisions.

22

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

United States Steel Corporation

The Illinois EPA has also continued discussions with US Steel and reached agreement on

its issues under this rulemaking proposal.

An

ancillary benefit of US Steel's coke oven gas

desulfurization unit is that in addition to removing sulfur compounds from the coke oven gas, it

also removes hydrogen cyanide, which reduces fuel

NO

x

in coke oven gas. US Steel has

provided the Illinois

EPA with its best estimate as to the level of hydrogen cyanide that remains

in the coke oven gas after the coke oven gas passes through the desulfurization unit. This

estimate is

130 parts per million. The proposed emissions limitations for industrial boilers

combusting a combination

of natural gas, coke oven gas, and blast furnace gas and recuperative

reheat furnaces combusting a combination

of natural gas and coke oven gas are derived from this

estimate. The Illinois

EPA recognizes the fact that once all units are in operation, there is a

possibility that the emissions limitations may require adjustment, which would be the subject

of

a future rulemaking. Amendatory provisions encompassing the issues affecting US Steel in this

rulemaking proposal are reflected in the Illinois

EPA's Second Motion to Amend Rulemaking

Proposal, which was filed with these post-hearing comments.

DATED: March

23,2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P. O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

217/782-5544

23

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

BY:cih~

Gina Roccaforte

Assistant Counsel

Division

of Legal Counsel

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

STATE OF ILLINOIS

COUNTY

OF SANGAMON

)

)

)

)

SS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached

SECOND MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL and POST-HEARING

COMMENTS OF

THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

upon the following person:

John Therriault

Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James

R.

Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

and electronically to the following persons:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

Dated: March 23, 2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Gina Roccaforte

Assistant Counsel

Division

of Legal Counsel

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *

---

SERVICE LIST 08-19

Timothy J. Fox

Hearing

Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

foxt@ipcb.state.il.us

Virginia Yang

Deputy Legal Counsel

Illinois Department

of Natural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, IL 62702-1271

virginia. yang@illinois.gov

Katherine D. Hodge

Monica

T. Rios

Hodge Dwyer Zeman

3150 Roland Ave.

P.O. Box 5776

Springfield, IL

62705-5776

khodge@hdzlaw.com

mrios@hdzlaw.com

Christina

L.

Archer

Associate General Counsel

ArcelorMittal

USA

1 South Dearborn Street, 19

th

Floor

Chicago, IL

60603

christina.archer@arcelormittal.com

Matthew Dunn

Chief

Environmental Bureau North

Office of the Attorney General

69 W. Washington

St., Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60602

mdunn@atg.state.il.us

Kathleen C. Bassi

Stephen J. Bonebrake

Schiff Hardin LLP

6600 Sears

Tower

233

S. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL

60606-6473

kbassi@schiffhardin.com

sbonebrake@schiffhardin.com

Alec M. Davis

General Counsel

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

215 E. Adams

St.

Springfield, IL 62701

adavis@ierg.org

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, Mrch 23, 2009

* * * PC # 11 * * * * *