ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER c: EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES PART 217 NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS
SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS
SUBPART B: NEW FUEL COMBUSTION EMISSION SOURCES
1. E = (AG + BL + CS) Q
English
Metric
SUBPART C: EXISTING FUEL COMBUSTION EMISSION UNITS SOURCES
1. E = (AG + BL + CS) Q
English
Metric
UNact ≤ Nall
UWhere:
U1)U UActual emissions must be determined as follows:
UWhen emission limits are prescribed in lb/mmBtu,
UEMact(i) = Eact(i) x Hi/2000
When emission limits are prescribed in lb/ton of processed product,
EMact(i) = Eact(i) x Pi/2000
2) Allowable emissions must be determined as follows:
When emission limits are prescribed in lb/mmBtu,
EMall(i) = Eall(i) x Hi/2000
When emission limits are prescribed in lb/ton of processed product,
EMall(i) = Eall(i) x Pi/2000
Where:

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

(Rulemaking - Air)

Proposed Rule. Second Notice.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by A.S. Moore):

Today the Board adopts for second notice a proposal amending its air pollution

regulations. On May 9, 2008, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency or Illinois

EPA or IEPA) filed a proposal under the general rulemaking provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of

the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/27, 28 (2008)). On both January 30, 2009,

and March 23, 2009, the Agency filed motions to amend the proposal. Generally, the Agency

proposes to amend Parts 211 and 217 of the Board’s air pollution regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code

211, 217) to control nitrogen oxides (NO

) emissions from major stationary sources in the

nonattainment areas and from emission units including industrial boilers, process heaters, glass

melting furnaces, cement kilns, lime kilns, furnaces used in steelmaking and aluminum melting,

and fossil fuel-fired stationary boilers at such sources. On April 2, 2009, the Board granted the

Agency’s motion for expedited review of this proposal.

On May 7, 2009, the Board adopted its first-notice opinion and order in this proceeding.

33 Ill. Reg. 6896, 6921 (May 22, 2009). In that opinion and order, the Board largely adopted

the Agency’s proposal, including changes proposed in the two motions to amend.

In this opinion, the Board first provides the procedural history of this rulemaking before

addressing preliminary issues and background on regulation of NO

emissions. The Board then

addresses the public comments received since publication of the first-notice proposal. The Board

then discusses the issues raised during first notice before addressing economic reasonableness

and technical feasibility and summarizing the proposal on a section-by-section basis. Finally, the

order following the opinion then sets forth the proposed amendments for second notice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 9, 2008, the Agency filed a rulemaking proposal (Prop.) under the general

rulemaking provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of the Act. 415 ILCS 5/27, 28 (2008). A Statement

of Reasons (Statement) and a Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanied the proposal. A

motion for waiver of copy requirements also accompanied the proposal. In an order dated June

5, 2008, the Board accepted the Agency’s proposal for hearing and granted the Agency’s motion

for waiver of copy requirements.

In a letter dated June 6, 2008, the Board requested that the Department of Commerce and

Economic Opportunity (DCEO) conduct an economic impact study of the Agency’s rulemaking

415 ILCS 5/27(b) (2008). DCEO has not responded to the Board’s request.

In an order dated June 12, 2008, the hearing officer scheduled a first hearing to begin on

October 14, 2008, in Springfield and a second hearing to begin December 9, 2008, in Chicago.

The order directed participants wishing to testify at the first hearing to pre-file their testimony no

later than September 2, 2008. The order also directed participants to pre-file questions based on

the Agency’s pre-filed testimony no later than September 16, 2008. Finally, the order directed

the Agency to pre-file written answers to those pre-filed questions no later than September 30,

On August 29, 2008, the Agency pre-filed testimony by Mr. Robert Kaleel (Kaleel Pre-

filed Test.), Mr. Vir Gupta (Gupta Pre-filed Test.), and James E. Staudt, Ph.D. (Staudt Pre-filed

On September 15, 2008, Midwest Generation filed questions for the Agency’s witnesses

(MG Questions). On September 16, 2008, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (ExxonMobil) filed

questions for the Agency’s witnesses (ExxonMobil Questions). Also on September 16, 2008, the

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group (IERG) filed questions for the Agency’s witnesses

(IERG Questions). On September 30, 2008, the Agency filed three documents: answers to

questions submitted by Midwest Generation (MG Answers); answers to questions submitted by

ExxonMobil (ExxonMobil Answers); and answers to questions submitted by IERG (IERG

The first hearing took place as scheduled on October 14, 2008, in Springfield. At the first

hearing, the hearing officer admitted into the record four exhibits:

Finding of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plans Required for the 1997 8-Hour

Ozone NAAQS, 73 Fed. Reg. 15416-21 (Mar. 24, 2008) (Exh. 1);

[Illinois Environmental Protection] Agency Analysis of Economic and Budgetary Effects

of Proposed Rulemaking (35 Ill. Adm. Code 211) (Exh. 2);

[Illinois Environmental Protection] Agency Analysis of Economic and Budgetary Effects

of Proposed Rulemaking (35 Ill. Adm. Code 217) (Exh. 3); and

Cleaver Brooks letter dated May 19, 2006, to New Hampshire Division of Environmental

Services (Exh. 4).

On October 24, 2008, the Board received the transcript of the first hearing (Tr.1).

On November 5, 2008, the Agency filed its responses to questions raised at the first

hearing (PC 1).

On November 25, 2008, the Board received pre-filed testimony for the December 9,

2008, hearing from Mr. Scott Miller and Mr. Kent Wanninger on behalf of Midwest Generation,

from Ms. Deirdre K. Hirner and Mr. David J. Kolaz on behalf of IERG, from Mr. Larry G.

Siebenberger and Mr. Blake E. Stapper on behalf of U.S. Steel, and from Mr. David W. Dunn on

behalf of ConocoPhillips. Also on November 25, 2008, the Board received pre-filed comments

submitted by ArcelorMittal (ArcelorMittal Comment). In addition, on November 25, 2008, the

Board received post-hearing comments relating to the October 14, 2008 hearing from Saint-

Gobain Containers, Inc. (Saint-Gobain) (PC 2).

The second hearing took place as scheduled on December 9 and 10, 2008, in Chicago.

Over the two days of the second hearing, the hearing officer admitted into the record fourteen

Pre-Filed Testimony of Deirdre K. Hirner on Behalf of the Illinois Environmental

Regulatory Group (Exh. 5);

Pre-Filed Testimony of David J. Kolaz on Behalf of the Illinois Environmental

Regulatory Group (Exh. 6);

from Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard; Final Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 71657 (Nov. 29, 2005) (Exh. 7);

Budget Allocations and Usage 2004-2007 (Exh. 8);

Pre-Filed Testimony of David W. Dunn on Behalf of ConocoPhillips Company (Exh. 9);

Pre-Filed Testimony of Larry G. Siebenberger on Behalf of United States Steel

Corporation (Exh. 10);

Pre-Filed Testimony of Blake E. Stapper on Behalf of United States Steel Corporation

Testimony of Scott Miller of Behalf of Midwest Generation (Exh. 12);

Testimony of Kent Wanninger on Behalf of Midwest Generation (Exh. 13);

IHS-CERA Power Capital Costs Index (PCCI) (Graph Included on Page 7 of Kent

Wanninger’s Testimony on Behalf of Midwest Generation) (Exh. 14);

Baldwin 3 graph (Exh. 15);

Joliet 71 boiler graph (Exh. 16);

Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index. Commodities Group: Metals and metal

products Item: Hot rolled bars, plates, and structural shapes (December 4, 2008) (Exh.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index. Commodities Group: Metals and metal

products Item: Carbon scrap steel (Dec. 4, 2008) (Exh. 18).

On December 30, 2008, the Board received the transcript of December 10, 2008, the second day

of the second hearing (Tr.3). On January 5, 2009, the Board received the transcript of December

9, 2008, the first day of the second hearing (Tr.2).

In an order dated December 23, 2008, the hearing officer scheduled a third hearing for

February 3, 2009, in Edwardsville and directed participants wishing to testify at the third hearing

to pre-file testimony no later than January 20, 2009.

On January 20, 2009, the Board received post-hearing comments from IERG (PC 3),

Saint-Gobain (PC 4), and ConocoPhillips (PC 5). Also on January 20, 2009, the Board received

pre-filed testimony on behalf of the Agency from Mr. Robert Kaleel (Kaleel Pre-filed Test. 2),

Mr. Michael Koerber (Koerber Pre-filed Test.), and James E. Staudt, Ph.D. (Staudt Pre-filed

Test. 2). Also on January 20, 2009, the Agency filed a motion to correct the transcript of the

second hearing.

On January 30, 2009, the Agency filed a motion to amend its rulemaking proposal (Mot.

On January 30, 2009, the Board received supporting materials from U.S. Steel. (PC 6).

On February 2, 2009, the Board received pre-filed testimony of Mr. Blake E. Stapper on behalf

of U.S. Steel. On February 3, 2009, the Board received a public comment from Mr. James L.

Kavanaugh of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (PC 7).

The third hearing took place as scheduled on February 3, 2009, in Edwardsville. During

the third hearing, the hearing officer admitted into the record seven exhibits:

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

Calculation of Available COG after Consumption in Reheat Furnaces (Exh. 20);

Calculation of Siebenberger Exhibit A Information — COG burned in reheat furnaces per

Siebenberger December testimony (Exh. 21);

Total Boiler COG Usage from Attachment C (Exh. 22);

Calculation of Siebenberger Exhibit A Information — with 2008 COG rate, 35 day

scrubber maint. (Exh. 23);

Calculation of Siebenberger Exhibit A Information — with 2008 COG rate, no COG

scrubber maint. (Exh. 24); and

Pre-Filed Testimony of Blake E. Stapper on Behalf of United States Steel Corporation

On February 11, 2009, the Board received the transcript of the third hearing (Tr.4).

In an order dated February 19, 2009, the Board granted the Agency’s motion to amend its

rulemaking proposal and also granted the Agency’s motion to correct the transcript of the second

On March 19, 2009, the Agency filed a motion for expedited review. Also on March 19,

2009, the Agency forwarded to the Board’s Acting Chairman, Dr. G. Tanner Girard, a letter from

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (PC 8). On March 20, 2009, the

Board received Midwest Generation’s response to the Agency’s motion for expedited review.

On March 23, 2009, the Board received from Agency Director Douglas P. Scott a letter

regarding expedited review of the Agency’s amended proposal. On March 26, 2009, the Board

received IERG’s response to the Agency’s motion for expedited review. In an order dated April

2, 2009, the Board granted the Agency’s motion for expedited review.

On March 23, 2009, the Board received post-hearing comments from Midwest

Generation (PC 9), ArcelorMittal (PC 10), U.S. Steel (PC 12), IERG (PC 13), and

ConocoPhillips (PC 14). Also on March 23, 2009, the Board received post-hearing comments

from the Agency (PC 11), accompanied by the Agency’s second motion to amend its rulemaking

proposal (Mot. Amend 2).

On May 7, 2009, the Board issued its first notice opinion and order.

6896, 6921 (May 22, 2009). Among other action, that opinion granted the Agency’s second

motion to amend its rulemaking proposal.

On July 1, 2009, the Board received a comment submitted by ArcelorMittal (PC 15). On

July 6, 2009, the Board received comments submitted by IERG (PC 16), the Agency (PC 17),

ConocoPhillips (PC 18), and U.S. Steel (PC 19). On July 7, 2009, ArcelorMittal filed a motion

for leave to file a response to the Agency’s first notice comment (Mot. Leave), accompanied by

its response (PC 20). On July 8, 2009 the Board received comments submitted by the U.S.

Department of Energy and the Argonne National Laboratory (collectively, Argonne) (PC 21).

On July 15, 2009, the Agency filed a motion for leave to file

a response to the first

notice comments of U.S. Steel and ArcelorMittal (Agency Mot.), accompanied by its response to

those comments (PC 22).

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

ArcelorMittal Motion for Leave to File Response

As noted immediately above, on July 7, 2009, ArcelorMittal filed a motion for leave to

file a response to the Agency’s first notice comment.

Mot. Leave, citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code

101.500, 101.502. ArcelorMittal requests that either the Board or the hearing officer allow it to

file the accompanying response. Mot. Leave at 1;

In support of its motion, ArcelorMittal states that it filed a first notice comment on July 1,

2009, and that the Agency filed a first notice comment on July 6, 2009. Mot. Leave at 1.

ArcelorMittal claims that the Agency’s comment “raised a few issues regarding cost

effectiveness and the appropriate NO

emission limit for other sources that ArcelorMittal feels

must be rebutted.”

ArcelorMittal notes that the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides a first

notice comment period of at least 45 days and that the 45-day period ended July 6, 2009. Mot.

Leave at 1, citing 5 ILCS 100/5-40(b) (2008);

33 Ill. Reg. 6896, 6921 (May 22, 2009) (first

notice publication). ArcelorMittal notes that, while the Board has granted the Agency’s request

for expedited review of this proposal, the APA does not forbid a first notice comment period

longer than 45 days and the Board is not scheduled to meet until later in the month of July. Mot.

5 ILCS 100/5-40(b) (2008). ArcelorMittal requests that either the Board or the

hearing officer grant the motion in order “to prevent material prejudice to ArcelorMittal.” Mot.

Leave at 1. ArcelorMittal argues that “[n]o undue hardship on any party will occur by granting

this Motion.”

Section 101.500(d) of the Board’s procedural rules provides in pertinent part that,

[w]ithin 14 days after service of a motion, a party may file a response to the

motion. If no response is filed, the party will be deemed to have waived objection

to the granting of the motion, but the waiver of objection does not bind the Board

or the hearing officer in its disposition of the motion. Unless undue delay or

material prejudice would result, neither the Board nor the hearing officer will

grant any motion before expiration of the 14 day response period except in

deadline driven proceedings where no waiver has been filed. 35 Ill. Adm. Code

The Board notes that no participant has filed a response to ArcelorMittal’s motion for

leave to file a response. In the absence of a response and after reviewing the substance of the

motion, the Board grants the motion, accepts ArcelorMittal’s response, and summarizes it below.

Agency Motion for Leave to File Response

As noted above under “Procedural History,” the Agency on July 15, 2009, filed a motion

for leave to file

a response to the first notice comments of U.S. Steel and ArcelorMittal.

Agency Mot. at 1, citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500, 102.402. The Agency notes that both it

and U.S. Steel filed first notice comments with the Board on July 6, 2009. Mot. Leave at 1. The

Agency reports that “[c]ounsel for the Illinois EPA has discussed U.S. Steel’s comments with

counsel for U.S. Steel, and there is no objection to the filing of this motion.”

also notes that, on July 7, 2009, ArcelorMittal file a motion for leave to respond to the Agency’s

first notice comments, accompanied by its response.

. at 2. As noted immediately above, the

Board has granted ArcelorMittal’s motion and accepted its response. The Agency states that it

“regrets the timing of this latest request,” but it “deems it necessary to respond to U.S. Steel’s

First Notice Comments and ArcelorMittal’s Response to the Illinois EPA’s First Notice

. The Agency requests that the Board grant the motion for leave to file

As noted above, Section 101.500(d) of the Board’s procedural rules provides in pertinent

[w]ithin 14 days after service of a motion, a party may file a response to the

motion. If no response is filed, the party will be deemed to have waived objection

to the granting of the motion, but the waiver of objection does not bind the Board

or the hearing officer in its disposition of the motion. Unless undue delay or

material prejudice would result, neither the Board nor the hearing officer will

grant any motion before expiration of the 14 day response period except in

deadline driven proceedings where no waiver has been filed. 35 Ill. Adm. Code

The Board notes that it has granted the Agency’s motion to expedite consideration of this

rulemaking proposal. In granting that motion, the Board cited USEPA’s implementation

deadline and the risk of federal sanctions in the event that the state does not meet that deadline.

In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to

35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 4 (Apr. 2, 2009). The Board thus finds

that undue delay would result from allowing the 14-day response period to run to July 29, 2009,

and proceeds to decide the motion. Having reviewed the substance of the motion, the Board

grants the motion for leave to file

, accepts the Agency’s response, and summarizes it

BACKGROUND ON REGULATION OF NO

is one of the primary precursors to the formation of ozone and is also a precursor to

the formation of PM

Statement at 2, 3.

The Agency reports that, “[o]n July 18, 1997, USEPA revised the NAAQS [National

Ambient Air Quality Standard] for ozone by replacing the 1-hour standard with an 8-hour

standard.” Statement at 3, citing 62 Fed. Reg. 38856 (July 18, 1997). Illinois includes two areas

designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Statement at 3. The Chicago

nonattainment area includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties, Goose

Lake and Aux Sable Townships in Grundy County, and Oswego Township in Kendall County.

. The Metro East nonattainment area includes Jersey, Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair

The Agency also reports that, “[o]n July 18, 1997, USEPA revised the NAAQS for

particulate matter to add new standards for fine particles, using PM

as the indicator, and

established primary annual and 24-hour standards for PM

.” Statement at 4, citing 62 Fed. Reg.

38652 (July 18, 1997). The Agency states that USEPA has recently strengthened the 24-hour

standard. Statement at 4, citing 71 Fed. Reg. 61144 (Oct. 17, 2006). Illinois includes two areas

refers to particulate matter that is 2.5 micrometers or smaller in size.” Statement at 4.

designated nonattainment for the PM

standard. Statement at 4. The Chicago nonattainment

area includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties, Goose Lake and Aux

Sable Townships in Grundy County, and Oswego Township in Kendall County.

Metro East nonattainment area includes Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties and Baldwin

Township in Randolph County.

. at 5, citing 40 C.F.R. § 81.314.

The Agency states that Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and other related

provisions require states to submit for USEPA approval State Implementation Plans (SIP) “that

provide for the attainment and maintenance of standards established by USEPA through control

programs directed to sources of the pollutants involved.” Statement at 2, citing 42 U.S.C. §

7410. The Agency further states that “[t]he 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 reasonable available control technology (“RACT”).” Statement at 2,

citing 42 U.S.C §§ 7502, 7511a. Specifically, the CAA requires Illinois for each nonattainment

area “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 reasonable available control

technology) and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality

standards.’” Statement at 2, 5, citing 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1).

The Agency characterizes RACT as “[a] subset of RACM.” Statement at 6, citing 44

Fed. Reg. 53762 (Sept. 17, 1979). The Agency states that “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.” Statement at 6-7, citing 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(2). The Agency

further states that Section 182(f) of the CAA requires each state in which all or part of a

moderate nonattainment area is located to adopt RACT for major NO

sources. Statement at 7,

citing 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(f). The Agency notes that “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.” Statement at 7,

citing 42 U.S.C. § 7602.

The Agency argues that these authorities “establish the requirements for Illinois to submit

RACT regulations for all major stationary sources of NO

nonattainment areas and

ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above.” Statement at 7, citing 72 Fed.

Reg. 20586 (Apr. 25, 2007); 70 Fed. Reg. 71612 (Nov. 29, 2005). The Agency further argues

that, because Illinois includes nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above for the 8-

hour ozone NAAQS, it was “required to submit by September 15, 2006, a SIP demonstrating that

sources specified under the CAA were subject to RACT requirements.” Statement at 7-8, citing

70 Fed. Reg. 71612 (Nov. 29, 2005). The Agency claims that, “[o]n March 24, 2008, USEPA

made a finding that Illinois, among other states, failed to make a RACT submittal required under

Part D of Title I of the CAA for its two moderate nonattainment areas.” Statement at 8, citing 73

Fed. Reg. 15416 (Mar. 24, 2008). The Agency notes that “[s]uch 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 under Section 110(c) of the CAA”. Statement at 8, citing 42 U.S.C. §§

7509(a) and (b), 7410(c).

In testimony for the third hearing, Mr. Kaleel stated that USEPA on December 22, 2008,

designated areas as nonattainment for the 24-hour PM

standard. Kaleel Pre-filed Test. 2 at 3.

He further stated that, in Illinois, USEPA has designated “the same areas designated previously

as nonattainment for the annual PM

. He added that “Illinois must develop an

attainment plan and adopt control measures needed to attain the 24-hour PM

standard within

three years of the effective date of U.S. EPA’s decision, and Illinois must attain the standards

within five years of the effective date.”

Mr. Kaleel also addressed the establishment of nonattainment areas for the 2008 8-hour

ozone standard. He stated that the Agency’s “initial proposal is for Illinois to recommend to

USEPA to establish nonattainment boundaries for the 2008 standard that generally match the

boundaries already established for the 1997 ozone standard.” Kaleel Pre-filed Test. 2 at 3. He

anticipated that USEPA will complete nonattainment designations in 2010, “initiating a new

cycle of planning and regulatory development.”

. at 3-4. He expects that, because NO

precursor to both ozone and PM

emission reductions will improve air quality.

He argues that “[t]he reductions provided by the subject NO

RACT proposal will help to meet

the new standards and should help to address any future requirements to implement RACT for

the new standards.”

. Specifically, he claims that, “[u]nless USEPA issues new guidance

control technology, we expect that this RACT proposal will satisfy requirements

to implement NO

RACT under the revised NAAQS for the source categories and geographic

areas to which this proposal applies.” MG Answers at 1.

SUMMARY OF FIRST NOTICE COMMENTS

ArcelorMittal (PC 15)

ArcelorMittal states that its facility located in Riverdale “has a roller-hearth tunnel

furnace equipped with ultra-low NO

burners (ULNBs), which processes thin cast steel slabs.”

PC 15 at 1. ArcelorMittal further states that “[t]he permitted NO

emission limit for the tunnel

furnace is 0.171 lb/mmBtu.”

. ArcelorMittal notes that the Agency originally proposed a NO

emission limit of 0.05 lb/mmBtu for reheat furnaces (recuperative, combusting natural gas).

Prop. at 50 (proposed Section 217.144(a)(2)). ArcelorMittal also indicates that the Agency

has expressed the view that “ArcelorMittal’s tunnel furnace was subject to this emission limit for

reheat furnaces.” PC 15 at 1.

Technical Feasibility

ArcelorMittal states that, after it had participated in hearings and communicated with the

Agency about this proposed rule, “the Agency revised its proposed NO

emission limit for reheat

furnaces to 0.09 lb/mmBtu.”

Mot. Amend 2 at 12. ArcelorMittal states that it has

not reached a concurrence with the Agency on the applicability of this proposed rule or on the

appropriate emissions limit. PC 15 at 2. ArcelorMittal argues that the Agency failed to justify

the amended limit of 0.09 lb/mmBtu either economically or technologically and also failed to

demonstrate that it is based on RACT. PC 15 at 2. ArcelorMittal requests that the Board

reconsider the amended emission limit of 0.09 lb/mmBtu “based on economic reasonableness,

technical feasibility and product quality issues.”

In its post-hearing comments, the Agency stated that it had surveyed NO

emission limits

for recently-constructed furnaces similar to ArcelorMittal’s. PC 11 at 21;

PC 15 at 3; PC 15,

Exh. A (Table: Summary of NO

Emissions from Reheat Furnaces). ArcelorMittal distinguishes

furnaces cited by the Agency from its own. First, ArcelorMittal notes that the Agency’s survey

lists an emission limit of 0.0147 lb/mmBtu for the Beta Steel reheat furnace slab 2 in Porter

County, Indiana. PC 15 at 3; PC 15, Exh. A. ArcelorMittal states that it determined that that

limit “was the original permit limit based on manufacturer’s estimates, which the source

subsequently could not consistently meet.”

. at 3. ArcelorMittal states that, based on Beta

Steel’s operating permit, the current emission limit for its reheat furnace is 0.077 lb/mmBtu. PC

15 at 3; PC 15, Exh. B (Indiana operating permit);

PC 20 at 2 n.1 (correcting original

reference to limit of 0.77 lb/mmBtu).

Second, ArcelorMittal states that the Nucor Steel facility in Tuscaloosa, Alabama differs

from its own facility, as Nucor has an equalizing furnace operating “much differently that (sic)

the tunnel furnace at Riverdale.” PC 15 at 3-4. In addition, ArcelorMittal states that Nucor

produces slabs five inches thick, while its own Riverdale facility produces slabs only two inches

ArcelorMittal Comment at 2 (Nov. 25, 2008). ArcelorMittal also states that

the V&M Star facility in Mahoning County, Ohio differs from its own facility, as V&M Star has

a billet furnace operating “much differently” than a tunnel furnace. PC 15 at 3-4.

Third, ArcelorMittal states that two of the facilities summarized by the Agency, New

Steel International in Haverhill, Ohio and Minnesota Steel Industries, LLC in Itasca County,

Minnesota “have not been constructed to date.” PC 15 at 4;

PC 15, Exh. A. Finally,

ArcelorMittal argues that, although the Severstal Columbus facility in Columbus, Mississippi “is

similar to the Riverdale facility,” it has not yet been issued a final permit.

ArcelorMittal notes that the Severstal Columbus facility includes two tunnel furnaces, a factor

that may influence the emission limit.

. ArcelorMittal argues that none of these three facilities

has demonstrated achievement of the emission limits cited by the Agency.

ArcelorMittal concludes that the Agency’s “reliance on outdated, erroneous, or never-applied-in-

practice emission limits for ‘similar sources’” casts doubt on the feasibility and appropriateness

of the proposed limit of 0.09 lb/mmBtu.

Economic Reasonableness

Addressing the issue of economic reasonableness, ArcelorMittal notes that the Agency

had established costs in the range of $2,500 to $3,000 per ton of emissions reduced. PC 15 at 4,

5, citing Tr.1 at 165-66, 173-74, Tr.4 at 75. ArcelorMittal further notes that the Agency’s TSD

characterized as typical costs of $1,000 per ton reduced. PC 15 at 4, 5, citing TSD at 99.

Finally, ArcelorMittal notes that USEPA’s implementation of the 8-hour ozone implementation

rule considered costs of less than $2,000 per ton reduced as reasonable for the purposes of

RACT. PC 15 at 4, 5, citing 70 Fed. Reg. 71652, 71654 (Nov. 29, 2005). ArcelorMittal states

that it prepared its own economic analysis in order to determine the cost effectiveness based on

“next-generation” ULNBs now available. PC 15 at 5. That analysis determined a cost

effectiveness ranging from $22,895 to $39,472 per ton of NO

emissions reduced.

at 6. ArcelorMittal emphasizes that these burner changes guaranteed emissions of 0.068

lb/mmBtu and 0.054 lb/mmBtu. PC 15 at 5;

PC 10, Exh. A. While ArcelorMittal

acknowledges that these guarantees are lower than the Agency’s proposed emission limit, it

argues that “this does not change the analysis that ArcelorMittal would have to install one of the

two next-generation burners to meet the proposed revised limit.” PC 15 at 5. Furthermore,

ArcelorMittal argues that these cost estimates “did not include yield cost impacts and the

associated cost of production downtime to convert the furnace” and also assumed that the

converted furnace could continue to meet product quality specifications.

Operational Issues

ArcelorMittal expresses concern with the effect of changing burners on the operation of

the tunnel furnace and on slab quality. PC 15 at 5. ArcelorMittal argues that such a change

would involve the modification or replacement of numerous elements of the furnace.

Furthermore, because its steel-making process is continuous and because of the lack of

redundancy in its operation, ArcelorMittal states that “the tunnel furnace must operate optimally

at all times.”

. at 6. ArcelorMittal suggests that changing burners may jeopardize the

continuous operation and may undermine its investment in developing unique products.

ArcelorMittal argues that that, because of operational and functional differences, its

tunnel furnace cannot be appropriately compared to other reheat furnaces. PC 15 at 6.

ArcelorMittal further argues that the Agency’s summary of emissions from other reheat furnaces

does not provide support for the Agency’s proposed emission limit.

. ArcelorMittal

specifically requests that the Board “allow a source to be exempt from the proposed NO

emission limits upon an adequate demonstration that additional NO

controls would be

economically unreasonable.”

. at 6-7. ArcelorMittal believes that it has made such a

demonstration “and requests utilization of the emission limit currently applicable and permitted

for the tunnel furnace” at its Riverdale facility.

Agency (PC 17)

The Agency states that its first notice comments address two matters: proposing

corrections and clarifications to the first notice publication of the proposed rules, and responding

to the first notice comments filed by ArcelorMittal. PC 17 at 1;

see generally

PC 15. The Board

separately summarizes the Agency’s comments on those two matters in the following

Corrections and Clarifications

The Agency first proposes to amend the definition of “industrial boiler” at proposed

Section 211.3100 “by striking the reference to ‘cogeneration units.’” PC 17 at 1-2, citing In the

Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 26, 71 (May 7, 2009). Second, the Agency

proposes in Section 217.104 to update three incorporations by reference at subsections (l), (o),

and (p). PC 17 at 2. The Agency also seeks in proposed subsections (q) and (r) to incorporate by

reference additional materials.

. The Agency attached to its comments a copy of the second

set of materials, “40 C.F.R. 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification 16, 74 Fed. Reg. 12575

(Mar. 25, 2009).” PC 17 at 2. Third, the Agency also seeks to “[a]mend the heading of Subpart

D of Part 217 by deleting the reference to ‘Industrial Boilers; and adding “NO

Requirements.’”

Fourth, the Agency proposes to clarify Section 217.154, which addresses performance

testing, by amending “subsections (a) and (b) to add references to ‘emissions limitations under’

an applicable Subpart and to add the exclusion for a ‘predictive emission monitoring system, or

combustion tuning.’” PC 17 at 2-3. Fifth, in subsections (a) and (g) of Section 217.158, the

Agency seeks to correct a cross-reference to Section 217.150(a)(1).

. at 3. Sixth, in Section

217.158(a)(2), addressing units that may not be included in an emissions averaging plan, the

Agency proposes to amend subsection (C) with additional language regarding enforceable

Seventh, in Section 217.158 addressing emissions averaging plans, the Agency proposes

language for a new subsection (j). PC 17 at 3. Eighth, in Section 217.160, which addresses

applicability to industrial boilers, the Agency proposed to amend subsection (b) “by striking the

references to ‘cogeneration units’ and adding reference to boilers that ‘meet the applicability

criteria under Subpart M of Part 217.’”

. at 4, citing In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides

Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and

217, R08-19, slip op. at 45-46 (May 7, 2009). Ninth, in Section 217.164 addressing emissions

limitations for industrial boilers, that Agency proposes to amend the first paragraph with specific

language. PC 17 at 4.

Tenth, at Section 217.164(e), which provides an equation with which to determinate the

emissions limitation for an industrial boiler combusting a combination of natural gas, coke

oven gas, and blast furnace gas, the Agency proposes to amend the denominator in the equation.

PC 17 at 4, citing In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories:

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 98 (May 7, 2009);

PC 19 at 6 (U.S. Steel comment). Eleventh, at Section 217.184 addressing emissions

limitations for process heaters, the Agency proposes to amend the first paragraph with specific

language. PC 17 at 4. Twelfth, at Section 217.204 addressing emissions limitations for glass

melting furnaces, the Agency proposes to amend subsection (b) “due to the special

characteristics of glass melting and further discussions with Saint-Gobain.”

Thirteenth, in Section 217.244 addressing iron and steel and aluminum manufacturing,

the Agency proposes to amend subsection (b) “by correcting emissions limitations” with specific

language. PC 17 at 5, citing In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source

Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 105 (May

7, 2009). Fourteenth, in Section 217.340 addressing applicability to electrical generating units,

the Agency proposes specific language to add a “reference to any ‘fossil’ fuel-fired stationary

boiler serving ‘at any time’ a generator.” PC 17 at 5, citing In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides

Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and

217, R08-19, slip op. at 55-56 (May 7, 2009). Fifteenth, in Section 217.342, addressing

exemptions for electrical generating units, the Agency proposed to amend subsection (b) in light

of a separate Board rulemaking docket. PC 17 at 5; citing Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code

225: Control of Emissions from Large Combustion Sources (Mercury Monitoring), R09-10

(June 18, 2009) (final adoption). Finally, in Appendix H to Part 217, which provides compliance

dates for emission units at petroleum refineries, the Agency proposes corrections. PC 17 at 6.

Response to ArcelorMittal

The Agency states that ArcelorMittal’s first notice comments claim that the Agency

failed to justify its proposed revised emissions limitation and to demonstrate that it was based

upon RACT. PC 17 at 7, citing PC 15. The Agency counters that its TSD “provides detailed

performance and cost information that demonstrates that the proposed emissions limitations

contained in the rulemaking proposal are feasible technologically and economically.” PC 17 at

7, citing TSD. The Agency claims that “the NO

control technologies identified for reheat,

annealing and galvanizing furnaces at iron and steel plant are reasonably available, technically

feasible, and cost effective, even recognizing the tunnel design on ArcelorMittal’s reheat

furnace.” PC 17 at 7;

TSD at 92-101 (Reheat, Annealing and Galvanizing Furnaces at

Iron/Steel Plants).

The Agency indicates that ArcelorMittal has reviewed the summary of NO

limitations on which the Agency based its motion to amend the limitation for recuperative reheat

furnaces combusting natural gas. PC 17 at 7. The Agency seeks to counter ArcelorMittal’s

“attempts to distinguish itself from the sources surveyed.”

. The Agency notes

ArcelorMittal’s claim that “the NO

emissions limitation for Beta Steel Corporation’s natural

gas-fired reheat furnace slab 2 of 0.0147 lb/mmBtu was the original permit limit based on the

manufacturer’s estimates, whereas the current permit limit is 0.77 lb/mmBtu.”

., citing PC 15

at 3. The Agency argues that “[t]he permit limit that ArcelorMittal cites to is actually 0.077

lb/mmBtu, which is more stringent that the emissions limitation proposed by the Illinois EPA.”

The Agency also notes ArcelorMittal’s claim that neither the Nucor Steel facility in

Tuscaloosa, Alabama, nor the V&M Star facility in Mahoning County, Ohio, is similar to its own

facility. PC 17 at 7-8. The Agency further notes ArcelorMittal’s claim that neither the New

Steel International facility in Haverhill, Ohio, nor the Minnesota Steel Industries LLC facility in

Itasca County, Minnesota, has been constructed.

. at 8. The Agency argues that “[e]missions

limitations set forth in construction permits are enforceable limits, and the actions of these states

to require such emission limits support the Illinois EPA’s proposal as technologically feasible for

this type of reheat furnace.”

The Agency also addresses ArcelorMittal’s economic analysis and its “estimated cost

effectiveness for burner changes based upon the next-generation ultra low NO

burners currently

available.” PC 17 at 8, citing PC 10, Exh. A (filed March 23, 2009). The Agency expresses the

opinion that “the economic analysis provided by ArcelorMittal is flawed and should not be relied

upon as evidence that the proposed emission limits are beyond RACT from an economic

perspective.” PC 17 at 8. The Agency argues that ArcelorMittal relies on Series 1430 burners

designed in the 1980s that do not constitute “advanced NO

control technology.”

The Agency notes that ArcelorMittal’s estimated cost effectiveness is $22,985 per ton of

removed under one scenario and $39,472 under another.

PC 10, Exh. A. Noting

that ArcelorMittal’s scenarios are based upon a five-year equipment life, the Agency argues that

“the expected equipment life is much greater than five years, as the existing burners in

ArcelorMittal’s furnace are about 20 years old.” PC 17 at 8 (proposing 15-20 years expected

life). The Agency argues that, “[b]y using unreasonably low equipment life in the economic

analysis, ArcelorMittal has overstated the annualized costs of installing and maintaining the

controls needed to comply with the Illinois EPA’s proposal.”

. The Agency further argues that

ArcelorMittal’s estimates rely on an interest rate of ten percent and a contingency of 20 percent,

both of which it characterizes as “high.”

. The Agency claims that these high estimates also

overstate the costs of complying with its proposal.

. at 8-9. On these grounds, the Agency

argues that “ArcelorMittal’s economic analysis should not be relied upon as evidence that the

proposed emission limits are beyond RACT.”

The Agency also notes ArcelorMittal’s request that the Board propose for second notice

language that would “allow a source to be exempt from the proposed NO

emissions limitations

upon an adequate demonstration that additional NO

controls would be economically

unreasonable.” PC 17 at 9. The Agency argues that its proposal does not include the case-by-

case RACT determinations that ArcelorMittal apparently seeks.

. The Agency states that it

“opposes the inclusion of such options in this proposal.”

. The Agency notes that “[t]he

Board’s regulations include mechanisms for regulatory relief under specific circumstances” and

“acknowledges that sources may initiate proceedings for such relief.”

U.S. Steel (PC 19)

U.S. Steel states that the proposed rulemaking would affect boilers, slab reheat furnaces,

and galvanizing lines at its Granite City Works (GCW). PC 19 at 1, citing Exh. 10 at 5 (pre-filed

testimony of Mr. Larry G. Siebenberger). U.S. Steel reports that, after participating in the

hearings and a series of discussions with the Agency, it reached agreement with the Agency on

emission limits for Boilers 11 and 12 and slab furnaces 1 through 4. PC 19 at

2-3. Accordingly, U.S. Steel states that it “supported the Agency’s proposed amendments to the

rule as described in the Agency’s Second Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal and Post-

Hearing Comments filed with the Board on March 23, 2009.”

see generally

Amend 2. Nonetheless, U.S. Steel comments that it wishes to clarify the use of desulfurized

coke oven gas (“COG”) and “reiterate the need for revision to the proposed emission averaging

provisions to cover time periods when the desulfurization unit is shutdown due to unplanned

outages or upsets.” PC 19 at 3. U.S. Steel further comments that it proposes to amend the

proposed Section 217.157 so it is consistent with the construction permit for its cogeneration

Desulfurization Unit

U.S. Steel notes that, under the proposed subsection 217.158(i), “calculations for

limits during the averaging period will not include periods when the COG

desulfurization unit is shut down for maintenance so long as certain conditions are met.” PC 19

Mot. Amend 2 at 9. These conditions include advance notice of shutdown and a limit

on the number of shutdown days. PC 19 at 3; Mot. Amend 2 at 9. U.S. Steel states that, while

this proposed language works very well for planned maintenance, it does not adequately address

brief unplanned outages or upsets of the COG desulfurization unit. PC 19 at 3

restates its request that “the Board include a revision to the averaging provision to accommodate

such brief outages and upsets, as well as startups and shutdowns, of the COG desulfurization

PC 12 at 3 (post-hearing comment). Because the unit will not operate

during those periods, U.S. Steel argues that, like planned maintenance shutdowns, they should

not be included in averaging calculations. PC 19 at 4.

U.S. Steel again stresses that it has not completed construction of its COG desulfurization

unit. PC 19 at 4. U.S. Steel also stresses that “the proposed emission limitations are based on

desulfurized COG having an

concentration of hydrogen cyanide or HCN of 130 ppm

. (emphasis in original). U.S. Steel thus states that “[t]he limitations associated with

the use of desulfurized COG will have to be revisited once construction of the COG

desulfurization unit is complete, if the actual concentration of HCN is greater than 130 ppm.”

U.S. Steel expresses the understanding that a change in the rules may be necessary after it

completes construction of the COG desulfurization unit.

Emissions Monitoring

U.S Steel states that proposed Section 217.157(a)(1) “requires that owners or operators of

industrial boilers that are greater than 250 mmBtu/hr install and operate a continuous emissions

monitoring system (“CEMS”) to measure NO

emission in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 75.”

Prop. at 32. U.S. Steel further states that it “is constructing a blast furnace gas

cogeneration boiler with a heat input capacity of 505 mmBtu/hr.” PC 19 at 4;

at 10 (construction permit § 3.1.2). U.S. Steel argues that, if Section 217.157(a)(1) is adopted as

proposed, its cogeneration boiler will be subject to the CEMS requirement. PC 19 at 4.

U.S. Steel claims, however, that this requirement conflicts with the construction permit

issued by the Agency. PC 19 at 4;

., Att. A. Specifically, U.S. Steel states that condition

3.1.8-1(a) of that permit provides that

the Permittee shall install, calibrate, operate, and maintain NO

continuous monitoring system(s) on the affected unit within one year after the

initial emission testing required by this permit unless this testing or further testing

conducted by the Permittee demonstrates that the unit normally complies by a

margin of at least 5 percent with the NO

and CO emission limit in this permit or

the Illinois EPA approves further time for the Permittee to achieve this level of

. at 4-5, citing

., Att. A at 15.

U.S. Steel argues that the Board should amend proposed Section 217.157(a) to exempt the

cogeneration boiler from the requirements of that section “so long as U.S. Steel complies with

the terms of the construction permit issued for such boiler.”

. at 5. Specifically, U.S. Steel

proposed that the Board add the following language to the proposed Section 217.157(a):

[t]he owner or operator of an industrial boiler combusting blast furnace gas

subject to Subpart E of this Part with a rated heat input capacity greater than 500

mmBtu/hr located at a source that manufactures iron or steel must install,

calibrate, operate, and maintain continuous monitoring systems on the emission

unit within one year after the initial emission testing required by the state

construction permit issued by the Agency for the emission unit, unless this testing

or further testing conducted by the owner or operator of the emission unit

demonstrates that the emission unit normally complies by a margin of at least 5

percent with the NO

emission limit in the state construction permit issued by the

Agency for the emission unit or the Agency approves further time for the owner

or operator to achieve this level of performance. PC 19 at 5.

U.S. Steel also argues that, if the Board adopts this additional language, the Board should also

include a cross-reference to it in the proposed Section 217.157(a)(1).

ConocoPhillips (PC 18)

ConocoPhillips states that the proposed rule would establish NO

RACT limits applicable

to sources “including many of the boilers and process heaters” at its Wood River Refinery. PC

18 at 1. ConocoPhillips refers to its post-hearing comments, in which it described “two

remaining concerns with the Agency’s proposed rule.”

., citing PC 14 at 2-3.

ConocoPhillips states that it has continued to work with the Agency to “resolve several

issues related to maintenance turnarounds for NO

pollution control equipment and the inclusion

of boilers and process heaters in emission averaging plans.” PC 18 at 2. ConocoPhillips further

states that it has “reached agreement with the Agency on these issues.”

. at 2-3. Consequently,

“ConocoPhillips supports the Agency’s proposed amendments to the rule as described in the

Agency’s First Notice Comments.”

PC 17 at 3 (proposing correction and

clarification of Section 217.158).

IERG (PC 16)

IERG states that, while the rulemaking process has addressed many of its questions and

concerns, it wishes to address a few remaining matters. PC 16 at 1-3, citing PC 13 at 3-8 (IERG

post-hearing comment). In addition, IERG states that it seeks “clarification of certain provisions

based on discussions held with its Members following issuance of the First Notice Opinion and

Order.” PC 16 at 3. The Board addresses these issues in the subsections below.

Emissions Limits

IERG concurs with the Board’s opinion that the Agency has explained in detail how the

twice-amended rulemaking proposal is RACT for NO

. PC 16 at 3, citing In the Matter of:

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code

Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 20 (May 7, 2009). IERG notes the Agency’s indication

that “it intends the NO

RACT rule to ‘provide a floor,’

, a minimum emission limit, that a

new unit in the nonattainment areas can be expected to be required to meet.” PC 16 at 4, citing

PC 11 at 19-20. IERG also notes that the Board has stated that the proposed standards may

provide a “benchmark for future emission sources that may be located in the nonattainment

areas.” PC 16 at 4, citing In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source

Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 19 (May 7,

IERG acknowledges that benchmarks have value but expresses the concern that, if a

benchmark becomes a RACT ‘floor,’ it may complicate permitting for new sources. PC 16 at 4.

IERG generally agrees with the Agency that “new source permitting should, in theory, result in

more strict requirements than a RACT rule.”

., citing PC 11 at 20. Nonetheless, IERG argues

that a site-specific analysis to determine the level of NO

control technology constituting BACT

or LAER for a new source could yield an emissions limitation less stringent than a RACT

‘floor.’ PC 16 at 4. Expressing uncertainty regarding the Agency’s application of such a

“floor,” IERG states that it “raises this issue so that the Board may be aware of the likelihood

that some sources may require the Board’s consideration of site-specific relief at a future date.”

Compliance Date

IERG argues that a compliance date of January 1, 2014, would provide a greater

“opportunity for planning and financing any necessary modifications to facilities.” PC 16 at 4.

Nonetheless, “IERG acknowledges the validity of the Agency’s arguments for adoption of the

2012 [compliance] date, particularly in regard to the impact these rules are intended to have on

the newest ozone standard and the PM

daily standard.”

. at 4-5. On this issue, IERG

expresses its appreciation for “the Agency’s stated willingness to work with impacted facilities

to achieve compliance in an appropriate and timely manner.”

Averaging Provisions

IERG expresses substantial agreement with the Board’s revision of Section

217.158(a)(1)(C), addressed by both IERG and the Agency, regarding replacement units in

emissions averaging plans. PC 16 at 5, citing In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from

Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip

op. at 41-42, 92 (May 7, 2009). To improve the clarity of that subsection, IERG proposes in the

fifth line to add a comma after “capacity” as follows:

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

emissions on an annual basis than the actual NO

of the 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 be included in an emissions averaging plan. PC 16 at 5, citing 33 Ill.

Reg. 6955 (May 22, 2009);

In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides

Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 92 (May 7, 2009).

In addition, IERG notes that the first notice version of subsection 217.158(d), addressing

updates to emissions averaging plans, provides that,

If a unit that is listed in an emission averaging plan is taken out of service,

the owner or operator must submit to the Agency, within 30 days of such

occurrence, an updated emissions averaging plan; or

If a unit that was exempt from the requirements of Subpart E, F, G, H, I,

or M of this Part pursuant to Section 217.162, 217.182, 217.202, 217.222,

217.242, or 217.342, of this Part, as applicable, no longer qualifies for an

exemption, the owner or operator may amend its existing averaging plan

to include such unit within 30 days after the unit no longer qualifies for the

exemption. PC 16 at 6, citing 33 Ill. Reg. 6956;

In the Matter of:

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories:

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at

43, 93 (May 7, 2009).

IERG argues that, in the absence of a specific definition, “taking a unit out of service for a brief

period of time for routine maintenance and repair could require modifying an emissions

averaging plan.” PC 16 at 6. IERG further argues that emissions averaging equations account

for time during which a unit is not operating or is out of service, “whether for routine

maintenance or repair, or due to operational requirements.”

. IERG also argues that the

computation accounts for a unit that is “permanently shut down.”

. Accordingly, IERG

suggests that the Board delete Section 217.158(d)(1) as “unnecessary.”

In the event that the Board regards the subsection as necessary for recordkeeping, IERG

proposes alternative language under which “the requirement to update an emission averaging

plan would apply only to units that are ‘permanently shut down:’

If a unit that is listed in an emissions averaging plan is permanently shut

downtaken out of service, the owner or operator must submit to the

Agency, within 390 days of such occurrence, an updated emissions

averaging plan; or. PC 16 at 6.

Regarding Section 217.158(d)(2), IERG states that the provision “allows units that were

previously exempt to be included in an averaging plan by amending the plan ‘within 30 days

after the unit no longer qualifies for the exemption.’” PC 16 at 7. IERG argues that this

language does not clearly indicate whether, if an owner or operator does not update the averaging

plan within 30 days, the owner or operator can include the unit in the plan after that 30-day

period has elapsed.

. IERG further argues that “[o]nce a unit is no longer exempt, it is subject

to all of the applicable provisions of the proposed rule, and there should be no need for a time

limit for including such units in an emission averaging plan.”

Next, IERG claims that, consistent with the Agency’s intent, “this language is to describe

exceptions to the once-per-year limit to amending emission averaging plans contained in the

proposed [Section] 217.158(c).” PC 16 at 7. Accordingly, IERG proposed that the board amend

Section 217.158(d)(2) as follows:

If a unit that was exempt from the requirements of Subpart E, F, G, H, I, or

M of this Part pursuant to Section 217.162, 217.182, 217.202, 217.222,

217.242, or 217.342, of this Part, as applicable, no longer qualifies for an

exemption, the owner or operator may amend its existing averaging plan at

any time to include such unit within 30 days after the unit no longer

qualifies for the exemption. PC 16 at 7.

IERG states that the proposed Section 217.158(h) “would allow exclusion from the

‘calculation demonstrating compliance’ certain time periods when a unit is shut down for a

maintenance turnaround.” PC 16 at 7;

In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from

Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip

op. at 44, 96 (May 7, 2009). IERG further states that, “[i]n order to rely on the proposed

exemption, an owner/operator would have to notify the Agency in writing in advance,

shut down must not exceed 45 days per ozone season or calendar year.” PC 16 at 7 (emphasis in

original). IERG requests that the Board clarify this provision by revising it so that it “does not

restrict that a shut down of a covered unit during an actual maintenance turnaround be limited to

45 days, but that, instead, the exemption from the calculation demonstrating compliance would

be limited to 45 days.”

. at 7-8. IERG stresses that, particularly at a large facility such as a

petroleum refinery, a planned maintenance turnaround may extend beyond 45 days because of

“delays associated with weather, manpower and equipment availability, as well as unplanned or

unforeseen mechanical setbacks.”

. at 8. Accordingly, IERG proposes to amend Section

217.158(h) as follows:

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

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

other emission units operating during the maintenance turnaround. This

provision is in no way intended to restrict to 45 days or less the shutdown

of a covered unit during a maintenance turnaround.

., citing 33 Ill. Reg.

Types of Units Not in Nonattainment Areas

IERG states that it has repeatedly raised the concern that the Agency’s proposal

“establishes emissions limits for units that are not present in the nonattainment areas subject to

this proposal”. PC 16 at 8, citing PC 13 at 8; IERG Questions at 4; Tr.1 at 57-64. IERG

continues to consider these proposed limits as inappropriate, arguing that “[t]he owners and

operators of units potentially impacted under this proposal have not had the opportunity to

participate in this rulemaking.” PC 16 at 9. Specifically, IERG expresses the concern that,

“[c]onsidering unit-specific factors, a detailed case-by-case analysis for a particular unit could

show that, for that unit, the proposed emission limit does not reflect the application of

‘reasonably available control technology.’”

IERG also expresses the concern that that

proposed limits may serve as a “‘RACT floor’ for those units located outside of the

nonattainment areas, whose owners and operators have not had opportunity for unit-specific

discussions with Illinois IEPA during the course of this proceeding.”

. at 9-10. IERG

expresses its “strong position that the emissions limits contained in the proposal should not be

interpreted to represent what is ‘reasonably available control technology.’”

argues that “[s]uch implications may not have been addressed in this proceeding, and may call

for establishing different emissions limits.”

Reporting Requirements

Proposed Section 217.156(j) provides in part that “[t]he owner or operator of an emission

unit subject to the requirements of this Subpart and demonstrating compliance through the use of

a continuous emissions monitoring system must submit to the Agency a report within 30 days

after the end of each calendar quarter.” In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from

Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip

op. at 36, 86 (May 7, 2009). IERG notes that proposed subsections (j)(1) and (j)(2) require that

those reports include two specified items:

Information indentifying and explaining the times and dates when

continuous emissions monitoring for NO

was not in operation, other than

for purposes of calibrating or performing quality assurance or quality

control activities for the monitoring equipment; and

An excess emissions and monitoring systems performance report in

accordance with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. 60.7(c) and (d) and 60.13,

or 40 C.F.R. 75, or an alternate procedure approved by the Agency and

USEPA. PC 16 at 10-11, citing 33 Ill. Reg. 6948 (May 22, 2009);

the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source

Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-

19, slip op. at 36, 86 (May 7, 2009).

IERG proposes to delete subsection (j)(1) and to amend subsection (j)(2) as follows:

An excess emissions and monitoring systems performance report and/or

summary report in accordance with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. 60.7(c)

and (d) and 60.13, or 40 C.F.R. 75.73(f), or an alternate procedure

approved by the Agency and USEPA. PC 16 at 11.

IERG argues that the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) cited in proposed

subsection (j)(2) embody “[t]he fundamental requirements of subsection (j)(1).”

argues that “[t]hose CFR references provide, among other things, the criteria and reporting detail

for reporting continuous emissions monitoring down time, which are not included in subsection

. IERG claims that striking subsection (j)(1) “would avoid the potential for confusion

resulting from the CFR reference included in [subsection] (j)(2).”

IERG cites clarity and correctness in proposing to revise subsection (j)(2). PC 16 at 11.

First, IERG argues that, “[t]he reference to 40 C.F.R. 60.13 pertains to Monitoring

Requirements, and not recordkeeping and reporting, and thus should be excluded.”

IERG states that 40 C.F.R. 60.7(c) and (d) do address the report that is the subject of subsection

. Third, IERG claims that “40 C.F.R. 75.73(f) refers specifically to the quarterly

reporting requirements within the recordkeeping and reporting provisions of 40 C.F.R. 75.73,

which is the topic of proposed Section 217.156(j).”

. IERG argues that “[t]he general

requirements for continuous emissions monitoring pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 75 are already

referenced in the proposed rule in Section 217.157 (Testing and Monitoring).

Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 36-40, 86-91 (May 7, 2009) (proposed Section

Corrections

IERG states that a comparison of the proposed amendments in Board’s first notice order

and those published in the

Illinois Register

shows differences between those two versions. PC

16 at 12. IERG lists those that it believes may be substantive in nature.

. The Board below

summarizes particular corrections proposed by IERG.

IERG notes that, although the Board’s table of contents for Part 217 amends the title of

Section 217.141, the

Illinois Register

does not reflect that change in the table of contents,

although it reflects the amended title elsewhere. PC 16 at 12;

In the Matter of:

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code

Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 72 (May 7, 2009)

33 Ill. Reg. 6931, 6939 (May 22,

2009). IERG also notes that the Board’s Section 217.141(c) contains specific language that does

not appear in the

Illinois Register

In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides

Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and

217, R08-19, slip op. at 79-80 (May 7, 2009)

33 Ill. Reg. 6940. Also, IERG states that

“Section 217.141(d)(1) differs in the two versions.” Specifically, IERG notes that the Board in

that subsection changes “sources” to “units,” but the

Illinois Register

does not. PC 16 at 13;

In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories:

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 80 (May 7, 2009)

33 Ill. Reg. at 6941.

IERG states that the

Illinois Register

has titled Subpart D as “Industrial Boilers” and

suggests that it should instead be titled “NO

General Requirements.” PC 16 at 13, citing In the

Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 80 (May 7, 2009); 33 Ill. Reg. 6941. IERG

also states that Section 217.154(d) addressing performance testing also differs between the two

versions. PC 16 at 13. IERG argues that this difference may generate some confusion about

whether the 30-day and five-day notice of performance testing must both be in writing.

IERG claims that, in Section 217.164(e), the equation for calculating the NO

limitation for an industrial boiler combusting a combination of natural gas, coke oven gas, and

blast furnace gas, the

Illinois Register

versions “is missing the subscript ‘BFG’ and closing

parenthesis.” PC 16 at 13, citing In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various

Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 98

(May 7, 2009); 33 Ill. Reg. 6962;

PC 17 at 4 (Agency comment). IERG also notes that, in

Section 217.244(b) addressing emissions limitations for iron and steel and aluminum

manufacturing, the two versions provide different limitations. PC 16 at 13-14, citing In the

Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 105 (May 7, 2009); 33 Ill. Reg. 6970. Finally,

IERG notes that the two versions Appendix H, providing compliance dates for certain emissions

units at petroleum refineries, differ in specific aspects. PC 16 at 14, citing In the Matter of:

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code

Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 106-07 (May 7, 2009); 33 Ill. Reg. 6972-73.

Noting the Agency’s motion to expedite consideration of its proposal, IERG expresses

support for adopting amendments on a schedule that avoids the risk of federal sanctions. PC 11

at 14. IERG suggests that that schedule allows the Board to give due consideration to the issues

raised in its comments.

. IERG states that, beyond those issues, it “can offer its support

for the amendments as proposed at first-notice.”

Department of Energy/Argonne National Laboratory (PC 21)

Argonne states that it has “identified a number of inconsistencies with respect to

industrial boilers (Subpart E) with a rated heat input capacity of less than or equal to 100

mmBtu/hr.” PC 21 at 1. Argonne notes that these boilers are required to perform combustion

tuning instead of meeting a numeric NO

emission limit.

In the Matter of: Nitrogen

Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211

and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 98-99 (May 7, 2009) (proposed Section 217.166). Argonne states

that it has identified inconsistencies pertaining to proposed requirements for performance testing,

CEMS, and predictive emission monitoring systems (PEMS). PC 21 at 1.

Specifically, Argonne notes that the proposed Section 217.154(a) “requires performance

testing for all industrial boilers regardless of size, unless they employ CEMS.” PC 21;

Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 82 (May 7, 2009) (proposed Section 217.154).

Argonne states that, “[f]or boilers less than or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr rated heat input

demonstrating compliance through an emissions averaging plan and not using CEMS, Section

217.157(a)(4) requires performance testing, but that section does not address boilers less than or

equal to 100 mmBtu/hr rated heat input where emissions averaging is not used.” PC 21 at 1;

In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to

35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 87-88 (May 7, 2009).

Argonne continues by stating that “Section 217.157(a)(5) indicates that boilers less than

or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr rated heat input may use CEMS in place of emissions averaging under

Section 217.157(a)(4), but since there is no numeric NO

limit specified for such boilers in

Section 217.164, the use of CEMS would appear to be of little value.” PC 21 at 1.;

Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 87-88, 97-98 (May 7, 2009). Argonne also

claims that, “[s]imilarly, the use of PEMS specified in Section 217.157(f) for boilers less than or

equal to 100 mmBtu/hr rated heat input to show compliance to a non-numeric limit (combustion

tuning) would also seem unnecessary.” PC 21 at 1;

In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides

Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and

217, R08-19, slip op. at 91 (May 7, 2009).

Argonne requests clarification of the inconsistencies that it cites. PC 21 at 1. Argonne

also proposes two specific revisions regarding industrial boilers with a rated heat input less than

or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr for which combustion tuning is required.

In the Matter of:

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code

Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 97-97 (May 7, 2009) (proposed Section 217.164).

Argonne first proposes “that performance testing not be required.” PC 21 at 1. Second, Argonne

proposes that “the use of CEMS or PEMS also not be required (although this could be employed

at the option of the facility,

, if the facility chose to use emissions averaging).”

RESPONSES TO FIRST NOTICE COMMENTS

ArcelorMittal Response to Agency Comment

ArcelorMittal notes that its economic analysis of the cost effectiveness of a burner

change for the tunnel furnace at its facility “assumed a 5-year equipment life and a contingency

factor of 20%.” PC 20 at 1. ArcelorMittal emphasizes that, in relying on these assumptions, it

used figures published by USEPA and so noted in its analysis.

Responding to the Agency, ArcelorMittal states that it revised that analysis by assuming a 15-

year equipment life and a contingency of ten percent. PC 20 at 2. ArcelorMittal reports that this

revised analysis “indicates a cost-effectiveness of $10,348/ton of NO

removed for a next-

generation 1500 burner and a cost-effectiveness of $17,841/ton of NO

removed for a 1550

. , Exh. A. ArcelorMittal argues that these figures are “well in excess” of the range of

costs provided by the USEPA, the Agency, and the Technical Support Document.

ArcelorMittal also replies to the Agency’s comments regarding emissions limits for other

PC 17 at 7-8. The Agency had indicated an emissions limit of 0.0147 lb/mmBtu

applicable to the Beta Steel facility in Porter County, Indiana. PC 20 at 2;

ArcelorMittal’s comment stated that this figure was based on a manufacturer’s estimate and that

the actual permitted level is 0.077 lb/mmBtu. PC 15 at 3, PC 20 at 2. ArcelorMittal

acknowledges the Agency’s comment that this permitted level is lower than the 0.09 lb/mmBtu

limit included in its proposal. PC 20 at 2. ArcelorMittal argues that, because the Agency erred

in listing the emissions limit applicable to this facility, it casts doubt on the Agency’s proposed

limit for reheat furnaces.

ArcelorMittal argues that the Agency has failed to demonstrate that its proposal is both

economically reasonable and technically feasible with regard to reheat furnaces. PC 20 at 3.

ArcelorMittal requests that the Board determine that the current permitted emissions limit of

0.171 lb/mmBtu applicable to its Riverdale facility constitutes RACT.

. ArcelorMittal further

argues that it would “conserve the time and resources of all parties by not requiring

ArcelorMittal to initiate a proceeding for subsequent regulatory relief.”

Agency Response to U.S. Steel and ArcelorMittal Comments

The Agency first notes that U. S. Steel proposed to revise emissions averaging provisions

“to cover time periods when the coke oven gas desulfurization unit is shutdown due to unplanned

outages or upsets, as well as startups and shutdowns.” PC 22 at 1, citing PC 19 at 3-4, PC 12 at

4. The Agency states that “[o]peration during periods of malfunction, breakdown, and startup

are addressed under current Board regulations.” PC 22 at 1, citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.261 –

201.265. The Agency claims that, in the course of its permitting process, it routinely addresses

operation during these periods by applying these regulations. PC 22 at 1-2. Accordingly, the

Agency supports the proposed Section 217.158(i), addressing planned maintenance cycles,

without further amendment.

Second, the Agency addresses U.S. Steel’s comment “regarding the emissions limitation

for a recuperative reheat furnace combusting a combination of natural gas and coke oven gas that

is based upon desulfurized coke oven gas having an estimated concentration of hydrogen cyanide

of 130 parts per million or less. . . .” PC 22 at 2. U.S. Steel also raised the possibility that, once

it completes construction and begins operation of the coke oven gas desulfurization unit, it may

need to seek revision of the applicable emissions limit.

PC 19 at 3-4. The Agency states

that it “agrees with U.S. Steel and acknowledges, as it did in its Post-Hearing Comments, that

once the coke oven gas desulfurization unit is in operation, there is a possibility that the

emissions limitation may require adjustment, which would be the subject of a future

rulemaking.” PC 22 at 2;

Third, the Agency notes that U.S. Steel has requested that the Board revise “the proposed

testing and monitoring provisions under Section 217.157 in order to be consistent with its

construction permit for its cogeneration boiler with a heat input capacity” of 505 mmBtu/hr. PC

22 at 2. The Agency states that the permit requires installation and operation of a NO

CEMS “within one year after the initial emission testing required by the permit unless this

testing or further testing demonstrates that the unit normally complies by a margin of at least 5

percent with the NO

and CO emission limit in the permit or the Illinois EPA approves further

time for U.S. Steel to achieve this level of performance.”

. The Agency further states that the

proposed Section 217.157(a)(1) “requires the installation and operation of a CEMS on industrial

boilers with a rated heat input capacity greater than 250 mmBtu/hr.”

The Agency reports that, after additional discussion with U.S. Steel, it recommends

amending the proposed Section 217.157(a)(1) to read as follows:

[t]he owner or operator of an industrial boiler subject to Subpart E of this Part

with a rated heat input capacity greater than 250 mmBtu/hr must install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a continuous emissions monitoring system on the emission

unit for the measurement of NO

emissions discharged into the atmosphere in

accordance with 40 CFR Part 75, as incorporated by reference in Section 217.104.

However, the owner or operator of an industrial boiler subject to Subpart E of this

Part with a rated heat input capacity greater than 250 mmBtulhr that combusts

blast furnace gas with up to 10% natural gas on an annual basis and located at a

source that manufactures iron and steel is not required to install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a continuous emissions monitoring system on such

industrial boiler, provided the heat input from natural gas does not exceed 10% on

an annual basis and the owner or operator complies with the performance test

requirements under this Section and demonstrates, during each performance test,

emissions from such industrial boiler are less than 70% of the applicable

emissions limitation under Section 217.164. In the event such owner or operator

is unable to meet the requirements of this paragraph, a continuous emissions

monitoring system is required within 12 months of such event, or by December

31, 2012, whichever is later. PC 22 at 3.

Fourth, the Agency states that it agrees with U.S. Steel that the denominator in the

equation in the proposed Section 217.164(e) needs correction. PC 22 at 3. The Agency notes

that its own first notice comments proposed the same correction.

ArcelorMittal

While the Agency notes that ArcelorMittal has restated its position that the proposed NO

emissions limitation for reheat furnaces is economically unreasonable, the Agency states the

belief that “the proposed limitation for reheat furnaces (recuperative, combusting natural gas) is

technically feasible and economically reasonable, and that the information contained in the

docket for this rulemaking adequately supports the proposed limitation.” PC 22 at 3-4.

Accordingly, the Agency now opposes any revision of that limitation.

The Agency also notes that ArcelorMittal has renewed its request that the proposal

“provide an option for a case-by-case exemption of the NO

emissions limitation upon a

demonstration that such controls would be economically unreasonable.” PC 22 at 4. The

Agency states that it opposes such an option.

. The Agency argues that Board regulations

include mechanisms for regulatory relief.

. The Agency indicates that it “is willing to work

with affected sources, including ArcelorMittal, that may seek relief from unreasonable impacts

due to unique or source-specific circumstances.”

FIRST NOTICE ISSUES

In both the first and second motions to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency

indicates that it has negotiated with interested participants and agreed to revise certain provisions

in order to memorialize agreements with them.

See generally

Mot. Amend 1 at 1-2, Mot. Amend

2 at 1-5. In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed additional corrections to and

clarifications of its proposal. PC 17 at 1-6. These various amendments address many of the

issues raised by the participants over the course of the rulemaking process. However, first notice

comments demonstrate that the participants have not reached agreement on all issues. The Board

will briefly discuss the unresolved issues in the following subsections. The Board then provides

a detailed section-by-section discussion of the proposed rules following the Board’s findings on

economic reasonableness and technical feasibility.

ArcelorMittal

ArcelorMittal’s first notice comment clarifies that ArcelorMittal has not reached an

agreement with the Agency regarding the proposed emission limit for recuperative reheat furnace

and asserts that the proposed limit is not supported by technical or economic justification. PC 15

at 2. ArcelorMittal contends that it has also successfully demonstrated in its previous comments

that the initial NO

emission limit proposed by the Agency was arbitrary, technologically

infeasible, and economically unreasonable. ArcelorMittal requests that the Board “reconsider

the proposed revised arbitrary emission limit (0.09 lb/mmbtu) requested by the Agency based on

the economic reasonableness, technical feasibility and product quality issues.”

following sections, the Board will provide a brief background concerning the proposed NO

emission limit; ArcelorMittal’s and the Agency’ positions concerning the emission limit for

reheat furnaces; and the Board’s discussion and finding.

The Agency’s initial proposal included a NO

emissions limit of 0.05 lb/mmBtu for

recuperative reheat furnaces used in iron and steel making. Prop. at 50 (proposed Section

217.244(a)(2)). In comments filed on November 25, 2008, ArcelorMittal raised concerns

regarding the applicability of the proposed emissions limitation to a tunnel furnace at its

Riverdale Facility. ArcelorMittal stated that the proposed limitation is inappropriate for its

tunnel furnace there because it cannot be considered as a reheat, annealing, or galvanizing

furnace. Further, ArcelorMittal argued that, even if the Agency considers the tunnel furnace to

be subject to the proposed regulations, the rules should include a specific definition and emission

factor for ArcelorMittal’s tunnel furnace. ArcelorMittal Comment at 1.

In post-hearing comments, ArcelorMittal reiterated its initial concerns regarding the

proposed emissions limitations for reheat furnaces. Additionally, ArcelorMittal argued that

setting and implementing additional NO

controls is neither technologically feasible nor

economically reasonable. PC 10 at 1, 2.

For the February 3, 2009 hearing, the Agency testified that it was working with

ArcelorMittal regarding the emissions limitation for reheat furnaces. Kaleel Prefiled Test. 2 at 2.

On March 23, 2009, the Board received the Agency’s second motion to amend its proposal. In

that motion, the Agency proposed to amend the NO

emissions limit for recuperative reheat

furnaces from 0.05 lb/mmBtu to 0.09 lb/mmBtu. The Agency stated that, “[s]ince the last

hearing, the Illinois EPA has continued to engage in negotiations with interested parties on

remaining unresolved issues.” Mot. Amend 2 at 1. The Agency further stated that such

negotiations with ConocoPhillips, U.S. Steel, and ArcelorMittal have resulted in agreement to

amend various provisions of the proposal.

at 1-2. The Board adopted the revised emissions

limit for recuperative reheat furnace for first notice. In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides

Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and

217, R08-19, slip op. at 104 (May 7, 2009) (proposed Section 217.244(a)(2)).

Proposed First Notice Emission Limit

ArcelorMittal claims that, when the Agency revised its proposed NO

emission limit for

reheat furnaces to 0.09 lb/mmBtu, the Agency failed to provide any further technical or

economical justification and also failed to demonstrate that the revised limit was based on

RACT. PC 15 at 2. However, ArcelorMittal notes that it did receive information

the Agency in establishing the revised limit and that the first notice comments are based on a

review of that information.

ArcelorMittal notes that the emission limit of 0.0147lb/mmBtu listed for the reheat

furnace at Beta Steel in the Agency’s summary table has been changed in that furnace’s permit to

0.077 lb/mmBtu. PC 15 at 3;

PC 20 at 2 n.1 (correcting original reference to limit of 0.77

lb/mmBtu). ArcelorMittal maintains that two other facilities, Nucor Steel and V & M Star, are

not similar to ArcelorMittal’s Riverdale facility. PC 15 at 3. ArcelorMittal continues that the

emission limits listed for New Steel International and Minnesota Steel Industries are for facilities

that are yet to be constructed.

at 4. Lastly, ArcelorMittal states that, while the Severstal

Columbus facility is similar to the Riverdale facility, the Severstal facility has two tunnel

furnaces, which can have an effect on the applicable emission limit. ArcelorMittal notes that,

since the Riverdale facility does not have a second tunnel furnace or a shuttle furnace, it does not

have the flexibility to operate optimally at all times if required to retrofit the tunnel furnace with

at 5-6. Moreover, ArcelorMittal notes that the Severstal facility has not been

issued a Title V permit. Therefore, ArcelorMittal claims that “achievement of the emissions

limit for these facilities have not been demonstrated.”

at 4. ArcelorMittal maintains that the

Agency’s “arbitrary determination that 0.09 lb/mmBtu is technically feasible and the appropriate

RACT-based limit for reheat furnaces” is questionable.

The information attached to ArcelorMittal’s comments as Exhibit A consists of a summary

table of permitted NO

emissions levels for tunnel furnaces at seven steel plants.

ArcelorMittal maintains that the revised emission limit does not alter its earlier position

concerning the economic reasonableness of the initial emission limit. ArcelorMittal states that

the revised emission limit of 0.09 lb/mm Btu does not change the earlier cost analysis because

ArcelorMittal would still have to install one of the two next generation burners to meet the

revised emission limit. PC 15 at 5. ArcelorMittal argues that spending more than $22,000 per

controlled is economically unreasonable for a point source that contributes

approximately 0.016 percent of the total 2006 Chicago area daily NO

inventory of 812 tons.

In addition, ArcelorMittal states that changing burners on the tunnel furnace can have significant

effect on the slab quality. Also, ArcelorMittal states that the unique product mix produced at the

Riverdale facility differentiates ArcelorMittal’s facility from other steel making facilities

throughout the country. ArcelorMittal concludes by requesting that the Board “revisit its

Proposed Rule and for Second Notice allow a source to be exempt from the proposed NO

emission limits upon adequate demonstration that additional NO

controls would be

economically unreasonable.”

at 6-7. ArcelorMittal maintains that it has made such a

demonstration and requests that the tunnel furnace at the Riverdale be subject to its currently

applicable permitted emission limit in lieu of the proposed emission limit for reheat furnaces.

Agency Response

The Agency responds to ArcelorMittal by noting that the information in the TSD

indicates that the NO

control technologies identified for reheat, annealing, and galvanizing

furnaces at iron and steel plants are reasonably available, technically feasible, and cost effective,

even considering the tunnel design of ArcelorMittal’s reheat furnace. PC 17 at 7. The Agency

also addresses the issues raised by ArcelorMittal concerning the NO

limitations for reheat

furnaces at other sources listed in the Agency’s summary table. The Agency notes that the

emission limit for Beta Steel in Indiana is actually 0.077 lb/mmBtu, which is more stringent than

the proposed emission limit. Additionally, the Agency states that the emission limits in the

construction permits of plants that have not yet been constructed are enforceable limits. The

Agency argues that the emission limits in the summary table support the proposed limit as

technologically feasible.

Additionally, the Agency raises concerns regarding ArcelorMittal’s economic analysis,

claiming that it is flawed and should not be considered for making a determination that the

proposed limit is beyond RACT. First, the Agency states that the burners currently in use at the

Riverdale facility were designed in the 1980s and are not considered an “advanced NO

Next, the Agency notes that ArcelorMittal’s estimates of the cost effectiveness

are based on assumptions that overstate the annualized costs. The calculation assumes an

equipment life of only 5 years, which the Agency claims is unreasonable considering that the

existing burners are about 20 years old.

The Agency also states that the interest rate of 10

percent and the contingency factor of 20 percent are high.

The Agency further states that ArcelorMittal requests a case-by-case RACT analysis,

which is not provided for in the proposal. Further, the Agency states that it opposes inclusion of

such options in the proposed rules.

at 9. The Agency notes that the Board regulations

include mechanisms for regulatory relief that sources may use under certain circumstances to

seek relief from the rules of general applicability.

ArcelorMittal Response

On July 7, 2009, ArcelorMittal submitted a response to address concerns raised by the

Agency concerning the emission limit for reheat furnaces. ArcelorMittal asserts that the five-

year equipment life and a contingency factor of 20 percent are based on USEPA published

values. PC 20 at 1. The equipment life factor is derived from USEPA’s “Alternative Control

Technique Document – NO

Emissions from Iron and Steel Mills,” EPA/453/R-94-065,

September 1994, and the contingency factor is derived from USEPA’s “Cost Air” spreadsheets

available online at www.epa.gov/ttn.

at 1-2. However, to address the Agency’s concerns,

ArcelorMittal states that it prepared a revised economic analysis for burner change using a 15-

year equipment life and a contingency factor of 10 percent. The revised analysis estimates a cost

effectiveness of $10,348 per ton of NO

reduced for the next generation 1500 burner and a cost

effectiveness of $17,841 per ton of NO

reduced for the 1550 burner. These costs, ArcelorMittal

contends, are well in excess of the Agency’s established range of $2500-3000 per ton of NOx

emission reduction, USEPA’s determination of less than $2,000 per ton, and the reference in the

TSD to $1,000 per ton.

Regarding the emission limits of other reheat furnaces, ArcelorMittal acknowledges that

it inadvertently cited to Beta Steel’s emission limit as 0.77 lb/mmBtu instead of 0.077 lb/mmBtu.

However, ArcelorMittal notes that the Agency had listed Beta Steel’s emission limit as 0.0147

lb/mmBtu, which is approximately five times lower than the permitted limit.

argues that the Agency’s reliance on Beta Steel’s emission limit calls into question the arbitrary

limit proposed by the Agency. ArcelorMittal maintains that the Agency has failed to

demonstrate that its proposal is both economically reasonable and technically feasible.

Therefore, ArcelorMittal requests that the Board make a decision based on RACT and retain the

current permitted emission limit of 0.171 lb/mmBtu for ArcelorMittal’s tunnel furnace at its

Riverdale facility, and not require ArcelorMittal to initiate a proceeding for subsequent

regulatory relief.

The Board’s first notice proposal at Section 217.244(a)(2) sets forth a revised emissions

limit of 0.09 lb/mmBtu for recuperative reheat furnaces combusting natural gas. The Board

adopted the revised emission limit for first notice based on the Agency’s expert testimony,

comments, and information in the TSD. While ArcelorMittal had raised concerns about the

initial emission limit of 0.05 lb/mmBtu, the Board believed that the revised limit proposed in the

Agency’s second motion to amend addressed ArcelorMittal’s concerns, particularly since

ArcelorMittal did not respond to the second motion to amend. However, since ArcelorMittal has

reiterated its concerns regarding the proposed emission limit for reheat furnaces in its first notice

comments, the Board will examine the issues raised by ArcelorMittal regarding the application

of the proposed NO

emissions limit for recuperative reheat furnaces to ArcelorMittal’s tunnel

ArcelorMittal questions the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of the

proposed reheat furnace emission limit, which, according to the Agency, is based on a survey of

emission limits for furnaces similar to ArcelorMittal’s tunnel furnace. The Agency’s

survey, which was submitted by ArcelorMittal as an exhibit to its first notice comments, includes

emission limit information for reheat tunnel furnaces at seven steel plants. See PC 15,

Exhibit A. The NO

emission limits for the plants included in the Agency’s survey range from

0.03 lb/mmBtu to 0.10 lb/mmBtu.

ArcelorMittal argues that the Agency relies on outdated, erroneous or never applied in

practice emission limits to support the proposed reheat furnace emission limit. PC 15 at 4. First,

ArcelorMittal notes that two of the facilities in the Agency’s survey, Nucor Steel and V&M Star,

are not similar to its Riverdale facility. ArcelorMittal states that Nucor Steel has an equalizing

furnace and V&M Star has a billet furnace, both of which are different from ArcelorMittal’s

tunnel furnace.

at 5-6. However, ArcelorMittal does not explain how these differences

among these furnaces affect the appropriate NO

emission limitations for them. While the Board

believes that ArcelorMittal may have raised a valid concern regarding the differences between

the furnaces, the Board cannot draw any conclusions without additional information concerning

the impact of those differences on the control of NO

Second, ArcelorMittal contends that emission limits from Minnesota Steel and New Steel

International are not relevant since the plants have yet to be constructed. In this regard, the

Board agrees with the Agency that emission limits in a construction permit are enforceable limits

that provide support for the technical feasibility of the proposed emission limit. Next,

ArcelorMittal notes that, although the Severstal Columbus plant is similar to the Riverdale

facility, the Severstal plant’s two tunnel furnaces can affect the applicable emission limits.

ArcelorMittal notes that lack of redundancy in the operation at the Riverdale facility limits

ArcelorMittal’s ability to divert product between furnaces. While the Board recognizes that

having only one tunnel furnace limits operational flexibility, ArcelorMittal’s comments do not

clearly explain why such flexibility is necessary to achieve the proposed emission limit.

Finally, the Board notes that ArcelorMittal does not address the remaining two steel

plants in the Agency survey,

., Beta Steel and Gallatin Steel. These plants have permitted

emission limits in the same range as the proposed emissions limit of 0.09 lb/mmBtu. Based on

the information in the Agency’s survey, the Board finds that the proposed NO

emissions limit of

0.09 lb/mmBtu is technically feasible for recuperative reheat furnaces, including tunnel furnaces.

While ArcelorMittal has raised some concerns regarding the information considered by the

Agency as it applies to its Riverdale facility, those concerns do not rise to a level at which the

Board needs to reconsider its decision at first notice. Also, the Board believes that some of the

issues raised by ArcelorMittal must be developed further before the Board can consider a site-

specific RACT determination for the Riverdale facility.

Regarding the compliance costs, ArcelorMittal argues that the proposed emissions limit

for reheat furnaces is economically unreasonable. As noted above, ArcelorMittal revised its

economic analysis in response to Agency comments. The revised analysis estimates the cost

effectiveness based on the replacement of the tunnel furnace’s existing burner with two different

models using a 15-year equipment life and a 10 percent contingency factor. PC 20 at 2. The

revised estimates of cost effectiveness are $10,348 per ton of NO

reduced for a “1500 series

burner” and $17,841 per ton of NO

reduced for a “1550 series burner.” ArcelorMittal argues

that the revised site-specific estimates of cost effectiveness for the Riverdale facility are higher

than the Agency’s estimate of $3000 per ton of NO

While ArcelorMittal’s estimate of cost effectiveness for NO

control at its Riverdale

facility is higher than the Agency’s estimate, the Board notes that the Agency’s estimate is based

on generic cost data from the federal Alternative Control Technique documents for iron and steel

plants. TSD at 98-99. The Board relied on the Agency’s estimate of cost effectiveness in

finding the proposed generally applicable NO

emissions limit for reheat furnaces to be

economically reasonable. The Board recognizes that compliance costs may be higher or lower

than the Agency’s estimate of $3000 per ton of NO

reduced depending on site-specific factors,

but the Board is not adopting an emission limit based on site-specific factors in this rulemaking.

The Board notes that the economic information presented by the Agency in the TSD supports the

Board finding that the proposed emissions limit is economically reasonable. While

ArcelorMittal has raised concerns regarding the technical feasibility and economic

reasonableness of applying the proposed reheat furnace emission limit to the Riverdale facility’s

tunnel furnace, the Board believes that the record is insufficient to support the adoption of a site-

specific emissions limit in this proceeding.

Specifically, the Board believes that ArcelorMittal must fully address some of the

technical issues relating to its claim that emission limits listed in the Agency’s survey are not

applicable to ArcelorMittal’s tunnel furnace. In addition, ArcelorMittal must address Agency’s

contention that the Series 1430 burners now in use at the Riverdale facility were designed in the

1980s and are not considered an “advanced NO

control technology.” PC 17 at 8. Finally, even

if the Board accepts ArcelorMittal’s position that the proposed NO

emission limit for reheat

furnaces is economically unreasonable for the Riverdale Facility, the record lacks sufficient

information other than ArcelorMittal’s assertions on which the Board can rely to determine that

the current permitted emission limit of 0.171 lb/mmBtu is RACT for the tunnel furnace at the

Riverdale facility.

In light of these factors, the Board declines to adopt a site-specific NO

emissions limit

for the Riverdale facility in this rulemaking proceeding. However, as noted by the Agency in its

response filed July 15, 2009, the Act and the Board’s regulations include regulatory relief

mechanisms through which ArcelorMittal may address these matters in support of the

determination it seeks.

, 415 ILCS 5/27, 28, 28.1 (2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.208,

102.210, 104.Subpart D (addressing site-specific rulemaking and adjusted standards). The Board

notes that Section 28.1(f) of the Act provides in pertinent part that,

[w]ithin 20 days after the effective date of any regulation that implements in

whole or in part the requirements of the Clean Air Act, if any person files a

petition for an individual adjusted standard in lieu of complying with the

regulation, such source will be exempt from the regulation until the Board makes

a final determination on the petition. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(f) (2008).

Averaging Provisions

Section 217.158(a)(1)(C).

IERG’s comment states that it “is substantially in agreement

with the Board’s determination to revise the language of Section 217.158(a)(1)(C), regarding the

inclusion of ‘replacement units’ in emission averaging plans, as suggested by both IERG and the

Agency.” PC 16 at 5. However, IERG proposes that the Board insert a comma at a specified

point in the subsection “for the purpose of clarity.”

. Having reviewed IERG’s comment and

the proposed Section 217.158(a)(1)(C), the Board cannot conclude that the addition of a comma

would provide clarification and declines to adopt this proposed amendment.

Section 217.158(d)(1).

IERG suggests that proposed Section 217.158(d)(1) be struck as

“unnecessary.” PC 16 at 6. As an alternative, IERG suggests that, if it retains subsection (d)(1)

for recordkeeping purposes, the Board revise it so that an amended averaging plan is required

only in the event that a unit listed in the plan is “permanently shut down.”

IERG contemplates that the Board may conclude that subsection (d)(1) fulfills

recordkeeping purposes.

PC 16 at 6. The record does not demonstrate that it is unnecessary

for or inconsistent with those purposes, and the Board declines at this point in the proceedings to

strike it from the proposed rules. The Board notes that IERG proposes alternative language for

this subsection in the event that the Board declines to strike it.

. IERG suggests that replacing

the phrase “taken out of service” with “permanently shut down” would make this subsection

clearer. After reviewing IERG’s comment and the record, the Board cannot conclude that the

proposed alternative language improves the clarity of this provision. In addition, the Board notes

that IERG has proposed changing from 30 to 90 days that amount of time in which an owner or

operator must submit an amended plan after taking a unit out of service.

. As IERG’s first

notice comment includes no argument that the 30-day period is insufficient, the Board declines

to adopt the changes to Section 217.158(d)(1).

Section 217.158(d)(2).

IERG notes that proposed Section 217.158(d)(2) “allows units

that were previously exempt to be included in an averaging plan ‘within 30 days after the unit no

longer qualifies for the exemption.’” PC 16 at 7. IERG suggests that this 30-day limit is not

necessary, as a unit becomes subject to all applicable provisions of the proposed rule once it is no

. IERG further suggests that the provision does not clearly indicate whether,

after that 30-day period, the owner or operator is no longer able to include the unit in an

averaging plan if then plan is not updated during that time.

. IERG proposes that Section

217.158(d)(2) be amended to allow the owner or operator to amend its existing averaging plan

“at any time” to include a unit that is no longer exempt. IERG claims that this amendment is

consistent with the Agency’s intent in providing exceptions to the limit of one amendment per

calendar year to an emissions averaging plan.

The Board notes that the proposed subsection (d)(2) allows an owner or operator to

include a unit that was exempt from specified requirements in an emissions averaging plan

“within 30 days after the unit no longer qualifies for an exemption.” In addition, the proposed

subsection (c) provides that an owner or operator may amend an emissions averaging plan once

per year at their own discretion.

MG Answers at 4. Responding to a question posed for the

first hearing by Midwest Generation, the Agency stated that it did not intend “to establish a ‘once

out/always out’ provision.”

. Specifically, the Agency stated that, through the allowed annual

revisions, a unit not originally included in an averaging plan may later be included in such a

. Considering both the proposed language of Section 217.158 and the Agency’s

statement of intent, the Board concludes that, if a unit no longer qualifies for an exemption, the

owner or operator may include that unit in an averaging plan once within 30 days after the unit

no longer qualifies for an exemption and again on an annual basis thereafter. Accordingly, the

Board declines to adopt the language proposed by IERG.

Section 217.158(h).

IERG states that “proposed [S]ection 217.158(h) would allow

exclusion from the ‘calculation demonstrating compliance’ certain time periods when a unit is

shut down for a maintenance turnaround.” PC 16 at 7. IERG notes that, in order to avail itself of

this proposed exemption, the owner or operator must first notify the Agency in writing in

advance. IERG requests that the Board clarify this subsection to provide that, while the period

excluded from the calculation must not exceed 45 days, the actual maintenance turnaround is not

limited to a 45-day duration.

. IERG proposes specific language to effectuate this intent.

The Board notes that proposed subsection (h) allows the owner or operator of a unit

located at a petroleum refinery to “exclude from the calculation demonstrating compliance”

periods of up to 45 days during which the unit is shut down a maintenance turnaround after

providing notice to the Agency. While the Board notes IERG’s comment that the maintenance

turnaround itself may last longer than 45 days, the Board concludes that the proposed subsection

limits to 45 days the period that may be excluded from the calculation demonstrating

compliance. The Board cannot conclude that the language requires the maintenance actually to

be performed with that 45-day period and declines to adopt the proposed revision.

Types of Units Not in Nonattainment Areas

IERG restates its position that the proposed rules should not establish emissions limits for

types of units that are not now located in the nonattainment areas. PC 16 at 8 (citations omitted).

IERG acknowledges that the Agency has not concurred with the request to omit emissions limits

for these units.

IERG argues that it establishes “inappropriate and, even perhaps, troublesome”

precedents to establish emission limits for these units. PC 16 at 9. IERG claims that analyses of

specific units that may operate in the nonattainment areas could demonstrate that the proposed

emissions limits are not RACT for a particular unit.

. IERG argues that the opportunity to

perform analyses of this kind would effectively pass with the adoption of this proposed rule.

IERG also expresses concern that the proposed emission limits may be viewed as the “RACT

floor” for units located outside of nonattainment areas.

. IERG argues that owners and

operators of such units have not had cause or opportunity to participate in this rulemaking and

that they may have difficulty complying with the proposed limits.

Addressing limits for these types of units, the Agency states that it has performed the

engineering and cost analysis on which the limits are based. Tr.1 at 62;

TSD at 66-85, 118-

25. The Agency argues that the proposed rule would guide those units if nonattainment areas

expand through a rulemaking to include them. Tr.1 at 62. The Agency also argues that,

although new source standards are generally more stringent than RACT, new source applicants

frequently seek alternatives to those standards. PC 11 at 20. The Agency claims that emission

units may seek to operate in the nonattainment areas and that it is reasonable that new sources

there should at a minimum meet RACT requirements. PC 11 at 20. The Agency further claims

that the proposed standards “will provide a floor for future emission sources that may seek to

locate in these areas.”

Addressing emissions limits in its first notice comment, IERG acknowledges that

benchmarks have some value. PC 16 at 4. IERG also expresses general agreement that new

sources should theoretically be subject to emissions requirements more strict than a RACT rule.

. The Board agrees with the Agency’s general position that the proposed emission standards

serve as benchmark for future emission sources that may locate in the nonattainment areas and

provide a “floor” against which to compare the new source standards. The Board notes IERG’s

argument that a site-specific analysis of the controls constituting BACT or LAER for a new

source could conceivably generate a less stringent emissions limitation than RACT. However,

the Board cannot conclude that this possibility outweighs the value of establishing a benchmark.

The Board also notes IERG’s concern with the potential application of the proposed

emissions limits “to units outside of the nonattainment areas covered by the proposed rule.” PC

16 at 10. In this regard, the Board notes that the applicability provision at Section 217.150 of the

proposed rule explicitly identifies the geographical extent of the nonattainment areas. The

Agency has clearly testified that any designation of a new nonattainment area would require the

Agency to propose an amendment to the rule. Tr.1 at 57, 61. The Board conceives that such a

rulemaking proceeding may address emissions limits in addition to the geographical boundaries

of the nonattainment area.

After careful review of the rule proposed at first notice and IERG’s comments, the Board

declines to strike from the proposal emissions limits for types of units not now in the

nonattainment areas.

Reporting Requirements

IERG notes Section 217.156(j)(1) and (j)(2) regarding quarterly reports from owners or

operators of units demonstrating compliance through CEMS. IERG first proposed to delete

subsection (j)(1) on reporting CEMS down time because it refers to information contained in the

provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations that are cited in subsection (j)(2). PC 16 at 11.

In subsection (j)(2), IERG proposes to strike a reference to 40 C.F.R. 60.13, arguing that

it pertains to monitoring and not to the recordkeeping and reporting that are the subjects of this

section. IERG also proposes to amend the reference to 40 C.F.R. 75 by citing specifically to 40

C.F.R 75.73(f). IERG argues that this amended citation refers specifically to quarterly reporting

requirements. IERG further argues that Section 217.157 addressing testing and monitoring refers

to the general CEMS requirements under Part 75.

Having reviewed the proposed subsection (j) and the provisions of the Code of Federal

Regulations cited in it, the Board cannot conclude that subsection (j)(1) is entirely embodied

within subsection (j)(2) or that the two subsections conflict with one another. Accordingly, the

Board declines to strike subsection (j)(1). In subsection (j)(2), the Board declines to add

language referring specifically to a “summary report,” which is specifically addressed in the

cited provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations.

40 C.F.R. 60.7(c), (d). Also, having

reviewed the language of 40 C.F.R. 60.13, the Board cannot conclude that it is unrelated to the

recordkeeping and reporting provisions of the proposed Section 217.156 and declines to strike

the reference to it. Finally, while noting IERG’s comment that 40 C.F.R. 75.73(f) specifically

addresses quarterly reports, the Board after examining Part 75 cannot conclude that only Section

75.73(f) may be relevant to those reports under proposed Section 217.156(j). Accordingly, the

Board declines to amend that citation as proposed by IERG.

Performance Testing

In its comment dated July 6, 2009, Argonne states that the proposed Section 217.154(a)

“requires performance testing for all industrial boilers regardless of size, unless they employ

CEMS.” PC 21 at 1. Argonne further states that, under the proposed Section 217.166, industrial

boilers with a rated heat input less than or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr are required to perform

combustion tuning instead of complying with a numeric NO

emissions limitation.

proposes, for industrial boilers with such a rated capacity, “that performance testing not be

In its comment filed on July 6, 2009, the Agency clarified Section 217.154(a) to refer to

performance testing for units subject to “emissions limitations” under the proposed Subparts E,

F, G, H, or I . PC 17 at 2-3. The Agency also sought to add an exclusion from the performance

testing requirement for units demonstrating compliance through alternatives including

combustion tuning.

. While Argonne’s and the Agency’s comments do not refer to one

another, the Board concludes that the Agency’s clarification addresses Argonne’s proposal.

In its comment, Argonne states that, “[f]or boilers less than or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr

rated heat input demonstrating compliance through an emission averaging plan and not using

CEMS, Section 217.157(a)(4) requires performance testing. . . .” PC 21 at 1. Argonne argues,

however, that the subsection “does not address boilers less than or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr rated

heat input where emissions averaging is not used.”

. While the proposed Section

217.157(a)(4) does not specifically refer to industrial boilers with such a rated capacity that are

not part of an emission averaging plan, it does not require that they undergo an initial

performance test. These different requirements, based on whether boilers are or are not part of

an averaging plan, are generally consistent with the clarification described in the preceding

paragraph. Consequently, the Board cannot conclude that the proposed Section 217.157(a)(4)

requires amendment.

Argonne argues that the use of CEMS should not be required for industrial boilers with a

rated heat input less than or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr that are required to perform combustion

tuning instead of complying with a numeric NO

emissions limitation. PC 21 at 1. Argonne

generally argues that, since those units are not required to comply with a numeric NO

limit, the use of CEMS or PEMS appears to be unnecessary.

. Nonetheless, Argonne states

that CEMS or PEMS “could be employed at the option of the facility” if, for example, it opts to

rely on emissions averaging to demonstrate compliance.

Under the proposed Section 217.157(a)(5), the owner or operator of an industrial boiler

with a rated heat input capacity less than or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr demonstrating compliance

through an emission averaging plan

, instead of conducting an initial performance test under

subsection (a)(4), install and operate CEMS.

In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions

from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19,

slip op. at 88 (May 7, 2009) (proposed Section 217.157(a)(5)) (emphasis added). If an owner or

operator opts to rely upon CEMS, it “must” use the system to demonstrate compliance with the

applicable emissions averaging plan.

While Argonne’s comment suggests that a boiler might use CEMS “in place of emissions

averaging,” operating CEMS is not itself a compliance option.

PC 21 at 1. Under proposed

Section 217.157(a)(5), CEMS is an alternative to performance testing in demonstrating

compliance with an emissions averaging plan. Consequently, the Board concludes that the

proposed language is generally consistent with Argonne’s comments and declines to amend

Section 217.157(a)(5). On similar grounds, the Board also declines to amend Section 217.157(f),

which provides the owner or operator of specified units “may” rely on PEMS.

of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 91 (May 7, 2009).

ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS AND TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY

The Board notes that the Agency has negotiated with interested participants and agreed to

revise certain provisions in order to memorialize agreements with them.

See generally

Amend 1 at 1-2, Mot. Amend 2 at 1-5. The Agency has more recently proposed additional

clarifications of and corrections to its proposal. PC 17 at 1-6. These amendments have

addressed issues including, but not limited to, compliance deadlines, deadlines for installing

CEMS, and emissions limitations.

. Having granted the Agency’s two motions to amend the

proposal and adopting additional clarifications and corrections, and having reviewed the entire

record in this proceeding, the Board finds that its second notice proposal is technologically

feasible and economically reasonable.

The Board proceeds below with its section-by-section discussion of its second notice

SUMMARY OF BOARD’S SECOND NOTICE PROPOSAL

Part 211: Definitions and General Provisions

The Board proposes to add twelve new definitions to the existing Part 211. Statement at

Prop. at 13-15;

see generally

35 Ill. Adm. Code 211. The Board summarizes each of the

proposed new definitions below.

Section 211.665: Auxiliary Boiler

In its proposal, the Agency sought to add a definition of the term “auxiliary boiler,”

which is necessitated by the proposed Subparts D and E. Statement at 14. In its entirety, the

proposed definition states that “‘[a]uxiliary boiler’ means, for the purpose of Part 217, a boiler

that is operated only when the main boiler or boilers at a source are not in service and is used

either to maintain building heat or to assist in the startup of the main boiler or boilers. This term

does not include emergency or standby units and load shaving units.” Prop. at 13 (proposed new

Section 211.665).

Section 211.995: Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor

In its proposal, the Agency sought to add a definition of the term “circulating fluidized

bed combustor,” which is necessitated by the proposed Subpart E. Statement at 14. In its

entirety, the proposed definition states that “‘[c]irculating fluidized bed combustor’ means, for

purposes of Part 217, a fluidized bed combustor in which the majority of the fluidized bed

material is carried out of the primary combustion zone and is transported back to the primary

zone through a recirculation loop.” Prop. at 14 (proposed new Section 211.995).

Section 211.1315: Combustion Tuning

In its proposal, the Agency sought to add a definition of the term “combustion tuning,”

which is necessitated by Subparts E and F. Statement at 14. In its entirety, the proposed

definition states that “‘[c]ombustion tuning’ means, for purposes of Subpart 217, review and

adjustment of a combustion process to maintain combustion efficiency of an emission unit, as

performed in accordance with procedures provided by the manufacturer or by a trained

technician.” Prop. at 14 (proposed new Section 211.1315).

Section 211.1435: Container Glass

In its proposal the Agency sought to add a definition of the term “container glass,” which

is necessitated by Subpart G. Statement at 14. In its entirety, the proposed definition states that

“‘[c]ontainer glass’ means, for purposes of Part 217, glass made of soda-lime recipe, clear or

colored, which is pressed or blown, or both, into bottles, jars, ampoules, and other products listed

in Standard Industrial Classification 3221.” Prop. at 14 (proposed new Section 211.1435).

Section 211.2355: Flare

In its proposal, the Agency sought to add a definition of the term “flare.” Prop. at 14.

The Agency stated that the proposed definition is necessary “because flares are not subject to the

general requirements under Subpart C.”

. In its entirety, the proposed definition states

that “‘[f]lare’ means an open combustor without enclosure or shroud.” Prop. at 14 (proposed

new Section 211.2355).

Section 211.2357: Flat Glass

In its proposal, the Agency sought to add a definition of the term “flat glass,” which is

necessitated by Subpart G. Statement at 14. In its entirety, the proposed definition states that

“‘[f]lat glass’ means, for purposes of Part 217, glass made of soda-lime recipe and produced into

continuous flat sheets and other products listed in Standard Industrial Classification 3211.”

Prop. at 14 (proposed new Section 211.2357).

Section 211.2625: Glass Melting Furnace

In its proposal, the Agency sought to add a definition of the term “glass melting furnace,”

which is necessary for applicability under Subpart G. Statement at 14. In its entirety, the

proposed definition states that “‘[g]lass melting furnace’ means, for purposes of Part 217, a unit

comprising a refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high temperature,

refined and conditioned to produce molten glass.” Prop. at 14-15 (proposed new Section

In its pre-hearing comment filed January 20, 2009, Saint-Gobain suggested amending this

proposed definition to state that “‘[g]lass melting furnace’ means, for purposes of Part 217, a unit

comprising a refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged and melted at high

temperature to produce molten glass.” PC 4 at 1. The Agency incorporated this

recommendation in its first motion to amend its proposal. Mot. Amend 1 at 2.

Section 211.3100: Industrial Boiler

In its proposal, the Agency sought to add a definition of the term “industrial boiler,”

which is necessary for applicability under Subpart E. Statement at 15. In its entirety, the

proposed definition provided that

‘[i]ndustrial 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. The term does not include boilers serving a generator that has a

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

cogeneration units, as that term is defined in Section 225.130 of Part 225, if such

boilers or cogeneration units are subject to the CAIR NO

Trading Programs

under Subpart D or E of Part 225. Prop. at 15 (proposed new Section 211.3100).

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation

asked whether, in terms of definitions or use, the Agency intended in its proposed rule to

distinguish between industrial boilers, fossil fuel-fired boilers, and EGUs. MG Questions

at 1. In response, the Agency provided the following distinction: “EGU boilers are used

primarily to generate electricity to sell on the electricity grid. Industrial boilers are used

primarily to generate power (steam or electricity) for use at the source. Both types of

boilers may use fossil fuels, coal, oil, or gas.” MG Answers at 1.

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, IERG inquired

whether the Agency intended to include in the definition of “industrial boiler” either

“cogeneration units and/or heat recovery steam generators that capture waste heat from turbines

or engines.” IERG Questions at 4;

Prop. at 41-44 (proposed Subpart D). The Agency

responded simply “[y]es.” IERG Answers at 6. The Agency stated, however, that it had not

“performed any analysis to determine the technical feasibility and cost for cogeneration units

and/or heat recovery steam generators to comply with its proposed rule.”

In another question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, IERG inquired

whether the Agency intended to include in the definition of “industrial boiler” or “process

heater” those “gas-fired chillers that provide cooling for either processes or occupied spaces.”

IERG Questions at 4;

Prop. at 41-47. The Agency responded by stating that, “[i]f refrigerant

is heated [in]directly by gas heating, it is a process heater.” IERG Answers at 6;

(addressing proposed definition of “process heater”);

Tr.1 at 68-69 (clarifying Agency

response). The Agency further stated that, although it had not “performed any analysis to

determine the technical feasibility and cost for such gas-fired chillers to comply with its

proposed rule,” it “believes that the technical feasibility and cost for gas-fired chillers should be

similar to process heaters and industrial boilers.” IERG Answers at 6-7,

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation first

[a]pplicability of Subpart M and the nonapplicability of Subpart D are premised

upon the applicability of the Part 225, Subparts C, D, and E (“the Illinois CAIR”)

to electric generating units (“EGUs”). However, the federal rule underlying the

Illinois CAIR has been overturned (assuming the D.C. Circuit Court issues the

mandate for its decision in appeal of the rule), thus invalidating the Illinois CAIR.

Therefore, it appears that EGUs, which the Agency apparently intended to cover

in Subpart M of this rulemaking, are covered by Subpart D. MG Questions at 2.

Midwest Generation then asked whether the Agency proposed to amend its language in Subpart

M. MG Answers at 2;

Prop. at 51-52 (proposed Subpart M). Although the Agency stated

that it disagreed “with the underlying premise of this question,” it indicated that it was

“amenable to amending” this definition of “industrial boiler” as described in response to a

subsequent question. MG Answers at 2;

Tr.1 at 190-92 (addressing status of federal rule).

In that subsequent question, Midwest Generation first stated that, “[b]ased upon the

proposed applicability language in Subpart M, Section 217.340, [and] assuming the D.C. Circuit

Court issues the mandate implementing its decision in the appeal of the CAIR, EGUs would be

subject to the provisions of Subpart D.” MG Questions at 3. Midwest Generation consequently

asked whether the Agency would consider amending its proposal to include the following

‘[i]ndustrial 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. The term does not include boilers serving a generator that has a

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

cogeneration units, as that term is defined in Section 225.130 of Part 225, if such

boilers or cogeneration units are subject to the CAIR NO

Trading Programs

under Subpart D or E of Part 225.

Responding to Midwest Generation, the Agency stated that it was “amenable” to amending its

proposed definition in the following fashion:

‘[i]ndustrial 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. The term does not include boilers serving a generator that has a

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

cogeneration units, as that term is defined in Section 225.130 of Part 225, if such

boilers or cogeneration units are subject to meet the applicability criteria under

Subpart M of Part 217the CAIR NO

Trading Programs under Subpart D or E of

Part 225. MG Answers at 4-6.

During the first hearing on October 14, 2008, IERG posed the following question to the

[i]f a heat recovery steam generator recovering heat from the exhaust of, A,

process, B, turbine, or C, engine, is considered a boiler for proposed – for this

proposed rule, then does the Agency intend to define the boiler’s rated heat input

capacity as a direct heat input to the heat recovery steam generator from

combustion of fuel in the heat recovery steam generator – for example, from a

duct burner – or does it intend to also include the heat input from the upstream

process in the rated capacity? Tr.1 at 65.

Responding in writing to this question, the Agency first stated that it had reviewed USEPA

regulations regarding turbines from which exhaust is captured in a heat recovery steam

generator. PC 1 at 1, citing 40 C.F.R. 60, Subparts GG, KKKK. The Agency stated that it had

decided “to treat a combustion turbine and heat recovery steam generator as a single unit.” PC 1

at 1. The Agency claims that this simplifies testing and monitoring NO

Agency elaborated that

[t]he supplemental heat input of the duct burner/heat recovery steam generator

will be added to the heat input of the turbine. The combined heat input will be

subject to the applicable NO

emission limit for turbines under Subpart Q of Part

217. Therefore, the NO

emissions will be tested/monitored after the exhaust

from the heat recovery steam generator and shall comply with the NO

limit for a turbine. However, the heat input of the duct burner/heat recovery

steam generator shall not be added to the heat input of the turbine to increase the

rated capacity of the turbine.

The Agency accordingly proposed to amend the definition of “industrial boiler” by, among other

change, excluding “a heat recovery steam generator that captures waste heat from a combustion

turbine. . . . “

In its first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency recommended that the

Board “[a]mend Section 217.3100 by to reflect the provisions as previously agreed to between

the Illinois EPA and Midwest Generation as reflected in the Illinois EPA’s Answers to Midwest

Generation’s Questions for Agency Witnesses, filed September 30, 2008, and the October 14,

2008, hearing.” Mot. Amend 1 at 2;

MG Questions at 3, MG Answers at 4-6. In those

answers, the Agency had proposed to amend this definition to provide that

‘[i]ndustrial 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 boilers serving a generator that has a

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

cogeneration units, as that term is defined in Section 225.120 of Part 225, if such

boilers or cogeneration units are subject to meet the applicability criteria under

Subpart M of Part 217 the CAIR NO

Trading Programs under Subpart D or E of

Part 225. MG Answers at 6;

PC 1 at 2 (proposing to exclude from

definition heat recovery steam generators capturing waste heat from combustion

In its post-hearing comments, Midwest Generation states that,

[w]ith the amendments proposed to the Board by the Agency in its Motion to

Amend Rulemaking Proposal ("Agency's Motion") filed January 30, 2009,

Midwest Generation generally supports the Agency's proposal as it applies to

electric generating units ("EGUs"). The proposed amendments incorporate by

reference provisions agreed to between the Agency and Midwest Generation as

part of the Agency's Answers to Midwest Generation's Questions for Agency

Witnesses ("Agency's Answers"), which were filed before this Board on

September 30, 2008. PC 9 at 1-2 (noting Agency’s amended proposed definition

of “industrial boiler”);

Mot. Amend 1 at 2;

Tr.1 at 199-200.

In its second motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency recommended that the

Board accept the following amendment to this definition:

‘[i]ndustrial 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. The 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. Mot.

The Agency states that this proposed amendment excludes from the definition “a heat recovery

steam generator that captures waste heat from a combustion turbine.” Mot. Amend 2 at 5. The

Agency further states that it proposed this amendment in post-hearing comments filed on

November 5, 2008, but inadvertently excluded it from the first motion to amend.

PC 1 at 1-2, citing Tr.1 at 65.

In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed to strike the reference to “cogeneration

units.” PC 17 at 1-2, citing In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source

Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 26 (May 7,

2009). The Agency proposed the following language:

“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. PC 17 at

Section 211.3355: Lime Kiln

In its proposal, the Agency sought to add a definition of the term “lime kiln,” which is

necessitated by Subpart H. Statement at 15. In its entirety, the proposed definition states that

“‘[l]ime kiln’ means, for purposes of Part 217, an enclosed combustion device used to calcine

lime mud, which consists primarily of calcium carbonate, into calcium oxide.” Prop. at 15

(proposed new Section 211.3355).

Section 211.3475: Load Shaving Unit

In its proposal, the Agency sought to add a definition of the term “load shaving unit,”

which is included in the proposed definition of the term “auxiliary boiler.” Statement at 15. In

its entirety, the proposed definition states that “‘[l]oad shaving unit’ means, for purposes of Part

217, a device used to generate electricity for sale or use during high electric demand days,

including but not limited to stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines or turbines.”

Prop. at 15 (proposed new Section 211.3475).

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation asked

the Agency whether the definition of “load shaving unit” includes a peaker power plant. MG

Questions at 2. The Agency responded simply “[y]es.” MG Answers at 2.

Section 211.4280: Other Glass

In its proposal, the Agency sought to add a definition of the term “other glass,” which is

necessitated by Subpart G. Statement at 15. In its entirety, the proposed definition states that

“‘[o]ther glass’ means, for purposes of Part 217, glass that is neither container glass, as that term

is defined in Section 211.1435, nor flat glass, as that term is defined in Section 211.2357.” Prop.

at 15 (proposed new Section 211.4280).

Section 211.5195: Process Heater

In its proposal, the Agency sought to add a definition of the term “process heater,” which

is necessitated by Subpart F. Statement at 15. In its entirety, the proposed definition states that

“‘[p]rocess heater’ means, for purposes of Part 217, an enclosed combustion device that burns

gaseous or liquid fuels only and that indirectly transfers heat to a process fluid or a heat transfer

medium other than water. This term does not include pipeline heaters and storage tank heaters

that are primarily meant to maintain fluids at a certain temperature or viscosity.” Prop. at 15-16

(proposed new Section 211.5195).

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, IERG inquired whether the

Agency intended to include in the definition of “industrial boiler” or “process heater” those “gas-

fired chillers that provide cooling for either processes or occupied spaces.” IERG Questions at 4;

Prop. at 41-47. The Agency responded by stating that, “[i]f refrigerant is heated [in]directly

by gas heating, it is a process heater.” IERG Answers at 6;

Tr.1 at 68-69 (clarifying Agency

response). The Agency further stated that, although it had not “performed any analysis to

determine the technical feasibility and cost for such gas-fired chillers to comply with its

proposed rule,” it “believes that the technical feasibility and cost for gas-fired chillers should be

similar to process heaters and industrial boilers.” IERG Answers at 6-7,

Part 217: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions

Subpart A: General Provisions

Section 217.100: Scope and Organization.

Existing Section 217.100 sets forth the

scope and organization of Part 217. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217.100. In its proposal, the Agency

sought only to “amend subsection (b) of this Section to state that permits for sources subject to

Part 217 may be required under Section 39.5 of the Act, in addition to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part

201.” Statement at 15;

415 ILCS 5/39.5 (2008) (Clean Air Act Permit

Section 217.104: Incorporations by Reference.

Existing Section 217.104 incorporates

by reference various specified materials. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217.104. In its proposal, the Agency

sought “to add test methods under 40 C.F.R. Part 60 and [USEPA] Alternative Control

Techniques Documents.” Statement at 16;

Prop. at 22-23.

In its first notice comments, the Agency sought to update one incorporation by reference

in proposed subsection (l) and to add two new incorporations by reference in proposed

subsections (q) and (r). PC 17 at 2.

Subpart B: New Fuel Combustion Emission Sources

Section 217.121: New Emission Sources.

Existing Section 217.121 addresses NO

emissions from new sources. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217.121. In its proposal, the Agency sought “to

repeal this Section.” Statement at 16;

Prop. at 23-24;

Subpart C: Existing Fuel Combustion Emission Units

Section 217.141: Existing Emission Units in Major Metropolitan Areas.

217.141 now regulates existing emission sources in major metropolitan areas. 35 Ill. Adm. Code

217.141. The Agency’s proposal first sought “to amend this Section by changing the term

‘source’ to ‘unit.’” Statement at 16;

Prop. at 25-26. The Agency also sought to add language

in a new subsection (d)(2) providing “that the Section does not apply to emission units that are

subject to the emissions limitations of Subpart D, E, F, G, H, M, or Q of Part 217.” Statement at

During the first hearing on October 14, 2008, counsel for Midwest Generation questioned

whether Section 217.141 would be necessary if the Board adopts this proposed rule. Tr.1 at 189.

The Agency responded that the Board originally promulgated this language in 1972 as Rule 207

and applied it to both new and existing sources. PC 1 at 4, citing In the Matter of: Emissions

Standards, R71-23. The Agency stated that

limitations under Section 217.141 apply to any existing fuel

combustion emission source with an actual heat input equal to or greater than 73.2

MW (250 mmbtu/hr), located in the Chicago or St. Louis (Illinois) major

metropolitan areas. Currently, sources meeting the heat input criteria and located

in these areas are subject to these NO

limitations. Accordingly, these limitations

appear in sources’ permits. PC 1 at 4.

Subpart D: NO

General Requirements

In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed to “[a]mend the heading of Subpart D

of Part 217 by deleting the reference to ‘Industrial Boilers’ and adding “NO

Requirements.’” PC 17 at 2;

33 Ill. Reg. 6941 (May 22, 2009).

Section 217.150: Applicability.

In its original proposal, the Agency sought to add a

new Section 217.150 addressing the applicability of the proposed Subparts C, D, E, F, G, H, and

M of Part 217. Statement at 16;

Prop. at 26-27.

The proposed subsection (a)(1)(A) provides that Subparts E, F, G, H, I, and M apply to

all sources that are located in the two areas designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone and

standards and that emit or have the potential to emit NO

in an amount equal to or greater

than 100 tons per year. Statement at 10-11, 16;

Prop. at 26. The proposed subsection

(a)(1)(B) provides that Subparts E, F, G, H, I, and M also apply to “[a]ny industrial boiler,

process heater, glass melting furnace, cement kiln, lime kiln, iron and steel reheat, annealing, or

galvanizing furnace, aluminum reverberatory or crucible furnace, or fossil fuel-fired stationary

boiler at such sources [described in subsection (a)(1)(A)] that emits NO

in an amount equal to or

greater than 15 tons per year and equal to or greater than five tons per ozone season.” Statement

at 10-11, 16-17;

Prop. at 26, Gupta Pre-filed Test. at 2.

Noting that the proposed regulations would apply to both existing and new units, the

Agency stated that the existing units that would become subject to the regulations include the

following: “80 industrial boilers, 84 process heaters, four glass melting furnaces, two lime kilns,

six furnaces used in iron and steel making, and 20 fossil fuel-fired stationary boilers.” Statement

TSD at 130-31 (describing affected sources). These 196 sources emitted 44,625 tons

in 2005, and the Agency projected that its proposal would reduce those emissions by

20,666 tons or 46.3%. TSD at 133 (Table 10-1), Gupta Pre-filed Test. at 3.

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation noted

that the section employs the term “emits” in determining applicability. MG Questions at 1.

Midwest Generation asked how the Agency would determine “whether a unit emits, as opposed

to having the potential to emit, at the threshold levels.”

. The Agency responded that, “[i]n

general, the Illinois EPA intends to rely on Annual Emission Reports submitted by

owners/operators of emission sources.” MG Answers at 2;

Tr.1 at 184-86.

In the second motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency sought to add a new

subsection providing in its entirety that “[f]or purposes of this Section, ‘potential to emit’ means

the quantity of NO

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

that potentially could be emitted by a stationary source as

established in a federally enforceable permit.” Mot. Amend 2 at 6. The Agency stated that it

added this definition in response to comments by USEPA.

In another question filed for the first hearing, Midwest Generation noted that Section

217.150(a) originally provided that “[t]he provisions of this Subpart and Subparts D, E, F, G, H,

and M apply to . . . [a]ll sources. . . .” MG Questions at 2;

Prop. at 26. Midwest Generation

asked whether the Agency intended “that all of these subparts actually apply to all sources in the

specified geographic areas.” MG Questions at 2-3. Specifically, Midwest Generation asked

whether the Agency instead intended “that only one subpart will apply to a unit or units at

threshold sources, as determined by the characteristics of the unit.”

. at 3. The Agency

responded by stating its “intent that each respective Subpart apply to sources that meet the

applicability criteria and individual emission units at such sources that meet the applicability

, the provisions of a respective Subpart apply to the extent a source includes emission

units of the type covered under the Subpart.” MG Answers at 3.

In another question filed for the first hearing, Midwest Generation claimed that “[t]he ‘all

industrial boilers’ language in Section 217.160(a) and similar language in the other subparts

could be construed to expand the scope of [the original] Section 217.150(a)(2), which refers to

‘any industrial boiler [and other types of emission units] that emits NO

in an amount equal to or

greater than 15 tons per year and equal to or greater than five tons per ozone season.” MG

Questions at 2;

Prop. at 41-42 (proposed Section 217.160(a)). Midwest Generation

questioned whether the Agency intended “to expand the applicability of the rule in this way.”

MG Questions at 2. The Agency responded by expressing the intent “that each Subpart apply to

all of the affected emission units at an affected source,

, ‘any’ emission unit that meets the

applicability criteria.” MG Answers at 3.

The Agency also proposed a new subsection (b) providing that, if a source ceases to

fulfill the emissions criteria of subsection (a) of this Section, the requirements of Subparts E, F,

G, H, I, or M of Part 217 continue to apply to any emission unit that was ever subject to the

provisions of any of those Subparts.

Statement at 17; Prop. at 26. The proposed subsection

(c) provides that “the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to afterburners, flares, and

incinerators.”

Statement at 17; Prop. at 27.

In addition, the Agency’s proposed subsection (d) provided that,

where a construction permit, for which the application was submitted to the

Agency prior to the adoption of Subpart C, is issued that relies on decreases in

emissions of NO

from existing emission units for purposes of netting or emission

offsets, such NO

decreases remain creditable notwithstanding any requirements

that may apply to the existing emission units pursuant to Subpart C and Subpart

D, E, F, G, H, or M of Part 217. Statement at 17;

In the first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency sought to add a

subsection (e) providing in its entirety that “[t]he owner or operator of an emission unit that is

subject to this Subpart and Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M of this Part must operate such unit in a

manner consistent with good air pollution control practice to minimize NO

emissions.” Mot.

Amend 1 at 3. The Agency had originally included this language in the proposed subsection

217.152(b) regarding the compliance date. Prop. at 27;

Tr.1 at 196-98 (suggesting relocation

under applicability provisions).

Section 217.152: Compliance Date.

The Agency sought to add a new section regarding

the compliance date for its proposed rule. Statement at 17;

Prop. at 27. The proposed

subsection (a) originally provided “that compliance with the requirements of Subparts D, E, F, G,

H, and M by an owner or operator of an emission unit that is subject to any one of those subparts

is required beginning May 1, 2010.” Statement at 17;

Proposed subsection (b) originally provided “that the first annual compliance period is

May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011, and then on a calendar years basis thereafter.” Statement

Prop. at 27. Subsection (b) also originally provided that “the owner or operator of an

emission unit that is subject to Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M must operate such unit in a manner

consistent with good air pollution control practice to minimize NO

emissions.” Statement at 17;

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation asked

how the second sentence of subsection (b), regarding air pollution control practices, related to the

proposed compliance date. MG Questions at 3. Responding, the Agency simply stated that

“[t]here is no relation.” MG Answers at 3;

Tr.1 at 196-98 (suggesting relocation under

applicability provisions). In post-hearing comments, the Agency agreed “that it may be more

appropriate to place this sentence in another section. . . . PC 1 at 4.

In comments filed for the second hearing beginning December 9, 2008, Saint-Gobain

argued that “a narrow exception should be made to the May 1, 2010 compliance date for entities

that enter into an enforceable agreement with IEPA to install control technology that can achieve

emission rates significantly below the 5.0 lbs/ton limit pursuant to an enforceable schedule

extending beyond 2010.” PC 4 at 1. Saint-Gobain states that it “is currently in the process of

negotiating such an agreement with IEPA.”

. Saint-Gobain specifically proposed that Section

217.152 include a new subsection providing in its entirety that,

[n]otwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this Section, compliance with the

requirements of Subpart F of this Part by an owner or operator of an emission unit

subject to Subpart F of this Part shall be extended until December 31, 2014, if

such units are required to meet emissions limitations for NO

, as measured using a

continuous emissions monitoring system, and included within a legally

enforceable order on or before December 31, 2009, whereby such emissions

limitations are less than 30 percent of the emissions limitations set forth under

Section 217.204 of Subpart F of this Part.

Saint-Gobain supported its proposed language by stating that it

cannot afford to install the technology required to meet an interim limit of 5.0

lbs/ton for the period between the compliance date under Section 217.204 and the

anticipated schedule for installation of the alternative technology at the end of

2014, and thus the opportunity for substantially greater long-term emission

reductions may be lost if a limited exemption from the May 1, 2010 compliance

date is not adopted.

Saint-Gobain also argued that early installation of CEMS would require significantly greater

expense than later installation with the alternative technology and “would serve no compliance

Participants doubted that sources could achieve compliance by the Agency’s proposed

compliance deadline and proposed alternative compliance schedules.

, Exh. 5 at 15-16

(IERG). Exh. 6 at 12-15 (IERG), Exh. 9 at 3-6 (ConocoPhillips), Exh. 10 at 7-8 (U.S. Steel). In

the first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency proposed to amend subsection (a)

to provide in its entirety that “[c]ompliance with the requirements of Subparts D, E, F, G, H, and

M by an owner or operator of an emission unit that is subject to Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M is

required beginning January 1, 2012.” Mot. Amend 1 at 2, 3.

The first motion to amend also sought to amend subsection (b) to provide in its entirety

[n]otwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, compliance with the

requirements of Subpart F of this Part by an owner or operator of an emission unit

subject to Subpart F of this Part shall be extended until December 31, 2014, if

such units are required to meet emissions limitations for NO

, as measured using a

continuous emissions monitoring system, and included within a legally

enforceable order on or before December 31, 2009, whereby such emissions

limitations are less than 30 percent of the emissions limitations set forth under

Section 217.204 of Subpart F of this Part. Mot. Amend 2 at 2, 3.

In the second motion to amend its proposal, the Agency sought to add a subsection (c)

providing in its entirety that,

[n]otwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, the owner or operator of emission

units subject to Subpart D or E of this 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 of this Part, as

applicable, for the listed emission units beginning on the dates set forth in

Appendix H. 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. Mot. Amend 2 at 2, 6-7;

Mot. Amend 2 at 13-14 (proposed Appendix H).

Section 217.154: Performance Testing.

The Agency sought to add a new section

regarding performance testing requirements for units subject to Subparts D, E, F, G, or H.

Statement at 18-19;

Prop. at 27-28. Proposed subsection (a) originally provided “that such

testing for emission units constructed on or before December 1, 2009, and subject to one of those

subparts must be conducted in accordance with Section 217.157.” Statement at 18;

27. Subsection (a) also provided an exception from this requirement for owners and operators

demonstrating compliance through CEMS. Statement at 18;

Proposed subsection (b) provided that “performance testing of NO

emission units constructed or modified after December 1, 2009, and subject to one of those

subparts must be conducted within 60 days of achieving maximum operating rate but no later

than 180 days after initial startup of the new or modified emission units, in accordance with

Section 217.157.” Statement at 18;

Prop. at 27. Subsection (b) also provided an exception

for owners and operators demonstrating compliance through CEMS. Statement at 18;

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, IERG noted that subsection

(a) and (b) “refer to the date of emission unit construction or modification” and asked the

Agency to clarify the meaning of the terms “constructed on or before” and “construction or

modification occurs after.” IERG Questions at 16-17. Specifically, IERG asked whether the

Agency refers to “the beginning of construction, the completion of construction, [or] the date of

issuance of a construction permit?”

In its response, the Agency first noted that definitions in Parts 201 and 211 apply to Part

217. IERG Answers at 9;

35 Ill. Adm. Code 201, 211, 217.103. The Agency further noted

that Section 201.102 defines “construction” as “commencement of on-site fabrication, erection

or installation of an emission source or of air pollution control equipment.” IERG Answers at 9,

citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.102. The Agency also notes that it defines “modification” as

any physical change in, or change in the method of operations, of an emission

source or of air pollution control equipment which increases the amount of any

specified air contaminant emitted by such source or equipment or which results in

the emission of any specified air contaminant not previously emitted. It shall be

presumed that an increase in the use of raw materials, the time of operation or the

rate of production will change the amount of any specified air contaminant

emitted. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this definition, for purposes of

permits issued pursuant to Subpart D, the Illinois Environmental Agency

(Agency) may specify conditions under which an emission source or air pollution

control equipment may be operated without causing a modification as herein

defined, and normal cyclical variations, before the date operating permits are

required, shall not be considered modifications. IERG Answers at 9, citing 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 201.102.

The Agency suggests that these definitions determine what constitutes the beginning or the

completion of construction. IERG Answers at 9.

In its first motion to amend its proposal, the Agency sought to replace subsection (a) with

the following language:

[p]erformance testing of NO

emissions for emission units constructed on or

before July 1, 2011, and subject to Subpart D, E, F, G, or H of this Part must be

conducted in accordance with Section 217.157 of this Subpart. This subsection

does not apply to owners and operators of emission units demonstrating

compliance through a continuous emissions monitoring system. Mot. Amend 1 at

In its first notice comment, the Agency proposed to clarify subsection (a) by adding

“references to ‘emission limitations under’ an applicable Subpart and to add the exclusion for a

‘predictive emission monitoring system, or combustions tuning.’” PC 17 at 2. Specifically, the

Agency proposed the following language:

[p]erformance testing of NO

emissions for emission units constructed on or

before July 1, 2011, and subject to emissions limitations under Subpart E, F, G, H,

or I of this Part must be conducted in accordance with Section 217.157 of this

Subpart. Except as provided for under Section 217.157(a)(4) and (e)(1), this

subsection does not apply to owners and operators of emission units

demonstrating compliance through a continuous emission monitoring system,

predictive emission monitoring system, or combustion tuning. PC 17 at 2-3.

Also in the first motion to amend, the Agency sought to replace subsection (b)

with the following language:

[p]erformance testing of NO

emissions for emission units for which construction

or modification occurs after July1, 2011, and that are subject to Subpart D, E, F,

G, or H of this Part must be conducted within 60 days of achieving maximum

operating rate but no later than 180 days after initial startup of the new or

modified emission unit, in accordance with Section 217.157 of this Subpart. This

subsection does not apply to owners and operators of emission units

demonstrating compliance through a continuous emissions monitoring system.

Mot. Amend 1 at 3.

In its first notice comment, the Agency proposed to clarify subsection (b) by adding

“references to ‘emission limitations under’ an applicable Subpart and to add the exclusion for a

‘predictive emission monitoring system, or combustions tuning.’” PC 17 at 2. Specifically, the

Agency proposed the following language:

[p]erformance testing of NO

emissions for emission units for which construction

or modification occurs after July 1, 2011, and subject to emissions limitations

under Subpart E, F, G, H, or I of this Part must be conducted within 0 days of

achieving maximum operating rate but no later than 180 days after initial startup

of the new or modified emission unit, in accordance with Section 217.157 of this

Subpart. Except as provided for under Section 217.157(a)(4) and (e)(1), this

subsection does not apply to owners and operators of emission units

demonstrating compliance through a continuous emission monitoring system,

predictive emission monitoring system, or combustion tuning. PC 17 at 2-3.

Proposed subsection (c) provides that notification of initial startup of a unit subject to

subsection (b) “must be provided to the Agency no later than 30 days after initial startup.”

Statement at 18;

Prop. at 28. Proposed subsection (d) provides that the owner or operator of

a unit subject to subsection (a) or (b) “must notify the Agency of the scheduled date for the

performance testing at least 30 days in writing before such date and five days before such date.”

Statement at 18;

Proposed subsection (e) provides that, “if demonstrating compliance through a emissions

averaging plan, at least 30 days before changing the method of compliance, the owner or

operator of an emission unit must submit a written notification to the Agency describing the new

method of compliance, the reason for the change in the method of compliance, and the scheduled

date for the compliance demonstration testing, if required.” Statement at 18-19;

Subsection (e) also provides that an owner or operator changing the method of compliance “must

submit to the Agency a revised compliance certification that meets the requirements of Section

217.155.” Statement at 19;

Section 217.155: Initial Compliance Certification.

The Agency sought to add a new

section regarding initial compliance certification for units subject to Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M.

Statement at 19-20:

Prop. at 28-29. As originally proposed, subsection (a) provided that, by

May 1, 2010, the owner or operator of a unit subject to Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M who does not

demonstrate compliance with CEMS “must certify to the Agency that the emission unit will be in

compliance with the applicable emissions limitation of Subpart D, E, F, G, or H of Part 217

beginning May 1, 2010.” Statement at 19;

Prop. at 28. The subsection also provided that

“certification must include the results of the performance testing performed in accordance with

Sections 217.154(a) and (b) of Subpart C and the calculations necessary to demonstrate that the

subject emission unit will be in initial compliance.” Statement at 19;

In the first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency sought to replace

subsection (a) with the following language:

[b]y the applicable compliance date set forth under Section 217.152 of this

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

or H of this Part who is not demonstrating compliance through the use of a

continuous emissions monitoring system must certify to the Agency that the

emission unit will be in compliance with the applicable emissions limitation of

Subpart D, E, F, G, or H of this Part beginning on such applicable compliance

date. The performance testing certification must include the results of the

performance testing performed in accordance with Sections 217.154(a) and (b) of

this Subpart and the calculations necessary to demonstrate that the subject

emission unit will be in initial compliance. Mot. Amend 1 at 4.

As originally proposed, subsection (b) provided that, by May 1, 2010, the owner or

operator of a unit subject to Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M who is demonstrating compliance with

CEMS “must certify to the Agency that the affected emission units will be in compliance with

the applicable emissions limitation of Subpart D, E, F, G, or H of Part 217 beginning May 1,

2010.” Statement at 19;

Prop. at 28. The subsection also provided that “[s]uch compliance

certification must include a certification of the installation and operation of a continuous

emissions monitoring system required under Sections 217.157 of Subpart C and the monitoring

data necessary to demonstrate that the subject emission unit will be in initial compliance.”

Statement at 19-20;

Prop. at 28-29.

In the first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency sought to replace

subsection (b) with the following language:

[b]y the applicable compliance date set forth under Section 217.152 of this

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

H, or M of this Part who is demonstrating compliance through the use of a

continuous emissions monitoring system must certify to the Agency that the

affected emission units will be in compliance with the applicable emissions

limitation of Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M of this Part beginning on such applicable

compliance date. The compliance certification must include a certification of the

installation and operation of a continuous emissions monitoring system required

under Section 217.157 of this Subpart and the monitoring data necessary to

demonstrate that the subject emission unit will be in initial compliance. Mot.

PC 2 at 1 (proposing extension of compliance deadline for

Section 217.156: Recordkeeping and Reporting.

The Agency sought to add a new

section regarding recordkeeping and reporting by owners or operators of sources subject to

Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M. Statement at 20-23:

Prop. at 29-32. The proposed subsection

(a) provided that such owners or operators “must keep and maintain all records used to

demonstrate initial compliance and ongoing compliance with the requirements of these

Subparts.” Statement at 20;

Prop. at 29. The subsection also provided that, “except as

otherwise provided under those Subparts, copies of such records must be submitted by the owner

or operator of the source to the Agency within 30 days after receipt of a written request by the

Agency, and such records must be kept at the source and maintained for at least five years and

must be available for inspection and copying by the Agency.” Statement at 20;

(proposed subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2)).

Proposed subsection (b) provided that the owner or operator of a unit subject to Subpart

D, E, F, G, H, or M must maintain records, including eleven specific items, demonstrating

compliance with the applicable subpart. Statement at 20-21;

Prop. at 29-30. Specifically,

subsection (b)(8) requires that records include “[a] log of all maintenance and inspections related

to the unit’s air pollution control equipment for NO

that it performed on the unit.” Prop. at 30;

Statement at 20-21. Also, subsection (b)(9) requires that records include “[a] log for the NO

monitoring device, if present, including periods when not in service and maintenance and

inspection activities that are performed on the device.” Prop. at 30;

Statement at 21.

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation asked

whether “the recordkeeping systems that sources already have in place comprise the ‘logs’

required at Sections 217.156(b)(8) and (9), assuming all of the information required by the rule is

included?” MG Questions at 2. The Agency responded that they do comprise the required logs,

“as long as all of the required information under the rule is included.” MG Answers at 3.

Proposed subsection (c) provided in its entirety that “[t]he owner or operator of an

industrial boiler subject to Subpart D of this Part must maintain records in order to demonstrate

compliance with the combustion tuning requirements under Section 217.166 of this Part.” Prop.

Statement at 21. Proposed subsection (d) provided in its entirety that “[t]he owner or

operator of a process heater subject to Subpart E of this Part must maintain records in order to

demonstrate compliance with the combustion tuning requirements under Section 217.186 of this

Part.” Prop. at 30;

Statement at 21. Proposed subsection (e) provided in its entirety that

“[t]he owner or operator of an emission unit subject to Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M of this Part

must maintain records in order to demonstrate compliance with the testing and monitoring

requirements under Section 217.157 of this Subpart.” Prop. at 30;

Statement at 21.

Proposed subsection (f) provided that an owner or operator of a unit subject to Subparts

D, E, F, G, or H must provide four specific submissions with respect to performance testing

under Section 217.157(a)(4) and (b)(2). Prop. at 30-31;

Statement at 21-22. In the second

motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency sought to amend subsection (f) to provide

that recordkeeping and reporting, as they pertain to performance testing, applies “to all

performance testing conducted under Section 217.157 and not just certain testing as under the

original proposal.” Mot. Amend 2 at 2;

Prop. at 30-31.

Proposed subsection (g) provided that “the owner or operator of an emission unit subject

to Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M must notify the Agency of any exceedances of an applicable

emissions limitation of Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M by sending the applicable report with an

explanation of the causes of such exceedances to the Agency within 30 days following the end of

the applicable compliance period in which the emissions limitation was not met.” Statement at

Prop. at 31. In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest

Generation asked what constitutes the “applicable compliance period.” MG Questions at 2. The

Agency responded that that period is “[t]he annual or ozone season compliance period.” MG

Proposed subsection (h) provided that, “within 30 days of a written request by the

Agency, the owner or operator of an emission unit that is exempt from the requirements of

Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M must submit records that document that the emission unit is exempt

from those requirements to the Agency.” Statement at 22;

Prop. at 31. Proposed subsection

(i) provided that an owner or operator complying through an emissions averaging plan must

submit by March 1 following the applicable calendar year a report demonstrating four specific

items. Prop. at 31;

Statement at 22. Proposed subsection (j) provided that an owner or

operator complying through the use of CEMS must submit to the Agency within 30 days after

the end of each calendar quarter a report including two specified items of information. Prop. at

Statement at 23.

Proposed subsection (k) provided that “the owner or operator of an emission unit subject

to Subpart M must comply with the compliance certification and recordkeeping and reporting

requirements in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 96, or an alternate procedure approved by the Agency

and USEPA.” Statement at 23;

Prop. at 32. In a question filed for the first hearing on

October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation asked whether subsection (k) “supersede[s] the other

recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Section 217.156?” MG Questions at 2.

Responding, the Agency stated that its “intent is that electric generating units subject to Subpart

M comply with the compliance certifications, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements

pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 96, in conjunction with the other recordkeeping and reporting requirements

under Section 217.156, to the extent the requirements are not duplicative.” MG Answers at 4.

Section 217.157: Testing and Monitoring.

The Agency sought to add a new section

regarding testing and monitoring by owners or operators of sources subject to Subpart D, E, F, G,

H, or M. Statement at 20-27:

Prop. at 32-37. The proposed subsection (a) “includes the

provisions applicable to owners and operators of industrial boilers subject to Subpart D and

process heaters subject to Subpart E.” Statement at 23;

Prop. at 32-34.

Proposed subsection (a)(1) provided that “the owner or operator of an industrial boiler

subject to Subpart D with a rated heat input capacity greater than 250 mmBtu/hr must install,

calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emissions monitoring system on the emission unit

for the measurement of NO

emissions discharged into the atmosphere in accordance with 40

C.F.R. Part 75.” Statement at 23;

Proposed subsection (a)(2) provided that

the owner or operator of an industrial boiler subject to Subpart D with a rated heat

input capacity greater than 100 mmBtu/hr but less than or equal to 250 mmBtu/hr

must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emissions monitoring

system on the emission unit for the measurement of NO

emissions discharged

into the atmosphere in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart A, and

Appendix B, Performance Specifications 2 and 3, and Appendix F, Quality

Assurance Procedures. Statement at 24;

Prop. at 32-33.

Proposed subsection (a)(3) provided that

the owner or operator of a process heater subject to Subpart E with a rated heat

input capacity greater than 100 mmBtu/hr must install, calibrate, maintain, and

operate a continuous emissions monitoring system on the emission unit for the

measurement of NO

emissions discharged into the atmosphere in accordance

with 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart A, and Appendix B, Performance Specifications 2

and 3, and Appendix F, Quality Assurance Procedures. Statement at 24;

In testimony filed on behalf of ConocoPhillips for the second hearing on December 9,

2008, Mr. Dunn noted that the Agency’s proposal requiring installation of CEMS on any

industrial boiler or process heater over 100 mmBtu/hr would result in total estimated costs of

$12 million. Exh. 9 at 14-15. Mr. Dunn recommended that the Agency limit CEMS

requirements to units greater than 250 mmBtu/hr.

. at 15. He also expressed the view that

“annual performance testing is sufficient for process heaters that are included in an averaging

. In post-hearing comments filed on March 23, 2009, ConocoPhillips noted that these

issues remained outstanding concerns with the Agency. PC 14 at 2-3.

Proposed subsection (a)(4) provided that, “if demonstrating compliance through an

emissions averaging plan, the owner or operator of an industrial boiler subject to Subpart D, or a

process heater subject to Subpart E, with a rated heat input capacity less than or equal to 100

mmBtu/hr and not demonstrating compliance through a continuous emission monitoring system

must have an initial performance test.” Statement at 24;

Prop. at 33. Proposed subsection

(a)(4)(A) establisheed the timing for the required subsequent performance tests. Statement at 24;

Prop. at 33. Proposed subsection (a)(4)(B) originally established other requirements for

these tests. Statement at 24;

Prop. at 33-34. In the first motion to amend its rulemaking

proposal, the Agency proposed to replace that language with the following:

[t]he owner or operator of an industrial boiler or process heater must have a

performance test conducted using 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A, and Appendix A,

Method 1, 2, 3, 4, 7E, or 19, as incorporated by reference in Section 217.104 of

this Part, or other alternative USEPA methods approved by the Agency. Each

performance test must consist of three separate runs, each lasting a minimum of

emissions must be measured while the industrial boiler is

operating at maximum operating capacity or while the process heater is operating

at normal maximum load. If the industrial boiler or process heater has combusted

more than one type of fuel in the prior year, a separate performance test is

required for each fuel. If a combination of fuels is typically used, a performance

test may be conducted with Agency approval on such combination of fuels

typically used. Except as provided under subsection (e) of this Section, this

subsection (a)(4)(B) of this Section does not apply if such owner or operator is

demonstrating compliance with an emissions limitation through a continuous

emissions monitoring system under subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(5)) of

this Section. Mot. Amend 1 at 4-5.

Proposed subsection (a)(5) provided that, instead of complying with subsection (a)(4),

(a)(4)(A), and (a)(4)(B), “an owner or operator of an industrial boiler subject to Subpart D of this

Part, or a process heater subject to Subpart E of this Part, with a rated heat input capacity less

than or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr may install and operate a continuous emissions monitoring

system that meets the applicable requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart A, and Appendix B,

Performance Specifications 2 and 3, and Appendix F, Quality Assurance Procedures.” Statement

Prop. at 34. The proposed subsection further provided that the CEMS “must be used to

demonstrate compliance with the applicable emissions limitation or emissions averaging plan on

an ozone season and annual basis.” Statement at 25;

Proposed subsection (a)(6) provided that, notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), the owner or

operator of an auxiliary boiler subject to Subpart D “with a rated heat input capacity less than or

equal to 250 mmBtu/hr and a capacity factor of less than or equal to 20% is not required to

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emissions monitoring system on such boiler

for the measurement of NO

emissions discharged into the atmosphere, but must comply with the

performance test requirements under subsections (a)(4), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(4)(B) of this Section.”

Statement at 25;

The proposed subsection (b) included provisions applicable to owners and operators of

glass melting furnaces subject to Subpart F, cement and lime kilns subject to Subpart G, iron and

steel reheat, annealing, or galvanizing furnaces subject to Subpart H, and aluminum

reverberatory and crucible furnaces subject to Subpart H. Statement at 25;

Proposed subsection (b)(1) provided that

an owner or operator of such an emission unit that has the potential to emit NO

an amount equal to or greater than one ton per day must install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a continuous emissions monitoring system on each such

emission unit for the measurement of NO

emissions discharged into the

atmosphere in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart A, and Appendix B,

Performance Specifications 2 and 3, and Appendix F, Quality Assurance

Procedures. Statement at 25-26;

Prop. at 34-35.

Proposed subsection (b)(2) provided that “an owner or operator of a glass melting

furnace, cement kiln or lime kiln, iron and steel reheat, annealing, or galvanizing furnace, or

aluminum reverberatory and crucible furnace that has the potential to emit NO

in an amount less

than one ton per day must have an initial performance test conducted” pursuant to subsection

(b)(4) and Section 217.154. Statement at 26;

Prop. at 35. Proposed subsection (b)(3)

establisheed the timing for the required subsequent performance tests. Statement at 26;

Proposed subsection (b)(4) originally established methods and requirements for those

performance tests. Statement at 26;

Prop. at 36. In comments filed on January 20, 2009,

Saint-Gobain proposed to amend that language by adding a sentence providing that, if a unit

demonstrates compliance with NO

limitations by CEMS under subsection (b)(1), then this

subsection (b)(4) does not apply. PC 4 at 1. In the first motion to amend its rulemaking

proposal, the Agency proposed to replace that language with the following:

The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace, cement kiln, or lime kiln must

have a performance test conducted using 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A, and

Appendix A, Methods 1. 2, 3, 4, and 7E, as incorporated by reference in Section

217.104 of this Part, or other alternative USEPA methods approved by the

Agency. The owner or operator of an iron and steel reheat, annealing, or

galvanizing furnace, or aluminum reverberatory or crucible furnace must have a

performance test conducted using 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A, and Appendix A,

Method 1, 2, 3, 4, 7E, or 19, as incorporated by reference in Section 217.104 of

this Part, or other alternative USEPA methods approved by the Agency. Each

performance test must consist of three separate runs, each lasting a minimum of

emissions must be measured while the glass melting furnace,

cement kiln, lime kiln, iron and steel reheat, annealing, or galvanizing furnace, or

aluminum reverberatory or crucible furnace is operating at maximum operating

capacity. If the glass melting furnace, cement kiln, lime kiln, iron and steel

reheat, annealing, or galvanizing furnace, or aluminum reverberatory or crucible

furnace has combusted more than one type of fuel in the prior year, a separate

performance test is required for each fuel. Except as provided under subsection

(e) of this Section, this subsection (b)(4) of this Section does not apply if such

owner or operator is demonstrating compliance with an emissions limitation

through a continuous emissions monitoring system under subsection (b)(1) or

(b)(5) of this Section. Mot. Amend 1 at 5;

at 57 (noting proposed

addition of subsection (e));

PC 4 at 1 (Saint-Gobain pre-hearing

Proposed subsection (b)(5) provided that, instead of complying with subsections (b)(2),

(b)(3), and (b)(4),

an owner or operator of a glass melting furnace, cement kiln or lime kiln, iron and

steel reheat, annealing, or galvanizing furnace, or aluminum reverberatory and

crucible furnace that has the potential to emit NO

in an amount less than one ton

per day may install and operate a continuous emissions operating system on such

emission unit that meets the applicable requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart

A, and Appendix B, Performance Specifications 2 and 3, and Appendix F, Quality

Assurance Procedures. Statement at 26;

The proposed subsection also provides that the CEMS “must be used to demonstrate compliance

with the applicable emissions limitation or emissions averaging plan on an ozone season and

annual basis.” Statement at 26;

Proposed subsection (c) provided in its entirety that “[t]he owner or operator of a fossil

fuel-fired stationary boiler subject to Subpart M of this Part must install, calibrate, maintain, and

operate a continuous emissions monitoring system on such emission unit for the measurement of

emissions discharged into the atmosphere in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 96, Subpart

H.” Prop. at 36;

Statement at 27.

Proposed subsection (d) provided in its entirety that,

[i]f two or more emission units subject to Subpart D, E, F, G, H, M, or Q of this

Part are served by a common stack and the owner or operator of such emission

units is operating a continuous emissions monitoring system, the owner or

operator may, with written approval from the Agency, utilize a single continuous

emissions monitoring system for the combination of emission units subject to

Subpart D, E, F, G, H, M, or Q of this Part that share the common stack, provided

such emission units are subject to an emissions averaging plan under this Part.

Statement at 27.

In its first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency proposed to add a

subsection (e) to extend the deadline for the installation of CEMS. Mot. Amend 1 at 5;

6 at 21 (urging additional time for installation), Exh. 9 (supporting three-year extension for

installation). In its second motion to amend, the Agency proposed to amend subsection (e) to

allow additional time for installation of CEMS. Mot. Amend 2 at 2, 7-8. The Agency also

proposed to add a subsection (f) allowing “for a predictive emission monitoring system, in

accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart A, and Appendix B, Performance 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 other statute, regulation, or enforceable order to install a

CEMS on an emission unit.” Mot. Amend 2 at 2-3, 7-8.

Section 217.158: Emissions Averaging Plans.

The Agency sought to add a new section

regarding emissions averaging plans. Statement at 27-29:

Prop. at 37-41. Generally,

“[s]ources may aggregate and then average the NO

emissions from units at the same location in

Illinois to comply with the emissions limitations. . . .” Kaleel Pre-filed Test. at 3. Specifically,

proposed subsection (a) provided that, “[n]otwithstanding any other emissions averaging plan

provisions under this Part, an owner or operator of a source with certain emission units subject to

Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M of this Part, or subject to Subpart Q of this Part that are located in

either one of the areas set forth under Section 217.150(a)(1)(A) or (B) of this Subpart, may

demonstrate compliance with the applicable Subpart through an emissions averaging plan.”

Statement at 27.

In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed to correct the reference to “Section

217.150(a)(1)(A) or (B)” to read as “Section 217.150(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii).” PC 17 at 3;

Reg. 6941 (May 22, 2009) (reorganizing proposed Section 217.150).

The proposed subsection also provided that “[a]n emissions averaging plan can only

address emission units that are located at one source and each unit may only be covered by one

emissions averaging plan.” Prop. at 37;

Statement at 27, Tr.1 at 180. In a question filed for

the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation asked whether the Agency intended

to preclude “a unit that is in an averaging plan under this rule from participating in averaging

plans under other rules and

” MG Questions at 1. The Agency responded that it

intends “that an emission unit be included in only one seasonal and one annual averaging plan.

Units affected by Subpart Q (Engine Rule) can be included in an averaging plan with units

affected by this proposal.” MG Answers at 2;

Tr.1 at 181. Finally, the proposed subsection

also provides that “[s]uch emission units at the source are affected units and are subject to the

requirements of this Section.” Prop. at 37;

Statement at 27.

Proposed subsection (a)(1) described units that may be included in an emissions

averaging plan. Statement at 27;

Prop. at 37. First, under subsection (a)(1)(A), a plan may

include “[u]nits that commenced operation on or before January 1, 2002.” Prop. at 37;

Statement at 27. In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, ExxonMobil asked

how the Agency set that date as a cutoff. ExxonMobil Questions at 4-5;

IERG Questions at

4. The Agency responded that “USEPA has established 2002 as the base year for planning

purposes for implementation of the ozone and PM

NAAQS established in 1997. States are

required to demonstrate continued progress towards attainment beginning in that year. The

Illinois EPA is seeking emission reductions from emission units that were in existence in 2002.”

ExxonMobil Answers at 5. The Agency acknowledged that new units may, under various

requirements, “have installed NO

control measures that are equal to or more stringent than the

proposed emission limitations here.”

. at 6. The Agency stated, however, that “[i]f such units

were included in an averaging plan with units that existed in 2002, then the existing units may

not need to reduce emissions. This is counter to the objective of achieving Reasonable Further

Progress between 2002 and the attainment year, 2010.

IERG Answers at 8.

Under proposed subsection (a)(1)(B), a plan may include “[u]nits that the owner or

operator may claim as exempt under Subpart D, E, F, G, H, or M, as applicable, but does not

claim as exempt.” Statement at 27-28;

Prop. at 37. The proposed subsection also provided

that, “[f]or as long as such a unit is included in an emissions averaging plan, it will be treated as

an affected unit and subject to the applicable emissions limitations, and testing, monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.” Prop. at 37.

Under proposed subsection (a)(1)(C), a plan may include “[u]nits 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 as the replacement unit.”

Statement at 28. In response to a question by IERG filed for the first hearing, the

Agency stated that, “[f]or the purpose of emissions averaging under this proposal, a replacement

the same as the unit it replaces.” IERG Answers at 8 (emphasis added);

Tr.1 at 80-83. In its second motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency proposed

to replace its original language with a new subsection (a)(1)(C) clarifying the replacement units

that may be included in an averaging plan. The Agency explained that

[t]he new unit must be used for the same purpose and have substantially

equivalent or less process capacity or be permitted for less NO

emissions on an

annual basis than the actual NO

emissions of the unit or units that are replaced.

In addition, 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 be included in the emissions averaging

plan” Mot. Amend 2 at 3, 8-9.

Proposed subsection (a)(2) described units that may not be included in an emissions

averaging plan. Statement at 27;

Prop. at 37. First, under proposed subsection (a)(2)(A), a

plan may not include “[u]nits that commence operation after January 1, 2002, except as provided

by subsection (a)(1)(C) of this Section.” Prop. at 38;

Statement at 28,

subsection (a)(1)(C)). Under proposed subsection (a)(2)(B), a plan may not include “[u]nits that

the owner or operator is claiming are exempt pursuant to Section 217.162, 217.182, 217.202,

217.222, 217.242, or 217.432 of this Part, as applicable.” Prop. at 38;

Statement at 28. Also,

under proposed subsection (a)(2)(C), the Agency originally proposed that plans may not include

“[u]nits that are required to meet emission limits for NO

as provided for in an enforceable order,

unless such order specifically provides for operation pursuant to an emissions averaging plan.”

Statement at 28. In its second motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the

Agency proposed to amend this subsection to provide that plans may not include

[u]nits that are required to meet emission limits or control requirements for NO

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. Mot. Amend 2 at 3, 9.

In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed to amend subsection (a)(2)(C) as

[u]nits that are required to meet emission limits or control requirements for NO

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

averaging. In the case of petroleum refineries, this subsection does not prohibit

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. PC 17 at 3.

Proposed subsection (b) provided that

an owner or operator must submit an emissions averaging plan to the Agency by

May 1, 2010, and such plan must include, but is not limited to, the list of affected

units included in the plan by unit identification number and a sample calculation

demonstrating compliance using the methodology provided in subsection (f) of

this Section for the ozone season (May 1 through September 30) and calendar

year (January 1 through December 31). Statement at 28;

In its first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency sought to extend the deadline to

submit an averaging plan to the Agency to January 1, 2012. Mot. Amend 1 at 6. In a question

filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation asked whether a source may

decide after the deadline for submitting a plan that it wishes to perform averaging. MG

Questions at 3. The Agency responded that “[a]veraging plans can be amended once per year at

the discretion of the owner/operator.” MG Answers at 4. The Agency elaborated that a unit that

had not submitted an averaging plan before the initial deadline can be included in averaging at a

Subsection (c), as originally proposed by the Agency, provided in its entirety that “[a]n

owner or operator may amend an emission plan only once per calendar year. Such an amended

plan must be submitted to the Agency by May 1 of the applicable calendar year. If an amended

plan is not received by the Agency by May 1 of the applicable calendar year, the previous year’s

plan will be the applicable emissions averaging plan.” Prop. at 38;

Statement at 28. In its

first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency proposed to amend this subsection by

changing the May 1 submission deadlines to January 1. Mot. Amend 1 at 6.

Proposed subsection (d) provided that, notwithstanding subsection (c),

If a unit that is listed in an emissions averaging plan is taken out of

service, the owner or operator must submit to the Agency, within 30 days

of such occurrence, an updated emissions averaging plan; or

If a unit that is exempt from the requirements of Subpart E, F, G, H, I, or

M, as applicable, no longer qualifies for an exemption, the owner or

operator may amend its existing averaging plan to include such unit within

30 days of the unit no longer qualifying for the exemption.

at 28-29; Prop. at 38-39.

Proposed subsection (e) provided that the owner or operator must demonstrate

compliance for both the ozone season and the calendar year by using the methodology and the

units included in the most recent averaging plan submitted to the Agency, “the higher of the

monitoring data or test data determined pursuant to Section 217.157,” and “the actual hours of

operation for the applicable averaging plan period.” Statement at 29;

Prop. at 39. The

proposed subsection also provided that the owner or operator must “submit to the Agency by

March 1 following each calendar year, a compliance report containing the information required

by Section 217.156(i).” Statement at 29;

Proposed subsection (f) “provides that the total mass of actual NO

emissions from the

units listed in the emissions averaging plan must be equal to or less than the total mass of

emissions for those units for both the ozone season and calendar year.”

Statement at 29;

Prop. at 39. The proposed subsection also includes the equation with which

to determine compliance. Prop. at 39-41.

Proposed subsection (g) provided that

the owner or operator of an emission unit subject to Subpart Q of this Part that is

located in either one of the areas set forth under Section 217.150(a)(1)(A) or (B)

of this Subpart that is complying through an emissions averaging plan under this

Section must comply with the applicable provisions for determining actual and

allowable emissions under Section 217.390 of Subpart Q, the testing and

monitoring requirements under Section 217.394 of Subpart Q, and the

recordkeeping and reporting requirements under Section 217.396 of Subpart Q.

Statement at 29;

In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed to correct the reference to “Section

217.150(a)(1)(A) or (B)” to read as “Section 217.150(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii).” PC 17 at 3;

Reg. 6941 (May 22, 2009) (reorganizing proposed Section 217.150).

In its second motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency sought to add a

subsection (h). Mot. Amend 2 at 3-4, 9. That proposed new subsection provides in its entirety

[t]he 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

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

emission units operating during the maintenance turnaround. Mot. Amend 2 at 9.

Also in its second motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency sought to add a

subsection (i). Mot. Amend 2 at 4, 9. That proposed new subsection provides in its entirety that

[t]he 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 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

pollution control equipment, if any, continues

to operate on all other emission units operating during the maintenance period.

Mot. Amend 2 at 9.

In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed to add a subsection (j) reading as

[t]he 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 NO

pollution control

equipment that controls one or more emission units 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 NO

pollution control equipment for the maintenance

turnaround and the shutdown of the NO

pollution control equipment does not

exceed 45 days per ozone season or calendar year, and except for those emission

units vented to the NO

pollution control equipment undergoing the maintenance

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

other emission units operating during the maintenance turnaround. PC 17 at 3.

Subpart E: Industrial Boilers

Section 217.160: Applicability.

The Agency sought to add a new section addressing

applicability of its proposal to industrial boilers. Prop. at 41-42. Proposed subsection (a)

provided that “the provisions of Subparts C and D apply to all industrial boilers located at

sources subject to Subpart D pursuant to Section 217.150.” Statement at 30;

at 44-46 (addressing applicability of general requirements). The Agency stated that

there are 12 industrial boilers subject to the NO

SIP Call affected by this proposal and an

additional 68 industrial boilers less than 250 mmBtu that are not subject to the NO

TSD at 130, Statement at 10;

MG Answers at 8.

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation claimed

that “[t]he ‘all industrial boilers’ language in Section 217.160(a) and similar language in the

other subparts could be construed to expand the scope of Section 217.150(a)(2), which refers to

‘any industrial boiler [and other types of emission units] that emits NO

in an amount equal to or

greater than 15 tons per year and equal to or greater than five tons per ozone season.” MG

Questions at 2;

Prop. at 41-42. Midwest Generation questions whether the Agency intends

“to expand the applicability of the rule in this way.” MG Questions at 2. The Agency responds

by expressing the intent “that each Subpart apply to all of the affected emission units at an

affected source,

, ‘any’ emission unit that meets the applicability criteria.” MG Answers at 3.

Proposed subsection (b) provided that “the provisions of Subpart D do not apply to

boilers serving a generator that has a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less and produces

electricity for sale, and cogeneration units, as that term is defined in Section 225.130 of Part 225,

if such boilers or cogeneration units are subject to the CAIR NO

Trading Programs under

Subpart D or E of Part 225.” Statement at 30;

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation stated

that, “[b]ased upon the proposed applicability language in Subpart M, Section 217.340, [and]

assuming the D.C. Circuit Court issues the mandate implementing its decision in the appeal of

the CAIR, EGUs would be subject to the provisions of Subpart D.” MG Questions at 3-4.

Midwest Generation consequently asked whether the Agency would consider amending

subsection (b) as follows: “[t]he provisions of this Subpart do not apply to boilers serving a

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

and cogeneration units, as that term is defined in Section 225.230 of Part 225, if such boilers or

cogeneration units are subject to the CAIR NO

Trading Programs under Subpart D or E of Part

Responding to Midwest Generation, the Agency stated that it was “amenable” to

amending its proposed definition in the following fashion: “[t]he provisions of this Subpart do

not apply to boilers serving a generator that has a nameplate capacity greater than 25 MWe and

produces electricity for sale, and cogeneration units, as that term is defined in Section 225.130 of

Part 225, if such boilers or cogeneration units are subject to meet the applicability criteria under

Subpart M of Part 217 the CAIR NO

Trading Programs under Subpart D or E of Part 225. MG

Answers at 4-6.

In its first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency recommended that the

Board “[a]mend Section 217.160 by amending subsection (b) to reflect the provisions as

previously agreed to between the Illinois EPA and Midwest Generation as reflected in the Illinois

EPA’s Answers to Midwest Generation’s Questions for Agency Witnesses, filed September 30,

2008, and the October 14, 2008, hearing.” Mot. Amend 1 at 6;

MG Question at 3-4, MG

Answers at 4-6.

In its post-hearing comments, Midwest Generation stated that,

[w]ith the amendments proposed to the Board by the Agency in its Motion to

Amend Rulemaking Proposal ("Agency's Motion") filed January 30, 2009,

Midwest Generation generally supports the Agency's proposal as it applies to

electric generating units ("EGUs"). The proposed amendments incorporate by

reference provisions agreed to between the Agency and Midwest Generation as

part of the Agency's Answers to Midwest Generation's Questions for Agency

Witnesses ("Agency's Answers"), which were filed before this Board on

September 30, 2008. PC 9 at 1-2 (noting Agency’s proposed amendment of

Section 217.160);

Mot. Amend 1 at 6, Tr.1 at 199-200.

In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed to amend subsection (b) “by

striking the references to ‘cogeneration units’ and adding reference to boilers that ‘meet

the applicability criteria under Subpart M of Part 217.’” PC 17 at 4, citing In the Matter

of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 45-46 (May 7, 2009). Specifically, the

Agency proposed language providing that “[t]he provisions of this Subpart do not apply

to 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.” PC 17 at 4.

Proposed subsection (c) provided that “the provisions of Subpart D do not apply to

fluidized catalytic cracking units, their regenerator and associated CO boiler or boilers and CO

furnace or furnaces where present, that commenced operation prior to January 1, 2008, if such

units are located at a petroleum refinery and such units are required to meet emission limits for

as provided for in an enforceable order.” Statement at 30-31;

In its first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency sought to amend

subsection (c) to provide that

[t]he provisions of this Subpart do not apply to fluidized catalytic cracking units,

their regenerator and associated CO boiler or boilers and CO furnace or furnaces

where present, that commenced operation prior to January 1, 2008, if such units

are located at a petroleum refinery and such units are required to meet emission

limits or control requirements for NO

as provided for in an enforceable order.

Mot. Amend 1 at 6

In its second motion to amend, the Agency proposed to remove the January 1, 2008, date for

commencement of operation “in the non-applicability provisions pertaining to certain fluidized

bed catalytic cracking units located at a petroleum refinery.” Mot. Amend 2 at 5, 9-10.

Section 217.162: Exemptions.

The Agency proposed to add a new section addressing

exemptions, which provides in its entirety that, “[n]otwithstanding Section 217.160 of this

Subpart, the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to an industrial boiler operating under a

federally enforceable limit of NO

emissions from such boiler to less than 15 tons per year and

less than five tons per ozone season.” Prop. at 42;

Statement at 31, Kaleel Pre-filed Test. at

Section 217.164: Emissions Limitations.

The Agency proposed to add a new section

addressing emission limitations from industrial boilers. Statement at 31; Prop. at 42-43;

TSD at 5-44 (Industrial Boilers and Electric Generating Unit Boilers). Originally, the

Agency proposed that, “[o]n and after May 1, 2010, no person shall cause or allow emissions of

into the atmosphere from any industrial boiler to exceed the limitations set forth under this

Section.” Statement at 31;

Prop. at 42-43. The Agency proposed specific limitations or

requirements based first on the unit’s fuel and then on its rated heat input capacity. Prop. at 42-

43 (proposed subsections (a) through (d)). The Agency also proposed that “[c]ompliance must

be demonstrated with the applicable emissions limitations on an ozone season and annual basis.”

Statement at 31.

In its first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency proposed to amend the

first sentence of Section 217.164 by extending the compliance deadline to January 1, 2012. Mot.

Amend 1 at 6. In its first notice comment, the Agency proposed to amend the first paragraph of

Section 217.164 to read as follows:

[e]xcept as provided for under Section 217.152, on and after January 1, 2012, no

person shall cause or allow emissions of NO

into the atmosphere from any

industrial boiler to exceed the following limitations. Compliance must be

demonstrated with the applicable emissions limitations on an ozone season and

annual basis. PC 17 at 4.

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation asked

the Agency to state the “basis for establishing a rate of 0.008 lb/mmBtu rate for gas-fired

industrial boilers greater than 100 mmBtu.” MG Questions at 3. The Agency responded that its

TSD establishes this basis. MG Answers at 4, citing TSD at 43 (Table 2-17a: Cost Effectiveness

Data for Natural Gas-Fired ICI Boilers).

In testimony on behalf of U.S. Steel for the second hearing, Mr. Siebenberger stated that

the Agency’s proposed emission limit of 0.08 lbs/MMBtu for industrial boilers greater than 100

MMBtu/hr relying on natural gas or other gaseous fuels does not take into account the “unique

characteristics” of specific U.S. Steel boilers. Exh. 10 at 6. Those unique characteristics

“include the combustion of a varying fuel mix of desulfurized or non-desulfurized coke oven gas

in combination with blast furnace gas and natural gas.”

. U.S Steel proposed alternate

emissions limits both for its Boilers 11 and 12 and for its reheat furnaces.

102-03 (addressing Agency consideration of coke oven gas fuel).

In testimony filed on behalf of IERG for the second hearing, Mr. Kolaz argued that the

difference in emissions between the Agency’s original proposal and IERG’s alternate proposal is

“relatively small.” Exh. 6 at 22. Mr. Kolaz further argued that IERG’s proposed emission limit

of 0.12 lbs/mmBtu for industrial boilers greater than 100 MMBtu/hr relying on natural gas or

other gaseous fuels is “more practically achievable.”

. at Exhs. 1, 2. Mr. Kolaz

also questioned the Agency’s proposed compliance date on grounds including the practical

ability of sources to implement these requirements.

In testimony filed on behalf of ConocoPhillips for the second hearing, Mr. Dunn stated

that the Agency’s proposed emission limit of 0.08 lb/MMBtu for industrial boilers greater than

100 MMBtu/hr relying on natural gas or other gaseous fuels is “overly stringent.” Exh. 9 at 6.

ConocoPhillips recommended an emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu, as recommended by IERG.

. at 9. ConocoPhillips further argued that the Agency’s compliance deadline is “not

In post-hearing comments filed January 20, 2009, ConocoPhillips again addressed the

emission limitation of 0.08 lb/mmBtu for gas-fired boilers greater than 100 mmBtu/hr. PC 5 at

3-4. ConocoPhillips argued that the proposed limit “is overly stringent for typical industrial

boilers when burning refinery fuel gas” and “does not adequately consider the economic

consequences” of installing the controls that comply with it.

In the second motion to amend, the Agency proposed to change the emissions limitation

for an industrial boiler, circulating fluidized bed combustor, with a rated heat input capacity

greater than 100 mmBtu/hr from 0.10 lb/mmBtu to 0.12 lb/mmBtu. Mot. Amend 2 at 4. The

Agency states that, “[d]uring discussions with affected parties, emissions information from an

existing source with such a unit was provided to Illinois EPA, and such information necessitated

a modification of the emissions limitation.”

. at 4, 10. Also in the second motion to amend,

the Agency proposed to add in a new subsection (e) a formula establishing “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.”

In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed a correction to the equation in

subsection (e). PC 17 at 4, citing In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various

Source Categories: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 98

PC 19 at 6 (proposing correction in U.S. Steel first notice comments).

Section 217.165: Combination of Fuels.

The Agency proposed to add a new section

addressing combination of fuels, which provides in its entirety that “[t]he owner or operator of an

industrial boiler subject to this Subpart and operated with any combination of fuels must comply

with a heat input weighted average emissions limitation to demonstrate compliance with Section

217.164 of this Subpart.” Prop. at 43;

Statement at 31;

see also supra

at 64-66 (discussing

proposed Section 217.164).

Section 217.166: Methods and Procedures for Combustion Tuning.

proposed to add a new section addressing combustion tuning. Prop. at 44. The proposed section

first provided that “the owner or operator of an industrial boiler subject to the combustion tuning

requirements of Section 217.164 must have combustion tuning performed at least annually.”

Statement at 31;

Prop. at 44. It also provided that “the combustion tuning must be performed

by an employee of the owner or operator or a contractor who has successfully completed a

training course on the combustion tuning of boilers firing the fuel or fuels that are fired in the

boiler.” Statement at 31;

Prop. at 44. Finally, the proposed section also sought to require

that the owner or operator maintain combustion tuning records containing five specific items and

make those records available to the Agency upon request. Statement at 31-32;

(proposed subsections (1) through (5)).

Subpart F: Process Heaters

Section 217.180: Applicability.

The Agency proposed to add a section addressing

applicability and providing in its entirety that “[t]he provisions of Subpart C of this Part and this

Subpart apply to all process heaters located at sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to Section

217.150 of this Part.” Prop. at 44;

Statement at 32,

at 44-46 (discussing Section

see generally

TSD at 46-65 (Process Heaters).

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation

suggested that the “all process heaters” language in Section 217.160(a) could be construed to

expand the scope of Section 217.150(a)(2), which refers to “any . . . process heater . . . that emits

in an amount equal to or greater than 15 tons per year and equal to or greater than five tons

per ozone season.” MG Questions at 2;

Prop. at 26 (proposed Section 217.150(a)(2)).

Midwest Generation questioned whether the Agency intended “to expand the applicability of the

rule in this way.” MG Questions at 2. The Agency responded by expressing the intent “that

each Subpart apply to all of the affected emission units at an affected source,

, ‘any’ emission

unit that meets the applicability criteria.” MG Answers at 3.

Section 217.182: Exemptions.

The Agency proposed to add a section addressing

exemptions and providing in its entirety that, “[n]otwithstanding Section 217.180 of this Section,

the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to a process heater operating under a federally

enforceable limit of NO

emissions from such heater to less than 15 tons per year and less than

five tons per ozone season.” Prop. at 45;

Statement at 33, Kaleel Pre-filed Test. at 3.

In testimony filed on behalf of IERG for the second hearing, Mr. Kolaz stated that “most

of the process heaters affected by this rule are located at petroleum refineries,” which “cannot

make changes to their process heaters without planning the work to occur during maintenance

turnarounds.” Exh. 6. at 23. He further stated that “it appears that the Agency used the emission

reductions from the USEPA refinery consent decrees for the attainment modeling conducted by

. at 24. He proposed that “the Agency consider the reductions from the federally

enforceable consent decrees to constitute RACT for these facilities.”

. He identified this

section as language that might be modified to adopt this proposed amendment.

Section 217.184: Emissions Limitations.

The Agency proposed to add a new section

addressing emission limitations from process heaters. Statement at 33; Prop. at 45-46;

TSD at 46-65 (Process Heaters). Originally, the Agency proposed that, “[o]n and after

May 1, 2010, no person shall cause or allow emissions of NO

into the atmosphere from any

process heater” to exceed specified limitations. Prop. at 45;

Statement at 33. The Agency

proposed specific limitations or requirements based first on the unit’s fuel and then on its rated

heat input capacity in mmBtu/hr. Prop. at 45-46 (proposed subsections (a), (b), and (c)). The

Agency also proposed that “[c]ompliance must be demonstrated with the applicable emissions

limitations on an ozone season and annual basis.” Prop. at 45;

Statement at 33.

In its first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency proposed to amend the

first sentence of Section 217.184 by extending the compliance deadline to January 1, 2012. Mot.

Amend 1 at 7. In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed to amend the first paragraph of

Section 217.184 to read as follows:

[e]xcept as provided for under Section 217.152, on and after January 1, 2012, no

person shall cause or allow emissions of NO

into the atmosphere from any

process heater to exceed the following limitations. Compliance must be

demonstrated with the applicable emissions limitations on an ozone season and

annual basis. PC 17 at 4.

In testimony filed on behalf of ConocoPhillips for the second hearing, Mr. Dunn stated

that the Agency’s proposed emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu for process heaters greater than

100 MMBtu/hr relying on gaseous fuels is “too stringent for typical process heaters” and requires

“control technology that is well beyond RACT.” Exh. 9 at 9. He further stated that

ConocoPhillips “agrees with IERG’s suggestions that the NO

emission limit of process heaters

be set at 0.12 lb NO

. at 12. ConocoPhillips further argued that the Agency’s

compliance deadline is “not achievable.”

In the second motion to amend, the Agency proposed to amend “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” from 0.07 lb/mmBtu to 0.08 lb/mmBtu. Mot. Amend 2 at 5,

Section 217.185: Combination of Fuels.

The Agency proposed to add a new section

addressing combination of fuels, which provides in its entirety that “[t]he owner or operator of a

process heater subject to this Subpart and operated with any combination of fuels must comply

with a heat input weighted average emissions limitation to demonstrate compliance with Section

217.184 of this Subpart.” Prop. at 46;

Statement at 33;

see also supra

at 67-68 (discussing

proposed Section 217.184).

Section 217.186: Methods and Procedures for Combustion Tuning.

proposed to add a new section addressing combustion tuning of process heaters. Prop. at 46-47.

The proposed section first provided that “the owner or operator of a process heater subject to the

combustion tuning requirements of Section 217.184 must have combustion tuning performed on

the heater at least annually.” Statement at 33;

Prop. at 44. The proposed section also

provided that “[t]he combustion tuning must be performed by an employee of the owner or

operator or a contractor who has successfully completed a training course on the combustion

tuning of heaters firing the fuel or fuels that are fired in the heater.” Statement at 33;

46. Finally, the proposed section also sought to require that the owner or operator maintain

combustion tuning records containing five specific items and make those records available to the

Agency upon request. Statement at 33-34;

Prop. at 46 (proposed subsections (1) through

Subpart G: Glass Melting Furnaces

Section 217.200: Applicability.

The Agency proposed to add a section addressing

applicability and providing in its entirety that “[t]he provisions of Subpart C of this Part and this

Subpart apply to all glass melting furnaces located at sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to

Section 217.150 of this Part.” Prop. at 47;

Statement at 34,

at 44-46 (discussing

Section 217.150);

see generally

TSD at 102-17 (Glass Melting Furnaces).

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation

suggested that the “all glass melting furnaces” language in Section 217.200 could be construed to

expand the scope of Section 217.150(a)(2), which refers to “any . . . glass melting furnace . . .

in an amount equal to or greater than 15 tons per year and equal to or greater than

five tons per ozone season.” MG Questions at 2;

Prop. at 26 (proposed Section

217.150(a)(2)). Midwest Generation questioned whether the Agency intended “to expand the

applicability of the rule in this way.” MG Questions at 2. The Agency responded by expressing

the intent “that each Subpart apply to all of the affected emission units at an affected source,

‘any’ emission unit that meets the applicability criteria.” MG Answers at 3.

Section 217.202: Exemptions.

The Agency proposed to add a section addressing

exemptions and providing in its entirety that, “[n]otwithstanding Section 217.200 of this Section,

the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to a glass melting furnace operating under a federally

enforceable limit of NO

emissions from such furnace to less than 15 tons per year and less than

five tons per ozone season.” Prop. at 47;

Statement at 35, Kaleel Pre-filed Test. at 3.

In a post-hearing comment filed November 25, 2008, Saint-Gobain expressed the belief

that “a narrow exception should be made to the May 1, 2010 compliance date for entities that

enter into an enforceable agreement with IEPA to install control technology that can achieve

emission rates significantly below the 5.0 lbs/ton limit pursuant to an enforceable schedule

extending beyond 2010. PC 2 at 1. As Saint-Gobain was negotiating such an agreement, it

proposed the following addition to this exemptions section:

[n]otwithstanding the compliance date set forth in Section 217.155(b) and

217.204, a compliance date of December 31 2014, shall apply when the owner or

operator of a container glass melting furnace subject to Subpart F has executed a

binding and enforceable agreement by December 31, 2009 with the State of

Illinois that requires compliance with a NO

limit that is less than 30 percent of

the emission limit in Section 217.204.

Mot. Amend. 1 at 3

(incorporating substance of proposed language into Section 217.152(b)).

Section 217.204: Emissions Limitations.

The Agency proposed to add a new section

addressing emission limitations for glass melting furnaces. Statement at 35; Prop. at 47;

TSD at 102-17 (Glass Melting Furnaces). Originally, the Agency proposed that, “[o]n

and after May 1, 2010, no person shall cause or allow emissions of NO

into the atmosphere

from any glass melting furnace” to exceed specified limitations. Prop. at 47;

Statement at 35.

The Agency proposed specific limitations based on the unit’s product type as container glass, flat

glass, or other glass. Prop. at 47 (proposed subsections (a), (b), and (c)). The Agency also

proposed that “[c]ompliance must be demonstrated with the emissions limitations on an ozone

season and annual basis.” Prop. at 47;

Statement at 35.

In a post-hearing comment filed November 25, 2008, Saint-Gobain expressed the belief

that “a narrow exception should be made to the May 1, 2010 compliance date for entities that

enter into an enforceable agreement with IEPA to install control technology that can achieve

emission rates significantly below the 5.0 lbs/ton limit pursuant to an enforceable schedule

extending beyond 2010. PC 2 at 1. Noting that it was negotiating such an agreement, Saint-

Gobain argued that it “cannot afford to install the technology required to meet an interim limit of

5.0 lb/ton for the period between the compliance date under Section 217.204 and the anticipated

schedule for installation of alternative technology at the end of 2014.”

(addressing negotiation of consent decree). Saint-Gobain also referred to the cost of installing

In a pre-hearing comment filed January 20, 2009, Saint-Gobain proposed to add to

Section 217.202 language providing that “Section 217.204 shall not apply during glass furnace

startup (not to exceed 70 days) or idling (operation at less than 35% of furnace capacity).” PC 4

at 2. Saint-Gobain also proposed a formula with which to determine a NO

applicable to those startup and idling periods.

In its first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency proposed to amend the

first sentence of Section 217.204 by extending the compliance deadline to January 1, 2012. Mot.

Amend 1 at 7. The Agency also proposed to add a subsection providing in part that “[t]he

emissions limitations under this Section do not apply during glass melting furnace startup (not to

exceed 70 days) or idling (operation at less than 35% of furnace capacity).”

. The Agency’s

proposed new subsection also included a formula for determining NO

emissions limitations

during startup and idle periods.

In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed, “due to the special characteristics of

glass melting furnaces and further discussions with Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc.” to amend

subsection (b) as follows:

[t]he emissions during glass melting furnace startup (not to exceed 70 days) or

furnace idling (operation at less than 35% of furnace capacity) shall be excluded

from calculations for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the seasonal

and annual emissions limitations under this Section, provided that such owner or

operator, at all times, including periods of startup and idling, to the extent

practicable, maintain and operate any affected emission unit including associated

air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution

control practice for minimizing emissions. The owner or operator of a glass

melting furnace must maintain records that include the date, time, and duration of

any startup or idling in the operation of such glass melting furnace. PC 17 at 4-5.

Subpart H: Cement and Lime Kilns

Section 217.220: Applicability.

The Agency proposed to add a section addressing

applicability to cement and lime kilns. Prop. at 48;

Statement at 35-36. Proposed subsection

(a) provided in its entirety that, “[n]otwithstanding Subpart T of this Part, the provisions of

Subpart C of this Part and this Subpart apply to all cement kilns located at sources subject to this

Subpart pursuant to Section 217.150 of this Part.” Prop. at 48;

Statement at 35-36;

44-46 (discussing Section 217.150);

see generally

TSD at 66-85 (Cement Kilns). Proposed

subsection (b) provided in its entirety that “[t]he provisions of Subpart C of this Part and this

Subpart apply to all lime kilns located at sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to Section

217.150 of this Part. Prop. at 48;

Statement at 35-36;

at 44-46 (discussing Section

see generally

TSD at 86-91 (Lime Kilns).

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation

suggested that the “all cement kilns” and “all lime kilns” language in Section 217.220 could be

construed to expand the scope of Section 217.150(a)(2), which refers to “any . . . cement kiln [or]

lime kiln . . . that emits NO

in an amount equal to or greater than 15 tons per year and equal to

or greater than five tons per ozone season.” MG Questions at 2;

Prop. at 26 (proposed

Section 217.150(a)(2)). Midwest Generation questioned whether the Agency intended “to

expand the applicability of the rule in this way.” MG Questions at 2. The Agency responded by

expressing the intent “that each Subpart apply to all of the affected emission units at an affected

, ‘any’ emission unit that meets the applicability criteria.” MG Answers at 3.

In another question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation

asked why, if there are no cement kilns in the nonattainment areas, cement kilns are included in

the rulemaking. MG Questions at 1;

IERG Questions at 4. The Agency responded by

stating that “[t]here are no cement kilns in the current NAAs, although there is a cement kiln in

Massac County, which USEPA intends to designate as nonattainment for the 24-hour PM

NAAQS.” MG Answers at 2, citing

., Attachment 1 (USEPA review of air quality

IERG Answers at 6, citing TSD at 66 (noting that none of eight Illinois

cement kilns are situated in nonattainment areas), Tr.1 at 57-62.

In his testimony on behalf of the Agency at the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Mr.

Kaleel noted that the Agency had initially drafted these proposed regulations to have statewide

applicability and that there are cement kilns situated in the state’s attainment areas. Tr.1 at 61.

He also noted that, under the revised ozone and PM

standards, “there may be some

adjustments necessary to the non-attainment areas.”

. Mr. Kaleel also argued that the Agency

has already performed the engineering and cost analysis in support of these proposed rules.

62. Although he acknowledged that a change in the boundaries of the nonattainment areas would

require changing the regulation, including cement kilns “would send a clear message to units that

potentially become non-attainment in the future that they would know what their target is, what it

is they have to meet.”

In testimony filed on behalf of IERG for the second hearing on December 9, 2008, Mr.

Kolaz argued that, because no cement kilns exist in the nonattainment areas, cement kilns should

not be included in the Agency’s proposed regulations. Exh. 6 at 19, 24. He further argued that

“[a]ny new facility with such a unit in the applicable areas would be subject to controls stricter

. at 19. He also argued that, “[i]f new nonattainment areas are identified in

Illinois, this proposed rule would need to be amended to incorporate those areas if NO

reductions are deemed necessary and appropriate to address the air quality conditions.”

Section 217.222: Exemptions.

The Agency proposed to add a section addressing

exemptions and providing in its entirety that, “[n]otwithstanding Section 217.220 of this Subpart,

the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to a cement kiln or lime kiln operating under a

federally enforceable limit of NO

emissions from such kiln to less than 15 tons per year and less

than five tons per ozone season.” Prop. at 48;

Statement at 36, Kaleel Pre-filed Test. at 3.

Section 217.224: Emissions Limitations.

The Agency proposed to add a new section

addressing emission limitations from cement kilns and lime kilns. Statement at 36; Prop. at 48-

49. Originally, the Agency proposed in subsection (a) that, “[o]n and after May 1, 2010, no

person shall cause or allow emissions of NO

into the atmosphere from any cement kiln” to

exceed specified limitations. Prop. at 48;

Statement at 36. The Agency proposed specific

limitations based on the unit’s type. Prop. at 48 (proposed subsections (a)(1) through (a)(4)).

The Agency also proposed in subsection (b) that, “[o]n and after May 1, 2010, no person shall

cause or allow emissions of NO

into the atmosphere from any lime kiln” to exceed specified

limitations. Prop. at 49;

Statement at 36. The Agency also proposed that “[c]ompliance

must be demonstrated with the emissions limitations on an ozone season and annual basis.”

Statement at 36.

In its first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency proposed to amend the

first sentence of subsections (a) and (b) by extending the compliance deadline to January 1,

2012. Mot. Amend 1 at 8.

Subpart I: Iron and Steel and Aluminum Manufacturing

Section 217.240: Applicability.

The Agency proposed to add a section addressing

applicability to iron and steel and aluminum manufacturing. Prop. at 49;

Statement at 36-37.

Proposed subsection (a) provided in its entirety that “[t]he provisions of Subpart C of this Part

and this Subpart apply to all reheat furnaces, annealing furnaces, and galvanizing furnaces used

in iron and steel making located at sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to Section 217.150 of

this Part.” Prop. at 49;

Statement at 36-37;

at 44-46 (discussing Section 217.150);

TSD at 92-101 (Reheat, Annealing, and Galvanizing Furnaces at Iron/Steel plants).

Proposed subsection (b) provided in its entirety that “[t]he provisions of Subpart C of this Part

and this Subpart apply to all reverberatory furnaces and crucible furnaces used in aluminum

melting located at sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to Section 217.150 of this Part. Prop.

Statement at 36-37;

at 44-46 (discussing Section 217.150);

see generally

TSD at 118-25 (Aluminum Melting Furnaces).

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation

suggested that the “all reheat furnaces, annealing furnaces, and galvanizing furnaces used in iron

and steel making” and “all aluminum reverberatory furnaces and crucible furnaces used in

aluminum melting” language in Section 217.240 could be construed to expand the scope of

Section 217.150(a)(2), which refers to “any . . . iron and steel reheat, annealing, or galvanizing

furnace, [or] aluminum reverberatory or crucible furnace . . . that emits NO

in an amount equal

to or greater than 15 tons per year and equal to or greater than five tons per ozone season.” MG

Questions at 2;

Prop. at 26 (proposed Section 217.150(a)(2)). Midwest Generation

questioned whether the Agency intended “to expand the applicability of the rule in this way.”

MG Questions at 2. The Agency responded by expressing the intent “that each Subpart apply to

all of the affected emission units at an affected source,

, ‘any’ emission unit that meets the

applicability criteria.” MG Answers at 3.

In another question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation

asked why, if there are no aluminum melting furnaces affected by the proposal, the rule includes

that sector. MG Questions at 1;

IERG Questions at 4. The Agency responded by stating

that “[t]here is an aluminum melting furnace in the Chicago non-attainment area (NAA),

although it has not operated for several years. To the best of our knowledge, the emission unit

has not been torn down, so it is possible that the company, or a future owner, will seek to operate

the furnace in the future.” MG Answers at 1-2;

IERG Answers at 6.

In testimony filed on behalf of IERG for the second hearing on December 9, 2008, Mr.

Kolaz argued that, because no aluminum reverberatory or crucible furnaces exist in the

nonattainment areas, they should not be included in the Agency’s proposed regulations. Exh. 6

at 19, 24, citing Tr.1 at 60-61. He further argued that “[a]ny new facility with such a unit in the

applicable areas would be subject to controls stricter than RACT.” Exh. 6 at 19. He also argued

that, “[i]f new nonattainment areas are identified in Illinois, this proposed rule would need to be

amended to incorporate those areas if NO

reductions are deemed necessary and appropriate to

address the air quality conditions.”

Section 217.242: Exemptions.

The Agency proposed to add a section addressing

exemptions and providing in its entirety that, “[n]otwithstanding Section 217.240 of this Subpart,

the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to an iron and steel reheat furnace, annealing furnace,

or galvanizing furnace, or aluminum reverberatory furnace or crucible furnace operating under a

federally enforceable limit of NO

emissions from such furnace to less than 15 tons per year and

less than five tons per ozone season.” Prop. at 49;

Statement at 36, Kaleel Pre-filed Test. at

Section 217.244: Emissions Limitations.

The Agency proposed to add a new section

addressing emission limitations for iron and steel and aluminum manufacturing. Statement at

36-37; Prop. at 50-51. Originally, the Agency proposed in subsection (a) that, “[o]n and after

May 1, 2010, no person shall cause or allow emissions of NO

into the atmosphere from any

reheat furnace, annealing furnace, or galvanizing furnace use in iron and steel making” to exceed

specified limitations. Prop. at 50;

Statement at 37. The Agency proposed specific emissions

limitations based on the unit’s type. Prop. at 50 (proposed subsections (a)(1) through (a)(9)).

The Agency also proposed in subsection (b) that, “[o]n and after May 1, 2010, no person shall

cause or allow emissions of NO

into the atmosphere from any reverberatory furnace or crucible

furnace used in aluminum melting” to exceed specified limitations. Prop. at 50;

37. The Agency also proposed with regard to both subsections that “[c]ompliance must be

demonstrated with the emissions limitations on an ozone season and annual basis.” Prop. at 50;

Statement at 37.

In its first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency proposed to amend the

first sentence of subsections (a) and (b) by extending the compliance deadline to January 1,

2012. Mot. Amend 1 at 8-9. In its second motion to amend the proposal, the Agency proposed

to change the emissions limitation for a recuperative reheat furnace combusting natural gas from

0.05 lb/mmBtu to 0.09 lb/mmBtu. Mot. Amend 2 at 5, 12. The Agency also proposed to add an

emissions limitation of 0.142 lb/mmBtu for a recuperative reheat furnace combusting a

combination of natural gas and coke oven gas.

In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed to amend the first two sentences

subsection (b) as follows:

[o]n and after January 1, 2012, no person shall cause or allow emissions of NO

into the atmosphere from any reverberatory furnace or crucible furnace use in

aluminum melting to exceed the following limitations. Compliance must be

demonstrated with the applicable emissions limitations on an ozone season and

annual basis. PC 17 at 5.

The Agency also proposed clarifying the emissions limitations in subsection (b)(1) and (b)(2).

., citing In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories:

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 105 (May 7, 2009).

Subpart M: Electrical Generating Units

Section 217.340: Applicability.

The Agency proposed to add a section addressing

applicability to EGUs, which provides in its entirety that, “[n]otwithstanding Subpart V or W of

this Part, the provisions of Subpart C of this Part and this Subpart apply to all fossil fuel-fired

stationary boilers subject to the CAIR NO

Trading Programs under Subpart D or E of Part 225

located at sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to Section 217.150 of this Part.” Prop. at 51;

Statement at 37-38;

at 44-46 (discussing Section 217.150);

see generally

(Industrial Boilers and Electrical Generating Unit Boilers).

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation

suggested that the “all fossil fuel-fired stationary boilers” language in Section 217.340 could be

construed to expand the scope of Section 217.150(a)(2), which refers to “any . . . fossil fuel-fired

stationary boiler . . . that emits NO

in an amount equal to or greater than 15 tons per year and

equal to or greater than five tons per ozone season.” MG Questions at 2;

(proposed Section 217.150(a)(2)). Midwest Generation questioned whether the Agency intended

“to expand the applicability of the rule in this way.” MG Questions at 2. The Agency responded

by expressing the intent “that each Subpart apply to all of the affected emission units at an

affected source,

, ‘any’ emission unit that meets the applicability criteria.” MG Answers at 3.

In another question filed for the first hearing, Midwest Generation noted that “[t]he TSD

claims there are a total of 18 EGUs subject to the rule, while the Statement of Reasons says there

are 20 ‘fossil fuel-fired stationary boilers’ subject to the rule.” MG Questions at 4. Midwest

Generation asked whether there are “fossil fuel-fired stationary boilers that are not EGUs that are

subject to the rule?”

. The Agency responded that “there are 20 EGU boilers,” clarifying that

“there are two instances in which one unit is comprised of two boilers.” MG Answers at 8, citing

TSD at Appendices – 27 (Table E-1).

In another question filed for the first hearing, Midwest Generation stated that, “[b]ased

upon the proposed applicability language in Subpart M, Section 217.340, [and] assuming the

D.C. Circuit Court issues the mandate implementing its decision in the appeal of the CAIR,

EGUs would be subject to the provisions of Subpart D.” MG Questions at 3. Midwest

Generation consequently asked whether the Agency would consider amending this provision as

[n]otwithstanding Subpart V or W of this Part, the provisions of Subpart C of

this Part and this Subpart apply to all fossil fuel-fired stationary boilers subject to

Trading Programs under Subpart D or E of Part 225 any fossil

fuel-fired stationary boiler serving a generator that has a nameplate capacity

greater than 25 MWe and produces electricity for sale, excluding any units listed

in Appendix D of this Part, located at sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to

Section 217.150 of this Part.

Responding to Midwest Generation, the Agency stated that it was “amenable” to

amending its proposed definition in the following fashion:

[n]otwithstanding Subpart V or W of this Part, the provisions of Subpart C of this

Part and this Subpart apply to all fossil fuel-fired stationary boilers subject to the

Trading Programs under Subpart D or E of Part 225 any fossil fuel-

fired stationary boiler serving at any time a generator that has a nameplate

capacity greater than 25 MWe and produces electricity for sale, excluding any

units listed in Appendix D of this Part, located at sources subject to this Subpart

pursuant to Section 217.150 of this Part. MG Answers at 4-5;

(Encouraging adoption of amended language).

In its first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency recommended that the

Board “[a]mend Section 217.340 to reflect the provisions as previously agreed to between the

Illinois EPA and Midwest Generation as reflected in the Illinois EPA’s Answers to Midwest

Generation’s Questions for Agency Witnesses, filed September 30, 2008, and the October 14,

2008, hearing.” Mot. Amend 1 at 9;

MG Question at 3, MG Answers at 4-5.

In its post-hearing comments, Midwest Generation stated that,

[w]ith the amendments proposed to the Board by the Agency in its Motion to

Amend Rulemaking Proposal ("Agency's Motion") filed January 30, 2009,

Midwest Generation generally supports the Agency's proposal as it applies to

electric generating units ("EGUs"). The proposed amendments incorporate by

reference provisions agreed to between the Agency and Midwest Generation as

part of the Agency's Answers to Midwest Generation's Questions for Agency

Witnesses ("Agency's Answers"), which were filed before this Board on

September 30, 2008. PC 9 at 1-2 (noting Agency’s proposed amendment of

Section 217.340);

Mot. Amend 1 at 9, Tr.1 at 199-200.

In testimony filed for the second hearing on December 9, 2008, Mr. Kolaz argued that

“the CAIR rule should be considered RACT for EGUs” and that “Subpart M is unnecessary for

purposes of achieving the Agency’s stated goals of achieving RACT level reductions.” Exh. 6 at

Tr.2 at 80-81. Midwest Generation concurred that Subpart M “is not necessary and

should be deleted from the rule.” Tr.3 at 58 (Miller testimony).

In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed to amend Section 217.340 “by adding

reference to and ‘fossil’ fuel-fired stationary boilers serving ‘at any time’ a generator,” reading

[n]otwithstanding Subpart V or W of the Part, the provisions of Subpart D of this

Part and this Subpart apply to any fossil fuel-fired stationary boiler serving at any

time a generator that has a nameplate capacity greater than 25MWe and produces

electricity for sale, excluding any units listed in Appendix D of this Part, located

at sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to Section 217.150. PC 17 at 5, citing

In the Matter of: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Various Source Categories:

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217, R08-19, slip op. at 55-56

Section 217.342: Exemptions.

The Agency proposed to add a section addressing

exemptions. The proposed subsection (a) provided in its entirety that, “[n]otwithstanding

Section 217.340 of this Subpart, the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to a fossil fuel-fired

stationary boiler operating under a federally enforceable limit of NO

emissions from such boiler

to less than 15 tons per year and less than five tons per ozone season.” Prop. at 51;

at 38, Kaleel Pre-filed Test. at 3. Proposed subsection (b) provided in its entirety that,

“[n]owithstanding Section 217.340 of this Subpart, the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to

a coal-fired stationary boiler that commenced operation before January 1, 2008, that is

complying with the multi-pollutant standard under Section 225.233 of Part 225 or the combined

pollutant standards under Subpart F of Part 225.” Prop. at 51;

Statement at 38.

In a question filed for the first hearing on October 14, 2008, Midwest Generation stated

that, “[b]ased upon the proposed applicability language in Subpart M, Section 217.340, [and]

assuming the D.C. Circuit Court issues the mandate implementing its decision in the appeal of

the CAIR, EGUs would be subject to the provisions of Subpart D.” MG Questions at 3.

Midwest Generation consequently asked whether the Agency would consider amending

subsection (b) of this provision as follows: “[n]otwithstanding section 217.340 of this Subpart,

the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to a coal-fired stationary boiler that commenced

operation before January 1, 2008, that is complying with Part 225.Subpart B through

pollutant standard under Section 225.233 of Part 225 or the combined pollutant standards under

Subpart F of Part 225.”

. Responding to Midwest Generation, the Agency stated that it was

“amenable” to amending subsection (b) in that fashion. MG Answers at 4-6.

In its post-hearing comments, Midwest Generation states that,

[w]ith the amendments proposed to the Board by the Agency in its Motion to

Amend Rulemaking Proposal ("Agency's Motion") filed January 30, 2009,

Midwest Generation generally supports the Agency's proposal as it applies to

electric generating units ("EGUs"). The proposed amendments incorporate by

reference provisions agreed to between the Agency and Midwest Generation as

part of the Agency's Answers to Midwest Generation's Questions for Agency

Witnesses ("Agency's Answers"), which were filed before this Board on

September 30, 2008. PC 9 at 1-2 (noting Agency’s proposed amendment of

Section 217.340);

Mot. Amend 1 at 10, Tr.1 at 199-200.

In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed, in light of the Board’s recent

rulemaking addressing mercury monitoring, to amend subsection (b) to read as follows:

“[n]otwithstanding Section 217.340, the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to a coal-fired

stationary boiler that commenced operation before January 1, 2008, that is complying with Part

225.Subpart B through the multi-pollutant standard or the combined pollutant standard.” PC 17

In the Matter of: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225: Control of Emissions from

Large Combustion Sources (Mercury Monitoring), R09-10.

Section 217.344: Emissions Limitations.

The Agency proposed to add a new section

addressing emission limitations for EGUs. Statement at 38-39; Prop. at 51-52. Originally, the

Agency proposed that, “[o]n and after May 1, 2010, no person shall cause or allow emissions of

into the atmosphere from any fossil fuel-fired stationary boiler” to exceed specified

limitations. Prop. at 50;

Statement at 37. The Agency proposed specific emissions

limitations based on the unit’s type. Prop. at 52 (proposed subsections (a), (b), and (c)). The

Agency also proposed that “[c]ompliance must be demonstrated with the emissions limitations

on an ozone season and annual basis.” Prop. at 51;

Statement at 39.

In its first motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency proposed to amend the

first sentence of Section 217.344 by extending the compliance deadline to January 1, 2012. Mot.

Amend 1 at 10. The Agency also proposed to change the emissions limitation for a boiler

combusting solid fuel from 0.09 lb/mmBtu to 0.012 lb/mmBtu.

MG Answers at 6-8

(providing basis for determining 0.09 lb/mmBtu constitutes RACT)

Section 217.345: Combination of Fuels.

The Agency proposed to add a new section

addressing combination of fuels, which provides in its entirety that “[t]he owner or operator of a

fossil fuel-fired stationary boiler subject to this Subpart and operated with any combination of

fuels must comply with a heat input weighted average emissions limitation to demonstrate

compliance with Section 217.344 of this Subpart.” Prop. at 52;

Statement at 39.

In the second motion to amend its rulemaking proposal, the Agency proposes to add an

Appendix H “to set forth the compliance dates for certain emission units at petroleum refineries.”

Mot. Amend 2 at 5, 13-14.

In its first notice comments, the Agency proposed corrections to the tables comprising

Appendix H. PC 17 at 6;

PC 16 at 14 (suggesting corrections to Appendix H in IERG

The Board directs the Clerk to file the following proposed amendments with the Joint

Committee on Administrative Rules for second-notice review. Proposed additions are

underlined, and proposed deletions appear stricken.

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE B: AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER c: EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR

STATIONARY SOURCES

DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Incorporations by Reference

Abbreviations and Conversion Factors

SUBPART B: DEFINITIONS

Other Definitions

Definitions (Repealed)

Actual Heat Input

Adhesion Promoter

Aerosol Can Filling Line

Air Contaminant

Air Dried Coatings

Air Oxidation Process

Air Pollution Control Equipment

Air Suspension Coater/Dryer

Air Assisted Airless Spray

Animal Pathological Waste

Annual Grain Through-Put

Anti-Glare/Safety Coating

Application Area

Architectural Coating

As-Applied Fountain Solution

Asphalt Prime Coat

Automobile or Light-Duty Truck Assembly Source or Automobile or Light-Duty

Truck Manufacturing Plant

Automobile or Light-Duty Truck Refinishing

Automotive/Transportation Plastic Parts

Auxiliary Boiler

Basecoat/Clearcoat System

Batch Operation

Batch Process Train

Brakehorsepower (rated-bhp)

British Thermal Unit

Brush or Wipe Coating

Bulk Gasoline Plant

Bulk Gasoline Terminal

Business Machine Plastic Parts

Can Coating Line

Capture Efficiency

Carbon Adsorber

Certified Investigation

Chemical Manufacturing Process Unit

Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor

Cleaning and Separating Operation

Cleaning Materials

Closed Purge System

Closed Vent System

Coating Applicator

Coil Coating Line

Combined Cycle System

Combustion Tuning

Combustion Turbine

Commence Commercial Operation

Commence Operation

Complete Combustion

Concrete Curing Compounds

Concentrated Nitric Acid Manufacturing Process

Condensible PM-10

Container Glass

Continuous Automatic Stoking

Continuous Coater

Continuous Process

Control Device Efficiency

Conventional Air Spray

Conventional Soybean Crushing Source

Conveyorized Degreasing

Crude Oil Gathering

Custody Transfer

Cutback Asphalt

Daily-Weighted Average VOM Content

Delivery Vessel

Distillate Fuel Oil

Distillation Unit

Dry Cleaning Operation or Dry Cleaning Facility

Effective Grate Area

Effluent Water Separator

Elastomeric Materials

Electromagnetic Interference/Radio Frequency Interference (EMI/RFI) Shielding

Electronic Component

Electrostatic Bell or Disc Spray

Electrostatic Prep Coat

Electrostatic Spray

Emergency or Standby Unit

End Sealing Compound Coat

Enhanced Under-the-Cup Fill

Ethanol Blend Gasoline

Excess Emissions

Excessive Release

Existing Grain-Drying Operation (Repealed)

Existing Grain-Handling Operation (Repealed)

Exterior Base Coat

Exterior End Coat

External Floating Roof

Extreme Performance Coating

Fabric Coating Line

Federally Enforceable Limitations and Conditions

Fermentation Time

Final Repair Coat

Fixed-Roof Tank

Flexible Coating

Flexible Operation Unit

Flexographic Printing

Flexographic Printing Line

Fossil Fuel-Fired

Fountain Solution

Freeboard Height

Fuel Combustion Emission Unit or Fuel Combustion Emission Source

Fugitive Particulate Matter

Full Operating Flowrate

Gasoline Dispensing Operation or Gasoline Dispensing Facility

Glass Melting Furnace

Grain-Drying Operation

Grain-Handling and Conditioning Operation

Grain-Handling Operation

Green-Tire Spraying

Gross Heating Value

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

Heated Airless Spray

Heat Input Rate

Heatset Web Offset Lithographic Printing Line

Heavy Off-Highway Vehicle Products

Heavy Off-Highway Vehicle Products Coating

Heavy Off-Highway Vehicle Products Coating Line

High Temperature Aluminum Coating

High Volume Low Pressure (HVLP) Spray

Housekeeping Practices

Indirect Heat Transfer

Industrial Boiler

In-Process Tank

In-Situ Sampling Systems

Interior Body Spray Coat

Internal-Floating Roof

Internal Transferring Area

Large Appliance

Large Appliance Coating

Large Appliance Coating Line

Lean-Burn Engine

Light-Duty Truck

Liquid/Gas Method

Liquid-Mounted Seal

Liquids Dripping

Lithographic Printing Line

Load Shaving Unit

Low Solvent Coating

Lubricating Oil

Magnet Wire Coating

Magnet Wire Coating Line

Major Metropolitan Area (MMA)

Major Population Area (MPA)

Manually Operated Equipment

Manufacturing Process

Marine Terminal

Material Recovery Section

Maximum Theoretical Emissions

Maximum True Vapor Pressure

Metal Furniture

Metal Furniture Coating

Metal Furniture Coating Line

Metallic Shoe-Type Seal

Mid-Kiln Firing

Miscellaneous Fabricated Product Manufacturing Process

Miscellaneous Formulation Manufacturing Process

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating

Miscellaneous Metal Parts or Products Coating Line

Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Process

Mixing Operation

Mobile Equipment

Motor Vehicle Refinishing

Multiple Package Coating

Nameplate Capacity

New Grain-Drying Operation (Repealed)

New Grain-Handling Operation (Repealed)

No Detectable Volatile Organic Material Emissions

Non-Contact Process Water Cooling Tower

Non-Flexible Coating

NOx Trading Program

One Hundred Percent Acid

One-Turn Storage Space

Open Top Vapor Degreasing

Open-Ended Valve

Operator of a Gasoline Dispensing Operation or Operator of a Gasoline

Dispensing Facility

Organic Compound

Organic Material and Organic Materials

Organic Solvent

Overall Control

Owner of a Gasoline Dispensing Operation or Owner of a Gasoline Dispensing

Owner or Operator

Packaging Rotogravure Printing

Packaging Rotogravure Printing Line

Paint Manufacturing Source or Paint Manufacturing Plant

Paper Coating Line

Particulate Matter

Parts Per Million (Volume) or PPM (Vol)

Petroleum Liquid

Petroleum Refinery

Pharmaceutical Coating Operation

Photochemically Reactive Material

Pigmented Coatings

Pneumatic Rubber Tire Manufacture

Polybasic Organic Acid Partial Oxidation Manufacturing Process

Polyester Resin Material(s)

Polyester Resin Products Manufacturing Process

Polystyrene Plant

Polystyrene Resin

Portable Grain-Handling Equipment

Portland Cement Manufacturing Process Emission Source

Portland Cement Process or Portland Cement Manufacturing Plant

Potential Electrical Output Capacity

Potential to Emit

Power Driven Fastener Coating

Preheater/Precalciner Kiln

Pressure Release

Pressure/Vacuum Relief Valve

Pretreatment Wash Primer

Primary Product

Primer Surfacer Coat

Primer Surfacer Operation

Process Emission Source

Process Emission Unit

Process Unit Shutdown

Process Weight Rate

Production Equipment Exhaust System

Publication Rotogravure Printing Line

Purged Process Fluid

Rated Heat Input Capacity

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

Reclamation System

Refinery Fuel Gas

Refinery Fuel Gas System

Refinery Unit or Refinery Process Unit

Reflective Argent Coating

Refrigerated Condenser

Regulated Air Pollutant

Reid Vapor Pressure

Residual Fuel Oil

Restricted Area

Rich-Burn Engine

Ringelmann Chart

Rotogravure Printing

Rotogravure Printing Line

Safety Relief Valve

Sanding Sealers

Screen Printing on Paper

Semi-Transparent Stains

Set of Safety Relief Valves

Side-Seam Spray Coat

Single Unit Operation

Smokeless Flare

Solvent Cleaning

Solvent Recovery System

Specialty Coatings

Specialty Coatings for Motor Vehicles

Specialty High Gloss Catalyzed Coating

Specialty Leather

Specialty Soybean Crushing Source

Standard Conditions

Standard Cubic Foot (scf)

Stationary Emission Source

Stationary Emission Unit

Stationary Gas Turbine

Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine

Stationary Source

Stationary Storage Tank

Storage Tank or Storage Vessel

Strippable Spray Booth Coating

Styrene Devolatilizer Unit

Styrene Recovery Unit

Submerged Loading Pipe

Sulfuric Acid Mist

Surface Condenser

Surface Preparation Materials

Synthetic Organic Chemical or Polymer Manufacturing Plant

Tablet Coating Operation

Thirty-Day Rolling Average

Three-Piece Can

Three or Four Stage Coating System

Through-the-Valve Fill

Topcoat Operation

Touch-Up Coating

Transfer Efficiency

Tread End Cementing

True Vapor Pressure

Under-the-Cup Fill

Undertread Cementing

Uniform Finish Blender

Unregulated Safety Relief Valve

Vacuum Metallizing

Vacuum Producing System

Valves Not Externally Regulated

Vapor Balance System

Vapor Collection System

Vapor Control System

Vapor-Mounted Primary Seal

Vapor Recovery System

Vapor-Suppressed Polyester Resin

Vinyl Coating Line

Volatile Organic Liquid (VOL)

Volatile Organic Material Content (VOMC)

Volatile Organic Material (VOM) or Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

Volatile Petroleum Liquid

Washoff Operations

Wastewater (Oil/Water) Separator

Weak Nitric Acid Manufacturing Process

Wholesale Purchase - Consumer

Wood Furniture Coating

Wood Furniture Coating Line

Yeast Percentage

Rule into Section Table

Section into Rule Table

AUTHORITY: Implementing Sections 9, 9.1, 9.9 and 10 and authorized by Sections 27 and 28

of the Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/9, 9.1, 9.9, 10, 27 and 28].

SOURCE: Adopted as Chapter 2: Air Pollution, Rule 201: Definitions, R71-23, 4 PCB 191,

filed and effective April 14, 1972; amended in R74-2 and R75-5, 32 PCB 295, at 3 Ill. Reg. 5, p.

777, effective February 3, 1979; amended in R78-3 and 4, 35 PCB 75 and 243, at 3 Ill. Reg. 30,

p. 124, effective July 28, 1979; amended in R80-5, at 7 Ill. Reg. 1244, effective January 21,

1983; codified at 7 Ill. Reg. 13590; amended in R82-1 (Docket A) at 10 Ill. Reg. 12624, effective

July 7, 1986; amended in R85-21(A) at 11 Ill. Reg. 11747, effective June 29, 1987; amended in

R86-34 at 11 Ill. Reg. 12267, effective July 10, 1987; amended in R86-39 at 11 Ill. Reg. 20804,

effective December 14, 1987; amended in R82-14 and R86-37 at 12 Ill. Reg. 787, effective

December 24, 1987; amended in R86-18 at 12 Ill. Reg. 7284, effective April 8, 1988; amended

in R86-10 at 12 Ill. Reg. 7621, effective April 11, 1988; amended in R88-23 at 13 Ill. Reg.

10862, effective June 27, 1989; amended in R89-8 at 13 Ill. Reg. 17457, effective January 1,

1990; amended in R89-16(A) at 14 Ill. Reg. 9141, effective May 23, 1990; amended in R88-

30(B) at 15 Ill. Reg. 5223, effective March 28, 1991; amended in R88-14 at 15 Ill. Reg. 7901,

effective May 14, 1991; amended in R91-10 at 15 Ill. Reg. 15564, effective October 11, 1991;

amended in R91-6 at 15 Ill. Reg. 15673, effective October 14, 1991; amended in R91-22 at 16

Ill. Reg. 7656, effective May 1, 1992; amended in R91-24 at 16 Ill. Reg. 13526, effective August

24, 1992; amended in R93-9 at 17 Ill. Reg. 16504, effective September 27, 1993; amended in

R93-11 at 17 Ill. Reg. 21471, effective December 7, 1993; amended in R93-14 at 18 Ill. Reg.

1253, effective January 18, 1994; amended in R94-12 at 18 Ill. Reg. 14962, effective September

21, 1994; amended in R94-14 at 18 Ill. Reg. 15744, effective October 17, 1994; amended in

R94-15 at 18 Ill. Reg. 16379, effective October 25, 1994; amended in R94-16 at 18 Ill. Reg.

16929, effective November 15, 1994; amended in R94-21, R94-31 and R94-32 at 19 Ill. Reg.

6823, effective May 9, 1995; amended in R94-33 at 19 Ill. Reg. 7344, effective May 22, 1995;

amended in R95-2 at 19 Ill. Reg. 11066, effective July 12, 1995; amended in R95-16 at 19 Ill.

Reg. 15176, effective October 19, 1995; amended in R96-5 at 20 Ill. Reg. 7590, effective May

22, 1996; amended in R96-16 at 21 Ill. Reg. 2641, effective February 7, 1997; amended in R97-

17 at 21 Ill. Reg. 6489, effective May 16, 1997; amended in R97-24 at 21 Ill. Reg. 7695,

effective June 9, 1997; amended in R96-17 at 21 Ill. Reg. 7856, effective June 17, 1997;

amended in R97-31 at 22 Ill. Reg. 3497, effective February 2, 1998; amended in R98-17 at 22 Ill.

Reg. 11405, effective June 22, 1998; amended in R01-9 at 25 Ill. Reg. 108, effective December

26, 2000; amended in R01-11 at 25 Ill. Reg. 4597, effective March 15, 2001; amended in R01-17

at 25 Ill. Reg. 5900, effective April 17, 2001; amended in R05-16 at 29 Ill. Reg. 8181, effective

May 23, 2005; amended in R05-11 at 29 Ill. Reg.8892, effective June 13, 2005; amended in R04-

12/20 at 30 Ill. Reg. 9654, effective May 15, 2006; amended in R07-18 at 31 Ill. Reg. 14254,

effective September 25, 2007; amended in R08-6 at 32 Ill. Reg. 1387, effective January 16,

2008; amended in R08-19 at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective __________.

SUBPART B: DEFINITIONS

Section 211.665 Auxiliary Boiler

“Auxiliary boiler” means, for purposes of Part 217, a boiler that is operated only when the main

boiler or boilers at a source are not in service and is used either to maintain building heat or to

assist in the startup of the main boiler or boilers. This term does not include emergency or

standby units and load shaving units.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective __________)

Section 211.995 Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor

“Circulating fluidized bed combustor” means, for purposes of Part 217, a fluidized bed

combustor in which the majority of the fluidized bed material is carried out of the primary

combustion zone and is transported back to the primary zone through a recirculation loop.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ___________)

Section 211.1315 Combustion Tuning

“Combustion tuning” means, for purposes of Part 217, review and adjustment of a combustion

process to maintain combustion efficiency of an emission unit, as performed in accordance with

procedures provided by the manufacturer or by a trained technician.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ______________)

Section 211.1435 Container Glass

“Container glass” means, for purposes of Part 217, glass made of soda-lime recipe, clear or

colored, which is pressed or blown, or both, into bottles, jars, ampoules, and other products listed

in Standard Industrial Classification 3221.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ___________)

Section 211.2355 Flare

“Flare” means an open combustor without enclosure or shroud.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ___________)

Section 211.2357 Flat Glass

“Flat glass” means, for purposes of Part 217, glass made of soda-lime recipe and produced into

continuous flat sheets and other products listed in Standard Industrial Classification 3211.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ___________)

Section 211.2625 Glass Melting Furnace

“Glass melting furnace” means, for purposes of Part 217, a unit comprising a refractory vessel in

which raw materials are charged and melted at high temperature to produce molten glass.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ____________)

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, and cogeneration units, if such boilers meet the applicability criteria under

Subpart M of Part 217.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ___________)

Section 211.3355 Lime Kiln

“Lime kiln” means, for purposes of Part 217, an enclosed combustion device used to calcine lime

mud, which consists primarily of calcium carbonate, into calcium oxide.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ___________)

Section 211.3475 Load Shaving Unit

“Load shaving unit” means, for purposes of Part 217, a device used to generate electricity for

sale or use during high electric demand days, including but not limited to stationary reciprocating

internal combustion engines or turbines.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ____________)

Section 211.4280 Other Glass

“Other glass” means, for purposes of Part 217, glass that is neither container glass, as that term is

defined in Section 211.1435, nor flat glass, as that term is defined in Section 211.2357.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ____________)

Section 211.5195 Process Heater

“Process heater” means, for purposes of Part 217, an enclosed combustion device that burns

gaseous or liquid fuels only and that indirectly transfers heat to a process fluid or a heat transfer

medium other than water. This term does not include pipeline heaters and storage tank heaters

that are primarily meant to maintain fluids at a certain temperature or viscosity.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ______________)

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE B: AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER c: EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY

NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS

SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Scope and Organization

Measurement Methods

Abbreviations and Units

Incorporations by Reference

SUBPART B: NEW FUEL COMBUSTION EMISSION SOURCES

New Emission Sources (Repealed)

SUBPART C: EXISTING FUEL COMBUSTION EMISSION UNITS SOURCES

Existing Emission Units Sources in Major Metropolitan Areas

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Compliance Date

Performance Testing

Initial Compliance Certification

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Testing and Monitoring

Emissions Averaging Plans

SUBPART E: INDUSTRIAL BOILERS

Emissions Limitations

Combination of Fuels

Methods and Procedures for Combustion Tuning

SUBPART F: PROCESS HEATERS

Emissions Limitations

Combination of Fuels

Methods and Procedures for Combustion Tuning

SUBPART G: GLASS MELTING FURNANCES

Emissions Limitations

SUBPART H: CEMENT AND LIME KILNS

Emissions Limitations

SUBPART I: IRON AND STEEL AND ALUMINUM MANUFACTURING

Emissions Limitations

SUBPART K: PROCESS EMISSION SOURCES

Industrial Processes

SUBPART M: ELECTRICAL GENERATING UNITS

Emissions Limitations

Combination of Fuels

SUBPART O: CHEMICAL MANUFACTURE

Nitric Acid Manufacturing Processes

SUBPART Q: STATIONARY RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION

ENGINES AND TURBINES

Control and Maintenance Requirements

Emissions Averaging Plans

Testing and Monitoring

Recordkeeping and Reporting

SUBPART T: CEMENT KILNS

Control Requirements

SUBPART U: NOx CONTROL AND TRADING PROGRAM FOR

SPECIFIED NOx GENERATING UNITS

Compliance Requirements

Permitting Requirements

Subpart U NOx Trading Budget

Methodology for Obtaining NOx Allocations

Methodology for Determining NOx Allowances from the New Source Set-Aside

NOx Allocations Procedure for Subpart U Budget Units

New Source Set-Asides for “New” Budget Units

Early Reduction Credits (ERCs) for Budget Units

Low-Emitter Requirements

Opt-In Budget Units: Withdrawal from NOx Trading Program

Opt-In Units: Change in Regulatory Status

Allowance Allocations to Opt-In Budget Units

SUBPART V: ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION

Lake of Egypt Power Plant

Emission Limitations

Reporting and Recordkeeping

SUBPART W: NOx TRADING PROGRAM FOR ELECTRICAL

GENERATING UNITS

Compliance Requirements

Permitting Requirements

NOx Trading Budget

Methodology for Calculating NOx Allocations for Budget Electrical

Generating Units (EGUs)

NOx Allocations for Budget EGUs

New Source Set-Asides for “New” Budget EGUs

Early Reduction Credits for Budget EGUs

Budget Opt-In Units: Withdrawal from NOx Trading Program

Opt-In Units: Change in Regulatory Status

Allowance Allocations to Budget Opt-In Units

SUBPART X: VOLUNTARY NOx EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM

Emission Unit Eligibility

Participation Requirements

NOx Emission Reductions and the Subpart X NOx Trading Budget

Baseline Emissions Determination

Calculation of Creditable NOx Emission Reductions

Limitations on NOx Emission Reductions

NOx Emission Reduction Proposal

Emissions Determination Methods

Emissions Monitoring

Rule into Section Table

Section into Rule Table

Compliance Dates

Non-Electrical Generating Units

Large Non-Electrical Generating Units

Allowances for Electrical Generating Units

Existing Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Affected by the NO

Compliance Dates for Certain Emissions Units at Petroleum Refineries

AUTHORITY: Implementing Sections 9.9 and 10 and authorized by Sections 27 and 28 of the

Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/9.9, 10, 27 and 28].

SOURCE: Adopted as Chapter 2: Air Pollution, Rule 207: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions, R71-23,

4 PCB 191, April 13, 1972, filed and effective April 14, 1972; amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 17, p. 101,

effective April 13, 1978; codified at 7 Ill. Reg. 13609; amended in R01-9 at 25 Ill. Reg. 128,

effective December 26, 2000; amended in R01-11 at 25 Ill. Reg. 4597, effective March 15, 2001;

amended in R01-16 and R01-17 at 25 Ill. Reg. 5914, effective April 17, 2001; amended in R07-

18 at 31 Ill. Reg. 14271, effective September 25, 2007; amended in R08-19 at 33 Ill. Reg. ____,

effective _________.

SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 217.100 Scope and Organization

This Part sets standards and limitations for emission of oxides of nitrogen from

stationary sources.

Permits for sources subject to this Part may be required pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 201 or Section 39.5 of the Act.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Part the air quality standards contained in

35 Ill. Adm. Code 243 may not be violated.

These rules have been grouped for convenience of the public; the scope of each is

determined by its language and history.

(Source: Amended at 33 Ill. Reg. ___, effective ___________)

Section 217.104 Incorporations by Reference

The following materials are incorporated by reference. These incorporations do not include any

later amendments or editions.

The phenol disulfonic acid procedures, as published in 40 CFR 60, Appendix A,

Method 7 (2000);

40 CFR 96, subparts B, D, G, and H (1999);

40 CFR 96.1 through 96.3, 96.5 through 96.7, 96.50 through 96.54, 96.55 (a) &

(b), 96.56 and 96.57 (1999);

40 CFR 60, 72, 75 & 76 (2006);

Alternative Control Techniques Document -- NO

Emissions from Cement

Manufacturing, EPA-453/R-94-004, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency-

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N. C.

27711, March 1994;

Section 11.6, Portland Cement Manufacturing, AP-42 Compilation of Air

Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency-Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711, revised January 1995;

40 CFR 60.13 (2001);

40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Methods 3A, 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, 7E, 19, and 20 (2000);

ASTM D6522-00, Standard Test Method for Determination of Nitrogen Oxides,

Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas-

Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters

Using Portable Analyzers (2000);

Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines, 40 CFR 60,

Subpart KKKK, 60.4400 (2006); and

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: AP-42, Volume I: Stationary

Point and Area Sources (2000), USEPA;.

40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 (20072008

Alternative Control Techniques Document - NO

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers, EPA-453/R-94-022, U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711, March

Alternative Control Techniques Document - NO

Emissions from Process Heaters

(Revised), EPA-453/R-93-034, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research

Triangle Park, N. C. 27711, September 1993;

Alternative Control Techniques Document - NO

Emissions from Glass

Manufacturing, EPA-453/R-94-037, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711, June 1994; and

Alternative Control Techniques Document - NO

Emissions from Iron and Steel

Mills, EPA-453/R-94-065, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air

and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle

Park, N. C. 27711, September 1994;.

40 CFR 60 and 75 (2008); and

40 CFR 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification 16, 74 FR 12575 (March 25,

(Source: Amended at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ___________)

SUBPART B: NEW FUEL COMBUSTION EMISSION SOURCES

Section 217.121 New Emission Sources (Repealed)

No person shall cause or allow the emission of nitrogen oxides (NO

) into the atmosphere in any

one hour period from any new fuel combustion emission source with an actual heat input equal

to or greater than 73.2 MW (250 mmbtu/hr) to exceed the following standards and limitations:

For gaseous fossil fuel firing, 0.310 kg/MW-hr (0.20 lbs/mmbtu) of actual heat

For liquid fossil fuel firing, 0.464 kg/MW-hr (0.30 lbs/mmbtu) of actual heat

For dual gaseous and liquid fossil fuel firing, 0.464 kg/MW-hr (0.30 lbs/mmbtu)

of actual heat input;

For solid fossil fuel firing, 1.08 kg/MW-hr (0.7 lbs./mmbtu) of actual heat input;

For fuel combustion emission sources burning simultaneously any combination of

solid, liquid and gaseous fossil fuels, an allowable emission rate shall be

determined by the following equation:

E = (AG + BL + CS) Q

E = Allowable nitrogen oxides emissions rate

Q = Actual heat input derived from all fossil fuels

G = Percent of actual heat input derived from gaseous fossil fuel

L = Percent of actual heat input derived from liquid fossil fuel

S = Percent of actual heat input derived from solid fossil fuel

G + L + S = 100.0

and, where A, B, C and appropriate metric and English units are determined from

the following table:

(Source: Repealed at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ___________)

SUBPART C: EXISTING FUEL COMBUSTION EMISSION UNITS SOURCES

Section 217.141 Existing Emission Units Sources in Major Metropolitan Areas

No person shall cause or allow the emission of nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere in any one

hour period from any existing fuel combustion emission unit source with an actual heat input

equal to or greater than 73.2 MW (250 mmbtu/hr), located in the Chicago or St. Louis (Illinois)

major metropolitan areas to exceed the following limitations:

For gaseous and/or liquid fossil fuel firing, 0.46 kg/MW-hr (0.3 lbs/mmbtu) of

actual heat input;

For solid fossil fuel firing, 1.39 kg/MW-hr (0.9 lbs/mmbtu) of actual heat input;

For fuel combustion emission units sources burning simultaneously any

combination of solid, liquid and gaseous fuel, the allowable emission rate shall be

determined by the following equation:

E = (AG + BL + CS) Q

= allowable nitrogen oxides emissions rate

= actual heat input

= percent of actual heat input derived from gaseous fossil fuel

= percent of actual heat input derived from liquid fossil fuel

= percent of actual heat input derived from solid fossil fuel

and where A, B, and C and appropriate metric and English units are determined from the

following table:

Exceptions: This Section rule shall not apply to the following:

Existing existing fuel combustion units sources that which are either

cyclone fired boilers burning solid or liquid fuel, or horizontally opposed

fired boilers burning solid fuel; or.

Emission units that are subject to the emissions limitations of Subpart E,

F, G, H, M, or Q of this Part.

(Source: Amended at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ______________)

GENERAL REQUIREMENTSINDUSTRIAL BOILERS

Section 217.150 Applicability

The provisions of this Subpart and Subparts E, F, G, H, I and M of this

Part apply to the following:

All sources that are located in either one of the following areas and

that emit or have the potential to emit NO

in an amount equal to

or greater than 100 tons per year:

The area composed of the Chicago area counties of Cook,

DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will, the Townships

of Aux Sable and Goose Lake in Grundy County, and the

Township of Oswego in Kendall County; or

The area composed of the Metro East area counties of

Jersey, Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair, and the Township

of Baldwin in Randolph County; and

Any industrial boiler, process heater, glass melting furnace, cement

kiln, lime kiln, iron and steel reheat, annealing, or galvanizing

furnace, aluminum reverberatory or crucible furnace, or fossil fuel-

fired stationary boiler at such sources described in subsection

(a)(1)(A) of this Section that emits NO

in an amount equal to or

greater than 15 tons per year and equal to or greater than five tons

per ozone season.

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

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

that potentially

could be emitted by a stationary source as established in a federally

enforceable permit.

If a source ceases to fulfill the emissions criteria of subsection (a) of this Section,

the requirements of this Subpart and Subpart E, F, G, H, I or M of this Part

continue to apply to any emission unit that was ever subject to the provisions of

any of those Subparts.

The provisions of this Subpart do not apply to afterburners, flares, and

Where a construction permit, for which the application was submitted to the

Agency prior to the adoption of this Subpart, is issued that relies on decreases in

emissions of NO

from existing emission units for purposes of netting or emission

offsets, such NO

decreases remain creditable notwithstanding any requirements

that may apply to the existing emission units pursuant to this Subpart and Subpart

E, F, G, H, I or M of this Part .

The owner or operator of an emission unit that is subject to this Subpart and

Subpart E, F, G, H, I or M of this Part must operate such unit in a manner

consistent with good air pollution control practice to minimize NO

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ______________)

Section 217.152 Compliance Date

Compliance with the requirements of Subparts E, F, G, H, I and M by an owner or

operator of an emission unit that is subject to any of those Subparts is required

beginning January 1, 2012.

Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, compliance with the requirements

of Subpart G of this Part by an owner or operator of an emission unit subject to

Subpart G of this Part shall be extended until December 31, 2014, if such units are

required to meet emissions limitations for NOx, as measured using a continuous

emissions monitoring system, and included within a legally enforceable order on

or before December 31, 2009, whereby such emissions limitations are less than 30

percent of the emissions limitations set forth under Section 217.204.

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

units subject to Subpart E or F of this Part and located at a petroleum refinery must

comply with the requirements of this Subpart and Subpart E or F 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 and Subpart E or F of this Part, as applicable, for the listed emission units

beginning on the dates set forth in Appendix H. 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 E or F 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 E or F

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

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective ______________)

Section 217.154 Performance Testing

Performance testing of NO

emissions for emission units constructed on or before

July 1, 2011, and subject to emissions limitations under Subpart E, F, G, H or I of

this Part must be conducted in accordance with Section 217.157 of this Subpart.

Except as provided for under Section 217.157(a)(4) and (e)(1), this This

subsection does not apply to owners and operators of emission units

demonstrating compliance through a continuous emissions monitoring system,

predictive emission monitoring system, or combustion tuning.

Performance testing of NO

emissions for emission units for which construction

or modification occurs after July 1, 2011, and that are subject to emissions

limitations under Subpart E, F, G, H or I of this Part must be conducted within 60

days afterof achieving maximum operating rate but no later than 180 days after

initial startup of the new or modified emission unit, in accordance with Section

217.157 of this Subpart. Except as provided for under Section 217.157(a)(4) and

(e)(1), this This subsection does not apply to owners and operators of emission

units demonstrating compliance through a continuous emissions monitoring

system, predictive emission monitoring system, or combustion tuning.

Notification of the initial startup of an emission unit subject to subsection (b) of

this Section must be provided to the Agency no later than 30 days after initial

The owner or operator of an emission unit subject to subsection (a) or (b) of this

Section must notify the Agency of the scheduled date for the performance testing

in writing at least 30 days before such date and five days before such date.

If demonstrating compliance through an emissions averaging plan, at least 30

days before changing the method of compliance, the owner or operator of an

emission unit must submit a written notification to the Agency describing the new

method of compliance, the reason for the change in the method of compliance,

and the scheduled date for performance testing, if required. Upon changing the

method of compliance, the owner or operator of an emission unit must submit to

the Agency a revised compliance certification that meets the requirements of

Section 217.155.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.155 Initial Compliance Certification

By the applicable compliance date set forth under Section 217.152, an owner or

operator of an emission unit subject to Subpart E, F, G, H or I of this Part who is

not demonstrating compliance through the use of a continuous emissions

monitoring system must certify to the Agency that the emission unit will be in

compliance with the applicable emissions limitation of Subpart E, F, G, H or I of

this Part beginning on such applicable compliance date. The performance testing

certification must include the results of the performance testing performed in

accordance with Section 217.154(a) and (b) and the calculations necessary to

demonstrate that the subject emission unit will be in initial compliance.

By the applicable compliance date set forth under Section 217.152, an owner or

operator of an emission unit subject to Subpart E, F, G, H, I or M of this Part who

is demonstrating compliance through the use of a continuous emissions

monitoring system must certify to the Agency that the affected emission units will

be in compliance with the applicable emissions limitation of Subpart E, F, G, H, I,

or M of this Part beginning on such applicable compliance date. The compliance

certification must include a certification of the installation and operation of a

continuous emissions monitoring system required under Section 217.157 and the

monitoring data necessary to demonstrate that the subject emission unit will be in

initial compliance.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.156 Recordkeeping and Reporting

The owner or operator of an emission unit subject to Subpart E, F, G, H, I or M of

this Part must keep and maintain all records used to demonstrate initial

compliance and ongoing compliance with the requirements of those Subparts.

Except as otherwise provided under this Subpart or Subpart E, F, G, H, I

or M of this Part, copies of such records must be submitted by the owner

or operator of the source to the Agency within 30 days after receipt of a

written request by the Agency.

Such records must be kept at the source and maintained for at least five

years and must be available for immediate inspection and copying by the

The owner or operator of an emission unit subject to Subpart E, F, G, H, I or M of

this Part must maintain records that demonstrate compliance with the

requirements of those Subparts, as applicable, that include the following:

Identification, type (e.g., gas-fired), and location of each unit.

Calendar date of the record.

Monthly, seasonal, and annual operating hours.

Type and quantity of each fuel used monthly, seasonally, and annually.

Product and material throughput, as applicable.

Reports for all applicable emissions tests for NO

conducted on the unit,

including results.

The date, time, and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in

the operation of any emission unit subject to Subpart E, F, G, H, I or M of

this Part or any emissions monitoring equipment. The records must

include a description of the malfunction and corrective maintenance

A log of all maintenance and inspections related to the unit’s air pollution

control equipment for NO

that is performed on the unit.

A log for the NO

monitoring device, if present, including periods when

not in service and maintenance and inspection activities that are performed

Identification of time periods for which operating conditions and pollutant

data were not obtained by the continuous emissions monitoring system,

including the reasons for not obtaining sufficient data and a description of

corrective actions taken.

If complying with the emissions averaging plan provisions of Section

217.158, copies of the calculations used to demonstrate compliance with

the ozone season and annual control period limitations, noncompliance

reports for the ozone season, and ozone and annual control period

compliance reports submitted to the Agency.

The owner or operator of an industrial boiler subject to Subpart E of this Part

must maintain records in order to demonstrate compliance with the combustion

tuning requirements under Section 217.166.

The owner or operator of a process heater subject to Subpart F of this Part must

maintain records in order to demonstrate compliance with the combustion tuning

requirements under Section 217.186.

The owner or operator of an emission unit subject to Subpart E, F, G, H, I or M of

this Part must maintain records in order to demonstrate compliance with the

testing and monitoring requirements under Section 217.157.

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

this Part must provide the following information with respect to performance

testing pursuant to Section 217.157:

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

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

performance testing for NO

emissions and five days prior to such testing;

Not later than 60 days after the completion of the test, submit the results of

the test to the Agency; and

If, after the 30-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.

The owner or operator of an emission unit subject to Subpart E, F, G, H, I or M of

this Part must notify the Agency of any exceedances of an applicable emissions

limitation of Subpart E, F, G, H, I or M of this Part by sending the applicable

report with an explanation of the causes of such exceedances to the Agency

within 30 days following the end of the applicable compliance period in which the

emissions limitation was not met.

Within 30 days after the receipt of a written request by the Agency, the owner or

operator of an emission unit that is exempt from the requirements of Subpart E, F,

G, H, I or M of this Part must submit records that document that the emission unit

is exempt from those requirements to the Agency.

If demonstrating compliance through an emissions averaging plan, by March 1

following the applicable calendar year, the owner or operator must submit to the

Agency a report that demonstrates the following:

For all units that are part of the emissions averaging plan, the total mass of

allowable NOx emissions for the ozone season and for the annual control

The total mass of actual NOx emissions for the ozone season and annual

control period for each unit included in the averaging plan;

The calculations that demonstrate that the total mass of actual NOx

emissions are less than the total mass of allowable NOx emissions using

equations in Section 217.158(f); and

The information required to determine the total mass of actual NOx

The owner or operator of an emission unit subject to the requirements of Section

217.157 and demonstrating compliance through the use of a continuous emissions

monitoring system must submit to the Agency a report within 30 days after the

end of each calendar quarter. This report must include the following:

Information identifying and explaining the times and dates when

continuous emissions monitoring for NO

was not in operation, other than

for purposes of calibrating or performing quality assurance or quality

control activities for the monitoring equipment; and

An excess emissions and monitoring systems performance report in

accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d) and 60.13, or

40 CFR 75, or an alternate procedure approved by the Agency and

The owner or operator of an emission unit subject to Subpart M of this Part must

comply with the compliance certification and recordkeeping and reporting

requirements in accordance with 40 CFR 96, or an alternate procedure approved

by the Agency and USEPA.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.157 Testing and Monitoring

Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters

The owner or operator of an industrial boiler subject to Subpart E of this

Part with a rated heat input capacity greater than 250 mmBtu/hr must

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emissions monitoring

system on the emission unit for the measurement of NO

discharged into the atmosphere in accordance with 40 CFR 75, as

incorporated by reference in Section 217.104. However, the owner or

operator of an industrial boiler subject to Subpart E of this Part with a

rated heat input capacity greater than 250 mmBtu/hr that combusts blast

furnace gas with up to 10% natural gas on an annual basis and located at a

source that manufactures iron and steel is not required to install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a continuous emissions monitoring system on such

industrial boiler, provided the heat input from natural gas does not exceed

10% on an annual basis and the owner or operator complies with the

performance test requirements under this Section and demonstrates, during

each performance test, that NO

emissions from such industrial boiler are

less than 70% of the applicable emissions limitation under Section

217.164. In the event such owner or operator is unable to meet the

requirements of this paragraph, a continuous emissions monitoring system

is required within 12 months of such event, or by December 31, 2012,

whichever is later.

The owner or operator of an industrial boiler subject to Subpart E of this

Part with a rated heat input capacity greater than 100 mmBtu/hr but less

than or equal to 250 mmBtu/hr must install, calibrate, maintain, and

operate a continuous emissions monitoring system on such emission unit

for the measurement of NO

emissions discharged into the atmosphere in

accordance with 40 CFR 60, subpart A and appendix B, Performance

Specifications 2 and 3, and appendix F, Quality Assurance Procedures, as

incorporated by reference in Section 217.104.

The owner or operator of a process heater subject to Subpart F of this Part

with a rated heat input capacity greater than 100 mmBtu/hr must install,

calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emissions monitoring system

on the emission unit for the measurement of NO

emissions discharged

into the atmosphere in accordance with 40 CFR 60, subpart A and

appendix B, Performance Specifications 2 and 3 and appendix F, Quality

Assurance Procedures, as incorporated by reference in Section 217.104.

If demonstrating compliance through an emissions averaging plan, the

owner or operator of an industrial boiler subject to Subpart E of this Part,

or a process heater subject to Subpart F of this Part, with a rated heat input

capacity less than or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr and not demonstrating

compliance through a continuous emissions monitoring system must have

an initial performance test conducted pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(B) of

this Section and Section 217.154.

An owner or operator of an industrial boiler or process heater must

have subsequent performance tests conducted pursuant to

subsection (a)(4)(B) of this Section at least once every five years.

When in the opinion of the Agency or USEPA, it is necessary to

conduct testing to demonstrate compliance with Section 217.164 or

217.184, as applicable, the owner or operator of an industrial boiler

or process heater must, at his or her own expense, have such test

conducted in accordance with the applicable test methods and

procedures specified in this Section within 90 days of receipt after

a notice to test from the Agency or USEPA.

The owner or operator of an industrial boiler or process heater

must have a performance test conducted using 40 CFR 60, subpart

A and appendix A, Method 1, 2, 3, 4, 7E, or 19, as incorporated by

reference in Section 217.104, or other alternative USEPA methods

approved by the Agency. Each performance test must consist of

three separate runs, each lasting a minimum of 60 minutes. NO

emissions must be measured while the industrial boiler is operating

at maximum operating capacity or while the process heater is

operating at normal maximum load. If the industrial boiler or

process heater has combusted more than one type of fuel in the

prior year, a separate performance test is required for each fuel. If

a combination of fuels is typically used, a performance test may be

conducted, with Agency approval, on such combination of fuels

typically used. Except as provided under subsection (e) of this

Section, this subsection (a)(4)(B) does not apply if such owner or

operator is demonstrating compliance with an emissions limitation

through a continuous emissions monitoring system under

subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(5) of this Section.

Instead of complying with the requirements of subsections (a)(4),

(a)(4)(A), and (a)(4)(B) of this Section, an owner or operator of an

industrial boiler subject to Subpart E of this Part, or a process heater

subject to Subpart F of this Part, with a rated heat input capacity less than

or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr may install and operate a continuous emissions

monitoring system on such emission unit in accordance with the

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 60, subpart A and appendix B,

Performance Specifications 2 and 3 and appendix F, Quality Assurance

Procedures, as incorporated by reference in Section 217.104. The

continuous emissions monitoring system must be used to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable emissions limitation or emissions

averaging plan on an ozone season and annual basis.

Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2) of this Section, the owner or operator of

an auxiliary boiler subject to Subpart E of this Part with a rated heat input

capacity less than or equal to 250 mmBtu/hr and a capacity factor of less

than or equal to 20% is not required to install, calibrate, maintain, and

operate a continuous emissions monitoring system on such boiler for the

measurement of NO

emissions discharged into the atmosphere, but must

comply with the performance test requirements under subsections (a)(4),

(a)(4)(A), and (a)(4)(B) of this Section.

Glass Melting Furnaces; Cement Kilns; Lime Kilns; Iron and Steel Reheat,

Annealing, and Galvanizing Furnaces; and Aluminum Reverberatory and

Crucible Furnaces

An owner or operator of a glass melting furnace subject to Subpart G of

this Part, cement kiln or lime kiln subject to Subpart H of this Part, iron

and steel reheat, annealing, or galvanizing furnace subject to Subpart I of

this Part, or aluminum reverberatory or crucible furnace subject to Subpart

H of this Part that has the potential to emit NO

in an amount equal to or

greater than one ton per day must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a

continuous emissions monitoring system on such emission unit for the

measurement of NO

emissions discharged into the atmosphere in

accordance with 40 CFR 60, subpart A and appendix B, Performance

Specifications 2 and 3, and appendix F, Quality Assurance Procedures, as

incorporated by reference in Section 217.104.

An owner or operator of a glass melting furnace subject to Subpart G of

this Part, cement kiln or lime kiln subject to Subpart H of this Part, iron

and steel reheat, annealing, or galvanizing furnace subject to Subpart I of

this Part, or aluminum reverberatory or crucible furnace subject to Subpart

I of this Part that has the potential to emit NO

in an amount less than one

ton per day must have an initial performance test conducted pursuant to

subsection (b)(4) of this Section and Section 217.154.

An owner or operator of a glass melting furnace subject to Subpart G of

this Part, cement kiln or lime kiln subject to Subpart H of this Part, iron

and steel reheat, annealing, galvanizing furnace subject to Subpart I of this

Part, or aluminum reverberatory or crucible furnace subject to Subpart I of

this Part that has the potential to emit NO

in an amount less than one ton

per day must have subsequent performance tests conducted pursuant to

subsection (b)(4) of this Section as follows:

For all glass melting furnaces subject to Subpart G of this Part,

cement kilns or lime kilns subject to Subpart H of this Part, iron

and steel reheat, annealing, or galvanizing furnace subject to

Subpart I of this Part, or aluminum reverberatory or crucible

furnaces subject to Subpart I of this Part, including all such units

included in an emissions averaging plan, at least once every five

When, in the opinion of the Agency or USEPA, it is necessary to

conduct testing to demonstrate compliance with Section 217.204,

217.224, or 217.244, of this Part, as applicable, the owner or

operator of a glass melting furnace, cement kiln, lime kiln, iron and

steel reheat, annealing, or galvanizing furnace, or aluminum

reverberatory or crucible furnace must, at his or her own expense,

have such test conducted in accordance with the applicable test

methods and procedures specified in this Section within 90 days

after receipt of a notice to test from the Agency or USEPA.

The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace, cement kiln, or lime kiln

must have a performance test conducted using 40 CFR 60, subpart A and

appendix A, Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7E, as incorporated by reference in

Section 217.104 of this Part, or other alternative USEPA methods

approved by the Agency. The owner or operator of an iron and steel

reheat, annealing, or galvanizing furnace, or aluminum reverberatory or

crucible furnace must have a performance test conducted using 40 CFR

60, subpart A and appendix A, Method 1, 2, 3, 4, 7E, or 19, as

incorporated by reference in Section 217.104 of this Part, or other

alternative USEPA methods approved by the Agency. Each performance

test must consist of three separate runs, each lasting a minimum of 60

emissions must be measured while the glass melting

furnace, cement kiln, lime kiln, iron and steel reheat, annealing, or

galvanizing furnace, or aluminum reverberatory or crucible furnace is

operating at maximum operating capacity. If the glass melting furnace,

cement kiln, lime kiln, iron and steel reheat, annealing, or galvanizing

furnace, or aluminum reverberatory or crucible furnace has combusted

more than one type of fuel in the prior year, a separate performance test is

required for each fuel. Except as provided under subsection (e) of this

Section, this subsection (b)(4) does not apply if such owner or operator is

demonstrating compliance with an emissions limitation through a

continuous emissions monitoring system under subsection (b)(1) or (b)(5)

of this Section.

Instead of complying with the requirements of subsections (b)(2), (b)(3),

and (b)(4) of this Section, an owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

subject to Subpart G of this Part, cement kiln or lime kiln subject to

Subpart H of this Part, iron and steel reheat, annealing, or galvanizing

furnace subject to Subpart I of this Part, or aluminum reverberatory or

crucible furnace subject to Subpart I of this Part that has the potential to

in an amount less than one ton per day may install and operate a

continuous emissions monitoring system on such emission unit in

accordance with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 60, subpart A and

appendix B, Performance Specifications 2 and 3, and appendix F, Quality

Assurance Procedures, as incorporated by reference in Section 217.104 of

this Part. The continuous emissions monitoring system must be used to

demonstrate compliance with the applicable emissions limitation or

emissions averaging plan on an ozone season and annual basis.

Fossil Fuel-Fired Stationary Boilers. The owner or operator of a fossil fuel-fired

stationary boiler subject to Subpart M of this Part must install, calibrate, maintain,

and operate a continuous emissions monitoring system on such emission unit for

the measurement of NO

emissions discharged into the atmosphere in accordance

with 40 CFR 96, subpart H.

Common Stacks. If two or more emission units subject to Subpart E, F, G, H, I,

M, or Q of this Part are served by a common stack and the owner or operator of

such emission units is operating a continuous emissions monitoring system, the

owner or operator may, with written approval from the Agency, utilize a single

continuous emissions monitoring system for the combination of emission units

subject to Subpart E, F, G, H, I,M , or Q of this Part that share the common stack,

provided such emission units are subject to an emissions averaging plan under this

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)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), or (b)(1) of this 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:

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

compliance date in calendar year 2012 under Section 217.152, compliance

with the CEMS or PEMS requirements, 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.

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

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

the requirements under subsections (a)(1) and (c) of this Section, the owner or

operator of an emission unit who is not otherwise required by any other 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 (PEMS) on the emission

unit for the measurement of NO

emissions discharged into the atmosphere in

accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 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.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.158

Emissions Averaging Plans

Notwithstanding any other emissions averaging plan provisions under this Part, an

owner or operator of a source with certain emission units subject to Subpart E, F,

G, H, I or M of this Part, or subject to Subpart Q of this Part that are located in

either one of the areas set forth under Section 217.150(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii)

217.150(a)(1)(A) or (B), may demonstrate compliance with the applicable

Subpart through an emissions averaging plan. An emissions averaging plan can

only address emission units that are located at one source and each unit may only

be covered by one emissions averaging plan. Such emission units at the source

are affected units and are subject to the requirements of this Section.

The following units may be included in an emissions averaging plan:

Units that commenced operation on or before January 1, 2002.

Units that the owner or operator may claim as exempt pursuant to

Section 217.162, 217.182, 217.202, 217.222, 217.242, or 217.342

of this Part, as applicable, but does not claim exempt. For as long

as such a unit is included in an emissions averaging plan, it will be

treated as an affected unit and subject to the applicable emissions

limitations, and testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting

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 NO

emissions on an

annual basis than the actual NO

emissions of the 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 be included in an emissions averaging plan.

The following types of units may not be included in an emissions

averaging plan:

Units that commence operation after January 1, 2002, except as

provided by subsection (a)(1)(C) of this Section.

Units that the owner or operator is claiming are exempt pursuant to

Section 217.162, 217.182, 217.202, 217.222, 217.242, or 217.342

of this Part, as applicable.

Units that are required to meet emission limits or control

requirements for NO

as provided for in an enforceable order,

unless such order allows for emissions averaging. In the case of

petroleum refineries, this subsection does not prohibit 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. Units that

are required to meet emission limits or control requirements for

as provided for in an enforceable order, unless such order

allows for emissions averaging.

An owner or operator must submit an emissions averaging plan to the Agency by

January 1, 2012. The plan must include, but is not limited to, the following:

The list of affected units included in the plan by unit identification

A sample calculation demonstrating compliance using the methodology

provided in subsection (f) of this Section for the ozone season (May 1

through September 30) and calendar year (January 1 through December

An owner or operator may amend an emissions averaging plan only once per

calendar year. Such an amended plan must be submitted to the Agency by

January 1 of the applicable calendar year. If an amended plan is not received by

the Agency by January 1 of the applicable calendar year, the previous year’s plan

will be the applicable emissions averaging plan.

Notwithstanding subsection (c) of this Section:

If a unit that is listed in an emissions averaging plan is taken out of

service, the owner or operator must submit to the Agency, within 30 days

after such occurrence, an updated emissions averaging plan; or

If a unit that was exempt from the requirements of Subpart E, F, G, H, I,

or M of this Part pursuant to Section 217.162, 217.182, 217.202, 217.222,

217.242 or 217.342, of this Part, as applicable, no longer qualifies for an

exemption, the owner or operator may amend its existing averaging plan

to include such unit within 30 days after the unit no longer qualifies for the

An owner or operator must:

Demonstrate compliance for the ozone season (May 1 through September

30) and the calendar year (January 1 through December 31) by using the

methodology and the units listed in the most recent emissions averaging

plan submitted to the Agency pursuant to subsection (b) of this Section,

the monitoring data or test data determined pursuant to Section 217.157,

and the actual hours of operation for the applicable averaging plan period;

Submit to the Agency, by March 1 following each calendar year, a

compliance report containing the information required by Section

The total mass of actual NOx emissions from the units listed in the emissions

averaging plan must be equal to or less than the total mass of allowable NOx

emissions for those units for both the ozone season and calendar year. The

following equation must be used to determine compliance:

Total sum of the actual NOx mass emissions from units

included in the averaging plan for each fuel used (tons per

ozone season and year).

Total sum of the allowable NOx mass emissions from units

included in the averaging plan for each fuel used (tons per

ozone season and year).

Subscript denoting an individual unit.

Total mass of actual NO

emissions in tons for a unit as

determined in subsection (f)(1) of this Section.

Subscript denoting the fuel type used.

Number of different fuel types.

Number of different units in the averaging plan.

Total mass of allowable NOx emissions in tons for a unit

as determined in subsection (f)(2) of this Section.

For each unit in the averaging plan, and each fuel used by such unit, determine

actual and allowable NOx emissions using the following equations:

Actual emissions must be determined as follows:

When emission limits are prescribed in lb/mmBtu,

When emission limits are prescribed in lb/ton of processed

Allowable emissions must be determined as follows:

When emission limits are prescribed in lb/mmBtu,

When emission limits are prescribed in lb/ton of processed

Total mass of actual NOx emissions in tons for a

Total mass of allowable NOx emissions in tons for

Actual NOx emission rate (lbs/mmBtu or lbs/ton of

product) as determined by a performance test, a

continuous emissions monitoring system, or an

alternative method approved by the Agency.

Allowable NOx emission rate (lbs/mmBtu or lbs/ton

of product) as provided in Section 217.164,

217.184, 217.204, 217.224, 217.244, or 217.344, as

applicable. For an affected industrial boiler subject

to Subpart E of this Part, or process heater subject

to Subpart F of this Part, with a rated heat input

capacity less than or equal to 100 mmBtu/hr

demonstrating compliance through an emissions

averaging plan, the allowable NOx emission rate is

to be determined from a performance test after such

boiler or heater has undergone combustion tuning.

For all other units in an emissions averaging plan,

an uncontrolled NOx emission rate from USEPA’s

AP-42, as incorporated by reference in Section

217.104, or an uncontrolled NOx emission rate as

determined by an alternative method approved by

the Agency, will be used.

Heat input (mmBtu/ozone season or mmBtu/year)

calculated from fuel flow meter and the heating

value of the fuel used.

weight in tons of processed product.

An owner or operator of an emission unit subject to Subpart Q of this Part that is

located in either one of the areas set forth under Section 217.150(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii)

217.150(a)(1)(A) or (B) that is complying through an emissions averaging plan

under this Section must comply with the applicable provisions for determining

actual and allowable emissions under Section 217.390, the testing and monitoring

requirements under Section 217.394, and the recordkeeping and reporting

requirements under Section 217.396.

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

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

emission units operating during the maintenance turnaround.

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

oven gas and other gaseous fuels and that is 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 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

pollution control equipment, if any, continues to operate

on all other emission units operating during the maintenance period.

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 NO

pollution control equipment that

controls one or more emission units 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

pollution control equipment for the maintenance turnaround and the

shutdown of the NO

pollution control equipment does not exceed 45 days per

ozone season or calendar year, and except for those emission units vented to the

pollution control equipment undergoing the maintenance turnaround, NO

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

units operating during the maintenance turnaround.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

SUBPART E: INDUSTRIAL BOILERS

Section 217.160 Applicability

The provisions of Subpart D of this Part and this Subpart apply to all industrial

boilers located at sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to Section 217.150,

except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section.

The provisions of this Subpart do not apply to boilers serving a generator that has

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

cogeneration units, as that term is defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225.130, if such

boilers meet the applicability criteria under Subpart M of Part 217or cogeneration

units are subject to the CAIR NO

Trading Programs under 35 Ill. Adm. Code

225.Subpart D or E.

The provisions of this Subpart do not apply to fluidized catalytic cracking units,

their regenerator and associated CO boiler or boilers and CO furnace 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

as provided for

in an enforceable order.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.162 Exemptions

Notwithstanding Section 217.160 of this Subpart, the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to

an industrial boiler operating under a federally enforceable limit of NO

emissions from such

boiler to less than 15 tons per year and less than five tons per ozone season.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.164 Emissions Limitations

Except as provided for under Section 217.152, onOn and after January 1, 2012, no person shall

cause or allow emissions of NO

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

Limitation (lb/mmmBtu

a) Natural Gas or Other

1) Industrial boiler greater

2) Industrial boiler less than

Combustion tuning

b) Distillate Fuel Oil

1) Industrial boiler greater

2) Industrial boiler less than

or equal to 100

Combustion tuning

c) Other Liquid Fuels

1) Industrial boiler greater

2) Industrial boiler less than

or equal to 100

Combustion tuning

1) Industrial boiler greater

than 100, circulating

fluidized bed combustor

2) Industrial boiler greater

3) Industrial boiler greater

than 100 but less than or

4) 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

emissions limitation shall be calculated using the

following equation:

emissions limitation for period in lb/MMBtu= (

= 0.084 lb/MMBtu for natural gas

= the heat input of natural gas in Btu over that period

= 0.144 lb/MMBtu for coke oven gas

= the heat input of coke oven gas in Btu over that period

= 0.0288 lb/MMBtu for blast furnace gas

= the heat input of blast furnace gas in Btu over that period

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective _______)

Section 217.165 Combination of Fuel

The owner or operator of an industrial boiler subject to this Subpart and operated with any

combination of fuels must comply with a heat input weighted average emissions limitation to

demonstrate compliance with Section 217.164.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.166 Methods and Procedures for Combustion Tuning

The owner or operator of an industrial boiler subject to the combustion tuning requirements of

Section 217.164 must have combustion tuning performed on the boiler at least annually. The

combustion tuning must be performed by an employee of the owner or operator or a contractor

who has successfully completed a training course on the combustion tuning of boilers firing the

fuel or fuels that are fired in the boiler. The owner or operator must maintain the following

records that must be made available to the Agency upon request:

The date the combustion tuning was performed;

The name, title, and affiliation of the person who performed the combustion

Documentation demonstrating the provider of the combustion tuning training

course, the dates the training course was taken, and proof of successful

completion of the training course;

Tune-up procedure followed and checklist of items (such as burners, flame

conditions, air supply, scaling on heating surface, etc.) inspected prior to the

actual tune-up; and

Operating parameters recorded at the start and at conclusion of combustion

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

SUBPART F: PROCESS HEATERS

Section 217.180 Applicability

The provisions of Subpart D of this Part and this Subpart apply to all process heaters located at

sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to Section 217.150.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.182 Exemptions

Notwithstanding Section 217.180, the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to a process heater

operating under a federally enforceable limit of NO

emissions from such heater to less than 15

tons per year and less than five tons per ozone season.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.184 Emissions Limitations

Except as provided for under Section 217.152, onOn and after January 1, 2012, no person shall

cause or allow emissions of NO

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 andRated

Heat Input Capacity(mmmBtu/hr)

Emissions Limitation

a) Natural Gas or

1) Process heater greater

2) Process heater less than

Combustion tuning

or equal to 100

b) Residual Fuel

1) Process heater greater

than 100, natural draft

2) Process heater greater than

100, mechanical draft

3) Process heater less than

or equal to 100

Combustion tuning

c) Other Liquid

1) Process heater greater

than 100, natural draft

2) Process heater greater than

100, mechanical draft

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.185

Combination of Fuels

The owner or operator of a process heater subject to this Subpart and operated with any

combination of fuels must comply with a heat input weighted average emissions limitation to

demonstrate compliance with Section 217.184.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.186 Methods and Procedures for Combustion Tuning

The owner or operator of a process heater subject to the combustion tuning requirements of

Section 217.184 must have combustion tuning performed on the heater at least annually. The

combustion tuning must be performed by an employee of the owner or operator or a contractor

who has successfully completed a training course on the combustion tuning of heaters firing the

fuel or fuels that are fired in the heater. The owner or operator must maintain the following

records that must be made available to the Agency upon request:

The date the combustion tuning was performed;

The name, title, and affiliation of the person who performed the

combustion tuning;

Documentation demonstrating the provider of the combustion tuning

training course, the dates the training course was taken, and proof of

successful completion of the training course;

Tune-up procedure followed and checklist of items (such as burners, flame

conditions, air supply, scaling on heating surface, etc.) inspected prior to

the actual tune-up; and

Operating parameters recorded at the start and at conclusion of

combustion tuning.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

SUBPART G: GLASS MELTING FURNACES

Section 217.200 Applicability

The provisions of Subpart D of this Part and this Subpart apply to all glass melting furnaces

located at sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to Section 217.150.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.202 Exemptions

Notwithstanding Section 217.200, the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to a glass melting

furnace operating under a federally enforceable limit of NO

emissions from such furnace to less

than 15 tons per year and less than five tons per ozone season.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.204 Emissions Limitations

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

into the atmosphere from any glass melting furnace to exceed the following

limitations. Compliance must be demonstrated with the emissions limitation on

an ozone season and annual basis.

Emission Unit Type

Nox Emissions Limitation

(lb/ton glass produced)

1) Container Glass

Glass melting furnace

Glass melting furnace

Glass melting furnace

The emissions during glass melting furnace startup (not to exceed 70 days) or

furnace idling (operation at less than 35% of furnace capacity) shall be excluded

from calculations for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the seasonal

and annual emissions limitations under this Section, provided that such owner or

operator, at all times, including periods of startup and idling, to the extent

practicable, maintain and operate any affected emission unit including associated

air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution

control practice for minimizing emissions The owner or operator of a glass

melting furnace must maintain records that include the date, time, and duration of

any startup or idling in the operation of such glass melting furnace. The emissions

limitations under this Section do not apply during glass melting furnace startup

(not to exceed 70 days) or idling (operation at less than 35% of furnace capacity).

For the purposes of demonstrating seasonal and annual compliance, the emissions

limitation during such periods shall be calculated as follows:

NOx emissions limitation (lb/day) = (ANL) / (PPC)

ANL = The applicable NOx emissions limitation under this

Section in pounds per ton of glass produced

PPC = Permitted production capacity in tons of glass produced per

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

SUBPART H: CEMENT AND LIME KILNS

Section 217.220 Applicability

Notwithstanding Subpart T of this Part, the provisions of Subpart D of this Part

and this Subpart apply to all cement kilns located at sources subject to this

Subpart pursuant to Section 217.150.

The provisions of Subpart C of this Part and this Subpart apply to all lime kilns

located at sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to Section 217.150.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.222 Exemptions

Notwithstanding Section 217.220, the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to a cement kiln or

lime kiln operating under a federally enforceable limit of NO

emissions from such kiln to less

than 15 tons per year and less than five tons per ozone season.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.224 Emissions Limitations

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

into the atmosphere from any cement kiln to exceed the following limitations.

Compliance must be demonstrated with the applicable emissions limitation on an

ozone season and annual basis.

Emission Unit Type

Nox Emissions Limitation

(lb/ton clinker produced)

Preheater/precalciner kiln

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

into the atmosphere from any lime kiln to exceed the following limitations.

Compliance must be demonstrated with the applicable emissions limitation on an

ozone season and annual basis.

Emission Unit Type

Nox Emissions Limitation

(lb/ton lime produced)

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

SUBPART I: IRON AND STEEL AND ALUMINUM MANUFACTURING

Section 217.240 Applicability

The provisions of Subpart D of this Part and this Subpart apply to all reheat

furnaces, annealing furnaces, and galvanizing furnaces used in iron and steel

making located at sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to Section 217.150.

The provisions of Subpart D of this Part and this Subpart apply to all

reverberatory furnaces and crucible furnaces used in aluminum melting located at

sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to Section 217.150.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.242 Exemptions

Notwithstanding Section 217.240, the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to an iron and steel

reheat furnace, annealing furnace, or galvanizing furnace, or aluminum reverberatory furnace or

crucible furnace operating under a federally enforceable limit of NO

emissions from such

furnace to less than 15 tons per year and less than five tons per ozone season.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)_________)

Section 217.244 Emissions Limitations

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

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.

Emissions Limitation

Emission Unit Type

(lb/mmBtu)_________

Reheat furnace, regenerative

Reheat recuperative, combusting

Reheat furnace, recuperative, combusting a

combination of natural gas and coke oven

Reheat furnace, cold-air

Annealing furnace, regenerative

Annealing furnace, recuperative

Annealing furnace, cold-air

Galvanizing furnace, regenerative

Galvanizing furnace, cuperative

Galvanizing furnace, cold-air

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

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

Emission Unit Type

Limitation (lb/mmmBtu)

Reverberatory furnace

Crucible furnace

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

SUBPART M: ELECTRICAL GENERATING UNITS

Section 217.340 Applicability

Notwithstanding Subpart V or W of this Part, the provisions of Subpart D of this Part and this

Subpart apply to any fossil fuel-fired stationary boiler serving at any time a generator that has a

nameplate capacity greater than 25 MWe and produces electricity for sale, excluding any units

listed in Appendix D of this Part, located at sources subject to this Subpart pursuant to Section

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.342 Exemptions

Notwithstanding Section 217.340 , the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to a

fossil fuel-fired stationary boiler operating under a federally enforceable limit of

emissions from such boiler to less than 15 tons per year and less than five

tons per ozone season.

Notwithstanding Section 217.340, the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to a

coal-fired stationary boiler that commenced operation before January 1, 2008, that

is complying with Part35 Ill. Adm. Code 225.Subpart B through the multi-

pollutant standard under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225.233 or the combined pollutant

standardstandards

under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225.Subpart F.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.344 Emissions Limitations

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

atmosphere from any fossil fuel-fired stationary 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

Limitation (lb/mmmBtu)

1) Boiler that commenced

operation before January 1,

2) Boiler that commenced

Operation on or after

January 1, 2008

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

Section 217.345 Combination of Fuels

The owner or operator of a fossil fuel-fired stationary boiler subject to this Subpart and operated

with any combination of fuels must comply with a heat input weighted average emissions

limitation to demonstrate compliance with Section 217.344.

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. ____, effective ______________)

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

ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (Facility ID 197800AAA)

Emission Unit Description

Compliance Date

Crude Vacuum Heater (13-B-2)

December 31,2014

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

December 31,2014

CHD Charge Heater (3-B-1)

December 31,2014

CHD Stripper Reboiler (3-B-2)

December 31,2014

Coker East Charge Heater (16-B-1A)

December 31,2014

Coker East Charge Heater (16-B-1B)

December 31,2014

Crude Atmospheric Heater (1-B-1A)

December 31,2014

Crude Atmospheric Heater (1-B-1B)

December 31,2014

ConocoPhillips Company Wood River Refinery (Facility ID 119090AAA)

Emission Unit Description

Compliance Date

December 31, 2012

December 31, 2012

CR-1 Feed Preheat, H-1

December 31, 2012

CR-1 1st Interreactor Heater, H-2

December 31, 2012

CR-1 3rd Interreactor Heater, H-7

December 31, 2012

CR-3 Charge Heater

December 31, 2012

CR-3 1st Reheat Heater, H-5

December 31, 2012

December 31, 2012

December 31, 2012

Alky HM-2 Heater

December 31, 2012

VF-4 Charge Heater, H-28

December 31, 2012

DU-4 Charge Heater, H-24

December 31, 2014

DCU Charge Heater, H-20

December 31, 2014

HCU Fractionator Reboil, H-3

December 31, 2016

DU-1 Primary Heater South, F-301

December 31, 2016

DU-1 Secondary Heater North, F-302

December 31, 2016

December 31, 2016

December 31, 2016

DHT Charge Heater

December 31, 2016

DU-2 Lube Crude Heater F-200

December 31, 2016

DU-2 Mixed Crude Heater West, F 202

December 31, 2016

DU-2 Mixed Crude Heater East, F-203

December 31, 2016

CR-2 North Heater

December 31, 2016

00170661 BEU-HM-1 CR-2 South Heater

December 31, 20162012

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. _____, effective __________)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that

the Board adopted the above opinion and order on July 23, 2009, by a vote of 5-0.

___________________________________

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board