ILLINOIS REGISTER 10536
09
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENTS
3) Any decision of the Agency denying a permit or granting a permit with
conditions that set a lower injection rate or rates may be appealed to the
Board pursuant to Section 39 of the Act; and
4) The owner or operator of an EGU may operate at the injection rate or rates
proposed in its application until a final decision is made on the application
including a final decision on any appeal to the Board.
i) During any evaluation of the effectiveness of a listed sorbent, alternative sorbent,
or other technique to control mercury emissions, the owner or operator of an EGU
need not comply with the requirements of subsection (g) of this Section for any
system needed to carry out the evaluation, as further provided as follows:
1) The owner or operator of the EGU must conduct the evaluation in
accordance with a formal evaluation program submitted to the Agency at
least 30 days prior to commencement of the evaluation;
2) The duration and scope of the evaluation may not exceed the duration and
scope reasonably needed to complete the desired evaluation of the
alternative control techniques, as initially addressed by the owner or
operator in a support document submitted with the evaluation program;
3) The owner or operator of the EGU must submit a report to the Agency no
later than 30 days after the conclusion of the evaluation that describes the
evaluation conducted and which provides the results of the evaluation; and
4) If the evaluation of alternative control techniques shows less effective
control of mercury emissions from the EGU than was achieved with the
principal control techniques, the owner or operator of the EGU must
resume use of the principal control techniques. If the evaluation of the
alternative control technique shows comparable effectiveness to the
principal control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU may either
continue to use the alternative control technique in a manner that is at least
as effective as the principal control technique or it may resume use of the
principal control technique. If the evaluation of the alternative control
technique shows more effective control of mercury emissions than the
control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU must continue to use
the alternative control technique in a manner that is more effective than
