~rt.. wAmeren

Ameren Energy ReSDurces

R. Alan KBIIBY

President &Chief Executive Officer

December 27, 2007

Mr. Jim Ross, Manager

Division of Air Pollution Control

Bureau ofAir

Illinois Enviromnental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P. O. Box 19726

Springfield, II. 62794-9276

RE: Illinois Mercury Rule Multi-Pollutant Standard - Notice oflntent

Dear Mr. Ross:

One Arneren Plaza

1901 Chouteau Avenue

PO Box 66149, MC 10

St. Louis, MO 63166-6149

314.554.2IUS

314.554.3086 fax

rakel/ey@ameren.com

RECEIVED

JAN 0 2 2008

!"'Cl~ !i1>I'I©ti'. ~!FfLij] ll~~ i'\;, ... I.:JNlfl.iD

v

In accordance with 35 Illinois Administrative Code Part 225 Subpart B Section 225.233 (b), Ameren

Energy Resources, as authorized agent for Ameren Energy Generating Company, AmerenEnergy

Resources Generating Company and Electric Energy Inc., submits this notice ofintent that the owners

ofthe following eligible electric generating units elect to demonstrate compliance with the multipollutant emission limitation as an alternative to the emission standards of Section 225.230. This

notice ofintent is submitted for the following emission units that are eligible electric generating units

(EGUs):

Ameren Energy Generating Company

Facilitv Facilitv I. D. Emission Unit

Coffeen 135803AAA 01

Coffeen 135803AAA 02

Hutsonville 03380lAAA 05

Hutsonville 03380lAAA 06

Meredosia 137805AAA 01

Meredosia 137805AAA 02

Meredosia 137805AAA 03

Meredosia 137805AAA 04

Meredosia 137805AAA 05

Newton 079808AAA 1

Newton 079808AAA 2

AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company

Facility Facility 1. D. Emission Unit

Duck Creek 05780lAAA 1

E. D. Edwards 143805AAG 1

E. D. Edwards 143805AAG 2

E. D. Edwards 143805AAG 3
Electric Energy, Inc.

Facility Facility I. D. Emission Unit

Joppa 127855AAC 1

Joppa 127855AAC 2

Joppa 127855AAC 3

Joppa 127855AAC 4

Joppa 127855AAC 5

Joppa 127855AAC 6 ..

The electric generating units (EGUs) identified above are eligible to participate as an Multi-Pollutant

Standard Group for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the requirements of35 Illinois

Administrative Code Part 225 Subpart B Section 225.233. This notice ofintent includes the following

components as attachments to this submittal: the base emission rates for the EGUs and supporting data; a

summary of current pollution control equipment installed; and a sunnnary of additional pollution control

equipment that will likely be installed to comply with the MPS.

The EGUs identified in this notice ofintent have commenced commercial operation on or before December

31,2004 and constitute all affected EGUs that were oWned by the listed affiliates as ofJuly 1, 2006.

I am authorized to make this submission on behalfofthe owners and operators ofthe affected units for

which this submission is made. Please contact Steven Whitworth at (314) 554 - 4908 if you have any

questions concerning this submittal or if additional information is required.

Sincerely,

~{{[t21 President, Ameren Energy Generating Company

President, ArnerenEnergy Resources Generating Company

Director and Chairman, Electric Energy, Inc.

SCW/AEGAERGEECMPSnotice

Attachments
Ameren Energy Resources Company

Multi-Pollutant Standard Notice ofIntent

Attachment A

Summary of Existing Pollution Control Equipment

Ameren Energy Generating Company

Facilitv Facilitv I. D. Emission Unit Particulate Control NOx Control S02 Control

Coffeen 135803AAA 01 ESP OFAISCR

Coffeen 135803AAA 02 ESP OFAISCR

Hutsonville 03380lAAA 05 ESP

Hutsonville 033801AAA 06 ESP

Meredosia 137805AAA 01 ESP

Meredosia 137805AAA 02 ESP

Meredosia 137805AAA 03 ESP

Meredosia 137805AAA 04 ESP

Meredosia 137805AAA 05 ESP LNB

Newton 079808AAA I ESP OFAlLNB

Newton 079808AAA 2 ESP OFAlLNB

AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company

Facijji-; Facijji-;I. D. Emission Unit Particulate Control NOx Control S02 Control

Duck Creek 05780lAAA I ESP LNB/SCR FGD

E. D. Edwards 143805AAG I ESP LNB

E. D. Edwards 143805AAG 2 ESP LNB

E. D. Edwards 143805AAG 3 ESP OFAlLNB/SCR

Electric Energy, Inc.

Facijji-; Facijji-;I. D. Emission Unit Particulate Control NOx Control S02 Control

Jonna 127855AAC I ESP . LNB

JooDa I27855AAC 2 ESP LNB

J;;;;;;-a I27855AAC 3 ESP LNB

Joooa I27855AAC 4 ESP LNB

Jonna 127855AAC 5 ESP OFNLNB

Joooa 127855AAC 6 ESP OFAlLNB
Ameren Energy Resources Company

Multi-Pollutant Standard Notice oflntent

Attachment B

Base Emission Rate Determination
Ameren MP5 Base Annual Emission Rate Detennination

2003 Heat Input NOxRate NOx 502 Rate 502

Comnanv ImmBtu\ 1#/mmBtu\ Itonsl l#/mmBtu\ Itonsl

AEGC 158,452,698 0.259 20,527 1.14 90,117

AERGC 63,611,097 0.368 11,690 2.06 65,440

EEl 89,504,514 0.129 5,771 0.54 24,026

AER Illinois 311,568,309 0.244 37,988 1.15 179,583

2004 Heat Input NOxRate NOx 502 Rate 502

Comnanv ImmBtul l#/mmBtul Itonsl l#/mmBtul Itonsl

AEGC 171,427,867 0.249 20,710 1.06 90,532

AERGC 70,737,248 0.309 10,897 1.47 52,058

EEl 92,482,478 0.127 5,860 0.61 28,048

AER Illinois 334,647,593 0.224 37,467 1.02 170,638

2005 Heat Input NOxRate NOx 502 Rate 502

Comnanv ImmBtul 1#/mmBtul /tonsl 1#/mmBtul Itonsl

AEGC 160,864,003 0.253 18,494 1.04 83,905

AERGC 65,569,490 0.267 .8,619 1.22 39,999

EEl 86,505,712 0.128 5,524 0.60 25,963

AER Illinois 312,939,205 0.235 32,637 1.01 149,867

Annual Average Heat Input NOx Rate NOx 502 Rate 502

Comnanv ImmBtul l#/mmBtul Itonsl 1#/mmBtul Itonsl

AEGC 163,581,523 0.243 19,910 1.08 88,185

AERGC 66,639,278 0.312 10,402 1.58 52,499

EEl 89,497,568 0.128 5,718 0.58 26,012

AER illinois 319,718,369 0.225 36,031 1.04 166,696

MP5 Rates

NOx at 0.11 or 52% of base rate in 2012

502 at 0.33 or 44% of base rate in 2013

502 at 0.25 or 35% of base rate In 2015

% of base rate

0.117

% of base rate

0.46

0.36
Ameren MPS Base Seasonal NOx Emission Rate Determination

2003 Heat Input NOx Rate NOx

ComDanv ImmBtu) (#lmmBtu\ Itons\

AEGC 71,819,229 0.159 5,706

AERGC 26,917,427 0.255 3,427

EEl 37,416,091 0.126 2,359

AER illinois 136,152,747 0.169 11,492

2004 Heat Input NOx Rate NOx

Company ImmBtu\ l#lmmBtu\ (tons)

AEGC 72,205,935 0.153 5,508

AERGC 30,512,335 0.180 2,750

EEl 30,951,063 0.126 1,956

AER illinois 133,669,333 0.153 10,214 .

2005 Heat Input NOx Rate NOx

ComDanv (mmBtu) 1#/mmBtu\ Itons\

AEGC 77,068,042 0.146 5,614

AERGC 28,277,603 0.170 2,397

EEl 37,004,541 0.126 2,328

AER Illinois 142,350,186 0.147 10,339

Seasonal Average Heat Input NOx Rate NOx

ComDanv ImmBtu\ 1#/mmBtu\ Itons\

AEGC 73,697,735 0.152 5,609

AERGC 28,569,121 0.200 2,858

EEl 35,123,898 0.126 2,214

AER Illinois 137,390,755 0.155 10,682

MPS Rates

NOx at 0.11 or 80"/0 of base rate in 2012

"/0 of base rate

0.124
Ameren Energy Resources Company

Multi-Pollutant Standard Notice ofIntent

Attachment C

Summary ofLikely Future Pollution Control Equipment

Ameren Energy Generating Company

Facility Facility I. D. Emission Unit Mercurv Control NOxControl 802 Control

Coffeen 135803AAA 01 8CR/FGD OFAl8CR FGD

Coffeen 135803AAA 02 8CR/FGD OFAl8CR FGD

Hutsonville 03380lAAA 05 ACI 2013) OFAlLNB

Hutsonville 03380lAAA 06 ACI 2013) OFAlLNB

Meredosia 137805AAA 01 ACI 20\3)

Meredosia 137805AAA 02 ACI 2013)

Meredosia 137805AAA 03 ACI (2013

Meredosia 137805AAA 04 ACI (2013

Meredosia 137805AAA 05 ACI 2009 OFAlLNB

Newton 079808AAA I ACI 2009 OFAlLNB/8CR FGD

Newton 079808AAA 2 ACI 2009 OFAlLNB/8CR FGD

AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company

Facilitv Facility I. D. Emission Unit Mercury Control NOx Control 802 Control

Duck Creek 05780lAAA I 8CR/FGD LNB/8CR FGD

E. D. Edwards 143805AAG I ACI (2009) OFAlLNB

E. D. Edwards 143805AAG 2 ACI (2009) OFAlLNB

E. D. Edwards 143805AAG 3 ACI (2009) OFAlLNB/SCR FGD

Electric Energy, Inc.

Facilitv Facility I. D. Emission Unit Mercury Control NOx Control 802 Control

Joppa I27855AAC I ACI (2009) OFAlLNB FGD

JODDa 127855AAC 2 ACI 2009) OFAlLNB FGD

Joppa 127855AAC 3 ACI 2009 . OFAlLNB

JODDa 127855AAC 4 ACI 2009 OFAlLNB

JODDa 127855AAC 5 ACI 2009 OFAlLNB FGD

Joppa 127855AAC 6 ACI (2009 OFAlLNB FGD
.:.. ,~

DVNEGV

" November 26,2007

Keith McFarland

Vice President

Midwest Fleet Operations

c:

Dynegy Generation

A Division of Dynegy Inc

3890 North Illinois Street

Swansea, Illinois 62:226

Mr. Raymond Pilapil

Manager

Compliance & Enforcement Section

Illinois EPA

Bureau ofAir

PO Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

RECEIVED

DEC 032007

Re: CAIR Rule - 35 lAC 225

Notice oflntent to Participate in MPS

Environmental Protection Agencv Bureau ofAir

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Dear Mr. Pilapil:

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (DMG) is giving notice ofits intent to elect its units in the

Multi-Pollutant Standards group as per Section 225.233 as its means of complying with Subpart

B of Part 225. The following information accompanies this notification:

1. The identification of each EGU that will be complying with this Subpart B by means of

the multi-pollutant standards contained in this Section, with evidence that the owner has

identified all EGUs that it owned in Illinois as ofJuly 1,2006 and which commenced

commercial operation on or before December 31, 2004;

2. The Base Emission Rates for the EGUs, with copies ofsupporting data and calculations;

3. A summary ofthe current control devices installed and operating on each EGU and

identification ofthe additional control devices that will likely be neededto comply with

emission control requirements ofthis Section, including identification of each EGU in the

MPS group that will be addressed by subsection (c)(l)(B) ofthis Section, with

information showing that the eligibility criteria for this subsection (b) are satisfied.

This information is in the attachments to this letter. Attachment 1 lists all the units (EGUs)

owned by Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. that utilize coal in Illinois. All ofthe units were

owned before July 1,2006 and began operation before December 31,2004. Attachment 2 lists

the Base Emission Rate for the EGUs (values from 2003, 2004 and 2005). Attachment 3 gives a

table ofthe control devices currently installed and future installations. Future installations are

indicated with a proposed date. EGUs addressed by subsection (c)(l)(B) are identified along

with gross generation and percentgeneration ofthe MPS group.
This letter also serves as notice under 225.270 and 40CFR Part 75.61 that Hennepin (ORIS 892)

Unit 1 and Unit 2 are served and monitored by a common stack. Vermilion (ORIS 897) Unit 1

and Unit 2 are also served and monitored by a common stack.

"1 am authorized to make this submission on behalfofthe owners and operators ofthe NOX

Budget sources or NOXBudget unitsfor which the submission is made. 1 certify under penalty of

law that 1 have personally examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information

submitted in this document and all its attachments. Based on my inquiry ofthose individuals with

primary responsibility for obtaining the information, 1 certify that the statements and information

are to the best ofmy knowledge and belieftrue, accurate, and complete. 1 am aware that there

are significant penaltiesfor submittingfalse statements and information or omitting required

statements and information, including thepossibility offine or imprisonment. "

Sincerely,

DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION, INC.

~~~

Keith A. McF~a~ Vice President

Midwest Fleet Operations

Attachments
Attachment 1

EGUs owned by Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. and elected for MPS

Station UnitID ORIS Date of Commercial Gross Generation 1

Operation (GMW)

Baldwin I 889 7/13/70 624

Baldwin 2 889 5/21/73 629

Baldwin 3 889 6/20/75 629

Havana 9 891 6/22/78 487

Hennepin 1 892 6/1/53 81

Hennepin 2 892 5/14/59 240

Vermilion 1 897 5/19/55 84

Vermilion 2 897 5/25/56 113

Wood River £ 4 898 6/1/54 105

Wood River 5 898 7/31/64 383

Total Generation 3375

1 Gross Generation as listed in the Consent Decree.

2 The Gross Generation for Wood River Unit for is less than 4% ofthe total Gross Generation for

the MPS group (225.233 (c)(1)(b»
Attachment 2

Base Emission Rates and calculations

Ib/mmBtu Tons mmBtu

2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

Seasonal

NOx 0.209 0.102 0087 9704 3824 4360 92894369 74935571 99783984

Annual

NOx 0.261 0.215 0.096 28455 23281 10639 218427022 216363263 221703763

Annual

S02 0.583 0.562 0.491 63622 60806 54394 218427022 216363263 221703763

Values taken from IEPA handout which indicates values obtained from USEPA Clean Air

Markets Division

A verage Values

Proaram Averaae Rate Reduction Limit

Seasonal NOx 0.133 20% 0.106

Annual NOx 0.191 48% 0.099

Annual S02 P1 2013-2014 0.545 56% 0.240

Annual S02 P2 0.545 65% 0.191
Attachment 3

Table of Control Devices

Station Unit ID ESP Fabric Filter SCR Spray Dryer ACI

Absorber

Baldwin 1 X 20U X 20U 2009

Baldwin 2 X 2012 X 2012 2009

Baldwin 3 X 2010 2010 2009

Havana 9 X 2009 X 2009 - 2010 2009

Hennepin 1 X 2008 2009

Hennepin 2 X 2008 2009

Vermilion 1 X X X

Vermilion 2 X X X

Wood River j 4 X

Wood River 5 X 2009

X = Device currently installed

Fntnre installation indicated by date of anticipated operation.

3 Wood River Unit 4 (ORlS 898) is electing to use (c)(l)(b) of Subpart B of Part 225.233
I\n EDiSON JN1'ERNATIONAL1ll Company

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

December 27,2007

Mr. Dave Bloomberg

Acting Manager Compliance and Enforcement

Division of Air Pollution Control (MC40)

Bureau of Air

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Subject: Midwest Generation CPS Notice of Intent

35 lAC 225.61 O(a-c)

Dear Mr. Bloomberg,

Pursuant to Section 225.610 of Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code, Midwest

Generation, LLC hereby submits notice of its election and intention that the electrical

generating units ("EGUs") set forth on the attached Table A will comply with Section

225.230(a) (35 lAC 225.230(a)) by means of Subpart F: Combined Pollutant Standards

(CPS) of Part 225. Information required by Section 225.610 is listed on the attached

Table A. This letter confirms that Table A includes all of the EGUs specified under

Subpart F·thlll Midwest Generation, LLC owned or operated as of December 31, 2006

and which C{lmmenced commercial operation on or before December 31, 2004.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Bill Constantelos at (312)

583-6029.

Sincerely,

Guy Gorney,

Senior Vice President

cc: Bill Constantelos

Daniel D. McDevitt
Table A

SUbpart F Boiler Permit Owned or operated in Current Pollution Control Devices Control devices that will likely

Designation Number IL as of December 31, Installed and Operating be needed for each EGU to

2006, and which comply with emission control

commenced requirements of Subpart F

commercial operation

on or before

December 31,2004

(Yes or No)

Crawford 7* 7 031600AIN Yes Cold ESP, Low NOx Burners & Overfire Air FGDand SNCR

Crawford 8* 8 031600AIN Yes Cold ESP, Low NOx Burners & Overfire Air FGD and SNCR

Fisk 19* 19 031600AMI Yes Cold ESP, Low NOx Burners & Overfire Air FGD

Joliet 7 71 197809AAO Yes Cold ESP, Low NOx Burners & Overfire Air FGD

Joliet 7 72 197809AAO Yes Cold ESP, Low NOx Burners & Overfire Air FGD

Joliet 8 81 197809AAO Yes Cold ESP, Low NOx Burners & Overfire Air FGD

Joliet 8 82 197809AAO Yes Cold ESP, Low NOx Burners & Overfire Air FGD

Joliet 6 5 197809AAO Yes Cold ESP & NOx Overfire Air SNCR and Rich Reagent Iniection

Powerlon 5 51 179801AAA Yes Cold ESP & NOx Overfire Air FGD and SCR

Powerlon 5 52 179801AAA Yes Cold ESP & NOx Overfire Air FGD and SCR

Powerlon 6 61 179801AAA Yes Cold ESP & NOx Overfire Air FGD and SCR

Powerton 6 62 179801AAA Yes Cold ESP & NOx Overfire Air FGD and SCR

Waukegan 6 17 097190AAC Yes Cold ESP & NOx Overfire Air Retired by December 31, 2007

WaukeQan 7* 7 097190AAC Yes Hot ESP, Low NOx Burners & Overfire Air FGD

Waukeqan 8* 8 097190AAC Yes Cold ESP, Low NOx Burners & Overfire Air FGD

Will County 1 1 197810AAK Yes Cold ESP & NOx Overfire Air Retired by December 31,2010

Will County 2 2 197810AAK Yes Cold ESP & NOx Overfire Air Retired by December 31,2010

Will County 3 3 197810AAK Yes Hot ESP, Low NOx Burners & Overfire Air FGD

Will County 4 4 197810AAK Yes Cold ESP, Low NOx Burners & Overfire Air FGDand SNCR

* Unit has a retirement opllon If controls are not Installed based on the schedule In CPS rule

•
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Public Notice Order Form

Division: Air Permits

Ordered By: Bradley Frost Phone: 217/782-7027

Public Notice Number: 001

Newspaper or location where ad is to be placed: State Paper (Taylorville?)

Run Date(s): 10/27/2010

Special Instructions:

Ad is to run as an ROP Display - NOT as a legal notice

Please typeset and border ad copy. Ad Size: 2 x 5

Authorizing Name: Brad Frost Date: October 19, 2010
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Notice of Public Hearing for State Implementation Plan Submittal

to Address Regional Haze

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) will hold a public hearing on 

December 6, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in the Sangamo Room at the Illinois EPA’s Headquarters at 1021 

N. Grand Ave. East, Springfield, Illinois.

The hearing will be held by the Illinois EPA Bureau of Air for the purpose of gathering public 

comments on a revision to the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address the visibility 

protection requirements of Section 169A of the Federal Clean Air Act for Federal Class I areas.

42 U.S.C. § 7491. The proposal will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency for review and approval as a revision to the SIP. The Federal requirements are set forth 

under Title 40: Protection of Environment, Part 51--Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and 

Submittal of Implementation Plans, Subpart P--Protection of Visibility, 40 CFR§§ 51.300--

51.309. Regional haze is visibility impairment caused by the cumulative air pollutant emissions 

from numerous sources over a wide geographic area. Accordingly, this proposal has been 

prepared to satisfy Illinois’ obligation to develop a regional haze SIP with measures necessary to 

make reasonable progress towards remedying visibility impairment in Federal Class I areas. 

Under 40 CFR § 51.308, the core requirements for the plan include reasonable progress goals, 

calculations of baseline and natural visibility conditions, long-term strategy for regional haze, 

monitoring strategy, and Best Available Retrofit Technology requirements for regional haze 

visibility impairment.

Copies of the draft SIP submittal for regional haze may be viewed by the public prior to the 

hearing during regular business hours (Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m, except 

for State holidays) at the Illinois EPA’s Headquarters at 1021 North Grand Avenue East, 

Springfield, Illinois, as well as on Illinois EPA’s website at http://www.epa.state.il.us. No walkin requests for copies of this material will be accommodated, unless advance notice is provided. 

Requests and public inquiries should be directed to Dean Studer, the Illinois EPA’s Hearing 

Officer, at the address below.

The hearing will be held under the provisions of the Illinois EPA’s “Procedures for Informational

and Quasi-Legislative Public Hearings,” set forth at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 164. Any questions about 

the hearing procedures, requests for copies of the hearing rules, or requests for special need 

interpreters should be directed to the address below. Requests for special needs interpreters must 

be made by November 17, 2010.

Closure of the Hearing Record. The Hearing Record will close on January 5, 2011. Comments 

need not be notarized, but must be postmarked by midnight January 5, 2011, and mailed to Dean 

Studer, Hearing Officer, Illinois EPA, 1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276, 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276, telephone number 217/558-8280 or TDD 217/782-9143.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

December 6, 2010
•Visibility Modeling of BART-eligible 

Sources

•Modeling Methodology

•Modeling Results

•BART Controls in Illinois

•EGUs

•Non-EGUs
 CALPUFF is the USEPA approved regulatory 

model for long range transport and visibility

 It provides for chemical transformation of 

SO2 and NO2

 It calculates light extinction coefficients, 

consistent with Federal guidance, to assess 

effects on visibility
•SO2, NOx, and primary PM are listed by USEPA as 

visibility impairing pollutants

•IEPA developed a list of BART eligible sources from 

26 applicable categories

• Modeling parameters for each stack were developed 

from the IEPA emissions inventory system. 

Emissions used are based on maximum short-term 

allowables
u M 9 n
 Meteorological files were developed by 

LADCO from national scale 36 km grid MM5 

model. Three years of meteorological data 

(2002-04) are used in the modeling.

 Multiple receptors are placed in each of 16 

Class I areas that are likely to be impacted by 

Illinois sources.
la I Ar a includ d in th A mod ling
 Illinois followed the BART modeling protocol 

developed by LADCO and the MRPO states 

(dated March 21, 2006).

 Protocol addresses selection of models, 

development of model inputs, and processing 

and interpretation of model outputs.

 LADCO modeling protocol was approved by 

USEPA and FLMs.
 Based on USEPA’s BART guidance, a source 

considered to be causing or contributing to 

visibility impairment:

“...if the 98th percentile daily change in visibility 

is greater than 0.5 deciviews (DV) as compared to 

natural conditions”.

 In plain English, if 22 or more exceedances

of the 0.5 DV threshold occur in three years 

at any Class I area, or if 8 or more 

exceedances occur in any one year, the 

BART-eligible unit(s) at the source is(are) 

subject to BART controls 
Source Name Days > 0.5 DV 

3 years

Days > 0.5 DV 

1 year

Ameren – Coffeen 175 68

Dynegy – Baldwin 151 57

Ameren – Edwards 136 53

Dominion – Kincaid 118 50

CWL&P 103 44

Midwest Gen – Joliet 103 40

Midwest Gen– Powerton 93 37

Ameren – Duck Creek 39 17

Midwest Gen – Will Cty 32 16

Dynegy – Wood River 16 6
Source Name Days > 0.5 DV 

3 years

Days > 0.5 DV 

1 year

ExxonMobil 84 35

CITGO 52 22

Lone Star 3 2

Chicago Carbon 2 1

US Steel 1 1

Conoco Phillips 0 0

Marathon 0 0

Aventine 0 0

Pilkington 0 0

Big River Zinc 0 0

IL Cement 0 0

Carmeuse Lime 0 0

Owens Brockway 0 0

Koppers 0 0

Equistar 0 0
 Dominion Kincaid submitted modeling to 

support their proposed BART control strategy

 Their modeling addressed the two closest 

Class I areas, Mingo NWR and Mammoth Cave 

NP

Modeling – Dominion Kincaid
Scenario Days > 0.5 

DV 

3 years

Days > 0.5 

DV 

1 year

Mingo –

Base emissions

97 38

Presumptive BART 3 1

BART proposal 2 1

Mammoth Cave -

Base emissions

83 40

Presumptive BART 4 2

BART proposal 4 2
•Used LADCO modeling protocol

•Includes larger domain, more Class I 

areas

•Compared the proposal to 

presumptive BART
Class I Area

Presumptive 

BART

Proposed 

Alternative

1 year 3 years 1 year 3 years

Mammoth Cave 5 9 4 7

Mingo 1 3 2 5

Seney 2 3 2 3

Isle Royale 2 3 1 2

Hercules Glade 1 1 1 2

Boundary Waters 1 1 1 1

Great Gulf 1 1 1 1
Illinois Approach to BART

Control R quir m nt
•Eligible sources are subject-to-BART controls if 

shown to cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment

•The only sources that were found to be subject-toBART were coal fired power plants and two 

petroleum refineries

•In most cases, measures that were previously 

agreed to were found to result in greater reductions 

than BART

•In two cases, IEPA pursued agreements with 

subject-to-BART EGUs
 Illinois EPA compared presumptive BART 

emission levels to existing emission 

reduction requirements and commitments for 

the subject-to-BART EGUs in Illinois. 

 In all cases, Illinois found emission reductions 

from existing commitments to be greater 

than presumptive BART. 
 The Multi-Pollutant Standard (“MPS”) and 

Combined Pollutant Standard (“CPS”) in the 

Illinois Mercury Rule apply to Ameren, 

Dynegy, and Midwest Generation

 A Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) 

between the IEPA and Dominion Energy 

Services applies to Kincaid Generating Station 

 A similar MOU between the IEPA and City, 

Water, Light and Power (CWLP)
 The MPS and CPS affect the Coal-fired EGUs 

operated by Ameren, Dynegy, and Midwest 

Generation.

 These three entities account for 

approximately 88% of Illinois’ coal-fired 

capacity.

 Emission standards were negotiated on a 

case-by-case basis.
 IEPA anticipates a reduction in SO2 emissions 

of approximately 214,600 tons per year by 

2015.

 IEPA anticipates a reduction in NOx emissions 

of approximately 90,000 tons per year by 

2015.
 Both units at the Kincaid facility are subject to 

BART controls.

 Dominion conducted a site-specific BART 

analysis for the Kincaid plant, including a 

control technology review and CALPUFF 

modeling to assess the visibility impacts of 

several control alternatives. 
 Dominion agreed in the MOU to a very low 

NOx emission rate of 0.07 lbs/mmBTU by 

2017.

 Presumptive BART for NOx is 0.10.

 The agreement requires an SO2 emission rate 

of 0.18 lbs/mmBTU by 2017.

 Presumptive BART for SO2 is 0.15.

 Modeling has shown that this alternate 

control plan will result in equivalent visibility 

improvement at a much lower cost.
 At the time of the MOU, CWLP was operating 

three BART eligible units: Dallman 31 and 32, 

and Lakeside 8.

 The MOU includes an agreement to shut 

down Lakeside 8.

 Presumptive BART for these units for NOx is 

the operation of SCR.

 Presumptive BART for these units for SO2 is 

95% control.
 CWLP agreed in the MOU to meet an annual NOx 

emission rate of 0.12 lbs/mmBTU by 2015, and 

an annual rate of 0.11 lbs/mmBTU by 2017 

 CWLP agreed in the MOU to meet an annual SO2 

emission rate of 0.25 lbs/mmBTU by 2015, and 

an annual rate of 0.23 lbs/mmBTU by 2017.

 The calculated presumptive BART for SO2 of 95% 

control is 0.30 lbs/mmBTU

 Illinois EPA estimates these reductions to be 

5,375 tons of NOx per year and 4,875 tons of 

SO2 per year in 2017.
n fr •

I

• •

I I

in Illi

x

U

im d N

I fi r

60,000

-.:=-- 50,000 - ro

Q)

>..

....

Q)

0.. 40,000

(/)

c:::

g 30,000 - (/)

c:::

0

(J)

(/) 20,000 "E

w

OX 10,000 z

0

1--------------------102002 Base Year

• Presumptive

1--------------1 BART

o2018CAIR

-Illinois

Requirements

MWGen Ameren Dynegy Dominion CWLP
m •

I

n fr •

I

II I i

•

ml

•

In

2

U •

Ir

180,000

160,000 ...-

....

<1:1 140,000 (J)

>,

....

<]) 120,000

0..

(f)

c 100,000 g

(f) 80,000 c

0

ill

(f) 60,000

'E

w 40,000

<'"'

0

(f) 20,000

0

02002 Base Year

• Presumptive

BART

o2018CAIR

I--- ---I-Illinois

Requit-ements

MWGen Ameren Dynegy Dominion CWLP
 Both non-EGU sources in Illinois that are 

subject to BART control are petroleum 

refineries.

 The CITGO refinery in Lemont is subject to a 

Consent Decree finalized in 2004.

 The ExxonMobil refinery in Joliet is subject to 

a Consent Decree finalized in 2005. 
 Both refinery consent decrees result in large 

reductions of NOx, SO2, and PM emissions in 

Illinois.

 Factors considered in control requirements for 

both consent decrees are very similar to those 

require for BART analyses.

 Emission reductions from Consent Decree 

requirements are greater than applying BART 

control to subject-to-BART units at the refineries 

in both cases.

 Emission reductions from the Consent Decrees 

will occur a few years earlier than if required by 

BART
 Several sources in Illinois have been determined to be 

BART-eligible and are causing or contributing to 

visibility impairment in some federal Class I areas in the 

eastern US.

 Illinois has promulgated or negotiated emissions 

control requirements for most subject-to-BART 

sources.

 These requirements provide emissions reductions that 

are well beyond what would be anticipated from only 

applying BART controls on subject-to-BART units.

 Illinois’ control requirements will provide greater 

visibility improvements than would occur from 

application of BART controls on subject-to-BART units.
Overview of Regional Haze 

in the Upper Midwest

Michael Koerber

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium

December 6, 2010
Overview

• Background (CAA requirements)

• Conceptual Model of Haze

• Technical Basis for Visibility-Related 

Analyses

• Reasonable Progress Evaluation

• Summary
Visibility Requirements

Section 169A of Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1977 requires “as a national goal the prevention 

of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas which 

impairment results from manmade air pollution.”

EPA’s visibility regulations (July 1, 1999) require 

“reasonable progress” to achieving natural 

conditions by the year 2064
......,_.__ ....._.,~--

._-

.-'"

.- ._-

.__... ( ")

C>oNl ,_("'l

-""''''_fWl ._""

-

--_..... ..

..-.-.....

Map of 156 National Park and Wldemess Areas

Protected by EPA's Regional Haze Rule
Isle Royale National Park, Michigan
Chicago, Illinois
CAA also requires....

Each implementation plan must contain measures 

necessary to make reasonable progress toward 

meeting the national visibility goal, including...

(1) a requirement that each major stationary source (in 

existence in 1977, but not in operation before 1962) which may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility in any Class I area shall procure, install, 

and operate ... the best available retrofit technology ...for 

controlling emissions ... for the purpose of eliminating or 

reducing visibility impairment, and

(2) a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress 

toward meeting the national visibility goal.
Process for Establishing BART 

Emission Limitations

Step 1: States identify those sources which meet 

the definition of “BART-eligible source”

Step 2: States determine whether such sources 

“emit any air pollutant which may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility (in a Class I area)”

– A source which fits this description is “subject to BART”

Step 3: For each source subject to BART, States 

then identify the appropriate type and the level of 

control for reducing emissions
Which sources are BART-eligible?

• Start-up Date: “in existence” on Aug 8, 1977, and 

“in operation” on or after Aug 8, 1962

• Source Category: One of 26 specified categories

• Emissions: Potential to emit > 250 TPY of any 

visibility impairing pollutant (SOx

, NOx, PM, VOC, 

NH3)
Which BART-eligible sources 

are subject to BART?

• Option 1: Consider all BART-eligible sources 

are subject to BART

• Option 2: Consider exempting some or all 

BART-eligible sources from BART review

• Individual source attribution approach

• Model plant approach

• Cumulative modeling approach
So, what did we do.....

• EGUs (State-by-State decision)

• USEPA BART Rulemaking (July 6, 2005): “CAIR 

achieves greater progress than BART and may be 

used by States as a BART substitute.”

• Non-EGUs 

• Individual source attribution approach: CALPUFF 

modeling of SO2 and NOx emissions (LADCO 

modeling protocol)

• Model plant approach: Calculated Q/d values (Note: 

EPA criteria consistent with Q/d = 10)

• Cumulative modeling approach: CAMx modeling of 

VOC and PM emissions
CALPUFF Individual Source Modeling

A source is “subject to BART” if it causes (>1.0 dv) or 

contributes (>0.5 dv) to visibility impairment in any Class I area

Q/d=100 Q/d=8
Long Term Strategy

States must set reasonable progress goals (10-

year increments)

In determining reasonable progress, states shall 

consider:

1. costs of compliance, 

2. time necessary for compliance, 

3. energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 

compliance,

4. remaining useful life of existing sources subject to such 

requirements

5. uniform rate of visibility improvement (needed to attain 

natural visibility conditions by 2064) – i.e., “glide path”
5

10

15

20

25

2004 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2064

Voyageurs Bounday Waters

Isle Royale Seney

20% best visibility days

20% worst visibility days

Baseline

Conditions

Baseline

Conditions

Natural

Conditions

Visibility “Glide Paths”
......,_.__ ....._.,~--

-

C>oNl ,_("'l

-""''''_fWl ._""

._-

._- .- .-'"

--_..... ..

..-.-.....

Map of 156 National Park and Wldemess Areas

Protected by EPA's Regional Haze Rule
16
September 

20, 2007 

Letter: 

“Kentucky 

does not 

find a need 

to request 

additional 

emission 

reductions 

from 

Midwest 

sources at 

this time”

July 30, 2007 Letter: 

Included a “Statement” 

that outlines the MANEVU States’ initial 

request for a course of 

action by states 

outside of the MANEVU region toward 

assuring reasonable 

progress at their Class 

I areas)

September 18, 2007 Letter: 

“Minnesota asks the five 

other significantly 

contributing states (IL, IA, 

MO, ND, and WI) to make 

these same commitments 

for further evaluation and 

implementation of 

reasonable control 

measures.”

Arkansas/Missouri: Held 

several conference calls 

in spring/summer 2007. 

Apparently planning to 

set RPGs based on 

existing controls.
18

Conceptual Model of Haze
19

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

VOYA BOWA ISRO Seney VOYA BOWA ISRO Seney

sea salt

soil

elem. carbon

coarse mass

organic carbon

nitrate

sulfate

Light Extinction (Visibility)

20% best days 20% worst days
20

Ag

Non-EGU

Mobile

Area

EGU

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

VOYA BOWA ISRO Seney VOYA BOWA ISRO Seney

sea salt

soil

elem. carbon

coarse mass

organic carbon

nitrate

sulfate

Light Extinction (Visibility)

20% best days 20% worst days

Non-EGU

EGU

Area

2018 Emissions

NOx

NH3

SO2
21

20% Worst Visibility Days – BOWA
22
23

Composite Back Trajectory: 

20% Worst Visibility Days
24

Technical Basis for 

Visibility-Related Analyses
25

Key Parameters

Baseline Conditions = Average visibility value 

for the 20% most (or least) impaired days for 

the period 2000-2004

Natural Conditions = National visibility goal set 

forth in section 169A (“prevention of any future 

and the remedying of any existing impairment 

of visibility... from man-made air pollution”) 
26

5

10

15

20

25

2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2064

Voyageurs Bounday Waters

Isle Royale Seney

Key Parameters

20% best visibility days

20% worst visibility days

Baseline

Conditions

Baseline

Conditions

Natural

Conditions
27
28

EPA Guidance Documents
29

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/IMPROVE/ http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/
30

Reasonable Progress 

Evaluation
Regional Air Quality Modeling

12 km

36 km

Model: CAMx

Domain/Grid: Eastern U.S.

(36 km), Midwest (12 km)

Year: 2002, 2005 (full year) 

- PM/haze, 36 km

2002, 2005 (summer)

- O3, 12 km
Modeling Process

• Base Year Analysis (2002, 2005)

• Purpose: evaluate model performance

• Future Year Analyses (2009, 2012, 2018)

• Purposes: assess candidate control measures and 

provide attainment demonstration
33
34
Existing Control Programs

• On-Highway Mobile Sources

– Tier II/Low sulfur fuel

– Inspection/Maintenance programs (nonattainment areas)

– Reformulated gasoline (nonattainment areas)

• Off-Highway Mobile Sources

– Federal control programs incorporated into NONROAD model (e.g., nonroad diesel rule), plus 

the evaporative Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle standards

– Heavy-duty diesel (2007) engine standard/Low sulfur fuel

– Federal railroad/locomotive standards

– Federal commercial marine vessel engine standards

• Power Plants

– Title IV (Phases I and II)

– NOx SIP Call

– Clean Air Interstate Rule

• Other Point Sources

– VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT standards

– Combustion turbine MACT

– Industrial boiler/process heater/RICE MACT

– Miscellaneous consent decrees and settlement agreements

• Area Sources

– Aerosol coatings (new rule)

– Architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings (amendments)

– Household and institutional consumer products (amendments)

– Portable fuel containers (Mobile Source Air Toxics rule)
Regional Emissions (TPD)

VOC NOx SO2

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

2002 2005 2009 2012 2015 2018 2002 2005 2009 2012 2015 2018 2002 2005 2009 2012 2015 2018

Area

On-road

Nonroad

Non-EGU

EGU
Voyageurs, MN Boundary Waters, MN

Seney, MI Isle Royale, MI
Statutory Factors

• Cost of compliance

• Time required for compliance 

• Energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts

• Remaining useful life

Strategies of Interest

•“On the books” measures

• Possible additional controls 

(sector-level)

• Possible additional controls 

(individual facilities)

Geographic Areas of 

Interest

• 3-state region: MI, MN, WI

• 9-state region: MI, MN, WI, plus 

IA, IL, IN, MO, ND, SD
Geographic Areas of Interest
40

Summary

• CAA sets a very difficult goal with respect to visibility 

impairment in federal Class I areas 

• “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing impairment of 

visibility...from manmade air pollution”

• Midwest States have consulted and worked with other 

states, FLMs, and tribes to address visibility impairment

• Intra-regionally to address Class I areas in LADCO region

• Inter-regionally to address Class I areas outside LADCO region

• Technical analyses were conducted to assess baseline 

(current) and projected (future year) visibility levels

• Current levels well above natural conditions

• Projected levels (through 2018) are close to “glide path” (uniform rate of 

progress), but are still above natural conditions

• Continued progress needed to meet natural conditions 

goal
 1

 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS

 2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 PUBLIC HEARING FOR STATE

 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

 12 TO ADDRESS REGIONAL HAZE

 13 DECEMBER 6, 2010

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 
 2

 1 I N D E X

 2 PRESENTATIONS BY: PAGE

 3 MR. KOERBER 11

 4 MR. LEOPOLD 30

 5 MR. DAVIS 36

 6 

 QUESTIONS BY:

 7 

 MR. ELVERT 41

 8 

 MR. DIERICX 43

 9 

 10 

 11 

 E X H I B I T S

 12 

 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE

 13 

 1 Notice of Public Hearing 10

 14 

 2 Draft SIP 10

 15 

 3 Draft Technical Support for BART 10

 16 

 17 (Exhibits not attached.)

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 
 3

 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS

 2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 3 

 4 PUBLIC HEARING FOR STATE

 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

 5 TO ADDRESS REGIONAL HAZE

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 PUBLIC HEARING held, on the 6th day of

 16 December, 2010, between the hours of 1:30 P.M. and

 17 2:35 P.M. of that day, at the offices of Illinois

 18 Environmental Protection Agency, 1021 North Grand

 19 Avenue East, Sangamo Room, Springfield, Illinois

 20 62702, before Robin A. Adams, a Registered

 21 Professional Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter,

 22 and a Notary Public within and for the State of

 23 Illinois.

 24 
 4

 1 A P P E A R A N C E S

 2 HEARING OFFICER:

 3 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

 Mr. Dean Studer

 4 1021 North Grand Avenue East

 P.O. Box 19276

 5 Springfield, Illinois 62702

 217.558.8280

 6 dean.studer@illinois.gov

 7 

 FOR LADCO:

 8 

 Mr. Michael Koerber

 9 Executive Director

 10 

 FOR IEPA:

 11 

 Mr. Scott A. Leopold

 12 Environmental Protection Specialist

 13 Mr. Rory Davis

 Environmental Protection Engineer

 14 

 Mr. Robert J. Kaleel

 15 Manager, Air Quality Planning Section

 16 Ms. Gina Roccaforte

 Assistant Counsel

 17 

 18 

 19 

 Court Reporter:

 20 Robin A. Adams, RPR, CSR

 Midwest Litigation Services

 21 Illinois CSR #084-002046

 15 S. Old State Capitol Plaza

 22 Springfield, Illinois 62701

 217.522.2211

 23 800.280.3376

 24 
 5

 1 (Hearing began at 1:32 P.M.)

 2 HEARING OFFICER: We'll go ahead and get

 3 started.

 4 Good afternoon. My name is Dean Studer, and

 5 I'm the Hearing Officer for the Illinois

 6 Environmental Protection Agency, otherwise referred

 7 to as Illinois EPA.

 8 This hearing is being held for the purpose of

 9 gathering public comment on the draft State

 10 Implementation Plan revision submittal related to the

 11 visibility protection requirements for the federal

 12 Class I areas contained in Section 169A of the

 13 federal Clean Air Act (CAA), USC Section 7491.

 14 Can you all hear me? Okay.

 15 Under 40 CFR Section 51.308, the core

 16 requirements for the plan include reasonable progress

 17 goals, calculation of baseline and natural visibility

 18 conditions, a long-term strategy for regional haze, a

 19 monitoring strategy, and best available retrofit

 20 technology -- otherwise referred to as BART --

 21 requirements for certain stationary emissions sources

 22 to address the regional haze visibility impairment.

 23 Regional haze is visibility impairment caused by

 24 cumulative air pollutant emissions from numerous
 6

 1 sources over a wide geographic area.

 2 The Illinois EPA plans to submit this

 3 proposal to the United States Environmental

 4 Protection Agency (USEPA) for review and approval as

 5 a revision to the State Implementation Plan,

 6 otherwise referred to as SIP, S-I-P. Copies of the

 7 draft SIP proposal are available on the Illinois EPA

 8 website at www.epa.state.il.us/air.

 9 This hearing is being held under the

 10 provisions of 35 Illinois Administrative Code 164,

 11 Procedures for Informational and Quasi-Legislative

 12 Public Hearings. Copies of these procedures can be

 13 accessed on the website for the Illinois Pollution

 14 Control Board at www.ipcb.state.il.us, or if you do

 15 not have ready access to the web, they can be

 16 obtained from me upon request.

 17 I will introduce the Illinois EPA staff

 18 members present today. This will be followed by

 19 presentations from IEPA staff members Scott Leopold

 20 and Rory Davis and Mike Koerber from LADCO.

 21 Following this, I will allow the public to ask

 22 questions or provide comments and ask questions. You

 23 are not required to verbalize your comments as

 24 written comments are given the same consideration and
 7

 1 may be submitted to the agency at any time within the

 2 public comment period which ends just before midnight

 3 on January 5, 2011. Any person who wants to make

 4 oral comments may do so as long as the statements are

 5 relevant to the issues at hand and such person has

 6 indicated on the registration card that he or she

 7 would like to comment. If you have lengthy comments

 8 or questions, it would be helpful to submit them to

 9 me in writing before the close of the comment period,

 10 and I will ensure that they are included in the

 11 hearing as -- the hearing record as exhibits.

 12 Please keep your comments and questions

 13 relevant to the issues at hand. If your comments

 14 fall outside the scope of this hearing, I may ask you

 15 to proceed to another issue. Remember, all written

 16 comments, whether or not you say them aloud, will

 17 become part of the official hearing record and will

 18 be considered. The registration cards are on the

 19 table up front by the door when you walked in. If

 20 you have not filled out a card or have not signed in,

 21 please do so at this time. And if you fill out a

 22 card, you can indicate if you would like to speak

 23 this afternoon. Anyone who completes a registration

 24 card or files written comments in this matter will
 8

 1 also be notified of the Illinois EPA's final decision

 2 in this matter. That notification will also contain

 3 information as to how you may access the agency

 4 responsiveness summary. In this summary, Illinois

 5 EPA staff will attempt to answer all the relevant and

 6 significant questions raised at the hearing or

 7 submitted to me prior to the close of the comment

 8 period.

 9 Again, the written record in this matter will

 10 close just before midnight on January 5, 2011.

 11 Therefore, I will accept written comments as long as

 12 they are postmarked on or before January 5. During

 13 the comment period, all relevant comments, documents,

 14 or data will also be placed into the hearing record

 15 as exhibits. Please send all written documents or

 16 data to me at the following address: And that's Dean

 17 Studer, D-e-a-n S-t-u-d-e-r, Hearing Officer, Office

 18 of Community Relations, regarding regional haze and

 19 BART SIP, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

 20 1021 North Grand Avenue East, Post Office Box 19276,

 21 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276. This address is

 22 also listed on the public notice for the hearing this

 23 afternoon.

 24 And for anyone wishing to make comments or
 9

 1 ask questions, I'd like to inform you that there is a

 2 court reporter here taking a verbatim record of these

 3 proceedings for the purpose of making our

 4 administrative record. For the benefit of the court

 5 reporter, please keep the general background noise in

 6 this room to a minimum so she can hear everything

 7 that is said. Also, when you begin to speak, please

 8 state your name. And also, to make sure that it's

 9 properly reflected in the record, if you are

 10 representing any governmental body, organization, or

 11 association, I ask that you identify that after your

 12 name. Also for the benefit of the court reporter,

 13 please spell your last name. If there are alternate

 14 spellings of your first name, you may spell that as

 15 well.

 16 When your name is called, please come forward

 17 to the podium and state your name. If you are

 18 representing any governmental body, organization, or

 19 association, as I said, please indicate. For the

 20 initial round of comments, I will limit each speaker

 21 to ten minutes. At the end of ten minutes, I'll

 22 bring the next person forward. If we have time,

 23 after I have called forward those that have indicated

 24 their desire to speak, then I will allow anyone else
 10

 1 who has not yet spoken the opportunity to speak. If

 2 time allows, then I will allow those who initially

 3 ran out of time to come forward and speak again.

 4 And before we start with the Illinois EPA

 5 presentations, I'd like to record a few preliminary

 6 documents into the record as exhibits. For the

 7 record, Exhibit No. 1 is a copy of the notice of the

 8 public hearing. Exhibit 2 is the draft SIP document,

 9 including its attachments. This draft document is

 10 called Draft Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

 11 for Illinois, and it's dated October 7, 2010.

 12 Exhibit 3 is the draft technical support document for

 13 BART, including its attachments. This draft document

 14 is called Draft Technical Support Document for Best

 15 Available Retrofit Technology Under the Regional Haze

 16 Rule, and it is dated September 30, 2010. Both of

 17 these documents, including their attachments, are

 18 available on the agency's web page.

 19 Are there any questions at this point on how

 20 I'm going to proceed?

 21 Okay. With that, I will turn things over to

 22 Mike for the first -- first presentation, and if you

 23 would introduce yourself and --

 24 MR. KOERBER: Sure. My name is Michael
 11

 1 Koerber. I'm the executive director for the Lake

 2 Michigan Air Directors Consortium or LADCO.

 3 I will be giving an overview of the regional

 4 haze program. I'll start off talking about the

 5 regulatory requirements, and we'll actually spend

 6 quite a bit of time going over those requirements.

 7 And then I'll be discussing several different issues

 8 that were touched on in the opening remarks and will

 9 be covered more here today: a conceptual model of

 10 haze; what do we know about regional haze in the

 11 Midwest; the technical basis for doing

 12 visibility-related analyses; terms like baseline

 13 concentration and natural conditions -- I'll be

 14 talking about those; and then finally the reasonable

 15 progress evaluation which is a key part of the

 16 states' long-term strategy.

 17 So our fundamental requirement in terms of

 18 addressing visibility under the Clean Air Act comes

 19 from Section 169A, and what we have here is really

 20 the toughest air quality challenge of all. We have

 21 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, as you're

 22 probably aware, for criteria pollutants. Here, in

 23 the case of visibility, we don't have a standard but

 24 we have a goal. And what we have under the Clean Air
 12

 1 Act is a goal of preventing any future and remedying

 2 any existing impairment of visibility in Class I

 3 areas -- I'll say more about those in just a

 4 minute -- resulting from manmade air pollution. So,

 5 in a sense, this is a no manmade air pollution goal.

 6 To implement this provision of the Clean Air

 7 Act, EPA in 1999 adopted visibility regulations, and

 8 the requirement -- fundamental requirement under

 9 those regulations is for states to require reasonable

 10 progress towards achieving nature conditions -- i.e.,

 11 no manmade air pollution conditions -- by the year

 12 2064. So we're given a long period of time under

 13 EPA's regulations to meet this Clean Air Act goal.

 14 The Class I areas -- there are 156 of the

 15 larger parks and wilderness areas. Those are shown

 16 here on this particular slide. As you can see, a lot

 17 of these are out West. There are a handful in the

 18 Midwest -- or in the Eastern U.S., I should say. In

 19 particular, I'll be saying quite a bit about the

 20 Class I areas in northern Michigan and northern

 21 Minnesota, the four in the northern part of the upper

 22 Midwest. That's been the primary focus of the work

 23 that we've done at LADCO in working with our states.

 24 One of those Class I areas is Isle Royale
 13

 1 National Park in Lake Superior. This slide just

 2 shows what visibility looks like in Isle Royale on a

 3 good visibility day on the left and a poor visibility

 4 day on the right.

 5 So while our focus is on visibility

 6 impairment in these Class I areas, urban areas also

 7 suffer from impaired visibility. It's not the direct

 8 focus of this program. As I said, the focus of the

 9 program is on the Class I areas. But, nonetheless,

 10 we have visibility issues in urban areas, and that's

 11 addressed through other provisions of the Clean Air

 12 Act and other air quality standards.

 13 The Clean Air Act goes on to talk about the

 14 implementation plans that the states must develop to

 15 address this particular problem. And the two

 16 fundamental provisions I'm going to be talking about

 17 over the next couple of minutes deal with BART, best

 18 available retrofit technology, which applies to a

 19 select group of existing facilities, and the

 20 long-term strategy -- really the heart of the states'

 21 program -- that's to provide for reasonable progress

 22 to meet our natural conditions goal.

 23 So starting with BART, there's a three-step

 24 process, and EPA has actually established another
 14

 1 regulation which deals with setting BART emission

 2 limitations. First step is to define sources which

 3 are BART eligible. I'll say more about that in just

 4 a minute. The second step, once you've identified

 5 the BART-eligible source, is to determine which of

 6 those actually are a problem with respect to

 7 visibility impairment. That subset of sources is

 8 referred to as those that are subject to BART. And

 9 then the third step is, for those sources that are

 10 subject to BART, to actually conduct an engineering

 11 analysis to set the BART emission limitation. So I'm

 12 going to talk about each one of these over the next

 13 couple of slides.

 14 In terms of identifying which sources are

 15 BART eligible, there are three criteria: the

 16 start-up date, the source category, and the level of

 17 emissions. And you can see the particular criteria

 18 identified on this particular slide.

 19 Once that list of BART-eligible sources is

 20 identified, the next step is to determine which of

 21 those is actually subject to BART. Under EPA's

 22 regulation, there are a couple of options that are

 23 discussed. One is to just assume that all

 24 BART-eligible sources are subject to BART, and I
 15

 1 believe some states have opted into that particular

 2 option. The second is to consider exempting some or

 3 all of those sources from BART review, and there are

 4 several approaches laid out in EPA's regulation.

 5 There's an individual source analysis, there's a

 6 model plant approach in which you assume a number of

 7 facilities are represented by a particular plant

 8 type, and the third is a cumulative modeling approach

 9 in which all of the emissions for a particular

 10 pollutant are modeled together.

 11 So in the Midwest, in terms of looking at the

 12 existing point source inventory, we look at electric

 13 generating units, EGUs, and the other part of the

 14 point source inventory are referred to as non-EGUs.

 15 For EGUs, we have, as part of EPA's BART

 16 rulemaking, a statement that their -- EPA's Clean Air

 17 Interstate Rule or CAIR achieves greater progress

 18 than BART and may be used by some states as a BART

 19 substitute, and many states have relied on that to

 20 meet the EGU BART requirement.

 21 With respect to the non-EGUs, again, the

 22 three approaches that could be taken, one is some

 23 indiv -- is to do individual source modeling, and the

 24 tool that's identified as CALPUFF to do that
 16

 1 modeling, with a focus on the SO2 and NOx emissions.

 2 And LADCO worked with the states to identify an

 3 approach, a modeling protocol, that should be

 4 followed by everybody so we have a consistent

 5 approach in doing that individual source modeling.

 6 The other two approaches got a little bit of

 7 attention, but most of the effort that LADCO worked

 8 with the states on was on the individual source

 9 modeling.

 10 Just some example results from that CALPUFF

 11 individual source modeling. These happen to be

 12 facilities in another state, but they give us a sense

 13 of what the impact is of these given facilities on

 14 visibility levels downwind. And under EPA's

 15 regulation, a source is assumed to be subject to BART

 16 if it causes or contributes to visibility impairment

 17 in any Class I area, and the specific levels to

 18 qualify as causing or contributing are identified on

 19 this particular slide.

 20 And, Scott, you're going to be going into

 21 that in more detail, I assume, in your remarks?

 22 MR. LEOPOLD: Yes.

 23 MR. KOERBER: Okay. So that's as much as I

 24 really wanted to say about BART.
 17

 1 Like to move on and talk about the other

 2 provision that's required of the State Implementation

 3 Plan, and that's the long-term strategy. The main

 4 goal of the long-term strategy is to define the

 5 reasonable progress goal. As I said before, under

 6 EPA's regulation, we have 60 years to achieve this

 7 natural conditions goal under the Clean Air Act.

 8 And in determining what is reasonable

 9 progress, there are five factors that are to be

 10 considered: There's the cost of compliance, the

 11 time necessary for compliance, energy and non-air

 12 quality environmental impacts of compliance,

 13 remaining useful life of existing sources subject to

 14 such requirements -- those four requirements are

 15 actually spelled out in the Clean Air Act -- and then

 16 in EPA's visibility rule, there was a fifth criteria

 17 that was identified, and that's the uniform rate of

 18 visibility improvement needed to attain natural

 19 conditions by the year 2064, the so-called "glide

 20 path." And here's a graphical depiction of that

 21 glide path, and I'll be talking more about these

 22 terms "baseline conditions" and "natural conditions"

 23 in just a minute.

 24 But the fundamental provision under EPA's
 18

 1 visibility rule is to provide for improvement in

 2 visibility for the 20 percent worst visibility days.

 3 Those are one set of days that are singled out in

 4 EPA's regulation. And so you can see that the top

 5 series of lines that are angling down from our

 6 baseline conditions, which is our starting point,

 7 what current visibility levels are like -- and

 8 this is an example for those four northern Class I

 9 areas -- reaching to the lower, on the right-hand

 10 side, natural conditions. And on this time series,

 11 that's the year 2064; again, the time period provided

 12 for under EPA's visibility rule. So, again, we want

 13 to improve visibility on the 20 percent worst days.

 14 With respect to the 20 percent best

 15 visibility days, the requirement is to ensure no

 16 degradation, which is why that line is flat. We

 17 don't want things to get worse on the 20 percent best

 18 days.

 19 So I'm going to be focusing, as I said a

 20 couple of times, on the northern Class I areas in

 21 northern Michigan and northern Minnesota. But at the

 22 same time I want to make people aware that there was

 23 a fair amount of consultation. We did not do this

 24 work in isolation. While LADCO worked with its five
 19

 1 member states, we worked very closely with other

 2 regional organizations across the United States: the

 3 central states, Minnesota down through Texas; the

 4 northeastern states; the southeastern states. We all

 5 worked together very closely to coordinate the

 6 technical work that we needed to do to look at Class

 7 I areas within our regions. And as a result of that

 8 technical process, there was also some policy

 9 coordination between the groups. "Consultation" was

 10 a specific term that we used. We wanted to consult

 11 on development of control strategies and the

 12 definition of reasonable progress goals for our

 13 respective Class I areas.

 14 So with respect to the northern Class I

 15 areas, Minnesota in particular sent a letter to other

 16 states a few years ago identifying what they thought

 17 the needs were of their -- of upland states on

 18 setting the reasonable progress goals for the

 19 northern Class I areas in Minnesota. Similarly there

 20 was a letter sent out on behalf of Arkansas and

 21 Minnesota -- or discussions held on behalf of

 22 Arkansas and Minnesota. Kentucky sent a letter, and

 23 the northeastern states sent a letter. So not only

 24 did we have technical coordination, there were also
 20

 1 policy discussions among these various groups in

 2 trying to develop reasonable progress goals for the

 3 Class I areas.

 4 So that provides just a very brief overview

 5 of the regulatory requirements that we're dealing

 6 with here. I'd like to move on and talk a little bit

 7 about what we know concerning regional haze

 8 specifically in these northern Class I areas.

 9 Visibility is caused by fine particles in the

 10 atmosphere. This particular bar graph depicts the

 11 light extinction or pollution levels, if you will, on

 12 the 20 percent best days in the four northern Class I

 13 areas on the left-hand side, versus the pollution

 14 levels for the 20 percent worst days in these same

 15 four northern Class I areas. And the higher bars

 16 that you can see associated with the 20 percent worst

 17 days represent higher pollution levels. So higher

 18 particle concentrations in the atmosphere lead to

 19 higher impaired visibility, greater pollut -- greater

 20 visibility impairment.

 21 Knowing what the specific chemical

 22 composition is of these fine particles helps us in

 23 terms of source identification, and we can do this

 24 through a number of different approaches: either by
 21

 1 looking at the monitoring concentration and working

 2 backwards or starting with the emissions and working

 3 towards the concentrations. So we've been able to

 4 target certain source types as being key contributors

 5 to visibility levels associated with the particular

 6 chemical types, and that's what's depicted on this

 7 slide.

 8 Each of these sets of lines here or graphs

 9 represents a different calendar year, starting with

 10 2000 on the top and going down to 2004 at the bottom.

 11 And each bar represents one of the 20 percent worst

 12 visibility days in that particular year. These

 13 happen to be results for boundary waters in northern

 14 Minnesota, one of the Class I areas in northern

 15 Minnesota. And the point here is that the 20 percent

 16 worst visibility days really occur throughout the

 17 year. They aren't confined to the winter or the

 18 summer. They can occur in any season.

 19 And it's a little difficult to see here, but

 20 the stacked bars, again, represent the chemical

 21 composition of the fine particles in the atmosphere.

 22 It's a little bit easier to see here. For all four

 23 of the northern Class I areas, we've averaged the

 24 results together by month. So we have January,
 22

 1 February, all the way through December for each

 2 individual Class I area. And the basic message here

 3 is that during the beginning and the end of the year,

 4 during the cooler months, you see a lot of red, which

 5 represents ammonium nitrate in the atmosphere. In

 6 the summer, you see a lot of yellow, which is

 7 ammonium sulphate, and you also see a fair amount of

 8 organic carbon in the summertime. So different times

 9 of the year we have different chemical species. As I

 10 said before, different species are associated with

 11 different source types.

 12 So it's really a fairly complex problem given

 13 that we have these worst-case conditions occurring

 14 throughout the year. At different times of the year

 15 it's different chemicals that are responsible for the

 16 particulate loading in the atmosphere, and that each

 17 of these different chemical types is associated with

 18 different source types.

 19 One more thing worth noting about our

 20 conceptual model is where is the air coming from on

 21 our poor pollution days. These are composite

 22 trajectories for the northern Class I area. The

 23 orange areas are those areas that are most likely

 24 upwind on poor visibility days, and the green areas
 23

 1 are the areas that are least likely upwind on the

 2 poor visibility days. So you get a sense that the

 3 air is primarily out of the south or southwest when

 4 we have poor visibility in these northern Class I

 5 areas.

 6 The other thing to note is that the darker

 7 shading represents higher frequency. So that there

 8 are some areas that are most likely to be upwind on

 9 the higher visibility days -- poor visibility days.

 10 I'm going to talk now about the metrics that

 11 are important to implementing the visibility rule,

 12 and there are two key parameters: One, baseline

 13 conditions represent our starting point. What is the

 14 current visibility in the air, and where do we need

 15 to come from. So baseline conditions are a starting

 16 point. The natural conditions are the goal. That's

 17 what we need to achieve under the Clean Air Act to

 18 represent these no manmade air pollution conditions.

 19 And, again, these are depicted here on this

 20 glide path diagram that I used earlier where, again,

 21 the baseline conditions are on the left-hand side,

 22 the natural conditions are on the right-hand side.

 23 As I said before, the goal with respect to the 20

 24 percent worst days is to improve visibility. The
 24

 1 goal for the 20 percent best visibility days is to

 2 ensure no degradation.

 3 The data that we use to look at compliance

 4 with these requirements primarily comes from a

 5 monitoring network referred to as IMPROVE. I'm not

 6 sure exactly what the acronym stands for. As you can

 7 see, we have a fairly good network that's

 8 representative of the Class I areas across the United

 9 States, and we do have monitoring coverage in the

 10 northern part of our domain which is where we have

 11 our northern Class I areas.

 12 In terms of applying the metrics, developing

 13 the metrics, we have guidance from EPA on how to do

 14 that, and the data is contained in a couple of -- on

 15 a couple of websites. There's an IMPROVE website,

 16 and there's VIEWS website. These are two fundamental

 17 databases where the public can go and access

 18 information on what the visibility conditions are.

 19 So the last part of my talk is going to talk

 20 about the reasonable progress goals, which, as I said

 21 before, is a fundamental element of the long-term

 22 strategy. We rely very heavily on air quality models

 23 to evaluate candidate control programs and help in

 24 setting reasonable progress goals. This particular
 25

 1 slide summarizes the regional modeling that LADCO has

 2 worked with its states on. So you get a sense of

 3 what the model is, the geographic scope of the

 4 modeling analysis, and the years that we looked at.

 5 And there are actually two base years we did

 6 some modeling for: '02, 2002, and 2005. Two basic

 7 steps in the modeling process: One is a base-year

 8 analysis in which we compare our modeled values for

 9 that year with actual observations. The goal there

 10 is to evaluate model performance. The next step is

 11 to conduct future-year analyses. We looked at three

 12 future years to help states not only with their

 13 regional haze planning but also some of the ozone and

 14 fine particle work that they're also developing

 15 implementation plans for. So the modeling, in a

 16 sense, was really multi-pollutant. Again, the focus

 17 of today is more the regional haze work that was

 18 done.

 19 Looking at model performance, these are

 20 results for boundary waters; the next slide for

 21 Seney, one of the northern Class I areas in Michigan.

 22 We've broken out the chemicals into the four

 23 different quadrants here. We have nitrate in the

 24 upper left-hand corner, sulfate in the upper right,
 26

 1 elemental carbon on the lower left, and the organic

 2 carbon on the lower right. The red dots represent

 3 the actual monitored values, and then the blue line

 4 represents the modeled values. These are time series

 5 plots throughout the calendar year, starting with

 6 January 1 through December 31. And I think you get a

 7 sense that for most of the chemical species, except

 8 for organic carbon in the lower right-hand corner,

 9 the modeling is tracing the observed values fairly

 10 closely. For organic carbon, especially in the

 11 summertime, you see a lot of red dots well above the

 12 blue line. We are underpredicting for that

 13 particular chemical species. But for sulfates and

 14 nitrates, the two represented at the top, the model

 15 is doing a pretty good job of representing what was

 16 actually observed.

 17 The future-year modeling relies on existing

 18 control programs, and we really have a fairly long

 19 list of control programs adopted at the federal level

 20 and adopted by state governments to look at all

 21 sectors of our emissions inventory: on-road sources,

 22 off-road sources, point sources, as well as area

 23 sources. A lot of existing control programs, as many

 24 people know, have gotten us a lot of emission
 27

 1 reductions up until now. Many of those programs will

 2 continue to provide further benefits as we look into

 3 the future.

 4 And that reduction in emissions is

 5 represented here. We see for some of the main

 6 precursor pollutants for regional haze -- we have

 7 volatile organ compounds on the left; oxides of

 8 nitrogen, NOx, in the middle; and then SO2 on the

 9 right -- you see these bars getting shorter as you go

 10 forward in time. Again, that's the result of

 11 implementation -- assumed implementation of these

 12 existing control programs and the additional benefit

 13 that we're going to get in air quality as we carry

 14 these programs into the future.

 15 So trying to represent the modeling in the

 16 context of the regional haze rule, the glide path

 17 diagrams, I think, are fairly useful. Here we show,

 18 for the four northern Class I areas, the baseline

 19 conditions. So those dots on the left-hand side

 20 represent where we're starting from, with the line on

 21 the top representing the 20 percent worst visibility

 22 days, the line on the bottom in each diagram

 23 representing the 20 percent best visibility days, and

 24 then the dots on the far right-hand side of each
 28

 1 diagram representing the natural conditions goal for

 2 the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best days.

 3 The modeled values, looking at the future

 4 years we've looked at -- 2009, 2012, and 2018 -- are

 5 represented by additional dots on this diagram as you

 6 move forward in the time series. And the take-home

 7 message here is that we're pretty close to being on

 8 the glide path, achieving a fairly uniform rate of

 9 progress through implementation of these control

 10 programs. So meeting that particular goal and

 11 setting our reasonable progress goal, I think the

 12 modeling results show that we're doing a pretty good

 13 job of doing so.

 14 But there are four other goals that states

 15 need to pay attention to in setting their reasonable

 16 progress goals. We had a contractor evaluate these

 17 goals. Looking at the northern Class I areas, they

 18 issued a report a few years ago that's represented

 19 here on the left-hand side, and on the right-hand

 20 side of this slide, it provides a little more detail

 21 about the analysis. And while the focus was on

 22 the northern Class I areas and those three states

 23 that are the closest -- Wisconsin, Michigan, and

 24 Minnesota -- we also looked at a number of other
 29

 1 nearby states, including Illinois, as part of that

 2 reasonable progress evaluation. So all that

 3 information is documented in that particular report.

 4 So let me wrap up by saying that what we have

 5 in terms of a regulatory requirement is a very tough,

 6 very difficult goal under the -- under Section 169A

 7 of the Clean Air Act: preventing any future and

 8 remedying any existing impairment of visibility from

 9 manmade air pollution.

 10 The states in the Midwest, through LADCO,

 11 have worked together to address Class I areas within

 12 our region. We've worked with downwind regions to

 13 look at Class I areas outside of our region, and

 14 we've done this on both the technical level and the

 15 policy level. We, in particular, conducted technical

 16 work to look at current conditions, so-called

 17 baseline levels, as well as future-year conditions

 18 looking at projected visibility levels. Clearly what

 19 we see is that the current levels are above natural

 20 conditions.

 21 The good news is that the projected levels,

 22 through adoption and implementation of existing

 23 control programs, will keep us close to the glide

 24 path, achieving a uniform rate of progress in
 30

 1 improving visibility. But clearly continued progress

 2 is necessary. We have not yet achieved natural

 3 conditions. We have additional time under EPA's

 4 program to do so. This is a good step along the path

 5 of what we need to do, but additional work will be

 6 necessary.

 7 So that concludes my remarks.

 8 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Koerber.

 9 We'll go ahead and do the other presentation

 10 before we open the floor for questions this

 11 afternoon.

 12 Scott and Rory, if you'd like to introduce

 13 yourselves and then proceed.

 14 MR. LEOPOLD: I need a moment to bring up the

 15 presentation.

 16 My name is Scott Leopold. I am an air

 17 quality modeler here at IEPA, and I will be doing the

 18 first part of this presentation, and then Rory Davis

 19 from our staff will be taking care of the second

 20 part. What we will be doing is providing a little

 21 more detail about the best available retrofit

 22 technology process.

 23 There are really two parts to this process.

 24 The first part was identifying and modeling the
 31

 1 BART-eligible sources, and the second part is

 2 determining the appropriate BART controls in Illinois

 3 for both EGUs and non-EGUs. And I will be -- as I

 4 said, I will be discussing the first part and Rory

 5 will be taking care of the second part.

 6 In visibility modeling, CALPUFF is the

 7 approved regulatory model. It provides for chemical

 8 transformation of sulfur dioxides and oxides of

 9 nitrogen which are converted to sulfates and

 10 nitrates, and we use this model because it has the

 11 light extinction coefficients that are consistent

 12 with federal guidance for the assessment of the

 13 effects on visibility.

 14 The initial step of the process was to winnow

 15 down the universe of sources in Illinois based on the

 16 criteria that Mike mentioned: the time frame, 1962

 17 to 1977; the 26 source types; and then also the

 18 emissions thresholds.

 19 Once we got that group of sources narrowed

 20 down, we had what we termed BART-eligible sources,

 21 and we looked at sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen,

 22 and primary PM since they are listed by USEPA as

 23 being visibility impairing pollutants. And once we

 24 determined those sources, then the process was to
 32

 1 model each of those sources -- a source here is what

 2 we commonly would refer to as a facility --

 3 extracting the emissions from our inventory system.

 4 And at this point we did have a number of

 5 interactions with industry folks to correct emissions

 6 where they were in error or to update information on

 7 the age of the stack and such, and we used for

 8 emissions the maximum short-term allowables.

 9 The CALPUFF modeling domain is very large,

 10 going from the Atlantic Ocean to the front range of

 11 the Rocky Mountains and down to the southern tip of

 12 Florida and into Canada. What this means is that the

 13 emissions that will come from the sources will remain

 14 in the domain for an extended period of time, and

 15 that's important for multiday pollutant events. We

 16 see in the Midwest that regional haze sometimes is a

 17 multiday event, and we can get transport from fairly

 18 long range. So having a large modeling domain

 19 ensures that we will capture the pollutants that form

 20 regional haze.

 21 The meteorology that drives this CALPUFF

 22 model were developed by LADCO from a 36 kilometer

 23 national scale MM5 model. MM5 being a prognostic

 24 meteorological model. We used three years of
 33

 1 meteorological data from 2002 to 2004. The reason we

 2 took those years is because the rule came out in

 3 2005. Therefore, they were the three most recent

 4 years available. And each of the Class I areas --

 5 which I'll show you where they are in a second -- had

 6 multiple receptors placed in them in order to

 7 determine the culpability of Illinois sources.

 8 And here are the Class I areas that were

 9 included in our BART modeling. You see on the

 10 northern extent of the domain the sources that Mike

 11 has talked about. We also included Class I areas in

 12 southern Missouri and then a series of them across

 13 the southeastern United States up through the

 14 mid-Atlantic and into the northeastern United States.

 15 Illinois followed the BART modeling protocol

 16 that was developed by LADCO and the MRPO states. The

 17 protocol addressed the model to be used, the

 18 development of the inputs, and processing and

 19 interpretation of the results. This modeling

 20 protocol was developed in concert with USEPA. They

 21 were always on our phone calls, and they did get the

 22 ability to make a final approval of the protocol as

 23 well as the federal land managers.

 24 Now, based on the BART guidance from USEPA, a
 34

 1 source is considered to be causing or contributing to

 2 visibility impairment if the 98th percentile daily

 3 change in visibility is greater than 0.5 deciviews as

 4 compared to natural conditions. That's a fairly

 5 complicated, longwinded type definition. In plain

 6 English, what that meant in the modeling world is, if

 7 we had 22 or more exceedances of the .5 threshold

 8 occurring in three years at any Class I area or if

 9 eight or more exceedances occurred in any one year,

 10 the BART-eligible units at that source are considered

 11 to be subject to BART controls.

 12 In Illinois we did not assume from the start

 13 that CAIR was going to be better than BART.

 14 Therefore, we explicitly modeled all of the EGU

 15 sources -- or all the EGU units that were -- that fit

 16 the criteria that were given to define BART

 17 eligibility. And when we ran the CALPUFF model to

 18 determine the number of exceedances of the .5

 19 deciview standard, we found these results: All but

 20 one EGU that we modeled was determined to be subject

 21 to BART and, therefore, would be needing BART type

 22 controls.

 23 On the non-EGU side, we only had two

 24 facilities that had more than the 22 in three years
 35

 1 or the eight in one year number of exceedances of the

 2 deciview standard, and that was ExxonMobil and CITGO.

 3 We did not have anybody submit modeling

 4 explicitly to escape the subject-to-BART criteria,

 5 but we did have modeling submitted from Dominion

 6 Kincaid that would support their proposed BART

 7 control strategy. Their modeling was done with a

 8 finer grid than our modeling was, but it was also a

 9 smaller domain. Remember, our domain was basically

 10 two thirds of the country. Their domain was much

 11 smaller and only addressed the impacts at the Mingo

 12 Wildlife Refuge in Missouri and Mammoth Cave National

 13 Park in Kentucky.

 14 And what their modeling showed was that their

 15 proposed control strategy as compared to what's

 16 called presumptive BART -- and I will leave that for

 17 a moment because I'm sure Rory will discuss that in

 18 his section. But their control strategy is

 19 comparable to what is considered to be presumptive

 20 BART.

 21 Now, we did an audit of that modeling using

 22 the LADCO modeling protocol, using the large domain

 23 that you saw earlier which contains more Class I

 24 areas, and then also compared our results to
 36

 1 presumptive BART and found that the results show that

 2 the Kincaid Dominion proposal is comparable to

 3 presumptive BART.

 4 And with that, let Rory get into the approach

 5 to BART control requirements.

 6 MR. DAVIS: Okay. And as Scott showed you,

 7 in Illinois we modeled all of our BART-eligible

 8 sources, and they're subject to BART if they're shown

 9 to cause or contribute to visibility impairment. And

 10 the only sources that we found in Illinois to be

 11 subject to BART were our coal-fired power plants and

 12 the two petroleum refineries. In most cases with

 13 these units, we had measures that we previously

 14 agreed to, and we found those to result in greater

 15 reductions than just applying BART; and in two cases,

 16 CWLP and Dominion, IEPA pursued agreements with these

 17 subject-to-BART EGUs.

 18 Then Illinois -- we compared presumptive BART

 19 emission levels to the existing emission reduction

 20 requirements and commitments for the subject-to-BART

 21 EGUs in Illinois, and then in all these cases we

 22 found that the emission reductions from the

 23 commitments we had previously made would be greater

 24 than what we considered to be presumptive BART.
 37

 1 And the requirements and commitments that

 2 we're talking about are the MPS and CPS, the

 3 multi-pollutant standard and the combined pollutant

 4 standard that are in the Illinois mercury rule, and

 5 those -- the MPS and CPS apply to Ameren and Dynegy

 6 and Midwest Generation. And then there was two MOUs

 7 for Dominion Kincaid and CWLP.

 8 The MPS and CPS affects, like I said, Ameren

 9 and Dynegy and Midwest Generation, and these three

 10 companies account for 88 percent of all the Illinois

 11 coal-fired capacity. And these emission standards

 12 were negotiated on a case-by-case basis during our

 13 mercury rule negotiations.

 14 From the MPS and CPS, we anticipate 214,000

 15 tons per year reduction in SO2 emissions and 90,000

 16 tons of NOx reductions per year by year 2015. And I

 17 believe it gets a little better as it goes past 2018

 18 also.

 19 Our MOU with Dominion Kincaid affected both

 20 units. They're both subject to BART, and, like Scott

 21 said, they -- they conducted the site-specific BART

 22 analysis for the Kincaid plant, including CALPUFF

 23 modeling, to assess the visibility impacts of the

 24 several different control alternatives they were
 38

 1 considering. And the agreement we came to was

 2 Dominion agreed to a low emission rate for NOx of

 3 0.07 pounds per million BTU by year 2017, and

 4 presumptive BART for those Dominion units is .10.

 5 So we're going to be below that. And also the

 6 agreement requires an SO2 emission rate of .18

 7 million BTU per -- pounds per million BTU by 2017.

 8 Here the presumptive part is .15 pounds per million

 9 BTU. And, as Scott said, the modeling shows that the

 10 alternative plan results in equivalent visibility and

 11 at a much lower cost.

 12 For CWLP, CWLP had three BART-eligible units:

 13 Dallman 31, 32, and Lakeside 8. And our MOU

 14 agreement with them has an agreement to shut down

 15 Lakeside 8 altogether, and the presumptive BART for

 16 these units -- for the two remaining units is the

 17 operation of an SCR. There's some requirements for

 18 presumptive BART that are in pounds per million BTU.

 19 The type of units that CWLP has -- I believe they

 20 don't have a pounds per million BTU limit. It's just

 21 the operation of SCR. So that's -- it's kind of

 22 subjective there. And BART -- or presumptive BART

 23 for SO2 is 95 percent control.

 24 And CWLP agreed to meet an annual NOx
 39

 1 emission rate of .12 pounds per million BTU in 2015

 2 and .11 pounds per million BTU in 2017. Also, for

 3 SO2, they agreed to a rate of .25 pounds per million

 4 BTU in 2015 and .23 pounds per million BTU in 2017.

 5 And the calculated presumptive BART for SO2 for these

 6 units is .3 pounds per million BTU, and the

 7 calculated presumptive BART is just calculated from

 8 95 percent of uncontrolled. And Illinois EPA

 9 estimates that reductions from the CWLP MOU to be

 10 around 5400 tons of NOx per year and 4800 tons of SO2

 11 per year in the year 2017.

 12 We have a nice graph showing -- the very far

 13 left bars are 2002 base year, and then to the right

 14 of that is the presumptive BART. The yellow there is

 15 2018 CAIR estimates, and the very far right, the

 16 maroon, is the Illinois requirements. And you can

 17 see for NOx the Illinois requirements from our --

 18 from our agreements are better than presumptive BART

 19 and CAIR estimates.

 20 And then for SO2, you have the same picture.

 21 Again, the base year on the left, Illinois all the

 22 way on the right with the presumptive BART and 2018

 23 CAIR projections, and you can see the small hiccup on

 24 Dominion from the MOU that I just talked about.
 40

 1 And then for our non-EGUs, like I said,

 2 there's two petroleum refineries that we found to be

 3 subject to BART -- the CITGO refinery in Lemont and

 4 Exxon refinery in Joliet -- and both of these

 5 refineries are subject to consent decrees. CITGO in

 6 2004 and ExxonMobil in 2005. And both of these

 7 consent degrees result in large reductions of NOx,

 8 SO2, and PM in Illinois.

 9 When we looked at the consent decrees, they

 10 consider the same factors or they're very similar to

 11 what they consider for BART. And the emissions from

 12 these consent decrees would have -- are greater than

 13 applying BART to both -- to the subject-to-BART units

 14 at the refineries in both cases. And, also, the

 15 emission reductions from these consent decrees are

 16 coming now in 2009 and 2010. It says "a few years

 17 earlier." I believe the sulfur reductions are

 18 already -- already there at their FCCUs, for the most

 19 part, and I think that they're almost done with all

 20 of the controls they have to put on for the consent

 21 decree. So we're getting extra emission reductions

 22 ahead of what we would have by applying BART.

 23 And, in summary, we have several sources in

 24 Illinois that have been determined to be BART
 41

 1 eligible and causing or contributing to visibility

 2 impairment in the Class I areas we discussed. And in

 3 Illinois our plan has been -- we've promulgated or

 4 negotiated emissions control requirements for most of

 5 the subject-to-BART sources, and these requirements

 6 are providing reductions that are well beyond what

 7 would be anticipated from only applying BART to the

 8 subject-to-BART units. And Illinois control

 9 requirements will provide greater visibility

 10 improvements than that would occur from just the

 11 application of BART on the subject-to-BART units.

 12 And that's what I've got.

 13 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Rory.

 14 Okay. I'm going to go ahead and open up for

 15 questions or comments.

 16 Any questions or comments?

 17 Sir, if you'd come forward to the podium just

 18 so that --

 19 MR. ELVERT: Sure. Just a clarification. My

 20 name is Bob Elvert, E-l-v, as in "Victor," -e-r-t,

 21 with ExxonMobil.

 22 This first one is to Mike. One of your last

 23 slides you had a regional emissions graph. I think

 24 it was, like, the fifth to the last one. Just -- is
 42

 1 that -- as far as the regional, is that region five?

 2 How big is that region?

 3 MR. KOERBER: Five-state LADCO region:

 4 Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio.

 5 MR. ELVERT: Is there a slide like that for

 6 just the Illinois --

 7 MR. KOERBER: Yes.

 8 MR. ELVERT: -- BART facilities?

 9 MR. KOERBER: I don't have one, but we could

 10 work something like that up, I think. I'm sure you

 11 guys have what the -- you know what the facilities

 12 are.

 13 MR. LEOPOLD: Right.

 14 MR. KOERBER: And the emissions.

 15 MR. LEOPOLD: Right.

 16 MR. DAVIS: Yeah.

 17 MR. KOERBER: So I don't have that, but I

 18 think the information is available.

 19 MR. ELVERT: Okay. All right.

 20 And then the second -- second question is to

 21 the IEPA. Just the last couple slides where, for the

 22 coal-fired plants, you had graphs showing the

 23 estimated NOx emission reductions for both NOx and

 24 SO2. Is there a similar slide or information that
 43

 1 shows that for the refineries in Illinois? Just to

 2 show the reductions that you -- from the consent

 3 decrees.

 4 MR. DAVIS: We do not have in our SIP

 5 submittal, and the question for the EGUs -- that's in

 6 our BART and regional haze SIP in one of them. We

 7 don't have a graph like that, but we do have a table

 8 of the emissions from the individual units from the

 9 refineries.

 10 MR. ELVERT: Okay. And is it possible to get

 11 that --

 12 MR. DAVIS: Yeah. Both of those documents

 13 are online.

 14 MR. ELVERT: Okay.

 15 MR. DAVIS: And we can --

 16 MR. KALEEL: It's in the documents, the BART

 17 documents.

 18 MR. ELVERT: Okay. Thank you much.

 19 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.

 20 Anyone else with questions or comments?

 21 MR. DIERICX: My name is Rick Diericx,

 22 D-i-e-r-i-c-x, with Dynegy Midwest Generation.

 23 First question I had is for Mr. Koerber. I

 24 think it was slide 12 of your presentation indicated
 44

 1 that the CALPUFF model was used, and I think on slide

 2 31 you mentioned the CAMx model. Were two different

 3 models, in fact, used? And, if so, what were the

 4 differences in the models? Why were they -- what

 5 were they used to illustrate?

 6 MR. KOERBER: Right. Good question. The

 7 CALPUFF model was used for the individual source

 8 modeling as part of the BART analyses to determine

 9 which BART-eligible sources were subject to BART.

 10 And then the CAMx regional air quality model

 11 was used as part of the long-term strategy

 12 assessment, specifically in defining and setting the

 13 reasonable progress goals.

 14 So, again, the two major provisions of the

 15 Clean Air Act -- one is BART, the other is long-term

 16 strategy. We use CALPUFF for the BART work, and we

 17 use CAMx more -- we use CAMx specifically for the

 18 long-term strategy development.

 19 MR. DIERICX: Okay. On slide 19 also of

 20 Mr. Koerber's presentation, there was a graph showing

 21 pollutant contribution bar charts, and I think they

 22 indicated there were seven different pollutants that

 23 affected visibility on there. Is that correct? Is

 24 that -- slide 19 -- is that the correct one?
 45

 1 MR. KOERBER: That is the correct one. The

 2 dominant chemical species being sulfate, nitrate,

 3 organic carbon, the yellow, red, and green portions.

 4 MR. DIERICX: Okay. Are all seven pollutants

 5 equally effective at impacting visibility?

 6 MR. KOERBER: They have different levels of

 7 effectiveness. In terms of their contribution to

 8 light extinction, which is the metric that we're

 9 depicting in this particular -- on this particular

 10 slide, sulfate, as you can see, is really the

 11 dominant player in some of these Class I areas, but

 12 nitrate and organic carbon also have an impact.

 13 MR. DIERICX: And they're the dominant player

 14 because of their quantity of emissions?

 15 MR. KOERBER: Quantity as well as their

 16 light-impairing effectiveness.

 17 MR. DIERICX: Okay. Thank you. I think on

 18 Scott's presentation, slide ten maybe which showed

 19 IEPA CALPUFF results, indicated the model exceedances

 20 for the various facilities. Which years of emissions

 21 were used to determine those exceedances? Was it

 22 historic emissions, or was it future emission rates?

 23 MR. LEOPOLD: No, those are historic emission

 24 rates. The emission rates were meant to depict 2005
 46

 1 emissions. This is consistent with the year that the

 2 rule came out and also then consistent with the 2005

 3 base year that was used in the LADCO modeling.

 4 MR. DIERICX: Okay. And did they -- the 2005

 5 emissions -- did those represent actual or allowable

 6 emissions for those facilities?

 7 MR. LEOPOLD: Allowable emissions.

 8 MR. DIERICX: Okay. Okay. That's all the

 9 questions I have. Thank you.

 10 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.

 11 Anyone else with questions or comments?

 12 MR. KALEEL: Dean, I would like to make a

 13 comment on the record, if I could, and it might

 14 prompt some more questions here, but there's

 15 something I want to make sure was on the record.

 16 HEARING OFFICER: Sure.

 17 MR. KALEEL: Okay. I'm Rob Kaleel with the

 18 Illinois EPA, air quality planning section.

 19 And I just wanted to make sure that the folks

 20 here were aware and that it's reflected in the record

 21 that the regional haze rule requires that we share

 22 our draft SIP documents with federal land managers at

 23 least 60 days prior to today's public hearing, and

 24 we, in fact, did that. We made our documents
 47

 1 available a couple of months ago on our website. We

 2 notified the participating federal land managers. I

 3 believe they're primarily the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

 4 Service, the U.S. Park Service, and the National

 5 Forest Service. I think they were the three key

 6 FLMs, federal land managers, that participated.

 7 So we did -- we did share these documents.

 8 We've had one conference call with the FLMs a couple

 9 of weeks ago to get preliminary comments, and then

 10 last week we received formal written comments to our

 11 SIP documents, the documents that are on our website

 12 and that we're talking about today.

 13 So I wanted people to be aware that that was

 14 kind of a parallel process. We are required to

 15 obviously seriously consider those comments, since

 16 these are federal agencies, and, you know, where

 17 appropriate, make changes in our documents. So I

 18 wanted to just make sure that everybody was aware

 19 that that was going on.

 20 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.

 21 MR. OSTREM: Real quick question. Are those

 22 comments part of the record or are they --

 23 MR. KALEEL: They will be part of our SIP

 24 record, yes.
 48

 1 HEARING OFFICER: For the record, you're

 2 going to have to identify yourself.

 3 MR. OSTREM: Sorry. Stan Ostrem. Last name

 4 O-s-t-r-e-m, with Dynegy Midwest Generation.

 5 HEARING OFFICER: Any other questions or

 6 comments?

 7 Chris.

 8 MR. ROMAINE: My name is Chris Romaine. I'm

 9 manager of the construction unit in the air permit

 10 section, and as long as Rob was giving some

 11 information, I just want to remind people that we are

 12 working in the permit section on going out and

 13 issuing federally enforceable state permits for CWLP

 14 and Kincaid. And obviously we have sent a copy of

 15 that to CWLP. I don't see anybody here from Kincaid,

 16 do I?

 17 MR. KALEEL: I don't think so.

 18 MR. ROMAINE: Okay. So --

 19 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.

 20 Any other comments or questions? All right.

 21 If not, I remind everyone that the record is

 22 open until January 5.

 23 If you have questions or comments that you

 24 would like to submit in writing, please submit them
 49

 1 accordingly.

 2 Thank you, and this hearing is adjourned.

 3 (Hearing adjourned at 2:35 P.M.)

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 
 50

 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

 2 STATE OF ILLINOIS )

 ) ss.

 3 COUNTY OF SANGAMON )

 4 I, ROBIN A. ADAMS, a Registered

 5 Professional Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter,

 6 and Notary Public within and for the State of

 7 Illinois, do hereby certify that the foregoing

 8 proceedings were taken by me to the best of my

 9 ability and thereafter reduced to typewriting under

 10 my direction; that I am neither counsel for, related

 11 to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action

 12 in which these proceedings were taken; and further

 13 that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney

 14 or counsel employed by the parties thereto, nor

 15 financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of

 16 the action.

 17 

 18 

 19 __________________________________

 20 Notary Public in and for

 21 the State of Illinois

 22 

 23 

 24 
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

BUREAU OF AIR

Responsiveness Summary for

Public Questions and Comments on the 

State Implementation Plan Submittal to Address Regional Haze 

May 31, 2011
2

INTRODUCTION

Regional haze is visibility impairment caused by the cumulative air pollutant emissions from 

numerous sources over a wide geographic area. To address the visibility protection requirements 

of Section 169A of the Federal Clean Air Act for Federal Class I areas, each state is required to 

submit an implementation plan for regional haze meeting the requirements of 40 CFR §51.308(d) 

and (e). The core requirements for the implementation plan for regional haze include reasonable 

progress goals, calculations of baseline and natural visibility conditions, long-term strategy for 

regional haze, monitoring strategy, and emission limitations representing Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (“BART”) and schedules for compliance with BART for each BART-eligible source 

that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area 40 CFR §51.308(e). Accordingly, a proposal has been prepared 

to satisfy Illinois’ obligation to develop a regional haze State Implementation Plan with measures 

necessary to make reasonable progress towards remedying visibility impairment in Federal Class 

I areas. 

PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENT PERIOD

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) held a public hearing on December 

6, 2010, at 1:30 p.m., at the Illinois EPA’s Headquarters in Springfield, Illinois. The comment 

period closed on January 5, 2011.

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES BY THE ILLINOIS EPA

At Section 4.1.1, page 23, of the BART TSD, the Agency states in the first paragraph: 

“Appendix C contains the fully adopted Illinois Mercury Rule, with the relevant requirements for 

NOx and SO2 emission reductions highlighted. Illinois intends to submit these rules to USEPA 

to satisfy BART obligations for affected units at these three utilities. Ultimately, unit-specific 

measures to comply with these requirements will be contained in federally enforceable permits.” 

(Emphasis added.)

Appendix C actually no longer contains the complete Illinois Mercury Rule, although the 

earlier draft of the BART TSD did contain the entirety of the rule. Currently, the Agency 

proposes to include in Appendix C only Section 225.233, which is the Multi-Pollutant 

Standard (“MPS”), and only some sections of the Combined Pollutant Standard (“CPS”). 

The Commenter agrees that the submission should be limited to the sections proposed, 

but the language in the first sentence quoted above should be revised to reflect this 

smaller submission.

The Illinois EPA agrees with this comment and has amended the Technical Support 

Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

AQPSTR 09-06, April 29, 2011, accordingly. The Illinois EPA will not be 

submitting the Illinois Mercury Rule in its entirety to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (―USEPA‖). Only those Sections that contain 

provisions of the rule that the Illinois EPA seeks approval from the USEPA will be 
3

included in the submission and those provisions are bolded in Appendix C of such

Technical Support Document. It is important to note that the USEPA has already 

approved Subparts A, C, D, and E of 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 225. See, 40 CFR 

§52.720(c)(178) (2010).

In the second sentence quoted above, the Agency says that it will submit “these rules” to 

USEPA to satisfy the BART requirement. A Commenter requests that the Agency clarify 

its intention here. The Commenter understands that the Agency intends that only the 

highlighted portions of the rules included in Appendix C should become part of the 

BART or Regional Haze SIP and that the non-highlighted portions of the rules are being 

submitted merely for the purpose of providing context for USEPA and other readers. The 

Commenter requests that the Agency make clear in the BART TSD that although the 

entirety of Appendix C will be submitted to USEPA, only the highlighted portions of the 

rules included in Appendix C will become part of the SIP.

The Illinois EPA agrees with this comment and will not be submitting the Illinois 

Mercury Rule in its entirety to the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(―USEPA‖). As stated previously, only those Sections that contain provisions of the 

rule that the Illinois EPA seeks approval from the USEPA will be included in the 

submission and those provisions are bolded in Appendix C of the Technical Support 

Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

AQPSTR 09-06, April 29 2011.

A Commenter requests clarification regarding what the Agency intends with respect to 

“unit-specific measures” to be included in federally enforceable permits. The CPS 

requires a company to install certain pollution control equipment on some units (not all) 

by specified dates, which would be the subject of a state construction permit for each. 

Other than that, the CPS requires a company to comply with system-wide average 

emission rates for NOx and SO2. A Commenter is not clear as to how these CPS 

requirements translate into “unit-specific measures” and suggest to the Agency that 

perhaps a more general statement to the effect that the CPS requirements will be reflected 

in federally enforceable permits would be more appropriate. 

The Illinois EPA agrees with this comment and has clarified the wording in the 

Technical Support Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, AQPSTR 09-06, April 29, 2011.

 

A Commenter pointed out factual errors in the “draft” version of the Technical Support 

Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the Regional Haze Rule, AQPSTR 09-

06, September 30, 2010, and requested correction of those errors. 

The Illinois EPA has corrected these factual errors in the final version of the document.
4

Concerning Appendix C:

Section 225.292(a): A Commenter notes that the Agency does not propose to include the 

provision of the MPS that corresponds to Section 225.292(a) of the CPS as part of the 

SIP. See Section 225.233(a)(1) and (2). Likewise, the Commenter suggests that 

inclusion of any subsection of Section 225.292 in the BART/Regional Haze SIP is 

unnecessary and inappropriate and requests that the Agency delete this section from 

inclusion in its submittal. 

After discussions with the USEPA, the Illinois EPA is including both Sections 

225.292(a) and 225.233(a). These subsections (a) in both Sections describe the 

election by owners to comply with 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 225 under the alternative 

method of compliance, which is either the Combined Pollutant Standard or MultiPollutant Standards. 

Section 225.296(e): A Commenter believes that there is no rational basis for including 

this subsection in the SIP. The subsection includes a reference to Section 225.296(c), 

which, appropriately, is not be included in the SIP, as well as a reference to air pollution 

control equipment for purposes of reducing mercury and PM emissions, neither of which 

are factors in the BART/Regional Haze SIP.

The Illinois EPA is submitting subsection (e) of Section 225.296, because visibilityimpairing pollutants include particulate matter, along with sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen oxides. See, Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51—Guidelines for BART 

Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule. However, the Illinois EPA is not 

bolding the term ―mercury‖ in subsection (e), and therefore, is not requesting that 

provisions relating to mercury be included in this submission. The United States 

Environmental Protection Agency has indicated that it has no intention of imposing 

any mercury provisions of any sort upon affected sources under this proposal. 

Section 225.299: A Commenter suggests that inclusion of Section 225.299 would be 

appropriate in this SIP. This is the section that provides that the CPS represents BART 

for SO2, among other things.

―Best available retrofit technology‖ is defined as ―an emission limitation based on 

the degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best system of 

continuous emission reduction for each pollutant which is emitted by an existing 

stationary facility. The emission limitation must be established, on a case-by-case 

basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the 

energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution 

control equipment in use or in existence at the source, the remaining useful life of 

the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the use of such technology.‖ 40 CFR § 51.301. Section 

225.299 includes a statement, not an emission limitation. It is the approval of the 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan submission by USEPA that would reflect 
5

that Illinois’ approach, including the Combined Pollutant Standard and MultiPollutant Standards, represents BART.

Another Commenter pointed out factual errors in the “draft” version of the Technical Support 

Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the Regional Haze Rule, AQPSTR 09-

06, September 30, 2010, and requested correction of those errors. 

The Illinois EPA has corrected these factual errors in the final document.

A Commenter stated that the inclusion of 35 IAC 225.233(e)(1) and (e)(2) as part of Illinois’ 

federally-enforceable BART rule would subject non-BART units to federally enforceable BART 

requirements even though they are not BART eligible sources. The Commenter also suggested 

that the Illinois EPA rely on a federally-enforceable consent decree to satisfy BART obligations 

for certain units due to the fact that the federal consent decree imposes more stringent or 

equivalent NOx and SO2 limits on the such units than 35 IAC 225.233(e)(1) and (e)(2) and 

sooner than required by 35 IAC 225.233(e)(1) and (e)(2), and since there are no BART eligible 

units at the sources, and since the Commenter has the only EGU’s impacted by 35 IAC 

225.233(e)(1) and (e)(2), the Commenter recommends that the Illinois EPA exclude 35 IAC 

225.233(e)(1) and (e)(2) from this rulemaking.

Under the BART requirements for Regional Haze visibility impairment, the State must

submit an implementation plan containing emission limitations representing BART and 

schedules for compliance with BART for each BART-eligible source that may reasonably

be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory

Class I Federal area, unless the State demonstrates that an emissions trading program or 

other alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility 

conditions. 40 CFR § 51.308(e). Such an emissions trading program or other alternative 

measure must achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the 

installation and operation of BART. Id. The Illinois EPA’s alternative approach includes, 

but is not limited to, the Multi-Pollutant Standards (―MPS‖) and Combined Pollutant 

Standard (―CPS‖) under the Illinois Mercury Rule, 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 225, and 

provides greater emissions reductions, and thus, greater reasonable progress than would 

have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at the covered sources. 

Accordingly, the Illinois approach does not rely on consent decrees for utilities. 

Sources electing to comply with the emissions standards under the MPS and CPS are 

required to submit an application for a Clean Air Act Permit Program (―CAAPP‖) permit 

modification to the Illinois EPA. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225.233(a)(3) and 225.292(c). Each 

CAAPP permit issued by the Illinois EPA for a source must contain federally enforceable 

conditions addressing all applicable requirements. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225.220(c)(1). 
6

Section 4.2.2 – A Commenter pointed out that ExxonMobil's Consent Decree has been revised, 

and the SCR is required by 12/31/2010, not 12/31/2012. Thus, NOx emission reductions in 

Table 4.15 will be achieved beginning in calendar year 2011. In addition, SO2 emission 

decreases in Table 4.16 have already been achieved, beginning with calendar year 2009.

The Illinois EPA agrees with this comment and has amended the document accordingly. 

Section 4.2.1, a Commenter noted that "grams per dry standard cubic foot hydrogen sulfide"

should read "grains per dry standard cubic foot hydrogen sulfide".

The Illinois EPA agrees with this comment and has amended the document accordingly. 

A Commenter asked the Illinois EPA to define "presumptive BART" for refinery sources, 

including process heaters, non-EGU boilers, FCCs, SRUs, flares. In addition, the Commenter 

requested that the Illinois EPA clarify the difference between "Presumptive BART" and 

"Consent Decree 2013" (see tables 4.15 and 4.16 in "Draft TSD for BART under the Regional

Haze Rule”). 

The Illinois EPA agrees that the terminology for "presumptive BART" for refineries used 

in the draft document is confusing. The BART rule does not contain "presumptive BART" 

limits for refineries in the same way as it does for utilities. The Illinois EPA is trying to 

compare the amount of reduction that Illinois would expect from implementation of BART 

controls (scrubbers, SCRs) on subject units versus the reductions expected from the 

consent decree. The Illinois EPA’s intent is to show that the consent decree will provide 

greater reductions than BART. In the final document, the Illinois EPA has revised the 

terminology to reflect "expected BART reduction.‖

A Commenter inquired as to whether an analysis based on actual emissions will suffice or will 

there need to be a PTE analysis. The Commenter also inquired about whether 2002 PTE and 

"Presumptive BART & "Consent Decree 2013" calculated based on a reduction from 2002 actual 

emissions will meet US EPA's standards.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (―USEPA‖) did not comment on the 

Illinois EPA’s draft documents; however, the USEPA has accepted the refinery consent 

decrees as meeting BART in other states. Therefore, the Illinois EPA believes that the 

Illinois approach is approvable.
7

Will there be any revisions to 35 IAC Subpart C "Emissions Standards and Limitations for 

Stationary Sources" in support of the Consent Decree approach? If yes, the Commenter requests 

the opportunity to review the proposed language in advance of the IPCB rulemaking.

Assuming that the reference is to Part 217, Nitrogen Oxides Emissions, the Illinois EPA 

does not intend to revise it to reflect the consent decree limits. The Illinois EPA’s approach 

is to rely on federally-enforceable permits to implement BART for the refineries.

The following comments were submitted by the United States Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service:

Baseline, Natural Condition, and Uniform Rate – In the executive summary, three specific 

Class I areas are identified for which emissions from IL sources cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment. These Class I areas include Mammoth Cave NP, Mingo NWR, and Isle Royale NP. 

More information should be presented explaining how only these 3 Class I areas, and no others, 

were selected. For the selected Class I areas, the SIP should include discussion about the 

baseline and natural conditions estimates, and uniform rate of progress. This information is 

important because IL uses these data in making its control determinations. Although these 

values are established by neighboring States, the resulting baseline and natural conditions 

estimates affect IL and its subsequent work. If it is determined that IL significantly contributes 

to additional Class I areas, summary information should be included for them as well. 

The Executive Summary of the draft Technical Support Document, Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan for Illinois, AQPSTR 10-08, October 7, 2010, indicates that Illinois

causes or contributes to visibility impairment ―in several Class I areas..., including 

Mammoth Cave National Park..., the Mingo Wilderness Area..., and Isle Royale National 

Park...‖ The Illinois EPA did not intend to state that only the three Class I areas 

referenced in the Executive Summary were addressed. Accordingly, this sentence has been 

amended so as to include, but not limit, the reference to just those three Class I areas. The 

body of such Technical Support Document, particularly in Section 9.0, provides additional 

detail on Illinois’ visibility impact on Class I areas across the central and eastern United 

States. 

Emission Inventories and Modeling – IEPA participated in joint emission inventory and air 

quality modeling efforts with the Mid-West Regional Planning Organization (RPO). In order for 

the State to make use of the modeling results, it should present a summary of efforts, 

participation, and technical assumptions associated with RPO modeling products. Establishing

validity of the modeling system is required for all non-guideline model applications. The 

discussion should include development and application of meteorology, modeling systems, 

performance evaluation, and all associated emission inventories. Uncertainties regarding each of 

the previous components, as well as methods (such as reasonable response factors) to reduce 

predictive error, should be discussed. These efforts are ultimately the basis for the State’s 

conclusion that visibility goals are being met and that IL is fulfilling its share of reducing 

visibility impairment. In addition, IL is uniquely located near multiple RPOs. The State should 
8

consider a review of the competing efforts made by CENRAP, VISTAS, and MANE-VU, 

summarize those RPOs’ emission inventory and modeling systems, and make comparisons on 

how contributions from IL were characterized.

Components of the modeling platform, their implementation, and their performance are 

documented in the Regional Air Quality Analysis for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze: 

Final Technical Support Document, April 25, 2008, included in the submittal as Appendix 

B to the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for Illinois, AQPSTR 10-08, May 10, 

2011. The document has also been amended to describe the efforts of the Central Regional 

Air Planning Association (―CENRAP‖), Visibility Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (―VISTAS‖), and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union

(―MANE-VU‖).

Reasonable Progress Goals and Long Term Strategy – Although the Class I States set the 

reasonable progress goals for each of their Class I areas, IL should summarize these goals and 

discuss its air pollution sources’ apportionment to baseline in meeting these goals for each of the 

affected Class I areas. From our experience, all RPO’s performed some form of State level 

apportionment calculations for its Class I areas. IL should look beyond only Mid-West RPO in 

making these findings. 

Additional documentation pertaining to Reasonable Progress, such as the Midwest 

Regional Planning Organization five factor analysis, and excerpts from the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (―MANE-VU‖) and the Visibility Improvement State 

and Tribal Association of the Southeast (―VISTAS‖) documents showing that the Uniform 

Rate is achieved and exceeded at their Class I sites by 2018, has been added to Section 7.0 

of the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for Illinois, AQPSTR 10-08, May 10, 2011. 

Section 8.0, Long Term Strategy, has been enhanced with additional detail about future 

controls and New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration considerations.

Consider summarizing how the IL specific emission control efforts affect the Class I areas’ 

ability to meet the Reasonable Progress Goals. One way is to discuss sources and associated 

controls specific to an “area of influence” for each Class I area. With this method, a geographic 

area is identified as a likely contributor to a Class I area’s primary impairment influence. By 

discussing how State emission control regulations apply in these areas and ultimately assist in 

improving visibility, a State can better justify that sufficient efforts were made to pursue 

“reasonable” controls.

The Illinois EPA has participated in numerous consultations with other states and Regional 

Planning Organizations. These consultations are complete, and no other state has 

requested that the Illinois EPA consider further controls for Regional Haze. The Illinois 

EPA believes that the State’s aggressive control programs, especially in the utility sector 

where controls go beyond proposed national rules, satisfy Reasonable Progress Goals.
9

Finally, IL should better identify how its State emission control strategies relate to the four 

factors outlined at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Simply identifying RPO modeled projections of 

visibility improvement at assorted Class I areas as meeting the uniform rate of progress is not 

enough in showing that IL indeed met its share of emission controls. A four factor analysis is

intended to show that emission sources, or categories of sources, have been evaluated and 

determined to be “reasonable”. The fact that a neighboring Class I State did not specifically ask 

for additional controls does not relieve the need for a comprehensive evaluation of Illinois’ air 

quality emission controls. 

Excerpts from the factor analysis discussion, which is contained in the Regional Air 

Quality Analysis for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document, 

April 25, 2008 (see, Appendix B to the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for 

Illinois, AQPSTR 10-08, October 7, 2010) have been added to Section 7.0. The factor 

analysis demonstrates that electric generating unit controls are by far the most effective at 

providing significant improvement in visibility at a reasonable cost.

BART – The suggestion to add supporting discussion and information also apply to the BART 

process and BART determinations. We recommend that a full summary, with added detail, be 

included in describing the “better than BART” option IL has chosen. With the limited number of 

sources subject to BART, it also appears reasonable to summarize each BART source and 

describe the benefit from the BART alternative.

For most of the subject-to-BART sources in Illinois, the Illinois EPA has relied on existing 

emission reduction requirements and commitments, comparing the reductions from these 

control programs to the reductions that would have been achieved by applying BART 

controls. The existing control programs include the Multi-Pollutant Standards (―MPS‖) 

and Combined Pollutant Standard (―CPS‖) codified in the Illinois Mercury Rule, 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code Part 225, that apply to Ameren, Dynegy, and Midwest Generation, and federal 

consent decrees, which establish enforceable emission limits for petroleum refineries that 

have resulted, or will result, in significant reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions. The 

Illinois EPA’s analysis of emission reductions that will result from implementation of the 

MPS and CPS for electric utilities and from implementation of the consent decrees for the 

refineries demonstrates conclusively that Illinois’ approach will yield much larger 

reductions of NOx and SO2 than will implementation of BART controls on just subject-toBART emission units. These control programs are described in the final Technical 

Support Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

AQPSTR 09-06, April 29, 2011. The relevant portions of the fully adopted Illinois Mercury 

Rule, with the requirements for NOx and SO2 emission reductions highlighted, are 

included as Appendix C of this document. Copies of the federally enforceable consent

decrees for the two petroleum refineries that are subject to BART are included as 

Appendices E and F.
10

Because the better-than-BART alternative compares emission controls against presumptive 

control levels established for EGUs, additional summary should be included for what would 

constitute BART levels for refineries. We suggest that the discussion include a five factor 

analysis, per 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A), for each of the refineries in support of the alternative. 

For the two petroleum refineries in Illinois that are subject to BART, the Illinois EPA has 

relied on federal consent decrees to meet the BART requirement. These consent decrees 

establish enforceable emission limits for petroleum refineries based on the application of 

selective catalytic reduction (―SCR‖) technology for control of NOx emissions, and flue gas 

desulfurization (―FGD‖) technology for control of SO2 emissions. The consent decrees also 

require reductions from emission units that are not subject to BART. The Illinois EPA’s 

analysis of emission reductions that will result from implementation of the consent decrees 

for the refineries demonstrates conclusively that the consent decrees will yield greater 

reductions of NOx and SO2 than will implementation of BART controls on just subject-toBART emission units. 

FIRE – IEPA should summarize its smoke management plan. The summary should include 

additional information to address the following questions: 

Is the SMP voluntary or mandatory?

Does the SMP consider Class I areas as sensitive receptors for burn decisions?

Does the State implement best management practice requirements for burning? and, 

Is there an effort to track fire emissions from all styles of burning?

The Smoke Management Plan is voluntary and targets ecological burns. Such Plan 

requires Best Management Practices for burns and the use of the Air Quality Index to 

inform the decision process. Section 8.3 of the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

for Illinois, AQPSTR 10-08, May 10, 2011, has been amended to provide more information 

about the Illinois EPA’s Smoke Management Plan.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration – IEPA should also consider summarizing the 

implementation and review of PSD permits and its value toward progress with the Regional Haze 

Rule. Although new sources are generally considered cleaner sources, an improperly located 

new source or major modification can have a profound effect on a State’s ability to meet its 

progress goals. 

The Illinois EPA has amended the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for Illinois, 

AQPSTR 10-08, May 10, 2011, to address this issue. See, Section 8.2. The visibility 

impacts of such sources will remain under the purview of existing requirements under 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (―PSD‖). See, 40 C.F.R. § 52.21. The Illinois EPA 

administers the PSD program in Illinois under authority provided by Section 9.1 of the 

Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/9.1 (2010), and a delegation agreement with the 

USEPA authorizing Illinois to enforce the Federal PSD regulations. 
11

There seems to be a misinterpretation of Section III of the EPA BART Guidelines that provides 

for exempting a BART-eligible source from being subject-to-BART if the source’s impact on 

visibility impairment from NOx, SO2 and particulate matter (combined) at any Class I area is less 

than 0.5 deciviews.1 Section 3.0 of the Technical Support Document states, “. . . the MRPO 

determined that the visibility impact of particulate matter emissions from just the BART-eligible 

sources in the MRPO states will be much less than 0.5 deciviews in any Class I area. Illinois 

EPA has therefore excluded emissions of particulate matter from the BART review process in 

Illinois.” Visibility impacts of particulate matter must be included with NOx and SO2 in 

modeling for determining if a source is subject-to-BART by contributing to visibility impacts at 

any Class I area by 0.5 deciviews or greater. However, it is agreed that once a source is found to 

be subject-to-BART, controls on particulate matter emissions from an emission unit may be 

found to be so insignificant that the cost of control is excessive and addition of particulate matter 

emission controls is not required under BART. Section 3.0 of the Technical Support Document 

should clarify this concept and IEPA should confirm that no BART-eligible source was found to 

be not subject-to-BART, because particulate matter was excluded from the modeling analysis in 

determining the source’s contribution to visibility impairment at any Class I area. 

The Illinois EPA agrees with this comment and has clarified the wording of Section 3.0 of 

the final Technical Support Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, AQPSTR 09-06, April 29, 2011. To ensure that no BART-eligible 

source was found to be not subject-to-BART, because particulate matter was excluded 

from the modeling analysis, Illinois EPA performed additional CALPUFF modeling to 

determine the visibility impact of particulate matter emissions from the largest of the notsubject-to-BART sources, the Dynegy – Wood River power plant. As described in Section 

3.0, the modeling results confirmed that particulate matter emissions do not significantly 

affect the determination of sources that are subject-to-BART and that that no BARTeligible source was found to be not subject-to-BART, because particulate matter was 

excluded from the modeling analysis.

The Technical Support Document seems clear that IEPA is requiring Electric Generation Units 

(EGUs) to perform a BART determination, rather than participate in the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR). This is certainly an acceptable position for the State to take, but possibly a 

sentence should be added to the Technical Support Document that confirms this to be the policy 

of IEPA. 

The Illinois EPA does not completely agree with this characterization of its approach to 

addressing the BART requirement for EGUs. Illinois’ approach relies on the use of 

existing emission reduction requirements and commitments for EGUs that it has 

demonstrated are a better-than-BART alternative. The Illinois EPA agrees that its 

 

1

See 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized its BART Guidelines on 

June 15, 2005, and published the preamble and final rule text in the Federal Register on July 6, 2005. The 

rulemaking action added Appendix Y to Part 51, titled “Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional 

Haze Rule.” See Section III.A.1.
12

approach does not rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (―CAIR‖) to meet its obligations 

under BART.

A state choosing to use an alternative method to meet BART must demonstrate that this 

alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the 

installation and operation of BART.2 Pertaining to Dominion Kincaid, Table 4.10 of the 

Technical Support Document shows only that the proposed alternative matches the aggregate 

total across analyzed Class I areas of 21 days with impacts greater than 0.5 deciviews as shown 

for presumptive BART, but does not exceed it. Thus, it would seem to demonstrate that the 

alternative method is equivalent to BART, but does not show greater reasonable progress than 

BART. Further, this demonstration must show that visibility does not decline in any Class I 

area.3 Table 4.10 shows that at under the alternative method at Mingo there is an increase in the 

number of days with impacts greater than 0.5 deciviews from three to five and also at Hercules 

Glades there is an increase from one day to two days. Measures should be taken so that these 

increases under the alternative method become decreases. It is likely that this could be achieved 

by Dominion Kincaid if the emission control technology for SO2, likely a wet scrubber, were 

required under emission limitations to reach an efficiency of 0.15 lb/MMBtu, rather than the 0.18 

lb/MMBtu as stated in section 4.1.2.2. As discussed in the following paragraph the emission 

limitation could even be around 0.07 lb/MMBtu, which is the true efficiency of the technology.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency commented similarly to the Illinois EPA. 

 

Based on this comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a similar comment 

from the USEPA, the Illinois EPA and Dominion revised their original agreement to 

achieve greater reductions of SO2 at the Kincaid power plant. The original agreement 

between Dominion and the Illinois EPA required that SO2 emissions be reduced at Kincaid 

from the current rate of 0.46 lbs/mmBTU to a rate of 0.20 lbs/mmBTU by January 1, 2014, 

and to 0.18 lbs/mmBTU by January 1, 2017. In subsequent discussions, Dominion agreed 

to further reduce SO2 emissions at the Kincaid plant to a rate of 0.15 lbs/mmBTU, which 

meets the presumptive BART emissions limit. Dominion has also agreed to meet the NOx 

emission rate of 0.07 lbs/mmBTU, in accordance with the original agreement with Illinois 

EPA. This emission rate is considerably more stringent than the presumptive BART 

emission limit for NOx of 0.10 lbs/mmBTU. The Illinois EPA has performed additional 

CALPUFF modeling to assess the visibility improvements of the revised agreement. The 

Illinois EPA’s modeling confirms that Dominion’s final control plan for the Kincaid facility 

will provide greater visibility improvements than the presumptive BART emission limits. 

The revised agreement and Illinois EPA’s modeling are described in Section 4.1.2.2 of the 

final Technical Support Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, AQPSTR 09-06, April 29, 2011. 

 

2

See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).

3

See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)(i).
13

Case-by-case BART determinations for EGUs should involve permitted emission limitations 

based on the capability of the emission control technology being implemented, rather than 

simply reflecting presumptive BART. In the various agreements with the sources, IEPA seemed 

to negotiate emission limitations that met presumptive BART control levels, rather than the 

capability of the control technology (e.g., 0.06 - 0.07 lb/MMBtu for SCR; 0.05 lb/MMBtu for 

wet scrubbers). Although the premise of the alternative method of compliance focuses on 

meeting presumptive BART, the intent of the regional haze program is to maximize visibility 

improvement. This could best be achieved by setting emission limitations in permits to the level 

achievable by the control technology. 

The Illinois EPA does not agree that negotiated emission limits for EGUs were designed to 

meet presumptive BART control levels. For most of the subject-to-BART EGUs in Illinois, 

the Illinois EPA has relied on existing emission reduction requirements and commitments 

that reflect the capability of the control equipment that has been or will be installed on 

coal-fired EGUs in Illinois. Tables 4.2 through 4.12 in Section 4.0 of final Technical 

Support Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

AQPSTR 09-06, April 29, 2011 demonstrate conclusively that the emission reductions that 

will be achieved by Illinois’ agreements greatly exceed the reductions that would have been 

achieved by applying presumptive BART control levels. Reductions of SO2 emissions from 

presumptive BART controls on subject-to-BART EGUs are estimated to total about 

134,000 tons per year. Under Illinois’ agreements with the EGUs in the state, reductions of 

SO2 emissions will exceed 260,000 tons per year when fully implemented. Similarly, 

presumptive BART controls would have yielded a reduction of NOx emissions of 77,000 

tons per year from Illinois EGUs. Under Illinois’ agreements, reductions of NOx emissions 

will exceed 110,000 tons per year when fully implemented. 

Proof that an alternative method results in greater reasonable progress for visibility improvement 

should involve presentation of modeling results as was done for Dominion Kincaid. Modeling 

results were not shown in the Technical Support Document intending to demonstrate that the 

alternative method(s) used for the other sources resulted in greater reasonable progress than 

BART. Aggregate lower emissions were shown for all EGUs, which would presumably result in 

greater visibility improvement at all Class I areas, but the conclusion is not definitive without 

modeling. 

The Illinois EPA does not agree that is necessary to perform modeling to conclude that 

visibility improvements will result from the agreements made to reduce SO2 and NOx 

emissions from the subject-to-BART sources in Illinois. Modeling performed by the 

Midwest Regional Planning Organization, as described in Regional Air Quality Analysis 

for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document, April 25, 2008 

(included in the submittal as Appendix B to the final Technical Support Document for Best 

Available Retrofit Technology Under the Regional Haze Rule, AQPSTR 09-06, April 29, 

2011), demonstrates that reasonable progress goals are achieved assuming reductions from 

EGUs consistent with CAIR and with the consent decrees on refineries. Illinois’ 

agreements with EGUs provide emission reductions that greatly exceed the reductions that 

would be achieved by CAIR and also greatly exceed the reductions that would be achieved 
14

by meeting presumptive BART control levels on subject-to-BART units. Further, the 

emission reductions from EGUs will result from controls from the entire fleet of units 

across the state. Given the distance from Illinois’ sources to Class I areas in other states, 

and the magnitude of emission reductions, it is clear that Illinois has met its obligation to 

ensure reasonable progress for visibility improvement.

Some additional explanation seems to be necessary in the CITGO refinery analysis which 

attempts to show that NOx reductions under the Consent Decree exceed NOx reductions that 

would be required under BART. First, the presumptive levels of emission control apply only to 

electric generation units and not to refineries. Therefore, the “Presumptive BART” column in 

Table 4.13 should reflect NOx emission reductions attributable to actual BART controls, rather 

than presumptive levels of control. Second, Table 3.4 lists all the units that are subject to BART, 

but Table 4.13 in the BART column shows no BART controls for many of the refinery heaters 

that are subject to BART. Many NOx control technologies exist for the various types of refinery 

heaters and fuel types. The extensive number of combinations of technologies, types of heaters 

and fuel types are too extensive to discuss here. For discussion purposes a reasonable alternative 

to choose might be Ultra Low NOx Burners (ULNB) which is generally a feasible and costeffective NOx control technology for refinery heaters that can achieve a 75% reduction in NOx. 

A BART determination should be performed for each of the heater units that are subject to 

BART and units for which ULNB or other controls are feasible should show the NOx control 

achievable for those units. Third, Section 4.2.1 explains that selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

on the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) can achieve a 95% NOx reduction, but Table 4.13 

reflects only 85% control. If 95% NOx control for the FCCU (1,011 TPY) is assumed, along 

with 75% NOx control for the heaters that are subject to BART, the total NOx control achieved 

by BART levels of control is 1,456 tons per year. The column showing tons per year reductions 

under the Consent Decrees indicates that only 1,268.5 tons per year will be achieved. This is not 

adequate for the CITGO refinery to meet the requirements of BART. Please perform additional 

analysis and/or add more NOx controls on refinery heaters to allow the facility to meet BART by 

assuring that Consent Decree and BART requirements exceed what would be required by BART.

The Illinois EPA agrees that the terminology for "presumptive BART" for refineries used 

in the draft document is confusing. The BART rule does not contain "presumptive BART" 

limits for refineries in the same way as it does for utilities. The Illinois EPA is trying to 

compare the amount of reduction that Illinois would expect from implementation of BART 

controls (scrubbers, SCRs) on subject units versus the reductions expected from the 

consent decree. The Illinois EPA’s intent is to show that the consent decree will provide 

greater reductions than BART. In the final document, the Illinois EPA has revised the 

terminology to reflect "expected BART reduction.‖

As stated in the final Technical Support Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, AQPSTR 09-06, April 29, 2011 (―TSD‖), the Illinois EPA 

has determined that the control measures required by consent decrees for petroleum 

refineries are sufficient to satisfy the BART requirement. The consent decrees require 

NOx reductions from certain process heaters in addition to the reductions required from 

the fluidized catalytic cracking units (―FCCUs‖). The consent decrees in United States of 
15

America, et al. v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. H-04-3883 (S.D. 

Texas 2005), and United States of America, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., No. 05-

CV-05809 (N.D. Ill. 2005), allow the refineries the flexibility to determine which process 

heaters can most effectively be controlled, considering many of the same factors required 

for a BART determination. The tables in the final TSD identify the emission units that are 

being controlled under the consent decrees and have been modified to reflect that emission 

reductions from these same units are expected under BART. The Illinois EPA agrees with 

the comment that the NOx control efficiencies for SCRs applied to the FCCU were 

inconsistently applied in the draft document. It should be pointed out that the consent 

decrees do not require a specific control efficiency, but it is reasonable to expect that the 

SCR control efficiencies will achieve NOx removal efficiencies of 90% or greater. The 

tables and text in the final report were amended to reflect 90% control of NOx from the 

installation of SCR at both refinery FCCUs.

The discussion for the ExxonMobil refinery is similar to the discussion above for the CITGO 

refinery. The subject-to-BART refinery heaters (particularly points 18, 19, 21 and 25) show that 

no controls are required in the column for BART NOx reductions. Some level of control should 

be added to this column. For example, adding ULNB controls (at 75% reduction) would seem to 

be a feasible control for these units. The sum of these numbers under the BART column would 

make it larger than the tons per year reductions shown in the Consent Decree column. Again, 

please perform additional analysis or add more NOx controls to allow the facility to meet BART. 

Regarding the BART analysis for SO2, the Refinery Waste Gas Blowdown System and 2 Flares 

is shown to be subject-to-BART. It would seem that the 1,156 tons per year of SO2 from this 

system, at some percentage control level, should be included in the BART column. If this 

occurred the required tons per year reductions in the BART column would exceed the tons per 

year of SO2 reduced in the Consent Decree column and additional BART controls would need to 

be found. This could possibly be a flue gas recovery unit on the flares.

The Illinois EPA has determined that the control measures required by consent decrees for 

petroleum refineries are sufficient to satisfy the BART requirement. The consent decrees 

require NOx reductions from certain process heaters in addition to the reductions required 

from the FCCUs. The consent decrees in United States of America, et al. v. CITGO 

Petroleum Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. H-04-3883 (S.D. Texas 2005), and United 

States of America, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., No. 05-CV-05809 (N.D. Ill. 2005), 

allow the refineries the flexibility to determine which process heaters can most effectively 

be controlled, considering many of the same factors required for a BART determination.

The tables in the final Technical Support Document identify the emission units that are 

being controlled under the consent decrees and have been modified to reflect that emission 

reductions from these same units are expected under BART. Similar to the discussion 

above for CITGO Petroleum Corporation, the tables in the final report were amended to 

reflect 90% control of NOx from the installation of SCR at the refinery’s FCCU.

In regard to the blowdown system and flares at the ExxonMobil facility, the ExxonMobil 

consent decree requires that the facility develop and implement a flare minimization plan, 

and construct and operate a flare gas recovery system. This source is also subject to the 

requirements of New Source Performance Standards, or NSPS, for petroleum refineries
16

(see, 40 CFR 60, Subpart Ja) that will require the use of flare gas recovery. These 

requirements will reduce SO2 emissions significantly in the next few years, although in its 

final report, the Illinois EPA has not quantified the amount of reductions expected to 

occur.

Section 4.1.1.3 of the Technical Support Document indicates that Midwest Generation will 

install scrubbers at the Joliet and Will County plants by 2019. Likewise, Section 4.1.2.2 

indicates that Dominion Kincaid will provide BART SO2 controls to 0.18 lbs/mmBtu by January 

1, 2017. These dates far exceeds the date by which BART controls must be in place, which is 

within five years after the State’s Regional Haze SIP is approved by EPA.4 These dates should 

be set earlier in time.

The Illinois EPA agrees that the timelines summarized in this comment are consistent with 

the agreements between Illinois EPA and the mentioned EGUs. The SO2 emission limit for 

Dominion Kincaid has been revised in response to comments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the USEPA. Per the revised agreement, Dominion Kincaid will provide BART 

SO2 controls to meet an emission limit of 0.15 lbs/mmBtu by January 1, 2017. According to 

the Regional Haze rule, BART controls must be implemented within 5 years of USEPA’s 

approval of the State’s BART SIP. Since USEPA is unlikely to approve Illinois’ SIP prior 

to January 1, 2012, implementation of final controls by January 1, 2017, at Dominion 

Kincaid and at City Water, Light, and Power is consistent with the requirements of the 

Regional Haze rule. The Illinois EPA has demonstrated that emission reductions from 

units operated by Midwest Generation will be greater by 2015 than would have occurred 

by presumptive BART control levels, so even though additional control measures will not 

be completed until 2019, Midwest Generation meets its obligation under BART. The 

additional reductions provided by Midwest Generation will help to ensure reasonable 

progress toward improving visibility. 

The following comments were submitted by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service:

We would like to take this opportunity to note some concerns we have with the approach taken 

to justify that these reductions are better than BART. The baseline emission reductions used to 

compare the alternatives to was based on presumptive BART levels taken from the EPA BART 

guidelines. These levels were determined to be generally cost effective across the United States 

by EPA. Nevertheless source-by-source BART determinations could show that further 

 

4

See 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized its BART Guidelines on June 

15, 2005, and published the preamble and final rule text in the Federal Register on July 6, 2005. The rulemaking 

action added Appendix Y to Part 51, titled “Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule.” 

See Section V.
17

reductions are feasible. Analysis by the National Park Service suggests this is the case for some 

units. This would mean that the baseline emission reductions are understated.

Illinois’ approach to meeting the BART requirement does not rely on source-by-source 

BART determinations, but is based on existing emission reduction requirements on both 

BART and non-BART units that far exceed the reductions that could be expected from 

implementation of BART controls on just subject-to-BART units. The Illinois EPA has 

used the presumptive BART control levels as a reasonable baseline from which to compare 

the benefits of the proposed alternative control program. It is conceivable that a sourceby-source BART determination could show that a lower baseline could have been 

established for certain emission units, but the emission reductions that will be achieved by 

Illinois’ agreements greatly exceed the reductions that could be achieved by any reasonable 

determination of BART controls that could be applied at subject-to-BART units.

We are also concerned that Illinois compares the reductions from its alternative plans, which are 

across both BART and non-BART units, to those from only BART units. These are two 

fundamentally different groups of units. Non-BART-subject units that have cost effective 

controls identified by application of the statutory factors are subject to regulation under 

reasonable progress. Reasonable progress and BART are separate requirements of the SIP. If 

the alternative control program includes both BART and non-BART units, it is appropriate that 

the baseline program it is compared to also includes BART and non-BART units for which 

control determinations are individually made based on the statutory factors. The current 

comparison ignores the reasonable progress section of the regional haze rules.

The State of Illinois consulted with other states in order to develop coordinated emission 

management strategies, as set forth under 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(3)(i-iii). The State of 

Illinois fully participated in the planning and technical development efforts of the Midwest 

Regional Planning Organization (―MRPO‖), and as such, participated in the efforts of the 

MRPO to perform the required analyses for Class I areas located in other MRPO states.

Accordingly, the State of Illinois has acted to ensure that BART determinations and 

emission control strategies that encompass the long-term strategy for Regional Haze 

provide adequate emission reductions to mitigate the impact of emissions from Illinois 

sources on affected Class I areas necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each such 

affected areas. In fact, Illinois will achieve emission reductions that exceed the reductions 

identified as necessary for achieving reasonable progress by states with Class I areas.

The SIP notes that NOX and SO2 reduction requirements under the alternative program will be 

phased-in beginning in 2009 through 2019. We note that the compliance deadline for BART 

emission limits is within 5 years after EPA approval of the SIP meaning that some units may be 

outside this timeline (e.g. Midwest Generation’s Joliet and Will County units).

According to the Regional Haze rule, BART controls must be implemented within 5 years 

of USEPA’s approval of the State’s BART SIP. Since USEPA is unlikely to approve 

Illinois’ SIP prior to January 1, 2012, implementation of final controls on or before 

January 1, 2017, is consistent with the requirements of the Regional Haze rule. It is noted 
18

that a later compliance date may still meet the requirement depending on the date of final 

USEPA approval of Illinois’ SIP. The Illinois EPA agrees that the timeline for 

implementing full controls at some units extends beyond January 1, 2017, especially at 

Midwest Generation. The Illinois EPA has demonstrated that emission reductions from all 

subject-to-BART utilities, including Midwest Generation, will be greater by 2015 than 

would have occurred by presumptive BART control levels. The additional reductions 

provided beyond 2017 by Midwest Generation will help to ensure continued progress 

toward improving visibility. 

The description of visibility impacts for the Dominion Kincaid facility on page 34 of the 

technical support document for BART does not match the numbers in the comparison table 4.10. 

Based on table 4.10 visibility impacts appear to be greater (worse visibility) under the proposed 

alternative for Mingo and Hercules Glades (p. 35 TSD for BART). 

Based on this comment, and similar comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the USEPA, the Illinois EPA and Dominion revised their original agreement to achieve 

greater reductions of SO2 at the Kincaid power plant. The original agreement between 

Dominion and the Illinois EPA required that SO2 emissions be reduced at Kincaid from the 

current rate of 0.46 lbs/mmBTU to a rate of 0.20 lbs/mmBTU by January 1, 2014, and to 

0.18 lbs/mmBTU by January 1, 2017. In subsequent discussions, Dominion agreed to 

further reduce SO2 emissions at the Kincaid plant to a rate of 0.15 lbs/mmBTU, which 

meets the presumptive BART emissions limit. Dominion has also agreed to meet the NOx 

emission rate of 0.07 lbs/mmBTU, in accordance with the original agreement with Illinois 

EPA. This emission rate is considerably more stringent than the presumptive BART 

emission limit of 0.10 lbs/mmBTU. The Illinois EPA has performed additional CALPUFF 

modeling to assess the visibility improvements of the revised agreement. The Illinois EPA’s 

modeling confirms that Dominion’s final control plan for the Kincaid facility will provide 

greater visibility improvements than the presumptive BART emission limits. The revised 

agreement and Illinois EPA’s modeling are described in Section 4.1.2.2 of the final 

Technical Support Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, AQPSTR 09-06, April 29, 2011. 

There is a typographical error on page 18 of the TSD for BART “CALPOST was used to 

determine the number of days at each receptor that have at least a 1% degradation in light 

extinction (1/Mm) over background conditions, which is equivalent to 0.5 deciviews 

degradation.” Degradation of 0.5 deciviews is approximately equivalent to five percent 

degradation in light extinction over background conditions.

The Illinois EPA agrees with this comment and has corrected the error.

We request that Illinois provide language in your SIP linking the Regional Haze and New Source 

Review programs, including continued FLM coordination between these programs. Currently 

there is no mechanism in the SIP to ensure that the emissions from new stationary sources or 

major modifications of existing sources will make reasonable progress toward the national 
19

visibility goal (40 CFR 51.307). This could be especially important for emissions from new 

sources that were not anticipated in 2018 emission inventories. Please describe how new and 

expanded sources of air emissions will be reviewed to ensure they don’t jeopardize reasonable 

progress goals set by Class I Areas owner states.

The Illinois EPA has amended the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for Illinois, 

AQPSTR 10-08, May 10, 2011, to address this issue. See, Section 8.2. The visibility 

impacts of such sources will remain under the purview of existing requirements under 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (―PSD‖). See, 40 C.F.R. § 52.21. The Illinois EPA 

administers the PSD program in Illinois under authority provided by Section 9.1 of the 

Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/9.1 (2010), and a delegation agreement with the 

USEPA authorizing Illinois to enforce the Federal PSD regulations. 

The reasonable progress analysis done by the MRPO determined that CAIR would be sufficient 

to achieve reasonable progress toward the visibility goals not that specific changes made by 

Illinois in your own State regulations would meet reasonable progress. Likewise, the MRPO 

analysis of CAIR does not address the effects of non-electrical generating units (non-EGUs). 

In the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for Illinois, AQPSTR 10-08 , May 10, 

2011, Figures 6.1 and 6.2 demonstrate that emissions from coal-fired electric generating 

units (―EGUs‖) under Illinois’ control program will be lower than would result from the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule in 2018 for both NOx and SO2. Section 7.0 of the SIP document

has been amended to include a summary of the analysis performed by EC/R Incorporated 

entitled ―Reasonable Progress for Class I Areas in the Northern Midwest – Factor

Analysis,‖ dated July 18, 2007. Pertaining to non-electric generating units, the final 

document includes Figure 7.1, which is a summary graphic of EC/R Incorporated data

from the Regional Air Quality Analysis for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze: Final 

Technical Support Document, April 25, 2008 (see, Appendix B to the Regional Haze TSD), 

that shows that potential visibility improvement from control in sectors other than EGUs is 

very small. 

Chapter 8 of the draft SIP does not address § 51.308 (d) (3) (ii):

“Where other States cause or contribute to impairment in a mandatory Class I Federal area, the 

State must demonstrate that it has included in its implementation plan all measures necessary to 

obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the progress goal for the area.”...

Section 8.0 of the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for Illinois, AQPSTR 10-08, 

May 10, 2011, has been amended to provide information on other sources that have the 

potential to cause or contribute to visibility impairment and control programs that apply to 

these sources. Also included is a list of ―on-the-books‖ control measures which are being 

implemented in Illinois that will provide emission reductions from other point sources, 

mobile sources, and area sources. All of these control programs, along with the electric 

generating unit controls under the Multi-Pollutant Standards and Combined Pollutant 
20

Standard under the Illinois Mercury Rule, 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 225, go beyond 

Reasonable Progress Goals and help provide for the Uniform Rate of Progress goals being 

met at Class I areas in the central and eastern United States.

The Forest Service would like to commend you for referencing the State’s interagency developed 

Smoke Management Plan. Referencing the plan allows it to remain flexible allowing the State to 

continue to improve smoke management techniques while working with land management 

agencies.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) informed the Illinois EPA that 

Appendix C to the draft Technical Support Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, AQPSTR 09-06, September 30, 2010, was not adequate for 

submission under the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. 

The Illinois EPA has added additional provisions to Appendix C, which includes the 

relevant provisions of the Illinois Mercury Rule, 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 225. Accordingly, 

the following bolded Sections and subsections under Subpart B of Part 225 are being 

submitted to the USEPA for approval (non-bolded provisions are included for context): 

Section 225.233(a), (b), (e), and (g) [except for the term ―mercury‖]; Section 225.291; 

Section 225.292(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e); Section 225.293(a), (b), and (c); Section 225.295(a), 

(b), (c), and (d); Section 225.296(a), (b), (c), and (e) [except for the term ―mercury‖]; and 

225.APPENDIX A. The USEPA has already approved Subparts A, C, D, and E of 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code Part 225. See, 40 CFR §52.720(c)(178) (2010).
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1021 NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST, P.O. Box 19506, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-9506 - (217) 782-21 13

217/782-2113

PAT QU1NN, GOVERNOR USA BONNETT, lNTERJM DIRECTOR

PERMITTEE

JOINT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING PERMIT

Kincaid Generation, LLC

Attn: C. J. Saladino

4 Miles West of Kincaid on Route 104

Kincaid, Illinois 62540

Application No.: 09050022

Appl)~_0_.<:~.,~.g.~si qna,!)_ on :

=""....• =: Control Program ror

DatE: Issued: J'une 24, 2011

~ocation: I'Cincaid Generating

1.0. No.: 021814AAB

PiiLe Received: May 6, 2009

Mitigation of Visibility impairment

StatioTI, West of Kincaid on Route 104

Permit is hereby granted to the above-designated Permittee to CONSTRUCT and

OPERATE an emissions control program for Kincaid Units 1 and 2 (the affected

units) for mitigation of visibility impairment, as described in the abovereferenced application. This Permit is subject to standard conditions attached

he.reto and the following special condition (s) :

1. Introduction

a. This permi-t approves an emission control program (Program) for the

affected units (i.e., Kincaid Units land 2, the two electrical

generating units at the Kincaid Generating Station) that addresses

the role of their emissions in visibility impairment and regional

haze, as is required for the affected units by the federal Clean

Air Act, Section 169A, Visibility Protection for Federal Class I

Areas. Under the Program, the Permittee will reduce emissions of

nitrogen oxides (NOx ) from the affected units by operating the

existing 8CR systems on the units on a year-round basis. The

Permittee will also reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (802) from

the affected units by installing flue gas desulfurization

technoloqy on the units. The affected units \.vill becorne subject

to stringent annual limits for their NO:,.; and S02 emission rates,

'which limits represent application of Best Available Retrofit

Technology (BART) to the units.

b. This Program generally reflects limits for the NOx and S02

emission rates of the affected units that are recognized as BART

in an agreement between the Illinois EPA and Dominion Energy

Services as the operator, and the Permittee, as the owner of the

Kincaid Station (coJ,.lectively "Dominion"), "Memorandum of

Understanding on NOx and S02 Emission Reductions Reflective of'

Best Available Retrofit Technology for Kincaid Units 1 and 2

between the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and

Dominion, II February 3, 2009. The final limit for 302 emissions is

more stringent than the limit in this agreement, being the result

of further discussions between Dominion and the Illinois EPA

following the public comment period held by the Illinois EPA on

the "Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for Illinois."
Page 2

c. This permit is federally enforceable, that is, it establishes

limits for the NOx and 502 emission rates of the affected units that

are directly enforceable and permanent and that are not contingent

upon commencement of construction by the Permittee of additional

flue gas desulfurization technology for the affected units. This

is because the new limits for the affected units are legally

required pursuant to Section 169A of the Clean Air Act and these

limits are practically enforceable. In addition, before this

permit was issued, a draft of this permit underwent a pub1.i.c

comment period.

2. Emission Reduction Requirements Under the Program

a. NOx Emission Reduction Requirements

Commencing March 1, 2013 and continuing thereafter, the annual

average NOx emission rate of the affected units, combined, shall

not exceed 0.07 pounds per million British thermal units (mmBtu).

This limit shall apply on a calendar year basis (i.e., for the

period from January 1st to December 31s·t of each year) except in

2013, when this limit shall apply for the period from March 1st

through December 31, 2013.

b. 802 Emission Reduction. Requirements

i. In the years 2014, 2015 and 2016, the annual average 302

emission rate of the affected units, combined, on a calendar

year basis, shall not exceed 0.20 pounds per million Btu.

ii. Commencing January 1, 2017 and continuing thereafter, the

annual average 802 emission rate of the affected units,

combined, on a- c'a'lendar year basis, shall not exceed 0.15

pounds per million Btu.

c. Compliance Methodology

Compliance with the limits in Conditions 2(a) and (b) shall be

determined by dividing the total amount of NOx or 802 emitted by the

affected units during the particular compliance period, in pounds,

by the fuel heat input into the affected units during the period,

in million Btu, using data for the emissions and heat input

collected under the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (or

any subsequent federal program addressing NOx and S02 emissions of

electrical generating units that is a successor to CAIR). NOx and

802 allowances under CAIR or any successor program shall not be

considered in determining compliance ,with these limits, provided

however that the transfer of such allowances associated with the

affected units is not restricted by this permit and nothing in this

permit shall be considered to prohibit or restrict the ability of

the Permittee or Dominion to sell, trade or transfer 802 or NOx

allowances of any vintage owned, allocated to or earned by the

affected units.
Page 3

3. Reporting Requirements under the Program

a. Progress Reports

For 2011, 2012 and 2013, the Permittee shall submit progress

reports to the Illinois EPA that describe activities that it

undertook during the year to prepare for complying with the limits

in Conditions 2(a) and (b). These progress reports shall be

submitted by April 30 of the year following the calendar year

addressed by the report.

b. Compliance Reports

Commencing with calendar year 2013 and continuing thereafter, the

Permittee shall submit annual compliance reports to the Illinois

EPA that provide the annual NOx and 802 emission rates of the

affected units, with supporting documentation, and address

compliance with the emission limits in Conditions 2(a) and (b).

These compliance reports shall be submitted by January 31 of the

year following the year or period addressed by the report.

4. Coordination with Other Applicable Requirements

a. This permit does not affect other applicable provisions and

requirements for the affected units, including the authorization to

operate the units generally provided by existing state operating

permits for the units and the requirements set forth in those permits.

b. The Permittee may operate the SCR systems on the affected units on

a year-round ba~;>is pursuant to this permit, until authorization for

such operation is provided in a CAAPP permit for the source. This

condition supersedes Conditions 1 and 6(b) of the attached Standard

Conditions for Construction/Development Permits, which are not

applicable to this permit.

c. The Permittee shall obtain a construction permit for installation

of the planned flue gas desulfurization equipment on the affected

units, which application shall address whether installation of such

equipment and ancillary operations would entail a modification of

the source.

If you have any questions on this permit, please contact Christopher Romaine

at 217/782-2113.

Edwin C. Bakowski, P.E.

Manager, Permit Section

Division of Air Pollution Control

ECB:CPR:psj

cc: Region 2

Date Signed: ~"'// ZU /1
STATE OF ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

P. O. BOX 19506

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794·9506

STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION/DEVELOPMENT PERMITS

ISSUED BY THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

------------··..1

The following conditions are applicable unless susperseded by special condition (8).

4. The permittee shall allow any duly authorized agent of the Agency upon the presentation of credentials, at

reasonable tirnes:

a. to enter the permittee's property where actual or potential effluent, emission or noise sources are located or

where any activity is to be conducted pursuant to this permit,

b. to have access to and to copy any records required to be kept under the terms and COnditions of this permit,

c. to inspect, including during any hours of operation of equipment constructed or operated under this permit,

such equipment and any equipment required to be kept, used, operated, calibrated and maintained under this

permit,

d. to obtain and remove samples of any discharge or emissions of pollutants, and

e. to enter and utilize any photographic, recording, testing, monitoring or other equipment for the purpose of

preserving, testing, monitoring, or recording a:qy activity, discharge, or emission authorized by this permit.

5. The issuance of this permit:

a. shall not be considered as in any manner affecting tbe title of the premises upon which the permitted

facilities are to be located,

b. does not release the permittee from any liability for damage to person or property caused by or resulting from

the construction, maintenance, or operation of the proposed facilities,

c. does not release the permittee from compliance with other applicable statutes and regulations of the United

States, of the State of Illinois, or witb applicable local laws, ordinances and regulations,

d. does not take into consideration or attest to the structural stability of any units or parts of the project, and

IL 532 -()226

APC 1136 Rev. 5/99 Printed on Recycled Paper 090--005
e. in no manner implies or suggests that the Agency (or its officers, agents or employees) assumes any liability,

directly or indirectly, for any loss due to damage, installation, maintenance, or operation of the proposed

equipment or facility.

6. a. Unless a joint construction/operation permit has been issued, a permit for operation shall be obtained from

the Agency before the equipment covered by this permit is placed into operation.

b. For purposes of shakedown and testing, unless otherwise specified hy a speelal permit coudition, the equipment covered under this permit may be operated for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days.

7. The Agency may file a complaint with the Board for modification, suspension or revocation of a permit:

a. upon discovery that the permit application contained misrepresentations, misinformation or false statements

or that all relevant facts were not disclosed, or

b. upon finding that any standard or special conditions have been violated, or

c. upon any violations of the Environmental Protection Act or any regulation effective thereunder as a result of

the construction or development authorized by this permit.

J
STATE OF ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DIVISION OF AI~' POLLUTION CONTROL

P:O. BOX '19506 ,

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-950~

STANDARD CONDITIONS

FOR

OPERATI~G PERMITS

May, 1993

The Illinois Envirorunental Protec;::tion. Act (Illinois Revised Sta'cuteBl Chapter

1039) 'g;rants thEf Environmental. Protection Agencyauthori ty to impose condi,tlons 'on

issues.

111-112,

permits

Section

which, it.

The following conditions are' applicable unless superseded by special permit conditions (s) .

1. The issuance' of this permit does not release the Permit'tee 'fr~m ,compliance 'with s'ta'te and

federal regulations which are part of the Illinois State Implementation 'Plan, as well 'a.'3 with

ot:her applicable .stables and regulations of the United States ,or the, State ,of Illiiw·is or with:

apPlicable lac'aT laws, ordinances and regu~ations.

2. The .Illinois EPA has' issued this permit based upon the information submitted by the, Permittee'

in the' permit applica'tion. Any misinformation,· false statemeri't or misrepte'sentation in the

application shall ,be grou.nd for revocat,ibn onder 35T.11. Adin. Code 2,Ol.16?"_··

3. a. The Permittee shall not authorize, cat}se, direct or allow- any modification, as defined in

35 Ill.: Adm. Code.20J..102, of equipment, operations or prac~i<;::eswhich are .refIce-te.d in

the p'e.tmit application as submi·tted unless a new application or request for revision of

the existihg~ permit is fiJ.ed with the 11linois EPA and unless a new permi.t or revision of

the exisU.ng permit (8) is issued, for such modification.

b. This permit only' covers emission

the indicated plan't location ($)

relocation! this permit is 'void

permitted location(s) or _if all

specified on the permit.

sources and control equipment while physically present at

Unless t.h'h permit: specifically provides for equipment

for 'an item of equipment on' 'the day 'it is removed from. the

equipment is removed, notwithstanding the ,expiration date

The Permittee shall allow any duly authorized agent of the Illinois EPA! upon the presentation

of credentials,- a't reasonable times;

a. To enter the Permittee! s property ',,;here actual or potential effluent, emiss,ion or noise

sources are located or where any activity is to be conducted pursuant to this permit;

b. To have access to and' to copy any records requ.ir:ed to be kept under the terms !;Ind

conditions O'f this permit;

c. To inspect~ including during any hours of operation o:f equipment consi:ructed or operated

under this permit, such equipment and any equipment required. to' be kept, used, operated,

calibrated and maintained u'ndcJ: this permit;

d. To obtain and remove samples of any discharge or emission of pollut::ant~; and

c. '1'0 enter and utilize any photographic! recording, testin~JI' mani.t.oring or o,ther equipment:

for the purpose of presf::rving test.lng, moni taring or recording, 'any activity, .discharge o.r

emission autho,riied by this perniit.

a. Shall not be considered as in' any manner affecting the title of'

the permitted facilit.ies are- lqcated;

'rhe issuance 0:[ this perm'it;

S32-0224

161 Rev. March, 2001

the premise." upon which I

I

.--------- J
r:-~--,--,~-c"-'-'_~__ __

b. Doe,s' ,jlO,t. release. the Pe.rmittee .from any liability for

bj-?r resulting from ,the co~struction, maintenance, or

";:,,."""~_._ .. damage- to person or property,_ 'C':iu$-ed

operation of ,th~ facili~ies;.

ag'ents; or

t·o '·da.ln~,ge,

.

c;.: Does, -no'tt'ake, into 'considera'tion or at'test to ~he structural stability of: -a!1Y' ~,rii't~ o( t,he project;' anq

d. ::;)n .ric;). manner implies or. suggests that the Illinois EPA (or its o.:eficers,

'.'emplo'yees) assumes any liabilitYr. directl.y or: indirectly, for .any loss du:e

in$.tal'lat,.1,<?Dy maintenance, or operation, of the proposed equipment or facility.,

B. The facilities cQvered'by this penrii.t s,hall be operated in such a mannE;:r that thedi$Pb'S<i1:'.of·,

. ai,r,. ,contaminants collected by the equipment shall no.t cause a violation of th~ Ehvironmdnt'al":

~ro~~ction Act or 'regulations promulgated thereunder.

7.

8.

9.

'J:'he Petinitte'eshall maintain all' equipment covered under this permit in such a manner', that .~he

perfoL\Uance of such equipment, shall no't cause a violation of the., Environmental Protection AQt

<?T rl3gulations' promulgated thereuner,.

The Permittee shall maintain a maipt.enance record on the premises, for each item", of air

pollution control equiptnent. This records shall be made available 'to any agent of the

Environmental Protection, Agency at anytime during normal working, hours and/or operating, hou'rs,'

As a minimum, this 'rec'ord shall show the dates o-f performance and nature of prev.enta,tive

maintenance aGtivities,~

No person shall cause or allow continued operation duriIlg malfunction, breakdo~n or startup of

ar.l;y erniss.ion· source or related air p611utiop control equipm.qnt iet such operation would cause a

viola,tion' of an: applicable emiss'ion standard Or permit, limitation. Sho1;i)..d a Inalfurict.ion~

breakdown dr· staXlt'u'p occur-- which results in e,missions in excess' of any applj,cable. standard or

pennit 'limitationv the· P13rmittee shall: '

a. Immediately report the incident to the Illinois EPA's. RegionaJ,- Fie~<;:l,

Qffic'e by telephone, telegraph, or other method 'as constitutes the

alternq t.1,ve; smd shall comply' with aTl rea's'onable directives of t,he

respect to the incident;

Operations Section

fastest· avaj,lable

Illinois EPAwifh

b. Haintain the following' records for a period of no less than t,ltJO (2) years:

i. Date and duration of rrialfunction, breakdown t or startup,

ii. Full and detailed explanation of the cause,

iii. Contaminants emitted and an es"tj.+nate of· quantity of ewissions,

iv. Measures taken to minimize the amount of emissions during the ma~function, breakdown

or startup, and

v. Measures taken to ;r:educefuture occurrences and frequency of incidents.

10. If the permit application contains a compliance program and projec't completion schedule, the

Pennittee sha'll submit a project completion status report wi thin thid::y {30'}' .days of any date

specified Lo. the compliance program and project comple,t'ion schedule or'·at six month intervals,

which'ever i,s ·nibre fr'e:quen~..

11. The

and

Permittee shall submit an Annual Emission Report as required by 35 I] 1. Adm. Code 201.302j 3~ I],l. Adm. Code Part 254_

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

28J.::,C
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1021 NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST, P.O. Box 19506, SPRJNGFJELD,ILUNOJS 62794-9506 - (217) 782-21 13

217/782-2113

PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR LISA BONNETT, INTER1M DIRECTOR

PERMITTEE

JOINT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING PERMIT

City Water, Light & Power, City of Springfield

l\ttn: P. J. Becker, Environmental Health & Safety

Municipal Center Complex

800 Monroe Street

Springfield, Illinois 62712

j1El'lication No.: 09090046 I.D.~:.: 167120AAO

:0J?..2.JiC2:~"nt/s De_sig.Q_ation: DatE:; Received: September 25, 2009

§~bi~c't: Emission Reduction Program for Visibility Impairment

1).a~t.e_.Issued: eTune 23, 2011

Location: 3100 Stevenson Drive, Springfield, Sangamon County

Permit is hereby granted to the above-designated Permittee to CONSTRUCT and

OPERATE an emissions control program for Dallman units 31 and 32 (the

affected Dallman units) and Lakeside Unit 8 (the affected Lakeside unit) for

mitigation of visibility impairment, as described in the above-referenced

application. This Permit is subject to standard conditions attached hereto

and the following special condition(s):

1. Introduction

a. i. This permit approves an emission control program (Program)

for the affected Dallman units (i.e., Dallman Units 31 and

32, the two older electrical generating units at the

Dallman Generating Station) that addresses the role of

their emissions in visibility impairment and regional haze,

as is required for the affected units by Section 169A of

the federal Clean Air Act, VisibiJity Protection for

Federal Class I Areas. Under: the Program, the Permittee

would reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx ) and sulfur

dioxide (S02) from the affected units by enhancing the

operation of the existing SCR system and flue gas

desulfurization equipment on the units. The affected units

would become subject to stringent annual limits that

represent application of Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART) for the NOx and S02 emission rates of the units.

ii. This Program reflects limits for the NOx and S02 emission

rates of the affected Dallman units that are recognized as

BART in an agreement between the Illinois EPA and City

Water, Light and Power, "Memorandum of Understanding on NOx

and S02 Emission Reductions Reflective of Best Available

Retrofit Technology for City Water, Light & Power Dallman

Units 31 and 32 and the Shutdown of Lakeside Unit 8 between

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and City of

Springfield, Office of Public Utilities," August 11, 2009.

PRJNTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Page 2

b. To address the role of the emissions of the affected Lakeside

unit (i.e., Lakeside Unit 8, the newer electrical generating unit

at the Lakeside Generating Station) in visibility impairment and

regional haze, this perrnit requires that this unit, which ceased

operation prior to August 2009, never resume operation.

c. This permit is federally enforceable, that is, it establishes

requi,rements that are directly enforceable and permanent and that

are not contingent upon commencement of construction by the

Permittee of additional emission control equipment for the

~ffected units. This is because the new requirements for the

affected units are legally required pursuant to Section 169A of

the C.lean Air Act and are practically enforceable. In addition,

before this permit was issued, a draft of this permit underwent a

public comment period, including an opportunity for a public

hearing.

2. Emission Reduction Requirements for the Affected Dallman Units

a. NOx Emission Reduction Requirements

i. In the years 2010 through 2014, the annual average NOx

emission rate of the affected Dallman units, combined, on a

calendar year basis, shall not exceed 0.14 pounds per

million British thermal units (mmBtu). This limit shall

apply on a calendar year basis, i.e., for the period from

January 1st to December 31st of each year.

ii. In the years 2015 and 2016, the annual average NOx emission

rate of the affected Dallman units, combined, on a calendar

year basis, shall not exceed 0.12 pounds per nunB'tu.

iii. Commencing January 1, 2017 and continuing thereafter, the

annual average NOx emission rate of the affected Dallman

units, combined, on a ca1endar year basis, shal1 not exceed

0.11 pounds per rrmBtu.

b. S02 Emission Reduction Requirements

i. In the years 2012, 2013 and 2014, the annual average 802

emission rate of the affected Dallman units, combined, on a

calendar year basis, shall not exceed 0.29 pounds per

mmBtu.

ii. In the years 2015 and 2016, the annual average S02 emission

rate of the affected Dallman units, combined, on a calendar

year basis, shall not exceed 0.25 pounds per mmBtu.

iii. Cormrrencing January 1, 2017 and continuing thereafter, the

annual average S02 emission rate of the affected Dallman

units, combined, on a calendar year basis, shall not exceed

0.23 pounds per mmBtu.
Page 3

c. Compliance Methodology

Compliance with the limits in Conditions 2(a) and (b) shall be

determined by dividing the total amount of NOx or 502 emitted by

the affected Dallman units during the particular compliance

period, in pounds, by the fuel heat input into the units during

the period, in million Btu, using data for the emissions and heat

input collected under the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR) (or any subsequent federal program addressing NOx and 302

emissions of electrical generating units that is a successor to

CAIR). NOx and 802 allowances under CAIR or any successor program

shall not be considered in determining compliance with these

limits, provided however that the transfer of such allowances

associated with the affected Dallman units is not restricted by

this permit and nothing in this permit shall be considered to

prohibit or restrict the ability of the Permittee or the City of

Springfield to sell, trade or transfer S02 or NOx allowances of

any vintage owned, allocated to or earned by the affected units.

3. Reporting Requirements under the Program

a. Progress Reports

The Permittee shall submit a progress report to the Illinois EPA

that describes activities that it has undertaken in preparation

for complying with the .limits in Conditions 2(b). This report

shall be submitted by April 30, 2012.

b. Compliance Reports

Commencing with calendar year 2010 and continuing thereafter, the

Permittee shall submit annual compliance reports to the Illinois

EPA that provide the annual NOx and 802 emission rates of the

affected Dallman units, with supporting documentation, and

address compliance with the emission limits in Conditions 2(a)

and (b), as applicable. These reports shall be submitted by

March 1 of the year following the calendar year addressed by the

report, except for the initial report, for 2010, which shall be

submitted by October 1, 2011.

4. Coordination with Other Applicable Requirements

a. This permit does not affect other applicable provisions and

requirements for the affected Dallman units, including the

authorization to operate the units generally provided by existing

state operating permits for the units and the .requirements set

forth in those permits.

b. The Permittee may operate the SCR systems on the affected DaLLman

units on a year-round basis pursuant to this permit, until

authorization for such operation is provided in a CAP~PP permit
Page 4

for the source. This condition supersedes Conditions 1 and 6(b)

of the attached Standard Conditions for Construction/Development

Permits, which are not applicable to this permit.

If you have any questions on this permit, please contact Christopher Romaine

at 217/782-2113.

Edwin C. Bakowski, P.E.

Manager, Permit Section

Division of Air Pollution Control

ECB:CPR:psj

Date Signed:-FZ3 I zo II

cc: Region 2

PJ Becker, CWLP, EH & S, 201 E. Lake Shore Dr., Springfield, IL 62712
STATE OF ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

P. O. BOX 19506

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOiS 62794·9506

STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR CONSTIWCTION/DEVELOPMENT PERMITS

ISSUED BY THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PHOTECTION AGENCY

The Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 111·1/2, Section 1039) authorizes the

Environmental Protection Agency to impose conditions on permits which it issues.

The following conditions are applicable unless susperseded by special condition(s).

1. Unless this permit has been extended or it has been voided by a newly issued permit, this permit will expire o"n

year from the date of issuance, unless a continuous program of construction or development on this project has

started by such time.

2. The construction or development covered by this permit shall be done in compliance with applicable provisions of

the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and Regulations adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

3. There shall be no deviations from the approved plans and specifications unless a written request for modification,

along with plans and specifications as required, shall have been submitted to the Agency and a supplemental

written permit issued.

4. The permittee shall allow any duly authorized agent of the Agency upon the presentation of credentials, at

reasonable times:

a. to enter the permittee's property where actual or potential effluent, emission or noise sources are located 01'

where any activity is to be conducted pursuant to this permit,

b. to have access to and to copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit,

c. to inspect, including during any hours of operation of equipment constructed or operated under this permit,

such equipment and any equipment required to be kept, used, operated, calibrated and maintained under this

permit,

d. to obtain and remove samples of any discharge or emissions of pollutants, and

e. to enter and utilize any photographic, recording, testing, m,onitoring or other equipment for the purpOBC of

preservhlg, testing, monitoring, or recording any activity, discharge, or emission authorized by this permit.

5. The issuance of this permit:

a. shall not be considered as in any manner affecting the title of the premises upon which the permitted

facilities are to be located,

b. does not release the permittee from any liability for damage to person or property caused by or resulting from

the construction, maintenance, or operation of the proposed facilities,

c, does not release the permittee from compliance with other appli.cable statutes and regulations of the United

States, of the State of Illinois, or with applicable local laws, ordinances and regulations,

d. doos not take into consi.deration or attest to the structural stability of any units or parts of the project, and

APC 166 Rev. 5/99 Printed on R'ecyded Paper 090·005
e. in no manner implies or suggests that the Agency (or its officers, agents or employees) assumes any liability,

directly or indirectly, for any loss due to damage, installation, maintenance, or operation of the proposed

equipment or facility.

6. a. Unless a joint construction/operation permit has been issued, a permit for operation shall be obtained from

the Agency before the equipment covered by this permit is placed into operation.

b. For purposes of shakedown and testing, unless otherwise specified by a special permit condition, the equip·

ment covered under this permit may be operated for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days.

7. The Agency may file a complaint with the Board for modification, suspension or revocation of a permit:

a. upon discovery that the permit application contained misrepresentations, misinformation or false statements

or that all relevant facts were not disclosed, or

b. upon finding that any standard or special conditions have been violated, or

c. upon any violations of the Environmental Protection Act or any regulation effective thereunder as a result of

the construction or development authorized by this permit.

I

._----------------------j
STATE OF I1JI,INOIS

ENVIRONMENTATJ pIWTEC'l'ION AGENCY

DIVISION DE' AIR' POLLOTIONCONTROI,

l?~O. Boxi9506 .:

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-95016

STANDARD CONDITIONS

FOR

OPERATING PERMITS

May, 1993

'The Illinois Environmental Protec;:tion, Act (Illinois Revised Statu'tes, Chapter. 111':"'1/2"

1039) 'gr:-ants the" Envirbrunental Protect:i.on Agency authority to impose condit'ions onpe.rmi,ts

issues.

The following conditions are' applicable unless superseded by special permi,t conditions (s) •

Section

which· it.

1. The issl.lance· of t,his permit does not x'elease the Permittee from ,compliance wit11 s't-ate and

feder:al regulations which are pa,r:t of the Illinois State Impleinenta'U.on 'Plan, as ',-jell as with

othe.r.: applicable statiIes and regulations of the United States ,or the sta'te of I1linois or with

applicablE~ loc'al laws, ordinances and regUlations.

2. The ,Illinois EPA has issued this permit based lipon the information submitted by the, Permittee

in the permit a'pplication. Any rrii:sinformation, false statemeri;t' or mL:-irepre'sentation in the

applicat,io'n shall be ground for revocation Hilder 35 "Ill. Ad.'u. Code ~Ol.16,6..

3. a." The Permittee shall not au'thorize, cause, direct or allow· any modification, as defined in

35 Ill. Adm. Code. 201.102;- of equipment, operations or pract:i'ces 'Nhlch are ref.lected in

the permit applic'ation as submitted unless' a new appli.cation or request for revision 0"-

the existJtlg pe'rm:lt is filed with the Illinois EPA and unless a new per'mit or ,revision of

the existing permit (s) is issued for such modif"icaU.on.

b. 'I'his per,mit only cdvers emission sources and "control equipment while physically present at

the indicated plant location~($). Unless th~ permi,t specifically provides for equipment.

relocation, this pe:rmi't is '\roid ['or an item of:- equiprilei1t on' the day ';Lt. is removed from the

permitted J.ocation(s) or if all equipment~ is removed, notwiths'l:anding the ,expiration date

specified on the permit.

4. The Permittee shaLL allow any duly authorized agent of the Illinois EPA, upon the present.ation

of credent.ials,- a't reasonable times:

a. To enter the Permittee 1 s property where actual or pot~ential effluent., emission or noise

sources are located or where any activity is to be conducted pursuant to this permit;

b. To have acceSS ·to and to copy any records required to be kept under the terms and

conditions o'f this permit;

c. '.t'o inspect~ including during any hours of operation of equipment const,ructed or oper:ated

unde'r this pe.l::-mit, such equipinent and any equipment required, to be kept, used, operated,

calib.r;:lt:ed and maintain,".'d under this permit;

d. To obtain and remove samples of any discha.rge ox: emission of pollutants; and

8. To er'l.ter and utilize any photographic,

for the purpose of pn"serving 1 testing,

emission authorized by 'this permit.

rec'ording, testing,. illonit,oring or o,ther equipment.

monitoring or r:ecording'any act::i.vityl' ,discharge or:

5. The issuance of this permit;

a. Shall not be conside:r:ed as in any manner affecting the title o:E the premises upon vlhich

the pexmitted facilities ax:e located;

:L 532-"0224

,PC 161 Rev. March, 2001
~-b~''~~-D~6~~-'",-~-'o-t-,,-~-e-lea;~-t-h-~-'-p-e-rm-i-t-t-e-e .t"~~ht--a-n-Y--l-i-a-b-I-'-l-i-ty io-,r-d-am--a-ge-'-t-~-p-e-r-s-on-,-o-':r--p-, .r-'dP-e-r-':t-y-.~,';8"4"~;:~di

b:y or resulting from the COllstruction, ma:intenanC8, or operation of the facilities;:

. ," ,:':", .

Co Does .nol:take. into 'consideration or at'test to the structural 'stability ot ·a~Y. unft:

of the t)rc)ject;' and

d . .In ·no manner implies or suggests that. the Illinois EPA (or its o:t;ficersr

','employees) assumes any liability, dire.ctly or indirectly, for any loss due·

i-nstal1at,i,0ri, maintenance, or operation, 6f the pJ:oposed equipment or facility".

6'. The. facil.i.t'ies covered by this permIt shall be operated in such a man,ner thai: the disposal'

air. contaminants, collected by the equipment shall not cause a violation of the Ehvironroeht'al:~:

Protpction Act or regulations promulgated thereunder.

7 'J,'he Permitt:eeshall main'tain all' equipment covered under this permit in $uc!J. a manner} that the

performance of such equipment, shall no't cause a violation of the:, Environmenta,.l Protectio'n: 'p.'ct

<?T i'egulations promul'gatf..:d- thereuner.

8. The Permittee shall maintain a main-tenance record on the premises for each" item of air

pollution control equii.)tnent. This records shall be made available to any agent of 'the

Errviro.nmerl'tal Protection Agency at' any time during normalworki/lg, tours and/or operating. hours.

As a minimum, this record shall show the dates of performance and na'ture of pr.~e\(erita,t.iw;

maintenance activi ties,;'

9. No person shall cause or allot<1 continv.ed operation during malfunction, breakdo~n or sta:ctup of

any e~ission' SOUrce or related air pollutiop control equipment if such operation would cause a

violation of an: applicable. emiss'ion standard or permit limitation. Sno\lld a 'Inalfuriction,

breakdown dr, stant'u'p occur'- wh.icch results in emissions in excess of any applj,cable_ standard or

permit 'limitation, the, Pennittee shall; .

a. IIflU1.ediat,ely report the incident to the Illinois EPA'.~ Regional E'ielq.

Office by telephone, telegraph, or other method as constitutes the

alternq;tive, i;md shall comply Hith all rea's'onable directive.s of the

respect to the incident;

Operations Section

fas,test' available

Illinois EPA with

b. Naintain the following recorcis for a period of no les,s than two (2) years:

i. Date and duration of malfunction, breakdown, or startup,

i1. Full and detailed explanation of the cause,

iii. Contaminants e,mit·ted and an est,i}nate of- quantity of e:rnissions,

iv. Measures taken to minimize the amount of emissions duririg the

or sta.rtup, and

malfunction, breakdO\in I

v. Measures taken to reduce _future occurrences and frequency of incidents.

10. If the permit application contains a compliance program and p:r:oject completion .schedule, the

Pe:uflittee sha'lJ. submit a project completion statu,s report within thirty (30) . days of any date I spc~i.fied. in the qompliarice progra.m and project -complet-ion schedule or--'cl't six month intervals,.

whichever ,is -nlore frequent -. , .' ".. I

11. The Permittee shall submit an Annual Emission Report ,as req,uired by 35 Ill. )\dm,', Code 201',"30..2.,'

and 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 25.4.

~------

2815-(;