Exhibit 1 

Excerpt from 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 

Appendix A "Air Sampling Network," 

40th Annual Air Quality Report (2010) 

Plus 

Map Depicting the Locations of Midwest Generation's 

Generating Stations vis-a-vis the Ambient Air Monitoring 

Stations Operated by the Agency 
APPENDIX A 

AIR SAMPLING NETWORK 

DESCRIPTION OF THE AJR SAMPLING NETWORK 

The Illinois air monitoring network is 

composed of instrumentation owned and 

operated by both the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency and by cooperating local 

agencies. This network has been designed to 

measure ambient air quality levels in the 

various lllinois Air Quality Control Regions 

(AQCR). Historically, each AQCR was 

classified on the basis of known air pollutant 

concentrations or, where these were not 

known, estimated air quality. A map of the 

AQCR's in Illinois and overlapping into 

surrounding states can be found at the end of 

this section. 

Many local agencies and volunteers cooperate 

and support the operation of the Jllinois air 

monitoring network. The network contains 

both continuous and intermittent instruments. 

The continuous instruments operate 

throughout the year, while noncontinuous 

instruments operate intermittently based on 

the schedule shown in Table Al. This is the 

official noncontinuous sampling schedule 

used by the lllinois EPA during 2010. 

The Illinois network is deployed along the 

lines described in the Illinois State 

Implementation Plan. An updated air 

monitoring plan is submitted to USEPA each 

year for review. In accordance with US EPA 

air quality monitoring requirements as set 

forth in Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 58 ( 40 CPR 58), five types 

of monitoring stations are used to collect 

ambient air data {SLAMS, NAMS, PAMS, 

SPMS and NCORE). The types of stations 

are distinguished from one another on the 

basis of the general monitoring objectives 

they are designed to meet. 

The SLAMS, NAMS, PAMS, SPMS and 

NCORE designations for the sites operated 

within the State of Illinois are provided in the 

Annual Network Plan 

( epa.state.il.us/air/monitoringlindex.html). 

All of the industrial sites are considered to be 

SPMS. Table A2 is a summary of the 

distribution of pollutants through the years 

along with total number of instruments and 

total number of sites. The Site Directory is 

listed in Table A3 and the Monitoring 

Directory is listed in Table A4. 

1. State/Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) Network - The SLAMS network is 

designed to meet a minimum of four basis monitoring objectives: 

2. 

a. To determine the highest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by 

the network. 

b. To determine representative concentrations in areas of high population density. 

c. To determine the air quality impact of significant sources or source categories. 

d. To determine general background concentration levels. 

National Air Monitoring Station (NAMS) Network - The NAMS network is a subset of 

stations selected from the SLAMS network with emphasis given to urban and multisource 

areas. The primary objectives of the NAMS network are: 

a. To measure expected maximum concentrations. 

29 
b. To me~ure concentrations in areas where poor air quality is combined with high population exposure. 

c. To provide data useable for the determination of national trends. 

d. To provide data necessary to allow the development of nationwide control strategies. 

3. Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station (P AMS) Network~ The P AMS network 

is required in serious, severe, and extreme ozone non-attainment areas to obtain detailed data 

for ozone, precursors (NOx and VOC), and meteorology. VOC and NOx sampling is 

required for the period June - August each year, Ozone sampling occurs during the ozone 

season, April - October. Network design is based on four monitoring types. In TIJinois 

PAMS are required in the Chicago metropolitan area only. 

a. Type 1 sites are located upwind of the non-attainment area and are located to measure 

background levels of ozone and precursors coming into the area 

b. Type 2 sites are located slightly downwind of the major source areas of ozone 

precursors. 

c. Type 3 sites are located at the area of maximum ozone concentrations. 

d. Type 4 sites are located at the domain edge of the non-attainment area and measure 

ozone and precursors leaving the area. 

4. Special Purpose Monitoring Station (SPMS) Network - Any monitoring site that is not a 

designated SLAMS or NAMS is considered a special purpose monitoring station. Some of 

the SPMS network objectives are as follows: 

5. 

a. To provide data as a supplement to stations used in developing local control strategies, 

including enforcement actions. 

b. To veritY the maintenance of ambient standards in areas not covered by the 

SLAMS/NAMS network. 

c. To provide data on noncriteria pollutants. 

National Core Station (NCore) Network - NCore is a multi pollutant network that 

integrates several advanced measurement systems. It is anticipated that each state operate at 

least one NCore site by 201 1 • In IJiinois, Northbrook and Bondville will be considered 

NCore sites. A few of the NCore network objectives are as follows: 

a. Support for development of emission strategies and accountability of emission strategy 

progress through tracking long-term trends of pollutants and their precursors. 

b. Support of long-term health assessments that contribute to review ofNational 

Standards. 

c. Support to scientific studies ranging across technological. health and atmospheric 

process disciplines. 

d. Support to ecosystem assessments recognizing that national air quality networks benefit 

ecosystems assessments. 

31 
TableAl 

2010 Noncontinuous Sampling Schedule 

JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH 

s M T w R F s 

1 1!:2~: 

3 4 5 6 7 ~ 9 

tO II 12 13 ,\00: 15 16 

17 18 19 ~0~ 21 22 23 

24 25 2~ 27 28 29 30 

s M T w R F s iz. ~S\ 2 3 4 5 6 

,'f."!ffi. 8 9 10 11 12 &w.l 

14 15 16 17 18 ~l!J1 20 

21 22 23 24 :· ~ 26 27 

28 

s M T w R F s 

I 2 15:3{1> 4 s 6 

7 8 l::t9P 10 II 12 13 

14 l.'t<S;} 16 17 18 19 20 r;~~~ 22 23 24 25 26 1~. 28 29 30 31 

31 

MAY 

APRIL s M T w R F s JUNE 

s M T w R F s I s M T w R F s 

1 ~ 3 ~ 3 4 s 6 7 m Wtf.~ 2 3 4 5 

4 s 6 7 t:it f,j 9 10 

11 12 13 1~~ IS 16 17 

18 19 :/20~ 21 22 23 24 

9 10 11 

12 ' 

:J~ IS 

16 17 18 19 21 22 

23 24 25 11/.ml 27 28 29 

6 !Wit:. 8 9 10 11 12 

r<·m 14 1.5 16 17 18 ~~~ 

20 21 22 23 24 ~~m: 26 

25 ~:26~ 27 28 29 30 30 31 I 27 28 29 30 

OCfOBER 

s M T w R F s 

1 2 

3 4 ~ 6 7 8 9 

10 [Wit~ 12 13 14 15 16 

1111

24 

~ 

25 

18 

26 

19 20 

27 28 

21 

~ 30 

31 

Every 6 Day Sampling Schedule 22 Every 3 Day Sampling Schedule 

JO 
TableA2 

DISTRIBUTION OF AIR MONITORING INSTRUMENTS 

2010 

Particulate Matter (PM2.s) 38 

PM2.s Air Quality Index 13 

PM2.s Speciation 5 

Particulate Matter (PM 1 o) 17 

Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 18 

Lead 18 

Continuous Mercury I 

Sulfur Dioxide 19 

Nitrogen Dioxide 7 

Ozone 36 

Carbon Dioxide I 

Carbon Monoxide 9 

Volatile Organic Compounds!foxics 2 

Wind Systems 18 

Solar Radiation 9 

Meteorological 3 

Total Instruments 214 

Total Sites 

There were a number of changes to the 

monitoring network from 2009 to 2010. New 

lead monitoring requirements as well as a new 

lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

were established in 2010. As a result of these 

new rules six new lead monitors were 

established and one lead monitor was 

discontinued. The six new sites are Chicago -

Perez Elementary, Sterling, Rockford, 

Bartonville, Mapleton and Decatur. The rural 

Nilwood lead monitor was discontinued. 

J2 

84 

2009 2008 2007 2006 

38 38 38 38 

13 13 13 12 

5 5 6 6 

17 17 17 19 

13 13 13 12 

13 13 13 13 

I 1 1 I 

19 20 20 21 

7 7 8 8 

36 36 37 37 

I I 1 1 

9 9 9 8 

2 2 4 4 

18 18 19 19 

9 9 9 9 

3 4 4 4 

204 206 212 212 

77 77 79 80 

Access was lost to both the Springfield and 

Champaign ozone sites. Replacement sites 

were being investigated. USEP A continues to 

review various criteria pollutant monitoring 

requirements. It is expected that a number of 

new monitors will be established in the state 

in the coming years. Upcoming changes wilJ 

affect ozone monitoring in 2012 and nitrogen 

dioxide and sulfur dioxide in 2013. 
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS 

85 - !Miqlon-Keokuk lnterltale (lora-filinois) 

66 - But CentralllliDois lnlrutale 

87 - lletropoliiAD cruca,o lntmtale (nlinols-llldiana) 

68 - lletropolHaD Dubuque lllimtale Oora-WiDOt-liJ:olllin) 

69 - lletropolitan Quad Cities lnlmtall (Utinois-lowa) 

?0 - lletropolitan Sl !Aula lolmtale (lllii!Ols-Yillouri) 

71 - North Central llliocil lnlrastale 

72 - Paduc:ah-f.airo lotmtate (Kentucky-lllin4!) 

TJ - Rockford-Juesville-BeloiL lnlmtllle (lllinois-lisconJin} 

74 - Southeast Dlinois lnlnatale 

75 - l~t Central illinois lnlrutale 

-

33 
.... ... .. " 

~ M'Uin ... lJ."tmU% .,JIIfl'lil03p&a'.PffiiWJ'4S Q -t JBKJfUtt IK'Il'ti.IU' tt'OOOt't ~ _.._..., AlD ~-10 II 

~tt WtmH _,,...,.,,....._,,..., .. ...,.,., • .,.1> 11 

anaott anMU> DIYMIU ~.,...,..,,..'""'""'" ~-Et"ttnSL IUWWf-OJl_' __ "' lit 

O!DrnutONift.Oit.-niS'II ---· ... ~ ll 

IIIOnWUl DO- SL'8W¥ ... --- u IJEOORUl ~ •'R'st.tl tPftPO.W.II't'~II!UIIIO It 

-Ut DIYUILIIO Wl.larl tUOP'>SOI~ .. D .. ,..,., 

ltDDmt'C OO'tJJC*n W'tDUit ttft&IJ.U't¥•~ " ., CJ11:1011T~ CD"IOSU.tt eJ"'lUK ltfiiUl YW ClnG'l 1S aR'J (£ 

GDm:£1: CD"'ACCI K..Utl ,oo.ps:AIIWtwfdiiOWtU'PUOUV u ~~DO- lf'KUn ,.IDI'IUOCIMIJOIIW lL 

Ol'IO!oiUl- GII'IIIISll 'fWIIJfiOI ..... """'Iuf~fl< Qt 

cmGIOUl CO'--LZf __,,...-y- Ill 

OtWIGll ~- ,..IPS.,.,•oweu'"'"" • OIZIIIDICI- CXI"RtL!ll ·-•MtdiiQlJOIOfiiiW a OJ'IGmllC011DMtt ...- ...,,_,_00 'It 

O't1CDU'l OO"tlJC»St GO'ti.SBa llffPIK' 1Wt't4 II~ ~ 

IIIJiiltUt ~ IQ"''IQQR fuJPniii.,UWI1Yf'ft ... It) I\ IKWiioWS; .. IDIIXfUt ~ WtlSW .. _,....,. ........ ..-s tl 

liOIItfU"I CIJ'tiOtltt OO'IUW lufp~ "'"'"""'" "'"JIIII llt•fii- II 

GIOOIIUl' OS'tUiltt ttWWl "-!PM '411'111< 'fl'l"d "'ijlv!JOS 

~ 

8IIIOtfU1 - IIIWULZ ,_,....,,..,,_" PI• .... JdS .. "00'~ fi'!Raf 11-ij-... OIQ ...... __ &s 

tiiiiiiiiU'I OS- U'nllll IIIHAIDP'O- II 

cr:IOt'IOta 00~ WUJZCI IOOCPJ.WSUINI-o ~ ~ •...ot LS 

tlllllMll IW'IUIID M'~ 'f'H ........ ._. OS 

itODDU.l osa:uoct K'IJJUJ.t ,.,.~.,u·~ ts 

-.ut --o>IIDLt hfl'l"'~'~""""""''""'' ~ 

tciiDICUt 'cxralllft \l'tLKa f IICIJIQS ~ lllltf4 6 

_., ~ rNlfill .. 1Pifi'4CIIIOAID•IJO" n _, D01tntSt U'1llORt ,....,,.na...,.Jio t< 

llrlmTtr or-n._ ,..., ,.,......IKI""""" .. ~~--- J'tf0Jl~411-N • -.utDO_.,~ ,,._.,..,,...-~-""''"'"" • ICIIOIIUI 110'-tll"lttn'Jo -S-1<11_1"_ b 

IIIXNIJ.Lt- tniiM AJ._, ..... .,._.fi!W'W ,. ....,_. DIYUifl~ U-LU fi'IIMO!O!ItOJ,jl<41ffUl .. -SUI~ l!'ttLSR JOII"!V.OI •Z .. I'IYf_OO_ .. -~~~~~-~~- ~'HJOJIJfttfOJlvr.l ...... llll IIAXIItUt DO'Hmtt lf'ftmf JlffOil \1.01 ,_ .. "--onzmtt lf._ -AiolWOIIJfD-I'I"Ii\ '1' __ .. 10 ,. JCIIDUDa OOUIU~ II'WE"D luytttfii..,...,~Wf'W •II'~ 

UD1.AOll ~ traKil YD..Ueww!OSMStlfii'IUOI 

laliDt,t ft"ftZZttt Zf."Mtl.D YOpi'K: .. IIMI·J~CIII:JN) 

ZZDIIAII<t •'lflst.to Qt'fU.It -nl ...... lf'IM-1'1> 

~ U-DO'l'ltOSO .... I'OIOAif'J''I"''l-l<o 

II)Otllll<t w- DO.,..... . ..,..,.....,,., 

tsD0-1 ZZ-- ..,,..,S ..... P!OyluJJdsolo>t'l) O!Ditllll.t ~•t~a ttWRSt .. ,..,s.,,..,._.,.,I'O ZSIIIIUDlt I0'1IIImt ~ 1 .. k1VO!IO'IIUJIIOM'I1""i:Oir:>t<O 

.......,! .,._ ll'llllttt '"WI,.. Y0-,10 

l'tiOOUDCt D'llWOt' K"KZU't Je111101 'lllv.\ .._,.II) UODIIDlT U-ll- 11Jf1dJIIOMOUJI"'r-l<o 

SLDOICI<t wut!Dt ·- Ql ......,...,,.., 

fllllllllll4«-- -·-""".,_""' D!IIOIIDl"l wzun• ._ ·~",., •• ,...,"" 

IIUIIDlT ,._ tnnrD 

"'"'Silt u-.-.. WOIUZ> 

tomlll£l ll-on!fiiO liDOOa ,._ tll-

'lllltllllam_SII_ 

'""''""Lt -·--~ til..,_ m·ann .. -· ... -.. wtWtt> 

flOUaltt "'-lf'Ltat 

lliOKICILl \OimiXt tO'Dn• Zli-tt"'Rl.t,. ~· 

EUIOaUT.-UIIlO'Ial.LtOl'llfii.O<IoIIIICtiDCt ··-t:rati>Ot IIIXIAIIn ~ ot'tl.DH( 

-<tlil'~srt­

_,,......_,._ .. !IIOtlllla 

IIIOOIIIDila·~~ - ~ 

IOOO'Itut ft'O'll~ 8"'aatta ncuout ... _ U'WI!OO 

llllniDCt sn.mt ... WIM -lfl_O'I_ 

Jaa}Qiflr t4DOIIII<t --OIDQ)i "-CIIIOCXlll 

fiM"PSAJa'*AIID AMig ~.-~ftS 

J .... l.l V4JI ~ Jtlf'PS 

.WW Jf'tiiM lfOOJqlfUOM 

'f'H '""""'"''""- ...... _,PI'I IIJfPH .. IJN:l __ .........., 

.,...,la~(J]UMUO)~ ..... ,.. ... "''JQ_III<J __ 

IJIH dttu.l\ dWfWliO.L woAl 

wft~.~.DVf uoa.q, •n ..Mfi&U.VIIJIUIOW., 

JMMUIIIU.IetaJtt"ltof 

fOOIPS"'"""''IJ.,fiiiJ"d JOtfGI 

Ull~luf®ll'lr4JMM uotwt.q 

fOO'PS.lafUfll'l'l"flo 

'S'H"""IIf""'"l"flo 

...."118"'11101' ....... ,..1'WNQ 

""""'.\IJiqnOJIOO 

~Jt.l.t VRA .,&JD '$'H"""'AJr.> 

~,..._.CUMAUOlpoo.4lPft4 ni_D,...,.. ... ~~~~lt1JI:IJ.t&IGI"'V 

-drflfAd"'y -

00 

« 

• .. 

tE 

..: 

K 

tt 

a 

u 

"' Ill 

IZ 

a 

9l 

R 

a 

u 

Ol 

fl 

n 

tt 

tl 

Sl 

.. 

n 

ll 

rr 

at 

0 

01 

SDO!J8JO'] 3J!S 2ID!-JOJJDO:W .I!V 3pJM3JBJS 

i:r( 
AQSID County City 

17-001-0007 Adams Quincy 

1Hl19-1001 Champaign Bondville 

17-019-0004 Champaign Champaign 

17-031-0001 Cook Alsip 

17-031-2001 Cook Blue Island 

17-03Hl060 Cook Chicago 

17-031-0026 Cook Chicago 

17-031-0076 Cook Chicago 

17-031-0063 Cook Chicago 

17-031-0072 Cook Chicago 

17-031-0052 Cook Chicago 

17-031-0110 Cook Chicago 

17-031-0050 Cook Chicago 

17-031-0032 Cook Chicago 

17-031-0057 Cook Chicago 

17-031-1003 Cook Chicago 

17-031~064 Cook Chicago 

17-031-0022 Cook Chicago 

17-031-0042 Cook Chicago 

17-031-4002 Cook Cicero 

17-031-6005 Cook Cicero 

17-031-4007 Cook Des Plaines 

Table A3 

2010 Site Directory 

Addme 

John Wood Comm. College 

1301 South ~ St. 

State Walllr Survey 

Township Rd. 500 E. 

BookerT. Wash. Elem Sch. 

606 E. Grove 

VIllage a.rage 

4500 W. 123rd St. 

Eisenhower High School 

12700 Sacramento 

Carver High School 

13100 s. Doty 

Cermak Pump SlaUon 

735 w. Hamson 

Com Ed Maintenance Bldg. 

7801 Lawndale 

CTA Building 

320 S. Franklin 

Jardine Water Plant 

1000 E. Ohio 

Mayfair Pump staUon 

4850 Wdeon Ave. 

Perez Elementary School 

1241 19th St 

Southeaet Pollee Station 

1 03rd & Luall11 

South Walllr Filtration Plant 

3300 E. Cheltenham Pl. 

Springfield Pump Station 

17 45 N. Sprlngfteld Ave. 

Taft High School 

6545 W. Hur1bu1 St 

University of Chicago 

5720 s. Ellis Ave. 

Waahlng1on High School 

3535 E. 114th St. 

Willis Tower 

Wacker 111 Adams 

Cook County Trailer 

1820 S. 61at Ave 

Liberty School 

13th St & 50th Ave. 

Regional Office Building 

9511 w. Hamson St 

CBSA/MSA/Area Latitude Owner / 

ReprNenled Longitude Operator 

Quincy, IL-MO •39.91540937 IL EPA ·91.33586832 

Champaign-Urbana, +40.06224171 IL 

IL -88.37254916 EPA/SWS 

Champaign-Urbana, +40.1237982 

IL ·88.22953098 ILEPA 

Chicago-Naperville- +41.6709919 Michigan City, I L-IN- CCDEC 

WI -87.7324569 

Chicago-Naperville- +41.66210943 Michigan City, I L-IN- CCDEC 

WI -87.69646852 

Chlcago-Napervtlle- +41.65651756 Michigan City, IL-IN- CCDEC 

WI -87.56957389 

Chicago-Naperville- +41 .87372041 Michigan City, I L-IN- -87.64532569 CCDEC 

WI 

Chicago-Naperville- +41.75139998 Michigan City, IL-IN- -87.71348815 CCDEC 

WI 

Chicago-Naperville- +41.877628 Michigan City, I L-IN· -87.63!5027 ILEPA 

WI 

Chicago-NapeiVIIIe- +41.89581227 Michigan City, IL-IN- -87.60768329 ILEPA 

Wl 

Chlcago-NapeiVIIIe- +41 .98548483 Michigan City, IL·IN- -87.74992806 CCOEC 

WI 

H.G. Kramer +41.855917 CCDEC -87.656419 

Chlcago-Napervtlle- +41.707569S9 Michigan City, IL-IN· -87.56857386 CCDEC 

WI 

Chlcago-Napervtlle- +41.75583241 Michigan City, IL-IN- -87.54534967 CCDEC 

WI 

Chicago-Naperville- +41.91286212 Michigan City, IL-IN- -87.72272345 CCDEC 

WI 

Chicago-Naperville- +41.98433233 Michigan City. I L-IN- -87.7920017 CCDEC 

WI 

Chicago-Naperville- +41.79078688 MIChigan City. I L-IN- -87.60164649 CCDEC 

WI 

Chicago-NapeiVIIIe- +41.68716544 Michigan City, I L-IN- CCDEC 

WI -87.63931548 

Chicago-NapeiVIIIe- +41 .87898018 Michigan City, IL-IN- -87.63555553 ILEPA 

WI 

Chlcago-NapeiVIIJe... +41.85524313 Michigan City, I L-IN- -87.7524697 CCDEC 

WI 

Chicago-Naperville- +41.8&442642 Michigan Clty, IL-IN- -87.74890238 CCOEC 

Wl 

Chicago-Naperville· +42.08028469 Michigan City, IL-IN- -87.86322543 ILEPA 

WI 

35 
Table A3 

2 01 0 Site Directory 

AQSID County City Address CBSA f MSA I A1N Latitude Own&r/ 

Represented Longltud& Operator 

17 -{)31-7002 Cook Evanston Water Pumping Station ChicagcrNapervill&- +42.06185724 

531 E. Lincoln Michigan City, I L-IN- -87.67416716 ILEPA 

WI 

17 -()31-1601 Cook Lemont Cook County Trailer Chicago-Naperville- +41.66812034 

729 Houston Michigan City, IL-IN- -87.99056969 CCDEC 

WI 

17-()31-1 016 Cook Lyons VIllage Hall Chicago-Naperville- +41 .80116701 Township 50th St & Glencoe Michigan City, IL-IN- -87.8319447 IL EPA 

WI 

17-<>31-6003 Cook Maywood 4th District Court Building Chicago-Naperville- +41.87220166 

1500 Maybrook Dr Michigan City, I l-IN· CCDEC . 'NI -37.8261648 

17 -()31-6006 Cook Maywood 4th Dlstrlct Court Building Chicago-Naperville- +41.87289n Michigan Qty, IL-IN- CCDEC 1500 Maybrook Or. 'NI -87.82587249 

17-<l31-6004 Cook Maywood Com Ed Maintenance Chicago-Naperville- +41 .87211684 

1505 S. First Ave Michigan Qty, IL-IN- -87.82908025 CCDEC 

WI 

17-()31-1901 Cook Midlothian Breman High School Chicago-Naperville- +41.61503786 Michigan City, I L-IN- CCOEC 15205 Crawford Ave WI -87.71566004 

17 -()31-4201 Cook Northbrook Northbrook Water Plant Chicago-Naperville- +42.13999619 

760 Dundee Rd. Michigan City. ll-IN- -87.79922692 ll EPA 

WI 

17-<>31-3103 Cook Schiller Park !EPA Tnsller Chicago-Naperville- +41.96519348 

4743 Mannhelm Rd. Michigan City, IL-IN- -87.87626473 ILEPA 

Wl 

17..031-3301 Cook Summit Graves Elementary School Chicago-Naperville- +41.78276601 Michigan City, I l-IN- CCDEC 60th St. & 74th Ave. Wl -87.80537679 

Morton Arboretum Chicago-Naperville- +41.81304939 17 -<>43-8001 DuPage Llale Route 53 Michigan City, I L-IN- -88.0728269 IL EPA 

WI 

City Hall Chicago-Naperville- +41. n1o1o94 17 -<>43-4002 DuPage Nl pervill& 400 s . Eagle St. Michigan City, IL-IN- -88 15253385 IL EPA 

WI 

17-<>49-1001 Effingham Efftngham Centnsl Junior High School Efftngham, IL +39.06715932 IL EPA Route 45 South -88.54693401 

17-065-0002 Hamilton Knight Prairie Ten Mile Cree DNR Office Mt. Vernon, IL +38.08215516 ILEPA State Route 14 -88.6249434 

17.077 -()004 Jackson Carbondale Maintenance BuDding Carbondale. IL +37.72308571 IL 

607 E. Collage -89.20928881 EPA/SIU 

17-()83-1001 Jerseyville Jerseyville llllnl Junior High School St. Loula, MO-IL +39.11 053947 IL EPA Uberty Sl & County Rd. -90.32<J07966 

Health Department Chicago-Naperville- +41.78471651 17 -()89-0007 Kane Aurora 12-iO N. Highland Michigan Qty, IL-IN- -66.32937361 IL EPA 

WI 

Larsen Junior High School Chicago-Naperville- +42.04914n6 17 -()89-{)005 Kane Elgin 665 Dundee Rd. Michigan City, !L-IN- -88.27302929 ILEPA 

WI 

McKinley School Chicago-Napervill&- +.2.050403 17 -()69-{)003 Kane Elgin 258 Lovell St. Michigan City, IL-IN- -88.28001471 IL EPA 

WI 

North Fire Statlon Chicago-Naperville- +42.3867058 

17-097-1002 lake Waukegan Golf & Jacklon Sta. Michigan City, IL-IN- -67.84140622 IL EPA 

WI 

Cemp Logan ChlcagcrNaperville- +42.4675733 

17-()97-1007 Lake Zion llllnoll Beach State Park Michigan City, IL-IN- -87.81004705 !L EPA 

WI 

17..099-0007 La Salle Oglesby 308 Portland Ave. Ottawa-Streator. ll +41 .29301454 ILEPA -89.04942498 

36 
Table A3 

2010 Site Directory 

AQSID County City Add111U CBSA/MSA/AnNI Latitude Owner/ 

Represented Longitude Operator 

17-115-0013 Macon Decatur IEPA Trailer 

Decatur,IL +39.86683389 2200 N. 22nd -88.921559445 ILEPA 

17-115-0110 Macon Decatur Mueller 

Mueller +39.8621542 

1226 E. Garfleld -88.940894 ILEPA 

17-117-0002 Macoupin Nilwood tEPA Trailer St. louis. MO-IL +39.39607533 Heaton & Dubois ILEPA ·89.60973892 

17-11~0008 Madl&on Alton Clara Barton Bementary School St. Louis, MO-IL ... 38.89018805 

409 Main St. IL EPA -90.14803114 

17-11~2009 Madison Alton StU Dental Clinic St. Louts, MO-IL +38.90308534 

1700 Annex St. ILEPA -90.1-4316803 

17-11~2007 Madison Edwardsville RAPS Trailer St. Louis, MO-IL •38.795235 

Poag Rd. -90.039756 ll ~ 

17-119-0010 Madison Granite City Air Products St. Louis, MO-IL +38.694-43831 

15th & Madison IL EPA -90.15395426 

17 11~1007 Madison Granite City Fire Station 11 St. Louts. MO-IL +38. 70453426 

23rd & Madison tL EPA -90.13987484 

17-119-0024 Madison Granite City Gateway Medical Center St. Louts, MO-IL +38.7006315 ILEPA 2100 Madison Ave. -90.14-476267 

11 11~1009 Madison Maryville Southwest Cable TV St. Louis, MO-IL +38.72657262 IL EPA 200 w. OMaton -89.95996251 

17-119-1010 Madison South Roxana South Ro.una Grade School St. Louis. MO-IL +38.82830334 

Michigan IL EPA St. -90.058-43262 

17-119-3007 Madison Wood River Water Treatment Plant St. Louis. MO-IL +38.86068947 ILEPA 54 N. Walcott -90.1 OS85111 

Cary Grow High SChool Chtcago-Napervtlte- +-42.22144166 17-111-0001 McHenry Cary 1 at St. & Three Oaka Rd. Michigan City, I L-IN- -88.24220734 IL EPA 

1M 

Normal ISU Physical Plant Bloomington- •-40.51873537 17-113-2003 Mclean ILEPA Main & Gregory Normal, tL -86.99689671 

Peoria Bartonville Pump Station Keyatone Steel & +40.653703 17-143-0110 ILEPA Sanitation Rd. Wlra -89.&43375 

Mapleton Rellldentlat Caterplller-Mapleton +40.582633 17-143-0210 Peoria ILEPA 9725 w. Wheeler Rd. Plant -89.747114 

Peoria City Office Building Peorta, tL +-40.897007 17-143-0037 Peoria ILEPA 613 N.E. Jefferson -89.!18-473722 

Peoria Commar~:ial Building Peoria, IL +40,70007197 17-143-0036 Peoria ILEPA 1006 N. University -89.81341375 

Peoria Fire Station t8 Peoria, IL +40.68742038 17-143-0024 Peoria ILEPA MacArthur & Hur1burt -89.60694277 

Peoria Heights High School Peorta,IL +40. 7 4560393 11-143-1001 Peoria Peoria Heights ILEPA 508 E. Glen Ave. -89.58586902 

IEPA Trailer Houston.IL +38.17627761 11-157-0001 Randolph Houston ILEPA Hickory Grow & Fallvlew -89.788-45862 

Rock Island A1'18nal Davenport-MoUne- +-41 .51472697 17-181-3002 Rock Island Rock Island ILEPA 32 Rodman Ave. Rock Island, tA-IL -90.5113!5028 

Agricultural Build lng Springfield, IL +39.83192087 11-167-0012 Sangamon Spnngfleld IL EPA State FairGrounds -89.64418359 

Blandco BuUdlng Springftlld, IL +39.64t5358 11·167-0013 Sangamon Springfield ILEPA 3050 Mayden Rd. -89.597457 

Federal Building Springfield, IL +39.7993092 17-167-0008 Sangamon Springfield ILEPA 8th St. & Monroe -89.64760789 

Public Health Warehouse Springfield, IL +39.64412188 17-167-0010 Sangamon Springfield ILEPA 2875 N. Dlrkaon PerX\Yay -89.60483919 

37 
Table A3 

2010 Site Directory 

AQSID County City Address C88A I MSA I Anta Latitude Owner/ 

Rop1"8Hnted Longitude Operator 

17-167..()006 Sangamon Springfield Sewage Treatment Plant Springfield, I L +39.80061377 IL EPA 3300 MechaniC$bUrg Rd. -89.59122532 

17-163-0010 St. Clair East St. Louis RAPS Trailer St. Louis, MO-IL +38.61203448 

13th & Tudor -90.16047663 ILEPA 

17-163-4001 St. Clair Swansea Village Maintenance Building St. Louts. MO-IL +38.52963143 ILEPA 1500 Caseyville Ave. -89.99284962 

17-179..()004 Tazewell Pekin Fire Station #3 Peoria, IL +40.55646017 

272 Derby -89.65402607 ILEPA 

17-185-0001 Wabash Mount Carmel Division St. Gibson County, IN- +38.397276 Indiana MI. Carmel. IL -87.773831 

17-185-1001 Wabash Rural Wabash South of State Route 1 Gibson County, IN- +38.369498 

County Wabash County, IL -87.634466 Indiana 

17-195..0110 Whiteside Sterling Sauk Medical Clinic Sterling Steal Co +41 .788383 ILEPA 705 Wast 3rd St. -89.706728 

Com Ed Training Center Chlcago-Neperville- +41 .22153707 17-197-1011 Will Braidwood 38400 S. Essex Rd. Michigan City, IL-IN- -88. 19096718 ILEPA 

WI 

Pe!llhing Elementary School Chicago-Naperville- +41.52688509 17-197-1002 Will Jo~et Midland & Campbell Sts. Michigan City. I L-IN- -88.11&47381 ILEPA 

WI 

Water Plant West Chicago-Naperville- +41.45996344 17-197..0013 Will Joliet Route 6 & Young Rd. Michigan City, IL-IN- -68.18201915 IL EPA 

WI 

17-201-2001 Winnebago Lo~~es Parll Maple Elementary School Rockford, IL ... 42.33498222 ILEPA 1405 Maple Ave. -89.0377748 

17-201..0011 Winnebago Rockford City Hall Rockford, IL +42.26767353 ILEPA 425 E. State -89.08785092 

17-201-0013 Wcnneba9o Rockford Health Department Rockford, ll +42.26308105 ILEPA 201 Division St. -89.09276716 

17-201..0110 Winnebago Rockford J. Rubin & Company Gunlta Corporation ... 42.240887 IL EPA I 305 Peoples Ave. -89.091487 

38 
Table A4 

2010 Monitoring Directory 

c 

0 .!I I 3 

City i I 0 i .. j 

<( J:i ~ f • V) 10 "! i A. J I: 0 i i Iii N g "0 N N .s s .... A. c: 0 0 i • 0 0 Ill i 0 • 0 0 A. A. A. A. Ill ... ... Ill 

AQSID 

17-001-0007 Quincy 

17-019-0004 Champaign 

17-019-1001 Bondville 

17-031-0001 Alsip 

17-031-0022 Chicago wasnng10n li;n School 

17-031-0026 Chicago Cam8lc Pump Slatlon 

17-031-0032 Chicago 

Soll1h- Filtlatlon 

17-031-0042 Chicago -•Tower 

17-031-0050 Chicago Soullnat Pollc:o stat ... 

17-031-0052 Chicago 

Mayfair Pump Slll1fon 

.-· . 17-031-0057 Chicago 

SPilnatltld Pumps~ 

17-031-0060 Chicago c.-Higll School 

17-031-0063 Chicago 

CT Allulldlng 

17-031-0064 Chicago UnMnitY of Clicago 

17-031-0072 Chicago Janllne Watar ~~ 

17-031-0076 

17-031-1003 

17-031-1 016 Lyons Township 

17..031-1601 Lemont 

17-031-1901 Midlothian 

39 
TableA4 

2010 Monitoring Directory 

s 

AQSID City l i e ~ 

~ 5 t I fl) f." 2 • .., .., .., i fl) 

I I: 0 5i l i N "CJ :; s § ! N 8 8 i ~ ~ I: 

z A. {: i l 

17-031-3103 SchiRer Park 

17-031-3301 Summit 

17 ..()31-4002 Cicero Cook County Tnoilor 

17-031~005 Cicero 

Uberty Scllooj 

17-031-4007 Des Plaines 

17-031-4201 Northbrook 1 

17-031~003 Maywood .~ Olrtrlc:ICour1 

17-031-6004 Ml ywood Com Ed Mill17-031~006 Maywood 

46 Olllncl Ccurt 

17-031-7002 Evaneton 

17.()43-4002 Naperville 

17~1 Liale 

17.()49-1001 Effingham 

17-065-0002 Knight Prairie 

17-077-0004 Carbondale 

17-083-1001 Jerseyville 

17-089-0003 Elgin McKiriloy Sdlool 

17-089-0005 Bgln l,.aiMn High Scl1oal 

17-089-0007 Aurora 

17-097-1002 Waukegan 

17-097-1007 Zion 

40 
Table A4 

2010 Monitoring Directory 

c 

AQSID City 

0 

= Jl 

.!1 ! ~ t C) 

~ l :1 J 0 rn .li e 0 ... i ... .. rn 

... i c g g .w II. .. 2 j ... ... 8 8 ~ i :1! 0 JC II. .I 

0 II. II. ~ ~ 0 II. II. rn rn 

17-111..0001 Cary 

17-113-2003 Normal 

17-115-0013 

17-117..0002 

17-119-0008 Alton Clara- Elementary 

17-119-2009 Alton SIU Oonlllt Qinlc: 

17-119-0010 Gnlnlfe City f>JJI'I'o<U:ta 

17-119-0024 Granite City ~JMediC:alc.ntllr 

17-119-1007 Gnlnlte City RroStallonf1 

17-119-1009 Maryville 

17-119-1010 South Roxana 

17-119-2007 Edward&IIUI& 

17-119-3007 Wood Rill8r 

17-143-0024 Peoria Rro StatiOn 18 

17-143-0036 Peon a Comnlei'CdllkMnQ 

17-143..0037 

17-143-0210 

17-143-1001 

17-157..()()01 

41 
Table A4 

2010 Monitoring Directory 

c: 

0 .. I 1 I i AQS ID City 

~ i j 

t 1i e • c:o .., i ID fl .. j c: i c-1 0 'U N a .! g f a ~ IL c: 8 8 l ~ "' i 0 z IL "' ... ... "' 

17-163-0010 East St Louis 

17-163-4001 SWansea 

17-167-0008 

17-167-0008 

17-167-0010 

17-167-0012 

17-167-0013 

17-179-0004 Pekin 

17-185-0001 Mount carmel 

17-186-1 001 Rural Wabash 

County 

17-195-0110 

17-197-0013 Joliet W•wPI..CWMI 

17-197-1002 Joliet 

Pnhlng El-.wy 

17-197-1011 Braidwood 

17-201-0011 Rockford 

Cll)' HaU 

17-201-0013 

42 
Statewide Air Monitoring Site Locations 

10 

- ><COOIO 'I'COClR> AIRSCOOE 

AlsipVl&I••Guaa• 439Q2:t..l4 46USCMCB lXDltl»l 

Avror,a Hulth Dt1Mrt11'Wn1 liSSZ&l4 4626129

.16 110MCIXJ7 

&h..w ~la'ld tJHRllower H.S. 44201..5

.51 46UA96.(8 110Jl2Wl 

BtJ\ctwood C.Omm m Malnr•tranc:. «1)111.37 4.56Cl\.1S 17l!T/lD11 

tary Glove H.S. 197ao.C9 457SU0.16 tnnaxn Ocaro lfPA Trailer 437Sl9.lG 463J977.22 l?OJlAOOl 

Cbro Uberty Sdloat G715l..Z1 4SC9kQ5. 

17CBUiOOS 

Dts Plaine-5 klkJMI Offkt &!.!Nelina ·~ 56 46.56197

.15 17C81ACXJ7 

flstn lMHn Junior H 5. J!MilSUii .u66017 29 11CWJCXXtS 

9 opn Mdlnl•y Sthool 3940741

.74 ~1£1..9 liU!KIXJ3 

10 hanS\On Watrr PumJrif'll SUdon 4411Ul.l2 46S61:57

.M 17Qll"la:G 

11 ~tt PtnNitl ~latySdloot <406a:S4.40 .t911:51.ZO 171J11CD2 

12 Jo4Wt WMtr PfJnt Wnt 40lll0.7l 4:i90(9l.J:J 17197t1Jl1 

u Lemont IE,A Ttailtf 417S31..c6 o46U4(8.(8 l'1m11S)l 

1< Usle Morton Arttot.tum 4UII!Jil.26 .c62954Z.!il 11DOii:IJ"l 

... lyont Township Vi1111p Haft UW11

.91 A6281S6.JO 11Qlltoui 

16 Mayv,cod 1.500 M.ybrool Orlv. Pldonn 411"42..4 4635917

.lS 1lQJ140)3 

17 ~ood Convn £0 ~nte~ 4Jll.J9.07 ~UUI? 171D16CXM ,. ""')'Wood 40'1 Olstrltt Court kllkii"C 4.3lMi6.96 46159M.C. 110ll~Cil& 

19 Mldlotamn Brtmt'n H.S. 440312.9S 4Wnn07 umu.Jcn 

"' H.tpervU!t City Hill t0tl09.07 462SOCf7 66 1700«02 

lJ Non:tlbtaot ~., Pl-.t 4..D9S3.2A ~78 111:81Qn 

21 Schllltr P'ut IEPAT,.I~r .4l7JI0.41 .t6C&2P.ll 110Jl..!W 

lJ Sornmlt Gravel Elem.ntary School 4DU4.91 ~10 11CBll301 

lA W~tpn Honh Fl~ Stltton 410740.20 <Ca!f1CI56.1l 17'C971C02 

2S ll<>n"-Pl.olon 433Atll.66 47'02013

.J7 170J7UI17 

26 Chkafo Carvtr H.S.. 4509U9ti 4611112.41 170Jl.CQ50 

" Oda,o Cermlli: Pwrnp Sbdon U6UO.I2 46J:Sil56,.7D lXXJltml'> 

l8 ChklcoCamm EO 4GI0.96 A.Ul•l1.l51 11'0:U001S 

" Chtca,o Jlfdlne Wltcr !'tint 449590.71 ~72 17GI1a17l 

lO Olk.ll;o Wtcfk. Tower 4otns9.:M ~0 17'Dl.UIDt2 

Jl Ch~CTA &ulld

lllf 447107.11 46l63&&.48 1XIJ1.0063 

1l CblucoSouth W~trftlrrmon '11m 6f1'02.17 4622*32.04 11'0:110;)12 

J3 Oltcaco SoufNHt Poll c. SoUon 452696.62 t617~1S 1700Uil50 

l< Chlaao5pri,..fd"'""'5utlcn 440001

.11 -.!2 170310057 

.. OIIQcoTilft H,S. 43o090.00 4641JG7

.41 11tU11003 

l6 ChiCifO Utltvln.ity of Chkilfo 45m11.00 4626726.D 17a.tuJ:l64 

17 Chlc::.fO WIShlnctof' H.S. 455116.10 461511198 170l.tcm2 

.. Chle310 Mlr'* Pump S~n .07159.12 46462l6.M 1J03UXIS2 

l9 Bond'llllt SW5 OtrNtt Statlotl lll917.63 44J44St.Q) 110191.001 

"' C¥bondlle ~nt.naru hildlna l05rl.AG _.177319.00 1101'71XXM 

41 Olam'*an Book« 

f . Wnhtntton tltl'hl'f'ltMV School lll52lU7 AOQU2.50 170tgg(Jf)l 

t2 o.rarur lfPA Tr~Utr 1»31:!,,. 441A7M.OO 17U5(J)U ., £flll",twn Ctfttt111unlor H.1. 1661XJQ.~ 4U:Sl6t.OO 1701!!1001 

.. Houston ltkhwittSitl 2 

· IEPA Ttallt' lSS74~S2 42l9049 ~ 111J1UI01 

.. lN,tlt Pf'llltlt TowmNp 1S7419.72 -'216ln

.oo 17'056(11)l 

.. MarvvUit SouthwHt Cable TV 242&&2.5S 429C59S.OO 171L911Xl1 

47 Mount c...rrtMI Olv~on Stmrl 411441.06 A2S01n.m t7l&Sa1Jt 

.. Run/ W•ba:sh County SOuth of Statt Rout• 1 4.27101.06 Wn4l.m 1711S1001 ., HUwood lE,A rralet 2SD.i.ll 06M91.50 17UXIX12 

50 HOill\d tStJ ~h)'Sic.al Pbnt l*l7.S.3 -"'71SS.SO 1711)2001 

Sl OJ'fstry lfP'A T..tlt'f 321401.11 csrnu.m t7C1J!IID71 

S2 ,.ctmCirvotnaauud

!rw 111616.2~ 4SOIJJ6.SO 111Al00l7 

"' Pttln fir. itldon 3 175274.31 ~.00 17179CI)OC 

" P~orla ComtnfrdJi BuUcflf11 1m<ll.50 4500748.50 171AlllO:ll 

S> ProNn,.st.at~ont m701

.ll .007llli.!O 17>03CIIIA 

56 PtOtla Ht¥rtl H S ZB1679.9C 4Sl.J7l.1.!0 l714.Uml 

~7 \.ciWS Pwtl Mlipte f1t1Mtlllf'(Sdlool llll21.41 46181.CO 172Dl1001 

" l!:odlfordOry Ka!l J2711L n 4611.50'. 50 172010011 

59 Rod'ford Wlnrwbq,o COullty tttlhh O.p,artm.nt 121!92.16 "61U0700 1720100U 

"' S911rtl•ld S.wap Tra~nt P'tant 1711Sil0l 44(11$4(l50 17161'0001 61 St:rnn ... ld P\lblk Htatlh W,nwhouN ID116.!tl 4413724..50 tru?OOlO 

62 Spt~ki lfllnofsAtf!C\Itrurt lkllld

in1 :Z?Jnt.OO 4"12..-g

.Q) 17167mU 

6J Spri,....Jdft-d•n~IBuJ~II'II Z7lll..U9 4CJillU.50 171£i1'fl001 

.. Sw•me• Vlllllt' MllnttMI'ICI' lkiHdln' 239012.01 t.lMI2&.DO 11'1S4001 

t;6 lhtUWwll'- Pump SCJrton 21&S15.00 45(8674.00 1714JOUO 

.. O.atur~lltr m•oo M10ll.m 11USOUO 

67 h\tpktoft ~lbr ptlfTt ID.t29.1Xl 44931)4.00 1714J021D 

.. ,l'rt-lDtrnt~tta~VSd'lool '6J41Q) ~lXI 

1JQI1011D 

.. Rockford 

I. Rubin ~d Comp1171 117444(1) &l?IG.J7JXI 172010110 

"' Steriln&Siut Ml'dlal dink 21'SOM.OO ~00 171950110 

71 AltOfl SnJ DenUI C.llnlc 14Tn4.S. 4l09XJQ.CXI 171l!J2CI:W 

n 1ttt0t1 a~ a.rtl'f! o.rnrntiiY School 74735&.56 4JOIMS&CO 1711900Cit 

7] EastSt Loui,AAPSTrajlfr 7412ll.. 41175~LCXI 1711il0010 

" £dwan:ftvtla. RA,,-s.Tr.lt.r 7S710U4 4J911XJ7

,CXI 11ll921XJ7 

75 61anttt-Ciryfht S<.ltton 1 7U727

.U '-2l7l7lJXI 17U91007 

" Gtlnl~ Oty Air PrOducU 141Sll.a 42161U

.SD U11!JCU10 

71 Rode ttllnd Anenrl 70?Hil!t. T5 c.s9DI6.00 17161liXI:2 

,. South AolfiN Gt'»chh School 'l!>SlSl.U 4301136.50 17119101.0 

79 Wood Rlwr W.c.rr TtutnMnt Pl•nt 1S2Ul

,U 4XIS295,00 l1UIJOD7 

Ill J.trs~yvHl• Ullnl Junior K.S. 1llJQ.OO 4l3.24Sl.SO 1i'OIJl(X)1 

II Q.nncy JoM WOOCI Comrru~hy Cofltte "m7

.44 4n969S.so 17mUIIJ7 

11 Gnftitl' Oty WtiW'Y Mltd~l 7&Un.U 42:f742'6.50 l7Utoo:U .. ,. ... _ 13 Sptn ... Jd Blanlko &Widh'IJ l77'CB6. n 44Uil5.M rn.67mll I I 

34 
Exhibit 2 

Table Listing the Air Permits Issued to Midwest Generation 
EXHIBIT2 

Relevant Permits Issued to Midwest Generation 

In addition to the permits listed below, each station has various state operating and/or construction permits for ancillary operations, 

including coal handling, coal processing, ash handling, and so forth. Additionally, Midwest Generation submitted applications to 

revise the CAAPP permits for each station to reflect the CAIR and other regulatory programs that have become applicable since the 

CAAPP permits were issued in September 2005. 

Ty~eof Permit/ Date of Issuance Descri~tion of the Permit Date of Am:!eal PCB Status of Stay of 

Permit A~~lication Docket Effectiveness 

Number Number 

Crawford I.D. No. 031600AIN 

operating 7030806 October 15, 2001 State operating permit for Unit 7 

operating 7030808 October 16, 200 I State operating permit for Unit 8 

CAAPP 95090076 September 29, 2005 CAAPP operating permit November 2, 2005 06-056 Granted a full stay 

February 16, 2006; current 

decision deadline: 

February 21, 20 l3 

construction 07050008 July 18, 2007 Permit to install a dry sorbent August 27,2007 08-019 Granted a partial stay 

injection system to control mercury September 20, 2007; 

emissions current decision deadline: 

February 21, 2013 

construction 10040023 April29, 2010 Permit to install SNCR on both units 

Acid Rain March 18, 2005 

Joliet ID No. 197809AAO 

operating 73030837 June 27,2001 State operating permit for Unit 6 

operating 73030838 January 2, 2001 State operating permit for Unit 7 

operating 73030839 October 10, 2001 State operating permit for Unit 8 

Exhibit 2- 1 
EXHIBIT2 

Relevant Permits Issued to Midwest Generation 

Type of Permit/ Date of Issuance Description of the Permit Date of Appeal PCB Status of Stay of 

Permit Application Docket Effectiveness 

Number Number 

CAAPP 95090046 September 29, 2005 CAAPP operating permit November 2, 2005 06-058 Granted a full stay 

February 16, 2006; current 

decision deadline: 

February 21, 2013 

construction 07060013 August 8, 2007 Permit to install a dry sorbent September 6, 2007 08-024 Granted a partial stay 

injection system to control mercury October 4, 2007; current 

emissions decision deadline: 

February 21,2013 

construction 09110025 January 28, 2010 Permit to install SNCR- Unit 6 

construction 10030062 March 31, 2010 Permit to install SNCR- Units 7 and 

8 

Acid Rain March 21,2005 

Powerton I.D. No. 179801AAA 

operating 76080033 September 4, 2001 State operating permit for Unit 5 

operating 82120068 September 10, 1993 State operating permit for Unit 6 

CAAPP 95090074 September 29,2005 CAAPP operating permit November 2, 2005 06-059 Granted a full stay 

February 16, 2006; current 

decision deadline: 

February 21, 2013 

construction 06120004 March 5, 2007 Permit to construct new air pollution April9, 2007 07-I 0 I Granted a partial stay 

control equipment for the coal bunkers December 6, 2007; current 

decision deadline: 

February 21, 2013 

construction 07060012 August 8, 2007 Permit to install a dry sorbent September 6, 2007 08-023 Granted a partial stay 

injection system to control mercury October 4, 2007; current 

emissions decision deadline: 

February 21, 20 13 

Exhibit 2-2 
EXHIBIT2 

Relevant Permits Issued to Midwest Generation 

Type of Permit/ Date of Issuance Description of the Permit Date of Appeal PCB Status of Stay of 

Permit Application Docket Effectiveness 

Number Number 

construction 10030003 March 1, 2010 Permit to install SNCR on both units 

construction 10120020 February 16, 2011 Permit to install Trona injection 

10120021 extension: system and upgrades on the ESP on 

February 6, 2012 UnitS 

construction 10120021 February 16, 2011 Permit to install Trona injection 

extension: system and upgrades on the ESP on 

February 6, 2012 Unit6 

Acid Rain March 21,2005 

Waukegan I.D. No. 097190AAC 

operating 75030155 November 8, 1999 State operating permit for Unit 7 

operating 73030831 October 11, 2000 State operation permit for Unit 8 

CAAPP 95090047 February 7, 2006 CAAPP operating permit February 13, 2006 06-146 Granted a full stay March 

13, 2006; current decision 

deadline: February 21, 

2013 

construction 07050007 July 19, 2007 Permit to install a dry sorbent August 27, 2007 08-020 Granted a partial stay 

injection system to control mercury September 20, 2007; 

emissions current decision deadline: 

February 21,2013 

construction 10090034 November 19,2010 Permit to install Trona injection 

extensions: system and to convert the ESP from 

March 28, 2012 hot-side to cold-side for Unit 7 

September 28, 2012 

Acid Rain March 21, 2005 

Exhibit2 -3 
EXHIBIT2 

Relevant Permits Issued to Midwest Generation 

Ty~eof Permit I Date of Issuance Descri~tion of the Permit Date of A~~eal PCB Status of Stay of 

Permit A~:mlication Docket Effectiveness 

Number Number 

Will County I.D. No. 197810AAK 

operating 73030972 March 8, 2002 State operating pennit for Unit 3 

operating 73030973 January 23, 2001 State operating pennit for Unit 4 

CAAPP 95090080 September 29, 2005 CAAPP operating pennit November 2, 2005 06-060 Granted a full stay 

February 16, 2006; current 

decision deadline: 

February21, 2013 

construction 06020009 March 3, 2006 Penn it to construct new air pollution April 7, 2006 06-156 Granted a partial stay July 

control equipment for the coal bunkers 20, 2006; current decision 

deadline: February 21, 

2013 

construction 07030069 June 15, 2007 Pennit to install soda ash dispensing July 20, 2007 08-009 Granted a partial stay 

equipment; soda ash helps to reduce August 23, 2007; current 

PM emissions decision deadline: 

February 21, 2013 

construction 07060011 August 8, 2007 Pennit to install a dry sorbent September 6, 2007 08-022 Granted a partial stay 

injection system to control mercury October 4, 2007; current 

emissions decision deadline: 

February 21,2013 

construction 10030034 April 16, 2010 Pennit to install an above-ground May 19,2010 10-098 Granted a partial stay June 

gasoline tank for fueling station 17, 20 I 0; current decision 

vehicles deadline: February 21, 

2013 

construction 10040022 April29, 2010 Pennit to install SNCR on both units 

Acid Rain March 21,2005 

Exhibit 2-4 
Exhibit 3 

Affidavit of Douglas McFarlan 

President, Midwest Generation, LLC 

Senior Vice-President, Public Affairs, Edison Mission Group 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PCB13-__ 

(Variance- Air) 

AFFIDAVIT OF DOUGLAS MCFARLAN 

I, DOUGLAS McFARLAN, having first been duly sworn upon oath, depose and state as 

follows: 

1. I am President of Midwest Generation, LLC. I am also Senior Vice President, 

Public Affairs, for Edison Mission Energy (''EME"), the indirect parent company of Midwest 

Generation. In that role, I am responsible for state and local government relations, 

environmental policy and compliance, media and community relations, executive and employee 

communications, and corporate contributions. I joined Midwest Generation in 1999 and became 

President of Midwest Generation in 2011. I am also a member of the Executive Managing 

Committee of EME . 

. 2. My duties and responsibilities at Midwest Generation include supervision of the 

Environmental Compliance group and oversight of environmental activities, such as the 

preparation of variance petitions with respect environmental rules. 

3. I submit this affidavit in support of Midwest Generation's request for a variance 

from the 111inois Combined Pollutant Standard ("CPS") sulfur dioxide ("S02") system-wide 

emission rate requirements in 2015 and 2016 and the CPS requirement to install and have 
operational flue gas desulfurization ("FGD") equipment at Waukegan Unit 8 by December 31, 

2014 (the "Variance Petition"). I participated in the development of the Variance Petition. 

4. Midwest Generation has demonstrated continuous improvement in the 

environmental perfonnance of its coal-fired stations since it acquired them in December 1999 

from CornEd (the "Stations"). Those efforts continue today and have resulted in a dramatic 

reduction of emissions at significant capital investment and increased ongoing operations and 

maintenance expense. 

5. Midwest Generation's emission control efforts started shortly after it acquired 

control of the Stations. During the period 2000 through 2004, Midwest Generation installed low 

nitrogen oxide (''NOx") burners and/or over-fired air to reduce NOx emissions at Powerton Unit 

5, Waukegan Units 6 and 7, Fisk Unit 19, Will County Units 1, 2 and 3, Crawford Units 7 and 8 

and Joliet Units 6, 7 and 8 and completed installation of such controls started by the prior owner 

at Waukegan Unit 8, Powerton Unit 6 and Will County Unit 4. 

6. After acquisition of the Stations Midwest Generation also used progressively 

lower sulfur coal to reduce S02 emissions. This voluntary practice started shortly after 

acquisition and has continued through the present. The result of this practice is that within two 

years of acquiring the Stations, the company had reduced its rate of sulfur dioxide emissions by 

35%, from.0.776 to 0.507 lb/mmBtu even though it was under no regulatory requirement to do 

so. By 2012 the S02 emission rate had been reduced by a total of 45% since acquisition to 0.426 

lb/mmBtu. 

7. In December 2007 Midwest Generation entered its coal-fired units into the CPS 

program, and its already significant emission control efforts increased. Midwest Generation's 

2 
CPS emission control <:fforts are described in more detail in Fred McCluskey's affidavit, but I 

mention some highlights below. 

8. Midwest Generation has installed Activated Carbon Injection ("ACI") systems at 

each of its operating coal-fl.red units and obtained strong mercury emission reduction results. In 

fact, the company helped pioneer the development of this technology with pilot projects at its 

Will County and Crawford Stations that were funded by U.S. Department of Energy grants in 

2006 and 2007. All ofMidwest Generation's operating coal-fired generating units have met CPS 

ACI injections standards, and all of the operating units except Waukegan 7 and Will County Unit 

3, which have hot side Electrostatic Precipitators ("ESPs"), are currently meeting the CPS 

emission rate for mercury and the emission rate in the federal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

even though neither of these rules would require compliance with such rates until 2015. 

Midwest Generation, however, has opted its Powerton Units 5 and 6, Will County Unit 4, Joliet 

Units 6, 7 and 8, and Waukegan Unit 8 into the CPS mercury emission rate program, more than 

two years prior to the time that the CPS mercury emission rate otherwise would have become 

applicable. 

9. Midwest Generation installed selective non catalytic reduction ("SNCR") systems 

on most of its operating coal-fired units in 2011, including the two units at the Crawford Station 

where generation ceased in August of2012, in order to meet Illinois-specific CPS limits on NOx 

emissions that took effett January 1, 2012. As a result, year-to-date through October 31, 2012, 

Midwest Generation has achieved a system-wide NOx emission rate of 0.099 lb/mmBtu, which 

is 10% better than the 2012 CPS limit ofO.ll lb/mmBtu. 

1 0. Midwest Generation has permitted and commenced physical on-site work for ESP 

upgrades and the Trona injection system installation at Powerton Unit 6. That work will allow 

3 
Midwest Generation to significantly reduce S02 emissions in order to meet system-wide CPS 

emission rate limits for SOz in 2013 and 2014, while also controlling particulate matter ("PM") 

emissions that would otherwise increase as a result of the new Trona S02 emission control 

system on the Powerton Unit 6. In addition, Midwest Generation currently plans to install a 

Trona injection system and ESP enhancements at Waukegan Unit 7 by December 31, 2014. This 

emission control work ~t Powerton Unit 6 and Waukegan Unit 7, together with some engineering 

and procurement of long lead material associated with controls related to other units, is expected 

to require capital expenditures of about $230 million in 2013 and 2014. Midwest Generation is 

planning this work regardless of this variance request, further demonstrating its commitment to 

compliance with the CPS. 

11. Finally, Midwest Generation has ceased operation of several older, less efficient 

units. Midwest Generation shut down its Will County Units 1 and 2 in 2010 and its Waukegan 

Unit 6 before the end of 2007, a total of 410 net megawatts that have been retired pursuant to 

requirements of the CPS. As an economic decision, Midwest Generation also ceased operation 

of the Fisk and Crawford coal-fired units, another 868 net megawatts, by August, 31, 2012, prior 

to the deadlines imposed by the recent Board order on Midwest Generation's prior variance 

petition related to the Waukegan 7 coal-fired unit. 

12. Midwest Generation has expended considerable resources on environmental 

perfonnance. Midwest Generation has made more than $170 million in capital expenditures on 

emission controls required to achieve CPS compliance. Prior to the CPS, Midwest Generation 

incurred more than $160 million in capital expenditures on other environmental improvement 

and compliance projects, including the early NOx control projects described above. Midwest 

Generation also incurs substantial operating costs in connection with its reduction of NOx and 

4 
mercury emissions for CPS compliance. Midwest Generation estimates that it will spend about 

$58 million for urea (SNCRNOx control) and ACI (mercury control) in 2012. Since 2008, the 

use of ACI has increased the company's operations and maintenance costs by $32 million to 

dispose of ash that can no longer be sold for beneficial re~use. Similarly, the use of urea has 

increased disposal costs by $3.2 million in 2012. 

13. As a result of the significant and costly emission control efforts and shutdown 

decisions mentioned above, Midwest Generation has substantially reduced emissions since 

acquiring the Stations. 

14. In the calendar year 2000, Midwest Generation's fleet of coal~fired units at the 

Stations emitted about 94,195 tons of SO:z, 72,283 tons of NOx, 6,552 tons of PM and 31.9 

million tons of COz. Calendar year 2012 emissions, annualized from emissions that occurred 

from January through September, 2012, are expected to be about 56,395 tons ofS02, 12,526 tons 

of NOx, 5,221 tons of PM and 26.9 million tons of C02. This equates to a 40% S02 emission 

reduction, an 83% NOx emission reduction, a 20% PM emission reduction and a 16% C02 

reduction over this period of slightly more than a decade. Significantly more S02 emission 

reductions will occur through the end of2019 under the CPS, and total 802 reductions through 

2019 will exceed projections when the CPS was adopted, even with approval of this variance. 

15. Midwest Generation's reduction of mercury emissions has been equally 

impressive. Mercury emissions have been reduced from 2,039 pounds in 2000 to 221 pounds in 

2012 (projected year-end based on actual emissions through September 30, 2012), an 89% 

reduction. 

16. Midwest Generation designed its CPS compliance plan to provide a cost-effective 

means to satisfy CPS requirements in careful coordination with the company's strategy to 

5 
comply with other recently promulgated or expected regulatory requirements that would also 

demand reductions with respect to the same types of emissions. In fact, a Memorandum of 

Understanding entered into with the Illinois EPA that resulted in the CPS rule states that "in 

developing rules, regulations or state implementation plans, designed to comply with current 

NAAQS, Illinois EPA, taking into account all emission reduction efforts and other appropriate 

factors, wi11 use best efforts to seek S02 and NOx . . . reductions from other sources before 

seeking additional reductions from Midwest Generation." At the time the CPS was adopted, 

these other requirements included the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule ("CAIR") that demanded 

significant S02 and NOx emission reductions through a cap-and trade program. Midwest 

Generation has also considered in connection with its CPS compliance plans the need to address 

other federal and state requirements, such as the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule ("CAMR"), 

visibility ("BART'') requirements and new National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS") 

for S02 emissions. Some of these federal requirements have been a moving target. The CAIR 

was remanded and replaced by the federal Cross State Air Pollution Rule ("CSAPR"), but the 

CSAPR, which imposed NOx and S02 emission requirements that would drive coal-fired power 

generating sources closer to the emissions levels required by the CPS, was then vacated by a 

court decision on August 21, 2012, which is subject to a rehearing petition. That court decision 

may or may not stand. The CAMR was vacated, only to be replaced with the new Utility 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule, now commonly referred to as the Mercury and 

Air Toxics Standards ("MATs"). The MATs rule will drive mercury and other Hazardous Air 

Pollutant emission reductions from coal-fired power plants starting in April of 2015, assuming 

the MATs survives a pending court challenge. 

6 
17. The uncertainty created by the constantly changing federal requirements has made 

planning much more difficult, and we have been required to constantly monitor such changes 

and revise our plans as necessary. Flexibility is an important element in our plans to comply 

with the CPS in light of the evolving and uncertain federal requirements. 

18. The changes in the federal requirements have resulted in the delay of federallymandated mercury emission reductions and additional S02 and NOx emission reductions, 

including in states that border Illinois and in the thirteen states across the Pennsylvania-JerseyMaryland ("PJM") Interconnection system in which Midwest Generation competes to sells its 

power. As a result, state rules, such as the CPS, that drive emission reductions only from Illinois 

source operators, impose costs on Illinois companies like Midwest Generation that are not 

imposed on power generators in most other states. The result is an uneven playing field between 

power generators in Illinois and our competitors in other states. That competitive disadvantage is 

exacerbated by the fact that Illinois is a deregulated state, and thus Midwest Generation is not 

able to recover its emission control costs through regulated rates. Instead, it must compete in the 

electricity market against those who are not required to comply with Illinois' rules. The federal 

requirements, subject to pending court challenges related to the MATs and the CSPAR, may be 

catching up with Illinois requirements. Until they do, however, the competitive disadvantage 

will continue. 

19. Despite its best efforts, and as described further in the Affidavit of William 

Petmecky, in light of its current financial condition and ongoing fmancial restructuring efforts of 

its indirect parent, EME, Midwest Generation needs additional time to perfonn about $21 0 in 

additional Trona injection and related control work that would be needed in 2013 and 2014 to 

meet the CPS 2015 and 2016 S02 system-wide rates and satisfy the CPS Waukegan Unit 8 FGD 

7 
requirement. Absent the requested variance relief, Midwest Generation would confront two 

possible compliance scenarios. First, Midwest Generation could be required to attempt to fund 

that additional $210 million at the same time that it expects to be funding over $230 million of 

control wor~ including for Powerton Unit 6 and Waukegan Unit 7, is suffering operating losses, 

needs to conserve cash, has limited if any access to funds from other parties and is attempting 

with EME to effectuate a significant financing restructuring. Second, as explained further by 

Fred McCluskey in his Affidavit, if that additional funding could not be obtained and absent the 

requested variance, very substantial and unsustainable generation curtailments would be required 

in 2015 and 2016 from several of Midwest Generation's coal-fired units. Either scenario would 

threaten the future of Midwest Generation and the Stations. 

20. The Midwest Generation fleet makes significant economic contributions to the 

state of Illinois and to the communities in which the fleet operates. As of October 31, 2012, 

Midwest Generation's plants and supporting operations based in Illinois collectively employed 

845 men and women, of which 539, or 64 percent, are represented by Local 15 of the 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. In calendar year 2011, the company provided 

for annual payroll and benefits totaling $145 million; paid over $100 million for contracted labor 

(nearly all skilled building and construction trades members) to perform special project work; 

spent $379 million to purchase goods and services from Illinois businesses, pay for various 

licenses and regulatory fees and support numerous Illinois-based organizations; and paid $4.7 

million in property taxes to local units of government in Will, Tazewell, Lake and Cook 

Counties. In addition, if Midwest Generation must curtail generation from some of its units 

because it cannot otherwise comply with the CPS 2015 and 2016 emission rates, its purchases of 

sorbent for mercury control will fall. In turn, this will deprive the state of sales tax and the 

8 
Agency of revenue to help support the Title V program specifically derived from the use tax on 

sorbent. 35 ILCS I 05/9. Reduced generation would also affect Retailers Occupation Taxes and 

Use Taxes paid on coal. 

21. To summarize, Midwest Generation has a strong track record of operating its 

Illinois Stations with a priority placed on environmental responsibility and compliance. Our 

record is one of continuous improvement and national leadership among existing coal-fired 

generating stations in achieving significant emission reductions. Especially noteworthy are the 

development and deployment of mercury emission control technology well ahead of national 

standards and investments to meet state~specific NOx limits that took effect in 2012. The 2011 

investment in NOx controls at our Crawford Station, only to cease operation of the station by the 

end of August 2012, provides clear evidence of the unforeseen economic circumstances now 

facing the company. This request for a variance is an option of last resort that is intended to 

enable the company to manage through exceptionally difficult and unforeseen economic 

circumstances and financial hardship. We have already complied with and are exceeding CPS 

requirements for both mercury and NOx emissions. We do not seek an extension of the CPS 

program for reducing S02 emissions in 2013 or 2014, or in 2017 or thereafter, but, rather, 

propose a "pause" in the decline of S02 emission rates in the middle of the program (2015-

20 16), accompanied by enforceable commitments to ensure that total 802 tons of emissions are 

less than projected under the CPS from 2013 through the period of the variance. By returning to 

the original CPS schedule in 2017, we also have ensured that the variance will not hamper 

Illinois' ability to comply with the BART rule for regional haze or the new, pending one-hour 

NAAQ8 for 802. 

9 
22. I have read the Variance Petition, and based upon my personal knowledge and 

belief the facts stated therein are true and correct. 

FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETH NOT. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me 

this_&__ day ofNovember, 2012. 

No Public 

10 
Exhibit 4 

Affidavit of William M. Petmecky III 

Vice President and Treasurer 

Edison Mission Energy 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

MIDWEST GENERATION, LLCWAUKEGAN GENERATING STATION, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PCB 13-

(Varhmce- Air) 

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM M. PETMECKY III 

I, William M. Petmecky III, having first been duly sworn upon oath, depose and state as 

follows: 

I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS 

1. My name is William M. "Tres" Petmecky III, and I am employed by Edison 

Mission Energy ("EME") as Vice President and Treasurer. I am responsible for treasury 

activities including corporate and project financing, financial planning and analysis, and cash 

management and treasury operations. EME is the indirect parent corporation of Midwest 

Generation, LLC ("Midwest Generation"). 

2. I earned Bachelor of Arts degrees in physics and economics from Southem 

Methodist University and a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of 

Southern California. I began my career twenty years ago as a consultant in the Public Utility 

Services Group of the firm then known as Pricewaterhouse. Subsequently, beginning in 1995, I 

have served in a variety of positions at Edison International, the parent company of EME, and 

Southern California Edison, which is another subsidiary of Edison International. I rose to the 

- I -
level of Director of Strategic Planning, Analysis & Corporate Finance at Edison International 

and, most recently, the Director of Risk Control at Southern California Edison, before assuming 

my current position. 

3. Midwest Generation has expended considerable resources to date in order to 

comply with the Combined Pollutant Standard ("CPS''), which is set for~h at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

§§ 225.291 through 225.299, and has achieved early compliance with several requirements. 

Midwest Generation's actions, achievements, and the resOlu·ces it has expended are explained in 

the Affidavit of Fred McCluskey. 

4. As of September 30, 2012, Midwest Generation estimated that the future cost of 

retrofitting all of its coal-fired generating units to comply with the CPS would be approximately 

$854 million. Midwest Generation is currently in the process of installing a Trona injection 

system for sulfur dioxide (802) emission control at Powerton Unit 6 and plans to install a Trona 

injection system and electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") enhancements at Waukegan Unit 7 by 

December 31, 2014. That control work is needed to assure compliance with the system-wide 

CPS S02 emission rate for 2013, to attain compliance with the 2014 CPS S02 rate, and to satisfy 

specific control requirements for Waukegan Unit 7. That work and continued engineering and 

procurement of long lead material associated with controls at additional units is expected to cost 

about $230 million in 2013 and 2014. However, Midwest Generation needs additional time to 

perform about $210 million in additional Trona injection and related control work that would be 

needed in 2013 and 2014 to meet the CPS 2015 and 2016 S02 system-wide rates and satisfy the 

CPS Waukegan Unit 8 flue gas desulfurization ("FGD") equipment requirement. As described 

in the Affidavit of Fred McCluskey, Midwest Generation would need to have funding for those 

additional controls no later than April 2013. 

-2-
5. EME has publicly disclosed that it is in formal negotiations with advisors to its 

bondholders regarding its financial condition since, based on current projections, EME is not 

expected to have sufficient liquidity to repay $500 million in debt that is due in June 2013. In 

light of the pending maturity, 2013 is an especially critical year. The financial conditions of 

Midwest Generation and its indirect parent EME have declined precipitously ove.- the last year. 

Consequently, Midwest Generation is not currently able to identify a viable source of funding for 

this additional control work in 2013 and 2014, and Midwest Generation needs time to work 

through the 11nancial issues. (This is not unlike constraints faced by other power generators, 

such as Ameren, which came before this Board earlier this year, or Exelon, which on its 

November 1, 2012, Q3 2012 Eam.ings Call (as reported in a Bloomberg transcript) stated that it 

"removed roughly $2.3 billion of growth capital from 2012 to 2015 capital plans of Exelon 

Generation ... which meaningfully improves [its] free cash flow over the period .... [and] is a 

matter of better aligning [the company's] growth capital spend with the expected timing of the 

power market recovery.") 

6. The purpose of my testimony is to explain Midwest Generation's cunent financial 

challenges, how those challenges have impacted Midwest Generation's ability to fund some of 

the control work needed in 2013 and 2014 to comply with the CPS S02 rates cunently scheduled 

to go into effect in 2015 and 2016 and to satisfy the CPS Waukegan 8 FGD requirement, and 

how the requested variance would assist with securing funding to satisfy the Waukegan 8 FGD 

requirement by May 31, 2015, and install all the necessary controls to comply with CPS S02 

rates in 2017 and thereafter and improve Midwest Generation's futllre prospects. 

- 3-
II. MIDWEST GENERATION LACKS THE OPERATING REVENUE TO INSTALL 

CONTROLS TO COMI>LY WITH THE CPS S02 RATES IN 2015 AND 2016 

7. Midwest Generation has been experiencing operating losses due to low realized 

energy and capacity prices, high fuel costs and low generation at plants. Forward market prices 

indicate that these trends are expected to continue in 2013 and 2014. As a result, Midwest 

Generation expects that it likely will incur an operating cash flow deficit and operating losses in 

those years. Forward energy prices and known capacity prices, however, indicate signs of a 

market recovery that could support a financial restructming and increased capital investment 

beyond 2014. Consequently, this petition proposes a "pause" in the rate of capital spending 

increases due to the CPS in 2013 and 2014, and a catch-up thereafter that returns emission rates 

to the original CPS schedule beginning in 2017 and ends the program on schedule in 2019. 

8. Whereas Midwest Generation had a net income of $87 million during the first 

!hree quarters of 2011, its income has declined by $150 million to a net loss of $63 million 

during the first three quarters of 2012. The decrease in eamings in 2012 as compared to the 

first three quarters of 2011 was primarily attributable to lower capacity and average realized 

energy prices, reduced generation and higher fuel prices. 

9. Midwest Generation has recently experienced lower capacity prices and revenues. 

Midwest Generation's capacity prices are set three years in advance and, as with its business in 

general, are impacted by market cycles. But even accounting for typical market cycling, the 

capacity prices and cotl'esponding anticipated revenues wiU fall to strikingly low levels in 2013. 

Midwest Generation experienced much better capacity revenues in prior years. In 2008, when 

Midwest Generation was relatively new to the PJM market, it achieved capacity revenues of 

$111 million. Its capacity revenues rose to $178 million in 2009 and $263 million in 2010, then 

declined to $244 million in 2011. In 20 12, the capacity prices dropped substantially and the 

-4-
capacity revenues are projected to reach only $97 million. The capacity prices drop even more 

in 2013, when Midwest Generation expects capacity revenues will total only $35 million, 

representing a decline of more than 85%-over $200 million-from the 2010 and 2011 

revenues. Fortunately, based on known increasing capacity prices beginning in June 2014 and 

continuing through May 2016 (the latest set capacity prices), Midwest Generation expects 

capacity revenues to increase in 20 14 to $141 million and to recover further in 2015 to $193 

million. 

I 0. Midwest Generation has also experienced reduced average realized energy prices. 

Midwest Generation's average realized energy prices (dollars per megawatt hotu·) have fallen 

every year since 2008 due lo weak demand and unprecedented exploration and production of 

shale gas that has caused steep reductions in the price of natural gas, which energy prices 

generally track. Market energy prices for the first nine months of20I2 were roughly 45% lower 

than for the first nine months of 2008. Reduced prices d1'ive down Midwest Generation's 

revenues. 

11. Because of the impact of lower average energy prices, Midwest Generation also 

has suffered a decrease in generation, further reducing revenues. Midwest Generation's reduced 

generation primarily resulted from lower economic dispatch. The abundance of low-priced 

natural gas has continued to result in increased competition from natural gas-fired generating 

units in the markets in which Midwest Generation operates, and generation has been 

correspondingly affected. 

12. In addition to the decrease in Midwest Generation's revenues, Midwest 

Generation has also experienced a recent increase in fuel costs. Midwest Generation's largest 

operating expense is its fuel cost, and a significant component of the fuel cost is the cost to 

- 5-
transporl coal to Midwest Generation's stations. Those costs significantly increased beginning 

January I, 20 I 2, when a favorable long-term rail contract expired and was replaced by a higher 

priced contract. All told, Midwest Generation's average delivered fuel cost (dollars per 

megawatt hour) has been approximately 60% higher during the first nine months of 2012 than 

during the same period in 2008. 

13. The impact Midwest Generation has already suffered from the decreased revenue 

and increased expenses is starkly seen in Midwest Generation's cash holdings. As of September 

30, 2012, Midwest Generation had cash and cash equivalents of $142 million. This balance 

represented a $71 million reduction from the $213 million it had just nine months earlier. 

I 4. Midwest Generation plans to continue to fund operating cash flow deficits 

through a combination of cash on hand, management of fuel inventories, defen·al of operations 

and maintenance expenses that are not essential to maintain safe operations, receipt of interest 

and principal repayment on notes receivable from EME, and equity contributions from EME. 

Midwest Generation is largely dependent on EME to fund cash flow deficits and environmental 

retrofits. EME, however, has no obligation to make capital contributions to Midwest Generation 

and may be unable to do so. Midwest Generation had $1.323 billion of notes receivable from 

EME as of September 30, 2012, with payments used to meet Midwest Generation's rent 

obligations under sale-leaseback agreements for Midwest Generationls Powerton and Joliet 

Stations. If Midwest Generation is unable to obtain financial support from EME or other 

sources, Midwest Generation may need to file for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. 

Bankmptcy Code) which contemplates that the pmty filing for bankruptcy will continue to 

operate through and after the bankruptcy process. 

-6-
15. ln order to install controls in 2013 and 2014 to comply with the CPS S02 rates in 

2015 and 2016, Midwest Generation would need to overcome its current revenue and expense 

challenges and receive additional contributions from other somces. Under current financial 

conditions, funding all environmental control work needed in 2013 and 2014 to comply with the 

cunent CPS Waukegan Unit 8 FGD deadline and the cunent CPS S02 rates in 2015 and 2016 

would be very difficult, if not impossible. 

III. OTHER FUNDING SOURCES 

EME 

16. Midwest Generation is largely dependent on EME to fund cash flow deficits and 

environmental retrofits. EME, however, is facing its own financial challenges that throw into 

question its ability to provide ftmding to Midwest Generation, including funding to install 

controls to comply with the CPS S02 rates in 2015 and 2016 and the Waukegan Unit 8 FGD 

deadline. 

17. As of September 30,2012, EME had $3.7 billion ofunsecmed notes outstanding, 

$500 million of which mature in June 2013. EME continues to experience operating losses, 

including the results of Midwest Generation, and EME expects that it will incur ftuther losses 

and reductions in cash flow in the current year and for some subsequent years. A continuation of . these adverse trends coupled with pending debt maturities and the need to retrofit Midwest 

Generation's plants to comply with governmental regulations is CUITently expected to exhaust 

EME's liquidity. Consequently, EME has been considering all options available to it, including 

potential sale of assets, restructuring, reorganization of its capital structure, or conservation of 

cash that would be applied otherwise to the payment of obligations. 

- 7-
I8. In June 2012, EME entered into non-disclosure and engagement agreements with 

advisors representing holders of a majority in principal amount of its tmsecured bonds for the 

purpose of engaging in discussions with such advisors and Edison Intemational regarding EME's 

financial condition. In October 20 I2, EME and Edison Intemational entered into non-disclosure 

agreements with certain of the clients of such advisors to facilitate further discussions. 

Discussions with the bondholders' advisors have been ongoing. In addition, EME and Midwest 

Generation have entered into a non-disclosure agreement with an advisor representing a majority 

in principal amount of Midwest Generation's senior lease obligation bonds. 

19. Based on cunent projections, EME is not expected to have sufficient liquidity to 

repay the $500 million debt obligation due in June 2013. On November 15, 20I2, $97 million in 

interest payments was due on unsecured EME bonds maturing in 2017, 2019 and 202 7. As 

disclosed in an 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, EME elected not to 

make that payment at this time. EME's unsecured bonds generally provide for a 30-day grace 

period for interest payments. EME has stated that failure to pay indebtedness under its unsecured 

bonds will likely result in EME's filing for protection under Chapter II of the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Code, which would trigger cross defaults under EME's guarantee of the lease obligations of 

Midwest Generation, as well as Midwest Generation's own obligations under the lease and under 

instruments goveming the senior lease obligation bonds. 

20. Accordingly, EME is unlikely to be able to provide funding to Midwest 

Generation to install in a timely basis the controls necessary to comply with the culTent CPS 

Waukegan Unit 8 FGD deadline and the current CPS S02 rates in 2015 and 2016. 
Edison International 

21. Edison International cul1'ently is not a potential source of funding for these 

controls. On May 2, 2012, Edison International's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 

delivered his first quarter 2012 financial teleconference. During that teleconference, he stated, "I 

reaffirm our commitment that we will not invest new funds into [Edison Mission Group] given 

the challenging market conditions." Midwest Generation is part of the Edison Mission Group. 

Tflird-Pal'ty Lenders 

22. Neither EME nor Midwest Generation currently has a line of credit available to 

finance the controls. EME previously had a line of credit that did not require cash as collateral; 

however, EME terminated that credit facility shortly before its expiration date. Prior to 

terminating the facility, EME detennined that the facility was effectively not able to be utilized. 

Cu11'ently, EME has a $100 million cash-backed letter of ct·edit facility. EME is required to post 

cash collateral in excess of the face amount of any letter of credit issued under this facility. This 

facility is only for the purpose of issuing letters of credit. It does not provide for cash 

borrowings and is not a potential funding source for the controls. 

23. Each company's ability to borrow money from third-party lenders is affected by 

its credit ratings. The attached chart (Table 4.1) summarizes EME's and Midwest Generation's 

corporate credit ratings and outlooks from S&P, Moody's and Fitch for the years 2008 through 

2012. Each of these agencies that rated EME or Midwest Generation as of2012 assigned them a 

non-investment grade "junk" status and identified the outlook, if any, as negative. Underscoring 

the companies' credit challenges, after the November interest payment was not made Fitch 

downgraded its Long-term Issuer Default rating and senior unsecured debt rating of each 

company to "C"-the lowest rating assigned to debt instruments in Fitch's rating scale. 

-9-
24. Unless and until EME reaches a resolution with its creditors to restructure its 

finances, or existing debts are addressed through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy process, it is 

extremely unlikely that any lender will provide the additional financing needed for the roughly 

$210 million in additional controls required to fully comply with the CPS S02 rates in 2015 and 

2016 and install the Waukegan 8 FGD by December 31, 2014. It is certainly possible that if 

EME effectuates a financial restructuring, such as through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection 

illing, upon emergence, Midwest Generation could obtain funding from a third-pmiy lender to 

install the controls. However, time is needed to work either of these processes through to a 

successful conclusion. In short, Midwest Generation does not anticipate any reasonable prospect 

of securing a loan from a third-pa1ty to install the additional controls for a year or longer. As 

described in the Affidavit of Fred McCluskey, such funding would be needed no later than April 

2013 in order for Midwest Generation to begin procurement work for the additional controls in 

time to comply with the CPS S02 rates for 2015 and 2016. 

IV. THE CURRENT FINANCIAL SITUTATION WAS NOT FORESEEN WHEN 

MIDWEST GENERATION OPTED INTO THE CPS AND MIDWEST 

GENERATION NEEDS TIME TO SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING 

25. Midwest Generation did not foresee the financial challenges it now faces when it 

opted into the CPS. 

26. Midwest Generation is a merchant power generator. As such, it competes with 

other power generators, including those in other states and utilizing other fuel sources, and its 

revenues are dictated by the marketplace. Its profitability is reliant upon market prices for 

power, the demand for power, and its capital costs and operating expenses. Midwest Generation 

reasonably did not expect the tsunami of challenges it currently faces-weak demand and 

depressed market prices reflected in capacity revenues in 2013 that are expected to fall at least 

- 10-
85% from the capacity revenues in 20 I 0 and 2011, and average market energy prices during the 

first three quarters of 2012 that are approximately 45% lower than during the same period in 

2008-just after Midwest Generation opted its coal-fired units into the CPS. On top of these 

setbacks, Midwest Generation's average as-delivered fuel costs have increased approximately 

60% from the first 3 quarters of2008 to the same period in 2012. These challenges and others 

are presented in more detail above. 

27. In summary, Midwest Generation's revenues have dramatically decreased while 

its costs have substantially increased, negatively impacting its ability to fund additional controls 

through cash flow. Midwest Generation's indirect parent, EME, is suffering from financial 

hardship that tlu·eatens its ability to repay debt owed to Midwest Generation, let alone to provide 

any additional funding for the installation of environmental controls. Midwest Generation's 

ultimate parent, Edison Intemational, has committed not to invest additional funds in Midwest 

Generation as a result of market conditions. In addition, tmtil debts owed by EME to creditors 

are addressed, either through an agreed restructming and/or through a banhuptcy process, 

Midwest Generation does not reasonably anticipate obtaining funding from third-party lenders 

for these controls. These conditions combine to create a much different economic reality than 

Midwest Generation anticipated when it opted these stations into the CPS in 2007 and cause 

Midwest Generation to seek more time to install additional controls required to comply with the 

CPS. 

28. If the requested variance is not granted, as discussed further in Fred McCluskey's 

affidavit, Midwest Generation would have only two potentially feasible options. It could hope 

that sufficient funds were somehow available to install the $210 million in additional control 

costs required starting in 2013, and if that did not occur it would be required to reduce power 

- I 1 -
generation from most of its fleet. As discussed in Doug McFarlan's affidavit, these are not 

viable business plans and would place undue additional risk on hundreds of Illinois jobs and 

hundreds of millions of dollars in positive impact in the state of lllinois through payroll and 

benefits, capital investments, purchases of goods and services, and state and local tax payments. 

29. Midwest Generation has not at this time been able to identify a source of funding 

for an additional $210 million in control costs starting in 2013 given cunent cash flow and debt 

issues. It needs time to work through restructuring issues with its parent company EME and 

creditors and also provide time for markets to recover. In the interim, it is imperative that 

Midwest Generation preserve the limited cash it has, to the extent it can in light of ongoing 

potential operational losses, to meet its obligations and to best situate itself as EME addresses its 

restructuring issues. Prior to that time, an expenditure of $21 0 million for controls (assuming 

such an expenditure could be made), in addition to the $230 million Midwest Generation plans to 

spend in 2013 and 2014 on CPS controls even if the variance is granted, would likely impair 

Midwest Generation's ability to satisfy its various obligations, restructure finances and obtain 

additional credit. In turn, that could threaten the future of Midwest Generation and its stations. 

30. Similarly, as explained in Fred McCluskey's affidavit, curtailing operations to 

comply with CPS requirements would result in substantial, unsustainable, curtailments, which 

could threaten the continued existence of Midwest Generation and the future viability of its 

stations. 

V. BENEFITS OF THE VAIUANCE 

31. A temporary, two-year pause in the pace of the CPS rate step down is needed to 

allow Midwest Generation to obtain the funds required to install the additional S02 controls to 

comply with the CPS and allow for market recovery. 

- 12-
32. While cuncnt market conditions are negative, known capacity prices begin to 

recover in 2014, and increase further in 2015 and the first half of 2016. In addition, Midwest 

Generation expects that natural gas prices will not continue at the cunent unsustainable low 

prices, thus causing future increases in energy prices. Moreover, additional regulations 

(including Phase II of the CAIR, as well as the Mercury and Air Taxies Standards) go into effect 

in 2015, which Midwest Generation anticipates will cause its competitors in other states to incur 

additional control costs. That, in turn, will help level the playing field for coal-fired power 

plants in Illinois. 

33. EME is cuiTently negotiating a restructuring of its existing debt with its lenders. 

The discussions will impact Midwest Generation's ability to obtain financing. The two-year 

"pause" in the CPS step-down, which would impact capital expenses in 2013 and 2014, would 

allow Midwest Generation needed time to work tlu·ough these issues and implement any related 

restructuring, which may include a reorganization bankmptcy. In addition, it would allow more 

time for the market-and Midwest Generation's revenues-to recover. 

34. Accordingly, Midwest Generation believes it is reasonable to plan for 

improvement in its operating revenues and its ability to secure additional cash and/or credit in 

time to allow Midwest Generation to fund the additional controls needed for CPS compliance if 

the variance is granted. 

- 13-
FURTHER AFFIANT SA YET1 I NOT. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 

[Notary block] 

ERICK/\ A. DELAHOUSSAYE 

Commission# 1828501 

! Notary Public • California ~ 

:z Orange County .. J 4:;: 4 " •• M: ~V'U· ;,x~ir s ~a~ zy-}~1~l 
Table4.1 

l'.ttachment to Mfidavlt of WIUiom M. Petmecky 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Ct-edlt Ratings as af: ' lZ/31/2007 12/23/2008 8/3/2009 9/15/2010 1/10/2011 8/10/2012 11/21/2012 

Edison Mission Energy 

S&P 

Corporate I Outlook BB-IStable 56-/Negative B/Negative B-/Negative 6-/Negative CCC/Negative 

Moody's 

Corporate I Outlook 8a3/Stable Ba3/Stable 81/Stable 52/Negative 52/Negative C./Negative 

Fitch 

Corporate I Outlook 58-/Stable 68-/Stable BB-/Rating Watch Negative 8/Negative B/Negative CC/Negative C/No Outlook 

Midwest Generation, LLC 

S&P 

Corporate I Outlook BB-/Stable BB-/Negative B/Negative B-INegative a-/Negative CCC/Negatove 

Moody's 

Corporate I Outlook NR2

/Stable NR/Stable NR/Stable NR NR NR 

Fitch 

Corporate I Outlook BBIStable BB/Stable 56/Rating Watch Negative B/Negatlve 8/Negative CC/Negative C/No Outlook 

Footnote 

1. With the exception of the 11/21/2012 ratings, :all Credit Ratings are compiled from Edison International Credit Rating Presentations. Dates .. as or are dates of those presentations. On 11/21/2012, Fitch downgraded its ratings of Edison Mission Energy and 

Midwest Generation, LlC to "C 11 I am not aware of any changes by the other rating agencies from those ratings reflected in the 8/10/2012 Edison International Credit Rating Presentation. 

2. NR: Not Rated 
Oebt Rating 

Extremely strong 

Very strong 

Still strong 

Standard and Poors 1 

Adequate protection parameters 

Major ongoing untl!ftlinties 

Ukeliness of impaired ca(iadty to meet obfigations 

Vulnerable ('CCC')to'highlywlnerable ('CCC') to IK)npaylnent 

Bankruptcy petiti~n or similar action has been taken 

Default 

Notes: 

AAA 

AA 

A 

868 

BB 

B, 

ccc.cc 

c 

0 

Rating Agency Reference Sheet 

Moody's 2 

Debt Rating 

Highest quality 

High quality 

Upper·medium·grade obligations 

Medium-grade obligations 

~~~tNe Elements, Substantial credit risk 

Spf!culative, High credit risk. 

p00.: standing ('caa') to highly speculative ('ca'l 

uttte p~opSect fur recovery of prindpal· or interest 

1. "+"or"-" may be appended to a rating to denote relative status within a major rating category ('AA' to 'CCC') 

Aaa 

Aa 

A 

Baa 

Ba 

B 

caa.ca 

c 

Fitch 3 

Debt Rating 

Highest Credit quality 

Very high credit quality 

High credit quality 

Good credit quality 

Speculative 

Highly speculative 

High default risk 

Default' 

2. Moody's applies a 1, 2, or 3 to indicate that the issuer is in the higher end of its letter rating category; {1=High end; 2=Mid range; 3=1ower end) Bonds ('Aa' to 'Caa'); Preferred ('aa' to 'b') 

3. "+"or"-" may be appended to a rating to denote relative status within a major rating category ('AA' to "CCC' and 'F1') 

4. These categories are considered "conditions" and not "ratings." As such, C is the lowest credit rating under Fitch's rating scale. 

• Rating Watch: Ratings are placed on Rating Watch to notify investors that there is a reasonable probability of a rating change and the likely direction of such change. 

These are designated as "Positive", indicating a potential upgrade, "Negative'', for a potential downgrade, or "Evolving", if ratings may be rasied, lowered or maintained. 

•• Considered Speculative (i.e., non· investment grade)" 

AAA 

AA 

A 

888 

88 

B 

ccc.cc.c 

000,00,0 
Exhibit 5 

Affidavit of Fred McCluskey 

Vice President of Technical Services 

Midwest Generation EME, LLC and Edison Mission Energy 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

MIDWEST GENERATION, LLCWAUKEGAN GENERATING STATION, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PCB13-__ 

(Variance- Air) 

AFFIDAVIT OF FRED McCLUSKEY 

I, Fred McCluskey, having first been duly sworn upon oath, depose and state as follows: 

I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS 

1. My name is Fred McCluskey, and I am the Vice President of Technical Services 

for Midwest Generation EME, LLC and Edison Mission Energy ("EME"). I am also a member 

of the Executive Managing Committee of EME. Both of these entities are indirect parents of 

Midwest Generation, LLC ("Midwest Generation"). Among other responsibilities, I oversee all 

major capital project management, engineering and construction activities, such as 

environmental controls, for EME and Midwest Generation. 

2. After earning Bachelor of Arts degrees in Business Management and Economics 

from Towson University, in Maryland, I began a career in the electric industry that has spanned 

roughly 30 years. I began my career working within Project Management/Project Controls, first 

with Bechtel Power and then with California Energy Corp. For the past 23 years, I have worked 

- 1 -
for EME and its affiliates and have served in a variety of roles, including Vice President of 

EME's Business Management Organization, EME's Regional Vice President of Development 

Americas, and EME' s Manager of Operations. Through these positions, I have gained extensive 

experience in various aspects of the industry, including budgeting, forecasting, capital and longterm strategic planning, business systems implementation, asset development, acquisition, and 

operations. 

3. Midwest Generation has expended considerable resources to date in order to 

comply with the Combined Pollutant Standard ("CPS"), which is set forth at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

§§ 225.291 through 225.299, and has achieved early compliance with several requirements. In 

this affidavit, I explain Midwest Generation's actions, achievements, and the resources it has 

expended to comply with the CPS; I outline the company's plans for complying with the CPS in 

the future; I set forth the company's compliance alternatives if the requested variance is denied; 

and I highlight the environmental benefits of granting the variance. 

II. CPS EMISSION REDUCTION EFFORTS TO DATE 

4. Since Midwest Generation opted-in to the CPS in December 2007, it has taken 

significant, costly steps to comply with the CPS. It has achieved compliance with CPS rate 

requirements for nitrogen oxide (''NOx") emissions. It has also achieved compliance with 

mercury and sulfur dioxide ("S02") rates more quickly than required by the CPS. It has installed 

all of the controls it needs to comply with the CPS NOx rate of 0.11 lb/mrnBtu. Midwest 

Generation has complied with the CPS Activated Carbon Injection ("ACI") requirements at all of 

its units. Moreover, Midwest Generation opted all but two of its units into the CPS mercury rate 

standard of 0.0080 lb/Gwh in the fall of 2012, more than two years before it was required to do 

so under the CPS. 

-2-
5. All of these controls have come at a cost. To date, Midwest Generation has spent 

more than $170 million to install equipment to comply with the CPS. In addition to those capital 

expenditures, Midwest Generation shut down operations of three units (Waukegan Unit 6, in 

2007, and Will County Units I and 2, in 2010) in order to comply with the CPS. In addition, 

Midwest Generation has also ceased operating its three coal-fired units at the Fisk and Crawford 

Stations. 

6. As a result of Midwest Generation's CPS compliance efforts and the cessation of 

operation of the Fisk and Crawford coal-fired units, Midwest Generation has reduced annual 

emissions in the period since the CPS was adopted-from 2007 to 2012-ofNOx by roughly 

74%, mercury by roughly 84%, particulate matter ("PM") by roughly 23%, S02 by roughly 35%, 

and carbon dioxide ("C02") by roughly 20%. These reductions have been achieved through a 

variety of control measures. 

7. To achieve the CPS-required fleet-wide NOx emission rate of 0.11 lb/mmBtu, 

Midwest Generation has installed selective non-catalytic reduction equipment ("SNCRs") at 

most of its operating units and had also installed SNCRs at Crawford prior to ceasing operations 

of those coal-fired units. The SNCRs cost Midwest Generation over $100 million to install. In 

addition, Midwest Generation has incurred expense to perform combustion optimization at all of 

its coal-fired units in order to further reduce NOx emissions. As a result of these control 

measures, Midwest Generation has reduced the system-wide NOx emission rate by 74% from 

2007 levels. This year, based on data from January 1st through October 31st, Midwest Generation 

has so far achieved a system-wide NOx emission rate of 0.099 lb/mmBtu, which is 10% better 

than the 2012 CPS limit ofO.ll lb/mmBtu. 

-3-
8. Midwest Generation has been similarly successful in reducing its mercury 

emissions. Midwest Generation installed activated carbon injection systems ("ACI") at each of 

its coal-fired units. The company, in fact, helped pioneer the development of ACI technology 

with pilot projects at its Will County and Crawford Stations that were funded by U.S. 

Department of Energy grants in 2006 and 2007. All of Midwest Generation's operating coalfired generating units currently meet CPS standards that took effect starting in 2008, and all of 

the operating units except Waukegan Unit 7 and Will County Unit 3, which have hot-side 

electrostatic precipitators ("ESPs"), are currently meeting the CPS emission rate for mercury and 

the emission rate in the federal Mercury and Air Taxies Standards ("MATS"). Those CPS and 

federal standards do not take effect until2015. Nonetheless, Midwest Generation has voluntarily 

opted-in its Joliet Units 6, 7 and 8, Powerton Units 5 and 6, Waukegan Unit 8 and Will County 

Unit 4 to the CPS mercury emission rate program more than two years prior to the time the 

program would otherwise have become applicable to these units. As a result, since 2007, 

system-wide mercury emissions have been reduced from approximately 1,345 pounds per year to 

approximately 221 pounds per year in 2012. 

9. The CPS specifies PM requirements (Section 225.296) for only the units with hotside ESPs-Waukegan Unit 7 and Will County Unit 3-requiring them to convert to cold-side 

ESPs. Midwest Generation has been granted a variance from Section 225.296(c)(l) for one year 

with respect to the conversion of the hot-side precipitator on Waukegan Unit 7. The CPS 

requires Midwest Generation to convert the hot-side precipitator on Will County Unit 3 or to 

shut that unit down by December 31, 2015. Midwest Generation has begun engineering work for 

the hot-to-cold conversions. While the CPS does not specifically require Midwest Generation to 

reduce PM emissions or install additional PM controls at its other units, Midwest Generation is 

-4-
investing in additional PM controls in order to avoid PM increases that could otherwise result 

from CPS related S02 controls, as described below, and to ensure compliance with the federal 

MATS. 

10. The CPS sets forth a challenging progression of increasingly stringent S02 

emission rates, starting with 0.44lb/mmBtu in 2013 and decreasing in steps to 0.11 lb/mmBtu in 

2019. In addition, the CPS requires Midwest Generation to install flue-gas desulfurization 

("FGD") equipment at most of its coal-fired units over time. Midwest Generation extensively 

investigated available pollution control technologies to satisfy these requirements. Ultimately, 

Midwest Generation selected a program consisting of ultra-low sulfur coal and Trona injection 

for flue gas desulfurization at its units. This program offered the least expensive, yet effective, 

method for controlling S02 emissions. It also would allow Midwest Generation to stagger its 

capital investments over time, which was a key consideration in light of the deteriorating 

electricity market and Midwest Generation's deteriorating financial condition. 

11. The first component to Midwest Generation's S02 control program is the use of 

ultra-low sulfur coal. Combusting ultra-low sulfur coal is an effective means of reducing S02 

emissions. Typically, ultra-low Sulfur coal would be characterized as coal containing less than 

0.55 lbs/mmBtu of sulfur. Utilizing ultra-low sulfur coal, Midwest Generation has achieved 

system-wide S02 rates in 2011 and 2012 (to date) below the 0.44 lb/mmBtu CPS standard that 

goes into effect in 2013. Yet another example of achieving compliance well in advance of CPS 

deadlines. 

12. The second component of Midwest Generation's S02 control program is the 

installation of dry sorbent injection of Trona. Dry sorbent injection is FGD equipment in which 

Trona, a mineral used in the production of sodium bicarbonate or baking soda, is injected into the 

- 5 -
flue gas upstream of a PM control device, such as an ESP. The injected material reacts with and 

neutralizes acid gases, such as S02, forming a dry powder that may be removed by the PM 

control device. When the sorbent is delivered to a station, it will be off-loaded into bulk storage 

silos and subsequently conveyed through a metered system that blows the sorbent through a mill 

and into the flue gas ductwork using injection lances. Thus, use of dry sorbent injection requires 

various construction activities at the stations, including installation of storage silos, mills, and 

injection ports. PM emissions from each coal-fired boiler in the Midwest Generation system are 

controlled by an ESP. Injection of Trona increases the particulate loading to the ESPs to a 

sufficient degree that Midwest Generation will need to upgrade its ESPs or undertake other PM 

control measures on its units in conjunction with installing Trona injection systems. The 

necessary ESP upgrades vary from unit to unit, but include measures such as increasing the PM 

collection area, the heights of the collection plates and the distance between plates, installing 

high-frequency transformer rectifier sets, adding new fields of collection plates, redesigning air 

baffles and updating computer control systems. Such ESP work requires extended outages and 

significant capital expenditures. In summary, Midwest Generation anticipates that a typical 

installation of Trona FGD equipment and necessary ESP upgrades will take 18 to 24 months, 

with outages lasting 16 to 20 weeks. 

13. While a program of utilizing ultra-low sulfur coal and Trona FGD equipment 

entails lower capital expenditures than some other control options, it still entails significant costs, 

including the capital cost for the FGD equipment (estimated to average about $38 million per 

unit) and ESP upgrades (estimated to average about $55 million per unit), the operating costs 

associated with Trona injection, and the comparatively higher as-delivered cost for procuring 

ultra-low sulfur coal. 

- 6-
lll. CPS COMPLIANCE PLANS FOR 2015 AND BEYOND 

14. As noted above, Midwest Generation has attained S02 rates below 0.44 lb/mmBtu 

(the 2013 CPS S02 rate) in 2011 and, to date, in 2012. Midwest Generation has determined that 

installation of the Trona FGD equipment and ESP upgrades on Powerton Unit 6 will help assure 

that Midwest Generation will attain a system-wide average below 0.44 lb/mmBtu in 2013 and 

will allow the company to attain compliance with the 2014 CPS system-wide S02 rate. 

Powerton Unit 6 was selected both because of the S02 reductions that could be achieved and 

because the ESP work is less substantial than the work that will be required at some other units. 

Midwest Generation has obtained a construction permit and is in the process of installing the 

Trona FGD equipment and the ESP upgrades at Powerton Unit 6. Midwest Generation expects 

the ESP work to be completed around June 2013, along with phase 1 of the Trona control work. 

The completion of the Trona system work is expected by around June 2014. Midwest 

Generation also currently plans to install Trona FGD equipment and ESP upgrades at Waukegan 

Unit 7 by the end of 2014, subject to Midwest Generation working through any electricity 

reliability concerns that may be raised by PJM related to the outage required to complete this 

work. 

15. Midwest Generation would need to spend $440 million in 2013 and 2014 in order 

to satisfy the CPS Waukegan Unit 7 and 8 FGD equipment requirements and meet the CPS 2015 

and 2016 S02 system-wide rates. It would need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more 

between 2015-2018 to install controls on its remaining units to attain CPS rates. As described in 

the Affidavit of William M. Petmecky III, however, Midwest Generation is not currently able to 

identify a viable source of funding for the full $440 million needed in 2013-2014. Consequently, 

- 7-
it seeks this variance so that it could defer approximately $210 million of that $440 million of 

work to 2015 or later. 

16. The $210 million of control work that Midwest Generation seeks to defer includes 

substantial work in connection with the installation of Trona FGD equipment and ESP upgrades 

on Waukegan Unit 8, Powerton Unit 5, and Joliet Unit 7 or 8. If the variance is denied, Midwest 

Generation would need to begin work on these additional controls and start incurring substantial 

related costs no later than April2013 as a result of requisite lead times. It is, therefore, critically 

important to Midwest Generation that the Board grant the variance by April2013, which would 

allow Midwest Generation to defer the expenditures out of the 2013-2014 period. 

17. Midwest Generation anticipates that, if the variance is granted, it would still 

spend approximately $230 million in 20 I 3 and 2014 to install controls on Powerton Unit 6 and 

Waukegan Unit 7 and to continue engineering and procure long lead material associated with 

controls on additional units. This work is currently on target for the controls to be operational in 

a timeframe that supports compliance with the CPS. 

IV. COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES 

18. Midwest Generation investigated various means to reduce S02 emissions to 

comply with the requirements of the CPS. After careful consideration ofboth the likelihood that 

those methods would reliably reduce S02 emissions by a sufficient amount and the related 

monetary costs, Midwest Generation determined that use of ultra-low sulfur coal and Trona 

injection systems, together with ESP upgrades, was the most efficient approach in terms of S02 

emission removal and cost. It is neither feasible nor productive for Midwest Generation to 

change course at this time to adopt another alternative. Indeed, any change in course would 

likely increase Midwest Generation's costs while likely taking more time to complete than is 

- 8-
available under the current CPS schedule. Before selecting its compliance approach, Midwest 

Generation considered the other technologies, including wet scrubbers, other types of dry 

scrubbers, and conversion to natural gas. 

19. Installation of wet scrubbers would not be appropriate for the low sulfur coal that 

Midwest Generation is under contract to procure. Moreover, wet scrubbe:-s would exceed the 

cost of compliance with Trona injection systems, and would take longer to install. Similarly, the 

use of other types of dry scrubbers (which must be installed with baghouses) would cost far more 

than Trona injection systems, on the order of at least three times more. In addition, it would take 

approximately two and a half years to engineer and install other types of dry scrubbers. As such, 

neither wet scrubbers nor other forms of dry scrubbing would solve Midwest Generation's 

financial challenge, nor would they be completed in the time required by the CPS. 

20. Conversion to natural gas would reduce S02 emissions; however, Midwest 

Generation believes that none of its coal-fired units would be able to sell sufficient power to 

remain operational if they were converted. For starters, the only units that have access to 

sufficient natural gas for full load operation are Fisk Unit 19 and Crawford Units 7 and 8, which 

have ceased operation. The units at the other plants would require significant investment to 

access sufficient gas for full load operation. Midwest Generation, through its indirect parent 

company EME, has extensive experience in the construction and operation ofboth conventional 

boiler fired gas plant as well as new combustion turbine gas plants. It also has extensive 

experience through its affiliated trading company Edison Mission Marketing and Trading, in the 

economics of natural gas generation versus conventional coal. Based on extensive analysis and 

industry experience, Midwest Generation has determined that gas conversion is not an 

- 9-
economically viable compliance option for its coal-fired units. The units simply could not 

survive in the marketplace if they were converted to natural gas. 

21. Midwest Generation is already utilizing ultra-low sulfur coal. It has not identified 

an alternative coal supply that would enable it to meet the 2015 and 2016 CPS S02 rates without 

the installation of Trona FGD equipment on additional units. And burning low sulfur coal, 

alone, would not satisfy the requirement to install FGD equipment on Waukegan Unit 8. 

22. Thus, absent a variance, Midwest Generation would be forced to curtail operation 

of uncontrolled units. The level of requisite curtailment is difficult to predict with precision at 

this time; however, Midwest Generation estimates that the curtailment could be roughly 35% in 

2015 and 75% in 2016, as compared to the average level of generation from those units over the 

past five years. Such substantial curtailments would result in an unsustainable level of operation 

across Midwest Generation's fleet. They would substantially reduce Midwest Generation's 

revenues at a critical time and would likely result in the temporary or even permanent shutdown 

of at least some of the curtailed units. In addition, such curtailments may result in penalties 

under Midwest Generation's capacity contracts and may even require regulatory approval in light 

of grid reliability concerns. 

23. The cumulative impact of the curtailments could threaten the continued existence 

of Midwest Generation and the future viability of its stations. Shuttering Midwest Generation's 

plants would have devastating impacts on hundreds of workers and their families, and would 

drain literally hundreds of millions of dollars from the economy. 

V. EMISSIONS IMP ACTS OF GRANTING THE VARIANCE 

24. The brief "pause" in the rate of decline in the CPS 802 system-wide emission 

rates that Midwest Generation seeks includes a step-down in the S02 emission rate from the 

- 10-
2014 CPS rate of 0.41 lb/mmBtu to the proposed variance rate in 2015 and 2016 of 0.38 

lb/mmBtu. This step down helps mitigate any impact from the variance request. 

25. Moreover, granting the variance would have a positive impact on reduction of 

mass emissions beyond the impact of the step-down in emission rate. Midwest Generation 

proposes, as part of the variance, to commit to mass S02 emission level caps, which would result 

in lower emissions over the period of 2013-2016 than would be expected based upon the current 

CPS rates and 2008-2011 heat input. The proposed mass emission levels and a comparison of 

the emissions benefits with such expected emissions under the CPS are set forth on the attached 

Table 5.1. 

26. The impact of meeting these mass emission levels over the four-year period 

(2013-2016) is a net reduction of 3,181 tons of S02, as compared with emissions expected based 

on historic heat input. That is in addition to S02 emission reductions in 2012 from the early 

cessation of operation of the coal-fired units at Fisk and Crawford of 734 tons and I ,249 tons, 

respectively. These mass emission limitations would also effectively cause a reduction of 

average annual heat input during the period 2013 through 2016 as compared to the baseline 

period and, thus, yield an additional reduction of approximately 8,503 tons ofNOx, 3,169 tons of 

PM, 135 pounds of mercury, and 16 million tons of C02. Similarly, the early cessation of 

operation of the coal-fired units at Fisk and Crawford are yielding an additional reduction in 

2012 of 461 tons ofNOx, 299 tons of PM, 3 pounds of mercury and 904,477 tons of C02• 

- 11 -
FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETH NOT. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 

30~ay ofNovember, 2012 

- 12-

·oFFICIAL SEAL· 

Elizabeth Ramirez ....... =:~e:oflllfnola "~. 10/2012013 
Table 5.1 

(Attachment to Affidavit of Fred McCluskey) 

2013 2014 2015 2016 Totals 

l CPS emission rates 0.44 0.41 0.28 0.195 

(lb/mmBtu) 

2 so2 emissions 65,341 60,886 37,699 26,255 190,181 

(tons)* 

3 Proposed CPS 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.38 

emission rates 

(lb/mmBtu) 

4 so2 emissions 65,341 60,886 51,163 51,163 

(tons)** 

5 Proposed S02 mass 57,000 54,000 39,000 37,000 187,000 

emission level limits 

(tons) 

6 Delta per year 8,341 6,886 <1,301> <10,745> 

comparing proposed 

mass limits (row 5) 

with emissions at 

CPS rates (row 2) 

7 Cumulative 8,341 15,227 13,926 3,181 3,181 

reduction (based on 

row6) 

*Based on average 2008-2011 heat input for the units legally permitted to operate in 2013-

2016, respectively, and the emission rates indicated in row I. 

**Based on average 2008-2011 heat input for the units legally pe1111itted to operate in 2013-

2016, respectively, and the emission rates indicated in row 3. 
Exhibit 6 

Excerpts from the BART SIP TSD: 

The Cover Letter 

The TSD Cover Page 

TSD pp. 24-25,30-31, 33 

and 

Appendix C 
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1021 North Grand Av€nue East, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 • (217) 782 2829 

)ames R. Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph, Su1te 11-300, Chicago, ll60601 • (312) 814-6026 

2171782-5544 

2171782-9143 (TDD) 

June 24, 2011 

PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR 

CERTIFIED MAIL 

~009 2820 0001 7492 1699 

Ms. Cheryl A. Newton, Director 

Office of the Air and Radiation Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V (R-18J) 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 

Re: Regional Haze Program Requirements 

D=M~ Pursuant to Section 169A of the Clean Air Act ("CAA'') (42 U.S.C. § 7491) and Section 4 of the 

Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/4), the Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency submits the enclosed revision to the illinois State Implementation Plan ("SIP"). This 

revision has been prepared to satisfy illinois' obligation under these sections to develop a 

Regional Haze SIP with measures necessary to make reasonable progress towards remedying 

visibility impairment in Class r areas. Under 40 CFR § 51.308, the core requirements for the 

plan include reasonable progress goals, calculations of baseline and natural visibility conditions, 

a long-tenn strategy for regional haze, a monitoring strategy, and Best Available Retrofit 

Technology requirements for regional haze visibility impainnent. 

r n order to assist wjth your review of this plan submittal, the following documents are enclosed (two 

hard copies and one electronic copy on disc): 

Attachmellt I) Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for Illinois, AQPSTR 10-08, 

May 10,2011. 

• Appendix A, Draft List of Class I Areas Located Within (or 

Impacted by) Midwest RPO States, June 26, 2007. 

• Appendix B, Regional Air Quality Analysi-s for Ozone, PM2"s' and 

Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document, April25, 

2008. 

• Appendix C, 2012 Site Directory (Illinois Air Monitoring 

Network). 

Rocldonl• 43111 N Main Sl, Rod<fO<d,ll61103 • {815) 967·7160 

Elgin • 595 S. Slat<>, Elgin.ll60123 • !Mn W!l-31J1 

Bur~•u oftand- P<:orio • 7610 N" Univer<ily 5I, ~ria.ll61614 • {309) &93-S~61 

Collinm11e • .:!009 Mllll Slreel, ColfinsvHie, ll62l34 •{618) 3~6-5120 

Ott Plaines• 9511 W. Horrison St. Des PI;UMs,IL60016• (~71 294-<ll)(J() 

Peori1 • 5415 N. University Sl. Pe<Joio.ll &1614> 1309)693 5%3 

Ch""''"'ftln • 2125 5 Fint 51,. Champoi8Jl, ll 61820• {217)1711-5800 

Marion • 2ro!i W. Moln St. Suite I 16, MArion, It 62959 • (1>16) 993·7200 
Attachment 2) 

Attachment 3) 

Attachment 4) 

Attachment 5) 

Attachment 6) 

Attachment 7) 

Attachment 8) 

Attachment 9) 

Attachment I 0) 

Attachment 11) 

Technical Support Docmnent for Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, AQPSTR 09-06, April29, 2011. 

• Appendix A, Single Source Modeling to Support Regjonal Haze 

BART Modeling Protocol, March 21, 2006, Lake Michigan Air 

Directors Consortium. 

• Appendix B, Regional Air Quality Analysis for Ozone, PM25, and 

Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document, April25, 

2008. (See Attachment 1, above) 

• Appendix C, Illinois Mercury Rule, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225. 

• Appendix D, BART Analysis for the Kincaid Power Plant, ENSR 

Corporation, January 2009, Document No. 02285-076-400. 

• Appendix E, Consent Decree between the United States of 

America, et aL and ExxonMobil Corporation, et al. 

• Appendix F, Consent Decree between the United States of 

America, et al. and CITGO Petrolewn Corporation, et al. 

Ameren Energy Resources, Notice ofintent, dated December 27, 2007. 

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc., Notice of Intent, dated November 26, 

2007. 

Midwest Generation, LLC, Notice of Intent, dated December 27,2007. 

Notice of Hearing 

Presentations of Hearing held December 6, 201 0 

Transcript of Hearing held December 6, 2010 

Responsiveness Summary 

Kincaid Generation, LLC, Joint Construction and Operating Permit 

City of Springfield (CWLP) Joint Construction and Operating Permit 

In addition, the Regional Haze SIP Checklist is enclosed to assist in your review. If further 

information is required, please contact Rob Kaleel, Manager, Air Quality Planning Section, Bureau 

of Air, at 2171785-4140. 

Sincerely, 

j_~~ 

Laurel L. K.roack 

Chief, Bureau of Air 

Attachments 

2 
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT 

FOR 

BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY 

UNDER THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE 

AQPSTR 09-06 

April29, 2011 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1021 NORTH GRAND A VENUE EAST 

P.O. BOX 19276 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-9276 
• a multi-pollutant agreement between the DJinois EPA and Dominion Energy Services, as 

operator, and Kincaid Generation, LLC, as owner, of the Kincaid Generating Station 

(collectively "Dominion Kincaid"), to achieve BART -control levels; and 

• a similar agreement between the lllinois EPA and the City of Springfield, Illinois d/b/a 

City, Water, Light and Power (CWLP), to achieve BART -control levels and to shut down 

one of its existing subject-to-BART units. 

Table 4.1 Presumptive BART Emission Limits for Coal-Fired EGUs 

Pollutant Boller Type Coal Type Presumptive Limit 

(lbs/mmBTU) 

SO:z All units All coal types 0.15 

(or 95% control) 

NOx Dry-bottom wall-fired Bituminous 0.39 

Sub-bituminous 0.23 

Lignite 0.29 

Tangential-fired Bituminous 0.28 

Sub-bituminous 0.15 

Lignite 0.17 

Cell burners Bituminous 0.40 

Sub-bituminous 0.45 

Dry-turbo-fired Bituminous 0.32 

Sub-bituminous 0.23 

Wet-bottom tangential- All 

0.62 

fired 

Cyclone All 0.10 

4.1.1 EGUs under the MPS and CPS 

Three electric utilities operating in Illinois, Dynegy, Ameren, and Midwest Generation have 

committed to comply with the MPS and CPS under the Illinois Mercury Rule, requiring the 

installation of state-of-the-art pollution controls on many oftheir electric generating units in 

24 
Illinois. These regulations were promulgated to allow coal-fired electric utilities more flexibility 

in meeting the illinois Mercury Rule in exchange for significant NOx and SO:z reductions. 

Appendix C contains the relevant portions of the fully adopted lllinois Mercury Rule, with the 

requirements for NOx and S02 emission reductions highlighted. lllinois intends to submit 

Appendix C to USEPA, the highlighted portions of which will become part oflllinois' SIP to 

satisfY BART obligations for affected units at these three utilities. In addition, the MPS and CPS 

requirements will ultimately be contained in federally enforceable permits. 

The MPS and CPS require affected utilities to meet fleet-wide average emission rates, which will 

require installation of controls on emission units regardless of whether or not they are subject to 

BART. The agreements between Illinois and the utilities are intended to allow the companies the 

flexibility to meet the fleet-wide emission limits in the most cost-effective manner. The 

agreements contain a range of compliance dates, beginning as early as 2012 and as late as 2019. 

The IIJinois EPA recognizes that, in general, the compliance date for BART controls is within 5 

years ofUSEPA's approval ofthe State's SIP. Assuming USEPA approves lllinois' SIP in 2011 

or 2012, the compliance date for BART controls would be in 2016 or 2017. The illinois EPA's 

analysis of emission reductions that wiU result from implementation of the MPS and CPS by the 

year 2015 demonstrates conclusively that lltinois' approach will yield much larger reductions of 

NOx and SO;z than will implementation of BART controls on just subject to BART emission 

units. Emission reductions occurring after 2015 will improve visibility in Class I areas impacted 

by sources in Illinois, regardless ofUSEPA's decision of whether to approve those reductions as 

meeting BART requirements. The foJlowing subsections provide Illinois EPA's analysis of the 

emission reductions expected from the MPS and CPS and a description of the controls that will 

most likely be installed as a result of the MPS and CPS. 

4.1.1.1 Dynegy 

Dynegy operates several electric generating stations in lllinois, all of which are affected by the 

requirements of the MPS. Only the three coal-fired boilers at Baldwin are subject to BART, 

however. Units 1 and 2 at Baldwin are cyclone-fired boilers burning sub-bituminous coal, while 

Unit 3 is a tangentially-fired unit burning sub-bituminous coal. Currently, Units 1 and 2 are 

controlled by over-fire air ("OF A") and selective catalytic reduction ("SCR'') for NOx, while 

25 
Table 4.5 SO:: reductions from Ameren EGUs BART vs. MPS 

BaeYear ,. BMT MPS 2016" MPSFinar' 

1000 LbSl ,, ; 

Lbe! Tons/Year l.bal Tons/Year l.b8l Tons/Year 

Plant Unit mmBi'u mmBTU' Tona mmBTU Reduction mmBTU Reduction mmBTU Reduction 

Coffeen 1 18,570 1.54 14332 0.15 12906 0.2!5 11 978 0.23 12,183 

Coffafm 2 37545 1.49 27999 0.15 25,155 0.25 23.278 0.23 23853 

Duck Creek 1 22835 0.97 11026 0.15 9,280 0.25 8149 0.23 8.375 

ED 

Edwards 1 B 417 3.55 11399 NA NA 0.25 10588 0.23 10,652 

ED 

Edwards 2 17,222 1.7 14.686 0.15 13347 0.25 12.486 0.23 12,658 

ED 

Edwards 3 15,972 1.21 9683 0.15 8485 0.25 7687 0.23 7826 

Hutsonville 5 3161 4.53 7,163 NA NA 0.25 6.765 0.23 6796 

Hutsonville 6 3,443 4.53 7791 NA NA 0.25 7.368 0.23 7402 

JOPPa 1 13,548 0.51 3,441 NA NA 0.25 1,761 0.23 1,8&7 

Jopf)a_ 2 16,258 0.51 4,139 NA NA 0.25 2,114 0.23 2276 

Jopp_a 3 15396 0.51 3947 NA NA 0.25 2001 0.23 2155 

JOPPa 4 13402 0.52 3488 NA NA 0.25 1809 0.23 1 943 

Joppa 5 15.094 0.52 3932 NA NA 0.25 2038 0.23 2,189 

Joppa 6 16,063 0.52 4,182 NA NA 0.25 2,169 0.23 2329 

Meracloala 1 1134 5.02 2844 NA NA 0.25 2705 0.23 2716 

Meredosia 2 1337 5.02 3358 NA NA 0.25 3189 0.23 3.202 

Meredosia 3 1069 5.04 2,694 NA NA 0.25 2560 0.23 2571 

Meredosia 4 1406 5 3,518 NA NA 0.25 3339 0.23 3353 

Meredosia 5 10810 2.34 12639 NA NA 0.25 11.296 0.23 11,405 

NMon 1 40631 0.4S 9,046 NA NA 0.25 4063 0.23 4489 

Newton 2 38533 0.48 8823 NA NA 0.25 4046 0.23 4,431 

1.099 89164 131.381 134,4&4 

.-nte MPS emtssion limtts are a system-wtde average and are not mtended to reflect umt•spectfic emtsston hmtts. 

4.1.1.3 Midwest Generation 

Midwest Generation operates 19 coal-fired EGUs at six separate locations in Illinois. Nine of 

these units, located at Powerton, Joliet, and Will County, are subject to BART. 

Powerton 

All four units at the Powerton station are subject to BART. All four units are cyclone·type 

boilers firing sub-bituminous coal and vent to a common stack. Current NOx control for all units 

30 
consists of low-NOx burners and OF A. Midwest Generation is expected to install selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) controls on all four units by 2012. The units currently burn lowsulfur coal to control for S<h, but Midwest Generation currently plans to install flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) equipment by the end of2013 on all four units. 

Joliet 

Four of the five units (Units 71, 72, 81, and 82) at the Joliet facility are subject to BART. The 

four units of interest are all tangentially-fired boilers burning sub-bituminous coal. Current NOx 

controls for Boilers 71, 72, 81, and 82 consist oflow-NOx burners and OFA. Midwest 

Generation is expected to install SNCR controls on these four units by 2012. For S~. Midwest 

Generation is expected to install FGD equipment on all four BART units at Joliet by 2019. 

Will County 

Of the four units at the Will County plant, only Unit 4 is subject to BART. Unit 4 is tangentially 

fired and burns sub-bituminous coal. NOx emissions from Unit 4 are currently controlled by 

low-NOx burners and OF A. Midwest Generation is expected to install an SNCR on this unit by 

2012. For S02, Midwest Generation is expected to install FGD equipment by 2019. 

It should be noted that under the CPS, Midwest Generation is not required to meet unit specific 

emission limits for NOx or 802, and that the anticipated CPS emission estimates given in Tables 

4.6 and 4. 7 reflect the fleet-wide average emissions for all units. Tables 4.6 and 4. 7 show that 

the CPS will lead to system-wide reductions of more than 38,000 TPY ofNOx and more than 

35,000 TPY of 802 by 2015, which are much greater than the reductions that would be achieved 

by meeting the presumptive BART emission levels at the subject-to-BART units. 

4.1.2 Other Dlinois EGUs 

The MPS and CPS requirements do not apply to Dominion Kincaid or to CWLP. The Illinois 

EPA has negotiated separate agreements with these companies to address the BART 

requirements. Consistent with these agreements, both plants have either installed controls or 

plan to install controls that will meet or exceed the presumptive BART limits. Unit-specific 

requirements for these sources are contained in federally-enforceable penn its, which are included 

31 
Table4.7 SOz reductions from Midwest Generation EGUs BART vs. MPS 

BaH Year Pmum IIMt BART CPS 20115" CPS Final* 

1000 .. Lbsl Lbsl Tons/Year Lbsl Tons/Year Lbsl Tons/Year 

Plant Unit mmBTU mmBTU Tons mmBTU Redudlon mmSTU Reduction mmBTU Reduction 

Crawford 7 11627 0.54 3142 NA NA 0.28 1,512 0.11 2,500 

Crawford 8 17348 0.51 4453 NA NA 0.28 1,995 0.11 3470 

Flak 19 14650 0.52 3843 NA NA 0.28 1758 0.11 3003 

Jollat29 71 15034 0.7 5.276 0.15 4134 0.28 3,157 0.11 4435 

Jorret29 72 13824 0.7 4828 0.15 3802 0.28 2,903 0.11 4,078 

Jollet29 81 15,585 0.68 5300 0.15 4,130 0.28 3117 0.11 4,442 

Jollet29 82 15403 0.68 5260 0.15 4082 0.28 3081 0.11 4390 

JOliet 9 5 14369 0.63 4559 NA NA 0.28 2 515 0.11 3,738 

Powerton 51 20938 0.42 4444 0.15 2828 0.28 1468 0.11 3245 

Powerton 52 21137 0.43 4497 0.15 2959 0.28 1585 0.11 3382 

Powerton 61 18293 0.43 3,964 0.15 2561 0.28 1372 0.11 2927 

Powarton 62 18088 0.43 3 909 0.15 2532 0.28 1,357 0.11 2894 

Wault&Qan 17 7602 0.44 1642 NA NA 0.28 800 0.11 1238 

WaukBgan 7 16117 0.47 3754 NA NA 0.28 1531 0.11 2901 

Waukegan 8 21,950 0.49 5,365 NA NA 0.28 2305 0.11 4,171 

Will CountY. 1 9,398 0.42 1969 NA NA 0.28 868 0.11 1467 

Wlft County 2 8293 0,39 1,617 NA NA 0.28 456 0.11 1181 

Will County 3 15559 0.41 3636 NA NA 0.28 1478 0.11 2801 

WIIICountv 4 27585 0.47 6482 0.15 4414 0.28 2621 0.11 4965 

0.515 31,440 36,485 81 194 . . •The CPS emisston ltmtts are a system-Wide averaae and are not mtended to reflect umt-spectfic emtssion hm1ts . 

4.1.2.1 CWLP 

The subject-to-BART units at CWLP are Dallman 31, Dallman 32, and Lakeside 8. CWLP shut 

down the Lakeside unit in 2009. The Dallman 31 and 32 units are cyclone boilers and burn 

bituminous coal. CWLP currently operates SCRs and scrubbers on both Dallman units. It 

should be noted that CWLP's generating capacity is less than 750 MW, so the presumptive 

BART emission limits shown in Table 4.1 do not apply. Rather. the BART rule requires that 

such units operate SCRs, or equivalent controls, to control NOx emissions on an annual basis. 

For S02, the BART rule requires 95% emissions reduction. 

33 
AppendixC 

Illinois Mercury Rule 

The Ill~nois EPA is se~Jd_ng approval from the United States ,Environmental Protection Agency of the 

followmg holded prows'!'~ of the Illinois k!'ercury Rule, 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 225, Subpart B: 

Control of Mercury EmlSSlOns from Coal-Fzred Electric Generating Units, under this submission.. 

Please note that the norz;.bolded provisions are included for context. 

Section 225.233 Multi-Pollutant Standards (MPS) 

a) GeneraL 

1) As an alternative to compliance with the emissions standards of Section 

225.230(a), the owner of eligible EGUs may elect for those EGUs to 

demonstrate compliance pursuant to thiS Section, which establishes control 

requirements and standards for emissions ofNOx and S()z, as well as for 

.emissions of mercury. 

2) For the purpose of this Section, the follOwing requirements apply: 

3) 

A) .An eligible EGU is an EGU tbat is located in Dlinois and which 

commenced colltmercial operation on or before De~mber 31, 2004; 

and 

B) Olvnersbip of an eligible EGU is. determined based on direct 

ownership, by the holding of a majorif,y intereat in a company. that 

owns the EGU or EGUs, or J>y the common ownership of the company 

that owns the EGU, whether through a parent..fAlbsidiary 

relatioJ,1Bhip, as a sister corporation, or as an affiliated corporation 

with the same parent corporation, provided that the owner bas the 

right or authority to submit a CAAPP application on behalf of the 

EGU. 

Th.e owner of one or more EGUs electing to demonstrate compliance with 

this Subpart B pursuant to this Section must submit an application for a 

CAAPP permit modification to the Agency, as provided .in Section 225.220, 

that includes the information specified in subsection (b) of this Section and 

which clealily states the owner's election to. demonstrate complianc~ pursusnt 

to this Section 225.233. · 

A) If the owner of one or more EGUs elects to demonstrate compliance 

with this Subpart pursuant to this Section, then all EGUs it owns in 

Illinois as of July 1, 2006, as defined in subsection (a)(2)(B) of this 

Section, must be thereafter subject to the standards and 1:0ntrol 

1 
requiremen1s of this Section, except as provided in subsection 

(a)(3)(B). Such EGUs must be referred to as a Multi-Pollutant 

Standard (MPS) Group. 

B) Notwitllstanding the foregoing; the owner may exclude fro~ an MPS 

Group any EGU scheduled for permanent shutdown that the owner 

so designates in its CAAPP application required to be submitted 

·pursuant to subsection (a)(3) of this Section, with compliance for such 

units to be achieved by mean$ of Section 225.235. 

4) When an EGU is subject to the requirements of this Section, the 

reqniremen1s apply to all owners or operators of the EGU. 

b) Notice of Intent. 

The owner of one or more EGUs that intends to comply with this Subpart· B by 

means of this Section must notify the Agency of its llitention by December 31, 2007. 

The following inform.ition must accompany the notification: 

1) The identification of eBch EGU that will be comply;iilg with this Subpart B by 

means of the multi-pollutant standards contained in this. Section, with 

-evidence that the owner bas identified att EGUs that it owned in Illinois as of 

July 1, 2006 and which commenced commercial operation on or before 

December 31, 2004; 

2) If an EGU identified in subsection (b){l) of this Section is also owned or 

operated by a person diffenmt than the owner submitting the notice of intent, 

a demoutration that the submitter bas the right to commit the EGU or 

authorization from the responsible official for the ~GU aceepting the 

application; · 

3) The Base Emission Rates for the EGUst with copies of supporting data and 

calculations; 

4) A 1ummary of the current control devieea installed and operating on eaeh 

EGU and identification of the additional control devices that will likely be 

needed for the eaeh EGU to comply with ~ion control requirements of 

this Section, including identification of each EGU in the MPS group that will 

be addressed by subaection (e)(l)(B) of this Section, with information 

showing that the eligibility criteria for this subsection (b) are satisfied; and 

5) Identification of each EGU that is scheduled for permment shut down, as 

provided by Section 225.235, which wDl not be part of tbe MPS Group and. 

which will not be demonstrating compliance with this Subpart B pursuant to 

tbis Section. 

2 
c) Control Technology Requirements for Emissions ofMercury. 

I) Requirements for EGUs in an .MPS Group. 

A) For eac~ EGU in ~ MPS Group other than an EGU that is addressed by 

subsection (c)(l)(B) of this Section for the period beginning July 1, 2009 

(or December 31, 2009 for an EGU for "which an S(h scrubber or fabric filtt:r is being installed to be in operation by December 31, 2009), and 

ending on Decem~e.r_31, 2014 (or such earlier date that the EGU is subject 

to the mercury ennss10n standard in subsection (d)(l) of this Section), the 

owner or operator of the EGU must install, to the extent not already 

installed, and properly operate and maimain one of the following emission 

control devices: 

i) A Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System, complying 

with the sorbent injection requirements of subsection ( c)(2) of this 

Section, except as may be otherwise provided by subsection (c)( 4) 

of this Section, and followed by a Cold-Side Electrostatic 

Precipitator or Fabric Filter; or 

ii) If the boiler .:fires bituminous coal, a Selective Catalytic Reduction 

(SCR) System and an S(h Scrubber. 

B) An owner of an EGU in an :MPS Group bas two options under this 

subsection (c). For an MPS Group that contains EGUs smaller than 90 

gross MW in capacity, the owner may designate any sucliEGUs to be not 

subject to subsection ( c)(l )(A) of this Section. Or, for an MPS Group that 

contains EGUs with gross MW capacity of less than 115 MW; the owner 

may designate any such EGUs to be not subject to subsection (c)(l)(A) of 

this Section, provided that the aggregate gross MW capacity of the 

designated EGUs does not exceed 4% of the total gross MW capacity of 

the MPS Group. For any EGU subject to one of these two options. unless 

the EOU is subject to the emission standards :in subsection (dX2) of this 

Section, begirming 01'!- January 1. 2013, and continuing UQti1 such date 'that 

the owner or operator of the EGU commits to comply with the mercury 

emission standard in subsection ( d)(2) of this Section, the owner or 

operator of the EGU must instull and properly operate and maintain a 

Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System that complies with the 

sorbent injection requirements of subsection (c)(2) of this Section, except 

as may be otherwise provided by subsection (c)( 4) of this Section, and 

followed by either a Cold-Side .Electrostatic Precipitator or Fabric Filter. 

The use of a properly installed; operated, and maintained Halogenated 

Activated Carbon Injection System that meets the sorbent injection 

requirements of subsection ( c )(2) of this Section is defined as the 

"principal control technique." 

3 
2) ...... For each EGU for which injection ofhalogenated activated carbon is required by 

subsection (c)(l) of tbis Section. the owner ar operator of the EGU must inject 

halogenated activated carbon in an optimum manner, which, except as provided in 

subsection (c)(4) of this Section, is defined as all ofthe followmg: 

A) 

B) 

C) 

The use of an injection system designed for effective absozption of 

mercury, considering the configuration of the EGU and its ductwork; 

The injection of halogenated. activated carbon manufactured by Alstom, 

. Norit, or Sorbent Technologies, Calgon Carbon's FLUEPAC CF Plus, or 

CalgonCarbon's FLUEPAC MC Plus. or the injection of any other 

halogenated activated carbon or sorbent that the owner or operator of the 

EGU bas demonstrated to have similar or better effectiveness for control 

of mercury emissions; and 

The uyection of sorbent m the following nrinimum rates. as applicable: 

i) 

ii) 

ill) 

iv) 

For an EOU firing subbituminous coal, 5.0 lbs per million actual 

cubic feet or, for any .cyclone-fired EGU thai will install a scrubber 

and baghouse by December 31, 2012, and which alr.eady meets im 

emission rate of 0.020 lbs mercury/GWh gross electrical output or 

at least 75 percent reduction of input mercury, 2.5 lbs per million 

actual cubic feet; 

For an EGU firing bitl.uninous coal, 1 O.Q Jbs per million actual 

cubic feet for any cyclone-fired EGU that will install a scrubber 

and baihouse by December 31,2012, and which atreadymeets an 

emission rate of 0.020 lb mercury/OWh gross electrical output or 

at least 75 pereent reduction of input mercury, 5.0 Ibs per million 

actual cubic feet; 

For an EGU firing a. blend ofsubbituminous and bituminous coal, 

a rate that is the ~ighted average of the above rates, based on the 

blend of coal being tired; or 

A :raie or rates set lower by the Agency, in writing, than the rate 

specified in any of subsections (c)(2)(C)(i), (c)(2)(C)(u)~ or 

(c){2)(C)(ili) of this Section on a unit-specific basis, provided that 

the owner or operator of the EGU has demonstrated that such rate 

or rates are needed so that carbon injection will not increase 

particulate matter emissions or opacity so as to threa.Um 

noncompliance with applicable requirements for particulate matter 

or opacity. 

D) For the purposes of subsection (c)(2)(C) of this Section, the flue gas flow 

shall be the ~as :flow rate in the stack for all units except for those 

4 
equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic 

precipitator; forunits equipped with activated carbon injection prior tO a 

hot-side electro~c precipitator, the flue gas flow rate shall be the gas 

flow rate at the inlet to the hot-side electrostatic precipitator, which shall 

be determined as the stack flow rate adjusted tbrough the use of Charles • 

Law for the differences in gas temperatures in the stack and at the inlet to 

the electrostatic precipitator (V csp""' V stack x Tcsp/TBfaclc, where V =gas flow 

tate in acf and T = gas temperature in Kelvin or Rankine 

3) The owner or operator of an EGU that seeks to operate an EGU with an. activated 

carbon injection rate or mtes that are set on a unit-specific basis pursuant to 

subsection (c)(2)(C)(iv) ofthis Section must submit an application to the Agency 

proposing such rate or rates, and must meet the requirements of subsections 

(c)(3}(A) and (c)(3)(B) of this Section, subject to the limitations of subsections 

(c}(3)(C) and (c)(3)(D) of this Section: 

4) 

A) 

B) 

C) 

D) 

The application must be submitted as an application for a new or revised 

federally enforce{lble operating permit for the EGU, and it must include a 

su.mmary of ~levant mercury emisSion data for the EGU, the unit-specific 

injection rate or rates that are proposed, and detailed information to 

support the proposed injection rate or rates; and 

This application must be submitted no later than the date that activated 

carbon must :first be injected. For example, the owner or operator of an 

EGU that must inject activated carbon pUl'Sll8llt to subsection (c)(l)(A) of 

this s®section must apply for llllit-specific injection rate or rates by July 

1. 2009. Therea:ftm, the owner or operator of the EGU may supplement its 

application; and 

Any decision of the Agency denying a permit or granting a permit with condi1i 

that set· a lower injection rate or rates may be appealed to the Board pursuant tc 

Section 39 of the Act; and 

The owner or operator of an EGU may operate at the injection rate or rates 

proposed in its application until a final decision is made on the application. 

including a final decision on any appeal to the Board. 

During any evaluation oftbe effectiveness of a listed sorf?ent, an alternative 

sorbent, or other technique to control mercury emissions. the owner or operator of 

an EGU need not comply with the requirements of subsection (c)(2) ofthis 

Section for any system needed to carry out the evaluation. as ftnther provided as 

follo-ws: 

A) '!'he owner or operator of the· EOU must conduct the evaluation in 

accordance with a formal evaluation program submitted to the Ageooy at 

least 30 days prior to commencement of the evaluation; 

5 
B) The duration and scope of the evaluation may not exceed the duration and 

scope reasonably needed to complete the desired evaluation of the 

alte:rnative control technique, as initially ~d by the owner or 

operator in a support documetrt submitted with the evaluation program; 

C) The owner oz: operator of the EGU must submit a report to the Agency no 

later tban 30 days after the conclusion of the evaluation that describes the 

evaluation conducted and which provides the results of the evaluation; and 

D) lithe evaluation of the alternative control technique shows less effective 

control of mercury emissions from the EGU than was achieved with the 

principal control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU must 

resu:me use of the principal control technique. If the evaluation of the 

alternative control technique shows comparable effectiveness to' the 

principal control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU may either 

continue to use the alternative control technique in a manner that is at least 

as effective as the principal control technique, or it may resume use of the 

principal .control teclmi'l,ue. 1f the evaluation of the alternative control 

technique shoWs more effective control of mercuzy emissions than the 

control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU must continue to use 

the alter.native control technique in a manner that is more effective than 

the princ.ipal cotrtrol technique, so long as it continues to be subject to this 

sqbsection (c). 

5) In addition to complying with the applicable recordkeeping and monitoring 

requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an 

EGU that elects to comply with this Subpart B by means of this Section must 

also comply with the follo"Wii:J.g additionAl requirements: 

A) For·the first 36 months that il:gection o:f sorbent is required, it must 

maintain record$ of the usage of sorbent, the fluegas flow rate fum:t the 

EGU (and, if the unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a 

hot-side electrostatic precipitator, flue gas temperature at the inlet of the 

hot-side electrostatic precipitator and in the stack), and the sorbent feed 

rate. in pounds per million actual cubic feet of flue, on a weekly average; 

B) After the first 36 months that injection of sorbent is required. it must 

monitor activated sorbent feed rate to the EGU, gas flow rate in the stack, 

and, if the unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hotside electrQstatic precipitator, flue gas temperature at the- inlet of the hotside electrostatic precipitator and in 'the stack. It must automatically 

r~rd this data ~the sorbent carbon feed rate, in pounds per million 

actual cubic feet of flue gas, on an hourly average; and 

6 
C) If a blend of bituminous and subbituminous coal is fired in the EGU, it 

must keep records of the amount of each type of coal burned and the 

required injection rate for injection of activated carbon, on a weekly basis. 

6) Until June 30, 2012, as an alternative to the CEMS or excepted monitoring system 

( sorbent trap system) monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 

Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU may. elect to 

comply with the enrissi.ons testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements in Section 225.239(c), (d), (e), (f)(I) and (2), (h)(2), (i)(3) and (4), 

and (j)(l). 

7) In addition to complying with the applicable' reporting requirements in Sections 

225.240 through 225.29.0, the owner or operator of an EGtJ that elects to comply 

with this Subpart B by means of this Section must also submit quarterly reports 

for the recor.dkeeping and monitoring conducted pursuant to subsection ( c )(5) of 

this Section. 

d) Emission Standards for Mercury. 

1) For eachEGU :in:anMPS Group that is not addressed by subsection (c)(I)(B) of 

this Section, beginning January 1, 2015 (or such earlier date when the owner or 

operator of the EGU notifies the Agency that it will comply with these standards) 

and continuing thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU must comply with 

one of the following standards on a rolling 12-month basis: 

2) 

3) . 

A) An emission standard of 0.0080 lb meteury/GWh gros~ electrical output; 

or 

B) A minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury. 

For each EGU in an MPS Group that has been addressed under ~section 

(c)(l)(B) of this Section, beginning on the date when the owner or operator of the 

EGU notifies the Agency that it will comply with these standards and continuing 

thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU must comply with one of the 

following standards on a rolling 12-month basis: 

A} An emission standard of0.0080 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical output; 

or 

B) A minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury. 

Compliance with 1he mercury emission standard or reduction requirement of this 

subsection (d) must be calculated in accordance with Section 225.230(a) or (d), or 

·Section 225.232 until December 31,2013. 
4) Until June 30, 2012, as an alternative to demonstrating compliance with the 

emissions standards in this subsection (d), the owner or operator of an. EGU may 

elect to comply with the emissions 'testing requirements in Section 225.239(aX4), 

(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and G) of this Subpart. 

e) Emission Standards for NOx and S(}z. 

1) NOx Emission Sta,ndards. 

A) Beginning in calendar year 2012 and continuing m each calendar 

thereafter, for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and operator 

of the EGUs must comply with an ov.erall NOx anDWll emission rate of 

no more than O.lllb/million Btu or an elll.iuion rate equivalent to 52 

percent of the Base Annual Rate of NOx emisllions, whichever is more 

stringent. 

B) Beginning in the 2012 ozone season and continuing in each ozone 

season thereafter, for the EGUs in eaeh MPS Groupt the owner and 

operator of the EGUs must comply with an ovenill NOx seasonal 

emission rate of no more tlum O.lllb/J;nillion Btu or an emiasion rate 

equivalent to 80 pelUilt of the Base Seasonal Rate of NOx emissions, 

whichever iB more stringent. 

2) SO:: Emission Standards. 

A) Begbming in calendar year 2013 and continuing in calendar year 

2014, for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of 

the EGUs must eomply with an overall SOt annual emission rate. of 

0.33 lb/million Btu or a rate equivaleDt to 44 percent of the Base Rate 

of S(}z emissions, whichever is more stringent. 

B) Begmo.mg in calendar year 2015 and continuing in each calendar year 

thereafter, "for fhe EGUs in each .MPS Grouping, the owner and 

operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall annual emission 

rate. for S(h of 0.25 lbs/million Btu or a rate equivalent to 35 percent 

of the Base Rate ofS(h emissions, whichever ill more mingeot. 

3) Ameren MPS Group Multi-Pollutant Standard 

A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (e)(l) and (2) of this 

Section, this subsection (e)(3) applies· to the Amereo MPS Group as 

described in the noiice of intent submitted by Ameren Energy 

Resources in aeeordance with subs~on (b) oftbis Section. 

B) NOx Emisllion Standard~n 

g 
4) 

f) 

i) Beginning in the 2010 ozone season and continuing in each 

ozone season thereafter, for the EGUs in the Ameren MPS 

Group, the owner and operator of tbe EGUs must comply with 

an overall NOx seasonal emission rate of no more than 0.11 

lb/million Btu. 

ii) Beginning in calendar year 2010 and continuing in calendar 

year 2011, for the EGUs in the Ameren MPS Group, the owner 

and operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall NOx 

annual emission rate of no more than 0.14 Ib/million Btu. 

iii) Begbming in calendar year 2012 and continuing in each 

calendar year thereafter, forth~ EGUs iD the Ameren MPS 

Group, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with 

an overall NO:c annual emission rate of no more than 0.11 

lb/million Btu.. 

C) S~ Emis.rion Standards 

i) Beginning in calendar year 2010 and continuing in each 

calendar year through 2013, for the EGUs in the Ameren MPS 

Group,.the owner and operator of the EGUs most comply with 

an overall 802 annual emission rate of 0.50 lb/million Btu. 

ii) In calendar year 2014, for the EGUs in the Ameren MPS 

Group, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with 

an overall SOz annual emission rate of 0.43 lb/million Btu. 

iii) Beginning in calendar year 2015 and continuing in calendar 

year 2016, for the EGUs in the Ameren MPS Group, the owner 

and operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall S{h 

annual emission rate of 0.25 lb/million Btu. 

iv) Beginning in calendar year 2017 and continuing in each 

calendar year thereafter, for the EGUs in tbe Ameren MPS 

Group, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with 

an overall S~ annual emisaion rate of 0.23 lb /million Btu. 

Complimu:e witb the NOx and S~ emission standards must be demonstrated 

in accordance with Sections 225.310, 225.410, and 225.510. The owner or 

operator of EGUs must complete the demonstration of compliance before 

March l of the following year for annual standards and before November 1 

for seasonal standards, by which date a compliance report must be submitted 

to th.e Agency. 

Requirements for NOx and S(h Allowances. 

9 
1) The owner or operator ofEGUs in an MPS Group must not sell or trade to any 

person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person NOx alloWjlllces 

allocated to the EGUs in the MPS Group for vintage years 2012 and beyond that 

would otherwise be available for sale, trade, or exchange as a result of actions 

taken to comply with the standards in subsection (e) ofthis Section. Such 

allowances that are not retired for compliance must be surrendered to the Agency 

on an annual basis, beginning in calendar year 2013. This provision does not 

apply to the use, sale, exchange, gift, or trade of allowances among the EGUs in 

an MPS Group. 

2) The oWne!s or operators ofEGUs in an MPS Group must not sell or trade to any 

person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person S(}z allowances 

allocated to the EGUs in the MPS Group for vintage years 2013 an4 beyond that 

would otherwise be available for sale or trade as a result of actions taken to 

comply with the standards in subsection (e) of this Section. Such allowances that 

are not retired for compliance, or otherwise surrendered pmauant to a consent 

decree to which the State. of illinois is a party, must be surrendered to the Agency 

on ll1l annual basis, beginning in calendar year 2014. This prOvision does not 

apply' to the use. sale, exchange, gift, or trade of allowances among the EGUs in 

an MPS Group. · 

3) The provisions o! this subsection (f) do not restrict or inhibit the sale or trading of 

allowances that become available from one or more EGUs in a :M:PS Group as a 

result of holding allowances that represent over-compliance with the NOx or SO:z 

stantiard in subsection (e) of this Section, once such a standard becomes. effective, 

whether such over-compliance results from control equipment, fuel chaJiges, 

changes in the method of operation, mrl.t shut downs, or other reasons. 

4) For purposes of this subsection (f). NO~r and S02 allowances mean allowances 

necessaxy for compliance with Sections 225.310,225.410, or225.510, 40 CFR 

72, or Subparts AA and AAAA of 40 CFR 96, or any future federal NOx or S02 

emissions tmding programs that modify or replace tb~ programs. This Section 

does not prohibit the owner or operator ofEGUs. in an MPS Group from 

purchasing or otherwiBe obtaining allowances from other sources 88 allowed by 

law for purposes of complying with federal or state requirements, except 88 

specifically set forth in this Section. 

5) By March 1, 2010, and .continuing each year thereafter, the owner or operator of 

EGUs in an MPS Group must submit a report to the Agency that demonstrates 

compliance with the requirements of this subsection (f) for the previous calendar 

year, and which includes identification of any allowances that have bee!n 

surrendered iO the USEP A or to the Agency and any allowances that were sold, 

gi.ft.ed. used, exchanged, or traded ~e they became available due to overcompliance. All allowances that are required to be surrendered must be 

surrendered by August 31, unless USEP A has not yet deducted the allowances 

10 
from the previous year. A final report must be submitted to the Agency by 

August 31 of each year, verifying that the actions described in the initial report 

have taken place. or, if such actions have not taken place, an explanation of all 

changes that have occurred and the reasons for such changes. IfUSEP A has not 

deducted the allowances from the previous year by August 31, the final report will 

be due, and all allowances required to be surrendered must be StnTendered, with:in 

30 days after such deduction occurs. 

g) Notwithstanding 35m. Adm. Code 201.146(hhh), until an EGU has complied with 

the applicable emission standards of subsections (d) and (e) of this Section for 12 

months, the owner or operator of the EGU must obtain a construction permit for 

any new or modified air pollution control equipment that it proposes to consirnct 

for control of emissions of mercury, NO:x, or S(h. 

(Source: Amended at 33 ill. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009) 

Section 225.291 Combined Pollutant Standard: Purpose 

The· purpose of Sections 225.291 through 2i5.299 (hereinafter referred to as the Combined 

Pollutant Standard ("CPS")) is to allow an alternate means of compliance with the emissionf 

standards for mercury in Section 22S.230(a) for specl:fi~ EGUs through pefiDtlllent shut-down, 

installation of ACI, and the application of pollution control technology for NOll:, PM, and 802 

emissions that also reduce mercury emissions u a co--benefit and to establish permanent emissions 

standards for those specified EGUs. Unless otherwise provided for in the CPS, owners and 

operators of those specified EGUs are not excused from compliance with other applicable 

requirements of Subpam B, C, D, and E. · 

(Source: Added at 33 ill. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009) 

Section 225.292 Applicability of the Combined Pollutant Standard 

a) As an alternative to compliance with the emissions standards of Section 225.230(a), 

tbe owner or operator of specified EGUs in the CfS located at Fisk, Crawford, 

· Joliet, Powerton, Waukegan, and Will County power plants may elect for all of 

those EGUs as a group to demonstrate compliance pursuant to the CPS, which 

establishes control requirements and emissions. standards for NO" PM, S(}z, and 

mercury. For this purpose, ownership of a specified EGU is determined based on 

direct ownership, by holding a majority interest in a company that owns the EGU or 

EGUs, or by the common ownership of the company that owns the EGU, whether· 

through a parent-subsi~ relationship, as a sister corporation, or u an affiliated 

corporation with the same parent corporation, provided that the owner or operator 

bas the right or authority to submit a CAAPP application on behalf of the EGU. 

11 
b) A specified EGU is a coal·fired EGU listed in Appendix A, i!Tespective of any 

subsequent changes in ownership of the EGU or power plant, the operator, unit 

designa1ion, or name of unit. 

c) The owner or operator of each of the speei:fied EGUs electing to demonstrate 

compliance with Section 225.230(a) pursuant to the CPS must submit an application 

for a CAAPP permit modifica1ion to the Agency, as provided for in Section 225.220, 

that includes the information specified in Sec1ion 225.293 that clearly s1ates the 

o\vner's or operator's election to demonstrate compliance. with Section ~25.230(a) 

pursuant to the CPS. 

d) If an owner or operator of one or more specified EGUs elects to demonstrate 

compliance with $ection 225.230(a) purauant to the CPS~ then all specified EGUs 

owned or operated jn Illinois by the owner or operator as of December 31, 2006, as 

defined in subsection (a) of this Section, are thereafter subject to the standards and 

. control req~ents of the CPS. Such EGUs are referred to as a Cembined 

PollQtant Standard (CPS) group. 

e) If an EGU is subject to the requirements of this Section; then the requirements 

apply tO all owners and operators of the EGU. 

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. 10427, effective June 26_ 2009) 

Section 225.293 Combined Pollutant Standa:td: Notice of Intent 

The owner or operator of one or more specified EGUs that intends to comply with Section 

225.230(a) by mean.s of the CPS .must notify the Agency of ita intention on or before 

D~ember 31, 2007. The following informatiQn musi accompany the notification: 

a) The identification of eaeh EGU that will be complying with Section 225.230(a) 

purSuant to the CPS, with evidence that the owner or operator bas identified all 

specified EGUs that it owned or operated in DlinoiB u of December 31, 2006, and 

which commenced commerdal operation on or before December 31, 2004; 

b) Han EGU identified in subsection (a) of tbiB Section is also owned or operated by a 

penon different than the owner or operator submitting the no1ice of intent, a 

demonstration that the submitter has the right to commit the EGU or authorization 

from the responsible ofticial for the EGU submitting the appli~tion; and 

c) A summary of the CDJTent control devices inmlled and operating on each EGU and 

identification of the additional control devices that will likely be needed. for each 

EGU to comply with emission control requirements of the CPS. 

(Source: Added at 33 ill. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009) 

12 
Section 225.295 Combined Pollutant Standard: Emissions Standards for NO'I and S~ 

a) Emissions Standards for NO~ and Reporting Requirements. 

b) 

c) 

1) Beginning with calendar year 2012 and continuing in each calendar year 

thereafter, the CPS group, which includes all specified EGUs that have not 

been pe.rmanen11y shut down by December 31 before the applicable calendar 

year, must comply with a CPS group average annual NOx emissions rate of 

no more than O.lllbslmmBtu. 

2) Beginning with ozone season control period 2012 and continuing in each 

ozone season control period (May 1 through September 30) thereafter, the 

CPS grouJh which includes. all specified EGUs that have not been 

permanently shut down by December. 31 before the applicable ozone season, 

must comply with a CPS group average ozone season NOx emissions rate of 

no more than O.lllbs/mnilltu. 

3) The owner or operator of the specified EGUs in the CPS group must file, not 

later than one year after startup of any selective SNCR on such EGU, a 

report with the Agency describing the NO'I emissions rednct:Wns that the 

SNCRhas been able to achieve. 

Emissions Standards for SOv Beginning in calendar year 2013 and continuing in 

each calendar year thereafter, tbe CPS group must comply with the applicable CPS 

group average annual S(h ~missions rate listed as follows: · 

year lbs/mmBtu 

2013 0.44 

2014 0.41 

2015 0.28 

2016 0.195 

2017 0.15 

2018 0.13 

2019 0.11 

Compliance with the NOx and SOz emissions standards mmt be demonstrated in 

accordance with SeetioWJ 225.310, 225.410, and 225.510. The owner or operator of 

the specified EGUs must complete tbe demonstration of compliance pursuant to 

Section 225.298( c) before March 1 of the following year for annual standards and 

before November 30 of the particular year for ozone season control periods (May 1 

through September 30) standards, by which date a compliance report must be 

submitted to the Agency. [NOTE: This subsection is relying on 1he compliance requiren;tents 

of the Clean Air Interstate Rule Trading Program under Subparts C. D, and E of Part 225 and will 

need to be amended accor<ling]y when the Transport Rule is promulgated.] 

13 
d) The CPS group average annual S{}z emission rate, annual NOx emission rate and 

ozone suson N~ emission rates shall be determined as follows: 

n n 

ERev: = E (SO:zi or NO:r~ tons )I.E (Hlf) 

i=l i=l 

Where: 

IDt. = 

S<hl = 

NOx1= 

N = 

I = 

= average annual or ozone season emission rate in 

lbs/mmBbtu af all EGUs in the CPS group. 

heat input for the annual or ozone control period of each 

EGU, in mmBtu.. 

actual annual SOz tom of each EGU in the CPS group. 

actual annual or ozone season NOx tons of each EGU iB the 

CPS group. 

number of EGUs that are in tbe CPS grt)up. 

each EGU in the CPS group. 

(Source: Amended at 33 ill. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009) 

Section 225.296 Combined PoJlu.tant Standard: Centrol Technology Requirements for NOx, S()z, 

and PM Etnissiom 

a) Control Technology Reqnirements for NOx and SOz. 

1) On or before December 31, 2013, the owner or operator must either 

permanently shut down or install and have operational FGD equipment on 

Waukegan 7; 

2) On or before.Deeember 31, 2014, the owner OJ:' operator must either 

permanently shut down or install and have operational FGD equipment on 

Waukegan8; 

3) On or before December 31, 2015, the owner or operator must either 

permanently shut down or install and have operational FGD equipment on 

Fisk19; 

4) H Crawford 7 will be operated after December 31, 2018• Qd not 

permanen:Uy shut down by this date, the owner or operator must: 

A) On or before December 31, 2015, install and have operational SNCR 

or equipment capable of delivering easenif~ equivalent NOx 

reductions on Crawford 7; and 

14 
B) On or before December 31, 2018, install and have operational FGD 

equipment on ·crawford 7; 

5) If Crawford 8 will be operated after December 31, 2017 and not permanently 

shut down by this date1 the owner or operator must: 

A) On or before December 31, 2015, install and have operational SNCR 

or equipment capable of delivering essentially equivalent NOx 

emissions reductions on Crawford 8; and 

B) On or before December 31, 2017, install and have operational FGD 

equipment on Crawford 8. ' 

b) Other Control Technology Requirements for S(h. Owners or operators of specified 

EGUs must either permanently shut down or instaUFGD equipment on each 

spedfied EGU (except Joliet 5), on or before December 31, 2018, unless an earlier 

date is specified in subsection (a) of this Section. 

c) Control Technology Requirements for :PM. The owner or operator of the two 

specified EGUs listed in this subsection that are equipped with a hot-side ESP must 

replace the hot-side ESP with a cold-side.ESP, install an appropriately designed 

fabric :filter, o:r permanently shut down the EGU by the dates specified. H.ot·side 

ESP means an ESP on a coal-fired boijer that is installed before the boiler's air· 

preh~terwhere the operating temperature is typically at least 5SOO F, as 

distinguished from a cold--side ESP that is installed after the air pre--heater where 

the operating temperature is typically no more than 350" F. 

d) 

e) 

1) Waukegan 7 on or before December 31, 2013; and 

2) Will County 3 on or before December 31, 2015. 

Beginning on December 31, 2008, and annually tb.erea:fter up to and including December 

31, 2015, the owner or operator of the Fisk power plant must submit in writing to the 

Agency a repOrt on any technology or equipment designed to affect air quaJity that has 

been considered or explored for the Fisk power plant in the preceding 12 months. This 

report will not obligate the owner or operator to install any equipment described in the 

report 

Notwithstanding 35m. Adm. Code 201.146(hhh), until an EGU has complied with 

the applicable requirements.ofsubsections 225.296(a), (b), and (c), the owner or 

operator of the EGU mlllt obiain a constru~on permit f~r any new or modified air 

poUution control equipment that it proposes. to. construct for control of emissions of 

mercury, NOx, PM, or S(h. 

(Source: Added at 33 ffi. Reg. 10427, effective J~e 26, 2009) 

15 
225.APPENDIX A Specified EGUs for Purposes of the CPS (Midwest Generation's Coal-Fired 

Boilers as of July 1, 2006) 

P1ant Permit Boiler Permit designation CPS 

Number Designation 

Crawford 031600AIN 7 Unit 7 Boiler BLRl Crawford 7 

8 Unit 8 Boiler BLR2 Crawford8 

Fisk .- 031600AMI 19 Unit 19 Boiler BLR19 Fiskl9 

Joliet 197809AAO 71 Unit 7 Boiler BLR71 Joliet? 

72 Unit 7 Boiler BLR72 Joliet7 

81 Unit 8 Boiler BLR81 Joliet 8 

82 Unit 8 Boiler BLRSz Joliet8 

s Unit 6 Boiler BLRS Joliet 6 

Powerton 179801AAA 51 Unit 5 Boiler BLR 51 Powerton S 

52 Unif5 Boiler BLR 52 Powerton 5 

61 Unit 6 Boiler BLR 61 Powtrton6 

62 Unit 6 Boiler BLR 62 Powerton6 

Waukegan 097190AAC 17 Unit 6 Boiler BLR17 Waokegao6 

7 Unit 7 Boiler BLR7 Waukegan? 

8 Unit 8 Boiler BLRB Waukegan8 

Will County 197810AAK 1 Unit 1 Boller.BLRl WdJCountyl 

2 Unit 2 Boiler BLR2 Will County 2 

3 Unit 3 Boiler BLR3 Will County 3 

4 Unit 4 Boiler BLR4 Will County 4 

(Source: Amended at 33 ru. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009) 

16 
Exhibit 7 

Proposed Federal Approval of the Illinois BART SIP 

(77 Fed.Reg. 3966 (Jan. 26, 2012)) 
3966 Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules 

information described in paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

(b) Required information-{1) In 

general. The information required under 

paragraph (a} of this section shall 

include the following information: 

(i) The passport applicant's full name 

and, if applicable, previous name: (ii) Address of the passport 

applicant's regular or principal place of 

residence within the country of 

residence and, if different, mailing 

address; 

(iii) The passport applicant's taxpayer 

identifying number (TIN). if such a 

number has been issued to the passport 

applicant. A TIN means the individual's 

social security number (SSN) issued by 

the Social Security Administration. A 

passport applicant who does not have 

an SSN must enter zeros in the 

appropriate space on the passport 

application; and 

(iv) The passport applicant's date of 

birth. 

(2) Time for furnishing information. A 

passport applicant must provide the 

information required by this section at 

the time of submitting his or her 

passport application, whether by 

personal appearance or mail. to the 

Department of State (including United 

States Embassies and Consular posts 

abroad). 

(c) Penalties-(1) In general. If the 

information required by paragraph (b)[l) 

of this section is incomplete or 

incorrect, or the information is not 

timely filed. then the passport apflicant 

shall be subject to a penalty aqua to 

$500 per application. Before assessing a 

penalty under this section, the IRS will 

ordinarily provide to the passport 

applicant written notice of the potential 

assessment of the $500 penalty, 

requesting the information being sought, 

and offering the applicant an 

opportunity to explain why such 

information was not provided at the 

time the passport application was 

submitted. A passport applicant has 60 

days (90 days if the notice is addressed 

to an applicant outside the United 

States) to respond to the notice. If, after 

considering all the surrounding 

circumstances, the passport applicant 

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 

Commissioner or his delegate that the 

failure is due to reasonable cause and 

not due to willful neglect, then the IRS 

will not assess the penslty. 

(2) Example. The following example 

illustrates the provisions of paragraph 

(c) this section. 

Example. C, a citizen of the United States, 

makes an error in supplying information on his passport application. Based on the nature 

of the error and C's timely response to correct 

the error after being contacted by the IRS, 

and considering all the surrounding 

cireumstances. the Commissioner concludes 

that the mistake is due to reasonable cause 

and not due to willful neglect. Accordingly, no penalty is assessed. 

(d) Effective/applicability date. The 

rules of this section apply to passport 

applications submitted after the date of 

publication of the Treasury decision 

adopting these rules as final regulations 

in the Federal Register. 

Steven T. Miller, 

Deputy Co11Uilissfoner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2012-1567 Filed 1-25-12; 6:45 am] 

I!IILIJNG CODE ~...p 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-ROIS-OAR-2011-4598: FRL-9622-6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plana; Illinois; 

Regional Haze 

AGEHCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTlON: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Illinois State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period. lllinois 

submitted its regional haze plan on June 

24, 2011. The Illinois regional haze plan 

addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

169B and Regional Haze Rule 

requirements for states to remedy any 

existing and pravent future 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility 

at mandatory Class I araas. EPA is also 

proposing to approve two state rules 

and incorporating two permits into the 

SIP. 

DATES: Comments must be recalved on 

or before February 27, 2012. 

ADDRES8ES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-

0AR-2011-D598, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pameia@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692-2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR-181), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Cbicago, niinois 60004. 

5. Hand Delive.zy:Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR-18}), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries ofboxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA-R05-0AR-2011-

0598. EPA's policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.reRUlations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI} or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an "anonymous access" system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internal If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30p.m .• Monday through 
Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules 3967 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMAllON CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR-181), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, illinois 60604, 

(312) 886-6524, rou.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY IHFORMAnON: 

Throughout this document whenever 

"we," "us," or "our" is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

ll. What is the background for EPA's 

proposed action? 

m. What are the requirements for regional 

haze SIPs? 

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Illinois' 

regional haze plan? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory end Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider u I prepare 

my comments for EP AT 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions-EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree: 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assnmptions and 

provide any technical information and! 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be ~roduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or pemonal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

n. What is the background for EPA's 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility Impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities located across a 

broad geographic area that emit fine 

particles (PM2.s) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and 

soil dust) and its precursors--sulfur 

dioxide (SQV, nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

and in some cases ammonia fNH.J) and 

volatile organic compound (VOCs). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter. Aerosol PMz.s impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility Impairment reduces the 

clarity and distance one can see. fM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

detrimental environmental effects such 

as acid deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the "Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments" (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

Impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all of the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range, the distance at 

which an object is barely discemable, in 

many Class I areas 1 in the western 

United States is lOG-150 kilometers. 

That is about one-half to two-thirds of 

the visual range that would exist 

without anthropogenic air pollution. In 

the eastern and midwestern Class I areas 

of the United States, the average visual 

range is generally less than 30 

kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 

visual range that would exist under 

estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 

35715 (July 1, 1999). 

B. Requirements of the Clean Air Act 

and EPA's Regional Haze Rule 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation's national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

"prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, Impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

I hroas det~lgnat&d M JJIJUldatory Class I Fedora! III'88S consiJt of national pari;& excee<ling 6000 acres, wildernen areas, ond lllltlonal memorial 

parks excaedlng 5000 acms ond alllnlemational 

pari;& !hat wero In existence on AuguJt 7, 1977. 42 

u.s.c. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of 

theCAl!., EPA. In consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 anl8ll whom 

vitibillty is idonUIIed aa an Important value. 44 FR 

69122 (Novomber 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

In boundaries, auch as park expansions. 4Z U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although stales ond tribes may daslgnete 

u Ciao I additional areas which they consider to have vWblllty u an Important value, 1ha 

requlremenll of the visihlllty program set forth In 

section 189A oflha CAA apply only to "mandatory 

Clan I Fodara111J'9118." Each mandatory Class I 

Federal aroe is the responalblllty of a "Fedora! Land 

Manager." 42 U.S.C. 7602{1). When we use the term 

"Class I area," we mean "mandatory Class I Fedaral 

area." 

Federal areas which Impairment results 

from manmade air pollution." On 

December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

"reasonably attributable" to a single 

source or small group of sourcas known 

as, "reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment" (RA VI). 45 FR 80084. 

These regulations represented the first 

phase in addressing visibility 

Impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility Impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated the Regional 

Haze Rule (RHR) on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 

35713). The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations to integrate into 

the regulations provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA's visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.30()-309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section m. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, 

the District of Columbia, and the Virgin 

Islands,2 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and Federal 

agencies. Pollution affecting the air 

quality in Class I areas can be 

transported over long distances, even 

hundreds of .kilometers. Therefore, 

effectively addreasing the problem of 

visibility impairment in Class I areas 

means that states need to develop 

coordinated strategies that take into 

account the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the eir quality of another 

state. 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes to address visibility impairment 

from a regional perspective because the 

pollutants that lead to regional haze can 

originate from sources located across broad geographic areas. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and 

z Albuquerque!Bemallllo County, New Mexico 

m!Ut also aubmlt a regional ham SIP to satisfy th& 

section 110(a)(2){D) requinlments of tho CAA for the 

entire state under th& New Mexico Ai:r Quality 

Control Act (section 74-2-4). 
3968 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce PM:z.s 

emissions and other pollutants leading 

to regional haze. 

The Midwest RPO (MRPO) is a collaborative effort of state governments 

and various Fedeml agencies 

established to initiate and coordinate 

activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility, 

and other air quality issues in the 

Midwest. The member states are lllinois, 

Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin. 

m. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. Section 

169A of the CAA and EPA's 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Plans must also give 

specific attention to certain stationary 

sources that were in existence on 

August 7, 1977, but were not in 

operation before August 7, 1962, and 

must require those sources to install 

emission controls reducing visibility 

impairment if appropriate. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

A. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and CuiT811t Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview a 

(dv) as the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility impairment. This 

visibility metric expresses uniform 

proportional changes in haziness in 

terms of common increments across the 

entire range of visibility conditions, 

from pristine to extremely hazy 

conditions. Visibility expressed in 

deciviews is determined by using air 

quality measurements to estimate light 

extinction and then transforming the 

value of light extinction using a 

logarithm function. The deciview is a 

more useful measure for tracking 

progress in improving visibility than 

light extinction itself because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview. 

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs, defining baseline, current, and 

•The pl'041llblo to the RHR proVIdes additional details about the declvi8'W. 64 FR 35714, 357Z5 

(July 1, 1999). 

natural conditions, and trac:king changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

"reasonable progress" toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution. The national goal is a 

return to natural conditions such that 

anthropogenic sources of air pollution 

would no longer impair visibility in 

Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401-437) and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class l area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submission and at the 

progress review every five years, 

midway through each to-year 

implementation period. The RHR 

requires states with Class I areas (Class 

I states) to determine the degree of 

impairment in deciviews for the average 

of the 20 percent least impaired (best) 

and 20 percent most impaired (worst) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of its Class I areas. Each 

state must also develop an estimate of 

natural visibility conditions for the 

purpose of comparing progress toward 

the national goal. Natural visibility is 

determined by estimating the natural 

concentrations of pollutants that cause 

visibility impairment and then 

calculating total light extinction based 

on those estimates. EPA has provided 

guidance to states regarding how to 

calculate baseline, natural, and current 

visibility conditions in documents 

titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating 

Natural Visibility Conditions Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, 

(EP A-454/B-03-Q05 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaal lt1 /memoranda/ 

rh envcurhr_gd.pdj} (hereinafter 

referred to as "EPA's 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance") and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 

September 2003located at http://www. 

epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1 /memorandalrh 

tpurhr_gd.pdj} (EPA's 2003 TrackJ.ni 

Progress Guidance). 

For the first regional haze SIP, the 

"baseline visibility conditions" are the 

starting points for assessing "current" 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

best days and 20 percent worst days for 

each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. 

Using monitoring data for 2000 through 

2004, states calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000 to 2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

B. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals {RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two distinct RPGs, 

one for the best days and one for the 

worst days for every Class I area for each 

approximately 10-year implementation 

period. The RHR does not mandate 

specific milestones or rates of progress, 

but instead calls for states to establish 

goals that provide for "reasonable 

progress" toward achieving natural 

visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, 

Class I states must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the worst 

days over the approximately lQ.year 

period of the SIP and ensure no 

degradation in visibility fur the best 

days. 

Class I states have significant 

discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 

required to consider the following 

factors established in section 169A of 

the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and, (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. The state must demonstrate in 

its SIP how these factors are considered 

when selecting the RPGs for the best 

and worst days for each applicable Class 

I area. States have considerable 

flexibility in how they take these factors 

into consideration, as noted in EPA's 

Guidance for Setting Reasonable 

Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze 

Program, ("EPA's Reasonable Progress 

Guidance"), July 1, 2007, memorandum 

from William L. Wehrum, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, to EPA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 

4-2, 5-1). In setting the RPGs, states 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 ("uniform rate of 

progress" or "glide path") and the 

emissions reduction needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the 

approximately 1 o-year period of the SIP. 
Federal Register/Yo!. 77, No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules 3969 

In setting RPGs, each Class I state must 

also consult with potentially 

contributing states, i.e. those states that 

may affect visibility impairment at the 

Class I state's areas. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(l)(iv). 

C. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain older huge stationary 

sources to address visibility impacts 

from these sources. Specifically, CAA 

section 169A(b)(2)(A) requires states to 

revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

BART as determined by the state. The 

set of "major stationary sources" 

potentially subject to BART is listed in 

CAA section 169A(g)(7). The state can 

require source-specific BART controls, 

but it also has the flexibility to adopt an 

alternative such as a trading program as long as the alternative provides greater 

progress towards improving visibility 

than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 (BART 

Guidelines) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. A state must use the 

approach in the BART Guidelines in 

making a BART determination for fossil 

fuel·fi.red electric generating units 

(EGUs) with total generating capacity in 

excess of 750 megawatts. States era 

encouraged, but not required, to follow 

the BART Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other sources. States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants ara S~, NOx, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I araas. States may select an exemption 

threshold value for their BART 

modeling under the BART Guidelines, 

below which a BART-eligible source 

would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The state must 

document this exemption threshold 

value in the SIP and must state the basis 

for its selection of that value. The 

exemption threshold set by the state 

should not be higher than 0.5 dv. Any 

source with emissions that model above 

the threshold value would be subject to 

a BART determination review. The 

BART Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual source's 

imJ)aCt. 

The state must identify potential 

BART sources in its SIP, described as 

"BART-eligible sources" in the RHR, 

and document its BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires the state 

to consider the following factors: (1) The 

costs of compliance: (2) the energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts 

of compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source: {4) the remaining useful life of the source: and, (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. A regional 

haze SIP must include source-specific 

BART emission limits and compliance 

schedules for each source subject to 

BART. The BART controls must be 

installed and in operation as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years after the date of EPA's 

approval of the state's regional haze SIP. 

CAA section 169(g)(4); 40CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is 

required by the RHR, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting for the BART controls on 

the soun::e. 

D. Long-Term Strategy 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a long-term strategy (LTS) in their 

regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 

compilation of all control measures a 

state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include enforcesble 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the RPGs for all 

Class I areas within or affected by 

emissions from the state. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). 

When a state's emissions ara 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, 

the contributing state must demonstrate 

that it has included in its SIP all 

measures necessary to obtain its shara of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between states may be 

required to address interstate visibility 

issues sufficiently. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

araa sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following seven factors ara taken into account in 

developing their LTS: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address RA VI; (2) measures to mitigate 

the impacts of construction activities; 

(3) emissions limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; and, (7) the anticipated nat 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attribuwble Visibility 

Impairment Long-Term Strategy 

EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) as part 

of the RHR regarding the LTS for RA VI 

to require that the RA VI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state's first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). The state must revise its plan to 

provide for review and revision of a 

coordinated L TS for addressing RA VI 

and regional haze on or before this date. 

It must also submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress raports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(£) and 51.308(g), respectively. 
3970 Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules 

The periodic review of a state's LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RA VI impairment and be submitted to 

EPA as a SIP revision. 

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308{d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RA VI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the lMPROVE network, 

meaning that the state reviews and uses monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

lMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The monitoring strategy is due with the 

first regional haze SlP and must be 

reviewed every five years. 

The SlP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside of the state: • Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states. • Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible in 

electronic format; • A statewide inventory of emissions 

of pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

The inventory must include emissions 

for a baseline year, emissions for the 

most recent year with available date, 

and future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and • Other elements including reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other measures 

necessary to assess and report on 

visibility; 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018 with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SlP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

G. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with Federal Land Managers (F'LMs) 

before adopting and submitting their 

SlPs. 40 CFR 51.308(1). States must 

provide FLMs an opportunity for 

consultation, in person and at least 60 

days prior to holding any public hearing 

on the SIP. This consultation must 

include the opportunity for the FLMs to 

discuss their assessment of impairment 

of visibility in any Class I area and to 

offer recommendations on the 

development of the RPGs and on the 

development and implementation of 

strategies to address visibility 

impairment. Further, a state must 

include in its SlP a description of how 

it addressed any comments provided by 

the FLMs. Finally, a SlP must provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

between the state and FLMs regarding 

the state's visibility protection program, 

including development and review of 

SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 

and the implementation of other 

programs having the potential to 

contribute to impairment of visibility in 

Class I areas. 

IV. What Is EPA's analysis ofnlinois' 

regional haze plan? 

illinois submitted its regional haze 

plan on June 24, 2011, which included 

revisions to tha Illinois SIP to address 

regional haze. 

A. Class I Areas 

States are required to address regional 

haze affecting Class I areas within a state and in Class I areas outside the 

state that may be affected by the state's 

emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(d). lllinois 

does not have any Class I areas within 

the state. Illinois reviewed technical 

analyses conducted by MRPO to 

determine what Class I areas outside the 

state are affected by lllinois emission 

sources. MRPO conducted both a back 

trajectory analysis and modeling to 

determine the affects of its states' 

emissions. The conclusion from the 

technical analysis is that emissions from 

lllinois sources affect 19 Class I areas. 

The affected Class I areas are: Sipsey 

Wilderness Area in Alabama; Caney 

Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness 

Areas in Arkansas; Mammoth Cave in 

Kentucky: Acadia National Park and 

Moosehorn Wilderness Area in Maine; 

Isle Royale National Park and Seney 

Wilderness Area in Michigan; Boundary 

Waters Canoe Wilderness Area in 

Minnesota; Hercules-Glades and Mingo 

Wilderness Areas in Missouri; Great 

Gulf Wilderness Area in New 

Hampshire; Brigantine Wildernass Area 

in New Jersey; Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park in North Carolina and 

Tennessee; Lye Brook Wilderness Area 

in Vermont; James River Face 

Wilderness Area and Shenandoah 

Nations) Park in Virginia; and, Dolly 

Sods/Otter Creek Wilderness Area in 

West Virginia. 

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural 

Conditions 

The RHR requires states with Class I areas to calculate the baseline and 

natural conditions for their Class I areas. 

Because Illinois does not have any Class 

I areas, it was not required to address 

the requirements for calculating 

baseline and natural conditions. 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

Class I states must set RPGs that 

achieve reasonable progress toward 

achieving natural visibility conditions. 

Because Illinois does not have any Class 

I areas, it is not required to establish 

RPGs. illinois consulted with affected 

Class I states to ensure that it achieves 

its share of the overall emission 

reductions necessary to achieve the 

RPGs of Class I areas that it impacts. 

illinois's coordination with affected 

Class I states is discussed under illinois 

Long Term Strategy, in Section IV. E. 

Dlinois included the MRPO technical 

support document {TSD) in its 

submission. In Section 5 of the TSD, 

MRPO assessed the reasonable progress 

for regional haze. It first assessed 

potential control measures using the 

four factors required to be considered by 

Class I states when selecting the RPGs: 

the cost of compliance, time needed, 

energy and non-air impacts, and 

remaining useful life of any potentially 

affected sources. The cost of complisnce 

factor includes calculating the average 

cost effectiveness and can include costs 

to health and Industry vitality as well as 

considering the different visibility 

effects of different pollutants. The time 

necessary for compliance factor 

considers whether control measures can 

be Implemented by 2018. The third 

factor, energy and non-air quality 

impacts, considers additional energy 

consumed by or because of the control 

measure as well as effects due to waste 
Federal RegiBter/Vol. 77, No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules 3971 

generated or water consumption. The 

final factor, remaining useful life, allows 

states to consider planned source 

retirements in calculating costs. 

MRPO also assessed the visibility 

benefits of existing programs. MRPO 

considered existing on-highway mobile 

source, off-highway mobile source, area 

source, power plant, and other point 

source prognuns. MRPO also included 

reductions from the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) in its analysis, as well from 

rules adopted by illinois and included 

in its regional haze SIP requiring the 

control of emissions from EGUs. 

illinois has a distinctive situation 

regarding CAIR, insofar as it has 

adopted state rules that require EGUs to 

control NOx and SOz emissions beyond 

the control expected from CAIR, even in 

the absence of CAIR, particularly by 

2018 and beyond. Further discussion of 

these illinois rules is provided below. 

The RPGs that pertinent Class I states 

have adopted are predicated on other 

contributing states achieving the EGU 

emission reductions anticipated under 

CAIR. Since Illinois is mandating a 

greater degree of control than is 

expected from other states, EPA 

concludes that Illinois's regional haze 

plan is expected to provide emission 

reductions representing an appropriate 

contribution toward meeting the RPGs 

for the affected Class I areas, 

iiTespective of the status of CAIR and 

irrespective of the associated issues 

regarding the adequacy of other state's 

plans. For similar reasons, EPA believes 

that the approvability of the illinois 

plan is also not affected by the status of 

the Transport Rule, which was 

promulgated on August 8, 2011 at 76 FR 

48208 and stayed on December 30, 

2011. 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

States are required to submit an 

implementation plan containing 

emission limitations representing BART 

and schedules for compliance with 

BART for esch BART -eligible source 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

cause or contribute to any impairment 

in a Class 1 area, unless the State 

demonstrates that an emi&iions trading 

program or other alternative will 

achieve greater reasonable progress 

toward natural visibility conditions. 40 

CFR 51.308(e). 

Using the criteria in the BART 

Guidance at 40 crR 51.308(e) and 

Appendix Y, Dlinois first identified all 

of the BART -eligible sources and 

assessed whether the BART -eligible 

sources were subject to BART. Illinois 

initially identified 26 potential BART 

facilities-11 EGUs, four petroleum 

refineries, three chemical process 

plants, two Portland cement plants, two 

glass fiber processing plants, one lime 

plant, and one iron and steel plant. The 

state further analyzed these facilities to 

identify those sources subject to BART. 

lllinois relied on modeling conducted 

by MRPO using a modeling protocol 

MRPO developed. MRPO conferred with 

its states, EPA, and the FLMs in 

developing its BART modeling protocol. 

EPA guidance says that, "any threshold 

that you use for determining whether a 

source 'contributes' to visibility 

impairment should not be higher than 

0.5 dv." The Guidelines affirm that 

states are free to use a lower threshold 

if the location of a large number of 

BART-eligible sources in proximity of a Class I area justifies this approach. 

Dlinois used a contribution threshold of 

0.5 dv for determining which sources 

warrant being subject to BART. lllinois 

concluded that the threshold of 0.5 dv 

was appropriate since its BART-eligible 

sources are located state-wide and no 

Class I areas are nearby causing lllinois 

to correctly conclude that a stricter 

contribution threshold is not justified. 

The modeled impact of these facilities 

indicated that 11sources have at least 

0.5 dv impact (98th percentile) and thus 

are subject to BART. The 11 sources 

determined to be subject to BART are 

nine EGUs and two petroleum 

refineries. The other 15 potential BART 

sources were determined not to be 

subject to BART because the analysis 

showed impacts well below the 0.5 dv 

contribution threshold. 

The EGUs subject to BART are: • Dynegy Midwest GeneratingBaldwin Boilers 1, 2, and 3. 

• Dominion Kincaid GenerationBoilers 1 and 2. 

• Ameren Energy GeneratingCoffeen Boilers CB-1 and CB-2. • Ameren Energy Generating-E. D. 

Edwards Boilers 2 and 3. 

• Ameren Energy Generating-Duck 

Creek Boiler 1. • Midwest Generation-Powerton 

Boilers 51, 52, 61, and 62. • Midwest Generation-Joliet Boilers 

71, 72, 81, and 82. 

• Midwest Generation-Will County 

Boiler4. 

• City Water, Light, and PowerDallman Boiler 1 and 2. • City Water, Light, and PowerLalceside Boiler 8. 

To address mercury emissions from 

EGUs, lllinois adopted Part 225 of 

illinois's air pollution regulations, 

entitled "Control of Emissions from 

La!:ge Combustion Sources." In this rule, 

Illinois offered affected utilities two 

options, one of which imposes stringent 

limits on mercury emissions alone and 

the other of which mandates 

implementation of specific mercury 

control technology in conjunction with 

satisfaction of stringent emission limits 

for SOz and NOx. Part 225 includes 

section 225.233, antitled "MultiPollutant Standards," addressing 

emissions from facilities owned by 

Ameren and Dynegy, and sections 

225.293 to 225.299, collectively referred 

to as the Combined Pollutant Standards 

(CPS), addressing emissions from 

facilities owned by Midwest Generation. 

In all cases, the utilities have selected 

the option including mercury control 

technology and applicability of the SOz 

and NOx limits. The emission limits are in the earlier noted sections of the state 

rules, so these SOz and NOx limits are 

now fully enforceable by the state. 

The SOz and NOx emission limits in 

Part 225 rules reflect substantial 

averaging across units and across 

facilities. For example. the collective set 

of facilities in illinois owned by 

Midwest Generation (as listed in the 

Part 225 rules) are subject to NOx and 

SOz limits based on annual average 

emissions across all facilities. The limit 

for NOx emissions is 0.11 pounds per 

million British Thermal Units (lb/ 

MMBTU) starting in 2012 and the limits 

for SOz are 0.15 fb/MMBTU in 2017 and 

0.111b/MMBTU starting in 2019. The 

collective set of Ameren facilities in 

Illinois, under the Multi-Pollutant 

Standards (MPS), must meet an annual 

average emission limit for NOx of 0.11 

lb/MMBTU starting in 2012 and for SOz 

of0.23lb/MMBTU starting in 2017. 

Similar limits under the MPS apply to 

the Dynegy facilities in lllinois. 

EPA believas this degree of averaging 

is acceptable in this context. The limits 

that lllinois has imposed are sufficiently 

stringent that the companies have only 

limited latitude to over control at some 

facilities in trade fur having elevated 

emissions at other facilities. The 

facilities owned by each company are 

sufficiently close to each other, relative 

to their distances from the nearest Class 

I areas. that modest shifts in emissions 

from one facility to another should have 

minimal impact on the combined 

impact on regional haze at the Class I 

areas. Furthermore, regional haze is 

evaluated across a considerable number 

of days, e.g., the 20 percent of days with 

the worst visibility. Therefore, a limit 

thet allows elevated emissions on 

individual days. so long as other days 

have lower emissions, should suffice to 

address the pertinent measures of 

regional haze. lllinois's limitll should 

also be adequately enforceable since the 

sources at issue are required to conduct 

continuous emission monitoring of both 

SOzandNOx. 
3972 Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules 

Dynegy has five facilities with 10 

units covered by MPS, including the 

three Dynegy Baldwin units that are 

subject to BART. Emission reductions 

required for seven other Dynegy units 

not subject to BART will allow it meet 

the MPS reduction requirements. MPS 

will reduce emissions from all Dynegy 

facilities by 23,831 tons per year (TPY) 

of NOx and 47,347 TPY of SCh, as 

compared to emissions in the 2002 base 

y~eren has seven facilities with 21 

units covered by MPS. This includes the 

subject to BART units: Coffeen units 1 

and 2, Duck Creek unit 1, and Edwards 

units 2 and 3. Ameren has installed 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for 

NOx control and wet scrubbers to limit 

SO:z emissions from both Coffeen units. 

Duck Creek unit 1 is controlled by low 

NOx burners, SCR, and wet scrubbers. 

Edwards unit 2 will receive an upgraded 

low NOx burner and overfire air (OFA) 

to reduce NOx emissions. Edwards unit 

3 is already controlled for NOx with low 

NOx burners, OFA, and SCR. Ameren 

plans to install a new scrubber and 

fabric filter at Edwards unit 3. 

Company-wide reductions from Ameren 

EGUs are projected to be 27,896 TPY 

NOx and 131,367 TPY SO:z by 2015 and 

134,464 TPY of S0:z by 2017. 

Midwest Generating operates six 

facilities with 19 totaf units that must 

comply with CPS, including the 

Midwest Generation units subject to 

BART: Powerton units 51, 52, 61, and 

62; Joliet units 71, 72, 81, and 82; and 

Will County unit 4. The four Powerton 

units currently have low NOx burners 

and OF A. Midwest Generation plans to 

add selective non-catalytic reduction 

(SNCR) in 2012 to reduce NOx 

emissions and flue gas desulfurization 

(FGD) in 2013 to cut SOz emissions. 

Both control improvements will be 

added to all four units. Midwest 

Generating's Joliet facility currently has 

low NOx burners and OFA on its four 

BART units. SNCR is expected to be 

added in 2012 to all four BART units. 

Midwest Generating is also planning to 

add FGD on units 71. 72, 81. and 82 by 

2019. Will County unit 4 is currently 

controlled with low NOx burners and 

OF A. Midwest Generating plans to 

upgrade the NOx control to SNCR in 

2012 and to add FGD control by 2019. 

CPS will reduce NOx emissions from all 

Midwest Generating facilities by 38,155 

TPY, while SO:z emissions will decrease 

by 35,465 TPY in 2015, increasing to a 

61,194 TPY reduction in 2019. 

A state may opt to implement an 

alternate measure rather than requiring 

each subject to BART unit to install. 

operate, and maintain BART if it 

demonstrates that the alternate measure 

will achieve greater reasonable progress. 

The criteria for the assessment if an 

alternative measure demonstrates 

greater reasonable progress are provided 

in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). MPS will reduce 

emissions from both subject to BART 

and non-BART units at the Ameren and 

Dynegy facilities. Similarly, CPS will 

require emission reductions from 

Midwest Generation's subject to BART 

and non-BART units. lllinois electad to 

use MPS and CPS participation as 

alternative to requiring BART control on 

each of the Ameren. Dynegy. and 

Midwest Generation units subject to 

BART.lllinois stated that 

implementation of the MPS and CPS 

emission limits will provide much 

deeper NOx and SOz reductions than 

implementing BART on the subject to 

BART units and thus the alternate will 

provide greater reasonable progress. 

However, illinois did not provide an 

analysis comparing BART for each 

subject unit to the alternative. Illinois 

compared the emission reductions from 

MPS and CPS to the presumptive BART 

emission levels suggested in EPA's 

guidance. EPA generally requires states 

to compare the alternative strategy to a 

fully analyzed set of BART limits for the 

BART-subject units. However, in this 

case, the results of such a comparison 

are clear even without illinois 

conducting a full BART analysis for 

these units. The total NOx emission 

reductions due to MPS on Dynegy EGUs 

are greater than the base year NOx 

emissions from Dynegy's subject to 

BART units. Therefore, the emission 

reductions from MPS are greater than 

the maximum possible reductions from 

the BART units. The same is true for 

SO:z emissions for the Dynegy EGUs, the 

NOx emissions from the Ameren EGUs, 

and the SCh emissions from the Ameren 

EGUs. Similarly, the total NOx emission 

reductions from all Midwest Generating 

are greater than the NOx emissions from 

the BART units and the same for its SO:z 

emissions. Therefore, even without a 

full analysis of the precise emission 

levels that would constituta BART for 

the BART-subject units, EPA finds that 

the lllinois rules, MPS and CPS, are an 

acceptable BART alternative because the 

emission reductions are greater than the 

reductions that could possibly be 

obtained by only requiring BART at the 

BART-subject units. 

Three other EGUs, owned by two 

other utilities Dominion Energy and the 

City of Springfield's City Water, Light, 

and Power (CWLP), are not covered by 

MPS and CPS but have units subject to 

BART. CWLP is a smaller utility with a 

total generating capacity of less than 750 

MW and Dominion Energy has only one 

electric generating facility in lllinois 

such that these utilities do not have the 

opportunities for multi-plant averaging 

of emission limits that the largar 

utilities have. Rather than adopting an 

altarnative program to address the 

BART requirements for these two 

utilities, illinois is requiring these 

utilities to meet the BART requirements 

for the units subject to BART and 

establish enforceable emission limits for 

SO:z and NOx. CWLP's Dallman and 

Lakeside plants, along with Dominion's 

Kincaid plant, have units subject to 

BART. Both utilities must reduce 

emissions to mast the BART limits. The 

emission limits for Dallman units 31 

and 32, Lakeside unit 8, and Kincaid 

units 1 and 2 are contained in Joint 

Construction and Operating permits. 

lllinois evaluated potential controls and 

what control level the current emission 

controls can achieve in setting the 

BART emission limits for the CWLP 

Dallman and Dominion Kincaid units. 

CWLP currently has SCRa and FGD on 

Dallman units 31 and 32. As of 2010, 

CWLP has been orerating the SCRa to 

achieve an annua average NOx 

emission rate of 0.14 lb!MMBTU on 

both Dallman units, combined. The 

annual average NOx emission rate will 

be limited to 0.12 lb/MMBTU by 2015 

and then further decreased to 0.11 lb/ 

MMBTU by 2017 for both units, 

combined. CWLP will operata the 

controls to achieve an annual average 

SO:z emissions rate on both Dallman 

units, combined, of0.29 lbiMMBTUby 

2012, then reduced to 0.25 lb/MMBTU 

by 2015, and finally to 0.23 lb/MMBTU 

by 2017. lllinois has determined these 

emission limits satisfy BART for both 

units. CWLP permanently shut down 

Lakeside unit 8 in 2009, which is 

reflected in the permit. 

Dominion's Kincaid facility operates 

SCRa on its units 1 and 2. The permit 

for the Kincaid facility limits NOx 

emissions to an annual average of 0.07 

lb/MMBTU by March 1, 2013, on both 

units, combined. Dlinois determined the 

appropriate SO:z control system for 

Kincaid is a dry sorbent injection 

system along with using low sulfur coal. 

Illinois initially gave the Kincaid facility 

a S~ emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBTU 

on both units, but found that a stricter 

limitofO.t5lbiMMBTU can be 

achieved with the control system. 

lllinois thus set the SO:z emission limits 

for both Kincaid units, combined, at an 

annual average emission rate of 0.20 lb/ 

MMBTU by January 1, 2014, and 

reduced the limit further to an annual 

average emission rate of0.15lb/ 

MMBTU beginning on January 1, 2017. 

Illinois issued ilia Joint Construction 

and Operating permits pursuant to its 
Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules 3973 

authority in the SIP and submitted the 

two permits as part of its Regional Haze 

plan to be incorporated into the SIP. 

The permits set Federally enforceable 

NOx and SOl limits as necessary to 

meet the Regional Haze requirements of 

the CAA and effectively mandate that 

the utilities to run the SCRs year round 

and for CWLP to shut down its Lakeside 

unit 8. 

Two petroleum refineries. the CITGO 

and Exxon Mobil refineries, also have 

units subject to BART: the CITGO 

refinery in Lemont, illinois and the 

Exxon Mobil refinery south of Joliet, 

Dlinois. Both refineries will be required 

to reduce emissions by a Federal 

consent decree resolving an 

enforcement action brought by EPA 

against a number of refineries. The 

consent decrees require the CITGO, 

Exxon Mobil, and the other refineries to 

operate controls at the Best Available 

Control Technology level. Illinois 

evaluated the subject-to-BART units at 

the CITGO and Exxon Mobil refineries. 

It found that the NOx and S<h emission 

limits on the subject-to-BART units in 

the consent decrees satisfy BART. 

A consent decree between the United 

States and CITGO Petroleum 

Corporation was entered in the U.S. 

District Court for the Southern District 

of Texas on October 6, 2004 (No. H-o4-

3883). The consent decree requires the 

company to operate SCR and a wet 

scrubbing system at its Fluid Catalytic 

Cracking Unit (FCCU) that will reduce 

NOx emissions by more than 90 percent 

and S(h emissions by 85 percent. The 

controls on the FCCU will result in a 

reduction of NOx emissions from 

1,065.7 to 106.6 TPY and S(h emissions 

from 10,982.5 to 107.9 TPY by 2013. 

CITGO has also added a tail gas 

recovery unit that reduces so2 

emissions from its sulfur train units 

from 4340.0 to 91.2 TPY, a 98 percent 

reduction. The emission controls on all 

units at CITGO's Lemont refinery will 

reduce NOx emissions by 1 ,268 TPY 

and SOl emissions by 15,123 TPY. 

A consent decree lietween the United 

States and Exxon Mobil Corporation 

was entered in the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of Dlinois on 

October 11,2005 (No. 05-C-5809). The 

consent decree for Exxon Mobil requires 

SCR operation on its FCCU in addition 

to maintenance of the existing wet 

scrubbing system. The controls on the 

FCCU result in a 1,636.2 TPY decrease 

in NOx emissions from 1.818.0 to 181.8 

TPY and a 9,667.7 TPY decrease in S02 

emissions from 9,665.0 to 197.3 TPY. 

Exxon Mobil also has added a tail gas 

recovery unit on its south sulfur 

recovery unit. That reduces S(h 

emissions by 9,153.8 TPY to 186.8 TPY. 

The emission controls at Exxon Mobil's 

Joliet refinery will reduce 1,695 TPY 

NOx and 18,821 TPY S(h. 

These two consent decrees are Federally enforceable and also require 

that the refineries submit permit 

applications to Illinois to incorporate 

the reQUired emission limits into 

Federa'ily enforceable air permits (other 

than Title V). Therefore, emission limits 

established by the consent decrees may 

be relied upon by illinois for addressing 

the BART requjrement for these 

facilities. 

Based on modeling, MRPO 

determined that the visibility impact of 

directly emitted particulate matter from 

the facilities with subject to BART units 

is minimal. In particular, MRPO 

assessed the impact of the directly 

emitted particulate matter from all 

facilities potentially subject to BART in 

the five MRPO states, and found the 

impact to be lass than 0.5 dv at any 

Class I area as compared to natural 

background conditions. lllinois 

therefore concludes that PM emissions 

from its subset of these BART sources 

have a negligible visibility impact. 

Furthermore, these facilities are already 

subject to federally enforceable PM 

emission control requirements 

mandated by SIP-approved state 

particulate matter regulations, so that 

there is minimal potential for further 

PM emission reductions. Therefore, 

based particularly on the substantial 

existing controls on these facilitiesfabric fllters, electrostatic precipitators, 

and cyclones: and the minimal benefits 

of further control, fllinois concluded 

that BART did not include further 

control of PM emissions from these 

facilities. 

EPA is satisfied with the state's BART 

determinations. The emission limits that 

lllinois adopted generally will require 

state-of-the-art emission controls, not 

just at the units subject to BART 

requirements but also at numerous units 

that are not subject to BART. The 

illinois facilities subject to BART are a 

long distance from any Class I area such 

that, so the geographical redistributions 

of emissions within Illinois do not 

significantly affect visibility and the 

benefits of alternate control strategies 

may be judged simply by comparing the 

net emission reductions. The MPS and 

CPS provide emission reduction well in 

excess of simply implementing BART 

on subject units. The reduction in NOx 

emissions from the Ameren, Dynegy, 

and Midwest Generation units by 2015 

from MPS and CPS is expected to be 

89,882 TPY. lllinois estimated that 

simply implementing BART on the 

subject units from these entities would 

yield 32,992 TPY of NOx emission 

reductions, which is 56,890 TPY less 

that from MPS and CPS. Illinois 

estimated that implementing BART on the subject units at Ameren, Dynegy, 

and Midwest Generation facilities 

would require an 117,252 TPY 

reduction in S(h emission, but MPS and 

CPS will require a 214,179 TPY S(h 

reduction by 2015. Thus, Illinois 

estimated that its plan will require 

96,927 TPY lower S(h emissions than 

simply requiring BART. EPA believes 

that Illinois has thereby demonstrated 

the emission limits on the subject to 

BART units covered by MPS and CPS 

satisfy the BART requirements. 

Illi.Dois did not rely on the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) for its BART 

determinations. Illinois is in the CAIR 

region. However, it used its state rules, 

permits, and consent decrees to achieve 

emission reductions that satisfy BART. 

This means that illinois is not reliant on CAIR and. thus, it has avoided the 

issues of other CAIR region states that 

relied on CAIR. For similar reasons, 

illinois' satisfaction of regional haze 

rule requirements is not contingent on 

the Transport Rule and thus is not 

affected by the stay of that rule. 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

Under section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA 

and 40 CFR 51.308(d), states' regional 

haze programs must include an LTS for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting the national visibility goal. 

fllinois's LTS must address visibility 

improvement for the Class I areas 

impacted by fllinois sources. Section 

51.30B(d)(3) requjres that nlinois 

consult with the affected states in order 

to develop a coordinated emission 

management strategy. A contributing 

state, such as Illinois, must demonstrate 

that it has included, in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emissions reductions needed to 

meet the RPGs for the Class I areas 

affected by illinois sources. As 

described in section ID.D. of this 

proposed rule, the LTS is the 

compilation of all control measures 

Illinois will use to meet applicable 

RPGs. The LTS must include 

enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

RPGs for all Class 1 areas affected by 

illinois emissions. 

Illinois complied with the consulting 

requirements by participating in 

meetings and conference calls with 

affected Class I states and RPOs to 

discuss the states' assessments of 

visibility conditions, analyses of 

culpability, and possible measures that 

could be taken to meet visibility goals. 

Illinois engaged in extensive 
3974 Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules 

consultations with other MRPO states, 

including Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin. Illinois also consulted with 

Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, 

Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

and Vermont. As part of the MRPO, 

illinois participated in inter-RPO 

consultation on regional haze. This 

consultation is detailed in Chapter 9 of 

the state's plan. EPA finds that the 

state's consultation with Class I states 

satisfies applicable consultation 

requirements. 

Illinois's L TS includes the modeling 

and monitoring results on which it 

relied to determine its share of emission 

reductions necessary to meet the 

reasonable progress goals of impacted 

Class I areas. This information is 

provided in Chapter 9 of the Dlinois 

regional haze plan. Portions of this 

technical work were provided by MRPO 

as it worked with other RPOs to provide 

this information on Class I areas outside 

the Midwest. 

At 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), the RHR 

identifies seven factors that a state must 

consider in developing its LTS: (A) 

Emission reductions cfue to ongoing 

programs; (B) measures to mitigate 

impact from construction; (C) emission 

limits to achieve the RPG; (D) 

replacement and retirement of sources; 

(E) smoke management techniques; (F) 

Federally enforceable emission limits 

and control measures; and (G) the net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

emission changes over the LTS period. 

lllinois considered the seven factors in 

developing its LTS. Chapter 8 of the 

illinois regional haze plan provides a full analysis of each factor. 

Illinois relied on MRPO's modeling 

and analysis along with its emission 

information in developing a LTS. 

Illinois considered the factors set out in 

51.308(d)(3)(v) in developing its LTS. 

Based on these factors and the MRPO's 

technical analysis, in conjunction with 

RPGs that were set by the pertinent 

Class I states in consultation with 

Illinois and other contributing states, 

lllinois concludes that existing control 

programs, together with the BART 

controls described above, address 

Illinois's impact on Class I areas. This 

is because the combination of the 

existing controls and the BART controls 

suffice to meet the impacted Class I 

areas' RPGs by 2018. These existing 

control programs include Fedora! motor 

vehicle emission control program, 

reformulated gasoline, emission limits 

fur area sources ofVOCs. Title IV, the 

NOx SIP Call, NOx Reasonable 

Achievable Control Technology, 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology standards, and Federal nonroad standards for construction 

equipment and vehicles. As discussed 

in prior sections, implementation of the 

existing control programs, 

supplemented by the control measures 

in the submission that require power 

plant and petroleum refinery emission 

reductions, will satisfy the LTS 

requiremants because. for reasons 

discussed above, the expected emission 

reductions will meet requirements both 

to provide for BART and to provide 

emission reductions in lllinois that, in 

combination with emission reductions 

elsewhere, should improve visibility 

sufficiently for the pertinent Class I 

areas to meet their RPGs. 

Illinois assessed all point sources in 

the state that emit at least 1,000 TPY of 

NOx and SOl combined and are more than 100 km from a Class I area to 

determine if the sources could 

potentially affect visibility in a Class I 

area. The assessment followed EPA 

guidance in calculating the ratio of 

emission rate in TPY (Q) to the distance 

to the nearest Class I area (d). The 

exclusions also followed guidance. 

lllinois found 15 facilities with a Q/d 

ratio equal to and greater than 10, EPA's 

recommended threshold. The results of 

the Q/d assessment are found in Table 

8.1 in the Illinois TSD. lllinois found 

that it expects the implementation of 

existing control measures will result in 

emission reductions from the 15 

facilities. As such, illinois believes that 

the expected emission reductions will 

ensure reasonable progress. 

F. Monitoring Strategy 

illinois maintains a monitoring 

network that provides data to analyze 

air quality problems including regional 

haze. Illinois's monitoring network 

includes State and Local Air Monitoring 

Sites (SLAMS), Special Purpose 

Monitors (SPM), Photochemical 

Assessment Monitoring Sites (PAMS), 

and PM::~,, speciation sites. Illinois does 

not operate any sites under the 

IMPROVE program, but does have a site 

in Bondville, lllinois that monitors 

using the IMPROVE procedure method. 

Illinois is required under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4) to have procedures fur 

using the monitoring data to determine 

the contribution of emissions from 

within the state to affected Class I areas. Illinois developed procedures in 

conjunction with the MRPO. The 

procedures are detailed in the MRPO 

TSD. EPA finds that Illinois's regional 

haze plan meets the monitoring 

requirements for the RHR and that 

Dlinois's network of monitoring sites is 

satisfactory to measure air quality and 

assess its contribution to regional haze. 

G. Federal Land Manager Consultation 

Illinois was required to consult with 

the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

Illinois consulted with the FLMs 

electronically and by telephone. The 

FLMs were also included in discussions 

with Illinois during MRPO conference 

calls and meetings. A draft regional haze 

plan was submitted fur FLMs comments on August 6, 2009. Illinois then 

provided the FLMs a revised regional 

haze plan on October 7, 2010 for review. 

That provided the FLMs enough time to 

comment prior to the December 6, 2010, 

public hearing on the regional haze 

plan. Illinois has included comments 

from the FLMs in Attachment 9 to its 

regional haze plan, a document 

providing the comments Illinois 

received and its responses. The state has 

committed to consulting the FLMs on 

future SIP revisions and progress 

reports. 

H. Comments 

Illinois took comments on its 

proposed regional haze plan. It held a 

public hearing on December 6, 2010. 

The public comment period ended on January 5, 2011. Evidence of the public 

notice and evidence of the public 

hearing were submitted to EPA. 

Illinois's submission includes a 

document, Attachment 9, which 

summarized the comments it received 

from both the FLMs and from the public 

and provides its responses to the 

comments. The state revised portions of 

its plan based on the comments to 

correct errors and clarify portions that 

caused confusion. Illinois responded to 

other comments without revising its 

plan. EPA concludes that nlinois has 

satisfied the requirements from 40 CFR 

Part 51, Appendix V to provide 

evidence that it gave public notice, took 

comments, and that it compiled and 

responded to comments. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to the Illinois SIP, submitted on June 24, 

2011, addressing regional haze for the 

first implementation period. The 

revisions address CAA and regional 

haze rule requirements for states to 

remedy any existing anthropogenic and 

prevent future impairment of visibility 

at Class I areas. EPA finds that lllinois 

has satisfied all the requirements and, 

thus, is proposing approval of the 

regional haze plan. EPA is also 

proposing to approve two state rules, 

MPS and CPS, and incorporating two 

permits, issued to City Water, Light, &: 

Power and to Dominion Energy, into the 

SIP. 
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules 3975 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S. C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA's role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a "significant regulatory 

action" subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S. C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of1995 (Pub. L.104-4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not imyose substantial direct 

costs on triba governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 17, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrotor, Region 5. 

IFR Doc. 2012-1606 Piled 1-Z5-12; 6:45 am) 

IIIUING CODEENVIRONMENTAL PROTEcnON 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-RO&-OAR-2011-ooBO; FRL-41622-7] 

Approval and PromulgatJon of Air 

Quality Implementation Plane; Indiana; 

Regional Haze 

AOEHCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA}. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of revisions to the Indiana 

State Implementation Plan (SJP) 

addressing regional haze for the first 

implementation period. Indiana 

submitted its regional haze plan on 

January 14, 2011, and supplemented it 

on March 10, 2011. The Indiana regional 

haze plan addresses the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements 

for states to remedy any existing and 

prevent future anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I aress caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the "regional haze 

program"). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the nstional 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. EPA is 

proposing a limited approval of these 

SIP revisions to implement the regional 

haze requirements for Indiana on the 

basis that the revisions, as a whole, 

strengthen the Indiana SIP. In a separate 

action, EPA has previously proposed a 

limited disapproval of the Indians 

regional haze SIP because of the 

deficiencies in Indiana's regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the remand 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to 

EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). Consequently, we are not 

proposing to take action in this notice 

to address the state's reliance on CAJR 

to meet certain regional haze 

requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EP A-RosOAR-2011-ooao, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pame/a@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692-2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR-18fl, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard. Chicago,lllinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30am. to 4:30p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EP A-R05-0AR-2011-

0080. EPA's policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBO or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an "anonymous access" system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.govyour email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 
Exhibit 8 

Final Federal Approval of the Illinois BART SIP 

(77 Fed.Reg. 39943 (July 6, 2012)) 
Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 130/Friday, July 6, 2012/Rules and Regulations 39943 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Reg.fster. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a "major rule" as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

G. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

r:ircuit by September 4. 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action 

pertaining to Maryland's Regional Haze 

Plan for the first implementation period, 

through 2018 may not be challenged 

later in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. See section 307(b)(2) of 

the CAA. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxido, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 13, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 

as follows: 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area State submittal 

date 

PART 52-{AMENDEO] 

• 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart V-Maryland 

• 2. In§ 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry for 

the Maryland Regional Haze Plan at the 

end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * 

(e)* * * 

EPA approval date Additional 

explanation 

Maryland Regional Haze Plan ........ Statewide ..................................... .. 2113/12 7/612012 [Insert page number 

where the document begins]. 

[FR Doc. ZOlZ-16417 Piled 7-5-12; 8:45am] 

BILJ.lNG CODE 85IIO-liO-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R05-0AR-2011...0598; FRL-9683-6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to 

the Dlinois State Implementation Plan, 

submitted on June 24,2011, addressing 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period. EPA received 

comments disputing its proposed 

finding regarding best available retrofit 

technology, but EPA continues to 

believe that lllinois' plan limits power 

plant emissions as wall as would be 

achieved by directly requiring best 

available retrofit technology. Therefore, 

EPA finds tltat the Illinois regional haze 

plan satisfactorily addresses Clean Air 

Act section 169A and Regional Haze 

Rule requirements for states to remedy 

any existing and prevent future 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility 

at mandatory Class I areas. EPA is also 

approving two state rules and 

incorporating two permits into the state 

implementation plan. 

OATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EP A-R05-0AR-2011-059B. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly availabl!l, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CHI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone John 

Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, 

at (312) 866-6067 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATlON CONTACT: John 

Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, illinois 60604, (312) 866-6067, 

summerhays.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary Information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule 

ll. Commonts and Responses 

ill. What action is EPA taking? 

N. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule 

Illinois submitted a plan on June 24, 

2011, to address the requirements of 

Clean Air Act section 169A and the 

Regional Haze Rule, as codified in Title 

40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 

51.308 (40 CFR 51.306). 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking evaluating illinois' 

submittal on January 26, 2012, at 77 FR 

3966. This notice described the nature 

of the regional haze problem and the 

statutory and regulatory background for 

EPA's review of lllinois' regional haze 

plan. The notice provided a longthy 

delineation of the requirements that 

Illinois intended to meet, including 

requirements for mandating BART, 

consultation with other states in 

establishing goals representing 

reasonable progress in mitigating 

anthropogenic visibility impairment, 

and adoption of limitations as necessary 

to implement a long-term strategy for 

reducing visibility Impairment. 

Of particular interest were EPA's 

findings regarding BART. States ere 

required to address the BART 
39944 Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 130/Friday, July 6, 2012/Rules and Regulations 

requirements for sources with 

significant impacts on visibility, which 

Jllinois defined as having at least 0.5 

deciview impact on a Class I area. Using 

modeling performed by the Lake 

Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO), Illinois identified 10 power 

plants and two refineries as having 

sufficient impact to warrant being 

subject to a requirement representing 

BART. 1 

Seven of the power plants that were 

iden tilled as being subject to the 

requirement for BART are addressed in 

one of two sets of provisions of Illinois' 

rules known respectively as the 

Combined Pollutant Standards (CPS), 35 

111. Administrative Code 225.233, and 

the Multi-Pollutant Standards (M:PS), 35 

Illinois Administrative Code 225.293-

225.299. These provisions are included 

in Illinois' mercury rules. These rules 

offer the affected utilities (Midwest 

Generation, Dynegy, and Ameren) a 

choice of limitations, either to include 

1) specific mercury emission limitations 

effective in 2015 with no limits on 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (S02> or 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) or 2) work 

practice requirements for installation of 

mercury control equipment in 

conjunction with limits on S02 and 

NOx emissions. TI!inois' submittal 

includes letters from the affected 

companies choosing the option that 

includes S02 and NOx emission limits, 

which pursuant to lllinois' rules 

establishes these limits as enforceable 

limits. In the case of Midwest 

Generation, three of its power plants 

meet the criteria for being subject to 

BART, and six plants are governed by 

the S02 and NOx limits in the MultiPollutant Standards. In the case of 

Dynegy, one of its power plants meets 

the criteria for boing subject to BART, 

and four coal-fired power plants are 

governed by the S02 and NOx limits in 

the (CPS). In the case of Ameren, three 

of il<; power plants meet the criteria for 

being subject to BART, and five coalfired plants are governed by the SO:! and 

NOx limits in the (CPS). In the notice 

of proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed 

to con dude that the emission 

reductions from the (MPS) and the 

(CPS) would be greater than the 

reductions that would occur with unitspecific implementation of BART on the 

subset of thAse sources that meet the 

criteria for being subject to BART. 

Therefore, EPA proposed to find that the 

(M:PS) and the (CPS) suffice to address 

'The notice of proposed rulemaklng Hsts 10 

EGUs as being: subject to BART (including two 

facilities ownod by City Wator !.ight and Power 

(CWU')) but states thnt only 9 EGUa are subject to 

BART. This ts becnu:;e CWLP shut dawn tbe 

Lakeslds plant thnt wns •ubjoct to DART in 2009. 

the BART requirement for the power 

plants of these three utilities. 

Illinois also developed source-specific 

limits to mandate BART for three 

additional power plants. These limits 

are adopted into two permits, one for 

Kincaid Generation's Kincaid Station 

and one for City Water, Light, and 

Power's (CWLP) Dallman Station and 

Lakeside Station. CWLP shutdown 

Lakeside Station in 2009, and the CWLP 

permit requires that the Lakeside 

Station never resume operation. Finally, 

Illinois found that Federal consent 

decrees regulating emissions from the 

two refineries with units subject to 

BART (facilities owned by ExxonMobil 

and Citgo) mandate control at the 

refineries in Illinois at least as much as 

would be required as BART. EPA 

proposed to conclude that Illinois 

satisfied BART requirements for the 

affected Ulinois power plants and 

refineries. 

As stated in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Illinois did not rely on the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CA..IR) for its 

BART determinations. lllinois is in the 

CAIR region. However, it used its state 

rules, permits, and consent decrees to 

achieve emission reductions that satisfy 

BART. This means that lllinois is not 

reliant on CAIR and, thus, it has 

avoided the issues of other CAIR region 

states that relied on CAIR. For similar 

reasons, Illinois' satisfaction of regional 

haze rule requirements is not contingent 

on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) and thus is not affected by the 

stay of that rule. 

II. Comments and Responses 

EPA received comments from three 

c:ommenters on its proposed rulemaking on the Illinois regional haze plan. These 

commenters included ExxonMobil, the 

U.S. Forest Service, and the 

Environmental Law and Policy Center 

(ELPC). 

ExxonMobil comments that section 

169A(b)(2)(A) requires sources to 

implement BART as determined by the 

state (emphasis in the original), and 

agrees with Illinois' and EPA's 

conclusion that "emission limits 

established by the consent decrees may 

be rolied upon by Illinois for addressing 

the BART requirement for these 

facilities." While EPA has the 

responsibility to evaluate whothor it 

believes that states have made 

appropriate determinations as to what 

restrictions constitute BART, EPA 

appreciates the comment supporting its 

position, which EPA has no reason to 

change, that the Federal consent decrees 

for ExxonMobil nnd Citgo adequately 

mandate BART for the two Illinois 

refineries. 

The U.S. Forest Service wrote to 

express its appreciation to Illinois for 

addressing prior Forest Service 

comments and to express support for 

EPA's proposed approval of Illinois' 

plan. 

ELPC sont extensive comments 

objecting that control requirements for 

power plants in Illinois do not suffice to 

meet the BART requirements and leave 

Illinois short of meeting reasonable 

progress requirements. These comments 

are addressed in detail in the discussion 

that follows. 

Comment: ELPC argues that "the 

plain language of the Clean Air Act 

precludes alternatives to BART." Since 

the Illinois plan establishes limits that 

govern the collective emissions of 

multiple power plants owned by 

pertinent utilities, the plan relies on an 

alternative to BART as described in 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2) rather than mandating 

BART on a source-specific basis. ELPC 

states that BART at BART -eligible 

sources is expressly mandated in Clean 

Air Act section 169A(b)(2)(A). ELPC 

acknowledges that the Clean Air Act 

authorizes limited exemptions from 

BART, in cases which EPA determines 

pursuant to section 169A(c)(1) that "the source does not either by il~elf or in 

combination with other sources 'emit 

any air pollutant which may reasonably 

be anticipated to cause or contribute to 

a significant impairment of visibility in 

any mandatory class I federal area.'" 

ELPC observes that "[n)owhere in 

Section 169A did Congress contemplate 

or sanction sweeping alternative 

programs" such as ILlinois uses to 

address BART for manv ofil~ BARTsubject power plants "in lieu of source 

specific BART." 

ELPC acknowledges that EPA 

promulgated regulations reflecting its 

interpretation that BART requirements 

may be satisfied by alternative 

programs, and ELPC acknowledges that 

"tho DC Circuit Court of Appeals has 

upheld [these] regulations.'' 

Nevertheless, "because these [court 

rulings] cannot be reconciled with the 

plan language of the Clean Air Act," 

ELPC urges that "EPA should not rely 

on [this interpretation] tu exempt 

Illinois from implementing BART.'' 

Response: In several previous rules, 

EPA has concluded that Clean Air Act 

section 169A may reasonably he 

interpreted to provide that the 

requirement for BART may be satisfied 

by an alternative program that provides 

greater visibility protection in lieu of 

limitations that directly mandate BART' 

for individual sources determined to be 

subject to the BART requirement. See 40 

CFR 51.308(e), 64 FR 35741-35743 (July 

1. 1999). and 70 FR 39136 (July 6, 2005). 
Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 130/Friday, July 6, 2012/Rules and Regulations 39945 

As ELPC acknowledges, the Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit supports that interpretation, 

Center for Energy and Economic 

Developmentv. EPA, 398 F.3d 653,660 

(D.C. Cir. 2005) ("GEED") (finding 

reasonable EPA's interpretation of CAA 

section 169(a)(2) as requiring BART 

only as necessary to make reasonable 

progress), as has the Ninth Circuit, 

Central Arizona Water Conservation 

Districtv. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (9th 

Cir. 1993) Therefore, EPA views Illinois' 

approach as an acceptable means of 

addressing the BART requirement in 

section 169A. 

Comment: ELPC comments that 

"Illinois was required, but failed, to 

make a BART determination for each 

source subject to BART in the state." 

ELPC lists the elements of a BART 

analysis that a state "must submif' 

(emphasis in original) pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2), and ELPC states that 

Illinois has failed to make the BART 

determination based on source-specific 

information that EPA's regulations 

require. "Rather than make a BART 

determination for each individual 

source subject to BART that would be 

covered by Illinois' proposed 

altemative," ELPC objects that the state 

"simply compared projected emissions 

reductions [from the adopted 

restrictions] to presumptive BART 

emissions." ELPC comments that 

"[b]ecause Illinois entirely failed to use 

source-specific information or 

undertake a comprehensive five factor 

analysis to determine BART, its 

proposed Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) may not be 

approved. 

Response: The primary requirement, 

as specified in Clean Air Act section 

169A, is fur sources to procure, install, 

and operate BART. In some cases tl1is 

requirement is met with an analysis of 

potential controls considering five 

factors set out in EPA's regional haze 

rule (a "five-factor analysis"). 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). As noted above, EPA 

has determined that this requirement 

can be met by a state establishing an 

alternative set of emission limits which 

mandate greater reasonable progress 

toward visibility improvement than 

direct application of BART on a sourceby-source basis. 

In promulgating the 1999 regional 

haze regulations, EPA stated that to 

demonstrate that emission reductions of 

an alternative program would result in 

greater emission reductions, "the State 

must estimate the emission reductions 

that would result from the use of BARTlevel controls. To do this, the State 

could undertake a source-specific 

review of the sources in the State 

subject to BART, or it could uso a 

modified approach that simplifies the 

analysis." 64 FR 35742 Ouly 1, 1999). 

In guidance published on October 13, 

2006, EPA offered further clarification 

fur states for assessing alternative 

strategies, in particular regarding the 

benchmark definition of BART to use in 

judging whether the alternative is better. 

See 71 FR 60612. In this rulemaking, 

EPA stated in the preamble that the 

presumptive BART levels given in the 

BART guidelines would be a suitable 

baseline against which to compare 

alternative strategies where the 

alternative has been designed to meet a 

requirement other than BART. 71 FRat 

60619; see also 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i](C). lllinois' analysis is 

fully consistent with EPA's conclusions 

in this rulamaking. 

Nevertheless, EPA undertook further 

analysis comparing Illinois' strategy 

against more stringent definitions of 

BART. In brief, EPA found that the 

alternative restrictions imposed by 

Illinois can be demonstrated to provide 

greater emission reductions and greater 

visibility improvement than even very 

conservative definitions of BART, even 

without a full analysis of the emission 

levels that constitute BART. The 

demonstration is discussed below, in 

the context of response to comments 

addressing the magnitude of controls at 

lllinois power plants. 

Comment: ELPC believes that the 

pertinent requirements in illinois' plan 

"will not achieve greater reasonable 

progress toward natural visibility 

conditions than BART." Furthermore, 

"the MPS/CPS contains absolutely no 

requirements for specific control · 

equipment to be installed or operated at 

any source subject to BART in Illinois." 

ELPC identifies several examples of 

BART units that are expected to comply 

with the MPS or CPS with controls that 

are less effective than BART-level 

controls. ELPC also finds it problematic 

that "requirements for 2017 for Ameren 

exceed presumptive BART requirements 

for NOx at one of the three plants 

subject to BART, and far exceed 

presumptive SO:z BART limiis at all 

three (emphasis in original) Arneren 

plants subject to BART." ELPC raises 

similar concerns in relation to specified 

Midwest Generation (MWG) plants. For 

this reason, "and because Arneren and 

MVITG need not meet even those weak 

requirements at their plants subject to 

BART, the MPS/CPS is not 'better' than 

presumptive BART limits." 

Response: ELPC appears to 

misunderstand the applicable test for 

altemate strategies for addressing BART. 

In particular, ELPC appears to believe 

that under the alternative approach, 

Illinois must require BART-level 

controls at each unit subject to BART. 

In fact, the underlying principle of 

EPA's guidance on alternative measures 

is to offer states the flexibility to require 

less control at BART units than BARTlevel control, provided the states 

provide additional control at non-BART 

units that more than compensates for 

any degree to which control at BART 

units falls short of BART. lllinois is 

using precisely this flexibility. 

Irrespective of the degree to which 

control at individual power plant BART 

units may be less stringent than the 

limits that for those particular units 

would be defined as BART, Illinois is 

requiring control across a universe of 

sources that includes many sources that 

are not subject to BART, thereby 

providing reductions that under EPA's 

rules and BART guidelines on 

altemative measures can compensate for 

any shortfall in control at BART units. 

In response to these comments, EPA 

conducted further anal)'1lis of whether 

lllinois' requirements, addressing a 

substantial number of sources, can be 

expected to provide greater reasonable 

progress toward visibility protection 

than application of BART to the more 

limited number of units subject to a requirement for BART. EPA's analysis 

did not rely on a full five-factor analysis 

of BART at each BART-subject unit. 

Instead of using presumptive limits, 

EPA used emission limits described in 

EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse as being applied to new 

sources. These limits, namely 0.06 

pounds per million British Thermal 

Units (#/MMBTU) for NOx and also 0.06 

#/MMBTU for 502, are as stringent and 

are probably more stringent than would 

generally be expected to be met at 

existing power plants, due to the design 

constraints that are sometimes inherent 

in controlling emissions at an existing 

facility. 

A more complete description of EPA's 

analysis is provided in the technical 

support document being placed in tho 

docket for this rule. Table 1 provides a 

summary of tho results of this analysis. 
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 130/Friday, July 6, 2012/Rules and Regulations 39947 

limiting several units that are not 

subject to a BART requirement. 

A useful perspective is to examine the 

metrics by which regional haze is 

evaluated. These metrics are averages of 

visibility across 20 percent of the days 

ofthe year, in particular across the 20 

percent of days with the worst visibility 

and across the 20 percent of days with 

the best visibility. (See 64 FR 35734) 

Twenty percent of 365 days in a year is 

73 days. Furthermore, the days that 

have better or worse visibility are 

distributed throughout the year, so that 

allowance of greater variability in daily 

or monthly omissions would not 

necessarily yield worse (or better) 

visibility. Thus, while a 30-day average 

limit would be better suited to assuring 

appropriate mitigation of visibility 

impairment, EPA finds nlinois' annual 

average limitations to be adequately 

commensurate with the averaging time 

inherent in the visibility metrics being 

addressed. 

Another facet of the use of annual 

rather than 30-day or shorter averages is 

stringency. Given normal variability in 

emissions, an annual average limitation 

is by definition less stringent than a 30-

day or shorter average limitation set at 

the same level. In some contexts, 

especially those involving short-term air 

quality standards, EPA would not 

accept an annual average limitation 

without a demonstration that the 

limitation suffices to mandate that 

short-term average emission levels must 

remain below some definable, adoquate 

level. However, different criteria are 

warranted in the context of regional 

haze for which the relevant emissions 

are the emissions on the 20 percent of 

days with worst visibility and the 20 

percent of days with best visibility. 

Examining the stringency of the 

particular limitations that Illinois has 

adopted, and considering clegre~ o~ 

variability in 73-day average emlSSJons 

that might be expected with an annual 

average emission limit, EPA finds that 

Illinois' annual average limitations are 

sufficiently stringent to condude that 

emissions on a 30-day average basis can 

be exper.ted to provi~e ~e. visibil_ity 

improvement that lllinms 1s reqmred to 

provide. Comment: ELPC comments that 

lllinois' long-term strategy must be 

disapproved. ELPC expresses particular 

concern that Illinois' plan does not 

mandate emission reductions for two 

power plants, specifically Ameren's 

Joppa plant and Southern Illinois Power 

Company's Marion plant, which ELPC 

believes must be mandated "to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals for Class I 

areas affected by the state." ELPC notes 

that "Illinois claimed that existing or 

soon-to-he-implemented regulatory 

program"-in particular, the MPS/CPS 

and CSAPR-"would require sufficient 

emissions reductions on the 15 most 

significant sources so as to ensure achievement of reasonable progress 

goals in impacted Class I areas." ELPC 

acknowledges that the Joppa Plant is 

addressed to the extent that Ameren's 

plants are collectively limited under the 

MPS, but ELPC observes that Ameren 

has the choice to comply with the MPS 

"without making any reductions at 

Joppa," even though the plant has "a 

QID ratio" (dividing emissions by 

distance to the nearest Class I area) that 

is "nearly three times larger than any 

other evaluated source." ELPC also 

objects that CSAPR ''also does not 

ensure emission reductions at either 

Joppa or Marion, because (1) the rule is 

under legal challenge, is currently 

stayed, and may never go into effect, (2) 

"does not require emission reductions at 

particular plants," and (3) by restricting 

annual emissions does not necessarily 

limit emissions in seasons when the 

most degradation in visibility may 

occur. Response: Achievement of the 

applicable reasonable progress goals is 

not contingent on Illinois limiting 

emissions from the foppa or Marion 

plants in particular. Given the distances 

of the sources in Illinois from affected 

Class I areas, the least of which is about 

120 kilometers from the Joppa plant to 

Mingo Wilderness Area, the impact on 

visibility is primarily dependent on the 

total emission reductions and not on the 

geographical distribution of those 

reductions. That is, even if Ameren for 

example were to opt to control its 

Coffeen plant (about 2.40 kilometers 

from Mingo Wilderness Area) more than 

its Joppa plant, the net effect on 

visibility would likely be similar. 

EPA recognizes that CSAPR is under 

challenge and is currently stayed. 

However, Illinois is not relying on 

additional reductions from CSAPR to 

provide its appropriate contribution . 

toward achieving reasonable progress m 

visibility protection. Therefore, the 

litigation status of CSAPR is not 

germane to the approvability of lllinois' 

regional haze plan. 

ill. Wbat action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving Illinois' regional 

haze plan as satisfying the applicable 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.308. Most 

notably, EPA concludes that lllinois has 

satisfied the requirements for BART in 

40 CFR 51.308(e) and has adopted a 

long-term strategy that reduces 

emissions in Illinois that, in 

combination with similar reductions 

elsewhere, EPA expects to suffice to 

achieve the reasonable progress goals at 

Class I areas affected by Illinois. 

In this action, EPA is also approving 

a sot of rules and two permits for 

incorporation into the state 

implementation plan. Specifically, EPA 

is approving the following rules: Title 

35 of Illinois Administrative Code Rules 

225.233 (paragraphs a, h, e, and g), 

225.291, 225.292, 225.293, 225.295, 

225.296 (except paragraph d), and 225 

Appendix A. While the rules provide 

the 502 and NOx limits as one of two 

options that the affected utilities may 

choose between, EPA is incorporating 

into the SIP Illinois' submittal of letters 

from the affected utilities choosing the 

option including the S(h and NOx 

limits, which under the approved rules 

makes these limits permanently 

enforceable. Therefore, these S02 and 

NOx limits are state enforceable and, 

with this SIP approval, now become 

feder-dlly tmfurceable as well. EPA also 

considers the limits of the state pennits 

and the refinery consent decrees to be 

enforceable. While Illinois adopted the 

above rules as part of a state rulemaking 

which mostly addressed mercury 

emissions, the mercury provisions are 

not germane to this rulemaking, Illinois 

did not submit the mercury-related 

rules, and tho limited set of ntles that 

lllinois submitted suffice to mandate the 

802 and NOx emission controls that are 

pertinent to this action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Cleon Air Act and 

applicable Federal regulations. 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act Accordingly, this 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a "significant regulatory 

action" subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an infonnatian 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

lJ.S.C. 601 et seq.): 
39948 Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 130/Friday, fuly 6, 2012/Rules and Regulations 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly. or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); • Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255. August 10. 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition. this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the STP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state. and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal Jaw. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. !!01 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Reg.ister. 

This action is not a "major rule" as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307[b}(l) oftht~ Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 4, 

2012. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307[b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Enviromnental protection, Air 

pollution control. Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: May 29, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Admi11istrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52-{AMENOEO] 

• 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart 0--llllnols 

• 2. Section 52.720 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(192) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.720 ldentlflcatlon of plan. 

.. * * 

(c) • " • 

(192) On June 24, 2011, Laurel 

Kroack,lllinois Environmental 

Protection Agency, submitted Illinois' 

regional haze plan to Cheryl Newton, 

Region 5, EPA. This plan includes a 

long-term strategy with emission limits 

for mandating emission reductions 

equivalent to the reductions from 

implementing best available retrofit 

technology and with emission 

reductions to provide Illinois' 

contribution toward achievement of 

reasonable progress goals at Class I areas 

affected by Illinois. The plan 

specifically includes regulations 

establi~hing Multi-Pollutant Standards 

and Combined Pollutant Standards, 

along with letters from the affected 

electric utilities establishing the 

applicability and enforceability of the 

option that indudes sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen oxide emission limits. Tho plan 

also includes permits establishing sulfur 

dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission 

limits for three additional electric 

generating plants and two consent 

decrees establishing sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen oxide emission limits for two 

refineries. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) The following sections of lllinois 

Administrative Code, Title 35: 

Environmental Protection, Subtitle B: 

Air Pollution, Chapter 1: Pollution 

Control Board, Subchapter c: Emission 

Standards and Limitations for 

Stationary Sources, Part 225, Control of 

Emissions from Large Combustion 

Sources. published at 33 1L Reg 10427. 

effective June 26, 2009, are incorporated 

by reference: 

(1) Subpart B: Control Of Mercury 

Emissions From Coal-Fired Electric 

Generating Units. Section 225.233 

Multi-Pollutant Standards (M.PS), only 

subsections (a), (b), (e), and (g). Section 

225.291 Combined Pollutant Standard: 

Purpose, Section 225.292 Applicability 

of the Combined Pollutant Standard, 

Section 225.293 Combined Pollutant 

Standard: Notice of Intent, Section 

225.295 Combined Pollutant Standard: 

Emissions standards for NOx and S02. 

and Section 225.296 Combined 

Pollutant Standard: Control Technology 

Requirements for NOx. S02, and PM 

Emissions, except for 225.296(d). 

(2) Section Z25.Appendix A Specified 

EGUs for Purposes of the CPS (Midwest 

Generation's Coal-Fired Boilers as of 

July 1, 2006). 

(B) Joint Construction and Operating 

Permit: Application Number 09090046, 

lssued on June 23,2011, to City Water, 

Light & Power, City of Springfield. 

(C) Joint Construction and Operating 

Permit: Application Number 09050022, 

Issued on June 24, 2011, to Kincaid 

Generation, LLC. 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) Letter from Guy Gorney, Midwest 

Generation to Dave Bloomberg, Illinois 

EPA, dated December 27, 2007, 

choosing to be subject to provisions of 

the Multi-Pollutant Standards that 

include emission limits for sulfur 

dioxide and nitrogen oxides. 

(B) Letter from R. Alan Kelley, 

Ameren, to Jim Ross, illinois EPA, dated 

December 27. 2007, choosing to be 

subject to provisions of tho Combined 

Pollutant Standards that include 

emission limits for sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen oxides. 

(C) Letter from Keith A. McFarland. 

Dynegy, to Raymond Pilapil, Illinois 

EPA, dated November 26,2007, 

choosing to be subject to provisions of 

the Combined Pollutant Standards that 

include emission limits for sulfur 

dioxide and nitrogen oxides. 

IFR Doc. 2012-16557 Filod 7-5-12:8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE ~ 
Exhibit 9 

Table Comparing Midwest Generation Emissions 

at the Proposed 2015-2016 Rate 

to Presumptive BART Levels 
•The CPS emission limits are a system·wide avcrase and a~ not i1Jtended to reflect unit~specJfic emission limits. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, certify that on this 30th day ofNovember, 2012, I have served 

electronically the attached PETITION FOR VARIANCE on behalf of MIDWEST 

GENERATION, LLC, with a REQUEST FOR HEARING and the APPEARANCES OF 

KATHLEEN C. BASSI, STEPHEN J. BONEBRAKE, and ANDREW N. SA WULA, upon 

the following persons: 

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

Suite 11-500 

100 West Randolph 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

and by first class mail, postage affixed, 

Julie Armitage 

Acting General Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Division of Legal Counsel 

1021 North Grand A venue, East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 

Attorneys for Midwest Generation, LLC 

Kathleen C. Bassi 

Stephen J. Bonebrake 

Andrew N. Sawula 

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Phone: 312-258-5567 

Fax: 312-258-5600 

kbassi@schiffhardin.com 

sbonebrake@schiffhardin.com 

asawula@schiffhardin.com