# Exhibit 1

Excerpt from 

# Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Appendix A "Air Sampling Network," 40th AnnualAir QualityReport (2010)
Plus 

# Map Depicting the Locations ofMidwest Generation's Generating Stations vis-a-vis the Ambient AirMonitoring 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 ofknown 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 USEPA 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 ofIllinois are provided in the Annual Network Plan (epa.state.il.us/air/monitoringlindex.html). All ofthe 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 AirMonitoring Station (SLAMS) Network

- The SLAMS network is designed to meet a minimum offour 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 ofhigh population density.

c. To determine the air quality impact ofsignificant 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 ofthe 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 ofnational trends. d. To provide data necessary to allow the development ofnationwide 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 ofthe non-attainment area and are located to measure background levels ofozone and precursors coming into the area b. Type 2 

### sites are located slightly downwind of

### the major source areas ofozone precursors.
c. Type 3 

### sites are located at the area ofmaximum ozone concentrations. d. Type 4 

## sites are 

### located at 

### the domain edge ofthe 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 orNAMS 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 ofambient 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 ofthe NCore network objectives are as follows:


## a. Support for development ofemission strategies and accountability ofemission strategy progress through tracking long-term trends 

## ofpollutants and their precursors. b. Support oflong-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 

### 1 5:3

{1> 4 

## s 6 7 8 

## l ::t

9

P 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**Wt f.~**  

### 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 

## !Wi t:. 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 ~**  

### 18 

### 19 

### 20 21

# ~ 24 25 

## 26 27 28 30 31



### Every 6 Day Sampling Schedule 22Every 3 Day Sampling Schedule

JO

## TableA2 DISTRIBUTION OFAIR 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 

### SolarRadiation 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 

## aresult ofthese 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. USEPA 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 JBKJfUtt IK'Il'ti.IU' tt'OOOt't**~** _.._...,AlD**~-10** II 

# -t**~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 ltfiiUlYWClnG'l 1SaR'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

# Zli-**~·** \OimiXt tO'Dn• 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_

t4DOIIII<t

-- "- Jaa}Qiflr OIDQ)i CIIIOCXlll fiM"PSAJa'*AIID AMig**~.-~ftS** J

....

l.lV4JI**~** Jtlf'PS .WWJf'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 ofChicago

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, IL-IN- CCDEC WI -87.7324569 Chicago-Naperville- +41

.66210943 Michigan City, IL-IN- CCDEC WI -87

.69646852 Chlcago-Napervtlle- +41.65651756 Michigan City, IL-IN- CCDEC WI -87

.56957389 Chicago-Naperville- +41

.87372041 Michigan City, IL-IN- -87

.64532569 CCDEC WI Chicago-Naperville- +41

.75139998 Michigan City, IL-IN- -87

.71348815 CCDEC WI Chicago-Naperville- +41

.877628 Michigan City, IL-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. IL-IN- -87

.7920017 CCDEC WI Chicago-Naperville- +41.79078688 MIChigan City. IL-IN- -87

.60164649 CCDEC WI Chicago-NapeiVIIIe- +41

.68716544 Michigan City, IL-IN- CCDEC WI -87.63931548 Chicago-NapeiVIIIe- +41

.87898018 Michigan City , IL-IN- -87

.63555553 ILEPA WI Chlcago-NapeiVIIJe... +41

.85524313 Michigan City , IL-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 

# 2010 Site Directory

AQSID County City Address CBSA fMSA I A1N Latitude Own&r/ Represented Longltud& Operator 17-{)31-7002 Cook Evanston Water Pumping Station ChicagcrNapervill&- +42

.06185724 531 E

. Lincoln Michigan City, IL-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 Michigan City, Il-IN· CCDEC 1500 Maybrook Dr

. '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, IL-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, Il-IN- CCDEC 60th St

. & 74th Ave

. Wl -87

.80537679 Morton Arboretum Chicago-Naperville- +41

.81 304939 17

-<>43-8001 DuPage Llale Route 53 Michigan City, IL-I N- -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

. 11053947 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
-1 15-0110 Macon Decatur Mueller Mueller +39

.8621542 1226 E. Garfleld -88

.940894 ILEPA 17
- 117-0002 Macoupin Nilwood tEPA Trailer St. louis. MO-I L +39.39607533 ILEPA Heaton &Dubois

·89

.60973892**17-11~0008** Madl&on Alton Clara Barton Bementary School St

. Louis, MO-IL ...38.89018805 IL EPA

409 Main St. -90

.14803114**17-11~2009** Madison Alton StU Dental Clinic St. Louts, MO-IL +38

.90308534 ILEPA 1700 Annex St. -90

. 1-4316803**17-11~2007** Madison Edwardsville RAPS Trailer St. Louis, MO-IL •38

.795235**ll ~** 

Poag Rd

. -90

.039756 17
-119-0010 Madison Granite City Air Products St. Louis, MO

-IL +38

.694-43831 IL EPA 15th &Madison -90

.15395426**17 11~1007**  Madison Granite City Fire Station 11 St. Louts

. MO

-IL +38

.70453426 tL EPA 23rd & Madison -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 IL EPA Michigan St.

-90.058-43262 17-119-3007 Madison Wood River Water Treatment Plant St. Louis

. MO-IL +38

.86068947 ILEPA 54 N

. Walcott -90.1OS85111 Cary Grow High SChool Chtcago-Napervtlte- +-42

.22144166 17-111-0001 McHenry Cary 1 at St. & Three Oaka Rd

. Michigan City, IL-IN- -88

.24220734 IL EPA 1M Normal ISU Physical Plant Bloomington

- •-40

.51873537 ILEPA 17-113-2003 Mclean Main & Gregory Normal, tL -86

.99689671 Peoria Bartonville Pump Station Keyatone Steel & +40

.653703 ILEPA 17
-143-0110 Sanitation Rd

. Wlra -89.&43375 Mapleton Rellldentlat Caterplller-Mapleton +40

.582633 ILEPA 17-143-0210 Peoria 9725 

### w. Wheeler Rd

. Plant -89.747114 Peoria City Office Building Peorta, tL +-40

.897007 ILEPA 17
-143-0037 Peoria 613 N

. E

. Jefferson -89

.!18-473722 Peoria**Commar~:ial** Building Peoria, IL +40,70007197 ILEPA 17-143-0036 Peoria 1006 N

. University -89

.81341375 Peoria Fire Station t8 Peoria, IL +40

.68742038 ILEPA 17
-143-0024 Peoria MacArthur & Hur1burt

-89

.60694277 Peoria Heights High School Peorta,IL +40

.74560393 ILEPA 11-143-1001 Peoria Peoria Heights 508 E

. Glen Ave. -89

.58586902 IEPA Trailer Houston.IL +38

.17627761 ILEPA 11-157-0001 Randolph Houston Hickory Grow & Fallvlew -89.788-45862 Rock Island A1'18nal Davenport-MoUne- +-41

.51472697 ILEPA 17-181-3002 Rock Island Rock Island 32 Rodman Ave

. Rock Island, tA-IL -90

.5113!5028 Agricultural Buildlng Springfield, IL +39

.83192087 IL EPA 11-167-0012 Sangamon Spnngfleld State FairGrounds -89.64418359 Blandco BuUdlng Springftlld, IL +39

.64t5358 ILEPA 11·167-0013 Sangamon Springfield 3050 Mayden Rd

. -89

.597457 Federal Building Springfield , IL +39

.7993092 ILEPA 17
-167-0008 Sangamon Springfield 8th St

. & Monroe -89

.64760789 Public Health Warehouse Springfield, IL +39

.64412188 ILEPA 17-167-0010 Sangamon Springfield 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, IL +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. IL-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 

## 3 

## I 

# i I City 

### 0 

# i
.. j <( J:i**~** f 

# • V) 10 "! 

# i A. 

# J I: 0 

# i i Iii N 

# g "0 

# .s N N 

# 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 MayfairPump Slll1fon

.-· 

# . 17-031-0057 Chicago SPilnatltld**Pumps~** 17-031-0060 Chicago 

### c.- Higll School 17-031-0063 Chicago CTAllulldlng 17-031-0064 Chicago UnMnitY ofClicago 17-031-0072 Chicago JanllneWatar**~~** 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 "CJ 

## :; N 

# s § 

# ! N

# ~**~** 

# 8 8 i I: 

# l z A. {: 

## i
17-031-3103 SchiRer Park
17-03 1-3301 Summit
17..()31-4002 Cicero Cook County Tnoilor**17-031~005** Cicero

Uberty Scllooj 17-031-4007 Des Plaines
17-031-4201 Northbrook1**17-031~003** Ma ywood**.~** Olrtrlc:ICour1 17-031-6004 Ml ywood Com Ed Mill

**17-031~006** Maywood

46 Olllncl Ccurt 17-031

-7002 Evaneton 17.()43-4002 Naperville**17~1** Liale 17.()49-1001 Effingham
17-065-0002 Knight Prai rie
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. 

# .. 

# j 2 

# ... ...**~** 

# i 8 

# 8 :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 Peona Comnlei'CdllkMnQ 17-143..0037

17

-143-0210
17-143-1001 17-157..()()01



### 41

## Table A4 

# 2010 Monitoring Directory

c: 0 

# .. 1 I 

# 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
17-167-001 3
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 17-197-1 01 1 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/lD1 1 taryGlove H.S

. 197ao.C9 457SU0.16 tnnaxn Ocaro lfPA Trailer 437Sl9

.lG 463J977

.22 l?OJlAOOl CbroUberty Sdloat G715l..Z1 4SC9kQ5. 1 7CBUiOOS Dts Plaine-5 klkJMIOffkt &!.!Nelina**·~ 56**  46.56197

.15 17C81ACXJ7 flstn lMHnJunior H 5. J!MilSUii .u66017 29 11CWJCXXtS 9 opn Mdlnl•ySthool 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 OlstrlttCourt 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 CarvtrH.S.. 4509U9ti 4611112.41 170Jl.CQ50 

## " Oda,oCermlli: Pwrnp Sbdon U6UO.I2 46J:Sil56,.7D lXXJltml'> l8 ChklcoCamm EO 4GI0.96 A.Ul•l1.l51 11'0:U001S 

## " Chtca,oJlfdlne Wltcr !'tint 449590.71**~72** 17GI1a17l lO Olk.ll;oWtcfk. Tower 4otns9.:M**~0** 17'Dl.UIDt2 Jl**Ch~CTA** &ulldlllf 447107.11 46l63&&.48 1XIJ1.0063 1l CblucoSouth**W~trftlrrmon** '11m 6f1'02.17 4622*32.04 11'0:110;)12 J3 Oltcaco SoufNHt Pollc. 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 SouthwHtCable 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 J2711Ln 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 lkllldin1 :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'dlaldink 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 ttllndAnenrl 70?Hil!t

.T5 c.s9DI6.00 17161liXI:2 

## ,. South AolfiNGt'»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 JoMWOOCI**Comrru~hy** Cofltte "m7

.44 4n969S.so 17mUIIJ7 11 Gnftitl' OtyWtiW'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 ofIssuance**Descri~tion** 

### ofthe Permit Date ofAm:!eal PCB Status ofStay 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, 200I 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, 20l3 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 ofIssuance Description ofthe Permit Date ofAppeal PCB Status ofStay 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 operatingpermit 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- I0I 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 ofIssuance Description ofthe Permit Date ofAppeal PCB Status ofStay 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 September28, 2012 Acid Rain March 21, 2005

Exhibit2 -3

## EXHIBIT2 Relevant Permits Issued to Midwest Generation**Ty~eof** 

### Permit I 

### Date ofIssuance**Descri~tion** 

### ofthe Permit Date of**A~~eal** 

### PCB Status ofStay 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 Pennit 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 October4, 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, 20I

### 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 ofDouglas 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. Ijoined Midwest Generation in 1999 and became President of Midwest Generation in 2011. 

### I am also a member of the Executive Managing Committee ofEME

.

. 2. My duties and responsibilities at Midwest Generation include supervision ofthe Environmental Compliance group and oversight of environmental activities, such as the preparation ofvariance petitions with respect environmental rules. 3. I submit this affidavit in support ofMidwest 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofsuch 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 ofthis practice is that within two
years ofacquiring 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 of45% 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 ofits operating coal-fl.red units and obtained strong mercury emission reduction results. In fact, the company helped pioneer the development ofthis technology with pilot projects at its Will County and Crawford Stations that were funded by U.S. Department ofEnergy grants in 2006 and 2007. All 

### ofMidwest Generation's operating coal-fired generating units have met CPS ACI injections standards, and all ofthe 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 ofits 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 of0.099 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 oflong lead material associated with controls related to other units, is expected
to require capital expenditures ofabout $230 million in 2013 and 2014. Midwest Generation is planning this work regardless ofthis 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 of410 net megawatts that have been retired pursuant to requirements ofthe CPS. 

## As an economic decision, Midwest Generation also ceased operation ofthe 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 ofNOx 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 ofNOx, 5,221 tons ofPM 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 ofthis 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 ofthese 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 ofthe 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 ofits 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 ifany 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, ifthat 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 ofMidwest Generation's coal-fired units. Either scenario would threaten the future ofMidwest 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 ofElectrical 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 ofrevenue to help support the Title V program specifically derived from the use tax 

### on sorbent. 

## 35 ILCS 

## I05/9. 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 inNOx controls at our Crawford Station, only to cease operation ofthe 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 ofemissions are less than projected under the CPS from 

## 2013 through the period ofthe 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 beliefthe facts stated therein are true and correct. 

## FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this_&__ day ofNovember, 2012.

No Public

10

# Exhibit 4

Affidavit ofWilliam 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 ofthe 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 ofRisk 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 ofFred McCluskey.
4. As of September 30, 2012, Midwest Generation estimated that the future cost of retrofitting all ofits 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 S02emission 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 offunding 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 ofthe
power market recovery.")
6. The purpose ofmy 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 ofthe impact oflower 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 I2, 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 ofSeptember 30, 2012, Midwest Generation had cash and cash equivalents of $142 million. This balance represented a $71 million reduction from the $213 million it hadjustnine months earlier.
I4. 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, ifnot 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 ofobligations.



### - 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 ofengaging 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 ofMidwest 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 2027. 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 ofthe Edison Mission Group. Tflird-Pal'ty Lenders 

### 22. Neither EME nor Midwest Generation currently has a line ofcredit 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 ofct·edit facility. EME is required to post cash collateral in excess ofthe face amount ofany letter ofcredit 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 ofthese agencies that rated EME or Midwest Generation as of2012 assigned them a non-investment grade "junk" status and identified the outlook, ifany, 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 ofFred 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. Ifthe 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 ofgoods and services, and state and local tax payments. 

## 29. Midwest Generation has not at this time been able to identify a source offunding
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 itselfas 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 ofMidwest 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 ofthe 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 SAYET1 I 

## NOT.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this



### [Notary block]

ERICK/\ A. DELAHOUSSAYE

Commission# 1828501 

## ! Notary Public • California**~** :z 

### Orange County

.. 

# J "•• M:**~V'U· ;,x~ir** **s ~a~** **zy-}~1~l** 4:;: 4Table4.1 l'.ttachment to Mfidavlt ofWIUiom 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 Iam 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 RatedOebt Rating Extremely strong Very strong Still strong Standard and Poors 1

Adequate protection parameters Major ongoinguntl!ftlinties Ukeliness ofimpairedca(iadtyto meetobfigations Vulnerable ('CCC')to'highlywlnerable ('CCC') to IK)npaylnent Bankruptcy**petiti~n** orsimilar 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 creditrisk. p00.: standing ('caa') to highlyspeculative

### ('ca'l uttte**p~opSect**fur recovery ofprindpal·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 creditquality High credit quality Goodcreditquality 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, Cis the lowest creditrating under Fitch's rating scale.

• Rating Watch: Ratings are placed on Rating Watch to notify investors thatthereis a reasonable probability ofa rating change and the likely direction ofsuch 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·investmentgrade)" AAA AA A 888 88 B 

### ccc.cc.c 000,00,0

# Exhibit 5

Affidavit ofFred McCluskey Vice President ofTechnical 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 ofTechnical 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 ofArts 

### 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 ofOperations. Through these positions, I have gained extensive experience in various aspects ofthe 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 ifthe requested variance is denied;
and I highlight the environmental benefits ofgranting 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. 

### Ithas 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 ofits units into the CPS mercury rate standard of0.0080 lb/Gwh 

### in the fall of2012, more than two years before it was required to do

so under the CPS.



### -2-

### 5. All ofthese 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 ofMidwest 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 ofcontrol 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 ofits operating units and had also installed SNCRs at Crawford prior to ceasing operations ofthose 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 shutthat 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 ofits 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 ofreducing 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 ofCPS deadlines. 12. The second component of Midwest Generation's S02 control program is the installation ofdry sorbent injection ofTrona. Dry sorbent injection is FGD equipment in which Trona, a mineral used in the production ofsodium bicarbonate or baking soda, is injected into the



## - 5 -

### flue gas upstream ofa 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 ofdry 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 S02rates below 0.44 lb/mmBtu (the 2013 CPS S02 rate) in 2011 and, to date, in 2012. Midwest Generation has determined that installation ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofmillions ofdollars more between 2015-2018 to install controls on its remaining units to attain CPS rates. As described 

### in
the Affidavit ofWilliam M. Petmecky III, however, Midwest Generation is not currently able to identify a viable source offunding for the full $440 million needed in 2013-2014. Consequently,



### - 7-

### it seeks this variance so that it could defer approximately $210 million ofthat $440 million of work to 2015 or later. 16. The $210 million ofcontrol work that Midwest Generation seeks to defer includes substantial work in connection with the installation ofTrona FGD equipment and ESP upgrades

on Waukegan Unit 8, Powerton Unit 5, and Joliet Unit 7 or 8. Ifthe 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 ofrequisite 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 ofthe 2013-2014 period. 17. Midwest Generation anticipates that, if the variance is granted, it would still spend approximately $230 million in 20I 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 ofthe 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 ofS02 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 ofwet 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 ofcompliance with Trona injection systems, and would take longer to install. Similarly, the

use ofother types ofdry scrubbers (which must be installed with baghouses) would cost far more than Trona injection systems, on the order ofat least three times more. In addition, it would take approximately two and a halfyears to engineer and install other types ofdry 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 ifthey 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 S02rates 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 ofrequisite 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 ofgeneration from those units over the past five years. Such substantial curtailments would result in an unsustainable level ofoperation

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 ofgrid reliability concerns. 23. The cumulative impact ofthe curtailments could threaten the continued existence ofMidwest Generation and the future viability ofits stations. Shuttering Midwest Generation's plants would have devastating impacts on hundreds of workers and their families, and would drain literally hundreds ofmillions ofdollars 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 ofthe variance, to commit to mass S02emission level caps, which would result in lower emissions over the period of2013-2016 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 of3,181 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 ofapproximately 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 of461 tons ofNOx, 299 tons ofPM, 3 pounds ofmercury and 904,477 tons ofC02•



### - 11
-

### FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH 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 ofFred 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, 100West 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 ofthe 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 ofthe Clean Air Act ("CAA'') (42 U.S.C. §

### 7491) and Section 4 ofthe 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 

# rareas. Under 40 CFR § 51.308, the core requirements for the plan include reasonable progress goals, calculations ofbaseline and natural visibility conditions, a 

### long-tenn strategy for regional haze, a monitoring strategy, and BestAvailable 

### Retrofit Technology requirements for regional haze 

### visibility impainnent. 

# r n order 

## to assist wjth yourreview ofthis 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 ofClass 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 I0) 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 ofIntent, dated December 27,2007. 

### Notice ofHearing 

### Presentations ofHearing 

### held December 6, 201 0 Transcript ofHearing 

### held December 6, 2010 Responsiveness 

### Summary Kincaid 

### Generation, LLC, Joint 

### Construction and Operating Permit City ofSpringfield (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 ofAir, at 

### 2171785-4140. Sincerely,

# j_~~ Laurel L. 

## K.roack Chief, Bureau ofAir Attachments



### 2

# TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY UNDER THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE

AQPSTR 09-06



# April29, 2011

ILLINOISENVIRONMENTAL 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, ofthe Kincaid Generating Station (collectively "Dominion Kincaid"), to achieve BART-control levels; and
• a similar agreement between the lllinois EPA and the City ofSpringfield, Illinois d/b/a City, Water, Light and Power (CWLP), to 

### achieve BART-control levels and to shut down
one ofits 

### 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 ofstate-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 ofthe fully adopted lllinois Mercury Rule, with the requirements for NOx and S02 emission reductions highlighted. lllinois intends to submit Appendix Cto USEPA, the highlighted portions ofwhich 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 ofcontrols on emission units regardless ofwhether or not they are subjectto 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 mostcost-effective manner. The agreements contain a range ofcompliance 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 ofemission reductions that wiU result from implementation ofthe 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 ofBART controls onjust 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 ofwhether to 

### approve those reductions as meeting BART requirements. The foJlowing subsections provide Illinois EPA's analysis ofthe emission reductions expected from the MPS and CPS and a description ofthe controls that will most likely be installed as a result ofthe MPS and CPS.


## 4.1.1.1 Dynegy Dynegy operates several electric generating stations in lllinois, all ofwhich are affected by the requirements ofthe MPS. Only the three coal-fired boilers at Baldwin are subjectto BART, however. Units 1and 2 

### at Baldwin are cyclone-fired boilers burning sub-bituminous coal, while Unit 3is a tangentially-fired unit burning sub-bituminous coal. Currently, Units 1and 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 

# ,, ; Tons/Year l.bal 

### Lbe! 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 B417 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 subjectto 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. CurrentNOx control for all units 

## 30

### consists oflow-NOx burners and OFA. 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 ofthe five units (Units 71, 72, 81, 

### and 82) at the Joliet facility are subject to BART. The four units ofinterest 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 Ofthe four units atthe 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 OFA. 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 ofmore than 38,000 TPY ofNOx and more than 35,000 TPY of802 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 pennits, which are included


### 31

### Table4.7 

## SOz reductions from Midwest Generation EGUs BART vs. MPS
BaHYear 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_ngapproval from the UnitedStates ,EnvironmentalProtectionAgency of the 

### followmg holded

## prows'!'~ of the Illinois k!'ercury Rule, 35Ill. Adm. 

### Code Part225, SubpartB: Control of 

## Mercury EmlSSlOns 

### from Coal-FzredElectric Generating Units, under this submission.. 

### Please note that 

### the norz;.bolded provisionsare included for context.

Section 225.233 

### Multi-Pollutant

### Standards (MPS) a) GeneraL 1) 

### As 

### an alternative

### to compliancewith the emissions 

### standards ofSection 225.230(a), 

### the owner ofeligible 

### EGUs may

### elect for those EGUs to demonstrate compliancepursuant

### to thiS Section, which establishes control requirements and standards for emissions ofNOx and S()z, as well as for .emissions of

### mercury. 

### 2) Forthepurpose ofthis Section, 

### thefollOwing 

### 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 ofan eligibleEGU is. 

### determined based on direct ownership, 

### by theholding ofa majorif,y intereat in 

### a company. that 

## owns theEGU 

### orEGUs, or

# J>y the common ownership ofthe company that owns theEGU, whether through a parent..fAlbsidiary relatioJ,1Bhip, as 

## a sister corporation, or as an affiliated corporation 

### with 

### the sameparent corporation, provided that the ownerbas the right or authorityto submita CAAPP application on behalfofthe EGU. Th.e owner ofone ormoreEGUs electing

### to demonstrate compliance with this 

### SubpartB pursuantto 

### this Section mustsubmit an application for a CAAPP permitmodification tothe Agency, as provided .in 

### Section 225.220, that includes theinformation 

### specified in subsection (b) 

### ofthis Section and which clealily 

### states the owner's election 

### to. demonstrate**complianc~** 

### pursusnt to this Section 225.233. · 

### A) 

## Ifthe ownerofone ormoreEGUs elects to demonstrate compliance with this 

### Subpartpursuant

## to this Section, then 

### all EGUs 

### itowns in Illinois as of

### July 1, 2006, as defined in 

### subsection (a)(2)(B) ofthis Section, must be thereafter subjectto the standards and 1:0ntrol


### 1

### requiremen1s ofthis 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 ownermay exclude**fro~** 

### an MPS Group any EGU scheduled for permanent shutdown thatthe 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$ ofSection 225.235. 4) When anEGU is 

### subject

### to therequirements of

### this Section, the reqniremen1sapply to all owners or operators oftheEGU. 

### b) Notice of

## Intent. The owner ofone ormoreEGUs that

### intends to comply with this 

### Subpart·B by 

### means of

### this Section must notify the Agency of

### its llitention byDecember 31, 2007. The

### following inform.ition must 

### accompany the notification: 

### 1) The

### identification ofeBch EGU

### thatwill be 

### comply;iilg

### with this Subpart

### B by 

### means of

### themulti-pollutant standards contained 

### in 

### this. Section, with -evidencethatthe owner 

### bas identified 

# attEGUsthat 

### itowned 

### in Illinois as of July 1,2006 andwhich commenced commercial operation on or 

### before December31,2004; 2) Ifan EGUidentified 

### in subsection 

### (b){l) of

### thisSection is 

### also 

### owned or operated by a persondiffenmtthan 

### the ownersubmittingthe 

### notice ofintent, a 

### demoutration thatthe submitterbasthe 

### right to committheEGU or authorizationfrom the responsible official for the**~GU** 

### aceeptingthe application; · 3) TheBaseEmissionRates fortheEGUstwith copies 

### ofsupportingdata and calculations; 4) A 

### 1ummary ofthe currentcontrol devieea installed and operating on eaeh EGU and identification ofthe additional control devices that

### will likely 

### be needed for the 

### eaeh EGU

## to comply

### with**~ion** 

### controlrequirements of this Section, includingidentification 

### ofeachEGU 

### in theMPS 

### groupthat

## will be 

### addressed 

### bysubaection 

### (e)(l)(B) ofthis 

### Section, with information showing

## thatthe

### eligibility criteriafor this subsection 

### (b) are satisfied; and 5) Identification of

## each EGUthat is 

### scheduledfor permment

## shut down, as provided 

### by Section 225.235, which wDl 

### notbepart oftbe MPS Group and. which

### willnotbe demonstrating compliancewith 

### this SubpartB pursuantto tbis Section.



### 2

### c) Control Technology Requirements for Emissions ofMercury. I) Requirements for EGUs inan .MPS Group. A) For**eac~** 

### EGU in**~**

### MPS Group other than an EGU that

### is 

### addressed by subsection (c)(l)(B) ofthis 

### Section for theperiod beginning July 

### 1, 2009 

### (orDecember 31, 2009 for anEGU for "which an S(hscrubber orfabric 

# filtt:r isbeing 

### installed 

## to be 

### inoperation byDecember 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) ofthis 

### Section), the owner or operator ofthe EGU must install, to the extent

### not 

### already installed, 

### andproperly operate and maimain one 

## of the following emission control devices: i) 

### A Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System, complying 

## with the sorbent injectionrequirements ofsubsection ( c)(2) ofthis 

### Section, except as maybe otherwise provided by subsection (c)(4) 

### of

### this Section, and

### followed by a Cold-Side Electrostatic Precipitator orFabric Filter; or 

### ii) 

### Ifthe boiler

## .:fires bituminous coal, a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) System and 

### an S(h Scrubber. B) An 

### owner ofanEGU in

### an :MPS Group bas

### two options under this subsection (c). 

### For an MPS Group that

### contains EGUs smallerthan 90 gross MW in capacity, 

### the ownermay designate any sucliEGUs to 

### be not subject

## to subsection (c)(l)(A) ofthis Section. Or, for anMPS Group that contains 

## EGUs with

### gross MW capacity ofless than 

### 115 MW; the 

## owner may designate any such EGUs to 

### be not subject

## to subsection (c)(l)(A) of 

## this Section, provided

## thatthe 

## aggregate gross MW capacity ofthe designated EGUs does not exceed 4% ofthe total 

### gross MW capacity of the MPS Group. For any EGU subjectto one ofthese two options. unless the 

## EOU is subject

## to the emission standards :in 

### subsection (dX2) ofthis Section, begirming 

## 01'!- January 

## 1. 2013, and continuing 

## UQti1 such 

### date 'that 

### the owner or operator ofthe EGU commits to 

### comply with the mercury 

### emission 

## standardin 

### subsection ( d)(2) ofthis 

### Section, the owner or operator 

### of the

### EGUmust instull and

### properly operate

### and maintain 

### a Halogenated Activated 

### Carbon Injection System that

### complies with

### the 

## sorbent injectionrequirements 

## ofsubsection (c)(2) of 

## this Section, except as may

### be otherwiseprovided by 

### subsection (c)( 4) ofthis 

### Section, and followed by

### either a Cold-Side.Electrostatic Precipitator orFabric Filter. The use ofaproperly installed; 

### operated, 

### and maintained Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System that

### meets the sorbent injection requirements ofsubsection ( c)(2) ofthis Section is 

## defined asthe "principal

### control technique."



## 3

### 2)



# ...... For each EGU for which injection ofhalogenated 

## activated carbon is required 

## by subsection (c)(l) 

## oftbis 

## Section. the owner ar operator ofthe

## EGU must inject 

## halogenated activated carbon 

## in an optimum manner, which, except asprovided in subsection (c)(4) ofthis Section, is 

### defined as all 

### ofthefollowmg: A)
B)

C) 

### The use ofan injection system 

### designed for effective absozption 

## of mercury, considering the configurationofthe 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. orthe injection ofany other halogenated

### activated carbon or sorbentthat

### the owner 

### or operator of

# the EGU bas 

### demonstrated to

### have similar orbetter effectiveness for control ofmercury emissions; and The uyection ofsorbent mthe 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-firedEGU 

## thai will install 

## ascrubber and baghouse

## by December 31, 2012, and which 

## alr.eady meets im emissionrate of0.020 lbs mercury/GWh gross electrical output or at 

### least75 percentreduction ofinput 

### mercury, 2.5 lbs per 

### million actual 

## cubic feet; For an 

## EGU firing 

## bitl.uninous coal, 

## 1 O.QJbs permillion actual cubic feet 

## for any 

## cyclone-firedEGU 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 ofinput

## 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 ofthe 

## above rates, based on the blend 

## ofcoal being 

## tired; or A :raie 

### or rates 

## set lower by

### the Agency, in writing, 

## than the 

### rate 

## specified 

## in any ofsubsections (c)(2)(C)(i),**(c)(2)(C)(u)~** 

## or (c){2)(C)(ili) of

## this Section on aunit-specific basis, provided 

## that the 

### owner or operator ofthe 

### EGU has 

### demonstratedthat 

### such rate 

## or rates 

## are needed so that carbon injection will 

## not increase particulatematter emissions or opacity so as to 

### threa.Um 

## noncompliance with

## applicable requirements for

## particulate matter or opacity. 

## D) Forthe 

## purposes ofsubsection (c)(2)(C) ofthis Section, the flue 

## gas flow 

## shall be the**~as** 

### :flowrate in the 

### stack for all units except for those

4

### equipped with 

### activated carbon injection priorto ahot-side electrostatic precipitator; 

### forunits equipped with 

### activated carboninjectionprior

# 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 

### stackflow rate adjusted tbrough

### the use ofCharles• Law 

### for the differences in gas temperatures inthe stack and 

### atthe inlet to the 

### electrostaticprecipitator (V csp""'

### V stack 

### x Tcsp/TBfaclc, where V =gas 

### flow tate 

### inacfand T

# =gas temperature 

### in

### Kelvin or Rankine 3) The owner oroperator

### ofan EGU that 

### seeks to operate an EGU with an. 

### activated 

### carbon injection rate 

### or mtes 

### that are set on aunit-specificbasis pursuant 

### to subsection (c)(2)(C)(iv) 

### ofthis Section must submit 

### an application to the Agency proposing suchrate orrates, 

### and mustmeet the requirements ofsubsections (c)(3}(A) and 

### (c)(3)(B) ofthis Section, subjectto

### the 

### limitations ofsubsections (c}(3)(C) and (c)(3)(D) ofthis Section:

4) 

### A)

B)

C)



## D) The application must be 

### submitted as an application for anew orrevised federally 

### enforce{lble operating

## permitfor 

### the EGU, and it

### mustinclude 

### a 

## su.mmary of**~levant** 

### mercury 

### emisSion data 

### for the EGU, the 

### unit-specific injection rate 

### orrates that are 

### proposed, and detailed 

### information to 

### supportthe proposed injectionrate or rates; and This application must be submitted no later

### than 

### the date that 

### activated carbon must :first 

### beinjected. For example, the owner or operator ofan EGU thatmustinject activated carbon pUl'Sll8lltto 

### subsection (c)(l)(A) of this s®sectionmust apply 

### for llllit-specific injection rate orrates by July 1. 2009. 

## Therea:ftm, the owner or operator ofthe EGU may supplement its application; and 

### Any 

### decision ofthe Agency 

### denying a permit

### or granting 

### a permitwith 

### condi1i that set·

### a lower injectionrate 

### orrates may be

### appealed to 

### the Boardpursuanttc Section 39 oftheAct; and The owner or operator ofanEGU 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 ofa listed sorf?ent, an alternative sorbent, or othertechnique to 

### control mercury emissions. the owner or operator of an EGU need not comply with

### the requirements ofsubsection (c)(2) 

### ofthis Section for any system needed to carry 

### out the 

### evaluation. as ftnther provided as follo-ws: A) 

## '!'he owner or operator ofthe·EOU must conduct the evaluation in accordance with 

### a formal evaluation program submitted to 

### the

### Ageooy at least 30 days 

### prior to commencement ofthe evaluation;
5

### B) The duration and scope ofthe 

### 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 

### evaluationprogram; C) The owner

# oz: operator ofthe 

### EGUmust submita reportto the Agency no latertban 

### 30 days 

### after the conclusion ofthe evaluation that

### describes 

### the evaluation conducted and which provides the results 

### ofthe 

### evaluation; and 

### D) litheevaluation 

### ofthe 

### alternative controltechnique shows less effective 

## control of

## mercury emissions from the EGU than 

## was achieved with the principal 

### control technique, the 

### owneror operator ofthe EGU must resu:me 

### use ofthe principal control technique. If 

### the evaluation ofthe 

### 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, orit

## may resume 

## use ofthe principal 

## .control teclmi'l,ue. 1f 

### the evaluation ofthe

### alternative control technique 

## shoWs more effective control 

## ofmercuzy emissions thanthe control 

## technique, the 

## owner or operator ofthe 

## EGUmust continue to 

### use the 

### alter.native control technique in 

### a manner that

### is 

### more effectivethan the 

### princ.ipal cotrtrol 

### technique, so long 

## as it 

### continues to be 

### subjectto

### this 

### sqbsection (c). 5) 

### In addition to 

### complying with 

### the applicable 

### recordkeeping and 

### monitoring requirements 

### in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, 

### the owner oroperator ofan 

## EGU

## that elects to 

### comply with

## this SubpartBby

## means ofthis 

### Section must also 

### comply with the follo"Wii:J.g 

## additionAl requirements: 

### A) For·the 

## first 36months thatil:gection o:fsorbent 

## is required, 

## it must maintain record$ 

### of theusage ofsorbent, the 

### fluegas flow rate 

## fum:t the 

## EGU (and, 

## ifthe unit 

### is equipped 

## with activated carbon injectionprior to 

### a 

## hot-side electrostatic precipitator, 

## flue gas 

## temperature at the inlet ofthe 

## hot-side electrostatic precipitator

## and inthe stack), 

## and the 

## sorbent

## feed rate. in

## pounds per million 

## actual 

## cubic feet

## offlue, on a 

## weekly average; B) Afterthe 

### first 

### 36 months that 

### injection ofsorbentis 

## required. itmust monitor activated sorbent feed rate to 

### the 

## EGU, gas flow rate 

## in the stack, 

### and, if 

### theunit

### is 

## equipped with activated 

## carbon injection

## priorto ahotside electrQstatic precipitator, flue gas 

### temperature at

### the- 

### inlet ofthe hotside 

## electrostatic precipitator and in

### 'the stack. 

## Itmustautomatically**r~rd**

## this data**~the** 

### sorbent carbon feed 

## rate, in pounds per million 

## actual cubic 

## feet offlue gas, on an hourly average; and



## 6

### C) 

### Ifa blend ofbituminous and subbituminous coal is fired 

### in

### the EGU, 

### it mustkeep records ofthe amount ofeachtype

### ofcoal burned andthe required injection rate 

### for injection ofactivated carbon, on

### aweekly basis. 6) 

### Until June 30, 2012, 

## as an alternative to the CEMS orexcepted monitoring system (sorbent trap 

### system)

### monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

## in Sections

### 225.240 through 

### 225.290, the owner or operator 

### ofanEGU may.elect

## to complywiththe enrissi.ons testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, andreporting requirements 

### in Section 225.239(c), (d), (e), (f)(I) 

### and (2), (h)(2), (i)(3) 

### and (4), 

### and 

### (j)(l). 7) 

## In additionto 

### complying with the applicable'reporting requirements 

### in

### Sections 225.240 through 225.29.0, the 

### owner or operator

### ofan EGtJ that

### elects to comply with this SubpartB by means of

### this Sectionmustalso 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 thatis

## not addressedby subsection (c)(I)(B) of 

### this Section, beginning January 1, 2015 (or such earlier date when the 

### owner or operator

### ofthe

### EGU notifiesthe

### Agency that 

### it

### will comply withthese standards) 

### and continuing thereafter, the 

### owner or operator ofthe EGU must comply with 

### one ofthe

### following standards 

### on arolling 12-monthbasis:

2)

3)

. A) 

### An emission standard of

### 0.0080 lb meteury/GWh**gros~** 

### electrical output; 

## or B) A minimum 90-percentreduction ofinput

### mercury. For 

### eachEGU in 

### anMPS Group that has 

### been addressed under**~section** 

### (c)(l)(B) of

### this Section, beginning 

## on the date when the owner 

### or operator ofthe EGU notifies the Agency 

## that itwill 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-percentreduction ofinputmercury. Compliance with 

### 1he 

## mercury emission 

## standard or reduction requirement ofthis 

## subsection (d) 

## must be 

### calculatedin

## 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 

## inthis subsection (d), 

## the owner or operator of

## an. EGU 

### may electto 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 Standardsfor

## NOx and 

## S(}z. 1) 

## NOx Emission 

### Sta,ndards. A) Beginning in 

### calendaryear2012 and 

### continuing m each calendar 

### thereafter, for theEGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and 

### operator ofthe EGUs mustcomplywith an ov.erall NOx anDWll 

### emission rate of no more than O.lllb/million Btu or an elll.iuion rate equivalentto 52 

### percent oftheBase AnnualRate ofNOx emisllions, whichever is 

### more 

### stringent. B) Beginning inthe 2012 ozone season and continuing in each ozone season thereafter, for theEGUs in eaeh MPS Grouptthe owner and operator oftheEGUs must

### comply with an ovenill

### NOx seasonal emission rate ofno more

### tlum O.lllb/J;nillion 

### Btu oran emiasion 

### rate 

### equivalent to 

### 80 pelUilt ofthe

### Base Seasonal Rate of

### NOx emissions, whichever 

### iB more 

### stringent. 2) 

## SO::Emission 

### Standards. A) Begbmingin calendaryear2013 and continuing in calendar

### year 

### 2014, for the

### EGUs in 

### each MPS Group, 

### the owner

### and operator of theEGUs musteomply

### with an overall SOt annual emission rate. of 

### 0.33 lb/million Btu or

### a rate equivaleDt to 44 percentofthe

### Base Rate ofS(}z 

### emissions, whichever is 

### more stringent. B) Begmo.mgin calendar

### year 2015 and continuingin 

### each calendar

### year thereafter,

## "for fhe EGUs in 

### each .MPS Grouping, the owner and 

### operatoroftheEGUs must 

### comply with an overall 

### annual emission 

## rate. for S(h of0.25 

### lbs/million Btu or a rate equivalent

### to 35

### percent oftheBase 

### Rate ofS(h emissions, whichever ill more mingeot. 3) 

### Ameren MPS 

### Group Multi-PollutantStandard 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 aeeordancewith**subs~on** 

### (b) oftbis Section. 

### B) 

## NOx Emisllion**Standard~n**



### g

### 4)



### f) i) Beginning 

### inthe2010 ozone season and continuing 

### in each ozone season thereafter, for the EGUs 

### in theAmeren

## MPS Group, the owner 

### and operator oftbe EGUs must comply with an overall

### NOx seasonal emission rate ofno morethan 0.11 lb/million 

### Btu. ii) 

### Beginning in 

### calendaryear2010 and continuing 

### in 

### calendar year2011, for the EGUs 

### in theAmerenMPS Group, the owner and operator oftheEGUs must complywith an overall 

### NOx annual emission rateofno more than 0.14 

### Ib/million Btu. iii) 

### Begbming in 

### calendaryear2012 and continuing 

### in each 

### calendaryearthereafter,**forth~** 

### EGUs 

### iD the AmerenMPS Group, the owner and operator oftheEGUs must comply

### with 

### an overall 

### NO:c annual emission 

### rate ofno morethan 

### 0.11 lb/million 

### Btu.. C)**S~** 

### Emis.rion

### Standards i) 

### Beginning in 

### calendaryear2010 

### and continuing in each calendaryearthrough 2013, for 

### the EGUs 

### in theAmeren MPS Group,.the owner and operator of

### the EGUs most comply with an 

### overall 

### 802 annual emission rate of0.50 lb/million Btu. ii) 

### Incalendaryear2014, for the EGUs in the Ameren MPS Group,the ownerand operator oftheEGUs must comply 

### with an overall SOz annual emission 

## rate of0.43 lb/million Btu. iii) 

### Beginning in calendaryear2015 and continuing in 

### calendar year 2016, for theEGUs 

### in theAmerenMPS Group, theowner and operatoroftheEGUsmust complywith an overall S{h annualemission rate of

## 0.25 lb/million 

## Btu. iv) 

### Beginning 

### in 

### calendaryear 2017 and continuing in each calendaryearthereafter, for the EGUs 

### in tbe AmerenMPS Group, the owner and operatorofthe EGUs must comply 

### with an overall**S~** 

### annual emisaion rate of0.23 lb /million Btu. Complimu:e witb 

### the 

## NOx and**S~** 

### emission standards mustbe demonstrated in 

### accordancewith Sections 225.310, 225.410, and 225.510. The owneror operatorofEGUs must complete the demonstration ofcompliance before March 

### l ofthefollowing yearfor annual standards and before November 1 for seasonal standards,by

### which 

### date a compliancereportmustbe submitted 

## to th.e Agency. 

## Requirements for NOx and S(h Allowances.

9

### 1) The owner oroperator ofEGUs in 

### an MPS Group mustnot sell or trade to 

### any person or 

### otherwise exchange 

### with or give to 

### any person 

### NOx alloWjlllces allocated to 

### the 

### EGUs 

## inthe MPS Group for vintage years 2012 and beyond that 

### would otherwise be available for sale, trade, or exchange as a result ofactions taken to 

### comply with

### the standards 

### in 

### subsection (e) 

### ofthis Section. Such 

### allowances that 

### are not retired 

### for 

### compliance mustbe 

### surrendered to

### the Agency 

### on an annual 

### basis, beginning incalendar

### 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 mustnot 

## 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 ortrade as 

### aresult ofactions 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 

### calendaryear2014. This 

### prOvision does not apply'to the 

### use. sale, exchange, gift, 

### ortrade 

### ofallowances among the

### EGUs in 

### an MPS Group. · 3) The

### provisions o!this 

### subsection (f) 

### do not restrict 

### orinhibitthe 

### sale ortrading of 

### allowances that

### become 

### available from one ormore EGUs 

### in 

### a :M:PS Group as a result ofholding allowances 

## thatrepresent over-compliance with the 

## NOx or SO:z stantiardin

### subsection (e) ofthis 

### Section, once such a standard becomes.

### effective, whether such 

### over-complianceresults from control equipment, fuel chaJiges, changes in

### themethod ofoperation, 

## mrl.t shut downs, or other reasons. 4) Forpurposes ofthis 

### 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 of40 CFR 96, or any future federal 

### NOx or S02 

### emissions tmding programs that

### modify orreplace**tb~** 

### programs. This 

### Section does notprohibit the 

### owner oroperator ofEGUs. in

### an MPS 

## Group from purchasing or otherwiBe obtaining allowances from other sources 88 

### allowed by 

### law for 

### purposes ofcomplying withfederal or state

### requirements, except 88 

### specifically set forth in

### this Section. 5) 

## By March 1, 2010, and.continuing each 

### yearthereafter, the owneror operator of EGUs 

## in an MPS Group 

### must submit areport to 

### the 

### Agency that 

### demonstrates compliance with the 

### requirements ofthis subsection (f) 

### for the previous calendar year, and which includes identification ofany 

### allowances that 

### have bee!n 

### surrendered

## iO the

### USEPA or to

### the 

### Agency and any allowances that 

### were sold, gi.ft.ed. 

### used, exchanged, 

### ortraded**~e**

### they became available due to 

### overcompliance. All allowances 

## that are requiredto be surrenderedmustbe 

### surrendered by 

### August 31, unless USEPA has 

### notyet 

### deducted the 

### allowances
10

### from theprevious year. A final 

### report mustbe submitted to 

### the Agency 

### by August 31 ofeach year, verifying thatthe 

### actions 

### described in

### the 

## initial report have taken place.or, if

### such actions have not

### takenplace, an explanation ofall changes that have occurred and the reasons for such changes. IfUSEP Ahas 

### not deducted theallowances from the 

### previous year by 

### August 31, the final

### report will be due, and all allowances required 

### to be surrenderedmust be 

### StnTendered, 

## with:in 30 days 

### after such

### deduction occurs. g) 

### Notwithstanding 35m.Adm. Code 201.146(hhh), until anEGUhas complied with the applicable emission standards ofsubsections (d) and (e) of

### this Section for 12 

### months, the owner 

### oroperator 

### ofthe EGUmust obtain a construction permitfor anynew ormodified 

### airpollution controlequipmentthatitproposes to consirnct for 

### control ofemissions 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 ofSections225.291 through 

### 2i5.299 (hereinafter referred to as the Combined Pollutant

### Standard ("CPS")) is to allow an alternate means ofcompliance

### with the emissionf standards for mercury in

### Section22S.230(a) for**specl:fi~** 

### EGUs through pefiDtlllent shut-down, installation ofACI, andthe application ofpollution controltechnologyfor NOll:, PM, and 802 

### emissions that also reduce mercuryemissions u a co--benefit and to 

### establish permanentemissions standards for those specified EGUs. Unless otherwise provided for in the CPS, owners and operators ofthose specified EGUs are notexcused from compliancewith 

### other applicable requirements ofSubpam B, C, D, and E. · 

### (Source: Added at 

### 33 ill. 

### Reg. 

### 10427, effective June 

### 26, 2009)

Section 225.292 Applicability ofthe CombinedPollutantStandard a) 

### As an alternativeto compliancewith the emissions standards ofSection 225.230(a), tbe owner oroperator ofspecified EGUs in the 

## CfS located at 

### Fisk, Crawford,



### · Joliet, Powerton, 

### Waukegan, and

### WillCountypowerplants may elect for all of

thoseEGUs as a group 

## to demonstrate compliancepursuantto the CPS, 

### which establishes control requirements and emissions. standardsfor NO"PM, S(}z, and mercury. For

### this purpose, 

### ownership ofa specified EGU is 

### determined based on 

### direct ownership, 

### by holding a majorityinterest 

### in a company 

### that owns the EGU or EGUs, or by

### the common ownership ofthe company that owns theEGU,whether· through a**parent-subsi~** 

### relationship, as a sister corporation, or u 

### an 

### affiliated corporation

### with the same parentcorporation,provided

### thatthe owner oroperator bas the right or authority to submit a CAAPP application 

### on behalfofthe EGU.

11

### b) A specified EGU is 

### a coal·fired EGU 

### listed in

### Appendix A, 

### i!Tespective ofany subsequent changes in 

### ownership oftheEGU orpower plant, the operator, unit 

### designa1ion, orname ofunit. 

### c) Theowner or operator ofeach ofthe speei:fied EGUs electing

### to demonstrate compliance with Section 225.230(a) pursuant

### to theCPS must submit 

### an application for a CAAPP 

### permit modifica1ion to the Agency, as provided forin Section 225.220, thatincludes the information specified in 

### Sec1ion 225.293 thatclearly s1ates the o\vner's oroperator's election to demonstrate compliance. with 

### Section**~25.230(a)** 

### pursuant to 

### the CPS. 

### d) If

### an owner or operatorofone ormore specified EGUs elects to 

### demonstrate compliance with $ection 225.230(a) purauant to the**CPS~**

### then all 

### specifiedEGUs owned or operatedjnIllinois by theowner or operator as ofDecember 31, 2006, as defined in 

### subsection (a) ofthis Section, are thereafter subject

## to the standards and

.control**req~ents** 

### ofthe CPS. Such EGUs are referred to as a Cembined 

### PollQtant Standard (CPS) group. e) 

## Ifan EGU is 

### subject to 

### the requirements ofthis 

### Section; then the requirements apply tO 

### all owners andoperators oftheEGU. (Source: 

### Added at 

### 33 Ill. Reg. 

### 10427, effective June 26_ 2009)

Section 225.293 Combined Pollutant Standa:td: Notice ofIntent The owner oroperator ofone ormore specified EGUs thatintends 

### to comply with Section 225.230(a) by mean.s ofthe CPS .must notify the 

### Agency ofita 

### intention on orbefore**D~ember** 

### 31, 2007. 

### Thefollowing informatiQn musi accompany thenotification: a) The identification ofeaeh EGU thatwill be complyingwith Section 

## 225.230(a) purSuant to 

### the CPS, with evidence thatthe owner or operator

## bas identifiedall specified EGUs that it

### owned oroperated 

## in DlinoiB u ofDecember 31, 2006, and which 

### commenced commerdal

### operation on orbefore December31, 2004; b) Han EGU identified in subsection (a) 

## oftbiB 

### Section is 

## also owned or operated by a penon different than the owner oroperator submitting the no1ice ofintent, a demonstration thatthe submitterhas the right to committhe EGU orauthorization from the

### responsible ofticial for

### the

### EGU submittingthe**appli~tion;** 

### and c) A summary ofthe CDJTent control devices inmlled 

### and operating on each EGU and identification ofthe 

### additional control devices thatwill likely be needed. for each EGU to 

### comply 

### with emission control requirements ofthe CPS. 

### (Source: Added at 

### 33 ill. 

## Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 

### 2009)

12

### Section225.295 Combined Pollutant Standard: Emissions Standards for 

### NO'I and**S~** 

### a) Emissions Standards for**NO~** 

### and ReportingRequirements.

b)

c) 1) Beginning

### with calendaryear2012 and continuingin each calendaryear thereafter, the CPS group, which includes all specified EGUs that have not been pe.rmanen11y shut down by December31 before theapplicable calendar 

### year, must complywith 

### a 

### CPS group average annual

### NOx emissions rate of no morethan 

### O.lllbslmmBtu. 2) Beginning

### with ozone season controlperiod2012 and continuing in 

### each ozone season control period (May 1 through September30) thereafter, 

### the CPS grouJh which includes. 

### all specified EGUs thathave notbeen permanently shutdown by December.31 before the applicable ozone season, 

### must complywith 

### a CPS group average 

### ozone season 

### NOx emissions 

### rate of no more than O.lllbs/mnilltu. 

### 3) Theowner oroperator ofthe specified EGUs in the CPS group mustfile, not later

### than one

### year after

## startup ofany selective SNCR on 

## such EGU, a report

## with theAgency 

### describing the NO'I emissions rednct:Wns 

### that the 

### SNCRhas been able to achieve. Emissions Standards for 

## SOv Beginning in calendaryear2013 and continuing in each calendaryear 

### thereafter, tbe 

### CPS group must comply 

### with the applicable CPS group average annual

## S(h**~missions** 

### ratelisted 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 Compliancewith the 

### NOx and 

## SOz emissions standards mmtbedemonstrated 

### in accordancewith SeetioWJ 

## 225.310, 225.410, and 

## 225.510. Theowner oroperator of the specified EGUs must complete tbe demonstration ofcompliance pursuantto Section 225.298( c) before March 1 ofthefollowing yearfor annual standardsand beforeNovember 

## 30 ofthe particularyearfor ozone season controlperiods (May 

### 1 through September

## 30) standards, by which datea compliance report must be 

### submitted 

## to the Agency. [NOTE: This 

### subsection is relying on 1he compliance requiren;tents 

### ofthe Clean AirInterstate 

### Rule Trading Program under Subparts C. D, and E ofPart225 andwill need to be amended accor<ling]y 

### when the TransportRule 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 

### inthe CPS group. heat

### inputforthe annual or ozone control period ofeach EGU, in 

## mmBtu.. actual annualSOz 

### tom ofeachEGU in 

### the CPS group. actual annual orozone season 

### NOx tons ofeach EGU 

### iB the 

### CPS group. 

### number of

### EGUs that 

### are in

### tbe CPS grt)up. each

### EGU inthe 

### CPS group. 

### (Source: Amended at 33 ill. 

### Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009)

Section 225.296 CombinedPoJlu.tant Standard: CentrolTechnology Requirements for 

### NOx, S()z, 

## and PMEtnissiom a) 

### ControlTechnology Reqnirements for

### NOx and SOz. 1) On 

### orbeforeDecember31, 2013, the owneror

## operator musteither permanently shut down or

### install and have operationalFGD equipment on Waukegan 

### 7; 2) On orbefore.Deeember 31, 2014, the owner OJ:' 

### operator must either permanently shut down or install and have operationalFGDequipment on Waukegan8; 3) On or beforeDecember 31, 2015, the owner or operator

### must either permanently shut down or

### install andhave operational FGD equipment on 

### Fisk19; 4) 

### H 

### Crawford 7 

### will be operated afterDecember 31,2018• Qd not permanen:Uy shutdown 

### by this date, 

## the owner or operatormust: 

### A) On orbefore

## December 31, 2015, install and have operationalSNCR or equipmentcapableofdelivering**easenif~** 

### equivalent 

### NOx reductions on Crawford 7; and



### 14

### B) 

### On or

### before December 31, 2018, install and have 

### operationalFGD 

### equipmenton·crawford7; 5) If

### Crawford 8 

### willbe operated after

### December 31, 2017 and not

### permanently shut

### down by 

### this date1 

### the owner or operatormust: A) On or beforeDecember 31, 2015, install and have operational SNCR or 

### equipment capable ofdelivering essentiallyequivalent

### NOx emissions reductions 

### on Crawford 8; and B) On or

### before December31, 2017, install and have operationalFGD equipmenton Crawford 8. ' b) OtherControlTechnology Requirements for S(h. Owners or

### operators ofspecified EGUs must either permanently shut

### down orinstaUFGD equipment on each spedfiedEGU (except Joliet 5), on or before December31, 2018, unless an earlier date

### is specified 

### in subsection (a) of

### this Section. 

### c) ControlTechnology Requirements for 

### :PM. The owner oroperator ofthetwo specified EGUs listed inthis subsection thatare equipped with a hot-side ESP 

## must replace 

### thehot-sideESPwith a cold-side.ESP, install an appropriately designed fabric :filter, o:r permanently shutdown the EGU 

### bythe dates specified. H.ot·side ESP means an ESP on a coal-fired boijerthat is installed before the boiler's 

### air·**preh~terwhere** 

### the operatingtemperature 

### is typically at

### least 5SOO F, as distinguished from a cold--side ESP that

### is installed after the 

### air pre--heaterwhere the operatingtemperature

### is typically no more than 350" F.



### d)

e) 1) Waukegan 7 

### on orbeforeDecember 31, 2013; and 2) Will County 3 on 

### orbeforeDecember31, 2015. 

### Beginning on December 31, 2008, and 

## annuallytb.erea:fterup to and including December 31, 2015, the owner or operator ofthe Fiskpowerplantmust submit inwriting

### to 

### the Agency a

## repOrt on any technology orequipment designed to 

### affect air

### quaJity that has 

### been 

### considered or explored for the Fiskpowerplant 

## in the 

## preceding 12 months. This report will 

### not obligatethe owner or operatorto install 

## any equipment described in

### the 

## report Notwithstanding 35m.Adm. Code 

### 201.146(hhh), until anEGU 

### has complied with 

### the applicable requirements.ofsubsections 225.296(a), 

### (b), and (c), the owner or operator oftheEGUmlllt obiain a**constru~on** 

### permit**f~r** 

### any new or modified air poUution control equipmentthat

### it proposes.

### to. construct for control of

### emissions of mercury, 

## NOx, PM, orS(h. 

### (Source: Added at 

### 33 ffi. 

### Reg. 

## 10427, effective**J~e** 

## 26, 2009)

15

### 225.APPENDIX

## A Specified EGUs forPurposes ofthe CPS (Midwest Generation's Coal-Fired Boilers as ofJuly 1, 2006)
P1ant Permit Boiler Permitdesignation 

## CPS Number 

### Designation Crawford 

### 031600AIN 7 Unit7 BoilerBLRl Crawford 7 

## 8 Unit 8 Boiler BLR2 Crawford8 

## Fisk 

# .- 031600AMI 19 Unit 19BoilerBLR19 

### Fiskl9 Joliet 197809AAO 

### 71 Unit7 BoilerBLR71 Joliet? 72 Unit7 Boiler BLR72 Joliet7 

## 81 Unit 8 Boiler BLR81 Joliet 8 

### 82 Unit 8 Boiler BLRSz Joliet8 

# s Unit6 Boiler BLRS Joliet 6 Powerton 179801AAA 

## 51 Unit

## 5 Boiler BLR51 Powerton S 

### 52 Unif5 BoilerBLR 52 Powerton 5 61 Unit6 Boiler BLR 61 Powtrton6 62 Unit 6 BoilerBLR 62 Powerton6 Waukegan 097190AAC 

## 17 Unit6 Boiler BLR17 Waokegao6 

## 7 Unit7 Boiler

## BLR7 Waukegan? 

### 8 Unit 8 BoilerBLRB 

### Waukegan8 Will County 197810AAK 

### 1 Unit 1 Boller.BLRl WdJCountyl 

### 2 Unit 2 BoilerBLR2 Will County 2 

### 3 Unit3 BoilerBLR3 Will County 3 4 Unit4 BoilerBLR4 Will County 4 

### (Source: Amended at 

### 33 

# ru. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009)

16

# Exhibit 7

Proposed Federal Approval ofthe 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 inparagraph (b) ofthis section.

(b) 

### Requiredinformation-{1) In 

### general. The informationrequiredunder paragraph (a} ofthis sectionshall include the following information:

(i) The passport applicant'sfull name and, ifapplicable, previous name:

(ii) Address ofthe passport applicant's regular orprincipal place of residence within the country of residence and, ifdifferent, mailing address;

(iii) The passport applicant's taxpayer identifying number (TIN). ifsuch a number has been issued to the passport applicant. A TIN means theindividual's social security number (SSN) issued by the Social SecurityAdministration. A passport applicant who does nothave an SSN must enter zeros in the appropriate space on the passport application; and

(iv) The passport applicant's date of birth.

(2) 

### Timeforfurnishing information. A passport applicant must providethe information required by this section at the time ofsubmitting his or her passportapplication, whetherby personal appearance ormail. to the Department ofState (including United States Embassies and Consularposts abroad).

(c) 

### Penalties-(1) In general. Ifthe information requiredby paragraph (b)[l) ofthis section is incomplete or incorrect, or the information is not timely filed. then thepassport 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 thepassport applicant written notice ofthe potential assessment ofthe $500 penalty, requesting the information being sought, and offering the applicant an opportunityto explain why such information was not provided at the time the passport application was submitted. A passport applicant has 60 days (90 days ifthe 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 ofthe Commissioner orhis delegate thatthe failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, then the IRS will not assess thepenslty.

(2) 

### Example. The following example illustrates theprovisions ofparagraph (c) this section.



### Example. C, a citizen ofthe United States, makes an error in supplying information on hispassport application. Based on the nature ofthe error and C's timely response to correct the error afterbeing contacted by the IRS, and considering all the surrounding cireumstances. theCommissioner concludes that the mistake is due to reasonable cause andnot due to willful neglect. Accordingly, no penalty is assessed.

(d) 

### Effective/applicabilitydate. The rules ofthis section apply to passport applications submitted afterthe date of publicationoftheTreasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations inthe Federal Register. StevenT. Miller, DeputyCo11UilissfonerforServices 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: Proposedrule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Illinois State ImplementationPlan (SIP) addressing regional haze for the first implementation period. lllinois submitteditsregional haze plan on June 24, 2011. The Illinoisregional hazeplan addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) section 169B and Regional Haze Rule requirements for states to remedy any existing and pravent future anthropogenic impairmentofvisibility at mandatory Class I araas. EPA is 

### also proposing to approve two state rules and incorporating two permits into the SIP. DATES: Comments mustbe recalved on orbefore February 27, 2012. ADDRES8ES: Submityour comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05- 0AR-2011-D598,by one ofthe 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, AirPrograms Branch (AR-181), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 WestJackson 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 areonly accepted during theRegional Office normalhours ofoperation, and special arrangements shouldbemade 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 IDNo. EPA-R05-0AR-2011- 0598. EPA's policy is that all comments received willbeincluded in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 

### www.reRUlations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the commentincludes information claimedto beConfidential Business Information (CBI} or otherinformation whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submitinformation that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 

### www.regulations.gov oremail. The 

### www.regulations.govWeb site is an "anonymous access" system, whichmeansEPA will notknow your identityorcontactinformation unless youprovideitinthe body ofyour comment. Ifyou send an email commentdirectly to EPA without going through 

### www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe comment thatisplacedin the public docket and made available on theInternal Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you includeyour name and other contact information in thebody ofyour comment and with any disk orCD-ROM you submit. IfEPA 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 theuse of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free ofany defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submittingcomments, 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 notpublicly available, 

### e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will bepublicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available eitherelectronically in 

### www.regulations.gov orin 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, excludingFederal holidays. We recommendthatyou telephone Matt Rau, EnvironmentalEngineer, at (312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMAllON CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, AirPrograms Branch (AR-181), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 WestJackson Boulevard, Chicago, illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, 

### rou.matthew@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY IHFORMAnON: Throughout this documentwhenever "we," "us," or "our" is used, we mean EPA. Table ofContents 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 ofIllinois' regional haze plan? V. What action is EPA taking? VI. Statutory endExecutive Order Reviews I. Whatshould I consider 

### u I 

### prepare mycomments for EPAT

When submitting comments, remember to:

1. Identify therulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subjectheading, Federal Register date and page number).

2. Follow directions-EPA may ask you torespond to specific questions or organize comments byreferencing a Code ofFederal 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 thatyou used.

5. Ifyou estimate potential costs or burdens, explain howyou 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 ofprofanity orpemonalthreats.

8. Make sure to submit your comments 

### by the commentperiod deadline identified. 

## n. Whatis 

### the background for EPA's proposed action? 

### A. The RegionalHaze Problem

Regional hazeis visibility Impairment that is producedby a multitude of sources and activities located across a broadgeographic area that emit fine particles (PM2.s) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and itsprecursors--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. AerosolPMz.s impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility Impairmentreduces the clarity and distance one cansee. 

### fM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality inhumans and contributes to detrimental environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.

Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the "Interagency Monitoring ofProtected Visual Environments" (IMPROVE) monitoring network, showthat visibility Impairment caused by airpollution occurs virtuallyall ofthetime atmost 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-halfto two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic airpollution. In the eastern and midwestern Class I areas ofthe United States, the average visual range is generally less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth ofthe visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999). 

### B. Requirements of the Clean AirAct andEPA's Regional Haze Rule

In section 169A ofthe 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress createda program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness 

### areas. This section ofthe CAA establishes as a national goal the "prevention ofany future, and the remedying ofany existing, Impairment ofvisibility in mandatory Class I

I hroas**det~lgnat&d** M JJIJUldatory Class I Fedora! III'88S consiJt ofnational pari;& excee<ling 6000 acres, wildernen areas, ond lllltlonal memorial parks excaedlng 5000 acms ond alllnlemational pari;& !hat wero Inexistence onAuguJt 7, 1977. 42 

### u.s.c. 7472(a). In accordancewith section 169A of theCAl!., EPA. Inconsultation with the Department ofInterior, promulgated a list of 156 anl8ll whom vitibillty is idonUIIed aa anImportant value. 44 FR 69122 (Novomber 30, 1979). The extent ofa mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes Inboundaries, auch as park expansions. 4Z U.S.C. 7472(a). Although stales ond tribes may daslgnete u Ciao Iadditional areas whichthey consider to have vWblllty u an Important value, 1ha requlremenll ofthe visihlllty program set forth In section 189A oflha CAA apply only to "mandatory Clan IFodara111J'9118." Each mandatory Class I Federal aroe is the responalblllty ofa "Fedora! Land Manager." 42 U.S.C. 7602{1). When weusethe term "Class I area," we mean "mandatory Class I Fedaral area." Federal areas which Impairment results from manmade airpollution." 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 ofsourcas known 

### as, "reasonably attributable visibility impairment" (RA VI). 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented thefirst phase in addressing visibility Impairment. EPA deferred action on regional hazethat emanates from a variety ofsources until monitoring, modeling, and scientific knowledge about therelationships between pollutants andvisibility Impairment were improved.

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated theRegional Haze Rule (RHR) onJuly 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). TheRHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into theregulations 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 ofthe main elements oftheregional haze requirements are summarized in section

## m. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District ofColumbia, and the Virgin Islands,2 

### C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

Successful implementation ofthe 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 inClass I areas means that states need to develop coordinated strategies that take into account the effect ofemissions from one jurisdiction onthe eirquality ofanother state.

EPA has encouraged the states and tribes to address visibility impairment from a regional perspectivebecause 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

zAlbuquerque!Bemallllo County, New Mexico m!Ut also aubmlt a regional ham SIP to satisfy th& section 110(a)(2){D) requinlments oftho CAA for the entire state underth& 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 thenpursued the development 

### of regional strategies to reducePM:z.s emissions and otherpollutants leading to regional haze.

The Midwest RPO (MRPO) is a collaborative effort ofstate governments and various Fedeml agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management ofregional haze, visibility, and other air qualityissues inthe Midwest. Themember 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 ofachievingnatural visibility conditions in Class I areas. Section 169A ofthe 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 operationbefore August 7, 1962, and mustrequire those sources to install emission controls reducing visibility impairmentifappropriate. 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 deciviewa (dv) as the principal metric or unit for expressing visibilityimpairment. This visibility metric expresses uniform proportional changes inhaziness in terms ofcommon increments across the entire range ofvisibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressedin deciviews is determinedby using air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then transforming the value oflight extinction using a logarithm function. The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility than light extinction itselfbecause each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived

### by the human eye. Mostpeople can detect a change in visibility at one deciview.

The deciview is used in expressing RPGs, defining baseline, current, and

•Thepl'041llblo to the RHR proVIdes additional details about the declvi8'W. 64 FR 35714, 357Z5 (July 1, 1999). natural conditions, and 

### trac:king changes invisibility. The regional haze SIPs must containmeasures that ensure "reasonable progress" toward the national goal ofpreventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused

### by anthropogenic airpollution. The national goal is a return to natural conditions such that anthropogenic sources ofairpollution would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas.

Totrack changes in visibility over time at each ofthe 156 Class I areas coveredbythe visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437) and as part ofthe process for determining reasonable progress, states mustcalculatethe degree ofexisting visibility impairment at each Class l area at the time ofeach 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 ofthe 20 percentleast impaired (best) and 20 percentmost impaired (worst) visibility days over a specified time period at each ofits Class I areas. Each statemust also develop an estimate of natural visibility conditions for the purpose ofcomparing progress toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined 

### by estimating the natural concentrations ofpollutants 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 

### Guidancefor Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-Q05 located at

### http:// www.epa.gov/ttncaaallt1/memoranda/ rh 

### envcurhr_gd.pdj} (hereinafter referred to as "EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance") and 

### Guidancefor 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. Baselinevisibility conditions represent the degree of visibility impairmentfor the 20 percent best days and 20 percent worst

### days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Usingmonitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states calculate the average degree ofvisibility impairment for each Class I area, based on the average ofannual values overthe five-year period. The comparison ofinitialbaselinevisibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the future comparison ofbaseline conditions to the then currentconditions will indicate the amount ofprogress made. In general, the 2000 to 2004 baseline period is considered the time from which improvement invisibility is measured. 

### B. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals {RPGs)

The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the natural visibility goal isthe submission ofa series ofregional haze SIPs from the states that establish two distinct RPGs, one for the best days and onefor the worst days for every Class I 

### area for each approximately 10-yearimplementation period. The RHR does not mandate specific milestones orrates ofprogress, butinstead calls for states to establish goals thatprovidefor "reasonable progress" toward achieving natural visibility conditions. InsettingRPGs, Class I states mustprovide for an improvement in visibility for the worst days over the approximately lQ.year period ofthe SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility fur thebest days.

Class I stateshave significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 

### required to considerthe following factors established in section 169A of theCAA and inEPA'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 ofany 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 inhow they take these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's 

### Guidancefor Setting Reasonable Progress Goals UndertheRegionalHaze 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 ofprogress needed toreach natural visibility conditionsby 2064 ("uniform rate of progress" or "glide path") and the emissions reduction needed to achieve thatrate ofprogress over the approximately 1o-year period ofthe SIP.

### Federal Register/Yo!. 77, 

### No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules 3969
In settingRPGs, each Class I state must also consultwithpotentially 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. BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART)

Section 169A ofthe CAA directs states to evaluate theuse ofretrofit controls atcertain 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 ofexisting major stationary sourcesbuiltbetween 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate BART as determinedby 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 theflexibility to adopt an alternative such as a trading program as longas the alternative provides greater progress towards improvingvisibility than BART.

OnJuly 6, 2005, EPA published the GuidelinesforBARTDeterminations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Yto 40 CFR Part 51 (BART Guidelines) to assist states in determiningwhich oftheirsources 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 electricgenerating units (EGUs) with total generating capacityin excess of750 megawatts. States era encouraged, but notrequired, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for othersources.

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants ara**S~,** NOx, andPM. EPA has stated that states should use their bestjudgment in determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility inClass I araas.

States may select an exemption threshold value for theirBART modeling under the BART Guidelines, below which a BART-eligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairmentin any Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection ofthat value. The exemption threshold set by thestate should notbehigherthan 0.5 dv. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold valuewouldbe subject to a BART determinationreview. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should considerthe number ofemission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude oftheindividual 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) ofthe CAA requires the state to consider the following factors: (1) The costs ofcompliance: (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts ofcompliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology inuse at the source: {4) theremaining useful life ofthe source: and, (5) the degree of improvement in visibility whichmay reasonablybe anticipated to result from theuse ofsuch 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 ofEPA's approval ofthe state's regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required bytheRHR, 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 withthe requirement in section 169A(b) ofthe CAA that states include in theirregional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) ofthe RHR requires thatstates 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 ofthe specific SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. The LTS must include enforcesble emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and othermeasures 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 theimpacted state to coordinate with the contributing states in order

### to develop coordinated emissions management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In suchcases, the contributing statemust demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all measures necessary to obtainits 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 shouldconsider all types of anthropogenic sources ofvisibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, minor, mobile, and araa sources. At a minimum, states must describe how each ofthe following sevenfactors ara taken into account in developing theirLTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing airpollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate theimpacts ofconstruction 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 addressedby the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). E. Coordinating Regional Haze and ReasonablyAttribuwble Visibility 

### ImpairmentLong-Term Strategy

EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) as part ofthe RHR regarding theLTS for RAVI torequire thattheRAVI plan must provide for a periodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years until the date ofsubmission ofthe state's first plan addressing regional haze visibility impairmentin accordance with40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). Thestate must revise its planto provide for review and revision ofa coordinated L TS for addressing RAVI and regional haze on orbefore this date. Itmust also submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, mustbe submitted consistent withthe 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 ofa state'sLTS mustreport onbothregionalhaze and RAVI impairment and be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

### F. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

Section 51.308{d)(4) oftheRHR includes therequirement for a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, andreporting ofregional haze visibility impairment that is representative ofall mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy mustbe coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in the lMPROVE network, meaning that the statereviews anduses monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites ifthe lMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whetherRPGs will be met. Themonitoring strategy is duewith 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 ofemissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment atClass I areas both within and outside ofthe state:

• Procedures for using monitoring data and other information in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution ofemissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states.

• Reporting ofall 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 ofemissions ofpollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause orcontribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the mostrecent year with available date, andfuture projected emissions. A state must also make a commitmentto update the inventory periodically; and

• Other elements includingreporting, recordkeeping, and othermeasures necessary to assess and report on visibility;

TheRHR requires control strategies to cover an initial implementation period extending to the year 2018 with a comprehensive reassessment and revision ofthose strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SlP revisions mustmeet the core requirements ofsection 51.308(d) with the exception ofBART. The requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies onlyto 

### the first regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply with the BART provisions ofsection 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress willcontinue to be met. G. Consultation With States and Federal LandManagers

TheRHR 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 priorto holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment ofimpairment ofvisibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the development ofthe RPGs and on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must include in its SlP a description ofhow itaddressed any comments providedby the FLMs. Finally, a SlP mustprovide 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 ofother programs having the potentialto contribute to impairment ofvisibility 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 IAreas

States are required to address regional haze affecting Class I areas within a state and in Class I areas outside the state thatmay be affected by the state's emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(d). lllinois does nothave 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 ofits 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 inArkansas; Mammoth Cave in Kentucky: Acadia National Park and Moosehorn Wilderness Area inMaine; 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 GulfWilderness Area in New Hampshire; BrigantineWildernass Area inNewJersey; Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee; Lye BrookWilderness Area inVermont; James RiverFace Wilderness Area andShenandoah Nations) Park inVirginia; and, Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wilderness Area in West Virginia. B. Baseline, Current, andNatural Conditions

The RHR requires states with Class I areas to calculate the baseline and natural conditions for their Class I areas. BecauseIllinois 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 setRPGs 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 ofthe overall emission reductions necessary to achieve the RPGs ofClass 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. InSection 5 ofthe TSD, MRPO assessed the reasonable progress for regional haze. It first assessed potential control measures using the four factors required to be consideredby Class I states when selecting the RPGs: the cost ofcompliance, time needed, energy and non-airimpacts, and remaining useful life ofanypotentially affected sources. The cost ofcomplisnce factor includes calculating the average cost effectiveness and can include costs to health and Industry vitality as well as considering the different visibility effects ofdifferent 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 ofthe 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 considerplanned source retirements in calculatingcosts.

MRPO also assessed the visibility benefits ofexistingprograms. MRPO considered existing on-highway mobile source, off-highwaymobile source, area source, powerplant, and otherpoint source prognuns. 

### MRPO also included reductions from the CleanAir Interstate Rule (CAIR) in its analysis, as well from rules adopted by illinois and included in itsregional haze SIP 

### requiring the control ofemissions from EGUs.

illinois has a distinctive situation regarding CAIR, insofar as it has adopted staterules thatrequire EGUs to control NOx and

### SOz emissions beyond the control expected from CAIR, even in the absence ofCAIR, particularly by 2018 and beyond. Furtherdiscussion of these illinois rules is provided below. TheRPGs that pertinent Class I states have adopted are predicated on other contributing states achieving the EGU emission reductions anticipatedunder 

### CAIR. Since Illinois is mandating a greater degree ofcontrol than is expected from other states, EPA concludes that Illinois's regional haze plan is expectedto provide emission reductionsrepresenting an appropriate contribution toward meeting the RPGs for the affected Class I 

### areas, iiTespective ofthe status ofCAIR and irrespective ofthe associated issues regarding the adequacy ofotherstate's plans. For similarreasons, EPA believes that the approvability ofthe illinois plan is also not affected bythe status of the TransportRule, which was promulgated onAugust 8, 2011 at 76 FR 48208 and stayed onDecember 30, 2011. D. BestAvailableRetrofit Technology

States are required to submit an implementation plancontaining emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART for esch BART-eligible source that mayreasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment in a Class 1area, unless the State demonstrates thatan emi&iions trading program or other alternative will achieve greaterreasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions. 40 CFR 51.308(e).

Using the criteria inthe BART Guidance at 40 

### crR 51.308(e) and Appendix Y, Dlinois first identified all ofthe BART -eligible sources and assessed whetherthe 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 cementplants, two glass fiber processing plants, one lime plant, and oneiron and steel plant. The state further analyzed these facilities to identify those sources subjectto BART. lllinoisrelied 

### on modeling conducted by MRPO using a modeling protocol MRPO developed. MRPO conferred with its states, EPA, and the FLMs in developing its BART modelingprotocol. EPA guidance says that, "any threshold that you use for determining whether a source 'contributes' to visibility impairment shouldnotbe higher than 0.5 dv." The Guidelines 

### affirm that states are free to use a lower threshold ifthe location ofa large numberof BART-eligible sources inproximity of

### a Class I area justifies this approach. Dlinois used a contributionthreshold of 0.5 dv for determining which sources warrantbeing subjectto BART. lllinois concludedthat the threshold of0.5 dv was appropriate since its BART-eligible sources are located state-wide andno Class I areas 

### are nearby causing lllinois to correctly conclude that a stricter contributionthreshold is notjustified. The modeled impact ofthese facilities indicated that 11sourceshave at least 0.5 dv impact (98th percentile) and thus are subjectto BART. The 11 sources determined to be subject to BART are nineEGUs and two petroleum refineries. The other 15 potential BART sources were determined not to be subjectto BARTbecause 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.

• AmerenEnergy GeneratingCoffeen Boilers CB-1 and CB-2.

• Ameren Energy Generating-E.D. Edwards Boilers 2 and 3.

• Ameren Energy Generating-Duck Creek Boiler 1.

• MidwestGeneration-Powerton Boilers 51, 52, 61, and 62.

• Midwest Generation-JolietBoilers 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 ofEmissions from La!:ge Combustion Sources." In this rule, Illinois offered affected utilities two options, one ofwhich imposes stringent limits on mercury emissions alone and the other ofwhich mandates implementation ofspecificmercury control technology in conjunction with satisfaction ofstringent emission limits for 

### SOz and NOx. Part 225 includes section 225.233, antitled "MultiPollutantStandards," addressing emissions from facilities owned by Ameren and Dynegy, and sections 225.293 to 225.299, collectively referred to as the CombinedPollutant Standards (CPS), addressing emissions from facilities owned by Midwest Generation. Inall cases, the utilitieshave selected the option includingmercury control technology and applicability ofthe SOz and NOx limits. The emissionlimits are in the earlier noted sections ofthe state rules, so these 

### SOz and NOx limits are now fully enforceableby the state.

The 

### SOz and NOx emissionlimits in Part 225 rules reflect substantial averaging across units andacross facilities. Forexample. the collective set offacilities 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 BritishThermalUnits (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 ofAmeren facilities in Illinois, under the Multi-Pollutant Standards (MPS), must meet an annual average emission limit for NOx of0.11 lb/MMBTU starting in 2012 and for SOz of0.23lb/MMBTU starting in 2017. Similar limits under the MPS apply to the Dynegy facilities inlllinois.

EPA believas this degree ofaveraging 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 ownedby 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 evaluatedacross a considerable number ofdays, 

### e.g., the 20 percent ofdays 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 pertinentmeasures of regional haze. lllinois's limitll should also be adequately enforceable since the sources at issue are required to conduct continuous emissionmonitoring ofboth SOzandNOx.

### 3972 

### Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules Dynegy has five facilities with 10 units covered by MPS, includingthe three Dynegy Baldwinunits that are subject to BART. Emissionreductions required for seven otherDynegy units not subject to BART will allow it meet the MPS reduction requirements. MPS willreduce emissions from all Dynegy facilities by 23,831 tons peryear (TPY) ofNOx and47,347 TPY ofSCh, as compared to emissions inthe 2002 base

## y~eren has seven facilities with 21 units covered byMPS. This includes the subject to BART units: Coffeen units 1 and 2, Duck Creek unit 1, andEdwards units 2 and 3. Ameren has installed selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx control andwet scrubbers to limit SO:z emissions from both Coffeen units. Duck Creekunit 1 is controlledby low NOxburners, SCR, andwet 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 131,367TPY SO:z by 2015 and 134,464 TPY of

### S0:z by 2017.

MidwestGenerating operates six facilities with 19 totafunits that must comply with CPS, includingthe Midwest Generation units subject to BART: Powerton units 51, 52, 61, and 62; Joliet units 71, 72, 81, and 82; and Will Countyunit 4. The four Powerton units currently have low NOxburners 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 currentlyhas low NOx burners and OFA on its four BART 

### units. SNCR is expected to be added in 2012 to all four BARTunits. 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 NOxburners 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, increasingto 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 ifit demonstrates that the alternate measure will achievegreater reasonable progress. The criteria for the assessment ifan alternative measure demonstrates greater reasonable progress are provided in40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). MPS willreduce emissions from both subjectto BART and non-BART units at the Ameren and Dynegy facilities. Similarly, CPS will require emissionreductions from Midwest Generation's subject to BART and non-BARTunits. lllinois electad to use MPS and CPS participation as alternative to requiring BART control on each ofthe Ameren. Dynegy. and MidwestGenerationunits subject to BART.lllinois stated that implementation ofthe MPS and CPS emission limits will provide much deeper NOx and SOz reductions than implementingBART 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 emissionlevels suggested inEPA's guidance. EPA generally requires states to compare the alternative strategy to a fully analyzed set ofBART limits for the BART-subject units. However, in this case, theresults ofsuch a comparison are cleareven without illinois conducting a full BART analysis for these units. The total NOx emission reductions due to MPS onDynegy EGUs are greaterthan the base year NOx emissions from Dynegy's subjectto BART units. Therefore, the emission reductions from MPS are greaterthan 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, evenwithout a full analysis ofthe precise emission levels that would constituta BART for the BART-subjectunits, EPA finds that the lllinois rules, MPS and CPS, are an acceptable BART alternative because the emissionreductions are greater than the reductions that couldpossibly be obtained by only requiring BART at the BART-subject units.



### Three other EGUs, ownedby two otherutilities Dominion Energy and the City ofSpringfield's CityWater, Light, and Power (CWLP), are not coveredby MPS and CPS buthave units subject to BART. CWLP is a smallerutility with a total generating capacity ofless than 750 MW and Dominion Energy has only one electric generating facility in lllinois such that these utilities do nothave the opportunities for multi-plant averaging ofemissionlimits 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, alongwith Dominion's Kincaid plant, have 

### units subject to BART. Bothutilities mustreduce 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 inJoint Construction and Operatingpermits. lllinois evaluated potential controls and what control level the current emission controls can achieve in settingthe BART emission limits for the CWLP Dallman and Dominion Kincaid units.

CWLP currentlyhas SCRa and FGD on Dallmanunits 31 and 32. As of2010, CWLP hasbeen orerating the SCRa to achieve an annua average NOx emissionrate of0.14 lb!MMBTU on bothDallman 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 operatathe controls to achieve an annual average SO:z emissions rate on bothDallman 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 of0.07 lb/MMBTU by March 1, 2013, onboth 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 setthe SO:z emission limits for both Kincaid units, combined, at an annual average emission rate of0.20 lb/ MMBTU byJanuary 1, 2014, and reduced the limit further to an annual average emission rate of0.15lb/ MMBTU beginning onJanuary 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 inthe SIP and submitted the two permits as part ofits Regional Haze planto beincorporatedinto the SIP. The permits setFederally enforceable NOx and SOl limits as necessary to meettheRegional Hazerequirements of the CAA and effectively mandate that the utilities to run the SCRs yearround 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 inLemont, illinois and the Exxon Mobil refinery south ofJoliet, Dlinois. Both refineries will berequired toreduce emissionsby a Federal consentdecree resolving an enforcement actionbroughtbyEPA against a number ofrefineries. The consent decrees require the CITGO, Exxon Mobil, and the otherrefineries to operate controls atthe Best Available Control Technology level. Illinois evaluated the subject-to-BART units at the CITGO and Exxon Mobil refineries. Itfound that the NOx and 

### S<h emission limits on the subject-to-BART units in the consent decrees satisfy BART.

A consentdecreebetween the United States and CITGO Petroleum Corporation was entered in theU.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict ofTexas 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 willresult in a reduction ofNOx emissions from 1,065.7 to 106.6 TPY and S(h emissions from 10,982.5 to 107.9TPY by 2013. CITGO has also addeda tail gas recovery unit that reduces

## so2 emissions from its sulfurtrain units from 4340.0 to 91.2 TPY, a 98 percent reduction. The emission controls on all units at CITGO's Lemontrefinery will reduce NOx emissions by 1,268 TPY and SOl emissions by 15,123 TPY.

A consent decree lietween the United States andExxon Mobil Corporation was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofDlinois on October 11,2005 (No. 05-C-5809). The consent decree for Exxon Mobil requires SCR operation on its FCCU in addition tomaintenance ofthe 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. Thatreduces S(h emissions by 9,153.8 TPY to 186.8 TPY. The emission controls atExxon Mobil's Joliet refinery willreduce 1,695 TPY NOx and 18,821 TPY S(h.

Thesetwo consent

### decrees are Federally enforceable and also require that the refineries submit permit applications toIllinois to incorporate the 

### reQUired emission limits into Federa'ily enforceable air permits (other than Title V). Therefore, emission limits established bythe consent decrees may berelieduponby illinois for addressing the BART requjrementfor these facilities.

Based on modeling, MRPO determined that the visibility impact of directly emittedparticulate matter from the facilities with subject to BART units is minimal. In particular, MRPO assessed the impact ofthe directly emitted particulatematterfrom all facilities potentially subject to BART in the five MRPO states, and found the impactto be lass than 0.5 dv at any Class I area as compared to natural background conditions. lllinois therefore concludes thatPM emissions from its subset ofthese BART sources have a negligible visibility impact. Furthermore, these facilities are already subject tofederally enforceable PM emission controlrequirements mandatedbySIP-approved state particulate matter regulations, so that there is minimalpotential for further PM emissionreductions. Therefore, based particularly on the substantial existing controls on these facilitiesfabric fllters, electrostatic precipitators, and cyclones: and the minimal benefits offurther control, fllinois concluded that BART did not include further control ofPMemissions from these facilities.

EPA is satisfied with the state's BART determinations. The emission limits that lllinois adoptedgenerally will require state-of-the-art emission controls, not just at the units subject to BART requirementsbut also at numerous units that are not subjectto BART. The illinois facilities subject to BART are a long distance from any Class I area such that, so thegeographical redistributions ofemissions within Illinois do not significantly affect visibility andthe benefits ofalternate control strategies may be judged simply by comparing the netemissionreductions. TheMPS and CPS provide emission reduction well in excess ofsimply implementing BART on subjectunits. 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 ofNOx emission reductions, which is 56,890 TPY less thatfrom MPS and CPS. Illinois estimated thatimplementing BART on the subject units atAmeren, Dynegy, and Midwest Generation facilities would require an 117,252 TPY reduction in S(h emission, butMPS 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(hemissions than simply requiring BART. EPA believes that Illinois hasthereby demonstrated the emission limits on the subject to BART units covered by MPS and CPS satisfy the BART requirements.

Illi.Dois did notrely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for its BART determinations. Illinois is in the CAIR region. However, itused its state rules, permits, and consent decrees to achieve emissionreductions that satisfy BART. This means that illinois is not reliant on CAIR and. thus, it has avoided the issues ofother CAIR region states that relied on CAIR. For similarreasons, illinois' satisfaction ofregional haze rule requirements is not contingent on theTransport Rule andthus is not affected by the stay ofthat rule. E. Long-Term Strategy

Under section 169A(b)(2) ofthe CAA and 40 CFR 51.308(d), states'regional hazeprograms 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 consultwith the affected states in order to develop a coordinatedemission 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 emissionsreductions needed to meetthe RPGs for the Class I areas affected by illinois sources. As described in section ID.D. ofthis proposed rule, the LTS is the compilation ofall control measures Illinois will use to meet applicable RPGs. TheLTS must include enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessaryto achieve the RPGs for all Class 1areas affectedby 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 couldbe taken to meetvisibility goals. Illinois engaged in extensive

### 3974 

### Federal Register/Val. 77, 

### No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules
consultations with otherMRPO states, includingIndiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Illinois also consulted with Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, NewJersey, and Vermont. As partofthe MRPO, illinois participated in inter-RPO consultation onregional haze. This consultation is detailed in Chapter 9 of the state's plan. EPA finds that the state's consultationwith Class I states satisfies applicableconsultation requirements.

Illinois's L TS includes the modeling andmonitoringresults onwhich it relied to determine its share ofemission reductions necessary to meet the reasonable progress goals ofimpacted Class I areas. This information is provided in Chapter 9 ofthe Dlinois regional hazeplan. Portions ofthis technical work were providedby MRPO as it worked with otherRPOs to provide this information on Class I areas outside the Midwest.

At40 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 theRPG; (D) replacement andretirement ofsources; (E) smoke management techniques; (F) Federally enforceable emission limits and control measures; and (G) the net effect on visibility due to projected emission changes overthe LTS period. lllinois considered the seven factors in developing its LTS. Chapter 8 ofthe illinois regional haze plan provides a full analysis ofeach factor.

Illinois relied onMRPO'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 andtheMRPO'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 thatexisting control programs, together with the BART controls described above, address Illinois's impact on Class I areas. This is because the combination ofthe 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 equipmentand vehicles. As discussed in prior sections, implementation ofthe existing control programs, supplemented by the control measures in the submissionthat require power plant andpetroleum refinery emission reductions, will satisfy the LTS requiremants because. for reasons discussed above, the expected emission reductions will meetrequirements both to provide for BART andto provide emission reductions inlllinoisthat, in combination with emissionreductions elsewhere, should improve visibility sufficiently for the pertinentClass I areas to meet theirRPGs.

Illinois assessed all point sources in the state that emit at least 1,000 TPY of 

### NOx andSOlcombined and are more than 100 km from a Class I area to determine ifthe sources could potentially affect visibility in a Class I area. The assessment followed EPA guidance in calculating theratio of emission rate inTPY (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 greaterthan 10, EPA's recommended threshold. The results of the Q/d assessment are found in Table 8.1 in theIllinois TSD. lllinois found that it expects the implementation of existing control measures willresultin emission reductions from the 15 facilities. As such, illinois believes that the expected emissionreductions will ensure reasonable progress. F. 

### Monitoring Strategy

illinois maintains a monitoring network thatprovides data to analyze air quality problems includingregional 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 sitesunderthe IMPROVE program, but does have a site in Bondville, lllinois that monitors using the IMPROVE proceduremethod. Illinois is required under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) tohaveprocedures fur using the monitoring data to determine the contribution ofemissions 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 hazeplan meets the monitoring requirements for the RHR and that Dlinois's network ofmonitoring sites is satisfactory tomeasure air quality and assess its contribution to regional haze. 

### G. FederalLandManager Consultation Illinois was required to consultwith the FLMs under40 CFR 51.308(i). Illinois consulted with the FLMs electronically andby telephone. The FLMs were also included indiscussions 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 revisedregional haze plan onOctober 7, 2010 for review. That provided the FLMs enoughtime to commentpriorto 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. Thestate has committed to consulting the FLMs on future SIP revisions andprogress reports. H. 

### Comments

Illinois took comments on its proposed regional haze plan. Itheld a public hearing on December 6, 2010. The public commentperiod endedon January 5, 2011. Evidence ofthe public notice and evidence ofthepublic hearing were submitted to EPA.

Illinois's submission includes a document, Attachment 9, which summarized the comments itreceived from boththe 

### FLMs and from the public and provides its responses to the comments. The staterevised portions of its plan based onthe comments to correct errors and clarify portions that caused confusion. Illinois responded to other comments withoutrevising its plan. EPA concludes that nlinoishas satisfied therequirements from 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V to provide evidence that itgave 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 onJune 24, 2011, addressing regional haze for the first implementation period. The revisions address CAA andregional haze rule requirements for states to remedy any existing anthropogenic and preventfuture impairment ofvisibility at Class I areas. EPA finds that lllinois has satisfied all the requirements and, thus, is proposing approval ofthe 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. StatutoryandExecutive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies withthe provisions ofthe CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

### Thus, inreviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided thatthey meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state lawas meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additionalrequirementsbeyond those imposedby state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a "significant regulatory action" subject to review by the Office ofManagement and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collectionburden under

### the provisions ofthe PaperworkReduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 

### et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmallentities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

### etseq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995 (Pub. L.104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified inExecutive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subjecttoExecutive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April23, 1997);

• Is not a significantregulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) ofthe National TechnologyTransfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provideEPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmentaleffects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, underExecutive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does nothave tribal implications as specifiedby Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply inIndian country located in the state, andEPA notes that it will not imyose substantial direct costs on triba governments or preempt tribal law. List ofSubjectsin 40CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Sulfuroxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: January 17, 2012. Susan Hedman, RegionalAdministrotor,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 QualityImplementation Plane; Indiana; Regional 

### Haze AOEHCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA}. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval ofrevisions to the Indiana State ImplementationPlan (SJP) addressing regional haze for the first implementationperiod. Indiana submitted itsregional 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 ofvisibility in mandatory Class I aress causedby emissions ofair pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the "regional haze program"). States arerequired to assure reasonable progress toward the nstional goal ofachieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval ofthese SIP revisions to implementthe regional haze requirements for Indiana on the basis that therevisions, as a whole, strengthen theIndiana SIP. In a separate action, EPA has previously proposed a limited disapproval ofthe Indians regional haze SIP because ofthe deficiencies inIndiana's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia (D.C. Circuit) to EPA ofthe Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). Consequently, we are not proposing to take action inthis notice to address the state's reliance on CAJR to meet certainregional haze requirements. DATES: Comments must be received on orbefore February 27, 2012. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identifiedbyDocket ID No. EPA-RosOAR-2011-ooao, byone ofthe 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, AirPrograms 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 ProtectionAgency, 77 WestJackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normalhours of operation, and special arrangements shouldbemade for deliveries ofboxedinformation. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30am. to 4:30p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

Instructions:Direct yourcomments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-0AR-2011- 0080. EPA's policy is that all comments received willbe included in the public docket without change and may 

### be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless 

### the commentincludes information claimedtobeConfidential Business Information (CBO or other information whose disclosure isrestricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov oremail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will notknow your identity or contact information unless youprovide it in thebody ofyour comment. Ifyou send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.govyour email address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe comment that is placed in thepublicdocket and made available on theInternet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you includeyour name and othercontact information in the body ofyour comment and with any disk orCD-ROM you submit. IfEPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may notbe able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of

# Exhibit 8

Final Federal Approval ofthe 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 ofthe rule in the Federal Reg.fster. A majorrule 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

### forJudicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate r:ircuit by September 4. 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthis action for the purposes ofjudicial 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 ofSubjects 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, ActingRegionalAdministrator,RegionIII.

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 preventfuture 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. EPA-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 othermaterial, 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 WestJackson 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 ofProposed Rule ll. Commonts and Responses ill. What action is EPA taking? N. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Synopsis ofProposed 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 ofFederal Regulations Part 51.308 (40 CFR 51.306).

EPA published a notice ofproposed rulemaking evaluating illinois' submittal on January 26, 2012, at 77 FR 3966. This notice described the nature ofthe regional haze problem and the statutory and regulatory background for EPA's review oflllinois' regional haze plan. The notice provided a longthy delineation oftherequirements 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 oflimitations as necessary to implement a long-term strategy for reducing visibility Impairment.

Ofparticular interest wereEPA's findings regarding BART. States ere required to address the BART39944 

### 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 performedby the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), Illinois identified 10 power plants andtwo refineries as having sufficient impact to warrant being subject to a requirement representing BART. 1

Seven ofthe power plants that were identilled as being subject to the requirement for BART are addressed in one of two sets ofprovisions ofIllinois' 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 oflimitations, either to include 1) specific mercury emission limitations effective in 2015 with no limits on emissions ofsulfur dioxide (S02> or nitrogen oxides (NOx) or 2) work practicerequirements 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 ofMidwest 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 ofits 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 ofAmeren, three of il<; powerplants meetthe criteria for being subject to BART, and five coalfired plants are governed by the SO:! and NOx limits in the (CPS). In the notice ofproposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to condude that the emission reductions from the (MPS) and the (CPS) would be greater than the reductions that would occur with unitspecific implementation ofBART on the subset ofthAse 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

'Thenotice 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 ofthese 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 neverresume operation. Finally, Illinois found thatFederal 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 ofproposed 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 thatlllinois is not reliant on CAIR and, 

### thus, it has avoided the issues ofother CAIR region states that relied on CAIR. For similar reasons, Illinois' satisfaction ofregional 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 bythe 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 commentsupporting 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 ofIllinois' plan.

ELPC sontextensive comments objecting that control requirements for powerplants in Illinois do not suffice to meet the BART requirements and leave Illinois short ofmeeting reasonable progress requirements. These comments are addressed in detail in the discussion that follows.

Comment: ELPC argues that "the plain language ofthe Clean Air Act precludes alternatives to BART." Since the Illinois plan establishes limits that govern the collective emissions of multiple powerplants ownedby 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 ofvisibility 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 ofsource 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 ofAppeals has upheld [these] regulations.'' Nevertheless, "because these [court rulings] cannot be reconciled with the plan language ofthe 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 mayreasonably 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 ofColumbia Circuit supports that interpretation, 

### Center for Energy andEconomic Developmentv. EPA, 398 F.3d 653,660 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ("GEED") (finding reasonable EPA's interpretation ofCAA section 169(a)(2) as requiring BART only as necessary to make reasonable progress), as has the Ninth Circuit, CentralArizona Water Conservation Districtv. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (9th Cir. 1993) Therefore, EPA views Illinois' approach as an acceptable means of addressing the BARTrequirement 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 "mustsubmif' (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 wouldbe covered by Illinois' proposed altemative," ELPC objects that the state "simplycompared 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 proposedRegional 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 consideringfive 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 ofemission limits which mandate greater reasonable progress toward visibility improvement than direct application ofBART on a sourceby-source basis.

Inpromulgating the 1999 regional hazeregulations, 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 ofBARTlevel controls. To do this, the State could undertake a source-specific review ofthe sources in the State subject to BART, or itcould 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 particularregarding the benchmark definition ofBART 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 BARTguidelines would be a suitable baseline against which to compare alternative strategies where the alternative has been designed to meet a requirement otherthan 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 ofBART, even without a full analysis ofthe emission levels that constitute BART. The demonstration is discussedbelow, in the context 

### ofresponse to comments addressing the magnitude ofcontrols 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 ofthe 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 ofBART. lllinois is using precisely this flexibility. Irrespective ofthe degree to which control at individual powerplant 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 ofwhether lllinois' requirements, addressing a substantial number of sources, can be expected to providegreater reasonable progress toward visibility protection than application ofBART to the more limited number ofunits subject to a requirement for BART. EPA's analysis did notrely on a full five-factor analysis ofBART at each BART-subject unit. Instead ofusing 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 permillion British Thermal Units (#/MMBTU) for NOx and also 0.06 #/MMBTU for50 2, are as stringent and are probably more stringent than would generally be expected to be met at existing powerplants, due to the design constraints that are sometimes inherent incontrolling emissions at an existing facility.

A more complete description ofEPA's analysis is provided in the technical support document being placed in tho docket for this rule. Table 1 provides a summary oftho 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 ofthe days ofthe year, in particular across the 20 percent of days with the worst visibility and across the 20 percent ofdays with the best visibility. (See 64 FR 35734) Twenty percent of365 days in a yearis 73 days. Furthermore, the days that have better or worse visibility are distributed throughout the year, so that allowance ofgreater variability in daily ormonthly omissions would not necessarily yield worse (or better) visibility. Thus, while a 30-day average limit wouldbe better suited to assuring appropriatemitigation 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 ofannual rather than 30-day orshorter 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 ofregional 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 ofreasonable progress goals in impacted Class I areas." ELPC acknowledges that the Joppa Plant is addressed to the extent thatAmeren's plants are collectively limited under the MPS, but ELPC observes that Ameren has the choice to comply with the MPS "without making anyreductions at Joppa," even though the planthas "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 particularplants," and (3) by restricting annual emissions does not necessarily limit emissions in seasons when the most degradation in visibility may occur.

Response: Achievement ofthe applicable reasonable progress goals is not contingent on Illinois limiting emissions from the foppa or Marion plants in particular. Given the distances ofthe sources in Illinois from affected Class I 

### areas, the least ofwhich 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 ofthose reductions. That is, even ifAmeren 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 oflllinois' 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 ofrules and two permits for incorporation into the state implementation plan. Specifically, EPA is approving the following rules: Title 35 ofIllinois 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 oftwo options that the affected utilities may choose between, EPA is incorporating into the SIP Illinois' submittal ofletters 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 ofthe state pennits and the refinery consent decrees to be enforceable. While Illinois adopted the above rules as part ofa 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 ofntles 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 ofthe CleonAir 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 ofManagement and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an infonnatian collection burden under the provisions ofthe PaperworkReduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.);

• 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 etseq.):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) ofthe 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 oftherule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe 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 "majorrule" 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 ofAppeals 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 ofjudicial 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 ofSubjects 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, RegionalAdmi11istrator, 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 amendedby 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 implementingbest 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 CombinedPollutant Standards, along with letters from the affected electric utilities establishing the applicability and enforceability ofthe 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, Subchapterc: 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 byreference:

(1) Subpart B: Control OfMercury 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 ofthe 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.AppendixA Specified EGUs for Purposes ofthe 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, choosingto 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 oftho 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 behalfofMIDWEST GENERATION, LLC, with a REQUEST FOR HEARING and the APPEARANCES OF KATHLEEN C. BASSI, STEPHEN 

### J. BONEBRAKE, and ANDREW 

### N. SAWULA, 

### 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 ofLegal Counsel 1021 North Grand Avenue, 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