Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Exhibit 1 

Statewide Air Monitoring Site Locations 

Illinois EPA, 40th Annual Air Quality Report 2010 (Dec. 2011), p. 34. 

< www .epa.state.il.us/airfair-q ualitv-repor·t/201 0/index.html > 
34 

Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Statewide Air Monitoring Site Locations 

" 

'" u 

u " 

" " " " " 

m "

" " 

I/ AM[ 

flu lOili Hto!th Dep•rlm<nl 

8lvc: llb!ld tlienirow•• liS. 

J!t.oi<l-Nc-odearun EDW.olntor.o~to 

CU"fG•O.O< H.S. 

G=ottPI>. T""" 

Clctn>Ut>ortyS;t,.,.,l 

On Plain•i R•ti""o!Offi•• lluadin~ 

flCl~ bMr.Jul\!orll.$. 

[JtfnM:J:inloySmool 

tv•••rum varor !'vrnp\toc Slo~ C>'l 

Jclltl Por<illna !!omonu:y Sch<>OI 

Julio< Wottr~loot Wttt 

"'"'"AlltP-.tr.iltr 

Uolt MortcnArhorvlom 

lyOn> t.,..n.~l~ v.JIOE< LUll 

\U.WOO<! :BOO h'.a\·b~t O.l~t ~I¢""" 

M~t'WQOI:!CI:t!:m Ell Mllnlt~•""' 

Moy,..r;>c<! ~lh Cif\1(<1 Ccl!ll S;,.:le'i~l 

J.Cd\ottJu&tarr.~nfU. 

N<;MOM11t0ttli.l1 

w~r~J.brookW.,atN..,l 

$olo;:I••P.tl:IEP .. fr•llor 

XCOORD YCOOW AlFtstOOE 

4l<Xl:!&..l' o$m:x;.9a mmo::ot ~n.t~ 4G?~>n~.u. 11~ 

U:!O!.S.5i .:61.2~03 17mUOOl 

®tU.lJ .Uc..<(l3}.3S 1?1171011 

l!r-®.<1, ~7SU0.15 171!10001 

n7Sl9.10 ~1i.22 U1l3lqm 

4l?I.Sl.27 t.Gl-I~.OS: t'roJlC«S 

d2CSC.s6 oi6~1.U 17001«07 

~~.m~t7.ls ~~ 

J'>-1::114.7~ 46!61&&.53 17W',XW.l 

4Mlli.l2 ~s.GE5'l.BS 11a:Jt7o:» 

~~ .Q~B5l.2C 17l'l7lct:a 

-'011.'Xl-'13 4Y.Oml-SO :m..crnxm -mslfi.ol6 oi61J.IGJJ)l t7UJtt~J 

~1\liW.:!G o16:1JS6Vll !700{.001 

~3007i.!>l 4528036.10 1101U01G 

.4JI~U o&<.l!>~17.J5 1Wl60XI 

<ll115:!1.fJl' .;.6)591007 l10lt&oo>l 

o:~AGG."' ~1~ca umtr.::ns ~-tr.o t.WT4!-D7 nam;m 4.)l2(0.07 46lrm7.C4 17~::0: 

431953.2' ~7Z 111D1U01 

Q73;:} . .1.1 ~-l1 l'!ClUtol 

)J ~~rn,...tG<~•Eiomenta!'f1<Rool <1Ull4m 4G2G!ru.JO 170Ll~ 

~,~, .• -.. \WuhPR~~~:"'· ·- ~~!~l'ffillf:iiii'i• 

~--:.:..'-'--~~--~,~~-.llc=>Gntp~'--·"".,.,-:<•J>' ·-'f~«l~~c:Jr,._ 15 Ch!C>J~:o~NC!lU.. 4500U!IG~l!U.47 171ll1~ 

" " ~ 

~ 

" " " M 

" ~ 

" u 

~ 

~ 

., 

Q 

., 

M 

" " " ~ 

" "' " ~ 

" ~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

" 

~ " 

" • 

~ " 

• Q 

g 

~ 

" " " " " " 

~ 

" n 

N 

N 

~ 

n 

n 

u 

CU<•ioC•rmo~< Pu'!1pS!a~<>n ~-32 l,o,~!/!N.l'C l7tll1~6 

Cll!.,;:oCotnOifl) ~96 4UQU' !Xl:ll0075 

0.1~o.IUiiinoWolor~lwn U<';S'i0.7$ <$6l~7Z 17mlOC!ll 

tlli~w;l!,. T"'"" 4.172!.'ll,l-l 46lG5.!3.4l 17al100U 

tllicoi"CI"'l!uiiOinl ~;tl.;lr.~ ~~.£$ 17Cill01l7'1 

Clll<:>i<> S<><I<~Wo:orFIItud~ P!n< ~l-Ol'm.n .eGll50J.o4 1'1alliXW 

Oolo.oa<>~~~~.u<Pc1iuS.todcr> 4~~!>1 $.7.G5.l5 '17ml(;(li() 

Chl<q<>$~ri.•~tld l'uOlOSlltl.:.!l ~J;Il ~:1.2 Vlli11X57 

O.it:>t:<> lai\IU. 043!10.(1) .:&4SJ67.4$ l;'OlUClll 

O.l<=>ir-1 IJnlvowrverChlu~a ;!SWll..tD 4ltm5.3l 17Cll!X&I 

C~i~ Wo<!\tft~n H~ dr.lill,,lO u.;~lll.!)f 17<!J1CCQJ 

(hiC"COMiyloi•PUI',SI&lld" o!..lTJY.I.J! .cG4G:2U,4.1 l11!JI!)O!;! 

BondvllloS'-'':>Oomotc-~r•T!on =n.u ~&.00 ll'll1!lltm 

to<p<)l)dalo M>lnl<r.tn"" ~~~dint !<X!at..U ~~n.>I!I.OO 171.111Q:X)1 

o,_,~:>~8<><>~Hl,WaJ.!!.I~iT~n!ltlnlnl*l¥~thOG1 3~9'1 U.Ull1.~ 17tl19::0:>i 

Otu•~• lfl':A lran.r USJ1.9..94 .U!-J16~.00 t7U!OO!l 

rntnJhlmC:ontr.IJu~lcrtu. :;c;t;OXL,U ~2Sle:l.0011049lCOl 

Ltlu•r<>oBIId.,.ln~lltl•l[P.>.Tn~•r ~S7-15.Sl ~Ji'!li)I~O l'flsxto:. 

K:oi~hlProjrloT_,<~Ip l5l;l!\!l.n 4ll61n.DO ll'C6500l!. 

..wy..tllo ~thwoJICO~It l\' I41C.I!:l.S9 ~n:lS'Y..o.!XI 17".191@ 

M::u•r<:.rr.ot! llhl•lon Stru• <:3W::t.OG ~2S01T/.OO Ul.!i:",,lXil 

l':u,.IWibxlo C:OUPIV~:.tnh~f~TJII '""'It 1 .\lTlm.~ oGJ471G.IXI l7l.liS\llll 

lli.'woQd I!M lro~rl ~!OUSt. 41~~ Vlt700C1 

WorrnoJrm~hvl.i«ll'lur 3lCl!l7.Sl41l5725(l":oO 17\tl~l 

O~Uby ICP.l1'1.,;1or lliollll-3~ ~7.13\l.t(l l7f»'Xm1 

l'eOtll CltyOnl =-: H"l!d>li~ 1lil5U-U ~)t.$0 11l~lem7 

P•U~fl,.hatL<Wil :l1WU1 .I.I!'Zan.oo 1?17!:lo:OI 

~~orio c.c'"mt.O.I Scil:l~-1:: Z7'nm.» ~5057q~ 1.7UXI:06 

Pt"ri~flr.Scaom I 27!17D7.li 4.!:171~.50 ll!.t:lOlll 

P<<WIII!tl;hiSIU. lS1£'9.!l'l -ISUnJ.SO 17loll\0Jl 

\""'"' l'orltAtpli £1-omiUorykhool 3:12lll..4\ ~LOJ 11}012001 

lbdtletdCif(Hall UlYU.72 ~SO 17l01001l 

~OI'd Wln~•b•toCcuntytloall:lo D<p.ztmoM :nm2.11 .cQllm.i.o L-"'l'r:::ocri:J 

hrinP"tl<:Sewa,c1ru!OT.<rntl•ont l)U,s.I.OJ ~50 17lCl!X:06 

~~"''J~tlolPu~\kHrolthWO<•h'llllt 271U~.5J 44'1J721..5tl l71ti700\D 

5~rln~•ld Ill in,;, "srlCI!\IUr• II'Jll<l'i.,, n:rno.ro ~U~9.CCI17U>IOOU 

~~rintfiold h:!Oio\!kli!di~~ 273312.~ .umm.!.o 17157tiX$ 

S"<""<uVollos:o 1.\li~t~non<'l kllc!in1 ll~Oi! ~UlO 1ll61.U:m 

lo<u<Mtllt Pulflp Stnlon ]7.:SlS.OJ 4sal574..00 17l43:LUD 

C..cotur"-I.IGU.t ]J~C(l J.ll43Ql.[(L t7U5al1C 

M.l~lc<ont.l~pii[IO'PI.ant ~l5.CO ~00 llV.lmUI 

fortl uo .... nraryS.i\Dill .l4$J.l&.D::l o~Glll:U.\XI1Mll01l0 

~~~~ 1_ Rubin lndCorn~ltrl U740.!1l _..Gl'lll'i37.00 l720ll)].lel 

St•~L"&~\ ~ .. C'I~I Cllnlc ~.00 o~Gl!i322.00 l119Sim0 

AltonSIU~nu!Oinot 7~173-1.9-1 ollCP.'.alm tn19l:IXO 

.o.lronOI,. !Lltl'c .. t)lornon\I."V~<ho:><>l 7~135&.!.5 ~l.lXl 17l.l!:O:X:b 

h<LSt.t<r•I•AAPSl'rolll-<1' 7t;Jll&.941'17" ..na:o 111Uall0 

fd.,.,~,.,lleAA~S Troll« l'S1lt1'-4.1 Q$1100).0:0 17~aJ1 

G-•nhe Clw tlnltdoft 1 7~m.63 Ql'l!n.(l;).l711Slto7 

GrlnU~ ell'! All I>R>dutt1 U7S2l.U 4ZS571J.!;O t7l19Xr10 

l<od< bl•nd .O.run.,! To'l11QJ.~ ~GO l1Ull!Jl! 

Souih R<<lnl Grode lelool l'l5l5l.i3 430'1!!),,:;.,) lilHtOlO 

Wood PJ~orW~tulrutm<!n! Flint J:!lllJ.l.l UU!i2SS.OJ 17ll'l1¢17 

Jot:1ovv•!lti1Hn1luniorl-C. nu.t~.tD Ul1~l.51) l7Clll.lt01 

Quln<v~or,~wcod"'"""""IIYO>ti~U Gltlll7M 0:.:1$95.50 l7tXnOOl1 

Gr""t:o Cll)' Gl'II'"'OY M!<llnol 

Sprl''l~<l~ lil""d«::B"~:fi~l 

1~ Qil.QG.SO 11ll~4 

~T.'OlG-17 4)J!;JS.W UlPOOll 

'----· 

II<>"''" 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Exhibit 2 

2010 Monitoring Directory 

Illinois EPA, 40th Annual Air Quality Report 2010 (Dec. 2011 ), 

Table A4, p. 39 

< mv1v .epa.state.il.us/air/air-g uality-report/20 1 0/index.html > 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Table A4 

2010 Monitoring Directory 

c 

0 • iii ~ E 

City 

'll 

AQS ID a 0 ;1; "' 0. 

"' "' "' .0 "' 0 0 "' "' "' ~ 0. " . N "' c 

;;; N N ..t N " x ._ c • 0 0 a s. "' :E :E 0 0 0 "' :: 0 

" " z 0 0. 0. 0. ._ "' > ... ... "' 

17-001-0007 Quincy 

17-019-(]004 Charnpaign 

17-019-1001 Bondvfl!e 

17-031-0001 Alsip 

17-031-0022 Chicago W::.shir~:on H:l)h S~ 

17-031..(!026 Chicago 

Cermak p~mp .Sts~;o.'l 

17-031..(1032 Chicago SC'liill Willet Fikl'rh:m 

17·031-0042 Chicago 

\\~SsT~r 

17-031-0050 Chicago Sou&~e::nl ?alice Slatll}!l 

17-031-0052 Chicago 

Mtr}'l'.lurPI.imp StaUon 

17-031-0057 Chicago 

Spm,11eid ?um~ Sialit:n 

17-031-0060 Chicago Ca.~.·~;!! High ~oot 

17-031.-()063 Chicago 

CT ,\ B"iiC'.IIQ 

17 -0'31-0064 Chicago Univ~l)' cl C~caco 

17...031-0072 Chicago JirdineW11terFiam 

17-031-0076 

17-031-0110 

17-031-1003 

17-03"1-1016 l~ons Township 

17-031·1601 Lemont 

17-031-1901 MldiO!Ilian 

;; 

u 

Co 

0 

-e 

0 

£l 

• "' 

39 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Exhibit 3 

Construction Permit Issued to Midwest Generation for 

the Construction ofMercury Control Equipment 

(July 19, 2007), Appealed in PCB Docket 08-020 

(August 27, 2007) · 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

Electronic Filing~ k~~~i008,~e¥k1s bfftc!"e~ ~ugust 2;1-11611~~~-.. 

' * * * * * PCB 2008-020 * * * * * EXHIBIT 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1021 NoRTH GRANO AVENUf EAST. r.o. Dox 19506. SPRtNGnEtn, tu.INC)ts 62794·9506- ( 2171 782~2113 

Roo R. BLAGOJEVJCH, Govc:RNOR DOUGLAS p. ScOTT, DIRECTOR 

217/782-2113 RECEIVED 

CONSTRUCTION PE:RH!T 

JUL 2 3 2007 

PERMITTEE 

ENVIRONMENTALSERVICES 

Midwest Generation EME, LLC - Waukegan Generating Stati~~T~ON~LLC 

Attn: Andrea Crapisi 

440 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3500 

Chicago, Illinois 60605 

ApPlication No.: 07050007 I.D. No.: 097190AAC 

Applicant's Designation·: Date Re:cei\•ed~ May" 3, 2007 

Subject: Sorbent Injection Systems for Units 7 and 8 

Date Issued: July 19, 2007 

Location: Waukegan Generating Station, 401 East Greenwood Avenue, Waukegan, 

60087 

Permit is hereby granted to the above,:.d_es1gnated Permittee to CONSTRUCT 

equipment consisting of a sorbent injection system to control mercury 

emissions for each of the Unit 7 and-8 boilers, ·as described in the above 

referenced application. This Permit ~s subject to·standard conditions 

attached hereto and the following special condition{s}: 

la. This Permit authorizes construction of sorbent injection systems for 

each of t-he existing coal-fired bOilers for Units 7 and 8 (affected 

boilers}. The new sorbent injecti-on systems would control mercury 

emissions by injecting sorbent, i.e., halogenated activated carbon, 

into the flue gas from these existing coal-fired boilers prior to the 

electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) for each affected boiler. 

b. This permit is issued based on this project being an emissions 

control project, whose ·purpose and effect will be to reduce 

emis~ions of mercury f~orn the existing coal-fired boilers and 

which will not significantly"increase emissions of other PSD 

pollutants. As such, the terms and conditions of the existing 

permits will continue to govern· emi.!?sions and ·operation o:f the 

boilers except as specifically indicated. 

ii. This permit is issued based on negligible particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from the storage and handling of sorbent for the 

sorbent injection systems. For this purpose emissions shall not 

exceed 0.44 tons/year. However Permittee shall comply with all 

applicable requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 212 that apply 

to the storage and handling of sorbent. 

c. This permit does not authorize any modifications to the affected 

boilers or gerierating units, which would increase capacity or potential 

emissions. 

2a. The Permittee shall comply with applicable emission standarda and 

requirements related to mercury emissions for the affected boilers 

pursuant to 35 lAC Part 225.1 Subpart B and/or Subpart F, by the 

applicable dates specified by these rules. 

PRtNT£0 ON R!:.C'I'CL\:0 PArER 

I 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

* * * * * Pr.R ?.£!.1 ?. 1.? 1-* * * * * Electronic Filing, Recervea,"""CrerK"s vffice, August 27, 2007 

* * * * * PCB 2008-020 * * * * * 

Page 2 

Note: The Permittee expects that it will comply with certain 

provisions of 35 IAC Part 225, Subpart F, which is still proposed, as 

an alternative to compliance with 35 IAC Part 22S, Subpart B. If the 

Permittee elects to comply with 35 lAC Part 225, Subpart F, certain 

provisions of subpart B would not be applicable, and the provisions of 

Subpart F would set the dates when certain other requirements do become 

applicable. 

b. This permit does not affect the authorizations in existing operating 

permits for the affected boilers, pursuant to 35 IAC 201.149, 201.161 

and 201.252, that allow the Permittee: 

i. To operate an affected boiler in violation of certain state 

emission standards during startup of the boiler or the terme and 

conditions that accompanied such authorization. 

ii. To continue to operate an affected boiler in violation of certain 

state emission standards during malfunction or breakdown of the 

boiler, including control devices and ancillary systems, or the 

terms and conditions that accompanied such authorization. 

3. At all times, the Permittee shall, to the extent practicable, maintain 

and operate the sorbent injection systems including storage and 

handling of sorbent, in a manner consistent with good air pollution 

control practice for minimizing emissions from the existing coal-fired 

boilers and the source. 

4a. The Permittee shall comply with all applicable requirements of 35 IAC 

Part 225, by the dates specified in the rules, related to monitoring of 

mercury emissions from the affected boilers. 

b. If the sorbent injection systems can be adjusted remotely by personnel 

in the control room, the Permittee shall install, operate, and maintain 

instrumentation for. measuring rate of sorbent injection for each 

affected boiler with the status of the system. 

Sa. The Permittee shall maintain following records for the coal supply for 

the affected boilers: 

i. Applicable records required by 35 lAC Part 225, by the dates 

specified in the rules, 4elated to sampling and analysis of the 

coal supply to the af£ected boilers for its mercury content. 

ii. Records of mercury and heat content of the current coal sqpply to 

the affected boilers~ with supporting data for the associated 

sampling and analysis methodology, so as to have representative 

data for the mercury content of the coal supply. 

b. The Permittee shall maintain the following records for the sorbent 

injection system on each affected boiler: 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

Electronic Filing~ Reeeipgg,~~kl~ .Pffi-oey August 27, 2007 

* * * * * PCB 2008-020 * * * * * 

Page 3 

.i. An operating log or other records for the system that 1 at a 

minimum, identify the sorbent that is being used, the setting{s) 

for sorbent injection rate and each period of time when an affected 

boiler was in operation.without the system being operated with 

explanation, e.g., the boiler was being fired on natural gas. 

ii. Maintenance and repair log or other records for the system that, 

at a minimum, list the activities performed, with date and 

description. 

c. ~he Permittee shall maintain following records related to mercury 

emissions from the affected boilers: 

i. All applicable records required by 35 lAC Part 225, by the dates 

specified in the rules, related of monitoring mercury emissions. 

ii. During the pe~iod before the Permittee is required to conduct 

monitoring for the merPUry emissions of ~he affected boilers 

pursuant to 35 IAC Part 225 1 the Permittee shall maintain records 

of any mercury emission data collected for the affected boilers, 

including emissions or control efficiency with identification and 

description of the mode of operation. 

d. The Permittee shall retain all records required by this permit at the 

source for at least S years from the date of entry and these records 

shall be readily accessible to the Illinois EPA for inspection ~~d 

copying upon request. 

6. If there is any deviation from the requirements of this pe~it 1 the 

Permittee Bhall submit a report to the Illinois EP~ ~ithin 30 days 

afcer the deviation or such other time period specified in the current 

CAAPP permit issued for the source. The report shall include a 

description of the deviation, a copy of reJevant records, and measures to reduce emissions and future occurrences. 

7. The Pexmittee shall notify the Illinois EPA when sorbent :l.nject.ion 

systems on_ affected boilers start operating. 

8. The Illinois l!!·PA has determined that this project, as described in the 

application, will not constitute a modification of the boil~r under the 

federal ~ew Source Performance Standards 1 40 CFR 60, as the project has 

the primary function of reducing emissions and there£ore is not 

con5idered a modification pursuant to 40 CFR 50.14(e) (5). 

9, Two copies of required reports and notifications shall be sent to the 

Illinois EPA's Compliance Section at the following address unless 

otherwise indicated: 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Compliance Section (~40) 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

* * * * * .PrR ?111 ?. 1? L * * * * * Electronic Filing, Recerv~l:l,-c:;n~l'K"S uffice, August 27, 2007 

Page 4 

" * * " " PCB 2008·020 * * * * * 

and one copy shall be sent to the Illinoie EPA's regional office at the 

following address unless otherwise indicated: 

Illinois Environmental Protection hgency/Regianal Office 

Division of ~ir Pollution Control 

5Sll West Harrison 

De~ Plaines, Illinois 60015 

10. The affected boilers ma.y be operat·ed with sorbent injection systems 

pursuant to this 'c_Oilstruction permit until an operating permit becomes 

effective ·that add~esses operation of these boilers with these systems. 

If you have any questions on this permit, please call Kunj Patel at 

2l7/792-2U3. 

Edwin c. Bakowski, .P.E. 

Acting Manager 1 Permit Section 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

ECE: CPR d:MP; ps j 

cc: Region 1 

Date Issued: ~ /'J/ UtJ7 ~· 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

* * * * * .PI:R ?.fl. 7 ?. 1? b* * * * * Electronic Filing, Receivett,""INI<"S' ffice, August 27, 2007 

July 1, 1985 

* * * * * PCB 2008-020 * * * * * 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 

P. 0. BOX 19505 

SPRINGFIELO, ILLINOIS 52794·9506 

STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION/DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 

ISSUED BY THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

The Tilinois Environmental Protection Act <Illinois Revised Statutes, Chnpter 111-1/2, Section 1089) authorizes the 

Environmental Protection Agency to impose conditions on pP.rrnits which it issues. 

The following conditions are applicable unless euspersedcd by special condition (a). 

1. Unless this 11ermit haa been extended or it ho.e been voided by a newly issued permity this permit will expire one 

year from the date of issuance, unless a continuous program of construction or development on this project has 

started by such time. 

2. The construction or development covered by this permit shall be done in compliance with applicable provisions of 

the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and Regulations adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board. 

8. There sholl be no deviations from the approved plans and specifications unless a written request for modification, 

along with plana and specHications as required, shall have been submitted to the Agency and a supplemental 

written permit issued. 

4. The pet"":mittee shall ollow any duly authorized agent of the Agency upon the prt-...sentation of credentials, at 

reasonable times: 

a. to c.ntor the permittee's property where actual or poten_tial '!ffiuent, emission or noise sources n.l'e located or 

where any activity is to be conducted pursuant to this permit, 

b. to hnva access to ll!ld to copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit, 

c. to inspect1 including during any hours o! operation of equipment constructed or operated under this permit, 

such equipment and any equip:rnent required to be kept, used, operated, calibrated and maintained under this 

permit, 

d. to obtain and remove sarnp1es of any discharge or emi..ssiona. of pollutants, and 

c. to enter and utili:r.:e any photographic, recordjng, testirig, monitoring or other equipment for the. purpose of 

preserving, testing, monitoring, or recording any actjvity, discharge, or emiaaion authorized by this permit. 

5. The issuance of Ulis permit; 

a. ahnl1 not be con..ctidered as in any manner affecting the title of the premises upon which the permitted 

facilities are to be located, 

b. doee not release the permittee from any liability for damage to person or property caused by or resulting from 

the constl.'uction, maintenance, or operation of the proposed facilities, 

c. does not relet~.::~e:- the: permittee from <:ompliance wi.th other applicable statutes and regulations of the United 

States, of the State of Illinois, or with applicable local lttws, ordinances and regulations, 

d. does not take into consideration or at. test to the 5tructural stabiJity of any units or parts of the project, and 

IL 532-0225 

APC 166 Rev, S/99 f'rlt1~ on nu;ycJNl f'1per 090<00!) 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

· * * * * *.PrR 'Ul7'?.l'?Q* * * * * --· --Etectronic Filing, Receivea;vteTK"S ffice, August 27, 2007 

* * * * * PCB 2008·020 * * * * * 

e. in no mnnner implies or suggests that the Agency (or its officers, agents or employees) assumes any liability, 

directly or indirectly, for any loss due to damage, installation, maintenance, or operation of the proposed 

equipment or facility. 

6. a. Unless a joint construction/operation permit has been iesued, a permit for operation shall be obtained from 

the Agency before the equipment covered by thia permit is placed into operation; · · · 

b. For purposes of shakedown and testing, ut"aleaa otherwise specified by a special permit condition, the equipment covered under thla permit may be operated for a period not to exceed thirty (SO) days. 

7. The Agency"may flle n complaint with the Boa"I"d fOT modification, susPEnsion or revocation of e. pennit: 

a. upon discovery that the permit application contained misrepresentations, misinformation or false statements 

or the.t all relevant facts were not discloaed, or 

b. upon finding Lhat ,any standard or special condit.iona have been violated, or 

c. upon any violations of the Envirant:nental Protection Act or a.~y regulation effective thereunder as a result of 

the construction or development authorited by this permit. 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

* 't-* * * PrR '?.D.1 '?. 7.?-b* * * * * Electronic Filing, Kecervea,~J:eTK"s ffice, August 27, 2007 

* * * * * PCB 2008-020 * * * * * 

DIRECTORY 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

BUREAU OF AIR 

Jr assistance in preparing a permit Jplication contact the Permit . =ction. · 

£1linois Environmental Protection .Agency Division of Air Pollution Control 

Permit Section 

l02I N. ·Grand Ave 1:. 

P,o,B~x 1950.6 : . . 

.Sp~ngfield, Illinois 62794-9506 

Illinois· EPA 

Region 1 

Bureau of ai.r :o FOS 

9511 West llarrison 

Des Plaineo. Illinois. 60016 

847/294-4000 

Illinois EPA 

Region 2 

5415 North University 

Peoria, ·Illinois 61614· 

309/693-5463 . 

I1linois EPA . 

'Region .;f 

2009 Mall Street 

Collinsville, Illinois 62234 

618/346-5120 . 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Exhibit 4 

Redlined Permit (Ex. 2 in PCB 08-020) Reflecting the 

Partial Stay Granted in the Appeal of the Mercury 

Control Equipment Construction Permit 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/1 0/2012 

Electronic Filing; ~eceiQelf, ~eik1S? .bfftc*e; august ii'-i~~!!!!ll-... * * * * * PCB 2008-020 * * * * * EXHIBIT 

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 

PERMITTEE 

Midwest Generation El'-lE, LLC - Waukegan Generating Station 

Attn: Andrea Crapisi 

440 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3500 

Chicago, Illinois 60605 

Aoplication No.: 07050007 I.D. No.: 097190~AC 

g 

Aoplicant 1 s Designation: Date Received: t-1ay 3, 2007 

Subject: Sorbent Injection Systems for Units 7 and 8 

Date Issued: July 19, 2007 

Location: ~Vaukegan Generating Station, 401 East Greem<~ood Avenue, Waukegan, 

60007 

Permit is hereby granted to the above-desigr.ated Permittee to CONSTRUCT 

equipment consisting of a sorbent injection system to control mercury 

emissions for each of the Uni~ 7 and 8 boilers, as described in the above 

referenced application. This Permit is subject to standard conditiOns 

attached hereto and the following special condition(s): 

la. This Permit authorizes construction of sorbent injection systems for 

each of the existing coal-fired boilers for Units 7 and 8 (affected 

boilers). The new so~bent injection systems would control mercury 

emissions by injecting sorbent, i.e., halogenated activated carbon 1 

into the flue gas from these existing coal-fired boilers prior to the 

electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) for each affected boiler. 

b. i. This permit is issued based on this project being an emissions 

control project, whose purpose and effect v·dll be to reduce 

emissions of mercury from the existing coal-fired boilers and 

which will not significantly increase emissions of other l?SD 

pollutants. As such, the terms and conditions of the existing 

permits will continue to govern emissions and operation of the 

boilers except as specifically indicated. 

ii. This permit is issued based on negligible particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from the storage and handling of sorbent for the 

sorbent injection systems. For ::.:.s pur13ose cl'!'1.~ .:s:.eRs sh.::) 2. r.c'!: 

c::c::eel: G.~: ter;s/ . .-:ca_. ~:o.rever Ps::r:-.i~tee s:::.2.l :.e:np2_y u;th a::.: 

appl:..::::.B, e =cqc:iz:a;.c::ts ef 3§ Ill. t.dm. Gsek. Pa.::: :::.2 tf:at ap'f'l2.~· 

to ~he s~sra§c ana Randl~ag Gf sorEcnt. 

c. This permit does not authorize any modifications to the affected 

boilers or generating units 1 \·1hich would increase capacity or potential 

emissions. 

2a. TA:: E'e=mi~::ee sF..:2_1 ee:t.pl) o:it:-. ap~l:..eab c e:;:'ssio::. staEG.sras aRE! 

=equi=cments Esl:ted ts mereury effiiSsisns fey tka affected bsil=Fs 

f.':l:-s:.:ar.-:. ::a 3§ I?'.C Pa::t ~25, £i:!:6!9a::=t 8 ar.S./er St:Jtp.:.:rt F, :Sy :.:-:e 

=ppl ea~ C dctes spse!~iscl ~y these rule.:. 

::etc. 'Fhe PeE:!'fl~t:.:.e e:_pe.:::a:s tl=.:.t i:.. ·.:ill e.:.: .. p2.y o;:.t!': ecrta.:.A '§'ra-.-~s:.e:-.s 

sf 3§ !l'_G r.::r:: 22§ I s·a.Spart :::I ... F.:..es is st=;i2.l !9repsse3:, as an 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

Electronic Filingr Reeeip~:~gd~1!!£k1~ .Pffioev August 27, 2007 

* * * * * PCB 2008-020 * * * * * 

?age 2 

a:.:err.ativc ':0 cemp:..:.anc:::: ·,;:.::t 35 1.1C Part 225, St:S~crt E. r:: the 

:'e::..;r..:.tt::.c elects te ZS!i't!S:.Y ,;:..ti=i: 35 "'"?.C :-_::"!:. 2:2§ 1 Eubp:.:...·':. F, ee::=':.c;.:: 

p.:svisiG:'"l3 s: s:.:Spa:r:. 3 ;;c::2.el as': Be apf32.ic::Sle, a::-.el :.:::: prov::.s:.or;s <5-:.f 

suep_rt F ·.:_·.:.la :::ct -:he d:.~cs ·,;:.c:-:. eeo:"Ca:..l': ctt-.e.:- .:e:Ero: remer.ts cl:e Sc.:.er..:. 

b. This permit does not affect the authorizations in existing operating 

permits for the affected boilers, pursuant to 35 IAC 201.149, 201.161 

and 201.262, that allm~ the Permittee: 

i. To operate an affected boiler in violation of cer·tain state 

emission standards during startup o£ the boiler or the te~ms and 

conditions that accompanied such authorization. 

ii. To continue to operate an affected boiler in violation of certain 

state emission standards during malfunction or breakdo.,.m of the 

boiler, including control devices and ancillary systems, or the 

terms and conditions that accompanied such authorization. 

3. At all times, the Permittee shall, to the extent prac-ticable, maintain 

and operate the sorbent injection syste~s including sto=age and 

handling of sorbent, in a manner consistent w~th good air pollution 

control practice for minimizing emissions from the existing coal-fired 

boilers a!ld the source. 

lla. !P.:-e-fle.-:::r.:.t::ee sF.all eoF..'§)lY u.:'..-::fi al:'.. a!='§Jl.:'..:.:::aa~c reG!li:.re::ne:-.:.s s: 3§ rr~s 

:-·.;:_-:. 225 1 by :..:.a t=lai:.:.: spec.:..:.:.ed :.a ':he rt.::'..es, :::e~a-!:eE ~e :n::nits::;r.g--e£. 

Fr.e_e·...:ry err..:.ssiens fr-effi~ a.:£seted Ssi::~ 

b. r.:. t:.c zc:ri::_r.:: .:'.. .. j eet!cF:. syst ...... s ::::::-. be .:djt:::sted re::-.s~e:y ~rser:r.c, 

~n tr:: .:.::n:;_c~. rea!1i, ':.fl.:: Pe::m.:..ttce sh.:: 1 .'.. :.F.s'.::l2. 1 ep€-:!'>:te1 a:-.9 nair.:a;n 

-=:1st_::...---:m:: .. =.-:.:.e:-. :or :nea=...:r-=1':~ Ea-':c c:: serbeat iRje:::t:.o:: ..:<'eF .:.a:;:-, 

aff:::.e:e-a to~ 'e-- ·,;:.:.r. the sta:.us c..: :.P.e sy.::tem. 

Sa. The :'erm.:.etce sha2.' main:a:.R ~sJ 2..eH!::g ::eesrds :sr ::h.:. asal supp2.y :e1· 

the c!fe_t:d ~eil:=s. 

i. l'.ppll:._al32.c rcez7Eis le~'.....1.reS lsy 35 ::.::. :'art 225, lsy t}·.: dates 

519.:e:.:::..ee i:: the ri:llos, ""Elateei t: Saff.@li:::g a::a ana::y::ic ef ';fle 

eeal s·..:.ppl)' te tr-_e: a::.:eetecl so.:.:ers :or i":s mcr:::.:ry een':er:.--:. 

ii.. Recs:::eis e.f merc:.:ry a:l"lei hea: ccr:-::.r::: s= ':.P..c C"J.r:=c::t :e.::2. s:.:pp:!.y ce 

:.:.e =::::c:::":.:e:i bei.l:r=; H.:t:: .st:p~~ da-:a fer tt.c asscc:..a:..ed 

o.:w.pliB~ er:.cl :::-:.alys.:s m:::h:dele;:h se as ~e hc.v:: r:.p:::-es:r:--:ati..-c 

da-:c:. :::...: '::t=.: a:.ere:.:.r~- cs .. tea':: c:: the .:ea::. .:u:;p!..y. 

b. ~e Pe_m:.t:..ee sha:.: ff!a.:.A':aiR :::-.c fsl:: ... ..:.::3' ..=eeezd::; f~- the sa.:Sent 

inje: ... is?. Sj'StC.u SF. each a:..,cetcei :Ceil:;;. 

i. ~pers:~ r:s= 2.e<j e..:- e.l...R:.r rees_ds fer the syc'::e ... _::at, at a 

m:.n:.mua, identify the ae=~cRt t~Ct is b:iftey ciSC~t EhC sotting(S) 

~ez sar~ent inje:tisn Eate asd each pc::::.ed ef time \~en :n 

a:::eeted be~ 2.er ;·az ir. Sj¥:: .. ::c.:..sR ...-i-:.hei:::tt the SJ'S':. _rr. lseiL<:g 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

* * * * * PC:F.i 2n1?-1?b* * * * * -----s:Eal~e~c"'t""r~o~n~i .... c~F~:T~ilr+i n ...... g..::, -iR~e~c""e~i.{;V~•(;tlfJa;iL, 'C'Ietk""S" ffi ce, Au gust 27, 2007 

?age 3 

* * * * * PCB 2008-020 * * * * * 

nat-.;r::.l g:.s. 

ii. Maintenance and repair log or other records for the syste:n that 1 

at a minimum, iist the activities performed, with date and 

description. 

c. 'rhs Pc:.n::/t~e- s:-_a' 2. rr.aint::.::..n .:c'let::..r:; reesrels :re:!...:tcEl: te r:,ere'.lEJ' 

c::::..ss:.o!:S .crz:r. :.he .:::::cet:::i ise.:..le!'Sl 

ii, 81.:r.i~the per-:k-eS. be:=:n: e tt-.e Perf!'!:.:. t::c .:s re=ru!.:cd :. ..... es!"'l::i..tet 

r..::n:.':.o:-~:-.13' :c; t~.:: •.• e .. ec_y e::.:..:::.on: of ":he zf::ectcEi bo:..!.::rs 

p:.:..:s·Jer::: ts 25 :r.': !?:::.:t 22§, :.P.c ?c!·u:..t"!:cc s:-.c:.~ t';ainta:.n _·ecerels 

ef anj rr.e.:e..:.xy e~f! =at- esl' ::eted :or ::h:: a:.:ce.t-ee~i--1£-FS-r 

:_y_elue..:.ng _:r.:..:s~ ens a:= :::r.trel c,:;o::.:.::.:e::-.cy 1·i ·_:;. L:k:::-.':i -~ .::a:..:.e:: .::-.d 

d:se.r:.;€3:tie-?.-e~e :rnede e: spc,..at::::. .... Fl. 

d. The Permittee shall retain all records required by this permit at the 

source for at least 5 years from the date of entry and these records 

shall be readily accessible to the Illinois EPA for inspection and 

copying upon request. 

6. ::--:her: .:..s ::.::y el:;-r.:.::·.::.e:-. :re:n ~l=ic. .:c;-..:::.::e.r.-\e:its ef -::!:.=:.s-pe-r-!R:.t, ·..:.~e 

?e.:::.~ ":':c.: :::rF.:.2.1 -U5 .. .it 2: .:::= ... pe··:: ':e '..!:::: :ll:.F.s.:__ EP:'. ·,.:.""hi:-; :30 da.:·= 

a:ter t!:.c 6-::Yiati:n ::::= s·a=:: s:..:te.: Ci. .. .:; per:.ea: Sl'JCS~ .=~ :Ei .:.:-1 t-he cu.:_cr~­

CIJ\PP !""=:rrr.it :.s::--.:zd :cr :.:-.e sc::r::c. TAe repsr: sha 1 1 ~ ::c2.tH:!::. a 

duser-'E<t:.s;:. oJ:, t:w :::::v.:a:.:.c::, c ceFY-o: rclcvar:t rccc_S:s 1 a ...... :.:cz.s·..:=-e-s 

'.:e ..:-eS·..:.cc e::-.~ s::.s::s =r?.::i--4-Ht:;-::e seco.=l::er.::.:.s. 

7. The Permittee shall notify t.he Illinois EPA \-Jhen sorbent injection 

systems on affected boilers start operating. 

B. The Illinois EPA has determined that this project, as described in the 

applicatio:t, \.;rill not constitute a modification of the boiler under the 

federal New Source Performance Standards, 40 CFR. 60, as the project has 

the primary function of reducing emissions and therefore is not 

considered a modification pursuant to 40 CFR 60.14(e) (5). 

9. Two copies of required reports and notif.i.cat.ions shall be sent to the 

Illinois EPA's Compliance Section at the following address unless 

otherwise indicated: 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Compliance Section (~40} 

?.0. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

and one copy shall be sent to the Illinois EPA's regional office at the 

follO\-Jing address unless otherwise indicated: 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/1 0/2012 

Electronic Filing; R~cei~(;U,~~fK: S?blffe~; August 27, 2001 

* * * * * PCB 2008-020 * * * * * 

Page 4 

Illinois E:nvironmental !?rotectio!l .Ltgency/Regional Office 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

9511 West Harrison 

Des P~ainesr Illinois 60016 

10. The affected boilers may be operated with soxbent injection systems 

pursuant to this construction permit until an operating permit becomes 

effective that addresses operation of these boilers with these systems. 

If you have any questions on this permit, please call Kunj Patel at 217/782-

2113, 

Edwin C. Bakowski, P.E. 

Acting Manager 1 Permit Section 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

ECB:CPR:KMP:psj 

cc: Region 1 

Date Issued: 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

Exhibit 5 

Construction Permit Issued to Midwest Generation for 

Construction of FGD Equipment (Trona Injection 

System) (November 19, 2010) 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/1 0/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

W'l 

..__ ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI01'< AGENCY 

1021 NoRTH GRAND AVENUE EAST, P.O. Box 19506. 51-'RrNGrtHD, IlliNOIS 62794~9506- ( 217) 782~2113 

PAT QuiNN, GovERNOR DOUCL.\S P. SCOTT, DIRECTOR · 

217/782-2113 

CONSTRUCTION PEru1IT 

PER1"1ITTEE: 

Waukegan Generating Station 

c/6 Mid\vest Generation, LLC 

Attn: Scott B. Miller 

235 Remington Boulevard, Suite A 

Bolingbrook, Illinois 60440 

Application No.: 10090034 r.o. No.: 097190AAC 

APplicant's Designation: Date Received: September 16, 2010 

Subject: Dry Sorhent !njection system and ESP Conversion f·or Unit 7 

Date Issued: Ncvernber 19, 20ld 

Locatior.: Waukegan S:.ation, 401 East Greenwood Avenue, iVaukegan, Lake County 

Permit is hereby granted to the above-designated Permittee to CONSTRUC'r 

emission source (s} and/or air pollution control equipment consisting of a dry 

sorbent injection system and electrostatic precipitator conversion for 

Waukegan Unit 7, as described in the above referenced application. This 

Permit is subject to standard conditions attached hereto and the following 

special conditions: 

Conditions fo~ the Project 

1.1 Introduction 

a. i. This permit authorizes construction of a dry sorbent 

injection system (the affected system) on the boiler for 

Waukegan Unit 7 {the affected boiler) . This system 1-lould 

be designed to inject Trona (a rr.ineral form of sodium 

carbonate and sodium bicarbonate) into the duct work. at a 

point prior to the elect~ostatic precipitator (ES~) of the 

affected boiler to control tbe suliur dioxide (SOt) 

emissions of the boilei. 

ii. This permit also authorizes conversion of the existing ESP 

to 2. ''cold-side" design, \-lith the ESP being downstream of 

the air heater. This change will improve the control 

efficiency of the ESP which controls particulate matter 

(PM) emissions from affected boil_er. This is because the 

reduction in the temperature of the flue gas through the 

air heater will decrease the actual gas volume, thereby 

increasing the gas residence t.ime in the ESP. In addition_, 

injection of sodium based dry sorbent.s, ·as planned may 

reduce resistivity of the fly ash resulting in improved ES~ 

collection effici-ency. It will also irnprove the 

effectiveness of control of mercury emi5sions by the 

activated carbon injection system on the affected boiler. 

PRINTED 0~ RECYCLED PAPER 

I 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

I?age 2 

i.U.. This permit also authorizes relocation of the injection 

points for the activated c~rbon injectiOn (.l\Cii syste.m on th~ affected boiler, w!'•ictt w.as installed :for control of 

mercury emissions pursuant to Construction Pexmit 0705000-/. 

itr. This permit also authorizes ccnstr.uction of a material 

handling fac.ility to r.ece.iva..- store, and handle sorbent 

materials for the affected system; i-:Jc!.uding.new bulle 

storage silos and associated fabric filters. 

b. Th.i.!3 permit does not a1;~.thorize any modifications to existing 

Waukegan Unit 7 1 Hhich 1,.rould ir~crease its capacity or emissions. 

l. 2 Non-ApplicabiLity P.covi.sions 

. . i . Tbis permit is issued based en this project, being an 

e.!lti..s~inn conti=ol proj ec;.t that will redl.lce emissions o.t: S01 

from the affected boiler and. will n.ot. cause emissions 

increase of any othe= NSR regUlated pollutant. In 

par~icula~, the construction of the affectad system and ESP 

conve:sion are beinq·undertaken to m8et the requirement of 

the combined Pollutants standards (CPS}, 35 IF£ 

225.296(o) Oi and (c) (1). 

i.i. This permit is issued based an the new material handling 

far;:ility a~aoc.iated with the affec·ted .systemr the increase. 

in throughput of the. e.ti.sting fly ash handling facility and 

the increase in ro~d traffic from handling sorbent and 

additional asl"l, as constrained by the limitations and 

requirements in this permit, not bein~ a major modi£ication 

for purposes of the federal l?SU rules· (40 Cf"R 52.21), the 

Federal Emission OEfset Interpretive Ruling (40 CfR Part 

51, AppendiK S) and Illinois' t-lSSO.M rules (35 IP..c Part 

203). This is becauge the increases in emissions of · 

individual t;ollutants from these units are less than tile 

significant emission rates set in these rules. 

b, The Illinois EPA bas determined that the changes to the affected 

boil€r, as described in the application, will not constitute a 

modification of the boiler under the federal New so.urce 

Performance Standards, 40 CFR 60 because the changes have the 

primary function Of reducing emissions and therefore are not considered~ modification pursuant to 40 CFR 60.14(e} {5). 

1.3 Existing Applicable Requirements 

'fhis ~ernU t does not relax or revise applicable .!'equirentents for 

V1aukegan Unit 7 and associated control equipment 1 including 

requirements in existing perrni ts for the SO'..lrce, including provisions 

"for com:inuous opr.~city monitorin.g systems_,. st<Jrtup, malfunction and 

b:reakdoi·m, re.cordkeeping, and reporting. 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Page 3 

1.4 ~Jture Applicable Emission Standards under the Combined 2ollutant 

Standards (CI?S} 

a. As provided by 35 IAC 225.296, beginning December 31, 2013, the 

Per!Ui.ttee shall not op.;rate the affected boiler until the 

affected system is installed and the ES~ conversion is completed. 

b. Beginning calendar year 2013, the CPS group annual average SO~ 

emission rate of the specified EGUs (at Fisk, Crawford, Joliet, 

Pot.,.erton, Waukegan and/or t1ill County power plants) including the 

affected boiler shall not exceed the applicable limit in 35 IAC 

225.295 (b). 

1. S. Con1:rol Practices 

a. 'l'he affected system shall be designed tO achieve to 90 percer:t 

removal of sulfur dioxide (S02 ) in the flue gas. 

b. At all times, the Permittee shall maintain and operate affected 

boiler with the affected system and cold-side ESP in a manner 

·consistent with q~od air pollution cont~ol practices. 

1.6 Emission Testing Requirements 

a. i. 1\'ithin one year after initial startup of the affected 

boiler with the affected system and cold-side ~SP or by 

June 30t 20ltl, whichever occurs first, the particulate 

matter emissions of :the boiler shall be measured by an 

approved testing service. 

ii. These te~t5 shall be followed by two more teG~s for 

particulate ni.Cltter 1 Yrhich shall be conducted no less than 5 

rncnths and no more than 15 months from the previous test. 

b. '£hese tests .shall be. conducted during conditions that are 

representative of highest injection rates for sorbent and 

activated carbon at full load as follows. 

c. The foll01.;ing methods and procedures shall be used for testing of 

emissions 1 unless another method is approved by the Agency~ 

Refer to 40 Cf:'R 60, Appendix A and 40 CFR 61, Appendix B and 40 

CFR !?art 51,. Appendix H for tJSEPA test methods. 

Location of Sa~ple Points 

Gas E'loYI 5.. V~locity 

Particulate Hat·ter (PM) 

USE!PA He·thod 1 

OSEPA M.e.thod 2 

USB!?A t-Iethods 5 & 202* 

• Measurements of condensable PH are also required by USEPA 

Nethod 202 (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M) or other 

established test method approved by the Illinois EPA. 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Page 4-

d. The test plan sball. be submitted to the Illinois EPA for review 

at least 60 dB.ys prior to the ac-cual date of testing. "rhis plan 

shall describe the specific procedures for testing and shall, i:lt 

n minimum, include the following inforu~ation: 

i. 'l'he person (s l who will be perfo:=:.ming sampling and anaJ.ysi~ 

and their experience with similar tests. 

ii. The specific conditionsr e.g., operating rate and control 

device operating conditions, under \-thich testing shall be 

performed including a discussion of "rhy the~e conditions 

will be representativ~ and the meens by which the operating 

parameccrs will be determined. 

iii. 'l'he spacific deter!!l.inations o£ emissions that a..re intended 

to be made; including scunpling or moni l:oring locations. As 

part of this plan, the Permittee may set forth a strategy 

Lor also performing emission testing in the normal load 

range of the boiler. 

iv. Tht! test method. (s) that will be used, with t.he specific 

G:U"laly.si.:s method if th~ a~ot.hod can be used with di££er~nt 

analys~s methods. 

a. ?rior to carrying out these tests, the Illinois EPA's Regional 

Office and Source Emission Test Specialist shall be notified a 

minimum of 30 days pr:ior to the expected dat-e of these tes·ts and 

£urther notified a minimum of 5 working days prior to ch~ tests 

of tHe exact date, time and place of these tests, to enabl~ the 

Agency to r.-1itness these tests~ 

f, Th:r:ee copies o:Z the Final Rc.port (s) for these tests shall be 

submitted to the Illinois EPA ~·Jithin 14 days after the test 

res'..'llts are compiled and finalized. The following information 

.shall be submitted with the :cesult.s: 

~- The gross pOl-fer generation and the steam gener.?,tion rater 

including the key ope~atinq data for the Unit 7 during the 

test. 

ii. Significant operating pazameters of the ~ffected system and 

ESP and the existing ACI system1 such as location and 

injection rate of each dry sorben~ material during the 

period of testing, as measured during the tests. 

iii. Flue gas temperaturP. before the ESP and other significant 

ope.r:ating parameters of the ESP, such as BSP voltage and 

current flows, and spark rates during the period of 

testingr as measured CUring the t~sts 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

Page 5 

iv. so2 emission data du:dng the periods of testing based on 

emission monitoring, and the calculated so2 control 

efficiency on a daily basis. 

v. Opacity cta·ta collecte¢. by the continuous opacity monitoring 

systems during each test run, on a minute-by-minute basis, 

and if conditions are suitable for such observation, 

observations of opacity at the stack (tw(l 6-minute 

aveJ~ages) fo.c ~ach. t,..,.,.t ,;ur •. 

1. 7 Nonitoring and Instrumentation Requirements 

a. The Permittee shall install, operate and maintcin inst~umenta~ion 

for s6rbent injection rate, by \TOlume or ma.ss, which may either be 

measured direct.ty or by indirectly, e.g., by tneasurinq feeder 

speed. 

b. The ?ermitcee shall ins:alJ, operate and maintain instrumentation 

to mea.sure the temperatare of the flue gas entering the cold side 

ESP or- air heater ou·tlet. 

c. This permit does not authorize changes to the existing monitoring 

systems or i.nstru."l\entat.ion which already exist on ·the ESP when 

converted to a cold·"side design. 

1. 8 R.ecordkeeping Requi:rement.s 

a. The ?er.rnittee shall keep a file that con·tains documentation for 

the design a£ the affected system confirming compliance :..1ith 

Condition 1.5(a). 

b. The ?ermitte.e shall maintain the following. records for t:he ccldsida ESP: 

i. A m.:.intenan"ce and repair log for the ESP,.. •,.;rhich shall list 

the activities performed, with datG-. and descript:ion. 

i~. ~~ operating log~ including: 

A. The .status of each ESP field shall be racorded at 

least once per. shift. 

B. The follo,..ling numerical data shall be recorded al: 

least ol)ce per day; {1) P:r·ima;ry voltages and current 

flows, (2) Secondar.y voltages and current flows, and 

(3) SparY~ng rates. 

c. !~l records required by this permit shall be retained at a 

readily accessible location at the source for at least three 

years fro~ the dato of entry end shall be made available for 

inspection anC. copying by the Illinois EPA upon request. .Z\ny 

records retained in an electronic foanat (e.g., computer] shall 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Page 6 

be capable of being r~trie7ed and printed on paper during normal 

source office hours so as to be able ·to respond to an Illinois 

EPA request fo1· records during the course of a source inspection. 

1. 9 Notifications 

a. The Pezmittee shall notify the Illinois E?A in writing ~;ithin 21 

days of the initial startup of the affected system. 

b. The Pe:rtnittee shall notify the IlLinois EPA in advance of using a 

sorhent other than Trona in the affected system. This 

not.ificar:ion shall be submitted at least three months in advance 

if possible or other;.-;ise promptly after the: Permittee learns that 

an alternatbre sorbent v;ill need to be used. Thi~ notification 

shall identify the alternative sorbent and include an explanation 

of the rea3o~ for use oi an alternate sorb~nt 1 ~he expected 

duration for use of the alt~rnative sorbent (if temporary), and 

the expected changes in sorbent injection rates. 

1.10 Repcrting Requirements 

a. If there. is a deYiation from the requirements of this permit, the 

Permittee shall promptly submit a report 0£ the deviation te the 

Illinois EPA. Unl~ss otherwise ~peci:fied, this report: shall be 

submitted within 30 days of the devie~ion. The repoxt shall 

describe the deviation~ the probable cause o£ the deviation, 

corrective actions ·that "'·ere t.aken and any actions to prevent 

~uture occurrences. 

1.11 Report/Notifications Submittals 

TW"O ~;Opies of all notifications and reports required by the Permit 

shall be sent to: 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Com~liance Section '~40) 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield1 Illinois 62794-927 6 

Telephone: 217/782-5811 Fax: 217/782-6348 

and one copy of all required notifications and reports shall be sent to 

the Tllin~..is El?A.t s :cegional office- at the following address, unless 

othen1ise indicated: 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Reg~onal Field Office 

9511 I"lest .Harrison 

Des Plaines, Illinois 60016 

Fa>t: B47/294-401B 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Page 7 

1.12 Authorization foz Operation 

a. The affected boiler 1-dth affected systeo and cold-5ide ESP may be 

operated for one year under this construction per~it 1 during 

W"bicb period initial emissions testing .shall be completed and the 

Permittee shall apply for a zevised CAAPP permit addressing the 

changes to the control syste~ for the affected boiler, whic~ 

applicatio:J shall inc.!.Ude c. compliance assunmce monitoring (C.:llJ•1) 

pl:m for the affected boiler for emissions of particulate matter. 

b. 2ollowinq completion of required emission testing, the Permittee 

may operate the affected boiler with affected system and coldside ESL1 under t:his permit until the operation of this control 

equipment is addressed ":Jy a C.!\.A.PP pamit. 

c. 'J'hese conditions scpersede Standard Condition 6. 

Uni::-Specific Conditions for the l.,at.erial Handling facilities 

2.1 Introduction 

The af:fected facilities for the purpose of these Unit-Specific 

Conditions are the new facility for handling dry sorbent and th9 

existing iacili ties for handling fly ash, .,.,h.i.ch l-lould ttandJ.e additional 

materials. 

2. 2 Applicable Federal Emission Standards 

a. "Lhe· mi.lls, stOrage silos and conveying system at- ·t.I'J.e affected 

sorbent handling facility a:ce subject to the NSPS for Nonmetallic 

Mineral Processing Plants, 40 CFR 60 1 Subpart 000 and related 

provisions of 40 CFR 60, Subpart A. 

b. Pursuant to the NSPS 1 ..;10 CFR 60. 672(b) and (d), fugitive 

emissions of PH from subject uni~s .shall not exceed 7 percent. 

c. Pursu"ant to the NSPS, 40 CFR 60~612(f), stack emission& of Pt-1, as 

defined by 40 CFR 60.67! 1 from the subject units shall no~ exceed 

7 ?Orce:-nt 

d. At all times, tl'H! Permittee shall maintain and operate subject 

unit.sJ inch:.ding associated air pollution control equipment, in a 

manner con.sistent with good air pcllu.tion control pro.cticca for 

tninimi:dng ern.issions, 'pu.rsuant to 40 CFR 60.11 (d). 

Nol::e: The.se conditions would not apply if mills or grinding eguipn1ent 

are not present at the affected facility. See Condit~on 2.4{a). 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Page 8 

2. 3 Applicable State Em-ission Standa1.·ds 

a. 'l'he affected facilities a.re subject to 35. lAC 212.301, 11hich 

provid~s that no person shall cause or allow the emission of 

fugitive par~iculate matte~ from any emission unit 1 that is 

visible by an observer looking generally toward the zenith {t~!at 

is looking at the sky directly overhead) from a point beyond the 

property line of the source pursuant to 35 I.AC 212.301. 

b. The emission units at the affected facilities are subject to 35 

r.r..c 212.123 (a) which provides that no pers.on shall cause or 

allow thEJ emission of smoke or other· particttlate matter; with an 

opacity greater th.an 30 percent into the atrnosphr.-!r.e from tbe 

affected facility, pursuant to 35 IAC 212.123 (a). 

~. The emission units at the affected facilities axe sUbject to 35 

!AC 212~321{a}, which provides that ~o pe~~on shall cause o~ 

allow the emissi.on of paxtioulate matter into the atmosphere in 

any one hour per:iod from any new process e-mission unit which, 

eith~r alone or in combination with the emission of particulate 

matter f:r;om all other ne"'r similar process erctission units at a 

source or p.remises 1 exceeds the allowable emission r'a'tes 

specified in 35 IAC 212.3.21 {c)-

2.4 Non-rtpplicability Provisions 

a. I£ the affected so.!'bent handling facility does not i~·lcludi:! mills 

or gri~dinq equiPment~ which would reduce :h~ size of sorbent~ 

this permit iS· i;sued based on this facility not being subject to 

the federal NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart OOO~ because it wotild not 

crush or g1:ind a no!'l.-metallic mineral so ;:hat it would not 

constitute a nonmetallic mineral processing plant, as defined by 

10 CPR 60.G71. Accordingly, the req~i~emencs of Conditions 2.2, 

2.7(e) and 2.9{a) would ndt be applicable. 

2.5 Operntional Limitations 

a. The amount of dr~' sorbent recei\red by the affected sorbent 

ha~dllng facility shall not exceed 90,000 ~ens per year. 

Compliance with this limit shall be dete.:;mined on a monthly basi.s 

fro~ the sum of the data for the current month plus the pre=eding 

11 months (running 12 months total). 

b. L A. There shall be no visible emissions of fugitive 

particulate from the af.:Bected sorbent handling 

facility. 

B_ The filters for the affected sorbent handling 

facility shall have a design outlet loading for 

particulate matter of no more than 0.01 grains/scf 1 

as shown by the :manufactt;rer' s performance 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

?age 9 

d. 

ii. 

specifications for the device or .representative 

emi s.:5ion test rla ta. £or similar filter devices. 

Emissions of P~ from the affected facility shall each 

not exceed 1.95 ~ens per year. 

B. This perrni t :i . .'S issued based upon minimal emissions of 

l?t·l due to vehicle 1:.raffic on pla;;t road~vays 

associated Nith transport of sorbe:llt. For this 

purposer ?N emission.:; shall not exceed 1..1 tons per 

year. 

'!'he transport of dry sorbent and fly ash from the affected boiler 

shall be on paved roa.ds, which shall be maintained in goad 

condition i::O control emissions of particulate matter. 

i. Thi~ permit is issued based on a negligible increase in PM 

e~~ssions from the affected fly ash fecility. For this 

purpose, the· increa.se in P~.f emissions shall not exceed 0.1 

pound per hour and 0.44 tons pe~ year. 

ii. This permit is issued based upon a minimal increase in 

emissions of PM due to the increase in vehicle traffic on 

plant roads for fly ash. For this purpose, the increase in 

1?!-:1 emissions shall not exceed 1.1 1:om:; per year. 

a, At all times, t·he Permittee shall maintain and operate th.e 

emission units at affected facilities .including associated air 

pollution control measures, in a manner consistent with good air 

pollution control p~actices for minimizing emissions. 

2. 6 Inspection and Maintenanc~ Requirements 

a. Inspections of the dry sorbent and fly ash handling facilities 

including emission control measures shall be conducted at least 

once per r:tonth \1{11en th.e facility· is in operation to confim 

compliance Nith the requirements of this permit. 

b. Maintenal)ce and repai:r: of filters, and other control measures 

shall be performed LO assure that SUCh measures function properly 

when material is being handled. 

c. The Pcrm~ttee shall maintain records of the above inspections and 

!':l.aintenance/repair activity in an operating and maintenance log. 

This log shall contain, at a Jn.inimum1 the time and description of 

the inspe:cti·ons or maintenance/repair 2.ctivities. 

2.7 Opacity Measurements 

a. Forth!?. affected ::;orbent handling facility, the ?erm.ittee shall 

comply with applicable requirements of the NSPS related to 

observation of opaci~y. 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/1 0/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Page 10 

b: U"pon l-tritten request: by the Illinois El?A, the Permittee shall 

conduct opacity observations £or .specific operation(s) o::: unit{s} 

at the affected =acility within 45 cal~ndar days of the request 

o.r on the date agreed upon by the Illinois EPAr whichever is 

later. 

2.8 Recordkeeping Requirements 

a. The Permittee shall maintain a fi.le containing documentation for 

the. ~mission guarantee for each filte.!: tn the a.ffected sorbent 

handl~"1g_ facility, in grains/dscf, as provided by tile supplier of 

the device. 

b. The Permittee shall maintain operating record9 fox the following 

items: 

i. )\mount of dry s<>rbent received, tonS/month and tonslyear. 

ii. Art",ount of dry sorbent transferred to the affected system, 

tons/month and t:.ons/yea;c. 

c. The Permittee shall keep records for the illi.plementation of. 

fugitive C:ust control measu.:r-es Ofl roadways used b~r trucks that 

handle dry sorbent and fly ash. 

d. The Permittee .shall keep the following records related to .!?M 

emissions (t.ons/mom:h and tons/yea.r), with supporting 

calculation~. For this purpose, roadway emissions shall be 

calculated using USE~A methods. · 

i. R~cords of emission9 of PM and PMlO from the a£fected 

facility. 

i.i. Records of emissio!l:s of PM and PM10 from roadways/t--ruck 

traffic associated wit!"!. the affected facility. 

iii. Records of PM and .PMlO emissions from roc)dways/t.ruck 

traffic associated with handling of f~y ash from the 

affected boiler 

2.9 Reporting Requirement~ 

a. The Pennittee shall either cotnply \..-ith applicable reporting 

.requirements of the NSPS unless crushing or grinding equipment 

t-lill not be installed at the facility, in wt,ich case the 

Pe~mittee s~all notify the Illinois EPA of this decision. 

Note: Reporting of deviation is addressed by Condition l.lO(a). 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/1 0/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

Page 11 

2.10 The a.ffected facilities may be operated pursuant to this construction 

permit Wltil an oJ:)erating.permit becomes c=.fif:!utive that c.ddresses these 

faciliti~s. This cond.ition supersedes Standard Cond).tion 5. 

If you hav-e any questions on this pe~it, please cont.:::ct Shashi Shah at 

217 /782·-2113. 

Edt'l'in C. Bakowski, P. B. 

!1a-nager, Pe·rmi t Section 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

ECB~SRS:psj 

cc: FOS - Region 1, Illinois EPA 

Permit File - 95090047 

Date Signed; 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Exhibit 6 

Letter from Midwest Generation to Mr. Ed Bakowski 

at Illinois EPA Requesting Extension of Trona 

Construction Permit (February 28, 2012) and Revised 

Construction Permit Reflecting the Extension in 

Condition 1.12a (March 28, 2012) 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

February 28, 2012 

Mr. Ed Bakowski 

Manager, Permit Section 

Division of Air Po llulian Control 

fllinois Environmental Protection Agency 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

Springfield, lllinois 62702 

Subject: Waukegan Unit 7 

Construction Permi! Extension Request 

J.D. No.: 097190AAC 

Application No.: I 0090034 

County: Lake 

Dear Mr. Bakowski: 

'•!··.· ;, .. ,,_,_,_,,._ 

J ,,, ,, •. , ld' '" -l '! .. ·. ~-- . 

Federal Express 

Midwest Generation (MWGen) respectfully requests a twenty four month extensioo for the 

Waukegan Unit 7 construction permit which authorizes the installation of dry sorbent injection 

flue gas desulfurization (FGD) equipment and the associated eleclroslalic prec.ipitalor hoi to cold 

conversion. 

Although construction began in November 2011, MWGen is seeking the tlexibility to perfom1 

the installation of the pollution control upgrades in a manner which will not be continuous at all 

times. This extension will not impact our ability to meet the requirements of the Combined 

Pollutant Stru1dard Rate Program for sulfur dioxide (35 lAC 225.295(b)) and mercmy (35 lAC 

225.294(c)). 

Enclosed is the appropriate pem1i! application fee. 

lfyou have any questions regarding thjs extension, please contact Scott rvfiller of my staff at 

(630) 771·7859. 

Sincerely, 

. J~ /)/ -~----/ /} ../ ' . (··/?., ~(,-j-'1./.(.;1('~ /-..::.._- I . 

as I G. onliiantelos · 

Managing Director 

Environmenlal Services 

Enclosure 

g,_,;.:.r!,,. .. !. n ;, .. 1~.:~1 

!·.!· ;.";; ii! /~}_'l~ 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

.ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1021 NORTH GRAND AV"E:NUE EAsT, P.O. BOX 19506, SPRiNc:iF"IELD, ILLINOIS 62794·9506· (217) 782·2113 

PAT QUINN, GOVI~HNOR JOHN J. KIM. INTERIM DIRECTOR 

. 217/7!35-1705. 

CONSTRUCTIO~ PERI."liT -- R!:VISED 

?ER:.'HTT£E 

NA.t.:kega':1 Gencrat.i.ng Station 

c/o Y.id•..,-.cs-:: Generation, LLC 

Altn: Sec~~ B. Mil:er 

235 Remi:rH;to=: Boulevard, Suite ~. 

Eoling!:rook, Illinois 60440 

Aopl;caticn No.: 10098034 

.I\pplicant' s De signet.:_ on: 

1.0. No.: 097l90P~C 

Date Received: t1arch 20, 2012 

Subject: Dry Sorbent Znjectio:1 

Date Iss<J.cd: l'farch /.8, 2012 

System. and ESP Ccnve!:"sion for Ui'lit 7 

Location: i-'~aukegan S.:ation, 401 East Green"''ood A·venue, Waukegan, Lake County 

Permit is !lereby granted to the above-designated Permit-tee to CONSTRUCT 

emission .sot:rce(s) and/or tJir pollution con~rcl equipment consisting of a d.~y 

so.rber.;;: injection system and electrostatic pz-ecipitato::: co:wersion fer 

Waukeqan Dr. it 7, as described in the abo•Ie referer:ced a??licatio-n. n1is 

Perrnit is subject to standard condit.:..ons atc:ached h.;retc and the following 

special conditions: 

Conditions for ~he P~oject 

1.1 lntroUucLl.on 

a. This permi~ authorizes cons~ruction of 

injection system (the affected .system) 

Waukegan Unit 7 (the affected boiler}. 

be designed to inject Trona !a mineral 

carbona~e and sodium bicarbona~e) ir.to 

a dry soxber:.t 

on the boiler for 

'!'h.:.s system would 

fern. of sodiurr. 

the ducc. work at a 

point prior to the >:lectrostatic p!:ecipitator: (ESP) of Lhe 

affected boiler to cor.~rol the sulf~r dioxide {SO~) 

emissions of the buller. 

li. This pennit also author:izes con\iersion of the existing ESP 

t.o a '"col<i-sicie" desig1:, with ~he ESP bei:1.g do~·mstream of 

the air heater. Thi.s change o.dll imp.::·ove the t,;onl.rol 

efficiency of the ESP tvhich com:rols par:ticulate matt.er 

{PM} emissions from affected boiler. Tr.is i~ because the 

reducLion in ~he temperature of the flue gas through che 

air heet:er Hill decreasa the aclual gas volume, r.hereby 

increas~ng the gas residence ~ime in the ESP. In addiLion 1 

injection of sodium based dry sorbents, as olanned mav 

reduce resistivi:.y of l:he fly ash re-sulti~g- i!1 i.mprol!~d ES? 

collection efficiency. It will also imorove the 

effectiveness of control of :mercury errd~sions by th-e 

activated carbon injection system on the affected boiler. 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

?age 2 

iii. This permi~ also authorizes relocation of ~he injection 

points fer the activated carbon injection {ACI} system o:l. 

the affected boiler, w~ich was installed fer control of 

:ncrcury ernissior.s pursuant to Const::ucticn Permit 07050007. 

:..v. Thi.:; permit also at:.tho~izes construction of a ma-cerial 

r.andling :acili:.y to rece:i.ve, store, and ha:1dle sorbent 

materials for the affected system, includi:1g :-.et-~ bulk 

storage silos and associated fabric filters. 

b. This permit does not autho~ize any modifications to existing 

~:aukcgan Unit 7 1 whic!:. Hculd increase its capacity or emi.ssians. 

1. 2 Non-A!='plicabili<::y Provisions 

i. This t:lermit is issued based on <:n~s projGct:, being an 

emission control project that vdll ::-educe emissior:.s of SO;: 

from the affected boiler and will not cause emissions 

i~crease of any other NSR regulated pollutant. Ir:. 

particular, the const=uction of the affected sys~em and ESP 

conversion a~e being undertaken to meet the requirement of 

the Combined Pollut~nts Standards (CPS), 35 IAC 

2Z5.296(a)(l) and (c)(l). 

ii. This permit is issued based on the aeH material handling 

:facili<:y associated ~lith the affected system, the increase 

in t.iroughput of thG existing fl~t ash handling facility and 

the increase in read traf=ic from handling sorbent and 

additional ash, as constrained by the limit.ations and 

requirements in this permit, not being a major modifica~ion 

for purposes of the federal PSD ::ules (4C CFR 52.21), ':-he 

~ederal Emission Offset Interpretive Ruling (40 CFR Part 

51, Appendix S) and Illinois' MSSCAH rules {35 IAC Part 

203). This is because the increases in emissions of 

individual poll~tants from these units are less ~han the 

s:.gnificant e:nission rc.tes set in these rules. 

b. 'fhe rlli.nois EPA has deteTinined that the changes to the a£fect.ed 

boiler, as desc~ibed in the appli~ation, will not cons~itute a 

rr.odificc.tiOil of the boiler under the federal New Source 

Performance St.a.ndarcis, 40 CFR 60 'oecause the chances have the 

primary function of reducing emissions and theref;re are not 

conside~ed a modification pursuant to 40 CFR 60.14 (e) (5). 

1.3 Existing Applic~ble Requirements 

This permit does net :relax or revise applicable requirements for 

Waukegan Uni 1.: 7 and associated control equipr!lent, including 

re~~irernents in exis~ing permits for the source, including provisions 

for continuous opacity ~onitoring systems, s~artup, malfunction and 

breakdown, recardkeep-ing, and repo::::ting. 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Page 1 

1 . 4 Future App~icable Emission Standards nnde!:" the Combined Pollutant 

Standards (CPS) 

a. As provided by 35 !AC 225.296. beginning December 31, 2013, the 

Permittee shall not operate the a!"fected boilor until the 

affected system is installed ~nd tee ESP conversion is co~pleted. 

b. Eegin..Lin.g calendar y~mr 2013, the CPS group annual average S~ 

emission rete of ~h~ specified EGOs {at Fisk, Crawford~ Joliet, 

Powerton, lr~aukegan and/o::: t·iill County pow~~ plants) including the 

affected boiler shall not exceed the applicable limit in 35 TAC 

225.295 {b). 

1. 3. Control P=actices· 

a. The affected 5ystcm shall be dssigned to· achieve to 90 percent 

removal of su.l_fur dioxide {SO~) in t:1.e flue. gas. 

b. .At all times, the Permittee shall maintain and operatr:: aifecta-d 

boiler wi.th the affected system a~d cold-side ESP in a manner 

consisi.:ent with good air pollutior:. control practices. 

1.6 Emission Testing Requi~esertts 

Ni thin one yea:::- after i:)i tial startup of the affec~sd 

boi.le.= Nith the affected system ar.d cold-side SSP or by 

June 30r ?.014, whichever occurs first, the pa~ticula~e 

mat".t:.F:r Rmi.s.c::inn.o:: ,..,f' n,F' hr:d1.<?r. shrtll b-ft' m.;oas:l'orCJd by an 

approved testing service. 

ii. These tests shall be followed by t\..-o <r.ore tests £or 

particulate matter 1 which .'3hall be conduct:.ed r.o less than 5 

months and no mo.re ;;ha:l 15 months fro:n the previous test. 

b. Tt.ese t:est:s shall be conducted during conditions that are 

.!epresentativ-e of highest injection rates for sorbent and 

activated carbon a':. full load as fol.lows. 

c. The following methods and procedures shall be usea Ior testinc of 

emissions, unless another method is a~proved by the .~gency: 

Refer to 10 CFR 60, Appendix A and 40 CF~ 61 1 Appendix ~ and 40 

CFR ?art 51, Appendix M for VSEPA test methods. 

Location of Sample ?Dints 

Gas E'low & Velocity 

Pa~ticulate t~jatter (?¥!) 

OSEl.'A Methoc! 1 

USEPA Method. 2 

USEPA Methods 5 & 202~ 

• ~.feasurements of condensable Pt-i are also required b~· USEPA 

r-12thod 202 {40 CFR Part 51, Appendix t-!) ~= other 

established test method approved by the Illinois EPA. 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

Page 4 

d. The ~es;: plan s:1all be subnir.ted to the Illinois EPA for :review 

at least 6C days prior to ~he ac:ual da~e c£ t~sting. This plan 

shall describe the specific proceriuT.es for ~esting and shall, at 

a minimum, ir.clude the folloNing information: 

i. The perscn (s) who Hill De pe::-forming sampling and analysis 

and ·their expe::-ience wit~ similar tests. 

ii. The specific conditions, e.g., operating rate and control 

device operating conditions, under which testing shall be 

perfo=med i:1cludir.g a discussion of ttshy these conditio:ts 

,.;ill be representati·v0 a:1d the means by which the operating 

parameters will be deterrr~ned. 

iii. The specific determinatio~s of emissions that are intended 

to be made, including sampling or monitoring locations. As 

pare of this plan 1 the Permittee may set fa.:-th a strategy 

for also performing emjssion testir.g in the normal load 

=ange of the boiler. 

iv. The t:est method{s) that will be used, with ·the speci:ic 

analysis I>~ethod if the method car. be used '"ith different 

analysis methods. 

e. ?rior to carrying cut these tests 1 ~he Illinois EPA's Regional 

Office and Source Emission Test Specialist shall be nor.ified a 

m.:.ni:num of 30 days prio:: to the expec·!:.ed date of these tests and 

fu~~h~r ~otifiQd a ni~imum of 5 ~orking days prio~ to ~ho tests 

of the exac~ date, time and place of these tests, to enable the 

:n.gency to Ni-:ness these ~ests. 

£. Three copies o£ ~he Final Repor~(s) fer these ~ests shall be 

submitted to the lll~nois EPA within 14 days after the test 

results are cornpiled and finalized. 'fhe fol.:.o~o;ing information 

shall be submitted with the resulLs: 

i. The gros.s po\'l'er generatio:1 and the steam generation rate, 

including ·the key operati;.,g data for the Onit 7 during the 

:.est. 

ii. Significant operating parameters of the affected system and 

ESP and the existi~g AC! system, such as location and 

injection rate of each dry sorbent reaterial during the 

pe~iod of testing, as measured during the Lest.s. 

iii. Flue gas temperature before the ESP and ot~er significant 

operating pararnet.e~s of the ESP, such as ESP vol\:aoe a.:-1d 

CLlrrent flm·1s, and spsrk =ates ·durir:g the period O-~ 

testing, as measured during the tests 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

?age 5 

iv. SOz. em:tssion data dur::ng the periods of testing based on 

em.issio;l r.mnitorimJ 1 and the calculated S01 cont:rol 

efficiency on a daily basis. 

v. opacity data collected by the cont.inuous opacity monitoring 

syste~s d~ring eac~ test run, on a minute-by-minute basis, 

and if conditions a.re suitable for such observation, 

obse~~r~:tions of opa.cit~r at u~e stack (two 6-rainute 

averages) for each test run. 

1. 7 :-1o:1ito.:ring a~1d I:>stn1..1-nenta;:ion Requiren-.ents 

a. The !?~.rmittee .shc?.ll install, operate u.nd mai!'ltain instrumentation 

for sorbent inj ect.:..on rat.:!, by volume or mass, .,.,hi:ch. may elt;her be 

measured direcr:ly or by indirectly, e.g., by measuring feeder 

speed. 

b. The Permittee shall install, operate ar..d maintain instru.mentaticn 

to meas;;::e tha. temp.:!ratu.re of the flue ga!l entering the cold, .side 

ESP or air heate:r- otrtlet. 

c. This permit does :1ot authorize changes to the existing monitoring 

systGms or instrurilentation which al!:'eady exist on the ESP ;11hen 

com,.~~·:!:"t:ed to a cold-side do; sign. 

1. B RecordJ:e<::ping RE::!qui.rements 

a. !he Permittee shall kee.p a file that contains docurr.entat:ic:1 for 

the design of the afiected system confirming compliance with 

Condition 1.5(a}. 

b. Tl".~ Penr.itL.ec Ghc:.ll rnai:ttain "t'he followir:g records t:cr the coldside E.SP: 

c. 

J.. A main·ten~nce and rcpui-:- log fo:!: the ESP, which shall list 

the ac~ivities performed, wi~h date and description. 

ii. ~-~ operating log, inr.1uding: 

A.. The status oi each ES? field shall be recorded at 

least onc-e pex shift. 

B. The following nu.-r.-ericul data shall be recorded at 

least once per day; (lj Primary voltages and current 

fl.ows, (2) Second2.=Y voltages and current flOtis, and 

(31 Sparking rates. 

All r~cords required by this permit shall be retained at a 

readily ilccsssible location at the sourco !or at ,least three 

years frcm the date of entry ar.d. shall be made a.,.railable for 

-'--"i,_,n=:sE._ectigl:L§.!!..d co~.Qg_Qy.------rJ.l!.LI.llinois....££.....;..._upan.._xe.ques.t:-...--Any. 

records retained in an ~lectronic format (e.g, 1 co~puter) shall 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Paqe 6 

be capable of being retrieved a::1d p!:'inted on paper du~ing normal 

source of~ice hours so as to be able to respond to an Il:inois 

E?A request for reco~ds during the course of a source inspec~ion. 

1. 9 Notifications 

a. The ?ermittee shall notify the Illinois EP:O. in writing HJ.~llin 21 

days of ~he i~itial startup of ~he affected system. 

b. rr.e Permittee shall notify the Illinois EPA in advance of using a 

sor:Oent other than Tro~a in the affected system. This 

notification s~all be submit~ed at least three months in advance 

if possible ~= otherwise pronptly after the Permittee learns that 

an alternative sorbent t-~ill need to be used. '!.'his noti::ication 

.sha.ll identify the alternative sorbent and include an expla:1ation 

of the reason for use of an altcrnr.lte sorber.t, the expcct0d 

duration for use of ~he alternative scrbent (if tempora~y), and 

the expected cha:1ges in sc.n:ber!t lnj ection =ates. 

1.10 Reporting Requirements 

a. If there is a deviation from t!:e requi::e:ments of this perm:.t, the 

Perraittee shall prornptJy submit <J repo:=t c£ Lhe deviaL.icn to the 

Illi:1ois E?P.. Unless othertoJise specified, this report shal..l be 

submitted within 30 days of the deviation. The reporl.:. sha:l 

describe the devia~ion, the probable cause of the cieviatio~, 

corrective actions that ... :re!e taken a:Id any actions ~c pre .... fent 

futu~e occurrences. 

l.ll Repoz:t/Noti£ica1:ions Submittals 

TriO copies of all I"'.ot:i fications and reports required by the ?erm..Lt 

shall Oe sent to: 

Il~inois Environ~en~al Protection Agency 

Division of P...ir ?ollution Con~rol 

Compliance Section (#40) 

?.0. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

Telephone: 217 /782-5B1l Fax: 217/782-6348 

and onq copy of all required not:ifications and re:9orts shall be seYlt -:.o 

~he Illinois ~PA's regional office at the following address 1 cnless 

otherwise :ndicated: 

Illinois Enviror.rne~tal Protection Agency 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Regiona~ Field Office 

9511 Nes1: F..e:=ri.scn 

Des ?laines 1 Illinois 60016 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Page 7 

1.12 Dar1ition a·f Author.ization for Construction 

a. The authqrization i:O ccnstruct 'Chis· project (i.e., upgrades t:o 

the affected boile:r- and construction of .affect.ed facilities as 

c.d~essed by Section 2 of this permit) tl"'.at is provided by this 

permit will expire if a continuous program o£ construction has 

not been scar·t.ed by March 1, 2013. This c::mdi tion supersedes 

Standard Condition 1. 

1.13 i'\.utl'.ori zaticn for Operation 

a. The affected boiler with affected system and cold-side ES? may be 

ope=ated fo= one year under this construction permit, during 

which period initial emissions testi~g s::all be cornpleted and the 

?erm~ttee sh~ll apply for a revised C~~P periT~t addressing the 

cl1e.nges to the ccn~rol .sy.:ste.T: fo::: the affc::c:tecl boile.!: 1 ~>•hich 

application shall include e co~pliaoce assurance monitoring (C~~l) 

plan for the affected boiler for emissions of particulate ma~ter. 

b. Following corr.pletion of required enission testing, the Permittee 

may cperate the affec;:ed boiler •,lith affected system and coldside ESP unCr;r this pE!rmit until the operation of this con~rol 

eq.l.:..pment is addressea by a CA...AP? permit. 

c. These cor:.ditions supersede Standard Condition 6. 

2.] lnt:::cduc.tion 

The u:ffected faci.:!.itie.s for. the purpose of these Unit-Specific 

Conditions are the new facility for nandling dry sorbent and the 

existing facj.J.Lties fo::- bundling fly ashr 'ri'hich would handle additional 

materia:!.s. 

2.2 Applic=ble Fed~ral ~ission Standards 

a. The mills, storage silos and conveying system ~t the affected 

sorbent handling f2.cility are subjec:: to -;:he NSPS for Nonmetallic 

Mir:eral Processing Plants, tJO CFR 50, Subpar·t 000 and related 

p.:::-a,dsions o£ 40 C;'R 6a, Sobpa.rt A. 

b. Pu.rs'.mnt: to the- NSPS, 40 CFR. 60.672 (b) and (d] 1 fugitive 

emissions of Pl-1 f!"om subjec:~ units s!lall not exceed 7 perce:1t. 

c. Pursuant to the NSPS, 40 CFR 60.672(£), stack emissions of ?M, as 

defined by 40 Cf.R 60.671, from the subject units sh2ll not exceed 

7 percent 

~- ..S:_H ___ .~t all times, the Permittee nhaJ.l maintain and operaJ:e st:bject 

uriits,···rn.ClUding ilsSCcfa"ted aJ..r ··:;;oJ.'IUtiOr.. contr0f-e(.juiprro611t;-··in c 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Page 8 

manner consiste!1t wi"".:h good air pollm:io:r:· co!1trol p:ractices fa!:" 

~i~imizi~g e~issions, pursuant to ~0 C~R EO.ll(d}. 

Note: These conciitio::1s would noi: apply 1l: mills or grinding equiprr.ent 

are not present at the affected ::acility. See Condition 2.~ (a). 

2.3 Appl~cable State Emission Standards 

a. The a=fected facilities are subject to 35 IAC 212.301 1 which 

provides thai: no person shall cause or allow the emission of 

fugitive pa::ticula:t.e matter from any ernis.!:icn unit, Lhat i.s 

vlsible by a:r.. obse!:'v-e!:' looking generally toward the zenith (that 

is looking at the sky directly overhead) fran a point beyor.d· the 

property line o! the sou~ce p~rsuant to 35 IAC 212.301. 

b. The emissio:1 units a-c the affected facilitieS a::;e subject to 35 

IAC 212.123 (a) which provides that no person shall cause or 

a2.lC'-'1 the emissicn of smoke or other particulate matte::', with an 

opacity greeter than 30 percent into ~he atmosphere from the 

affected facility, pu~suant to 35 IAC 212.123{a}. 

c. The emission ~nits at the af=ected facilities are subject to 35 

IAC 212.32l(a), which provides that no person shall cause or 

allow the err.ission of particulate mat::.er into the atmosphere in 

any o~e hour pericd from any new process emission unit which, 

eitfler alone or in ·combination with the e:nission of partic:..:lat.e 

matt~r from all other new similar process emission units at a ~nn..-r.P. nr prPmic:.F's, PlotrPArl:c:. t·hp .=r11n-..J;'lhlP.. r.mi.c:.~l.-·,n ,..~t"Ps 

specified' in 35 H\.C 212.321 tc}. 

2. 4 Non-.l\p9licabili ty Provisions 

a. If the affected sorbent handling facility does ~ot include mills 

or grinding equipment, v1hich would reduce the size of so:::-bent, 

this permit is issued based on this facili;:y not being subject to 

the federal NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart OOO~ because it would net 

cru.o::h o:: grind a non-metallic miner.al so that it would not 

constitute a nonmetallic ~ineral processing plant, as defined by 

40 CFa 60.671. Accordingly, the requirements of Conditions 2.2, 

2.7(a} and 2.9(aj ;·muld not be applicable. 

2.5 Operational Limitations 

a. The amount of dry sc.rben:. received by the affected sorbent 

~aritiling facility shall ~ot exceed 90 1 000 tons per year. 

Compliance with this limit shall be dete~ined on a ~on~hly ba5is 

fro~ the sum of the data for the current month ?lus the preceding 

11 rwnths (running 12 months total). 

b. i. A. There shall be no visible emissions of fugjtive 

pcrticulate from the affected sorbent hanciling 

--fc-e-i-l-i ty ....... ---·-·--·-.. ----· --· 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/1 0/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Page 9 

Li.. 

13. 'I'he filters fo..: the affected sorbent handling 

·facility sh~ll haYe a design outlet loading for 

pazticulate matter ~= ~o ~ore than 0.01 grains/scf, 

as shmm by the manufactu..re:r:' s performance 

specifications fc= the device or representative 

emission ~est data for similar fi~ter devices. 

A. Zmissions of Pl·! from the af.fected facility shall each 

not exceed 1.95 ~ons por year. 

B. 'J,'his pe~rnit is issued based upon min.il::ial emissions of 

PH due to vehicle traffic on [.llant r-oadways 

~ssociated ~ith transport of sorbant. For this 

purpose, ?11-1 emissions shall noi.: exceed 2. 1 tons pe= 

year. 

c. 'l'he tra:1sport of dry sorbent cmd fly osn f.r.om the sfiected boilersha2.1 be on paved roads~ ,_.,.hich shall be maim:ained in good 

condition to control emissions of particulate ma::t::er~ 

d. This pe=nit is issued based on a negligible inc:cease iu PH 

emissions from the affected fly ash facility. Far this 

purpose, the increase in PM emissions shall ~ot exceed 0.1 

pound per ~our and 0.44 tons per ycnr.. 

ii. This perrr.it is issued based upon a :il.l...fll.:ma.i 1ncraa::::e in 

emis5ions or: .Pr-1 due ;:a ::he incr.euse j_n vehi.c!e traf.tic on 

plant reeds for fly ash. For this purpose~ the increase in 

PH emissions sh5tll not: excP.:e.d l. 1 tons per year. 

~. At =.11 times 1 t:be ?ermittee shall maintain ;:=nd operate the ~~ssion ~its at affected facilLties incl~ding associated air 

pollut:ion cnn,tx:ol r.~easures, in a manner consistent Nith good air 

pnllation control practic~s fo~ minimizing emissions. 

2.6 Inspection and Haintenance·R.equirements 

2. Inspections of the dry sorbe~t and ily ash handling facilities 

including emission c:.o~trol measures shall be candc.cted at least 

cnce per :r.a:1.t.h when the facility is i:1 operatiar: to confirm 

compl.i.anc~ wii"'.h the r;equiremen"ts of this permit. 

b. Maintenance cmd repes.ir of filters, and other control me.;;:sures 

shall be performed to a$Surc that such measures fu~ction properly 

when material .is being handled. 

c. The ?ermitte.e shall mai11ta:i..n =ecords of the above insoections and 

mo:~.intenan.ce/r.ep.air activity in an operating nnd mainter~ance log. 

This log shall coi""l.tain, at a minimum, the ti:r;e ar:.d description of 

the inspections DE_~ ::tainter!~-~.:e/rel?_air __ acti v~~-~~s. 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/1 0/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Pc:.ge 10 

2.7 Opacity Mea~uremen~s 

a. For the affected sorber..t r.andlir:g fs.cility, ~he Permittee shall 

.comply \l'li"Ch applicable requirements of the NSI?S rel;;~ted to 

obscrvution of opacity. 

b. Ooo:--. wd.tten reauest bv 1:.he Illinois EPA, t:he Perm:.~-:ee shall 

c;~duct opacity ·observ~~ions fer specific operatio~(s) or unit(s) 

at the affected facility \o'it:.hin 45 calendar days of the request 

or on the date agreed upon by the Illinois EPJ:., wh:: .. chever is 

later. 

2. 8 F.ecordkseping F.eq~ire!i\en<s 

a. The Permittee shall maintain a file ccn-cainir.:g docurnentation for 

the emission guarantee for each filter in the affected sorbent 

handling facility, in grains/ds~f, as provided by the supplier of 

the device. 

b. The ?ermi~tee s!:!.all maintain operating records f·::r the follmdng 

items: 

i. 1\mount of dry sorbent received, tons/month and tons/year. 

i:!.. .n.rno,.,;.nt of dry sorbent transferred to the affec~ed system, 

tons/mon~h and tons/year. 

c. The Perrni~~ee shall keep records for the imple~e~tation of 

fugitive dust central :neasures on roadvrays used by trucks -chat 

handle dry sorbent and fly ash. 

d. The Perrc1ittee shall ~eep the following records related to PM 

em.issions (tons/monch and tons/year), · .. lith supporting 

calculation5. For this purpose, roadway emissions shall be 

calculated using USEPA methods. 

i. Records of emissions of PM and PMlt! fro:n the affected 

facility. 

u.. Records of emissions of PM and PN10 from roadways/truck 

~raffic associa~ed with the affec~ed facility. 

iii. Records ci PM and PMlO emissions from roadways/truck 

tr.affic associa-ted t-~ith handling of fly ash from the 

affected boiler 

2.9 Reporting Requirements 

a. The Pe!'mittee shall either comply wit.h applicable reporting 

requiremen~s of the NSPS unless crushing or grinding equipment 

will not be installed at the fa.:::ility, ia which case the 

. ······--··· ... ?.e:::mi.i:...t.ee-.shal.:.......:.lCtify-.t.h.e -Illinois .. .EPA of -~hi.s....-decision ... ------·· 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Page 11 

Note: RepoJ;ting of deviation is ad..d:::essed by C()nditicn l.lO{a). 

2.l0 The affected 

per1ni t u!ltil. 

facilities. 

facilities nay be operated pursuant to this cons~ructior. 

a.-'1 operc.ting permit becom-es effectiYe tf:.at addresses these 

This conditi<;m supersedes Standard Cor.di;:ion 6. 

Please note that this permit h<Is been revi::;ed ct the request _of the Permi'.:tee 

to p:ro".ride additional ti.'ne ior a corJ"tinuo~s prcgr,c~.m o.: construction on Lhis 

project to be staz:tad (See. Condi.ticn 1.12). 

Please ~cte that this p€rmit h3s been ~evised to correct a typographical 

e~ror. 

If yo'..l have any que3;:.ion.s on this permit, please contact Kunj ra.tel at 

21717B5-1710. 

Edwin C. Bakm.;ski, ='.l=:. 

Nanage:r, i?ermi t Sec-cicn 

D:i. visio:1 of ~"-ir Poll utio:1. Control 

. ""- 3/t•tf. 

ZCB: Kl·JP :psj .i•M_--.p J) 2..<if/)')_ 

cc: FOS - Region l, Illinois ~PA 

Permit File - 95090047 

Date Signee.: 

·-·--~---· ·~---·-~···-·------
July i, 1985 · 

Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 

P. 0. BOX 19506 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 52794-9506 

STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION/DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 

ISSUED BY THE ILLINOIS ENVffiONMENTAL -PROTECTION'AGENCY·· · 

Tho llliiJOis Environmental Protecti.on Act Qllinoia Revis-ed Statutes, Cliapter 111-112, Section 1039) authorjzes the 

·.Environmental Protection AgenCy to fmpose·condltions on perm,its_which it issues. · ' 

The_foll_owing conditions are applicable unless susperseded by special condition(s}. 

1. Unless this permit has been extended or it has been voided by a newly issued permlt, this periJlit will expire omr 

year from the date a!" issuance, unless a continuous program of construction or deVelopment on this projeci has 

s~ted_by .such time. · 

2. Tho construction or development covered by this permit shall be done in ·compliance with applicable prOvisions ot 

the Illinois Environmental Pt-Otection. Act ·and Regulations adopted hy the illinois Pollution Cont-rol Board. 

3. There shall be no dcViatio:d.s from the apptoved plans and specifications unless a written requbst for modification, 

along with plana and specifications as r~quired, .sJ:tall lun-~e "been submitted to the Agency and a supplcment.al 

written permit issued. · · 

4. The. permittee shaH allow any duly o.uthorized agent of the Agency upon the presentation of credentials, at. 

reasonable times:" · · 

a. t.a enter the permittee's property where sctua.l or potential effluent, emission or noise sources are. located ~r 

where any activity i!=l' t..o be conduetod pur,:,uant to Lhhs permit, · 

b. to have access to and to copy any records required to bB kept under the terms an~ r:onditions of this pe~mit, 

c. to inspect, including during any hours of operation of equipment constructed or operated under this permit, 

such equipmeut and nny equipment required to be kept, used, operated, caUbrated and main"tained under this 

pennit1 • 

d. to obtain and remo\•e samples of any dischf'.rge or emissions of pollutants, and 

e. to enter and utilize any ph~tographic, r~cording, test!o~, monitorin,j or ~ther .eciuipment for the purpose of 

preserving~ testing, monitoriD.g, or recording a~y- activity1 discharge, or ernission authorized by· this _pen~·it,. 

5, The issuance of this per'rnit: 

a. lihall not bt! considered as in any !Da11ner affecting the title of the premises upon which the permittr:d 

facilities ai~ to be located, 

b. doea not release· the permittee from any lia.bi!ity for damage to persnn or property· caused by or resulting from 

the construction, maintenance, or operation of t.he proposed facilities, 

c. docs not release the permit.t.ee from compliance with other applicable statutes and. regulations of the United 

.. _____ .§tat~s, . .o.f. tb.e_State of.Illinois:,-or .. with o.pplica.-blc local·lawsi·ordinances··mrd:tegu1a;tiOfi1J:7""---.-- ·· ···-··---

. . 

d. · does not take h!tO considcratjon or attest to the stTucturalstability of any units .or parts of the Project, and 

ll 532-Q-ZZG 

APC 156 . Re~. S/59 Oi/O.OOS 
I 

Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/1 0/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

. -.... ~ .. ---- •••• , 't. :.. -· -< : ••• ¢!.; :,..-... 

c. in Iio manner i~pliea or auggeEts that the AgeJ!CY (~r ib. office!.B, ~genta or em~loyee~) a~ SUm:~ ~Y iiability, . 

directly _or indirectly, for any los~ d'Qe to dnmage, in~~nllation, maintenance, or operation of the proposed 

equipment or facility: · · · 

.· 6 .. a. Unless u.joint construction/operation permit has been issued, u permit.for operation shall be obtained from· 

·tho Agency before the equipment covered hy this permit is plecod into operation. . · 

b. I•~or Purposes of shnkedown ~lld testing, unl~sg.ot}).erwise ap~cincd by n special p~rnit Condition, the Cquip· 

rocnt cOvered under thjs permit may be operated fDr o. period not to ext;.eed thlxty (30) days. ' · . . .: _ . . _ . . . . .. : _ : _ . , ::··-:,.~·~-·~~:.r":,:,,...; 

7. Th~ Agency·m.D.y file a complaint wit.h the Board for n:.todificU.tion,· suspensiOn or revocation of a permit: · 

a. upon discovery that the permit application contained misrepresentntions, misinformation or false etitem~ts ~r thut all relevant facta wel-e not disclosed, <lr · · · · . ' 

b. U~!J-. ~~ding thiit -~~ standa-r~··Or .epeciD.i ~Dnditions h~ve be'en. Vioiat~d, or 

c. . upon any violations-Or the En,,.ironmental Protection Act or any regulation effective tllereund9r as a. result of 

the "con.Stru'c.tion or. deyelopmen.t nu.thori.ze~ by this permit. 

. .. .....,...., ... 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Exhibit 7 

Two Letters to Mr. Mike Kormos, Senior Vice 

President, System Operations & Planning, PJM 

Interconnection, Notifying PJM of Midwest 

Generation's Intention to Shut Down the Coal-Fired 

Units at the Fisk and Crawford Generating Stations 

(March 8, 2012) · 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

I IV!IDWEST ._,J GENEii'ATIOI\1, LLC 

Ali/,/)/,'\(),\ J\'f/.1~\ \{ICJ-\ \! ·. (:lUiliJall~ 

March 8, 2012 

By fax (61 Ol 666-2296; then U.S. Mail 

Mr. Mike Kormos 

Senior Vice President, System Operations & Planning 

PJM Interconnection 

955 Jefferson Avenue 

Norristown, PA 19403 

Re; Decommissioning of Fisk Unit 19 

Dear Mr. Kormos: 

On behalf of Midwest Generation, LLC, ("MidwestGen"), I am writing to provide nolice of 

MidwestGen's intent to decommission Fisk 19. MidwestGen seeks PJM's determination that the 

unit could be relired as early as the date upon which we receive PJM approval (i.e. 30 days from 

today), but no later than December 31, 2012. 

MidwestGen provides this notice pursuant to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariif ("OATT"), 

Part V "Generation Deactivation". MidwestGen believes that under the standard of review for plant 

retirements, there are no reliability issues associated with MidwestGen's retirement of this unit. 

In order to facilitate MidwestGen's retirement plan, we are requesting that PJM proceed now with a 

thirty (30) day reliability review as contemplated in the PJM OA TT, Part V, and section 113.2. 

We would be pleased to discuss this matter further with you and look forward to hearing from you. 

Please feel free to contact Reem Fahey (312-583-6033) to discuss any questions or concerns. 

Very truly yours, 

n5 R('llling,lon Bh-d. 

Suitt• A 

fiDlinghn~ok, II 604·10 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Ao l:ll/.'>ll,\ f\ 7 LN.\:.-\ T I< j V 11:·- ( ''llllfJll) 

March 8, 2012 

By fax (5i 0) 666-2296; then U.S. Mail 

Mr. Mike Kormos 

Senior Vice President. System Operations & Planning 

PJM Interconnection 

955 Jefferson Avenue 

Norristown, PA 19403 

Re: Decommissioning of Crawford Units 7 & 8 

Dear Mr. Kormos: 

On behalf of Midwest Generation, LLC, ("MidwestGen"). I am writing to provide notice of 

MidwestGen's intent to decommission Crawford units 7 & 8. MidwestGen seeks PJM's 

determination that the units could be retired as early as the date upon which we receive PJM 

approval (i.e. 30 days from today), but no later than December 31, 2014. 

MidwestGen provides this notice pursuant to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff ("OATT"). 

Part V "Generation Deactivation". MidwestGen believes that under the standard of review for plant 

retirements, there are no reliability issues associated with MidwestGen's retirement of these units. 

In order to facilitate MidwestGen's retirement plan. we are requesting that PJM proceed now with a 

thirty (30) day reliability revisw as contemplated in the PJM OATT, Part V, section 113.2. 

We would be pleased to discuss this matter further with you and look forward to hearing from you. 

Please feel free to contact Reem Fahey (312-583-6033) to discuss any questions or concems. 

Very truly yours, 

?35 Remint~lon Blnl. 

Suiu: o\ 

H:.l!in;-1Lruuk II W-140 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Exhibit 8 

Letter to Cheryl Newton, USEPA Region 5, from 

Illinois EPA (June 24, 2011) Conveying the State's 

BART SIP Submittal 

and 

Selected Pages from Illinois EPA's Technical Support 

Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under 

the Regional Haze Rule, AQPSTR 09-06 

(April 29, 2011) 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

IlliNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276, SpringfiBld, Illinois 62794·9276 • (217) 762 2829 

James R. Thonip::on Center, 1 00 \Vest Rvndolph, Suite l 1 -JOO, Chkago, IL 60601 • 1.312) R 1 <!.6026 

217!782~5544 

2171782-9143 ClDD) 

June 24, 2011 

PM QUINN, GOVERNOR 

CERTIFIED HAIL 

l009 2820 0001 7492 1699 

Ms. Chery I A. New1on, Director 

Oftic.e of the Air and Radiation Division 

U.S. Eevironmemal Protection Agency Region V (R~l8J) 

77 Wesl .Jac.kson Boulevard 

Chicago. IL 60604-3507 

Re: Regional y:;e Program Requirements 

Dear\•~1: 

Pur&uaill to Section 169A of L1e Clean Air Act ("CAA'') (42 l'.S.C. § 7491) and Section 4 ofrhe 

Illinois Environmemal Prowction Act (415 ILCS 5/4), L~e lllinois Environmental Protection 

Agency submits the enclosed revision ro the Illinois State Implementation Plan ("SIP"). 11us 

revision has been pr~pared to satisfy lJlinois• obligmion under these sections tO develop a 

Regional Hnze SIP wiih meusures necessary.to make reasonable progress towards remedying 

visibility impairment in Class l Hreas. Under 40 CFR § 51.308, the core requirements for the 

plan include reasonable progress goals, calculations of baseline and namral visibili!)' conditions, 

a long-term strategy for regional haze. a monitoring strategy, and Besr Available Retrofit 

Technology requirernents.for regional haze visibility impairment. 

In order to assist with your review ofthis plan submittal, the following documents are enclosed (two 

hard copies and one electronic copy on disc): 

A ttacbment I) Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for 111inois, AQPSTR 10-08, 

May 10, 2011. 

• App~ndix A, Draft Lisr of Class I A.reas Located Witl1in (or 

Impacted by) Midwest RPO States, June 26, 2007. 

• Appendix B, Regional Air Qualiiy Analysis for Ozone. PM2.;, and 

Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Doc.ument, April 25, 

2008. 

• Appendix C, 2012 Site Directory (Illinois Air Monitoring 

Network). 

Rocliortf • ~W? t-.. "-i~irl Sr., i\.o::dford, 'l IJ111);l • !615) !H7-776~1 

El&i•l• :i'.l~ S.St~t<'. F.l:tin.IL 601?3- • (S47) f.iJ!I-)131 

De~ !'lain""'" <J~ 11 W. I !orri~r>., St, !Jt:> Pi;<in,~. IL 6UCJ1i.o o (1!4 l] 2'l4~1t}!.'{) 

P~o<ill • 5415 N. Uni1·~r~;~• 51. ?('O<ia, I~{) 11• I •1 • (l09j (,~J-5-ll.l) 

Cb;~.ml>"ii\Tl • 2 i25 S. irrst St., Ch01111~lli~11, ll & 'Ulll• !117) 17f;.S!h1il 

Mario,l• :JINW.II.•,,;o St. Svli:! 116, M:.f'ivo.ll. 6:!9S':l• {61b) 9~J-7200 

liur~au ofll'nd- Prori~ • :'C."O !';, ~lnM::Htl'f $1, f'tori~, ll (,161~ • Cill!l] (,'il-~4(,] 

c~l!inwillt • ·200\1 "tali SH•:<!t, C:linnwi~c,lL 622~4 • f6lf.IJ 3·1(,.512'0 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

A!lacbmcnt 2) 

Allaclnneni 3) 

J\ttachrnenl 4) 

Attachment 5) 

Attachment 6) 

Atmch111ent 7) 

Attachment S) 

Atmcbm~nt 9) 

AttachiJJent l 0) 

Al1achment 11) 

Technical Support Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology 

\Jnder the Regional Haze Ruk AQPSTR 09-06, April 29. 2011. 

• Appendix A, Single Source Modeli11g to Suppon Regional Haze 

BART lv1ocleling Protocol} \·farch 21: 2006, Lake !vlichigan /\ir 

Directors Consortium. 

• Appendix B, Regional Air Quolit; Analysis for Ozone, PM,_,, and 

Regimud Haze: Fiu~'ll Technical SuplJOrt Document._ April 25. 

2008. iSee Attachment 1, above) 

• Appendix C, Illinois Mercury Ruk, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225. 

Appendix D, BART Analysis for the Kincaid Power Plant, ENSR 

Corporation, January 2009, Documem No. 02285-076-400. 

• Appendix E, Consent· Decree between the U niled States of 

America, et al. and ExxonMobil Corporation. et nl. 

• .Appendix F. Consent Decree between rbe United States of 

America, et al. and CfTGO Petroleum Corporation, et al. 

i\mcren Energy Resomces, Notice of Intent, dated December 27,2007. 

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc., Notice of lntem, dated November 26, 

2007. 

Midwest Generation, LLC, Notice offntent. dated December 27,2007. 

Notice of Hearing 

Presentations of !leming held December 6, 2010 

Transcript of Hearing held December G, 2010 

J{esponsivencss Summary 

Kincaid Generation, LLC~ .Tulut Construction and Opr::rating Permit 

City of Springfield (CWLP) .loim Construction and Operating Permit 

In addition, the Regional Hoze SIP Checklist is e.nciosed to a>sist in your review. If further 

infonnalion is required, pi Case contact Rob Kaleel, !Vlanager~ Air Qm1Hty Planning Section, Bureau 

of Air, at 2171735-4140. 

Laurel L. Kroack 

Chief, Bureau of Air 

Attachments 

2 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT 

FOR 

BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY 

UNDER THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE 

AQPSTR 09-06 

April29, 2011 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1021 NORTH GRAND A VENUE EAST 

P.O. BOX 19276 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-9276 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

• a multi-pollutant agreement between the Illinois EPA and Dominion Energy Services, as 

operator, and Kincaid Generation, LLC, as owner, of the Kincaid Generating Station 

(collectively "Dominion Kincaid"), to achieve BART-controllevels; and 

• a similar agreement between the Illinois EPA and the City of Springfield, Illinois d/b/a 

City, Water, Light and Power (CWLP), to achieve BART-control levels and to shut down 

one of its existing subject-to-BART units. 

Table 4.1 Presumptive BART Emission Limits for Coal-Fired EGUs 

Pollutant Boiler Type I Coal Type Presumptive Limit 

(lbs/mmBTU) 

so2 All units All coal types 0.15 

(or 95% control) 

NOx . Dry-bottom wall-fired Bituminous 0.39 

Sub-bituminous 0.23 

Lignite 0.29 

Tangential-fired Bituminous 0.28 

Sub-bituminous 0.15 

Lignite 0.17 

Cell burners Bituminous 0.40 . 

Sub-bituminous 0.45 

Dry-turbo-fired Bituminous 0.32 

Sub-bituminous 0.23 

Wet-bottom tangential- All 

0.62 

fired 

Cyclone All 0.10 

4.1.1 EGUs under the MPS and CPS 

Three electric utilities operating in Illinois, Dynegy, Ameren, and Midwest Generation have 

committed to comply with the MPS and CPS under the Illinois Mercury Rule, requiring the 

installation of state-of-the-art pollution controls on many of their electric generating units in 

24 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

lllinois. These regulations were promulgated to allow coal-fired electric utilities more flexibility 

in meeting the lllinois Mercury Rule in exchange for significant NOx and SO, reductions. 

Appendix C contains the relevant portions of the fully adopted Illinois Mercury Rule, with the 

requirements for NOx and S02 emission reductions highlighted. Illinois intends to submit 

Appendix C to USEPA, the highlighted portions of which will become part of Illinois' 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 instaJiation of controls on emission units regardless of whether or not they are subject to 

BART. The agreements between Tllinois and the utilities are intended to allow the companies the 

flexibility to meet the fleet-wide emission limits in the most cost-effective manner. T;he 

agreements contain a range of compliance dates, beginning as early as 2012 and as late as 2019. 

The Illinois EPA recognizes that, in general, the compliance date for BART controls is within 5 

years ofUSEPA's approval of the State's SIP. AssumingUSEPA approves Illinois' SIP in 2011 

or 2012, the compliance date for BART eontrols would be irr2016 or2017. The Illinois EPA's 

analysis ofemissiorr reductions that will result from implementation oftheMPS·and CPS by the 

year 2015 demonstrates conclusively that Illinois' approach will yield much larger reductions of 

NO, and S02 than will implementation of BART controls on just subject to BART emission 

units. Emission reductions occurring after 2015 will improve visibility in Class I areas impacted 

by sources in lllinois, regardless ofUSEPA's decision of whether to approve those reductions as 

meeting BART requirements. The following subsections provide Illinois EPA's analysis of the 

emission reductions expected from the MPS and CPS and a description of the controls that will 

most likely be installed as a result of the MPS and CPS. 

4.1.1.1 Dynegy 

Dynegy operates several electric generating stations in Illinois, all of which are affected by the 

requirements of the MPS. Only the three coal-fired boilers at Baldwin are subject to BART, 

however. Units I and 2 at Baldwin are cyclone-tired boilers burning sub-bituminous coal, while 

Unit 3 is a tangentially-fired unit burning sub-bituminous coal. Currently, Units I and 2 are 

controlled by over-fire air ("OFA") and selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") for NO,, while 

25 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

Table 4.5 S02 reductions from Ameren EGUs BART vs. MPS 

.. .:· ....... 1.:: ':' . ...-·~:_- 6~-~~-y~~~-->::':~;;.~- .,._, / P.~sUffipti;~~sA-~T-~~ I .~.f.ips:2ow .·· .- Mf'S·EimW · ~ :' ... •" 

·r."" ;,, ... .... )666:;; : fttiS!;•;, ·_;~~6j~:~ :;t~~t';:;~ ]tia~t~- B'~~bj~-:~ ~t~~Wtfo~_-: --~ -~bsr: -~ --:T6ri0Viar ---~-~:~{~'~t--. ·.·._ ''>"l.ihit: 'imnBTU ·-hitfiBTU-- .-m·msru:: ;iniTIBTlP · .RedUclioti--:_ 

Coffeen 16,570 1.54 14,332 0.15 12,906 0.25 11,978 0.23 12.163 

Coffeen 2 37.545 1.49 27,999 0.15 25,155 0.2S 23,27~ 0.23 23.653 

Duck. Creek. 22,635 0.97 11,026 0.15 9,280 0.25 8.149 0.23 8.375 

ED 

Edwards 6.417 3.55 11,399 NA NA 0.25 10,588 0.23 10,652 

ED 

Edwards 2 17,222 1.7 14,666 0.15 13,347 0.25 12,486 0.23 12,658 

ED 

Edwards 3 15,972 1.21 9,683 0.15 6.465 0.25 7.667 0.23 7,826 

Hutsonville 5 3,161 4.53 7.163 NA NA 0.25 6,765 0.23 6,796 

Hutsonville B 3,.443 4.53 7,791 NA NA 0.25 7,368 0.23 7,40.2 

Joppa 13.548 0.51 3,441 NA NA 0.25 1,761 0,23 1,897 

Joppa 2 16:258 0.51 4,139 NA NA 0.25 2,1g 0.23 2,276 

Joppa 3 15,396 0.51 3,947 NA NA 0.25 2.001 0.23 2.155 

Joppa 4 13,402 0.52 3.468 NA NA 0.25 1.809 0.23 1,943 

Joppa 5 15,094 0.52 3,932 NA NA 0.25 2.038 0.23 2,189 

Joppa 6 16,063 0.52 4,182 NA NA 0.25 2,159 0.23 2.329 

Meredosia 1.134 5.02 2,644 NA NA 0.25 2,705 0.23 2.716 

Meredosia 2 1.337 5.02 3,356 NA NA 0.25 3,169 0.23 3,202 

Meredosia 3 1.089 5.04 2,694 NA NA 0.25 2.560 0.23 2,571 

Meredosia 4 1.406 5 3,518 NA NA 0.25 3.339 0,23 3,353 

Meredosia 5 10.810 2.34 12,639 NA NA 0.25 11.296 0.23 11.405 

Newton 40.631 0.45 9.046 NA NA 0.25 4,063 0.23 4,459 

Newton 2 38.533 0.46 8,823 NA NA 0.25 4.046 0.23 4.431 

1.099 69,154 131,367 134,464 

*Tile MPS emission lirn1ts are a S)'StemMwide average and are not intended to reflect unit~specific emission limits. 

4.1.1.3 Midwest Generation 

Midwest Generation operates 19 coal-fired EGUs at six separate locations in Illinois. Nine of 

these units, located at Powerton, Joliet, and Will County, are subject to BART. 

Powerton 

All four units at the Powerton station are subject to BART. All four ttnits are cyclone-type 

boilers firing sub-bituminous coal and vent to a common stack. Current NO, cOntrol for all units 

30 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

consists oflow-NO, burners and OFA. Midwest Generation is expected to install selective noncata1)1ic reduction (SNCR) controls on all four units by 2012. The units currently bum lowsulfur coal to control for SO,, but Midwest Generation currently plans to install flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) equipment by the end of2013 on all four units. 

Joliet 

Four oft he five units (Units 71, 72, 81, and 82) at the Joliet facility are subject to BART. The 

four units of interest are all tangentially-fired boilers burning sub-bintminous coal. Current NO, 

controls for Boilers 71, 72, 81, and 82 consist of low-NO, burners and OFA. Midwest 

Generation is expected to install SNCR controls on these four units by 2012. For SO,, Midwest 

Generation is expected to install FGD equipment on all lour BART units at Joliet by 2019. 

Will Countv 

Ofthe four units at the Will County plant, only Unit 4 is subject ro BART. Unit 4 is tangentially 

tired and burns sub-bituminous coal. NOx emissions from Unit 4 are currently controlled by 

low-NO, bumers and OFA. Midwest Generation is expected to install an SNCR on this unit by 

2012. For SO,, Midwest Generation is ex.pected 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 NO, or S02, and that the anticipated CPS emission estimates given in Tables 

4.6 and 4.7 reflect the fleet-wide average emissions for all units. Tables 4.6 and 4.7 show that 

the CPS will lead to system-wide reductions of more than 38,000 TPY of NO, and more than 

35,000 TPY of SO, 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 Illinois EGUs 

The l'v!PS 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 permits, which are included 

31 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

Tuble 4 7 S02 reductions from Midwest Generation EGUs .BART vs. MPS 

.. ··: ' -:. ' .. < ._.,_.-. ,'B~i~,;~ar,;::. ,, ?-~~~stiri:i~u~& BA~+ , 1:, · ,.· t'~i'.o'is· · '· ·· ·'.:_• cf.s Ft~a1• ' J..::' . ·, -. .•. _: ~-' 

' ' ' 

.. >' 

~t6~~N~:~;,: }-~~:rtf ~-~-i~ri~Ndir_ · ' L!l;(i " " _.,. __ ,-ftinSr.i'sar· ' 'joolj, ·· :::~~fi:6~:; ·' ,,: .-,; __ .·-i-~ _::t: ~:·:iL;b~(:;:.~ ·· REilub!on· ' -.:··Pla"nt: un{. .-minBTU. ';Tons-·- mnlBTU, ·. 'RCdu·etron' · "'RMlici!On. .·mrriBTU:· 

Crawford 7 11,627 0.54 3,142 NA NA 0.28 1,512 0,1, 2,500 

Crawford 8 17,348 0.51 4,453 NA NA 0.28 1,995 O.i1 3.470 

Fisk. 19 14,650 0.52 3,843 NA NA 0.28. 1,753 0.11 3,003 

Jolie129 71 15,034 0.7 5,276 0.15 ~.13~ 0.28 3,157 0.1 i 4,435 

Joliet 29 72 13.824 0.7 4.828 0.15 3,802 0.28 2,903 0.11 4,078 

Joliet 29 81 15.585 0.68 5,300 0.15 4,130 0.28 3,117 0.11 I 4,442 

Joliet 29 32 15.403 0.58 5.260 0.15 4,082 0.28 3 081 0.11 4,390 

Jofiet 9 5 i4,369 0.63 4,559 NA NA 0.28 2.515 0.11 3,736 

Powe:ton 51 20,936 0.42 4,444 0.15 2,626 0.26 1,466 0.11 3,245 

Powerton 52 21,137 0.43 4.497 0.15 2,959 0.28 1,585 0.11 3.382 

Powerton 61 18,293 0.43 3,964 0.15 2,561 0.28 1,372 0.11 2.927 

Powerton 62 18,088 0.43 3,909 0.15 2,532 0.28 1,357 0.11 2.894 

Wauke~an 17 7,502 0.44 1,642 NA NA 0.28 000 0.11 1.238 

Waukegan 7 16,117 0.47 3,754 NA NA 0.28 1,531 0.11 2,901 

Waukegan 6 21,950 0.49 5,385 NA NA 0.28 2,305 0.11 4,171 

Will CouQ!l_ 1 9,398 0.42 1.969 NA NA 0.28 658 0.11 1,457 

Wil! Ccull_hl_ 2 8,293 0.39 1,617 NA NA 0.28 456 0.11 1,161 

Will Cou!!_ty_ 3 15.559 0.47 3,636 NA NA 0.28 1,478 0.11 2,801 

Will Counjy_ 4 27.585 0.47 6.452 0.15 4,41<4 0.28 2.621 0.11 4.9'35 

0.515 31,440 35,455 61,194 

*The CPS err'IISSIOn limns are a system~w1de a\1erngc and are not mtcnded to reflect umt-specd1c em1ssJon hmtts-. 

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 

B.'\RT 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 NO, emissions on an annual basis. 

For SO,, the BART rule requires 95% emissions reduction. 

33 
• 

Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

AppendixC 

Illinois Mercury Rule 

The Illinois EPA is seeking approval from the United States Environment a! Protection Agency of the 

following bolded provisiolt5 of the Illinois Mercury Rule, 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 22j, Subpart B: 

Control of Mercuty Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units, under this submission. 

Please note that the nan-balded provisions are included for context . 

. Section 225.233 Multi-Pollutant Standards (MPS) 

a) General. 

1) As an alternative to compliance with the emissions standards of Section 

22S.230(a), the owner of eligible EGUs may elect for those EGUs to 

demonstrate compliance pursuant to this Section, which establishes control 

. requirements and standards for emissions ofNOx and SOz, as weU as for 

.emissions of mercury. 

2) For the purpose of this Section, the following requirements apply: 

A) An eligible EGU is an EGU that is located in Illinois and which 

c<>mmenced commercial operation on or before December 311 2004; 

and 

B) Oivnership of an eligible EGU ·is deten:nined based on direct 

ownership, by the holding of a majority interest in a company that 

owns the EGU or EGUs, or by the common ownership of the company 

that OWILS the EGU, whether through a parent-subsidiary 

rel.atiOI;tship, as a sister corporntit:m, or ns an af.Iiliated corporation 

with the same parent corporation, provided that the owner has the 

right or authority to submit a CAAPP application on behalfofthe 

EGU. 

3) The owner of one or more EGUs eleoting to demonstrate compliance with 

this Subpart B pursuant to this Section must submit an application for a 

CAAPP permit modification to the Agency, as pro:vided in Section 225.220, 

that includes tbe information specified in subsection (b) of this Section and 

which cleady states the owner's election to demonstrate compliance pursuant 

to this Section 225.233. 

A) If the owner of Qnc or more EGUs elects to demonstrate compliance 

with this Subpart pursu!Ult to this Section, then all EGUs it owns in 

Illinois as of July 1, 2006, as defined in subsection (a)(2)(B) of this 

Section, must be thereafter subject to the standards and control 
• 

Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

4) 

B) 

requirements of this Section, except as provided in subsection 

(a)(3)(B). Such EGUs must be referred to as a Multi-Pollutant 

Standard (MPS) Group. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing,- the owner may exclude froll.l an MPS 

Group any EGU scheduled for permanent shutdown that the owner 

so designates in its CAAPP application required to be submitted 

·pursuant to subsection (a)(3) of this Section, with compliance for such 

units to be achieved by meaJIS of Section 225.235. 

When an EGU is subject to the requirements of this Section, the 

requirements.apply to all owners or operators of the EGU. 

b) Notice of Intent. 

The owner of one or more EGUs tl1at intends to comply with this SubpartB by 

means of this Section must notify the Agency of it.• ilitention by December 31, 2007. 

The following infonnation must accompany the notification: 

1) The identification of each EGU that will be complyiiig with this Subpart )3 by 

means of the multi-poUutant standards contained in this Section, with 

-evidence that the owner has identified all EGUs that it owned in Illinois as of 

July 1, 2006 and which commenced commercial operation on or before 

December 31, 2004; 

2) If an EGU identified in subsection (b )(1) of this· Section is also owned or 

operated by a person different than the owner submitting the notice of intent, 

a demonstration that the submitter has the right to commit the EGU or 

authori:l:lltioli. from the responsible official for the EGU accepting the 

application; 

3) The Base Emission Rates for the EGUs, with copies of supporting data and 

calculations; 

4) A summary of the current control dimccs installed and operating on each 

EGU and identification of the additional control devices that will likely be 

needed for the each EGU to comply with emission control requirements of 

this Section, including identification of each EGU in the MPS group thatwil) 

be addressed by subsection (c)(1)(B) of this Section, with information 

showing that the eligibility criteria for this subsection (b) are satisfied; and 

5) Identification of each EGU that is scheduled for permanent shut down, as 

provided by Section 225.235, which will not be part of the MPS Group and 

which will not be demonstrating com.pliance with this Subpart B pursuant to 

this Section. 

2 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

c) Control Technology Requirements for Emissions of Mercury. 

1) Requirements for EGUs in an MPS Group. 

A) For each EGU in an NIPS Group other than an EGU that is addressed by 

subsection (c)(l)(B) of this Section for the period beginning July 1, 2009 

(or December 31, 2009 for anEGU for·which an S02scrubber or fabric 

filter is being installed to be in operation by December 31, 2009), and 

ending on December 31, 2014 (or such earlier date that the EGU is subject 

to the mercury eniission standard in subsection (d)(l) of this Section), the 

owner or operator of the EGU must install, to the e:1.1:ent not already 

installed, and properly operate and mai.iJ.tain one of the following emission 

control devices: 

i) A Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System, complying 

>vith the sorbent injection requirements of subsection (c)(2) of this 

Section, except as may be otherwise provided by subsection (c)(4) 

of this Section, and followed by a Cold-Side Electrostatic 

Precipitator or Fabric Filter; or 

ii) If the boiler fires bituminous coal, a Selective Catalytic Reduction 

(SCR) System and an SO, Scrubber. 

B) An o'vner of an EGU in an MPS Group has two options under this 

subsection (c). For an MPS Group that contains EGUs smaller than 90 

gross MW in capacity, the owner may designate any such EGUs to be not 

subject to subsection ( c)(l )(A) of this Section. Or, for an MPS Gro\lp that 

contains EGUs with gross MW capacity of!ess than 115 MW; the owner 

may designate any such EGUs to be not subject to subsection (c)(l)(A) of 

this Section, provided that the aggregate gross MW capacity of the 

designated EGUs does not exceed 4% of the total gross MW capacity of · 

the Ml'S Group. For any EGTJ subject to one of these two options, unless 

the EGU is subject !o the emission standardS in subsection (d)(2) of this 

Section, beginning on January 1, 2013, and continuing tU)til such date that 

the o'vner or operator of the EGU commits to comply with the mercury 

emission standard in subsection ( d)(2) of this Section, the owner or 

operator of the EGU must install and properly operate and maintain a 

Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System that complies with the 

sorbent injection requirements of subsection (c)(2) of this Section, except 

as may be otherwise provided by subsection (c)(4) of this Section, and 

followed by either a Cold-Side-Electrostatic Precipitator or Fabric Filter. 

The use of a properly installed; operated, and maintained Halogenated 

Activated Carbon Injection System that meets the sorbent injection 

requirements of subsection (c)(2) of this Section is defined as the 

"principal control technique." 

3 
.. 

Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

2) For eachEGU for which injection ofhalogenated activated carbon is reqwrejl by 

subsection (c)(l) of this Section, the owner or operator of the EGU must ~ject 

halogenated activated carbon in an optimum manner, which, except as provided in 

subsection (c)(4) of this Section, is defined as all of the following: 

A) 

13) 

The use of an inJection system designed for effective absorption of 

mercury, considering the couiiguration of the EGU and its ductwork; 

The injection of halogenated activated carbon manufactured by Alstom, 

. Norit, or Sorbeot Technologies, Calgon Carbon's FLUEPAC CF Plus, or 

Calgon. Carbon's FLUEPAC MC Plus, or the injection of any other 

halogenated activated carbon or sorbent that the owner or operator of !lie 

EGU has demonstrated to have similar or l1erter effectiveness for control 

of mercury emissions; and 

C) The injection of sorbent at the following minimum rates, as applicable: 

i) For anEOU firing subbituminous coal, 5.0 lbs per million actual 

cubic feet or, for any .cyclone-fired EGU that will install a scrubber 

and baghouse by December 31, 2012, and whlchalready.meets an 

emission rate of 0.020 lbs mercury/GWh gross electrical output or 

at least 75 percent reduction ofinj:mt mercury, 2.5 I bs per million 

actual cubic feet; 

ii) For an EGU firing bituminous coal, JD.Q'.lbs per million actual 

cubic feet for any cyclone-fued EGU that will install a scrubber 

and baghouse by December 31,2012, and which already meets an 

emission rate of0.020 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical output or 

at least 75 percent reduction of input mercury, 5.0 lbs per million 

actual cubic feet; · · 

iii) For an RG1 J firing a blend of subbituminous and bituroinous coal, 

a rate that is the weighted average ofthe above rates, based on the 

blend of coal being fired; or 

iv) A rate or rates set lower by the Agency, in writing, than the rate 

specified in any of subsections (c)(2)(C)(i), (c)(2)(C)(u), or 

(c)(2)(C)(iii) of this Se.ction on a unit-specific basis, provided that 

the owner or operator of the EGU has demonstrated that such rate 

or rates are needed so that carbon injection v,iJJ not increase 

particulate matter emissions or opacity so as to threaten 

noncompliance with applicable requirements for particulate matter 

or opacity. 

D) For the purposes of subsection (c)(2)(C) of this Section, the flue gas flow 

shall be the gas flow rate in the stack for all units except for those 

4 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

equipped with activated carbon injec\ion prior to a hot-side electrostatjc 

precipitator; for units equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a 

hot-side electrostatic precipitator, the :flue gas :flow rate shall be the gas 

flow rate at the inlet to the hot-side electrostatic precipitator, whlcb shall 

be detennined as the stack flow rate adjusted through the use of Charles' 

Law for the differences in gas temperatures in the stack and at the inlet to 

the electrostatic precipitator (y"" = V "'* x T.,!f,<k. where V =gas flow 

rate in acf and T =gas temperature in Kelvin or Rankine 

3) The owner or operator of an EGU t.l:!at seeks to operate an EGU witlt an activated 

carbon injection rate or rates that are set on a unit-specific basis pursuant to 

subsection (c)(2)(C)(iv) of this Section mu.st submit an application to the Agency 

proposing such rate or rates, and must meet the requirements of subsections 

(c)(3)(A) and (c)(3)(B) of this Section, subject to the limitations of subsecrions 

(c)(3)(C) and (c)(3)(D) of this Section: 

A) The application must be submitted as an application for a new or revised 

federnlly enforceable operating penni! for the EGU, and it must include a 

surnma.ry of relevant mercury emission data for the EGU, tbe unit-specific 

injection rate or rates that are proposed, and detailed information to 

support the proposed injection rate or rates; and 

B) This application must be submitted no later than the date that activated 

carbon must fust be injected. For example, the owner or operator of an 

EGU that must inject activated carbon pursuant to subsection (c)(l)(A) of 

this subsection must apply for unit-specific injection rate or rates by July 

l, 2009. Therea:fter, the ov.ner or operator of the EGU may supplement its 

application; and 

C) Any decision of the Agency denying a permit or granting a permit with conditi 

that se~ a lower injection rate or rates may be appealed to the Board pursuant U: 

Section39 of the Act; and 

D) The owner or operator of an EGUrnay operate at the injection rate or rates 

proposed in its application until a fmal decision is made on tbe application; 

including a final decision on any appeal to the Board. 

4) During any evaluation of the effectiveness of a listed sorbent, an alternative 

sorbent, or other technique to control mercury emissions, the owner or operator of 

an EGU need not comply with the requirements of subsection (c)(2) of this 

Section for any system needed to carry out the evaluation, as further provided as 

follows: 

A)· The owner or operator ofilie.EQU must conduct the evaluation in 

accordance with a formal evaluation program submitted to the Agency at 

least 30 days prior to commencement of the evaluation; 

5 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

B) 

C) 

D) 

The dUiation and scope of the evaluation may not exceed the duration and 

scope reasonably needed to complete the desired evaluation of the 

alterp.ative control technique, as initially ad~ssed by the owner or 

operator in a support .document submitted with the evaluation program; 

The owner m: operator of the EGU ;.,ust submit a report to the Agency no 

later than 30 days after the conclusion of the evaluation that describes the 

evaluation conducted and which provides the resalts of the evaluation; and 

If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows Jess effective 

contrcl of mercury emissions from the EGU than was achieved with the 

principal control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU must 

resum.e use of the principal control technique. If the evaluation of the 

alternative control technique shows comparable effectiveness to the 

principal control technique, the owner or operator oftbe EGU may either 

continue to use the alternative control technique in a manner that is at least 

as effective as the principal control technique, or it may resume use of lhe 

principal.control technique. If the evaluation ofthe alternative control 

technique shows more effective control of mercury emissions than.the 

control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU must continue to use 

the alternative control technique in a manner that is more effective than 

the principal control technique, so long as it continues to be subject to this 

Sl)bsection (c). 

5) In addition to complying with the applicable recordkeeping and monitoring 

requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an 

EGU that elects to comply with this Subpart B by means of this Section must 

also comply with the followmg addition·al requirements: 

A) For·the first 36 monlbs that injection of sorbent is required, it must 

maintain records of the usage of sorbent, the fluegas flow rate from the 

EGU (and, if the unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a 

hot-side electrostatic precipitator, flue gas temperatUie at tbe inlet of the 

hot-side electrostatic precipitator and in the stack), and the sorbent feed 

·rate, in pounds per million actual cubic feet of flue, on a weekly average; 

B) A.fter the fust 36 months that injection of sorbent is required, it must 

monitor activated sorbent feed rate to the EGU, gas flow rate in lhe stack, 

and, if the unit is equipped with activated carbon iqjcction prior to a hotside electrostatic precipitator, flue gas temperatUie at the inlet of the hotside electrostati~> precipitator and in The stack. It must automatically 

r~cord this da1a and the sorbent carbon feed rate, in pounda per million 

actual cubic feet of flue gas, on an hourly average; and 

6 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

6) 

7) 

C) If a blend of bituminous and sub bituminous coal is fired in the EGU, it 

must keep records of the amount of each type of coal burned and the 

required injection rate for injection of activated carbon, on a weekly basis. 

Until June 30, 20!2, as an alternative to the CEMS or excepted monitoring system 

(sorbent trap system) monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 

Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU may. elect to 

comply with the emissions testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements in Section225.239(c), (d), (e), (f)(l) and (2), (h)(2), (i)(3) and(4), 

and 0)(1). 

In addition to complying with the applicable'repotting requirements in Sections 

225.240 through 225.290, the owner Of operator of an EGU that elects to comply 

with this Subpart B by means of this Section must also submit quarterly reports 

for the recordkeeping and monitoring conducted pursuant to subsection (c)( 5) of 

this Section. 

d) Emission Standards for Mercury. 

1) For each EGU in"anMPS Group !hat is not addressed by subsection (c)(l)(B) of 

ibis Section, begirming January 1, 2015 (or such earlier date when !he owner or 

operator oftbe EGU notifies the. Agency tbatit will comply with these standards) 

and continuing thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU must comply with 

one of the following standmds on a rolling 12-montb basis: 

A) An emission standard of 0.0080 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical output; 

or 

B) A minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury. 

2) For eachEGU in an MPS Group that has been addressed under subsection 

(c)(! )(B) of this Section, beginning on the date when the owner or operator of the 

EGU notifies the Agency that it will comply with these standards and continuing 

!hereafter, !he owner or operator of the ;EGU must comply v,"ith one of the 

following standards on a rolling 12-month basis: 

A) .!ill emission standard of 0.0080 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical output; 

or 

B) A minimum 90-percentreduction of input mercury. 

3) . Compliance wilh the mercury emission standard or reduction requirement of this 

subsection (d) must be calculated in accordance with Section 225.230(a) or (d), or 

Section 225.232 until December 31, 2013. 

7 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

4) Until June 30,2012, as an alternative to demonstrating compliance with the 

emissions standards in this subsection (d), the owner or opemtor of an EGU may 

elect to comply with the emissions testing requirements in Section 225.239(a)(4), 

(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and Gl of this Subpart. 

e) Emission Standards for NO, and SO~. 

1) NO, Emission S~dards. 

A) Beginning in calendar year 201:i and continuing in each calendar 

thereafter, for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and operator 

of the EGUs must comply with an oyerall NOx annual emission rate of 

no more than O.lllh/million Btn or an emission rate equivalent to 52 

percent of the Base Annual Rate of NO, emissions, whichever is more 

stringent. 

B) Beginning in the 2012 ozone season and continuing in each ozone 

season thereafter, for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and 

operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall NO, seasonal 

emission rate of no more than O.lllb/million Btn· or an emi<sion rate 

equivalent to 80 percent of the Base Seasonal Rate of NO, emissions, 

whichever is more stringent. 

2) SOz Emission Standards. 

A) Beginning in calendar year 2013 and continuing in calendar year 

2014, for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of 

the EGUs must coruply with an overall S02 annual emission rate of 

0.33 lh/million Btu or a rate equivalent to 44 percent of the :Base Rate 

of SOz emissions) whichever is more stringent. 

B) Beginning in calendar year 2015 and continuing in each ca!endal" vear 

thereafter, for the EGUs in each MPS Grouping, the owner and · 

operator nf the EGUs must comply with an overall annual emission 

rate. for SOz of0.25lbs/million Btu or a rate equivalent to 35 percent 

ofihe Base Rate of S02 emissions, whichever is more stringent. 

3) Ameren MPS Group Multi-Pollutant Standard 

A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (e)(l) and (2) of this 

Secti~n, tw;> subsectio? (e)(3) .applies to the Ameren MPS Group as 

descnbed m the notice of mtent submitted by Ameren Energy 

Resources in accordance with subs~ction (b) of this Section. 

B) NO, Emission Standards~ 

8 
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's 0 ffice, 04 I 1 0 I 2 012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

4) 

f} 

i) Beginning in the 2(110 ozone season and continuing in each 

ozone season thereafter, for the EGUs in the Ameren MPS 

Group, the owner and operator of the EGUs lnnst comply with 

•n overall NOx seasonal elnission rate of no lnore than 0.11 

lb/million Btu. 

ii) Beginning in calendar year 21)1 0 and con fuming in calendar 

year 2011, for the EGUs in the Ameren MPS Group, the owner 

and operator of the EGUs must comply with on overall NO, 

annual emission rate of no more than 0.14lb/million Btu. 

iii) Beginning in calendar year 2012 and continuing in each 

calendar year thereafter, fC>r the EGUs in the Ameren MPS 

Group, the owner and operator ofthe EGUs must comply with 

an overall NOx annual emission rate·ofno more than 0.11 

lbfmillion Btu. 

i) Beginning in calendar year 2010 an.d continuing in each 

calendar year through 2013, for the EGOs in the Ameren 'ii'!PS 

Group,.the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with 

an overall S02 annual emission rate of 0.50 lb/million Btu. 

ii) ln. Clllcndaryear2014, fortheEGUs in the Amercu MPS 

Group, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with 

an overall SOz annual emission rate of 0.43 lb/million Btu. 

iii) Beginning in calendaryear2015 and continuing in calendar 

year 2016, for the EGUs in tbe Ameren MPS Group, the owner 

and operator of the EGUs must comply with on overall SO, 

annual emission rate of 0.25\b/million Btn. 

iv) Beginning in calendar year 2017 and continuing in each 

calendar year thereafter, for the EGUs in the Ameren MPS 

Group, the owner and operntor of the EGUs must comply with 

an overall S02 annual emission rate of O.Z3 lb /million Btu. 

Compliance with the NO, and S02 emission standards must be demorutrated 

in accordance with Sections 225310,225.410, and 225.510. The owner or 

operator ofEGUs must complete the demonstration of compliance before 

March l of the following year for annual standards and before November 1 . 

for seasonal standards, by which qate a complimce report must be submitted 

to tb.c Agency. 

Requirements for NO, and S02 Allowances. 

9 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

1) 

2) 

3) 

4) 

5) 

The owner or operator of EGUs in an MPS Group must not sell or trade to any 

person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person N 0, allowances 

allocated to the EGUs in the MPS Group for vintage years 2012 and beyond that 

would otherwise be available for sale, trade, or exchange as a result of actions 

taken to comply with the standards in subsection (e) of this Section. Such 

allowances that are not retired for compli<mce must be surrendered to the Agency 

on an a.'lllual basis, beginning in c.aleudar year 2013. This provision does not 

apply to the use, sale, exchange, gift, or trade of allowances among the EGUs in 

an MPS Group. 

The owners or operators ofEGUs in an MPS Group must not sell or trade to any 

person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person SOz allowances 

allocated to the EGUs in the MPS Group for vintage years 2013 and beyond that 

would otherwise be available for sale or trade as a result of actions taken to 

comply with the standards in subsection (e) of this Section. Such allowances that 

are not retired for compliance, or otherwise surrendered }lunuant to a consent 

decree to which the State of illinois is a party, must be surrendered to the Agency 

on an annual basis, beginning in calendar year 2014. Thi.~ provision does not 

apply to the use, sale, exchange, gift, or trade of allowances among the EGU s in 

an MPS Group. 

The provisions of this subsection (f) do not restrict or inhibit the sale or trading of 

allowances that become available from one or more EGUs in aMPS Group as a 

result ofholding allowances that represent over-compliance with the NO, or 802 

standard in subsection (e) of this Section, once such a standard becomes effective, 

whether such over-compliance results from control equipment, fuel changes, 

changes in the method of operation, unit shut downs; or either reasons. 

For purposes of this subsection (f), NO, and S02 allowances mean allowances 

necessary for compliance with Sections 225.310,225.410, or 225.510,40 CFR 

72, or Subparts AA and AAAA of 40 CFR 96, or any future federal NO, or SO, 

emissions trading programs that modify or replace these programs. This Section 

· docs not prohibit the owner or operator ofEGUs in an MPS Group from 

purchasing or otherwise obtaining allowances from other sources as allowed bv 

Jaw for purposes of complying with federal or state requirements, except as ' 

specifically set forth in this Section. 

By March 1, 2010, and .continuing each year thereafter, the owner or operator of 

EGUs in an MPS Group must submit a report to the Agency that demonstrates 

compliance with the requirements of this subsection (f) for the previous calendar 

year, and which includes identification of any allowances tbat have been 

s:rrrendered io the·usEPA or to :the Agency and any allowances that wete sold, 

gifted, used, exchanged, or traded because they became available due to overcompliance. All allowances that are required to be surrendered must be 

surrendered by August 31, unless USEP A has not yet deducted the allowances 

10 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

from the previous year. A final report must be submitted to the Agency by 

August 31 of each year, verifYing that the actions described in the initial report 

have taken place. or, if such actions have not taken place, an eXplanation of all 

changes that have occurred and the reasoDB for such changes. IfUSEPA has not 

deducted the allowances from the previous year by August 31, the final report \vill 

be due, and all allowances required to be surrendered mllSt be surrendered, within 

30 days after such deduction occurs. 

g) Notwithstanding 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.146(hbh), until an EGU has complied w:itb 

the applicable emission standards of subsections (d) and (e) of this Section for 12 

months, the owner or operator of the :EGU must obtain a construction perm.it"for 

any new or modified air pollution control equipment that it proposes to construct 

for control of emissions of mercury, NO, or SO,. 

(Source: Amended at 33 lll. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009) 

Section 225.291 Combined Pollutant Standard: Purpose 

The purpose of Sections 125.291 through 225.299 (hereinafter referred to as the Combined 

Pollutant Standard ("CPS")) is to allow an alternate means of compliance with the emissions 

standards for mercury m Section 225.23.0(a) for specified EGUs through perm11nent shut-down, 

installation of ACI, and the application of pollution control technology for NO,, PM, and S02 

emissions that also reduce mercury emissions as a co-benefit and to establish permanent emissions 

standards for those specified EGUs. Unless otherwise provided for in the CPS, owners and 

operators of those specified EGUs are not excused from compliance w:ith other applicable 

requirements of Subparts B, C, D, and E. · 

(Source: Added at 33 lll. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009) 

Section 225.292 Applicability of the Combined Pollutant Standard 

a) As an alternative to compliance with the emissions standards of Section 225.230(a), 

the owner or operator of specified EGUs in the Cl'S located at Fisk, Crawford, 

· Joliet, Powerton, Waukegan, and Will County power plants may elect for all of 

those EGUs as a group to demonstrate compliance pursuant to the CPS, which 

establishes control requirements and emissions standards for NO., PM, SO,, and 

mercury. For this purpose, ownership of a specified EGU is determined based on 

direct ownership, by holding a majority interest in a company that owns the EGU or 

EGUs, or l>y the common ownership of tbe company that owns the EG(J, whether· 

through a parent-subsidiary relationship, as a sister corporation, or as an affiliated 

corporation with the same parent corporation, prmided that the owner or operator 

has the right or authority to submit a CAAPP application on behalf of the EGU. 

11 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/1 0/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

b) 

c) 

d) 

e) 

A specified EGU is a coal-frred EGU listed in Appendix A, irrespective of any 

subsequent changes in ownership of the EGU or power plant, the operator, unit 

designation, or name of unit. 

The owner or operator of each ofthe speCified EGUs electing to demonstrate 

compliance with Section 225.230(a) pursuimt to the CPS must submit an application 

for a CAAPP permit modification to the Agency, as. provided for in Section 225.22(), 

that includes the information specified in Se~tiori 225.293 that clearly states the 

owner's or operator's election to demonstrate compliance. with Section 225.230(a) 

pursuant to the CPS. 

If an owner or operator of one or more specified EGUs elects to demonstrate 

compliance "ith Section 225.230(a) pursuant to the CPS, then all specified EGUs 

owned or operated in Illinois by the owner or operator as of December 31,2006, as 

defined in subsection (a) of this Section, arc thereafter subject to the standards and 

. control requirements ofthe CPS. Such EGUs are referred to as a Combined 

Pollutant Standard (CPS) group. 

If an EGU is subject to the requirements of this Section; then the requirements 

apply to all owners and operators of the EGU. 

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009) 

Section 225.293 Combined Pollutant Standnrd: Notice of Intent 

The owner or operator of one or more specified EGUs that intends to comply with Section 

225.230(a) by means of the CPS must notify the Agency of its intention on or before 

December 31,2007. The following information must accompany the notification: 

a) The identification of each EGU that will he complying with Section 225.230(a) 

pursuant to the CPS, with evidence that the owner or operator has identified· ali 

specified EGUs that it owned or operated in illinois as of December 31,2006, and 

which commenced commercinl operation on or before December 31, 2004; 

b) If an EGU identified in subsection (a) of this Section is also owned or operated by a 

person different than the owner or operator submitting the notice of intent, a 

demonstration that the submitter has the right to commit the E<:;U or authorization 

from the responsible official for the EGU submitting the application; and 

c) A summary of the current control devices installed and operating on each EGU and 

identification of the additional control devices that will likely be needed for each 

EGU to comply with emission control requirements of the CPS. 

(Source: Added at 33 IlL Reg. 1()427, effective June 26, 2009) 

12 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Section 225.295 Combined Pollutant Standard: Emissions Standards for NOx and SO, 

a} Emissions Standards for NO, and Reporting Requirements. 

1) Beginning with calendar year 2012 and continuing in each calendar year 

thereafter, the CPS group, which includes all specified EGUs that have not 

been permanently shut down by December 31 before the applicable calendar 

year, must comply with a CPS group average annual NO, emissions rate of 

no more than O.lllbs/mmBtu. 

2) Beginning with ozone season control period 2012 and continuing in each 

ozone sea~on control period (May 1 through September 30} thereafter, the 

CPS grour, which includes all specified EGUs that have not been 

permanently shut down by December 31 before tbe applicable ozone season, 

must comply with a CPS group average ozone season NO, emissions rate of 

no more than O.lllbs/mmBtu. 

3) The owner or operator of the specified EGUs in the CPS group must file, not 

later than one year after startup of any selective SNCR on such EGU, a 

report with the Agency describing the NO, emissions reductions that the 

SNCRhas been able to achieve. 

b) Emissions Standards for 802• Beginuing in calendar year 2013 and continuing in 

each calendar year thereafter, the CPS group must comply with the applicable CPS 

group average annual Sb2 emissions rate listed as follows: · 

year lbs/mmBtu 

2013 0.44 

2014 '0.41 

2015 0.28 

2016 0.195 

2017 0.15 

2018 0.13 

2019 0.11 

c) Compliance with the NOx and S02 emissions standards must be demonstrated in 

accordance with Sections 225.310, 225.410, and 225.510. The owner or operator of 

the specified EGUs must complete the demnnstration of compliance pursuant to 

Section 225.298(c) before March 1 of tbe following year for annual standards and 

before November 30 of the particular year for ozone season control periods (May 1 

through September 30) standards, by which date a compliance report must be 

submitted to the Agency. [NOTE: Tlris subsection is relying on the compliance requirements 

of the Clean Air Interstate Rule Trading Program under Subparts C, D, and E ofFart 225 and will 

need to be amended accordingly when the Transport Rule is promulgated.] 

13 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

d) The CPS group average annual S02 emission rate, annual NO, emission rate and 

ozone season NO, emission rates shall be determined as follo"l'fs: 

n n 

ER,~ ~ :E (SOz; or NOx; tonsy.E (HI;) 

• i=1 i~l 

Where: 

SOz; = 

NO,,= 

N 

I = 

= average annual or ozone season emission rate in 

lbs/nunBbtu of all EGUs in the CPS group. 

heat input for the annual or ozone control period of each 

EGU, in mmBtu. 

actual annual S02 tons of each EGU in the CPS group. 

acinal annual or ozone season NO, tons of each EGU in the 

CPS group. 

number ofEGUs that are in the CPS group. 

each EGU in the CPS group. 

(Source: Amended at 33 Ill. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009) 

Section 225.296 Combined Pollutant Standard: Control Technology Requirements for NO., SOz, 

and PM Emissicms 

a) Control Technology Requirements for NO, and SOz. 

1) On or before December 31, 2013, the owner or operator must either 

permanently shut down or instnll and have operational FGD equipment on 

Waukegan 7; 

2) On or before-December 31,2014, the owner o~ op.erator must either 

permanently shut down or install and have operational FGD equipment on 

Waukegan 8; 

3) On or before December 31, 2015, the owner or operator must either 

perlD9nently shut down or install and have operational FGD equipment on 

Fisk 19; 

4) If Crawford 7 will be operated after December 31, 2018; and not 

permanen'tly shut down by this date, the owner or operator must: 

A) On or before December 31, 2015, install and have operational SNCR 

or equipment capable of delivering essentially equivalent NO, 

reductions on Crawford 7; and · · 

14 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

B) On or before December 31, 2018, install and have operational FGD 

equipment on ·crawford 7; 

5) If Crawford 8 will be operated after December 31,2017 and not permanently 

shut down by this date, the owner or operator must: 

A) On or before December 31, 2015, install and have operational SNCR 

or equipment capable of delivering essentially equivalent NO, 

emissions reductions on Crawford 8; and 

B) On or before December 31,2017, install and have operariom1! FGD 

equipment on Crawford 8. · ' 

b) Other Control Technology Requirements for S01• Owners or operators of specified 

EGUs must either permanently shut down or instaiJ•FGD equipment on each 

specified EGU (except Joliet 5), on or before December 31,2018, unless an earlier 

date is specified in subsection (a) of this Section. 

c) Control Technology Requirements for PM. The owner or operator of the two 

specified EGUs listed in this subsection that are equipped with a hot-side ESP must 

replace the hot-side ESP with a cold-side"ESP, install an appropriately designed 

fabric filter, or permanently shut down the EGU by the dates specified. Hot-side 

ESP menns an ESP on a coal-fired boiler that is installed before the boiler's airpreheater where the operating temperature is typically at least 550' F, as 

distinguished from a cold-side ESP that is installed after tbe air pre-heater where 

the operating temperature is typically no more than 350" F. 

1) Waukegan. 7 on or before December 31, 2013; and 

2) Will County 3 on or before December 31,2015. 

d) Beginning on December 31, 200S, and annually thereafter up to and including December 

31, 2015, the owner or operator of the Fisk power plant must submit in ·writing to the 

Agency a rep'ort on any technology or equipment designed to affect air quality that has 

been considered or explored for the Fisk power plant in the preceding 12 months. This 

report will not obligate the owner or operator to install any equipment described in the 

report. 

e) Notwithstanding 35 IU. Adm. Code 201.146(hhh), until an EGU has complied with 

the applicable requirements.of subsections 225.296(a), (b), and (c), the owner or 

operator of the EGU must obtain a construction permit for any new or modified air 

pollution control equipment that it proposes to construct for control of emissions of 

mercury, NO, PM, or S02. · 

(Source: Added at 33 Ill. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009) 

15 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

225.APPENDIX A Specified EGUs for Purposes of the CPS (Midwest Generation's Coal-Fired 

Boilers as of July 1, 2006) 

Plant Permit Boiler Permit designation CPS 

Number Designation 

Crawford 031600AIN · 7 Unit 7 Boiler BLRl Crawford 7 

8 Unit 8 Boiler BLR2 Crawford 8 

Fisk 03160.0AMI 19 Unit 19 Boiler BLR1.9 Fisk 19 

Joliet 197809AA0 71 Unit 7 Boiler BLR71 Joliet 7 

72 Unit 1 Boiler BLR72 Joliet 7 

81 Unit B Boiler BLR81 Joliet 8 

82 UnitS Boiler BLRih Joliet 8 

5 Unit 6 Boiler BLR5 Joliet6 

Powerton 179801AAA 51 Unit 5 Boiler BLR 51 Powcrton 5 

52 Unit'S Boiler BLR 52 Powerton 5 

61 Unit 6 Boiler BLR 61 Powerton 6 

62 Unit 6 Boiler BLR 62 Powerton 6 

\Vaukegan 097190AAC 17 Unit 6 Boiler BLR17 Waukegan6 

7 Unit 1 Boiler BLR7 .Waukegan? 

8 Unit 8 Boiler BLR8 Waukegnn 8 

Will County 197810AAK 1 Unit 1 Boiler':J3LR1 Will County 1 

2 Unit 2 Boiler BLR2 Will County 2 

3 Unit 3 Boiler BLR3 Will CoWJty 3 

4 Un.it 4 Boiler BLR4 Will County 4 

(Source: Amended at 33 ill. Reg. l 0427, effective June 26, 2009) 

16 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Exhibit 9 

Table of Calculations Prepared by Midwest 

Generation in Support of Table 1 in the Petition for 

Variance 
__________ ,_ 

--

columnA 

Pollu1:al\t 

502 

Hg 

PM 

NO< Note: In to 

Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * •· 

Exhibit 9 

----

.. 

--

-- ··-· 

-

. 

Waukegan Unit 7 Table 1 Calculations 

Column G 

Table 1 

1014 ColumnH 

ColumnB Column E column F Estimated Heat input 2014 

Table 1 Column C Column D Emission .ZOll [Column ox E) Emi'islons at ba'ied on Column I 

1011 Emissions Source of Oata for Heat input (lbsjmmBtu or ton-; or Waukegan 7 2000 to 2011 avg. Emis5ion Rate 

at Waukegan 1 Column B 20U(mmBtu) lbs/Tbtu for Hg) lbs for Hg without variam::e (mmEltu] Assumptions 

US£PA Acid Rain 

EDR for 2011 

3,801 tons based on C:FMS 16,454,701 0.462 3,801 1,016 tons 1S,421,<!€5 S02CPS. Rate 

Hg Rate -90% 

redurtion from 

74lbs Mercury s.taek testing 1G,454,701 4.497 74 Sibs 18,431,465 4A97lbs/Tbtu 

PM rate ba!;ed 

on ESP upgrade 

latest PM Stack Test from Hot to Ccld 

140tOJlS at Waukegan 7 15,454,701 0.017 :!.40 140tons 1S14S1,465 with Trona 

USEPA Acid Rain NOx Rate - avg. 

Program EDR for20ll of years 2008 to 

1,073 tons based on CEMS dc'\ta 15,454,701 0.13042 1,073 1.,121 tons 2011 

umns F and Ksome formulas have con"ersions from lbs to tons or other unit conver'Soions not listed in Column Header 

E

(

lb
.. 

ColumnA 

Pollutant 

502 

Hg 

PM 

NOx 

. 

Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

'. -- --------- . - ... - . •'• ------ ·-·-- .. - - -- -- -- .. 

_ ... . 

--

.. . -.-- -------·-···--- ---- ··---·-

Waukegan Unit 7 Table 1 Calculations 

Column L 

Table 1 

2014 Column 0 Column Q 

Estimated Emission Rate Table 1 

Emissions at ColumnM Estimated in Difference in 

Waukegan Heat input 2.014 Column P Emissions at 

Unit 7 if the 2014 based on Column N (lbs/mmBtu or {Column M x 0) Waukegan Unit 7 

Variance Is 200& to 2011 Emission Rate. lbs/Tbtu for tons or if the Variance Is 

Granted avg. (mmBtu) Assumptions Hg) lbs forHg Granted 

S02 RateUncontrolled 

based on 2011 

3,974 tons 18,481,465 avg. 0.43 3,974 2,957 tons 

Hg Rate - based 

83lbs 18,481,465 on stack test 4.497 83 751bs 

PM rate- based 

on recent stack 

157tons 18,481,465 test 0.017 157 18tons 

NOx Rate- avg. 

of years 2008 to 

1,321 tons 18,481,465 2011 0.143 1,321 Otons 

C

lb

(Co

Note: In column P some formulas have conversions from lbs to tons or other unit conversions not listed i
columnA 

Pollutant 

502 

Hg PM 

Nox 

Electronic Filing- Received, Cleric's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Waukegan Unit 7 Table 1 Calculations 

ColumnS 

Table 1 

Net Benefit in 

Emissions 

Reduced if the columnv 

Variance Is Emission Rate 

Granted 2013- ColumnT Extimated in 

2.015 Heat input 2013 to 2013 to 2015 for Colum11W Column 

(Fisk Unit 19 2015 based on Column U Fisk Fisk Emissions i11 tons o

Shut Down in 3x of 2008 to Z011 Fisk 19 Emission (lbs/mmBtu or Z013 to 2015. lbs for 

2012) avg. (mmBtu) Rate Assumptions lbs/Tbtu for Hg) (ColumnTxV) (Column 

soz RateUncontrolled 

based on 2011 

8,385 tons 52,755,775 avg. 0.43 11,342 

Hg Rate- based 

on stack tests avg. 

<511bs> 52,755,775 of 2010/2011 D.4582 24 

PM rate - based 

on rPcent stack 

2,066 tons 52,755,775 test 0.079 2,084 

NOx Rate - avg. of 

3,456 tons 52,755,775 years zoos to 2011 0.131 3,456 

Note: In column W some formulas have conversions from lbs to tons or other unit conversions not fi
ColumnA 

Pollutant 

502 

"' 

PM 

r-:Ox 

Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Waukegan Unit 7 Table 1 Calculations 

C.Oiumn Y 

Table 1 

Total Net Benefit fn 

Reduced 

If Variance Is 

Granted C.clumn A9 Column AC Column AF Column AG 

Z013·2013 Column Z Emission Rate (ra\'tford 7 Column AJ) Emission Rail? Craw1on1 a 

(Fisk Unit 19 Shut Crawford '1 Hl!at Estimated in Emissions in Crawrford B Heat Estimated in Emls.sions In 

oowo In 2012 and Input Z015 to ColumnM 2015 to 2018 for l015 to 201!l Input 201 Column Af. 201 !ito 20tB for ZD15 to 2018 

c.r..,wfard Units 7 2.018 based on craw1ord7 Crawford '! tons or 201.8 based on Crawford 8 Crawford S tonll or 

a nelS Shut ()own 4x of lOOS to 2011 Emission [Jbs/mmBtu or ibsfor Hg 4x of 2008 to 2011 {mission Rate or lbs for Hg 

Endol'2014) avg. {n1mEtu) Assumptions lbs/Tblu for Hg) (Column Z."' AB} nvg. (mmBtu) Assumptions lbs{Thtu for (Column AD•AFJ 

502 Rate- 502 Rate· 

UncontrcHed Uncontm!led 

based en 2011 based oa 2Gll 

32,13llons d8,409,803 avg. 0.43 10,408 62,4.99,392 0,43 ::.3,437 

Hg Aare -l.:om:d on nack tests 

on stack eng. avg. of 

<20 lbs> 48,409,883 of :2010/lm.l 0.40 19 62,499,392 2010}20ll 0.19 12 

PM rate· based PM rilte- based 

on recent stack on recen: 

5,601 tons test O,OS7 1,380 62,499.392 test 0.0$9: 2,156 

fJOx ·CPS NQ}t Rate· CPS 

9,556 tons .;s,t.D9,B83 0.11 2,663 G1A99,392 rille 0.11 3,437 

Note: In AC & A6 some formulas have conver$lons from lbs to tons or other unit conversions not listed In Column Header 

iv 

CHZ\11167810.1 

colum

Cn\'tfo

tons an

H

(Column 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/1 0/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Exhibit 10 

Proposed Approval of Illinois' BART SIP, 77 Fed.Reg. 

3966 (January 26, 2012) 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

3966 Federal Register/Vo~ n;_ No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012(Proposed Rules 

information described in paragraph (b) 

of this seclion. 

(b) Required injormaiion-(1) In 

general. The information required under 

paragraph (a) ofthis section shall 

· lnclude the fa \Jawing information: 

[i] The passport applicant's full namo 

and, if applicnblc. previous name; 

(ii) Address of thEI passport 

applicant's regular or principal place of 

res.idence within the countn' of 

residenc0 and, if different, ffiailing 

address; 

(iii) The passpon applicant's ta.·,:payer 

ida-ntifying number (TIN), if such a 

number has boen issuod to the pas~purt 

applicant. A TIN means the individual's 

social security number (SSN) i!;sued by 

the Social Security Administration. A 

passport applicant who does nol have 

an SSN nmst enter zeros in llw 

appropriate spaco on t.ha passport 

application; and 

[iv) The passport applicant's date of 

birth. 

(2) Time for furnishing information. A 

passport applicant must provide tho 

information required by this section nt 

the time llf submitting his or bor 

passport application, whcth~r by 

personal appearance or mail, to the 

Department of Stata (including United 

States Embassies and Consular pasts 

abroad). 

(c) Penolt'ies-[1) In general.lftha 

information required by pEiragraph (b)(l) 

of this section is incomplete or locorrect, or the informution is not 

limcly filed, then the passport applicant 

shall be subjocl to a penalty equal to . 

S500 per application. ileforo assessing a 

penalty under this section, the IRS will 

ordinarily provide to the passport 

applicant written notica of the potential 

assess mont of the $500 penalty, 

requesting tho information baing sought, 

and offering the applicant an 

opportunity to axplain why such 

information was not provided at th~ 

time the passport application was 

submitted. A passport applicant has 60 

days {90 days if the notice is addressed 

to an upplicant outsido the United 

States) to respond to the notice. If, after 

considering all the surrounding 

circumstances, tl1e pH.ssport applicant 

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 

Commissioner or his delegate that the 

faHure is duG to reasonable cause aud 

not due to willful negloct, thou the IRS 

will not assess th~ penalty. . 

(2) Example. The following example 

illustrates the provisions of paragraph 

(c) this seclion. 

Example. G. a cltizGn of the Uniled Statos, 

rnokos an error in ~upplring information oo 

his passport Rpplication. Based on t11e na\ura 

of tha error and C's timely rf:'-Sponsa to correct 

the Grror after bulug contacted by rhe lRS, 

and considering all tb~ surroLLnding 

circumstances, the- Commission or concludes 

that U1e mistake is due to reosonable cause 

and not due to willful neglect. Accordingly, 

no penalty is assessad. 

[d) Effeclive/applicability date. The 

rules of this section apply to passport 

applicatio11S submitted after the date of 

publication of the Treasury dt!cision 

adopting tbeso rules as final regulations 

in the Federal Register. 

Steven T. Miller, 

Deputy Commis:.·ioner for Sr:~1vices and 

.Enforccmenl. 

[FR Doc. ~012-1507 Filud 1-25-12; 11:·15 am] 

BILLING CODE 483G-Il1-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R05-0AA-2011-ll596; FRL-9622--61 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality (mpfementation Plans; Illinois; 

Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION; Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revision.o; to the Illinois State 

Implementation Plan (SIP] addressing 

regitJnal haze for the first 

implcm'!entntiou period. Illinois 

submitted its ragion111 haza plan on June 

24, 2011. The Illinois regional haze plan 

addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

169B and Rcsional H11ze Rule 

requirements for states to remedy any 

existing and prevent future 

anthropogenic in1pairment of visibility 

at mandatorv Class T arens. EPA is also 

proposiug tO approve two state rules 

and incorporating two permhs into the 

SIP. 

DATES: Comments must bo I'eceived on 

or before February 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your cow..monts, 

idonlifiod by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-

0AR-20ll-!l598, by ane of the 

following methods: 

1. waw.regulaUons.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for stlbmitting 

comments. 

2. Email: b}akley.panw}a@epa.gav. 

3. Fax: [3l2) 602-2450. 

4. Maii:Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strutegies Soction. Air Programs 

Branch (AR-181], U.S. Em· iron mental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago. Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delive1y: Pamela Hlakioy. 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch [AR-18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West fackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Offics 

normal hours of operalion, and speci<tl 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries ofboxod information. The 

Regional Office official hours of. 

business are Monday through Fnday, 

8:30a.m. to 4:30p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

instructions: Direct vour comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA-R05-DAR-2011-

0598. EPA's policy is that all comments 

recoivGd will bo included in tho public 

docket without change and may bo 

mado availnble online. at 

unvw.regula!Ions.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes h1formation 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBT) or oth12r information 

whose disclosure is restricted hy statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBJ or CJtherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gnv 

or email. The W1VH'.reglllations.gov Web 

site is an "anonymous access" system, 

which means EPA will not knov.• your 

idontlty or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA withont going 

through WlV1v.regulations.gov your email 

adrlress will ba automatically captured 

and i11cluded as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If yon 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommeods that you include your 

uame and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

yuu for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Sm!tion r of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information. is not publicly 

available, e.g.1 C.BI or ather information 

whose disclosure is restricted bv statutlt. 

Certain other material. such as · 

copy1·igbtod material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

uvailable docket materials axil available 

oither electroniCally in 

wwlv.regulaUons.govor in.hard copy at 

the Environmcntfd P.rotl:!ctian Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

Wast Jackson Boulevard, Chicago. 

Illinois 60604. This faciiit\• is open from 

8:30a.m. to 4:30p.m., Monday through 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Federal Register/Vel. 77, No. 17/Thursday, january 25, 2012/Proposed Rules 3967 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Matt 

Rau, EnvironrnBntal Engineer, at (312) 

080-6524 before visiring the Reg.ion 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMA.TION CONTACT: ~Jatt 

Rau, Environmantal Engineer, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR-18)), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Rogian 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 6136-6524, rau.matthe«t@epo.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

''w·e,'' ''us,'' or''ouT'' is used, v1e me::an 

EPA. 

TabiB of Contents 

I. What should r consiclor as J prepare my 

comment,:;: for EPA'! 

11. Whal is the bilc:kground for EPA's 

proposf!d action? 

m. What nre Lhe requirements fer regional 

ha:z:o S[Ps? 

IV. Wh!lt i!l EPA's analysis of Illinois' 

resional haze ple.n1 

V. \•Vha:t acllon i:; BPt\ taking? 

VI. Stntutory and Ex!!cutive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as 1 prep nrc 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments. 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rule making by ciocket 

number and other identifyiug 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Reg.is\er date and page number). 

2. Follow directions-EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulutions (CFR) port or section munber. 

· 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggesl alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provlde any technical information and/ 

or rtnta that vou used. 

5, If you eStimate potential costs or 

burdens, nxplain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

alloto~,• for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific ex3IDples to 

illustrate your con corns, and .suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as possible. avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. . 

B. Make sure to submit vour 

comments by the commerit period 

deadline idontifiod. 

II. \Vhat is th.a bnckground for EPA's 

proposod action1 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Re~ionnl haze is visibility impainnent 

that Is produced by a multitude of 

somces aud activities located across i:l. 

lun<Hl B'-'0(5r•~phh: IJJ'OU Lllut l.llltU nno 

particles (PM2.sJ (e.g., sulfates. nitrates, 

tJrganic carbon, elemental carbon, and 

soil dust) and its precursors-sulfur 

dioxide (S02}, nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

and in some cases ammonja {NH:,J and 

volatile organic compound (VOCs). Fine 

particle precursois react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter. Aerosol PM2,, impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairmontreduces the 

clarity and distance one can see. P1vh.5 

cru1 also cm.lsc sorious health effects md 

morta1ity in humans and contributes to 

detrimeutal environmental effects such 

as acid deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from tho existing visibility 

monitoring net\\'oJ.'k, the "'Interagency 

Monitorjng of Protected Visual 

Environments" (IMPROVE) monitoring 

nehllork, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all of the time at most 

national park and wildemess areas. The 

average visual range, the dista nee at 

which an object is bnre:ly discernable, in 

many Class I areas 1 in the westorn 

Unitod Stntos is 100-150 kilomoters. · 

That is about one·hnlf to two~ thirds of 

tho visual range that would exist 

without anthropogenic air pollution. In 

tho eastern and midwestern Class I amas 

of tbe United States, the average visual 

range is generally less than :3 0 

kilometers, or about one~fifth of thB 

v·isuaJ range that would exist under 

estimated natural condi.tioti.s. 64 FR 

35715 Uuly 1, 1999]. 

B. Requirements of the Clean Air Act 

and EPA's Regjonal Haze Rule 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amcmdments to the CAA. Congress 

created a progmm for protocting 

· visibility in tho notion's national parks 

and wilderness amas. This section ofthe 

CAA establishes as a national noal the 

"prevention of any futuro. <:~nlthc remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

1 Areas dosisnatotl. nl: mamlatory Class I Fcdotnl 

areas r::onsisl of btltionnl parl:s oxcoodirlg 6000 

ilcres, wildome~s .t~.r~as:. and natinnnl memorial 

parls a»:I!Dtlirl!l 5000 oc:ro~ and oll internntltJoHI 

parks thert \\'ere in u:dstenco on August7,l!l77, '12 

U.S.C. 7472(a). In. llCCordo.ncc with$ecUuo l69A nf 

the CA.-\. EPA, ht consullution with tho Departmonl or lntorior, promuJgatlld a lisl o!158 artla~ wh!!re 

vl!iibility is ldontiflod na an importonl valuo, 44 JlR 

G~UZ {NoveOlbur 30, 1979). 'l'ho axtent o! a 

!lmndatory .Class r area Indudt>S subsoquc:nt ehn.ngcs 

m bnundant3S, such as park oxporuious. o;~ l!.S.C. 

7472(<~). Althm.:sh alatos o.ud tribes may designate 

as Cl<~s:. l nddltionn.l arnos: \\.'hkh thoy consider to 

have ~i,ibility ru: nn impOTti!IIl \'alu~. the 

rcquir~Jrncms of tho visibility progt;lm :ocl forth in 

section 1 GOA ot th1.1 Ci\A apply only to "mandn.:orv 

Closs I Fl!doral areas," Each mnndatcry Class r 4 

Fndoro~:J llrtla is rho Nspon.>ibility of o "Fudurn[ Land 

Mntt(!gor."'lZ U.S.C. 7602(1), \\1hun Wit uso tho t<orm 

"Cln~? 1 nrc!l,'' we moan "mnndntnn· ClM:o~ r Federal ur""'• 

Federal araas which impairment results 

fmrn manmade air vollution." On 

Decambe1· 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

''reasonably altributable" to a single 

source or small group of sources k:no-..vn 

as, ''reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment" [RA VI). 45 FR 80084. 

These rogulalions represented the first 

phase in addressing visibility 

impainnent. EP .A deferred action on 

regional hazo that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scir.mtific knowledge 

about the relationships betweon 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

·were improved. · Congress addEtd section 169B to the 

GAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated the R!:!gional 

Haze Rule [RHR) on july 1, 1999 [64 FR 

35713.). The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations to integrate into 

the regul::~.tions provisions adrlrossing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional hazfJ, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA's visibility protection 

regulations at 10 CFR 51.300-309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

hazFJ requirements are summarized in 

section liT. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP a.pplies to all 50 states, 

the: Disi..TJct of Columbia, and the Virgin 

Islands.• 

C. Roles of Agencles in Addressing 

Regio.'1al Haze 

Successful implementation ofthH 

regional haze program will require long· 

term rogional coordination amoncr 

states, tribaJ govornments. and F:dentl 

agencies. Pollution affecting the air 

quality in Class I areas can be 

transported over long distances, even 

hundreds of kilometers. Thttrefore, 

effectively addressing the problem of 

visibility impairmont in Class I areas. 

menns tl1atstates need to develop 

coordb1ated stratagios that take into 

account the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality of another 

state. 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes to a:Jdress ~risibility impuirment 

from a regwnal perspective becauso the 

pollutants that lead to regional haze can 

origin .. a.te from sourcos located across 

broad goographic areas. Five regional 

planning organizatioru; (RPOs) were 

developed to address ragi.onal haze and 

~ :\lbuqucrque!Beml!iillo County, .N'tlw Mini co 

must al$t) sltllm.Jt ;s roglolltll hww SIP to .,ati.!lfy the 

soction ltO{aJ[Z}(D) requirctuenls of tho C1\1\ f<~r tho 

,.nliro 1=rntn nndar tbfl Nnw }.fo:..len A!1'QII.,l1t)> Gomrol •\ct tso.c:tion 74-2-4). 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

3968 Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 17 /Thursday, January 26, 2012 /Proposed Rules 

related issues. The RPOs first oval tlated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country 

Hnd then pursued the de\relopmsut of 

regional strategies to reduce PM2.s 

emissions and other pollutants leading 

to regional haze. 

.The MidwestRPO (MRPO) is a 

collaborative effort CJf state gm•ornmcmts 

and various Federal agencies 

l'IStablishod to initiate and coordinate 

activities associated \-\•ilh the 

management of regional haze, vjsibility, 

and other air quality issur.s in the 

1-.Hd\\'est. The member states are Illinois, 

Indiana. Michigan, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin. 

m. \\That arc the requirement!> for 

regional haze SIPs? 

Regi anal haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress tO\\'ard tlw national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. Section 

1G9A of the CAA and EPA's 

implementing regulations require .states 

to establish long·term strategies for 

making ronsonabla progress toward 

meeting this goal. Plans must also give 

specific attention to certain stationary 

sources that wero in existence on i\ugust 7, 1977, bul were not in 

operation before August 7, 1962, and 

must roqu.i:re those sources to install 

emission controls reducing visibiltty 

impairment if appropriate. The specific 

regional haze SIP requimmenls are 

discussed in further detail below. 

A. Detennination of BaseHneJ Natural, 

and Current \lfsibiliiy Conditions 

The RHR establishes the dociviewJ 

(dv) as tht~JJrinr::ipa] metric or unit for 

V>.:pressing visibility impairment. This 

visibility metric expresses uniform 

proportional changes in haziness in 

terms of common increments across the 

entire rRllge of visibilit}r conditions. 

from pristine to extremely hazv 

conditions. Visibility ex.Pressed in 

deci;news is determined by using air 

qu~tty_measurements to estimate light 

extmctlon and then transforming the 

value of light extinction using a 

logarithm function. The dociview ls a 

more useful measure for trading 

proglt'.ss in improving visibility than 

light extinction itself because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in \~isibility perceh>ed by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview. 

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs, defining baseline, current, and 

"Thu preamblu to thl' RHR prcvJdes addHionnl 

dotllil$ nl.Jout the dotMCJ\.,., f:J4 l-"R 35714, 35i25 

Ouly 1., 1'399}. 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

"reasonable progress" toward the 

m1tionaJ goa] of preventing and 

remedying visibility irnpairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

c!.ir pollution. The national goal is a 

:roturn to natural conditions such that 

anthropogenic sources of air pollution 

would no longer impair visibility in 

Class I areas. To track changes in visibility over time at onch of the 1SG Class! areas covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 01.401-437) and as part of the 

precess for doterrnining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

de~'l"ee of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I anm at the time of er:~ch 

regiouul haze SIP submission and a[ the 

progress review every five years, 

miclway through each lO·year 

implementation pari ad. The RHR 

requires states \vith Class I areas (Cias~ 

I states) to determine tho degree of 

impairment in deciviews fo! the average 

of the 20 percent least impaired [b~st) 

and 20 ,petcent most impaired (worst) 

visibility days over a specified time 

pariod at each of its CJnss J aroas. Each 

state must also de~,.elop nn estimate of 

natural visibility condltions for the 

purpose of cmnpariug progress toward 

the national goal. Natural visibility is 

determined by estimating the natural 

concentrations of pollutants that cause 

visibility impairment and then 

calculating total light extinction based 

on those estimates. EPA has provided 

guidance to states regarding how to 

calculate baseline, natural. and curront 

visibility conditions in documents 

titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimailitg 

Notu.rol Visibility Conditions Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, 

(EPA-454/B-{)3-005 located at http:// 

w¥vlv.epo.gov/ttncoaa1./t1/memoranda/ 

rh_envcurhr_gd.prij) (hereinafter 

referred to as ''EPA's 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidnnce'') nnd Guidance for 

Tracking Progrvss Under the Re.oional 

Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-{)3--G04 o 

September 2003 located at http://www. 

epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t11memoranda!rh 

tpurhr_gd.pd!J (EPA's 2003 Tracking 

Progres-s Guidance). 

For the fl.rst regional hnze s:p, tl.te 

ubaseline visibilitv conditions" are the 

starting points for~ assessing ''current'' 

visibilit)r impainnent. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree nf 

visibility impairmGnt for the 20 percrmt 

best days and 20 percent worst davs for 

each calendar year from 2000 to 200·1. 

Using monitoring data fm 2000 through 

2004, states calculate the average degree 

of vjsibility impairment for each Class I area. basad on the average of annual 

values over the five·year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indic11tes the amount of 

improvement necessnry to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

ofbaselino conditions to the then 

curnml conditions \\'ill indicate the 

antol.lnl of progress made. In general, the 

ZOOQ to 2004 baseline period is 

consMered tho timP. from tvhich 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

B. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals {RPGs) 

The vehicle for eDsuring continuing 

progtes::; towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the s-tate~ that establish two distinct RPGs, 

one for the best days o.nd one for the 

worst days for every Class I area for each 

approximately lO·year implementation 

period, The RHR does not mandata 

specific milestones or rates of progress, 

but instead calls for states to estnblish 

goals that provide for ''reasonable 

progress" toward achieving natural 

visibility condi.Uons. In settingRPGs, 

Class I states must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the worst 

days over the approximntdy 10-year 

pariod of tha SIP and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for tho bast 

days. 

Class I states have significant 

discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 

required to consider the following 

factors established in section 16£1A of 

the C/>.11. and in EPA's RHR et 40 CFR 

51.30B(d)(l)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; {2) the time necessary for 

compliance: (3) the energy and non·air 

qualitv environmental impacts of 

camp fiance; and, (4) lhA romaining 

useful life of auy potentially affected 

sources. The state must demonstrate in 

its SIP how tho.:se fnctars are considered 

when selecting the RPGs for the best 

and worsl days for each applicable Class 

I atea. States have considerable 

flexibility in hO\\" thev take these factors 

into consideration, aS noted in EPA's 

Guid~nce jol' Setting Reasonable 

Progress Goals Undar the Regional Haze 

Program, ('iEP A's Reilsonable Prooress 

Guidance.,), July 1, 2007, m=or~dum from \'\/'j]}iam L. Wehrum, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, to l!."PA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 

4-2, 5-l). In setting the RPGs, statos 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility · 

conditions Ly 2064 ("uniform rate of 

PTD8ress" or "glide path"] and the 

amiss ions reduction needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the 

approximately lO·year period of the SIP. 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 17 /Thursday, January 26, 2012/Proposed Rules 3969 

In setting RPGs, each Class I state must 

also consult with potentially 

contributing states, i.e. those states that 

may affect visibility impairment at the 

ClaSs I state's areas. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

C. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CA..A... directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

conh·ols at certain older large stationary 

sources to address visibility impacts 

from these sources. Specifically, CAA 

section 169A(b)(2)(A) requires states to 

revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing mnjor 

stationary sources built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

BART as determined by the state. The 

set of "major stationary sources" 

notentially·subjer.:t to BART is listed in 

t:AA section 169A(g](7). The state can 

require source-specific BART controls, 

but it also hns the flexibility to adopt an 

alternative such as a tiading program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

progress towards improving visibility 

than BART. 

On july B, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze n.ule at 

Appendix Y to 40 GFR Part 51 (BART 

Guidelines) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. A state must use the 

approach in the BART Guidelines in 

making a BART determination for fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating units 

(EGUs) with total generating capacity in 

excess of 750 megawatts. States are 

encouraged, but not required, to follow 

the BART Gnidelines in making BART 

determinations for other sources. States must addl·ess aJl visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO,, NOx. and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. States may select an exemption 

threshold value for their BART 

modeling under the BART Guidelines, 

below which a BART-eligible source 

""-'Ould not be expected to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The state must 

document this exemption threshold 

value in the SIP and must state the basis 

for its soloclion of U1nt vc.luo. The 

exemption threshold set by the state 

should not be higher than 0.5 dv. Any 

source v..-ith emissions that model above 

the threshold value would be subject to 

a BART determination review. The 

BART Guidelines acknowledge va..--ying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Glass I areas at issue and the 

magnitude ofthe individual source's 

impact. Tho state must identify potential 

BART sources in its SIP, described as 

"BART ~eligible sourcos" in the RHR, 

and document its BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g](2] of the GAA requires the state 

to consider the following factors: (1) The 

costs of compliance; (2) the energy and 

non·air quality environmental impacts 

of compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source: 

(4) the remaining useful life of tho 

source; and, (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. A regional 

haze SIP must include source-specific 

BART emission lim.its and compliance 

schedules for each source subject to 

BART. The BART controls must be 

installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years after the date of EPA's 

approvaJ of the state's .regional haze SIP. 

CAA section 169(g)(4); 40 GFR 

51.308(e][1)[iv). In addition to what is 

required by the RHR, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all rogulatory requirements 

related to monitoring. reco:rdkeeping, 

and reporting for the DART controls on 

the source. 

D. Long-Term Strategy 

Consistent ·with the roquirement in 

section169A(b] of the CAA that states 

include in t11eir regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section51.308(d](3] 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a long-term strategy (LTS) in their 

regional haze SrPs. The LTS is the 

compilation of atl control measures a 

state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include enforceable 

emissions Umitatioos, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the RPGs for all 

Class I areas \"lithin or affected by 

emissions from the stare. 40 CFR 

51.30B(d][3). 

\'\Then n state's emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or conlribute to vl~ibiliLy impairment in a 

Class I area focated in another state, the 

RHRrequires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 

40 CFR 51.308(d](3](i). in such cases, 

the contributing state must demonstrate 

that it has included in its SIP all 

measures necessarv to obtain its share of 

lhe emission reduCtions nooded to meat 

the RPGs for the Glass I area. The RPOs 

havo provided fonuns for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between states may be 

requited to address interstate visibility 

issues sufficiently, 

States should Consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including statiomuy, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describo how each of the follov.fing seven factors are taken into account in 

developing their LTS: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air poUution 

control programs, including measures to 

address RA VI; (2) measures to mitigate 

the irnoacts of construction activities; 

(3) emissions limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; and, (7) the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period 

addressed by tho L TS. 40 GFR 

51.308[d](3](v). 

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment Long· Term Strategy 

EPA revised 40 GFR 51.306(c) as part 

of the RHR regarding the L TS for RA VI 

·to require that the RA VI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years unti1 the date of submission 

of the state's first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment in 

accordance with 40 GFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). The stnte must revise its plan to 

provide for review and revision of a 

coordinated LTS for addressing RA VI 

and regional haze on or before this date. 

It must also submit the first such 

coordinated L TS with its first regional 

haze SlP. Future coordinated LTSs, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(!) and 51.3Utl(g], respectively. 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

3970 Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 17/Thursday, january 26, 2012/Proposed Rules 

The periodic review of a state's LTS 

must report on both regional hazB and 

RA Vl impairment and be submitted to 

EPA as a SIP revision. 

F. Monltoring Strategy and Othar 

ImplementaUon Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of tho RI-IR 

includes the requirement for a monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impaim'lent that is 

representative of all mandatory Class r 

Federal areas within the stat~.- The 

strategy must be coordh1ated with. tho 

monitoring strategy required in section 

5l.305 for RA VI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the HviPHOVE network, 

meaning that the stale reviews nnd uses 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy must rdso provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

I~·fPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whGthAr RPGs \..:ill b~' met. 

The monitoring strategy is duo \-Vith tho 

flrst regional haze STP and must be 

reviewed every five years, 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: • Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatorv Class I nreas to 

rletermine the Contribution of emissions 

from within tha state to regiomll haze 

visibility impnirment at Class I areas 

both wilhin and outside of the state: • Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class 1 aroas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

Yisibiiity impairment at Class I areas in 

olher states. 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I BI'ea in 

the state, and where possible in 

electronic format; 

• A statewide inventory of omissions 

of pollutants that are reas'Onably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

Tha inventory must include emissions 

for a baseline yoar, emjssions for the 

most recent year with available data, 

and future projected emissions. A state 

must also rna ke u commitment to up date 

the inventory periodically; and • Other efements including reporting, 

record..lc.eeping, and other moasures 

nocessary to assess and report on "i.'i.Sibility: 

Tho RHR J'equiros control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018 with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, us appropriate, ~:~very 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements oi :section 51.J08(d) 

with tho exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue ta comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP ·revisions will assure 

that tho statutory requirom.ont of 

reasonable progress wm continue to be 

met. 

G. Consultation Wil11 Stales and Federal 

l..(md Managers 

The RHR requ.ii'BS that stat-es corum]t 

with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

before adopting and submitting their 

SIPs. 40 CFR 51.3DB(i). States must 

provide FLMs an opportunHy for 

consultation, in person and a.t least 60 

days prior to holding any public hearing 

on thG SIP. This consultation must 

include the opportunity for the FLM.s to 

discuss thl'lir assessment of impairment 

of visibility in any Class I area and to 

offur recommendations on the 

development of the RPGs and on the 

development and implementation of 

strategies tu address vbiibility 

impairment. Further, a state must 

include in its SIP a description of how 

il addressed any comments provided. by 

the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide 

procedures fo:r continuing consultation 

between the state and FLMs regarding 

the state's visibility protection program. 

including development and mviow of 

SIP revisions, five-year progress report5, 

and thB implementation of other 

programs having the potential to 

· contribute to impairment of visibility io 

Class I areas. 

IV. ·what is EPA's analvsis oflllinois' r~giOJJa1 haze plan?" . -

Illinois submitted its .regional haze 

p1an on Tune 24, 2011, which included 

revifiions to the Illinois SIP to address 

regional haze. 

A. Class I Areas 

States are required· to address regional 

haze affecting Class J areas within a 

st.1.to and in Glass I areas outside lhe 

state that may be affected by the state's 

emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(d). Illinois 

docs not have ony C1nss I areas within 

tho state. ll1ino.ts reviewed technical 

analyses conducted by MRPO to 

determine what Class I areas outside the 

stato are affected by Illinois emission 

sources. M.RPO conducted both a back 

trajectory analysis and modeling to 

determine the affects of its states' 

emissions. The conclusion from the 

technical analysis is thn.t emissions from 

Illinois sources affect 19 C]ass I a1·eas. 

Tho affected Class I areas are: Sipsey 

Wilderness Area in Alabama: Caney 

Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness 

Areas in Arkansas; MEJmmotb Cave in 

Kentuck.-v: Acadia National Park and 

MoosebOrn '..Vildorness i\.rea in Maine; 

Isle Royal• National Park and Seney 

\Vildamess Aroa in Michigan; Boundary 

Waters CanoB Wilderness Area in 

Mlnnesota: Hercules-Glades and Mingo 

Vli1derness Areas in Missouri; Creat 

Gulf\\THderness Area in New 

Hampshire; Brigantine VVilderness Area 

in Now Jersey; Groat Smok.-y Mountains 

National Park in North Carulina and 

Tennesseo; L\•e Brook Wilderness Area 

in Vermont; james Ri'-•er Face 

VVilderness Area and Shenanr.l.oah 

National Pork in Virginia: and, Dolly 

Sods/Otter Creek Wilderness Arou. in 

\'Vest Virginia. 

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural 

Conditions 

Th~ RHR requires states with Class I areas to calculate the baseline and 

natural conditions for their Class I areas. 

Because Illinois does not have auy Class 

I areas, it was not required to address 

the requirements fo.r calculating 

baseline and natural conditions. 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

Class I states must set RPGs tb.at 

achieve rca:-;onable progress toward 

achieving natural visibility conditions. 

Because 11linois does nat have anv Class 

! areas, ·it is not required to establish 

RPGs. lllinols consulted with affected 

Clt~ss I states to ensure that it achieves 

its share of the overall emis:::;ion 

reductions necessary to achieve the 

RPGs of Class I areas that it impacts. 

Illinois's coordination with affected 

Class I states "is discussed under Illinois 

Long Torm Strategy, in Sectio11. IV. E. 

nlinois included the 11RPO technical 

support document (TSD) in its 

submission. In Section 5 of the TSD, 

MRPO assessod the reasonable progress 

for regional haze. [t first assessed 

potential control measures using tl1e 

four factors required to be consi dared by 

Class I states when selecting the RPGs: 

the cost of compliance, time needed, 

energy and non~air impacts, and 

remaining usefullifu nf any potentially 

nffec:ted sourcos, Tha cost of compliance 

ft~ctor jncludes co.lcuJuting the average 

cost effectit.toness and can include costs 

to hoalth and industry vitnlity as well as 

considering the different visibility 

effects of different pollutants. Tho time 

n.ecessary for compliance factor 

cunsldcrs whether control measures can 

be implemented by 2018. Tha third 

factor, energy and non-air quality 

impacts. considers additional energy 

consumed by or bocause of thn control 

measuta as well as effects due to wasto 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

Federal Register/Val. 77, No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012iProposed Rulos 3971 

generated or water consumption. The 

final factor, remaining useful life, allows 

states to consider planned source 

retirements in calculating costs. 

MRPO also assessed the visibility 

benefits of exisling programs. MRPO 

considered (,Jxisting on-highway mobile 

source, off-highway mobile sourc~, area 

source, power plant, and olher pmnt 

source programs. MRPO also. included 

reductions from the Clean A~r Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) in its analysis. as well from 

rules adopted by Illinois and included 

in its regional haze SIP requiring the 

control of emissions f:rom EGUs. 

Illinois has a distinctive situation 

reaardi.ng CALR, insofar as it has 

alopted state rules that rr:quirC3 EGUs to 

control NOx and S02 emissions beyond 

the control expected from CAIR, even in 

the absence of CAll\1 particularly by 

2018 and beyond. Further discussion of 

these Illinojs rules is provided below. 

The RPGs that pertinent Class I states 

have adapted are predicated on other 

contributing states achieving the EGU 

emission reductions anticipated under 

CAIR. Since Illitwis is mandating a 

greater degree of coutrol than is 

expected from other states, EPA 

concludes that Illinois's regional haze 

plan is expected to provide emission 

reductions representing an appropriate 

contribution toward meeting tha RPGs 

for the affected ClRss I nreas, 

irrespective of tho status of CAIR and 

irrGspective of the associatod issues 

regarding the adequacy of other state's 

plans. For similar reasons, EPA bnlieves 

that the approvability of the Illinois 

pion js Hlso not affected by the status of 

tho Transport Rule, which was 

promulgated ou August a, 2011 al 76 FR. 

48200 and stayed on December 30, 

2011. 

D. Best Available Retrofit Tachnalagy 

States are required to submit an 

irnplemontation plan containing 

emission limitations representing BART 

and schedules for compliance with 

BART for each BART-eligible source 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

cause or contribute to nny impairment 

in a Class 1 area. unless tl11:1 State 

demonstrates that an emissions trading 

program or other alternative will 

achieve greater reasonable progress 

towHrd natural vi.sibilitv conditions. 40 

CFR 51.300(e). • 

Using the criterin in the BART 

Guidance at 40 CFR 51.308(a) and 

Appendix Y, Illinois· first identified all 

ofthe BART ·eligible sources and 

asse~sed whether the BART-eligible 

sources were subject to BART. nlinoi.s 

initially identiflad 26 potential BART 

facilities-11 EGUs, four petroleum ren ne1:1~s, Utree cl1em\cal process 

plants, two Portland cement plants, two 

ulnss fiber processing plants, one lime 

Plant, and one iron and steel plant. The 

state further analyzed these facilities to 

idantify those sources subject to BART. 

Illinois relied on modeling conducted 

by MRPO using a modeling protocol 

MRPO developed. MRPO conferred with 

its states1 EPA, and the FLMs in 

develop ina its B1\RT modeling protocol. 

EPA guid~ce says that, "any threshold 

lhat you use for determining whether a 

source 1COntributes' to visibility 

impairment should not be higher than 

0.5 dv." The Guidelines affirm that 

states are free to use a lower threshold 

if the locution of a Iorge number of 

BART~eligible sources in proximity of a 

Class I aroa justifles this approach. 

ltlinois: used a contribution threshold of 

0.5 dv for determining which sources 

W1Urant being subject to BART. Illinois 

concluded that the threshold of 0.5 dv 

was appropriate since its BART-eligible 

souxcss are located state~wide and no 

Class I areas are nearby causing Illin_ois 

to correctlv conclude that a strictor 

contributiOn threshold is not justi fled. 

The modeled impact of theso fac:iliti'es 

indicated that 11 sourcas have at least 

0.5 dv impact (98th percentile) and thus 

ai-e subject to BART. The 11sources 

determined to bo subject to BART are 

nine EGUs and two petroleum 

rafinaries. The other 15 potential BL\RT 

sources were deterlnined not to be 

subject to BART because the analysis 

showed impacts well below the 0.5 dv 

contribution threshold. 

The EGUs subject to BART are: • Dynegy Midwest GeneratingBaldwin BoHers 1, 2, and 3. 

• Dominion Kincaid GeuorotionBoilers 1 and 2. 

• Ameren Ene!bry GeneratingCoffeen Boilers CB-1 and CB-2. 

• Ameren Energy Generating-E.D. 

Edwards Boilers 2 and 3. 

• Ameren Ene:rgy Generating-Duck 

Creek Boiler 1. 

• Mid1vest Gcneration-Powerton 

Boilers 51, 52, 61. and 62. 

• Midwest Generation-Joliet Boilers 

71, 72, 61. and az. 

• Midwest Generation-Will Countv 

Boiler 4. ~ 

• City Water, Light, and PowerDallman Boiler 1 and 2. • City \'\Tater, Light, and PowerLakeside Boiler 8. 

To address mercu.ry emissions from 

EGUs. Illinois adoptod Part 225 of 

Illinois's air pollution regulations, 

entitled "Control of Emissjons from 

Large Combustion Sources," Tn tllis rule, 

Illinois offered affected liti.lities'two 

options, one of which imposes stringent 

limits on mercury emissions alone and 

the other of which mandates 

implementation of specific mercury 

control technology in conjunction with 

satisfaction of stringent emission limits 

for S02 and NOx. Part 225 includes 

section 225.233J entitled "MultiPollutant Standards,'' addrGssing 

emissions from facilities m¥ned by 

Ameren and Dynegy, and sections 

225.293 to 225.299, collectively referred 

to as tho Combined Pollutant Standards 

(CPS), addressing emissions ~om . 

fadlitios owned by Mid\\'est Generation. 

rn all cases, the utilities ha\·e selectE:ld 

the option including mercury control 

toclmology and applicability of the SO, 

and NOx limits. The emission lirnit.'l are 

in the earlier 11oted sections of the stato 

rules, so tl1ese 802 and NOx limits are 

now fullv enforceable by the state. 

Tho srJ .. and NOx emission limits in 

Part 225 ~les reflect substantial 

averaging across units and across . 

facilities. For exantple, the collecti vo set 

of facilities in Illinois owned by 

Midwosl Generation {as listed in the 

Part 225 rules] are subject to NOx and 

S02 limits bused on annual average 

emissions across all facilities. The limit 

for NOx emissions is 0.11 pounds per 

million British Thermal Units (lb/ 

MMBTU) starling in 2012 and the limits 

for so, are 0.15lb/MMBTU in 2017 and 

0.11 IbiMMBTU starting in 2019. The 

collecti\•e set of Amt!rG-n facilities in 

1Uinois, under the: Multi*Pollutant 

Standards (MPS), mu!>t meet an annual 

average omission limit for NOx of 0.11 

lbiMMBTU stwting in 2012 and for S02 

of0.23 lb/MMBTU starting in 2017. 

Similar limits under the MPS apply to 

the Dyuegy facilities in l!Hnois. 

EPA b(lliGves this degree of averaging 

is accaptable in this conte>.i. The limits 

that Illinois has imposed are sufficiently 

strlngent that the companies have only 

limited latitude to O\'er control at some 

faciliti.es in trade for having elevated 

Gmissiom.· at other facilities. The 

facilities owned by each company are 

sufficiently close to each other, relative 

to their distances from the nearest Class 

I areas, that m:Jdest shifts in emissions 

from one facility to another should havs 

minimal impact on the comhined 

impact on ragionnl haze at tho Closs l 

nreas. Furtherm,ore, regional haze is 

evaluated across a considerable number 

of days, e.g., the 20 percent of days with 

the worst visibility. Therefore, a limil 

that allows elevated emissions au 

individual days, so long as other days 

have lower emissions~ should suffice to 

address the pertinent measures of 

regional haze. IlHnois's limJts should 

also be adequotely enforceable since the sources at issue Bro required to conduct 

continuous emission mnnitorin_g of both 

SO, and NOx. 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 ***** 

Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 171 Thursday, Januar)' 26, 2012 I Proposed Rules 3973 

authority in the SIP and submitted the 

two permits as part of its Regional Haze 

plan to ba incorporated into the SIP. 

The permits set Federally enforceable 

NOx :md S02 limits as nocessary to 

mset the Regional Haze requirements of 

the CAA and effectivelv mandate that 

the utilities to rw1 the ScRs y1mrround 

and for CWLP to shut down its Lakeside 

unit B. 

Two petroleum refineries, the CITGO 

and Ex..-xon Mobil refineries, also have 

units subject to Bi\RT: the C!TGO 

refinery in Lernont.lllinois and tho 

Exxon Mobil refinery south of JolitJL 

Illinois. Both refineries v.rill be required 

to reduce emissions bv a Federal 

consent decree :resolving an 

enforcemsnt action brought by EPA 

against a number ofrofinnries. The 

consent decrees require the CITGO, 

Exxon Mobil, and the othf!t refineries to 

opernte controls at the Best Available 

Control Tachnology level. Illinois 

evaluated the subjecHo-BART units nt 

the CITGO and Ex-xon Mobil refineries. 

It found that the NOx and S02 emission 

limits on the. su.bject·to-B.o\RT u11its in 

tha com:ont decreos satisfy BP...RT. 

A consent decree between the United 

States and Cfl'GO Petroleum 

Corporation was entered in the U.S. 

District Court for the Southern District 

of Texas on October 6, 2004 (No. H-04-

3883). The consent decree requires the 

company to operate SCR and a wet 

scmbbing system at its Fluid Catalytic 

Cracking Unit (FCCU] that wUII·educe 

NOx emissions by more than 90 percent 

and SD2 omissi:::ms by 85 percent. The 

co·ntrols on the FCCU will result in a 

reduction of NOx. omisslous from 

1,065.7 to 106.6 TPY and 802 emissions 

from 10,982.5 to 107.9 TPY by 2013. 

CITGO has also added a tail gas 

recovery o.nit that reduces SOz 

emissions from its sulfur train units 

from 4340.0 to 91.2 TPY, a 98 percent 

reduction. The emission controls on all 

units at GITGO's Lemont refmery will 

reduce NOx emissions by 1,268 TPY 

and S02 emissions by 15.123 TPY. 

A consent decree bet\,·eon the United 

States and Exxon Mobil Corporation was entered in the U.S. District Court 

fortha Northern District of Illinois on 

October 11, 2005 (No. 05-C-5809). The 

consent decree for Exxon Mobil requires 

SCR operation on its FCCU in nddition 

to maintenance of the existing wet 

scrubbing system. The controls on the 

FCCU result in a 1.636.2 TPY decrease 

in NOx emissions from 1,318.0 to 181.8 

'fpy nuda 9,667.7 TPY decrease io SOz 

emissions from 9,965.0 to 197.3 TPY. 

Exxon Mobil also has added a tail gas 

recovery unit on its south sulfur 

recovery unit. Thatreducos S02 P.mi.o:;,;inns by Q.15:~ R TPV ,,., 1f!R.B TPY. 

Tho emission controls at Exxon Mobll's 

Joliet refinery >vill reduce 1,695 TPY 

NOx and 18,821 TPY SO,. 

Theso two consent decrees arO" 

Federally enforceable and also require 

that the refineries submit permit 

applications to Illinois Lo i11Corporate 

the required emission limits into 

Federally enforceable air permits (othCr 

than Title V), Therefore, emission limits 

established by the co-nsent decrees may 

bo l'eliad upon by lllinois .for addressing 

tho BART requirement for these 

facilities. 

Dnsed on modeling, M.RPO 

d8termined lhal th~ visibility impact of 

dinn;tly emitted particulate matter from 

the facilities with subject to BART units 

is minimal. In JJarUcuJar, h1RPO 

assessed the impact of the directly 

emitted particulate matter from all 

facilities potontially subject to BART in 

the five MRPO states, and found the 

impact to ba lesS tlmn 0.5 dv at any 

Class I. area as compared to nntural 

background conditions. Illinois 

therefore concludes that PM emissions 

from its subset of these BART sources 

have a negligible visibility impact. · 

Furthermore, these fncilities are a1readv 

subjectta fadera.Jly enforceable PM • emission control requJremants 

mandated by SIP·app:roved state 

particulate matter regulations, so that 

thero is minimal potential for further 

P~·I emission reductions. Therefore, 

based particularly on the substantial 

existing contro1s on these facilltiesfabric filters, electrostatic precipitators, 

and cyclones; and the minlma1 bon.efits 

of furthorconb:ol, Illinois concluded 

that BART did not include further 

contrl'll of PM emissions from these 

facilities. 

EPA is satisfied with the state's BART 

d(l1ermiootions. The emission limits that 

Illinois adopted generally '\•.rill require 

state-of-tho-art omission controls, not 

just .at the units subject to BART 

requirements bul also at numerous units 

that aro not subject to BART, The 

Illinois facilities subject to BART are a 

long distance from any Class 1 area such 

that, so the geographical redistributions 

of emissions witlrin Illinois do not 

sign.ificantly affect visibility and the 

benefits of a1ternate control stratagics 

may be judged simplJ• by compnriug the 

net emission reductions. The MPS and 

CPS provide emiss-ion reduction well in 

excess of simply implementing BART on subject units. The reduction In NOx 

emissrons from the Ameren, Dynegy, 

and Midwest Generation units by 2015 

from MPS and CPS is expected to bo 

89,882 TPY .. Ulinois estimated lhat 

siDlply implementing BART on the 

subject units from these entities would 

yiold 32,00:! TPY ofNOx. ombt~ion 

reductions. which is 50,890 TPY less 

that from MPS and CPS.lllinois 

estimated that implementi.JJg DART on 

th~ subject units aLAmamn, Dyncgy, 

and Midwest Generation facilities 

would requirs an 117,252 TPY 

reduction in S02 emission, but 'MPS aDd 

CPS will roquire a 214,179 TPY so, 

reduction by 2015. Thus. Illinois 

estimated that it'> plan will require 

96,927 TPY lower S02 emissions than 

simply requiring BART. EPA bolioves 

tbat Illinois has thereby demonstrated 

the emission limits on the subject to 

BART units covered by MPS and CPS 

satisfy the BART rCquirements. 

Illinois did not rely on the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAJR) for its BART 

determinstions.lllinois is in the CAIR 

region. However, it used its stat-e rules, 

permits, und consent decrees to achieve 

emission reductions tha.t SAtisfy BART. 

This means that lllinois is not reliant on 

CAIR and, thus. it has avoided the 

issues of other CAlR region states that 

relied on CAJR For simi.lnr reasons. Illinois' satisfaction of regional haze 

rule requirements is not contingent on 

the Transport Rule and thus is not 

affected by the stay of that rule. 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

Under section 1B9A(b)(2) of tho CAA 

and 40 CFR 51.30B(d), states' rogioual 

haze progratns must inc1ud.o an LTS for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting the national visibility goal. 

Illinois's LTS must address visibility 

improvement for tho Class I areas 

impacted by flllnois sources. Section 

51.308(d)(3) requlxes that lllinois 

consult with the affected states in order 

to develop a coordinated ami.ssion 

management strategy. A contributing 

state, such as Illiuois, must demonstrdtG 

that it has included, inils SlP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emissions reductions needed to 

mP.et the RPGs for the Class I areas 

affected bv Illinois sources. As 

clescribed'in seCtion UJ.D. ofthis 

proposed l'ule, th~-J LTS is the 

compilation of all control measures 

Illinois will use to meet applicable 

RPGs. The LTS must includo 

enforceable emissions limitations, 

complianco sdmdulEls, and other 

rncnsures llli necessary to achieve the 

RPGs for all Class l areas affected by 

1Ilinois emissions. 

Illinois complied with the consulting 

requirements by participating in 

meetings and conference calls t·vith 

affected Class I states and RPOs to 

discuss the states' asscssmants of 

\'isibility conditions, analyses of 

culpability, and possible measuras that 

cot!ld be taken to rneot vi~ibility goals. lllinol~ t:mgoged in ~xte1uih•e 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/1 0/2012 

*****PCB 2012-121 * * * * * 

3974 Fede~al Register I Vol. 77, No. 17/Thursday, January 26, 2012/ Proposed Rules 

consultations "t•.:i.th other MRPO states, 

including Indiana, Michigan. Ohio, and 

Wisconsin. lllinois also consulted v .. dth 

Arkansas, Kentud.y, Minnesota, 

Missouri~ Ne<N Hampshire, New Jersey, 

and Vermont. As part of the MRPO, 

Illinois participated in inter-RPO 

consultation on regional haze. This 

consultation is detailed in Chapter 9 of 

the state's plan. EPA finds that the 

state's consultation with Class I states 

satisfies applicable consultation 

l'equiremsnrs. 

Illinois's LTS includes tho modeling 

and monitoring results on which it 

n~lied to determine its share of emission 

reductioos neccs~Hl.ry to meet the 

reasonable progress goal!i of impacted 

Class 1 areas. This information is 

provided in Chapter 9 ofthG Illinois 

regional haz:e plan. Portions of this 

technical work were provided by MH..PO 

as it worked with other RPOs tl'l provide 

this information on Class I areas outside 

the Midwest. 

At 40 CFR 51.306(d)[3)(v), the RHR 

idrmtifies saven factors that n state must 

consider in developing its LTS: [A) 

Emission reductions d.Ll.a to ongoing 

programs; (B) measures to mitigate 

impact from construction: (C) emission 

limits to.achieve tho RPG; [D) 

replacement an.d retirement of sources; 

(E} smoke management tech.Itiques; (F) 

Federally enforceable emission limits 

and control measures; and (G) the not 

effect on visibility due to projected 

emlssion changes over the LTS period. 

Illinois considered thE! sDwm factcrs in 

developing i\:5 LTS. Chapter 8 of the 

Tilinois regional haze plan provides a 

full anaJvsis of each Iactor. 

IllinoiS relied on t-.1RPO's modeling 

and analysis along with its emission 

information in dove1oping a LTS. · Jllinois considered the factors set oul in 

51.308[d)(3)[v) in developing its LTS. 

Based on these factors and the lvfRPO's 

technical annlysis, in conjunction with 

RPGs that ·were sat by the pertinent 

Class I states in consultation with 

lllinois and ather contributing states, 

illinois concludes that existing control 

programs, togcthor with lhe BART 

controls described above, address 

Illinois's impact on Class I areas. This 

is because the cornbinaOon of the 

existing controls and the TIART controls 

suffice ta meet the impncted Class I 

areas' RPGs by 2018. Those existing 

control programs include Federal motor 

vehicle emission control prognm. 

reformulated gasoline, emission limits 

for area sources ofVOCs, Title IV, the 

NDx SIP Call. NDx Reasonable 

Achievable Control Technology, 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technologv stnndnrds, and Federal non- road stu.udiin.l:.; for c:onsuuclion 

equipment ond vehicles. As discussed 

in prior sections, implementation of the 

existing control programs, 

supplemented by the controt measures 

in the submission that require power 

plant and petrolenm refinery emission 

reductions, 'lvill satisfy the LTS 

requi.rornents becnuse, for reasons 

discussed above. the expected emission 

reductions will moot requirements both 

to provide for BART and to provide 

omission reductions in Illinois thnt, in 

combination with emission reductions 

elsewhere, should impro\•e visibility 

sufficiently for the _pertinent Class I 

areas to meet their RPGs. 

Illinois sssessed all point sources in 

the state that emil at least 1,000 TPY of 

NOx and S02 combined and are more 

tlmn tOO km from a Class I area to 

detarmine if the sources could 

polcntially affect visibility in a Class l 

area. The assessment followed EPA 

guidance in calculating the ratio of 

emission rat~ in TPY (Q) to the distance 

to the nearest Class I urea (d). The 

exclusions also followed guidance. 

Illinois found 15 facilities \\;tll a Q/d 

ratio !:!qual to and greater than 10, EPA's 

recommended threshold. The results of 

the Q/d assessment Bie found in Ta!Jle 

8.1 in the Il1inois TSD. Illinois found 

that it expects the implementation of 

existing control measures will result in 

emission raductions from the 15 

facilities. As such, Illinois believes that 

the expected emission reductions will 

ensure reasonoblo progress. 

F. Monitoring Strategy 

Tllinois maintains a monitoring 

network that provides data to analyze 

air q\lality problems including regional 

haze. Illinois's monitoring network 

includes State and Local Air Monitoring 

Sites [SLAMS), Special Purpose 

Monitors [SPM), Photochemical 

Assessment Monitoring Sites (P A:\4.$), 

and PM2s speciation sites. IUi:nois does 

not operate any sites onder the 

IMPROVE program, but does have a site 

in Bond .... me, Illinois that monitors 

using the lMPROVE procedure method. 

Illinois is required under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4) to bava procedUies for 

using the monitoring data to detennine 

the contribution of emissions from 

within the statEJ to affected Class I areas. 

Tilinois developed p[ocedures in 

conjunction with the 1-ffiPO. The 

procedures are detailod in the MRPO 

TSD. EPA finds that Illin.ais's regional 

haze plan meet3 the monitoring 

requirements for the RHR and that 

Il1inois's network of monitoring sites is 

satisfactory tCl mensurn ai-r qualitj' and assess 'Its cunt.rlbulion tu regiuna haze. 

G. Federal Land .Manager Consultation 

Illinois "''as required to consult \'!"ith 

tho FLMs under 40 CFR 51.30B(i). 

Illinois consulted with the FLMs 

electronically and by telephone. The 

FLMs were also included in discussions 

with Illinois during NfRPO confe:ranco 

calls and. meetings. A draft regional haze 

plan was submitted for FLMs comments 

on August 6, 2009. IlUnois then 

provided the FLMs a revised regional 

haz13 plan on October 7. 2010 for review. 

That provided the FLMs enough time to 

comment prior to the December 6, 2010, 

public hearing on the regional haze 

plnn. Jllinois has included comments 

from the FLMs in Attachment 9 to its 

resionel haze plan. a document 

providing the commenh> Illinois 

received and its responses. The stato bas 

committed to consulting the FLMs ou future SIP revisions and progress 

reports. 

H. Comments 

Illinois took comments on its 

proposed regional haze plan. It held a 

public hearing on DeccmbGr 6, 2010. 

The public comment period ended on 

janunry 5, 20U. Evidence of the public 

notice and evidence of the public 

hen ring were submitted to EPA. 

Illinois's submission includes a 

document, Attachment 9, which 

summarized the comments it .rece[\:•ed 

from both the I'LMs and from the public 

and provides its responses to the 

comments. The state revised portions of 

its plan based on the comments to 

correct errors o.nd clarify portions that 

caused confusion. Illinois responded to 

other comments without revising its 

plan. EPA concludes that Illinois has 

satisfied the requirements from 40 CFR 

Part 51, Appendix V to provide 

evidance that it gave public notice, took 

comrrients, and that. it compiled and. 

responded to comments. 

V. \\'bnt action is EPA tBking? 

EPA is proposing to approve rcvisioos 

to the liJinois SlP, submitted on June 24, 

2011, addressing regional haze far the 

first implementation period. The 

revisions nddress CAA and regional 

hazG rule requirements for states to 

remedy any existing anthropogenic and 

prevent future impairment of visibility 

at Class I areas. EPA finds that lllinois 

has satisfied all the requirements and, 

thus, is proposing approval of the 

regional haze plan. EPA is also 

proposing to approve two state rules, 

:b-1PS and CPS, and incorporating two 

permits. issued to City Water, Light, & 

Power and to Dominion Energy. into the 

SIP. 
Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, 04/10/2012 

*****PCB2012-121 **-*** 

Federal Register /Vol. 77, No. 17 /Thursday, january 26, Z012 /Proposed Rules 3975 

VI. Stu tutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to atJprove il SrP submission 

that camulies with the provisions of the 

CA.A.. aud appHcable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410[k): 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviev·.dng SIP submissions, 

EPA's role is to apprOVG statn chokes, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as tnaeti.ng 

Fadora1 requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state low. Fo.l' that , 

reason, this action: .._ 

• Is not a "significant regulatory 

action" subject to review by the Office 

of Managemont and Budget undor 

Executive Order 12666 (SO FR .51735, 

October 4, 1993]; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provjsioos 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et soq.); 

• IS certified as nut having a 

significant economic impEJct on a 

subst3.lltial number of sma1l entities 

umlEJr the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affocl small governments, as described 

in the Unfw1.ded Mr;Uldates Reform Act 

ofl995 (Pub. L.104-4); 

• Does not have FedGrnlism 

implications a . .:; specified in Ex-ecuti\'e 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Augusl10. 

1999): 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 [62 FR 19885, April23, 1997]: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Execulive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May zz, 20011: 

• [s not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d] of the National 

Technology Tl'ansfar and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (1S U.S. C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CA.A; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discrelionnry authority to address. as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or en.....-ironmentol effects, using 

pre.cticabl!l and legolly pennissible 

methods. under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994). 

ln addition, thjs ruls does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in t})e state, and P.PA notos that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

frihallaw. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Envimi:tmental protection, Air 

pollution control, lntergoYernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

mattC:!r, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

DaiBd: January 17. 2.012. 

Susan HeUman, 

Ragional ~1dministrafor, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 20'12-1 606 Flied l-25-i2; 8:45am! 

SILUNG CODE. e,sso-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-ROS:...OAR-2011-IJ(JBO; FRL-9622-1] 

Approval and PromulgaUon of Air 

Quality Implementation Plansi lndlanaj 

Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Envll'onmen.tal Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTIO~: Proposed rule. ------- SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of revisions to the Indiana 

Stata Imp lementatiau Plan (SIP] 

addressing regional haze for the first 

implcmentlltion period. Indiana 

submitted its regional haze plan on 

January 14, 2011, and supplemented it 

on Mru·ch 10, 2011. The Indian01 regional 

haze plan nddrosses the reqLtirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements 

for statos to romcdy any existing and 

prevent futurl3 anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mand;atory 

Class 1 areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from nwna'rous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(atso refe1-red to as the "regional haze 

progr.tm"). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the notional 

goal of achieving nantral visibility 

conditions in Class I ill'Clas. EPA is 

proposing a limited Hpproval of these 

SIP revisions to implement the regional 

haze requirements for Indiana on the 

basis that the revi.sions, os o. whole. 

strengthen the Indiana SlP. Jn fl separate 

action, EPA has previously proposed a 

limited disapproval of Lhe Indiana 

regional hozs SIP because of the 

deficiencies in Indiana's ragional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the remand 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to 

EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rula 

(CAll\), Consequentiy, we are not 

proposing to take acHon in this notice 

to address tho state's reliance on CAm 

to meet certain regional haze 

roquiromont.."i. 

DATes: Comments must he received on 

or before February 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ill No. EPA-ROSOAR-2011-{)080, by one of the 

following metbcids: 

1. wwlv.regulations.go\1': Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blak.ley.parnela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: [312) 692-2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch [AR-1BJ), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 1;Vest Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, lllinois 50604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR-18)), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agoncy, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, nnd special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed informlltion. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business arc Monday through Friday, 

8:30a.m. to 4:30p.m .. excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ill No. EPA-R05-0AR-2011-

00BO. EPA's policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

dccket without change and may bn 

made a.vo.ila.ble online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBl) or nther information. 

\\·hose C.isclosure is resb-icted by J:itatute. 

Do not submit information that you 

conside'l.' to be em or othen.vise 

protected through www.regulation.'>.go~.· 

or email. The 1-nnv.reguloLions.gav Web 

site is nn "anonymous access-" system, 

which means EPA \vill not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment diToctly to EPA without going 

through w1vw.regulatlons.govyour nmail 

address will be automutically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in tho public docket and 

made available on the lnternet.lfyou 

submit 2.n electronic comment. EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact inforl'llatiou in 

the body of your comment and with nny 

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due t.o 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able Lo consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

spectai cltara.crers, any form of