ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

September 18, 2013 

ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC and 

AMERENENERGYMEDlNA VALLEY 

COGEN, LLC, 

Petitioners, 

AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, 

Co-Petitioner, 

v. 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

} 

) 

PCB 2014-010 

(Variance- Air) 

HEARING REPORT 

RECEIVED 

CLERK'S OFFICE 

SEP 1 B 2013 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Pollution Control Board 

On September 17, 20 l3, a hearing in this matter was held before the Illinois Pollution 

Control Board in Springfield, illinois. Attomey Claire Manning appeared on behalf of the 

petitioners, and attorney Renee Cipriano appeared on behalf of the co-petitioner. Attorney Gina 

Roccaforte appeared on behalf of the respondent. 

Witnesses 

The following witnesses testified during the heming: 

Mr. Dan Thompson 

Mr. George Bilicic 

Dr. Lisa Bradley, PhD 

Mr. Steven Klafka and Mr. David Johnson made oral statements on behalf of the 

Environmental Law and Policy Center. 

Approximately 160 people offered public comment at hearing. 

Exhibits 

No exhibits were offered into evidence at the hearing. 

(3 ATTACHMENT __ _ 
2 

Public Comment and Briefing Schedule 

The public comment deadline is September 24, 2013. The parties' brief's are due by 

October 7, 2013. The mailbox rule will not apply, and documents filed electronically are due by 

4:30 p.m. on the due date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Carol Webb 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19274 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274 

217/524-8509 

Carol.Webb@illinois.gov 
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

It is hereby certified that true copies of the foregoing order were mailed, first 

class, on September 18,2013, to each of the persons on the attached service lisL 

It is hereby certified that a true copy of the foregoing order was hand delivered to 

the following on September 18, 2013: 

John T. Therriault 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Carol Webb 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19274 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274 

217/524-8509 

Carol. Webb@ illinois.gov 
PCB 2014-010 

William D. Ingersoll 

Brown, Hay & Stephens LLP 

205 South Fifth Street, Suite 700 

P.O. Box 2459 

Springfield, IL 62705-2459 

PCB 2014-010 

Renee Cipriano 

Schiff Hardin, LLP 

6600 Willis Tower 

233 S. Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60606-6473 

PCB 2014-010 

Gina Roccaforte 

IEPA 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

4 

PCB 2014-010 

Claire A. Manning 

Brown, Hay & Stephens LLP 

205 South Fifth Street, Suite 700 

P.O. Box 2459 

Springfield. IL 62705-2459 

PCB 2014-010 

Amy Antoniolli 

Schiff Hardin, LLP 

6600 Willis Tower 

233 S. Wacker Drive 

Chicago. IL 60606-6473 
Electronic Filing- Racivad. Clark's Office: 09/2412013- PC# 2337 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, and 

AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY 

COGEN,LLC, 

Petitioners, 

AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, 

Co-Petitioner, 

v. 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PCB 2014-010 

(Variance- Air) 

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING 

To: Attached Service List 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 24, 2013, I electronically filed with the 

Clerk of the illinois Pollution Control Board of the State of Illinois the POST-HEARING 

COMMENTS of Environmental Law and Policy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Respiratory Health Association, and Sierra Club, a copy of which is attached hereto and herewith 

served upon you. 

Dated: September 24, 2013 

Respectfully submitted, 

Faith Bugel 

Andrew Armstrong 

Environmental Law and Policy Center 

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 

Chicago, IL 60601 

312-795-3 708 

I~ ATTACHMENT---
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/24/2013- PC# 2337 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, and 

AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY 

COGEN,LLC, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PCB 2014-010 

(Variance- Air) 

Petitioners, 

AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, 

Co-Petitioner, 

v. 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, 

Respondent. 

POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL. 

RESPIRATORY HEALTH ASSOCIATION, AND SIERRA CLUB 

Pursuant to 35lll. Adm. Code 104.224(d), Environmental Law & Policy Center, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Respiratory Health Association, and Sierra Club (collectively, 

"Citizens Groups") submit the following comments on the Petition for Variance ("the Petition") 

filed by lllinois Power Holdings, LLC ("IPH''), AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC 

("Medina Valley"), and Ameren Energy Resources, LLC ("AER") with the illinois Pollution 

Control Board ("Board") on July 22, 2013. 

The Board should deny this improper Petition for "advisory" variances from the MultiPollutant Standard's ("MPS") fleet-wide S02 emission limits from 2015 through 2019. These 

variances would confer a benefit to a handful of corporations, at an unacceptably high cost to the 

general public. Petitioner IPH would benefit, because IPH would receive a pre-transaction 

approval of its plan to operate five AER coal plants for five extra years without installing needed 

1 

. l ,, . 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/2412013 -PC# 2337 

pollution controls. Petitioner IPH's parent company, Dynegy Corporation ("Dynegy"), would 

benefit, because Dynegy's creation ofiPH as a new acquisition vehicle, with none ofDynegy's 

capital needed to install pollution controls, will have allowed Dynegy to place a risk-free bet on 

the power markets. Finally, the Ameren companies also would benefit, because AER could rid 

itself of over $800 million in debt that would be transferred to IPH-debt that Dynegy itself 

could walk away from if (most likely "when") the critically undercapitalized IPH ultimately 

fails. 

It is the rest of the State that would bear the cost of the variances. State air quality as a 

whole would suffer from five more years of excess sulfur dioxide ("S02") pollution and resulting 

fine particulate matter. Locally, the communities around AER's three unscrubbed plants-E.D. 

Edwards, Newton, and Joppa-will continue to bear pollution in excess of the recently adopted 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard ("NAAQS") for maximum hourly concentrations of S02. 

These communities also would be tied to the undercapitalized IPH, and therefore would gain 

little more certainty about the future of the plants than they have now. The Board should deny 

the Petition because the variances' negative environmental impact outweighs the hardship to IPH 

in being required to comply with the MPS, and because its request for "advisory" variances is 

legally improper. 

I. Petitioners Have Failed to Prove That Any Hardship is Not Self-Imposed. 

The Board should deny the Petition, first, because any hardship IPH claims in complying 

with the MPS would be self-imposed. In order for the Board to grant a variance, the petitioner 

has the burden of presenting adequate proof that immediate compliance with regulations would 

impose an "arbitrary or unreasonable" hardship (including that the claimed hardship outweighs 

the public interest in attaining compliance with regulations designed to protect the public). 415 

2 
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/2412013- PC# 2337 

ILCS 5/35(a); see also, e.g., Willowbrook Mote/ P'ship v. !PCB, 135lll. App. 3d 343, 345 

(1985); Land and Lakes Company v. !EPA, PCB 96-198 (Sept. 5, 1996), at 4; We, Shred It, Inc. v. 

!EPA, PCB 92-180 (Nov. 18, 1993), at 3. 

Importantly, however, a petitioner cannot meet this burden if the hardship it complains of 

is "self-imposed"-such a "hardship" simply cannot be deemed "arbitrary and unreasonable." 

See, e.g., City of Salem v. !EPA, PCB 98-1 (July 3, 1998), at 4; Bravo-Ernst v. !EPA, PCB 81-62 

(Dec. 3, 1981). Financial hardship resulting from a business decision-including a decision to 

acquire assets-is the very type of "self-imposed" hardship that cannot form the basis for a 

variance. See, e.g., Willowbrook Motel P'ship, 135 ill. App. 3d at 345 (holding that hardship was 

self-imposed where, as here, purchaser conditioned an offer to purchase property on its ability to 

obtain a variance); !EPA v. Lindgren Foundry Co., PCB 70-1 (Sept. 25, 1970) (holding that 

hardship was self-imposed where petitioners purchased of a foundry with knowledge of 

environmental compliance issues and the fact that the foundry could not be operated profitably 

without a variance); Ekco Glaco v. !EPA, PCB 87-41 (Dec. 17, 1987) (holding that "any 

hardship in complying with the 1983 regulations is largely self-imposed, in that it results from 

prior business decisions"); Skyway Realty v. !EPA, PCB 75-249 (Sept. 18, 1975), at 2 (holding 

that hardship was not arbitrary or unreasonable where an entity proceeded with the construction 

of new homes while having full knowledge of a costly existing regulation, therefore making its 

hardship self-imposed). 

In the present case, IPH's claimed "hardship" is plainly self-imposed. Most basically, the 

alleged financial hardship is solely the result of an intentionally risky business strategy that 

Dynegy- IPH's parent-is seeking to implement. This business strategy-a gamble on futnre 

energy prices-could be potentially lucrative for Dynegy shareholders if energy prices 

3 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficB: 09/2412013- PC# 2337 

unexpectedly increase. More likely, however, IPH will ultimately fail, and while Dynegy will 

not be harmed, citizens of lllinois will have suffered from years of increased air pollution by 

subsidizing Dynegy's gamble. All of this is a direct result of the intentionally irresponsible way 

in which Dynegy and IPH have chosen to structure the proposed acquisition. 

The structure of the proposed transaction is examined in detail in the expert report 

("ACM Report") 1 submitted by David Johnson' of ACM Partners in connection with the Petition. 

In his report, Mr. Johnson makes extremely clear that the structure of the proposed transaction, 

and the projected financial hardship at issue, is the direct result of an intentional business 

strategy being pursued by IPH and its corporate parent, Dynegy. 

The proposed structure of the transaction, as well as the economics of the assets being 

acquired, makes the ACM Report's conclusion fairly apparent. Dynegy, acting through IPH 

(which it, in fact, formed for this purpose), is only proposing to acquire the AER plants because 

it has negotiated what it views as a potentially lucrative business deal where it proposes to: (a) 

acquire the AER plants in a bankruptcy remote subsidiary (i.e., IPH)'; (b) not properly capitalize 

IPH or otherwise risk any significant amount of its own money;' and (iii) only commit to 

acquiring the AER plants if it gets advance approval of a variance such that IPH is not required 

1 The report includes an economic and financial analysis of the proposed transaction betv.een Illinois Power 

Holdings, LLC ("!PH"), a subsidiary of Dynegy, and Ameren Energy Resources ("AER"), as well as an assessment 

of the strength of the fmancial hardship claim brought by the Petitioners. The analysis contained in Mr . .Tohuson's 

Report is incorporated herein by reference. 2 Mr. Johnson is a recognized expert in his field, with a deep background in advising management, creditors and 

other key stakeholders on restructurings, distressed transactions, and the adequacy of proposed capital structures. 

He has authored over twenty articles in trade publications, and he routinely presents to management groups, lenders, 

and professional associations. He is also a frequent lecturer at business schools and has been cited in numerous 

business publications as a subject matter expert. 3 See ACMReport at 5, 17. 4 IPH's «thin" initial capitalization is coming from Ameren. Ameren, the seller, is committing $226 million to 

divest-i.e., get rid of-the Coal Plants. See ACM Report at 4, 6. 

4 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: DB/2412013- PC# 2337 

to immediately comply with the MPS in operating the AER plants.' After a careful analysis of 

the structure and economics of the proposed transaction, Mr. Johnson concludes that: 

The precarious financial situation that IPH will immediately find itself 

in is plainly not an accident. Dynegy has gone to lengths to structure 

the transaction in this exact manner to keep it from having to invest 

money in or otherwise properly capitalize IPH. It has highlighted the 

non-cash nature of the deal to investors, presumably to assuage 

concerns about what might otherwise appear to be a questionable 

acquisition. After all, Ameren-itself a financially troubled public 

company-is affirmatively devoting $226 million (not counting risk 

sharing on future liabilities) to divest the Coal Plants and shed 

expected future losses (and likely restructuring costs). 

In light of the above-i.e. the problematic nature of the assets being 

acquired and the likelihood that a restructuring or bankruptcy of IPH 

will be necessary in the relative short term (absent an turnaround in 

energy prices that even IPH does not predict)-Dynegy management 

has also been at pains to assure its investors that IPH is "ring-fenced" 

(i.e. Dynegy will not be harmed by IPH failing). 

In short, it appears that Dynegy-a financially viable company that 

could properly capitalize IPH if it chose to-is attempting to structure 

the acquisition to position itself to make a low risk "gamble" on future 

energy prices. If wholesale electricity prices climb une>.'])ectedly fast, 

the acquisition could be a great success, and if not-the far more likely 

outcome-Dynegy loses little even ifiPH fails spectacularly. 

Dynegy 's conscious and strategic decision not to capitalize IPH and to 

generally stmcture the proposed transaction in a manner that will 

allow it to speculate on future energy prices, more than any other 

factor, is the overriding cause of any financial hardship claim IPH is 

currently claiming. Any financial hardship is thus plainly selfimposed, and to allow a variance under the circumstances would set 

ve1y troubling precedent. It would in essence give future buyers of 

environmentally problematic assets a "blueprint" for how to structure 

the acquisition so as to manufacture a perception of "financial 

hardship" and thereby avoid environmental compliance costs. 

ACMReport at 30 (emphasis added). 

'See ACM Report at 4. 

5 
E!Bctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB : 09/2412013 - PC# 2337 

In sum, this is the exact situation that the "self-imposed hardship" standard is designed to 

protect against. In fact, granting the Petition would set an extremely dangerous precedent. This 

precedent would allow any company looking to acquire distressed assets subject to 

environmental compliance costs to (1) put the asset into a shell entity; (2) propose to 

insufficiently capitalize it; and then (3) seek advance approval of a variance to remove the 

burden of environmental compliance. 

lPH has preemptively attempted to distinguish its situation from several "self-imposed" 

hardship cases. See Petition PDF pages 52-53. This is both misleading and inaccurate at 

multiple levels. First, even the cases lPH cites plainly stand for the proposition that a hardship 

resulting from an affirmative business decision cannot form the basis for a variance. See, e.g., 

Ekco Glaco v. !EPA, PCB 87-41 (Dec. 17, 1987) (denying variance application as a result of 

finding that "any hardship in complying with the 1983 regulations is largely self-imposed, in that 

it results from prior business decisions"); Marathon Oil Co. v. IEP A, PCB 95-150 (May 16, 

1996) (holding that one's own decision-making cannot be the basis for a claim of arbitrary or 

unreasonable hardship). lPH's attempt to distinguish these cases factually-which itself is a 

stretch-does nothing to undermine the basic principle that they stand for. 

Second, Dynegy has failed to address additional case law that is on point both factually 

and legally. Specifically, in Willowbrook Motel Partnership, purchasers formed an entity-just 

like Dynegy has formed lPH here-which agreed to purchase an interest in land where a motel 

was proposed to be developed. See Willowbrook Motel P'ship v. Pollution Control Bd., 135 ill. 

App. 3d 343, 345' (1985). Just as in the present case, the proposed acquisition was conditioned 

on the partnership receiving a variance. !d. In other words, as here, the purchaser was only 

willing to proceed on the economic terms proposed if the variance request was approved. Thus, 

6 
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 0812412013- PC# 2337 

the Board properly found that there had been "no showing of arbitrary or unreasonable hardship" 

and denied the petition for a variance. See Willowbrook Motel P'ship v. !PCB, PCB 81-149 (July 

14, 1983), at 4. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the Board, holding that the proposed 

purchaser knew about the environmental restrictions, that "its development plans constituted a 

gamble to obtain permits," and that as a result its alleged hardship was self-imposed. 

Willowbrook, 135 lll. App. 3d at 345. 

Not only was the Board's decision affirmed on appeal, the appellate court also cited to 

the case of !EPA v. Lindgren Found1y Co., PCB 70-1 (Sept. 25, 1970), where purchasers of a 

foundry argued that they were facing an "arbitrary and unreasonable" hardship because they 

could not profitably operate the foundry without a variance from environmental regulations. 

According to the Appellate Court in Willowbrook: 

The Board [in the Lindren Foundry case] stated that the new owners 

had reason to know when they invested that they could not operate the 

foundry without a favorable decision on their petition for a variance, 

and so their loss of investment was a self-imposed hardship. The 

Board considered. the losses to creditors and former employees more 

sympathetically, but concluded that it was fair that the hardship be 

borne by those who would benefit from the operation. 

135 lll. App. 3d at 1036. In other words, just like Willowbrook, the Lindgren Found1y case 

makes clear that companies cannot structure an acquisition so as to require a variance--doing so 

is plainly creating a "self-imposed" hardship. 

In the present case, just like in the foregoing cases, Dynegy and IPH have intentionally 

structured the proposed transaction so that they can now argue that IPH will not be able to 

operate profitably without a variance. The transaction does not have to be structured this way. If 

Dynegy really thought this was a good bet, Dynegy has the financial resources to properly 

7 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 0912412013- PC# 2337 

capitalize IPH in order to allow it to meet its environmental obligations. 6 It has chosen not to, 

thereby imposing upon IPH the projected "hardship" IPH complains of. 7 Alternatively, if the 

AER fleet is so over-leveraged that it cannot be operated profitably and in compliance with 

environmental regulations, another possibility would have been a restructuring where 

bondholders take a "haircut" as part of a transaction that results in a viable company. 8 Dynegy is 

instead asking the public to subsidize the transaction, preventing it or current debt-holders from 

having to face up to the compliance obligations associated with the assets. 

In sum, any hardship IPH may face if the transaction goes through is plainly the result of 

the manner in which it and Dynegy have chosen to structure the proposed acquisition. Petitions 

for variances have routinely been denied where the hardship imposed on the petitioner was 

entirely self-imposed. This is especially true where the petitioner has made a business decision 

to attempt to acquire assets without assuming the environmental costs that go with it. In this 

case, the denial of a variance would not place any arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon IPH 

or Dynegy, as any hardship imposed would be of their own making. 

6 ACM Report at 15 ("It is well \\otlrin the financial capability ofDynegy to properly capitalize !PH, and Dynegy's 

failure to do so, more than any other factor, is the overriding cause of any financial hardship claim IPH may have."). 7 These facts-that !PH \\Oll be undercapitalized from the start, that Dynegy has set !PH up as a bankruptcy remote 

subsidiary, and that Dynegy is not agreeing to invest any of its own cash into the deal and has been at pains to let 

investors knO\v that it does not intend to support IPH going forward-cut directly against IPH's hardship claim. For 

example, in the Lindgren Found1y case (discussed above), purchasers of a foundry had put in little of their own 

money, and like Dynegy here, had structured the transactions so that they could easily dump the investment if it did 

not V•'ork out The Board took this into account in denying the variance request, holding that: 

We are not greatly impressed by the O\vners' o\vn alleged losses. In the first 

place, they can cut and run if prospects dim; they will not be stuck \\~th a 

million-dollar plant they cannot sell or \\oth the obligation to pay half a nrillion 

in old debts. They will lose, at most, $70,000 by their own evidence. 

Lindgren Found1y, PCB 70-1 (Sept. 25, 1970) 

8

In fact, a potential restructuring is likely only being postponed by structuring the transaction in this manner. See 

ACM Report at 16 ("Based on the high fixed costs that independent power producers wrestle with, and the highly 

leveraged capital structure of a post-transaction IPH, there is a reasonable concern that such a restructuring will not 

be avoided, but only deferred.".) 

8 
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/24/2013- PC# 2337 

II. IPH's Proposed Variance Would Threaten Public Health. 

The Petition also should be denied because IPH's proposed variance would have a 

significant negative environmental impact that outweighs IPH's self-imposed hardship. The 

excess S02 emissions permitted by the variance would cause both I) local health impacts in the 

communities around unscrubbed AER plants through direct short-term exposure to S02 and 2) 

degradation of air quality throughout the State (and region) through transformation of S02 into 

fine particulate matter ("PM2.5"). 

In evaluating whether a proposed variance is necessary to avoid an "arbitrary or 

unreasonable hardship," 415 ILCS 5/35, the Board must balance individual hardship against 

environmental impact. Monsanto Co. v. !PCB, 67lll. 2d 276, 292 (1977). IPH bears the burden 

of demonstrating that "the hardship resulting from a denial of the variance outweighs any injury 

to the public or the environment from a grant of the variance." Marathon Oil Co. v. !EPA, 242 

ill. App. 3d 200, 206 (5th Dist. 1993). This entails an analysis of both I) "the nature and amount 

of emissions ... if the variance is granted, compared to those that would result if immediate 

compliance were required" and 2) a "qualitative and quantitative description of the impact of 

petitioner's activity on human health and the environment if the requested variance is granted, 

compared to the impact of petitioner's activity if immediate compliance is required." 35lll. 

Adm. Code 104.204(g). 

In this case, IPH has understated both the amount of excess S02 emissions that would be 

attributable to its proposed variance and the emissions' impact on public health. In calculating 

the amount of emissions if the variance is granted, IPH relied upon outdated average heat inputs 

for the AER plants from up to seven years ago. That is inconsistent with the approach the Board 

approved in assessing the environmental impact of the variance granted to Midwest Generation 

9 
Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office : 09/2412013 - PC# 2337 

earlier this year. See Midwest Generation, LLC v. !EPA, PCB 13-24 (Apr. 4, 2013), at 66 

(relying upon average annual heat input of four most recent years to assess environmental 

impact). IPH also improperly relies upon "credits" from the shutdowns of the Meredosia and 

Hutsonville plants, even though those plants are no longer relevant for MPS compliance 

purposes. As discussed in Section III.B, below, Citizens Groups' analysis of the variance using 

appropriate heat inputs, and excluding Meredosia and Hutsovnille, shows that the variance would 

yield almost 50,000 tons more S02 emissions from the fourth quarter of2013 through 2020 than 

would compliance with the MPS. Citizen Groups' analysis is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

Even more, IPH has failed to adequately characterize the public health impacts of the 

AER plants' S02 emissions. IPH does not acknowledge the localized impact that the three 

unscrubbed AER coal plants-E.D. Edwards, Joppa, and Newton-have on surrounding 

communities. This impact is demonstrated by the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency's ("U.S. EPA") recent designation of the community surrounding the E.D. Edwards 

plant as nonattainment for the latest National Ambient Air Quality Standard ("NAAQS") for 

S02, as well as by the dispersion modeling analyses presented by Mr. Steven Klafka. Mr. 

Klafka's analyses predicted that each of the three unscrubbed plants cause NAAQS exceedances, 

whether based on pennitted or measured actual emissions. Contrary to Petitioners' attempts to 

minimize the harm of S02 pollution in general, NAAQS exceedances reflect that current 

emissions from the AER plants already are threatening public health. Any further delay in MPS 

compliance will mean further harm. 

10 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/2412013- PC# 2337 

A. The Proposed Val"iance Would Cause Localized Envh·onmental Harm By 

Allowing the Continued Ope•·ation of Unscrubbed Coal Plants. 

IPH has failed to acknowledge that its proposed variance would delay the installation of 

pollution controls or curtailment of operations for one or more of AER's three unscrubbed coal 

plants. As a consequence, the variance would allow a negative environmental impact-local 

exceedances of the 2010 NAAQS for S02-to continue through the end of the decade. 

IPH in this proceeding appears to question the premise that direct S02 exposure has any 

demonstrable negative health impact. IPH is flatly wrong. U.S. EPA has found that direct shortterm exposure to S02 is linked to "an array of adverse respiratory effects including 

bronchoconstriction [i.e., the constriction of airwaves] and increased asthma symptoms." U.S. 

EPA, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/health.html. To address direct short-term 

exposure, U.S. EPA in 2010 promulgated anew primary NAAQS setting a maximum hourly 

ambient air concentration for S02 of 75 parts per billion. U.S. EPA, P1immy National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard for Sulfio· Dioxide, 75 Fed. Reg. 35520 (June 22, 201 0). 9 In setting the 

standard, U.S. EPA considered a "broad range of scientific information" and ultimately 

concluded that the new NAAQS was "necessary to provide increased public health protection for 

at-risk populations against an array of adverse respiratory health effects related to short-term 

(i.e., 5 minutes to 24 hours) exposures to ambient S02." ld. at 35541. 

U.S. EPA set the NAAQS pursuant to Section 109(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7409, which directs the U.S. EPA to promulgate "primary" and "secondary" NAAQS for 

pollutants for which air quality criteria have been issued. Section 1 09(b )(1) defines a "primary" 

standard as one "the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, 

9 Specifically, the standard is based on the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the yearly distribution of !-hour 

daily maximum S02 concentrations. ld. at 35222. 

11 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/24/2013- PC# 2337 

based on the air quality criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to 

protect the public health." 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1). The Clean Air Act's legislative history 

indicates that a primary standard is to be set at "the maximum permissible ambient air level ... 

which will protect the health of any sensitive group of the population." S. Rep. No. 91-1196, 

91st Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1970). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has explained: 

NAAQS must protect not only average healthy individuals, but also 

'sensitive citizens' such as children, and if a pollutant adversely affects the 

health of these sensitive individuals, EPA must strengthen the entire 

national standard. 

Coalition ojBatte1y Recyclers Ass'n v. US. EPA, 604 F. 3d 613, 618 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (internal 

quotations and citations omitted). 

In its Petition and at the September 17, 2013 hearing before the Board, IPH has 

misconstrued the significance of U.S. EPA's promulgation of the 2010 NAAQS. For example, 

IPH witness Dr. Lisa Bradley stated at hearing that "there are misconceptions about what the 

scientific research is telling us" about the health effects of exposure to S02. Transcript at 74, 

lines 20-21. She asserted that the U.S. EPA's Integrated Science Assessment ("ISA") supporting 

the new NAAQS concluded that studies "do not provide sufficient evidence to infer a causal 

relationship between long-term exposure to S02" and negative health outcomes. Id. at 79, line 

14, to 80, line 2 (emphasis added). Only after questioning from the Board did Dr. Bradley 

mention that U.S. EPA's ISA also had addressed impacts of short-term exposure to S02-the 

very subject of the 2010 NAAQS. I d. at 80, line 16, to 81, line 3. Even then, Dr. Bradley 

implied that the NAAQS had been based on only one epidemiological study showing a 

statistically significant correlation between S02 exposure and negative health impacts. Id. Dr. 

12 
E/Bctronic Filing- RBcivBd. CIBrk's Dffic8: 08/2412013- PC# 2337 

Bradley further asserted that later evaluations of epidemiological studies had shown that 

"correlations with health effects are actually due to other pollutants." Id. 

Dr. Bradley's statements are both factually incorrect and legally irrelevant. Contrary to 

Dr. Bradley's implication, the U.S. EPA did not adopt the NAAQS based on a single 

epidemiological study. As discussed in the Federal Register notice adopting the rule, U.S. EPA 

considered controlled human exposure studies; "numerous epidemiologic studies [that] reported 

positive associations between ambient S02 concentrations and respiratory symptoms in children, 

as well as emergency department visits and hospitalizations for all respiratory causes and asthma 

across multiple age groups"; and toxicological studies demonstrating that the basic physical 

effect of S02 exposure is bronchoconstriction. 75 Fed. Reg. at 35525. In the same notice, U.S. 

EPA also specifically addressed the contention from industry commenters that negative health 

impacts associated with S02 exposure actually are caused by other pollutants, stating: 

Although EPA has recognized that multiple factors can contribute to the etiology of 

respiratory disease and that more than one air pollutant could independently impact 

respiratory health, we continue to judge, as discussed in the !SA, that the available 

evidence suppoHs the conclusion that there is an independent effect of S02 on 

respiratOJy morbidity . . . . It is therefore important to note that when the ISA 

evaluated U.S. and international epidemiologic studies employing multi-pollutant 

models, S02 effect estimates generally remained positive and relatively unchanged 

when co-pollutants, including PM, were included. 

I d. at 3 5531 (emphasis added). 

The Board should disregard IPH' s attempts to relitigate the merits of the 2010 S02 

NAAQS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit already has rejected similar challenges, 

and affirmed that U.S. EPA did not act arbitrarily in setting the NAAQS. National Envtl. 

Development Assoc.'s Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 F. 3d 803, 805 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. 

denied 133 S. Ct. 983 (2013). IPH should acknowledge the significance of U.S. EPA's action. 

13 
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/2412013- PC# 2337 

Pursuant to its statutory mandate to set a S02 standard "requisite to protect the public health"-

including specifically the health of particularly sensitive subgroups-U.S. EPA promulgated a 

maximum hourly standard of 75 parts per billion. Exceedances of this standard now must be 

regarded as constituting a threat to the health of the public exposed to heightened levels of S02. 

Indeed, the Board in earlier variance cases has evaluated environmental impact in 

connection with NAAQS compliance, and has relied on air quality modeling to do so. In Central 

Illinois Light Co. v. !EPA, PCB 99-80 (Apr. 15, 1999), the Board evaluated a petition for a 

variance from regulatory sulfur dioxide limits at the E.D. Edwards plant sought by AER's 

successor. The Board assessed whether granting the variance would threaten the area's 

compliance with the then-applicable NAAQS for S02. The Board reviewed an air quality 

modeling analysis provided by the petitioner which showed that the emission changes from the 

variance would result in a total concentration of S02 in the area that was still "well below the 

NAAQS for sulfur dioxide." Id., at 5. The Board therefore concluded that the variance would 

not have a negative environmental impact because "the analysis shows that the proposed 

variance will not threaten the area's compliance with the NAAQS, the standard that the USEPA 

has established to 'protect the health and welfare of all citizens."' Id., at 5, 6. See also Wallace 

Phannaceuticals v. !EPA, PCB 02-207 (Sept. 19, 2002), at 3 ("The Agency agrees that the 

requested variance should result in no significant environmental harm, as Wall ace is not out of 

compliance at this time and the requested relief will not result in an increase in YOM emissions 

that will threaten violation of the ozone NAAQS in the area."). 

Therefore, it is significant in this case that all three of AER's unscrubbed coal plants all 

have been predicted to cause NAAQS exceedances. With respect to the E.D. Edwards plant, this 

is demonstrated by the fact that U.S. EPA has designated Hollis Township in Peoria County, the 

14 
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: OS/2412013- PC# 2337 

area surrounding the plant, as non-attainment, because on monitored exceedances of the 

NAAQS. U.S. EPA, Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primm)' National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, 78 Fed. Reg. 47191,47198-99 (Aug. 5, 2013). 

For all three plants, though, the reports submitted by Mr. Klafka further indicate that that 

the plants' permitted and actual emissions are predicted to cause exceedances of the NAAQS. 10 

Mr. Klafka conducted a dispersion modeling analysis for each plant to assess compliance with 

the 2010 S02 NAAQS. See, e.g., Klafka Edwards Report at 2. Following the most recent 

federal and state guidance, Mr. Klafka utilized U.S. EPA's AERMOD air dispersion model to 

predict the downwind S02 concentrations associated with each plant's emissions-both currently 

permitted and measured actual. See, e.g., id at 2. For each plant, Mr. Klafka's analysis predicted 

exceedances of the NAAQS throughout their respective regions, to a maximum distance of fifty 

kilometers for the Edwards and Joppa plants, and to a maximum distance of eight kilometers for 

the Newton plant. Id. at 3; Klafka Joppa Report at 3; Klafka Newton Report at 4. 

Petitioners have questioned how Mr. Klafka's analysis of one-hour NAAQS compliance 

is relevant to a variance proceeding from the MPS. The answer is simple. Compliance with the 

MPS's lower annual fleet-wide emission limits will in any case require significant reductions in 

S02 emissions from one or more of the three unscrubbed AER plants. This could come in the 

form of completion of the Newton scrubber project; the installation of dry sorbent injection at 

one or more plants; or significant curtailments in operation at one or more of the plants. 

Delaying compliance with the MPS means continuing localized NAAQS exceedances at the 

10 Mr. Klafka is an environmental engineer with over thirty years of experience in air quality modeling. He is a 

registered professional engineer in several states, including Illinois. He works for Wingra Engineering, a consulting 

business he started two decades ago. Serving a broad mix of clients, including utilities, industries, environmental 

groups, and neighborhoods, Mr. Klafka has conducted numerous air dispersion modeling analyses to determine 

facilities' compliance with air quality standards. 

15 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/24/2013- PC# 2337 

three unscrubbed plants. As the Board's precedent demonstrates, NAAQS exceedances are a 

touchstone of a variance's negative environmental impact. The Board accordingly should deny 

the Petition. 

B, The Proposed Variance Would Negatively Impact State and Regional Air 

Quality By Allowing More Fleetwide S02 Emissions 

so2 also is a precursor to fine particulate matter, which is "associated with a number of 

serious health effects including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease ... , lung disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks, and certain 

cardiovascular problems." U.S. EPA, Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of 

Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 Fed. Reg. 48208, 48218 

(Aug. 8, 2011). The l'v!PS was adopted, in part, to address the particulate matter formed by S02 

emissions at illinois coal plantsl 1 U.S. EPA has found that illinois coal plants' emissions of S02 

and nitrogen oxides contribute to PM2.5 issues throughout the Midwest, from Indiana to 

Michigan to Ohio, and all the way south to Alabama and Georgia. !d. at 48,241-45. Within 

illinois, illinois EPA has cited the l'v!PS as supporting continued attainment of the 1997 PM2. 5 

NAAQS in the Chicago region. See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Illinois; Redesignation of the Chicago Area to Attainment of the 1997 

11 Discussing the MPS in testimony before the United States Congress, then-Director of the Illinois EPA, Doug Scott 

stated: 

S02 is a precursor to particulate matter . . . . Particulate matter related annual benefits 

include fewer premature fatalities, fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, fewer non-fatal heart 

attacks, fewer hospitalization admissions (for respiratory and cardiovascular disease 

combined) and should result in fewer days of restricted activity due to respiratOI}' illness 

and fewer work loss days. Moreover, there should be health improvements for children 

from reduced upper and lower respiratory illness, acute bronchitis, and asthma attacks. 

Exhibit B, Scott Testimony, at 9. 

16 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 0912412013- PC# 2337 

Annual Fine Particulate Matter Standard (Proposed Rule), 78 Fed. Reg. 48103, 48119 (Aug. 7, 

2013). 

Therefore, in addition to the localized impacts of AER's unscrubbed plants, it is 

important to consider the AER plants' fleetwide emissions, as the Board has done in earlier 

proceedings for variances from the MPS. Petitioners assert, and illinois EPA agrees, that the 

variance would yield a "net environmental benefit." See Petition at PDF page 61; Illinois EPA 

Recommendation at 2. However, Petitioners' analysis includes three features that significantly 

overstate the baseline fleet emissions to which Petitioners compare emissions expected under the 

variance. Together, these features disguise a significantly negative environmental impact. 

First, in their original analysis, Petitioners compared emissions during two different 

timeframes: 2010 to 2020, and 2013 to 2020. See Petition at PDF page 65. Neither timeframe is 

appropriate. In Ameren's 2012 variance proceeding, the Board held that pre-variance emissions 

are not relevant when assessing a proposed variance's environmental impact. Ameren Energy 

Resources v. !EPA, PCB 12-126 (Sept. 20, 2012), at 57. Citizen Groups therefore support the 

Board's indication in its September 12, 2013 questions to the Petitioners that it views the fourth 

quarter of 2013 as a proper starting point for assessing environmental impact. 

Second, Petitioners' analysis is based on average heat inputs at the AER plants that are 

now far outdated. Specifically, IPH's analysis relies upon a baseline heat input for the AER fleet 

(including Meredosia and Hutsonville) of 340,446,252 MMBtu annually. See, e.g., Petition at 

Exhibit 10, Tables I and 2. IPH's baseline heat input without Meredosia and Hutsonville is 

312,003,694 MMBtu annually. Id. These figures originate from AER's analysis offleetwide 

emissions in its 2009 docket amending the Multi-Pollutant Standard, In the Matter of Proposed 

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225: Control of Emissions From Large Combustion Sources 

17 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office : 0912412013 - PC# 2337 

(Mercwy Monitoring), R09-IO. See AER, PCB 12-126 (July 30, 2012) (AER's Responses to the 

lllinois Pollution Control Board Technical Unit's Questions) at 8. This figure represents the 

averageheat input at the plants from 2006, 2007, and 2008. !d. Ameren also used this figure in 

seeking a variance last year. !d. 

Whatever the merits of this approach in earlier proceedings, these average heat inputs no 

longer reflect reality for the AER plants. Citizen Groups urge the Board to follow its approach in 

evaluating Midwest Generation's proposed variance earlier this year. In that case, the Board 

evaluated the impacts of the proposed variance using the fleet's average heat inputs from 2008 to 

2011, the four most recent full years of available data at the time the petition was filed. See 

Midwest Generation, LLC v. !EPA, PCB 13-24 (Apr. 4, 2013), at 66. In this case, based on U.S. 

EPA Air Markets data, the average heat input for the five remaining AER plants is 283,259,518 

MMBtu. See Exhibit C, 2009-2012 AER Fleet Emissions. 

Third, Petitioners' analysis includes "credits" related to the shutdowns of the Meredosia 

and Hutsonville plants. This is inconsistent with the Board's June 6, 2013 order stating that any 

variance request related to the five plants IPH proposes to purchase would require "a new 

analysis specifically related to the five facilities in the requested variance." AER (June 6, 2013), 

at II. There is no legitimate regulatory reason for Medina Valley to seek a variance related to 

Meredosia and Hutsonville, and therefore no reason that the plants should factor into the analysis 

ofiPH's proposed variance. Both plants are shut down and no longer produce electricity for 

sale, as is required by the MPS' definition of"EGUs" subject to the MPS. 35lll. Adm. Code 

225.233(e)(3)(c)(iii). Therefore, under the MPS, they simply are not a factor in MPS 

compliance. See In the Matter of Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225 Control of Emissions 

from Large Combustion Sources, R06-25 (Tr. Aug. 15, 2006) at 350-51 (containing testimony 

18 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/24/2013- PC# 2337 

from illinois EPA witness stating that shutdown MPS units "no longer have to worry about the 

complexities of [MPS compliance]"). 

Moreover, there is no reason to conclude that the existing Meredosia and Hutsonville 

units ever will ever generate electricity again. As stated by illinois EPA witness Chris Romaine 

during the original MPS rulemaking: "I don't believe that power plants usually shut down for ten 

years and start back up." Id. This point is further supported by Illinois EPA's August 23, 2013 

release for public comment of two draft construction permits for the FutureGen 2.0 project, to be 

built at the site of the retired Meredosia plant. See illinois EPA, Project Summmy for the 

Const111ctjon Permj{ AppHcarionsfrom Ameren and the FutureGen Indusflial A !Hance, Inc.,for 

ConstniCNon of an O:~.y-Combusrion Power Plant at the Meredosja Energy Center jn Meredosja, 

I!Hnojs at 2 (available at http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2013/ameren-futuregenmeredosia/project-summary.pd£). 12 

In the FutureGen 2.0 Project Summary, lllinois EPA states it does not consider the 

FutureGen 2.0 project to trigger the applicability offederal Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality ("PSD") regulations for major new projects because of "decreases 

from the permanent shut down of the existing coal and oil fired boilers at the Meredosia Energy 

Center." !d. at 4-5. In other words, Illinois EPA contends, the net difference of emissions from 

the proposed FutureGen 2.0 project and the now-shuttered coal and oil fired units at Meredosia 

are not significant enough to warrant PSD review. illinois EPA's approach demonstrates the 

permanence of Meredosia's shutdown. 

Attached as Exhibit A is an analysis of emissions under the MPS and under IPH's 

proposed variance, from the fourth quarter of2013 through 2020, using an average baseline heat 

12 The permit applications were submitted by Ameren Energy Resources Generating Company and the FutureGen 

Industrial Alliance. 

19 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/24/2013- PC# 2337 

input of 283,259,518 MMBtu for the AER fleet, and disregarding the closure of Meredosia and 

Hutsonville, but including adjustments for the 2017 retirement ofE.D. Edwards Unit 1 and 

opening ofFutureGen 2.0. The analysis shows that baseline S02 emissions at the AER fleet 

under the MPS are expected to be 279,719 tons through 2020. This is 48,227 tons fewer than 

IPH's recently proposed fleetwide emission cap of327,996 tons from the fourth quarter of2013 

through 2020. The variance therefore will have a negative environmental impact. 

The insufficiency ofiPH's recently proposed cap also is demonstrated by considering 

AER's 2012 emissions. In 2012, the AER fleet emitted only 45,711 tons of emissions. Over 

seven-and-a quarter years, that would amount to 331,404 tons of S02. In other words, IPH's 

commitment to a fleetwide cap of 327,996 tons would allow it to emit S02 at nearly the same 

average rate that AER did in 2012-even though IPH purportedly will be installing an FGD 

system at Newton and retiring Unit 1 at E.D. Edwards during this time period. Whether assessed 

for its localized impacts at unscrubbed AER plants, or on a fleetwide level, IPH's proposed 

variance will have a negative environmental impact that outweighs IPH's self-imposed hardship. 

III. Petitioners Cannot Be Gmnted Vadances Because They Do Not Own Plants 

Regulated By the MPS. 

Finally, the Board should reject the Petition because Petitioners are improperly seeking 

"advisory" variances applicable to facilities they do not yet own. Granting these variances 

would be contrary to law and would set a terrible precedent for future cases. 

Petitioners' proposed transaction remains hypothetical. 13 As discussed at length in 

Citizen Groups' August 15, 2013 Objection, granting Petitioners "advisory" variances in this 

13 As of the filing date of these comments, the Federal Energy Regulatory Connnission ("FERC") has not authorized 

the transaction. Instead, FERC has requested additional information of the Petitioners, and several parties have filed 

oppositions. Also, as discussed in the comments and in Section III.B, above, Petitioner Medina Valley will not own 

facilities subject to the MPS even if the transaction closes. 

20 
Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office : 09/2412013 - PC# 2337 

case would be contrary to the Board's regulations, see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.202(a); the Board's 

previous decision in The Ensign-Bicliford Co. v. !EPA, PCB 02-159 (Apr. 3, 2003), in which the 

Board provided that the proposed buyer of a facility should seek variance relief only after it had 

purchased the facility at issue; and the Board's long-standing disfavor of the issuance of advisory 

opm10ns. 

Notably, the lllinois EPA has not endorsed Petitioners' approach. In its 

Recommendation, Illinois EPA stated that it "neither supports nor objects" to the Board's 

granting the Petition. Recommendation at I. However, the Board noted the Citizen Groups' 

objection to the legal sufficiency of Petitioners' request for variances related to facilities they had 

not yet purchased, and stated: 

As to whether or not Petitioners may properly seek the variance relief 

requested given the pendency of the related transaction that would transfer 

ownership of the Energy Centers in question, the lllinois EPA posits that 

any ruling by the Board be specifically limited to the unique facts of the 

situation presented. 

Recommendation at 6 n.2. In other words, lllinois EPA appears to contend that, if the Board 

determines to grant the proposed variances, the Board should not regard such advisory variances 

as generally acceptable. 

Yet granting the proposed variances in this case would set a terrible precedent for future 

cases. Granting the variances would send a signal to companies doing business il) lllinois that 

they can create brand-new, undercapitalized acquisition vehicles, unable to comply with 

environmental requirements, and then obtain a variance from those environmental requirements 

because of that undercapitalization. Moreover, the decision would signal that undercapitalized 

companies could seek an advisory opinion from the Board whether their proposed level of 

undercapitalization is acceptable, or if they should come back with a "better offer." That is not 

21 
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/24/2013- PC# 2337 

how lllinois law should work. The baseline rule should be that environmental compliance 

requirements be factored into transaction prices. Variances should be reserved for cases where a 

company has made a good-faith effort to comply with environmental requirements but through 

no fault of its own has run short of time or money. IPH is not that company, and this case 

demonstrates why granting advisory variances reflects bad policy. 

What is most troubling about Petitioners' request is the manner in which it has come to 

pass. Last year, AER received a variance by representing a deep commitment to its plants and 

their communities. Closing its post-hearing comments with multiple pages of comments from 

plant workers and community leaders, AER concluded that "it is not ready to give up on the 

completion of the Newton scrubber and it certainly is not prepared to give up on the plants." 

AER, PCB 12-126 (Aug. 15, 2012) (AERPost-Hearing Comments), at 55 (emphasis added). 

Despite this ringing proclamation, Ameren in December 2012 announced its intention to exit the 

Illinois merchant generation business. Lisa Brown, Ameren to exit merchant generation 

business, Sr. Loms POST-DISPATCH (Dec. 20, 2012), available at 

http://www. stl today. com/business/local/ ameren-to-exit-merchant -generationbusiness/article_9b768f23-bd51-566a-8d6e-fdc1dd36f483.html (attached as Exhibit D). And 

just months after that announcement, in March 2013, Dynegy announced its intention to 

purchase and operate the AER plants through the newly-created subsidiary IPH-but only if it 

were allowed the same variance from the MPS that AER had been allowed. 

Now, again, IPH has made the same arguments that AER did last year regarding the 

economic impacts of the affected plants. Citizen Groups ask the Board to closely examine 

IPH' s claims. An undercapitalized IPH will not provide the stability that Dynegy has 

represented to Illinois communities. In the past year, in the community of a closed coal plant in 

22 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/2412013- PC# 2337 

New York, Dynegy has litigated with local property tax authorities over the amount of back 

taxes Dynegy owes, based on Dynegy's claimed devaluation of the plant. See Jessica DiNapoli, 

Dynegy: Cut tax assessments 90%: Decision could mean millions, TIMEs HERALD-RECORD 

(Aug. 22, 2012), available at 

http :1 /www. recordonline. com/ apps/pbcs. dll/ article? AID=/20 120822/NEWS/2082203 3 0; Jessica 

DiNapoli, Danskammer power plant sale dragging due to taxes: Company still owes $11M, 

TIMES HERALD-RECORD (July 2, 2013), available at 

http://www. recordonl in e. com/ apps/pbcs. dll/ article? AID=/20 13 0702/NEWS/3 070203 26 

(attached as Exhibit E). How would Dynegy contend that the AER fleet should be valued, given 

that IPH would be paying nothing for it? Any assertions ofiPH in this case of preserved jobs 

and property taxes should be viewed in light of Mr. David Johnson's summary of the proposed 

transaction: "If wholesale electricity prices climb unexpectedly fast, the acquisition could be a 

great success, and if not-the far more likely outcome-Dynegy loses little even if IPH fails 

spectacularly." ACM Report at 30. The Board should not sanction this risky proposed 

transaction, which entails a certain negative environmental impact, with no such corresponding 

benefit to the lllinois public. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth in these Post-Hearing Comments, the Board should deny the 

Petition for Variance. 

23 
Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office : 0912412013 - PC# 2337 

DATED: September 24, 2013 

24 

Respectfully submitted, 

Faith Bugel 

Andrew Armstrong 

Environmental Law and Policy Center 

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 

Chicago, IL 60601 

312-795-3708 

FBuge]@elpc.org 

AArmstrong@elpc.org 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office : 09/24/2013 - PC# 2337 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Faith Bugel, hereby certify that I have filed the attached POST -HEARJNG COMMENTS on 

behalf of the Citizens Environmental Law and Policy Center, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Respiratory Health Association, and Sierra Club in PCB 2014-10. The aforementioned 

documents have been served upon the attached service list by depositing said documents in the 

United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Chicago, lllinois on September 24,2013. 

25 

Respectfully submitted, 

Faith Bugel 

Senior Attorney 

Environmental Law and Policy Center 

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 

Chicago, IL 60601 

312-795-3708 
SERVICE LIST 

September 24, 2013 

Gina Roccaforte, Assistant Counsel 

lllinois EPA 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

Claire A. Manning 

William D. Ingersoll 

Brown, Hay & Stephens LLP 

205 South Fifth Street, Suite 700 

P.O. Box 2459 

Springfield, lllinois 62705-2459 

26 

Renee Cipriano 

Amy Antoniolli 

Schiff Hardin, LLP 

6600 Willis Tower 

23 3 South Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60606 
AER Fleet Emissions Under MPS Baseline and Under Proposed IPH Variance 

Year Heat Input MPS Baseline MP5 Proposed Proposed Annual Cumulative Edwards FutureGen 

(mmBtu) 502 Emission Baseline Variance 502 Variance 502 Increase in Increase in Unit 1 at 

(Average of 5 limit 502 Emission Allowed 502 Allowed 502 Allowed 8,617,891 

AER Plants (lb/mmBtu) Allowed limit Emissions Emissions Emissions mmBtu/yr 

from 2009- Emissions (lb/mmBtu) (tons) Because of Because of (Average 

2012) (tons) Variance {tons) Variance (tons) from 2009-

2012) 

4Q2013 70,814,880 0.50 17,704 0.35 12,393 -5,311 -5,311 0 0 

2014 283,259,518 0.43 60,901 0.35 49,570 -11,330 -16,641 0 0 2015 283,259,518 0.25 35,407 0.35 49,570 14,163 -2,478 0 0 

2016 283,259,518 0.25 35,407 0.35 49,570 14,163 11,685 0 0 

2017 283,259,518 0.23 32,575 0.35 49,570 16,996 28,680 1,508 590 

2018 283,259,518 0.23 32,575 0.35 49,570 16,996 45,676 1,508 590 

2019 283,259,518 0.23 32,575 0.35 49,570 16,996 62,671 1,508 590 

2020 283,259,518 0.23 32,575 0.23 32,575 0 62,671 1,508 590 

Total Baseline 279,719 342,390 62,671 6,032 2,360 

I PH's Proposed Cap: 327,996 

Difference Between Baseline and 

I PH's Proposed Cap I 48,077 

Cumulative 

Decrease From Edwards 

Unit 1 and 

FutureGen 

0 0 0 0 

918 

1,836 

2,754 

3,672 3,672 

Cu

Inc

wit

Edw

UnFut
Written Testimony of Douglas P. Scott 

Director, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Before the: 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works/ 

Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety 

On the Issue of: 

I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit B 

Page 1 of 16 

"Oversight: Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air RegulationsOne Year after the CAIR and CAMR Federal Court Decisions" 

July 9, 2009 

Mr. Chai1man and Members of the Committee: My name is Doug Scott and I am the Director of 

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. I want to thank Senator Carper and the other 

members of the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety for this opportunity to 

testify on Illinois' regulations to control sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury emissions 

from the State's coal-fired power plants. 

I received a Bachelor's Degree with honors from the University of Tulsa in 1982, and received a 

graduate Juris Doctor law degree with honors from Marquette University in 1985. I served as 

Assistant City Attorney and City Attorney for the City of Rockford, Illinois from 1985 to 1995. 

I also represented the City on a number of envirorunental issues. From1995-2001 I served as an 

Illinois State Representative for the 67th District and served on the House Energy and 

Environment Committee, and was a member of the committee that rewrote the States' electric 

utility laws. I was elected to the Office of the Mayor of Rockford in April2001 and served a 

four-year term and served as President of the Illinois Chapter of the National Brownfields 

Association. I was appointed as the Director of the Illinois EPA by Governor Rod Blagojevich 

in July 2005, and have served as Chair of the Air Committee of the Environmental Council of the 

States (ECOS), the national organization of state environmental agency leaders. 

I am pleased to be here to provide testimony on the "three pollutant" approach and Illinois' 

experience in reaching agreements with our state's three largest coal-fired power plant system 

owners. My testimony will provide background information and a broad overview of the 
I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit 8 

Page 2 of 16 

development of Illinois' multi-pollutant reduction agreements. I will address some of the 

measures the Illinois EPA took during rule development to ensure that we relied on accurate and 

current information as we crafted the rule. 

Illinois Multi-Pollutant Regulatory Approaches 

Illinois is a large industrial state with a population of about 13 million people and a gross state 

product of$522 billion. Each of these are approximately four percent of the U.S. total and ranks 

Illinois as fifth among the nation in these categories. Illinois obtains more than 40 percent of its 

electricity from coal-frred power plants and sits on top of38 billion tons of coal, giving it the 

third largest coal reserves in the nation. Coal-frred power plants in Illinois constitute the largest 

source of man-made emissions of mercury (Hg) and sulfur dioxide (S02), and one of the largest 

sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx). Illinois is home to 21 large coal-frred plants that operate 

electric generating units. 

Over the last several years in Illinois, exceptional progress has been made in reducing the 

emissions that contribute to ozone and particulate matter (PM) air pollution, as well as reducing 

toxic Hg emissions that deposit into and contaminate Illinois' waters and fish. In particular, the 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) reached landmark multi-pollutant 

standard agreements with the three largest coal-frred power plant systems operating in Illinois: 

Midwest Generation, Ameren and Dynegy. These three companies represent 88% of Illinois' 

17,007 megawatts of coal-frred electric generating capacity and account for hundreds of 

thousands of tons of air emissions each year. 

These multi-pollutant standards (MPS) are expected to result in measurable air quality 

improvements in Illinois and also in regional air quality by dramatically reducing Hg, S02, and 

NOx emissions from Illinois' coal-frred power plants. The agreed-to multi-pollutant standards 

are one of the most impmtant environmental and public health advances in Illinois in recent 

decades. They represent the largest reductions in air emissions ever agreed to by individual 

companies in Illinois under any context, whether through an enforcement action or regulation. 
I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit B 

Page 3 of 16 

As a result of the knowledge and experience gained through Illinois' efforts, the Illinois EPA 

suppmts a comprehensive national strategy for reducing emissions of multiple pollutants from 

electric generating units. A comprehensive, integrated approach benefits both regulators and the 

regulated community. Multi-pollutant approaches should supplement, not replace, the existing 

Clean Air Act programs such as New Source Review (NSR), Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) standards and regional haze, as well as other impmtant statutory 

requirements for achieving and sustaining clean air. 

In meeting emission goals, the regulated community should be afforded flexibility, where 

appropriate, which may include an emissions trading mechanism for NOx, and S02, but not 

pollutants where local impacts are of great concern or where concentrated emissions at a local 

scale may occur- as in the case ofHg. Any multi-pollutant strategy must also ensure that 

regions, states and localities retain their authority to adopt and implement measures which are 

more stringent than those of the federal government. 

A 3-pollutant approach for controlling the emissions ofHg, S02, and NOx from coal-fired power 

plants can have numerous advantages over the traditional, single pollutant schemes. For 

example, a well crafted multi-pollutant standard can increase the protection of public health and 

the environment, reduce pollution more cost-effectively, and offer greater certainty to both 

industry and regulators. Since Hg emission reductions can be obtained as a "co-benefit" from 

the control devices used to reduce S02 and NOx, it makes sense to allow companies the option to 

synchronize the control of these pollutants, provided that public health and the environment are 

likewise positively impacted. Whereas the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) singlemindedly tackled mercury emissions, and the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) addressed 

S02 and NOx, Illinois was able to use a multi-pollutant strategy that accomplishes the 

aforementioned benefits in a unified regulatory framework accounting for planning, engineering, 

availability of fmancing and other issues that accompany a multi-pollutant control strategy. 

Illinois believes the most feasible method of obtaining reliable emission reductions in a costeffective manner is through a combination of emission rate based limits along with emissions 

trading. Although sources under the MPS are not allowed to utilize allowances to meet the 
I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit B 

Page 4 of 16 

numeric emissions standards, sources are free to sell or trade allowances that are generated as a 

result of emissions being below the allowable emission rates. This provides an incentive for 

companies to go beyond the reductions required under the MPS in order to recover some of the 

costs associated with the control measures taken. Moreover, emissions' trading is recognized to 

provide market incentives for sources to control emissions as far and as fast as reasonably 

possible. Of note is that emissions trading under a cap and trade program has historically 

resulted in the highest emitting plants making the deepest reductions in emissions - a key fmding 

that strongly supports the inclusion of emissions trading into any control strategy. 

Illinois Multi-Pollutant Agreements 

The catalyst for Illinois' agreements was the position taken in early 2006 that Illinois would 

propose an aggressive mercury regulation focused on cutting mercury emissions by 90% from 

coal-burning power plants by mid-2009. After the illinois EPA presented its findings in support 

of the mercury rule during two weeks of well-attended and hotly contested public hearings, the 

Agency was approached by Ameren who expressed a desire to work with the Agency toward 

common goals. Subsequent to long hours of negotiation, an altemative standard was proposed 

that involved allowing some flexibility in complying with the mercury standards in exchange for 

commitments to also significantly reduce S02 and NOx emissions from Ameren's coal-fired 

power plants. This initial agreement led to similar discussions and agreements with Illinois' 

other two large coal burning systems, Dynegy and Midwest Generation. 

The agreements reached and memorialized in the Multi-Pollutant Standard (MPS) and Combined 

Pollutant Standard (CPS) are significant not only for the magnitude of emissions reductions that 

occur, but also for the rule support that accompanied the agreements. The Illinois mercury rule 

was vehemently opposed by a unified coal-fired power industry. The initial agreement 

established that mutual goals were achievable, set the guiding principles, and opened the door for 

other companies to follow -which they did. Ultimately, the mercury rule was unanimously 

approved in 2006 by both the Illinois Pollution Control Board and the Joint Committee on 

Administrative Rules, the two goveming oversight bodies for regulations in lllinois. 
IPCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit B 

Page 5 of 16 

Both the MPS and CPS provisions provide some flexibility on the timing of mercury reductions 

in exchange for commitments to make significant reductions in both S02 and NOx. All of the 

provisions include some level of trading restrictions on S02 and NOx allowances provided under 

CAIR. Ameren, Dynegy and Midwest Generation will install a multitude of pollution control 

equipment on their boilers costing several billion dollars, including wet and dry scrubbers, 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) devices, and 

fabric filters. Recent discussions with representatives of Illinois' coal-fired power plants indicate 

that they are all preparing to meet the requirements of the MPS and CPS, which initiate in 2010. 

In doing so, a wide array of emissions control equipment costing billions of dollars will come 

on-line in Illinois over the next several years. Illinois coal-fired power plants have already 

installed and begun operating numerous halogenated activated carbon injection (ACI) systems 

for mercury control. The first of many new scrubbers for S02 control will begin operation 

shortly. Fabric filter controls will accompany the installation of many of the scrubbers and result 

in the co-benefit of particulate matter reductions. Selective catalytic reduction devices and other 

new NOx controls are being scheduled for installation across Illinois. The shutdown of a few of 

the older, most polluting electric generating units began in December 2007 with two more units 

scheduled for shutdown by December 2010. 

Illinois Mercurv Rule 

The Illinois mercury rule is designed to achieve a high level of mercury control, based on Illinois 

EPA's finding that there exists mercury control technology that is both technically feasible and 

economically reasonable. Mercury emissions may be reduced through the application of control 

technology specifically designed to control mercury (e.g., activated carbon injection), or through 

co-benefit from other control technologies designed to control S02 NOx, and PM. Depending , 

on several variables, including coal and boiler type, there are a number of control technologies 

that will achieve 90+% removal of mercury. Mercury emissions control technology is a rapidly 

advancing field, with halogenated sorbents being an affordable and effective option for most 

applications. Although there may be some challenges to achieving 90% removal of mercury for 
IPCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit 8 

Page 6 of 16 

all applications, in almost every case each of these challenges can be overcome or addressed 

through technology that is economically reasonable and available today. 

The Illinois mercury rule provides substantial flexibility in order to reduce the costs of 

compliance and risk of noncompliance for power plants. This flexibility includes the ability to 

meet either a 90% reduction or an output based standard of0.0080 pounds mercury/GWh, 

phasing in standards over a period of 3 Y, years with a less restrictive standard in phase one, 

compliance by averaging of emissions, and the avoidance of installing controls on units that will 

be shutdown in the near future provided companies make an enforceable commitment to 

shutdown those units by a date certain. 

Additional flexibility is provided via a "Temporary Technology Based Standard" (TTBS) that 

provides relief for units that install appropriate mercury controls but do not achieve full 

compliance. Eligible units only need to operate the mercury controls in an optimal manner to 

comply. This provision is available through June 2015 and can be used by up to 25% of a 

company's generating capacity. 

Companies may choose to voluntarily comply with the MPS or CPS as an alternative to the 

otherwise applicable requirements of the mercury rule. These provisions provide additional 

flexibility in regards to mercury control in return for companies achieving significant reductions 

in the emissions of S02 and NOx. 

Under the MPS and CPS, companies can commit to voluntarily meet numerical emission 

standards for both NOx and S02 and in return are provided additional flexibility in complying 

with the mercury emission standards. The MPS and CPS provisions also contain restrictions on 

the trading ofNOx and S02 allowances provided under CAIR. By regulating the emissions of 

NOx and S02 and restricting the trading of allowances, the MPS and CPS have obvious 

implications for the proposed CAIR NOx and S02 cap and trade program. As modeling has 

demonstrated, the benefits of these reductions will mostly impact Illinois and a few of the closest 

neighboring states (i.e., Indiana, Wisconsin and Missouri) with lesser benefits further downwind. 

While the positive impacts of the reductions are most significant within Illinois and its closest 
I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit B 

Page 7 of 16 

neighbors, Illinois does support emissions trading as the most cost effective controls will be 

installed and the timing of controls is likely to occur more quickly than under a command and 

control option. 

Emission Reductions 

The combination of the Illinois mercury rule, CAIR, and the MPS and CPS will have enormous 

positive impacts, reducing mercury, S02 and NOx emissions far beyond the levels required 

under the federal CAMR and CAIR alone. 

Under CAIR, U.S. EPA estimates that coal-fired power producers in Illinois would only have 

been required to reduce their S02 emissions by 34%, not the estimated 76% for Ameren, 65% for 

Dynegy, and 80% for Midwest Generation required under the MPS and CPS. The emissions of 

NOx are likewise expected to be reduced beyond the levels obtained by the model CAIR. In 

addition, both the MPS and CPS contain trading restrictions designed to ensure that the S02 and 

NOx reductions occur in Illinois. 
I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit 8 

Page 8 of 16 

The reductions agreed to under the MPS and CPS for S02 and NOx are expected to go a long 

way toward helping lllinois achieve attaimnent of the ozone and PM standards. The modeling 

demonstrates that the emission reductions are vety substantial. 

The Illinois EPA estimates the total emission reductions from all three power companies at: 

• so2 = 233,600 tons per year eliminated 

• NOx = 61,434 tons per year eliminated 

• Mercury= 7,040 pounds per year eliminated 

Under CAMR, coal-frred 

power producers in Illinois 

would have only been 

required to reduce their 

mercury emissions by 47% 

in 2010 and 78% by 2018, 

not the 90% reduction by 

2009 specified in the 

Illinois rule. The timing of 

mercury reductions for 
I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit 8 

Page 9 of 16 

those sources that opt-in to the MPS or CPS is essentially the same, and the amount of reduction 

is expected to be close to 90%, although the companies will not be required to comply with the 

90% reduction requirement on a 12 month rolling basis until2015. Sources under the MPS and 

CPS are expected to have mercury emission reductions that exceed the required 90% after 2015 

due to the co-benefit reductions achieved from the installation of controls needed to comply with 

the conesponding S02 and NOx standards. 

Impacts of Emissions Reductions 

Under the agreements between the Illinois EPA and Midwest Generation, Ameren and Dynegy, 

the decreases in Hg, S02, and NOx emissions are estimated to far exceed the reductions required 

under the federal CAMR and CAIR. 

In regards to mercury, over time Illinois expects to see reductions in deposition of Hg to Illinois' 

lakes and streams and conesponding mercury decreases in Illinois' fish, making those fish 

caught in Illinois waters safer to eat. There will be several recognized benefits to the State from 

tighter mercury controls beyond the expected public health benefits that come with a reduction in 

deposition to Illinois' waters and fish. Such benefits include support for existing jobs and the 

potential for additional jobs resulting from the installation and operation of additional pollution 

control devices. 

The benefits of removing S02 and NOx are well established and most notably will result in 

reductions in both particulate matter and ozone. S02 is a precursor to particulate matter and NOx 

is a precursor to both particulate matter and ozone. Particulate matter related annual benefits 

include fewer premature fatalities, fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, fewer non-fatal heart 

attacks, fewer hospitalization admissions (for respiratory and cardiovascular disease combined) 

and should result in fewer days of restricted activity due to respiratory illness and fewer work 

loss days. Moreover, there should be health improvements for children from reduced upper and 

lower respiratory illness, acute bronchitis, and asthma attacks. 
I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit 8 

Page 10 of 16 

Ozone health-related benefits are expected to occur during the sununer ozone season and include 

fewer hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, fewer emergency room admissions for 

asthma, fewer days with restricted activity levels, and fewer days where children are absent from 

school due to illnesses. In addition, there should be ecological and welfare benefits. Such 

benefits include visibility improvements; reductions in acidification in lakes, streams, and 

forests; reduced nutrient replenishing in water bodies; and benefits from reduced ozone levels for 

forests and agricultural production. 

CAMR and CAIR Vacatur Impact on Illinois Regulations: 

On February 8, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

vacated the federal CAMR. The Illinois mercury rule is separate from the federal CAMR and 

therefore the vacatur of CAMR had minimal impact on the Illinois rule. However, this court 

action raised concerns regarding the status of certain federal provisions dealing with the 

monitoring of mercury emissions. Given the uncertainty surrounding federal mercmy 

monitoring provisions, the Illinois EPA determined that a revision to the Illinois mercury rule 

was appropriate. The revisions focused on the methods used to measure or monitor mercury 

emissions, and did not include any revisions to the control standards themselves. The rule was 

amended to allow a source to demonstrate compliance for a three year period using stack testing. 

The Illinois mercury rule remains in full effect and all Illinois companies began complying with 

the rule on July 1st of this year. 

In July of2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Court of 

Appeals) vacated the CAIR rule in its entirety. After entertaining motions for reconsideration 

from the parties, on December 23, 2008, the same court issued an opinion stating that the federal 

CAIR was remanded to U.S. EPA without vacatur. U.S. EPA subsequently confirmed that it has 

begun implementation ofCAIR starting January I, 2009. Illinois CAIR is in full effect. For a 

number of reasons, the vacatur and reinstatement of Phase I of CAIR have had minimal impact 

on Illinois sources and the MPS and CPS remain in effect. However, for the reasons discussed 

below, Illinois strongly favors federal multi-pollutant legislation to "remedy" the flaws in 

CAMR and CAIR. 
I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit B 

Page 11 of 16 

The decision of the DC Court of Appeals vacating CAIR in part, i.e., vacating Phase II ofCAIR 

but reinstating Phase I of CAIR, has thus far had minimal impact on Illinois. CAIR Phase I 

required reductions up until the beginning ofCAIR Phase II in January I, 2015. Although 

Illinois relied upon CAIR Phase I as part of our 8-hour ozone (85 ppb) and annual PM2.5 

attainment plans, air quality in Illinois' two 8-hour ozone (85 ppb) and annual fme particulate 

matter nonattainment areas has improved to a very significant degree without these expected 

reductions. As a result, all but one monitor is in attainment for these standards, and it is expected 

to be in attainment in 2012. Because the MPS and CPS result in significant reductions before 

2015, Illinois is not dependent on CAIR Phase II reductions for the newest 8-hour standard (75 

ppb) or the newest daily fme particulate matter standards, and for which attainment plans are not 

yet due. Despite the improvement in air quality, Illinois would have much more significant 

problems in demonstrating attainment in it state implementation plan if CAIR Phase I was not 

reinstated. 

There is some concern that Illinois coal-fired power plants may delay or cancel some controls 

that were being installed to comply with CAIR Phase I due to the loss of value in S02 and NOx 

allowances. The market value of these allowances is uncertain, because there is controversy over 

whether the DC Court of Appeal's opinion has disallowed an emissions trading program. As a 

result, companies have no incentive to go beyond the reductions required by CAIR Phase I 

because the incentive to install controls early due to the cost recovery benefit ofthe allowances 

obtained is removed. Also, many companies have a significant number of banked allowances 

available for their use or for sale, and these banked allowances will be depleted rather than 

companies meeting the "emissions cap" through installation and operation of pollution control 

equipment, perhaps even to the extent of not operating existing or recently installed controls. 

However, we believe the MPS and CPS should keep illinois sources on track for installation and 

operation of the planned control devices and reductions. 

After the vacatur ofCAIR, the Northeast and Midwest states began a process, called the "State 

Collaborative Process", the stated intent of which was to develop a multi-pollutant strategy to 

achieve levels ofNOx and S02 reductions from the electric utility sector in the 28-state CAIR 
I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit 8 

Page12of16 

region as expeditiously as possible that would remedy CAIR's flaws in accordance with the 

Court's July II, 2008 opinion and satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act to attain the 

1997 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and PM. While significant 

progress was made in developing a framework for a CAIR replacement rule, no final 

recommendation to US EPA has yet been developed. The participating states disagree over the 

level of reductions that should be required, whether best available controls should be required on 

every power plant or just the larger/largest units, the timing of controls, whether emissions 

trading (or even intra-state emissions averaging) is allowable under the Court's decision, and 

whether a replacement rule can forestall Section 126 petitions under the Clean Air Act. 

It is Illinois' experience that emissions trading will result in the greatest amount of reductions at 

the lowest cost. More importantly, emission trading will encourage companies to install controls 

earlier, and go beyond required reduction levels, as compared to a command and control 

strategy. Under a command and control strategy, the regulatory compliance deadline must be set 

such that there is I 00% assurance that every affected source will be able to comply in 

consideration of the time necessary for planning, engineering and construction deadlines. In 

other words, there must be sufficient availability of engineering firms, control equipment and 

construction companies to plan, engineer, build and install all of the pollution control equipment 

required for compliance. Such a regulatory compliance date would certainly be difficult to 

establish and likely result in far fewer reductions in the near term when compared to an approach 

that includes emissions trading. Also, the construction season in many of the affected CAIR 

states is limited to a 7 to 8 month window, when electric demand is at its highest, further 

complicating this approach. 

In addition to regulatory compliance deadlines, sources (and the states) must be concerned with 

power outages. In Illinois' opinion and experience in negotiating the MPS and CPS, within the 

CAIR region, it is not practical (and may not be possible) to retrofit all coal-fired power plants of 

any significant size (e.g., 25 MWe or more) in the same 3-year window (or even 5-year window). 

A command and control strategy necessarily sets a date certain for compliance for each affected 

and similarly situated source. Emissions trading will allow those time frames to be compressed, 

as source by source compliance is not required. 
I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit 8 

Page 13 of16 

As Illinois discovered during its MPS and CPS negotiations, there are very significant costs 

associated with installing pollution controls of the magnitude negotiated under Illinois' rulesestimated in excess of3 billon dollars. While this cost may be seem small on a kilowatt hour 

basis, these companies must obtain a rate increase if they are in a regulated state or financing if 

they are in a deregulated state like Illinois. The ability to obtain a rate increase or fmancing for 

these projects is uncertain and takes time, which must be accounted for in a compliance date for 

any command and control strategy. Emissions trading will allow those time frames to be 

compressed as well, as source by source compliance is not required. 

The vacatur of both CAMR and CAIR emphasizes the high risk associated with moving forward 

with federal regulations subject to widespread opposition and controversy. Federal regulations 

will almost certainly be challenged, potentially resulting in further delay of a vital strategy for 

the states to achieve attaimnent of the federal air quality standards. Section 126 petitions will 

surely also be filed by any state that believes its neighbor and upwind states could do more to 

address nonattaimnent, even if the complaining state's air quality issues are largely a result of 

emissions from its own sources (area, mobile and point) and even if the targeted other state(s) 

has done more to address emissions from its coal-fired power plants than the complaining state. 

Section 126 petitions will use precious resources that are needed to address the newest recent 

daily PM2.5 standard, the revised 8-hour standard (75 ppb), the newest lead standard, and the 

recently-announced, revised N02 standard. Federal multi-pollutant legislation represents the 

best option for addressing the points of disagreement among the states, without being bound by 

interpretations of the scope and flexibility provided under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, 

and in a way that best serves the goal of obtaining the greatest reductions in S02, NOx and Hg, 

in the shortest possible time frame, while taking into account electric costs and reliability. 

In conclusion, the multi-pollutant approach taken in Illinois for controlling the emissions ofHg, 

S02, and NOx from coal-fired power plants has numerous advantages. Whereas the federal 

CAMR focuses solely on mercury emissions, and CAIR concentrates on S02 and NOx, Illinois' 

has taken a combined approach that exceeds the goals in the context of a single regulatory 

framework, accommodating engineering and construction issues and outage schedules, as well as 
!PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit B 

Page14of16 

financing issues. The result has been a tremendous win-win-win for the environment, public 

health and the regulated community. 
Multi-Pollutant Standard & Combined Pollutant Standard- Required Emissions Rates and % Reduc

Midwest Generation !Amcrcn' 

nusswn o e uchon Emission % Reduction Emission % Reduction Emission 

Rate Rate Rate (lbs/nunb

(lbs/mmbtu) (lbs/mmbtu) (I bs/mm btu) 

0.50 52% 

2013 0.50 31% 0.44 13.7% 

2014 0.41 19.6% 0.43 56% 

2015 0.45 34% 0.28 45.1% 0.25 76% 2016 0.195 61.8% 

2017 0.15 70.6% 0.23 78% 

2018 0.13 74.5% 

2019 0.45 34% 0.11 78.4%' 0.23 78% 

ID! +, __ 0 

Annual- 0.15 44% 0.11 62%' 0.11 52% 

2012 

Annual - 0.12 55% 0.11 62%' 0.11 52% 

2015 

Seasonal- - - 0.11 51% 0.11 22% 

2012 

'CAIR cmtssion rate numbers from page 5 of the Jw1c 28, 2005 USEPA presentation to LADCO 

01tlp://www.ladco.org/rcports/mo/Rcuional%20Air<Yo200ualitv/Junc28 2005/Junc-Workshop/CAIR%20L/\DC0%20.pdi). 

Percent reductions from the USEPA website that provides CAIR reductions expected in Illinois (http://ww\.v.cpa.gov/cair/il.hlml). 

Emissions used for calculations are from Clean Air Markets Divisions ofUSEPA. 

280% including plmmcd shutdowns. 

368% including planned shutdowns. 

Note: Amcrcn S02 rates reflect changes to allowable rates as contained in proposed revision to lllinois mercury rule. 

0.24 0.19 

0.19 

0.10 0.10 

0.10 
Percent Me.-cury Reductions from CAMR, Illinois Combined Pollutant Standard (CPS) and Multi-Pollutan

0 47% 

2011 

201 

78% 

have controls installed that arc 

84% 

(ACI installed on 

most 

>90% 

95% 

(ACI installed on 

most units) 

94.4% 

mercury 

(ACI installed on 

most units) 

86% 

93.5% 

2Scveral units at plant have combination of Scrubber, Bughouse, SCR and/or ACI and many units will achieve greater than 90% reduction 

All numbers arc Illinois EPA estimates. 
State 

IL 

IL 

IL 

IL 

IL 

IL 

State 

IL 

IL 

IL 

IL 

IL 

IL 

State 

IL 

IL 

IL 

IL 

IL 

IL 

State 

IL 

IL 

IL 

IL 

IL 

IL 

AER Fleet Heat Inputs, 2009-2012 

I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit C 

Page 1 of 1 

Facility Name Facility ID (ORISPL) Year S02 (tons) Heat Input (MMBtu) 

Coffeen 861 2009 13398.074 47566048.5 

Duck Creek 6016 2009 506.11 21407744.51 

ED Edwards 856 2009 11734.455 53116957.8 

Joppa Steam 887 2009 24238 77314386.41 

Newton 6017 2009 24755.123 82537779.61 

TOTAL: 74631.762 281942916.8 

E D Edwards, Unit 1 856 2009 2069.99 9053098.616 

Facility Name Facility ID (ORISPL) Year S02 (tons) Heat Input (MMBtu) 

Coffeen 861 2010 210.818 57019175.45 

Duck Creek 6016 2010 756.371 28849322.93 

ED Edwards 856 2010 12009.979 52842841.94 

Joppa Steam 887 2010 25896.713 85465053.05 

Newton 6017 2010 23501.798 78862613.16 

TOTAL: 62375.679 303039006.5 

E D Edwards, Unit 1 856 2010 2114.741 8781808.481 

Facility Name Facility ID (ORISPL) Year S02 (tons) Heat Input (MMBtu) 

Coffeen 861 2011 82.526 57500363.25 

Duck Creek 6016 2011 167.093 24159532.43 

ED Edwards 856 2011 12596.199 55404148.49 

Joppa Steam 887 2011 26180.048 83823895.86 

Newton 6017 2011 20870.966 75980200.38 

TOTAL: 59896.832 296868140.4 

E D Edwards, Unit 1 856 2011 2148.064 9189275.078 

Facility Name Facility ID (ORISPL) Year S02 (tons) Heat Input (MMBtu) 

Coffeen 861 2012 103.296 54159484.31 

Duck Creek 6016 2012 295.852 25219962.03 

ED Edwards 856 2012 11802.717 44200087.69 

Joppa Steam 887 2012 16990.769 71583571.45 

Newton 6017 2012 16519.06 56024904.65 

TOTAL: 45711.694 251188010.1 

ED Edwards, Unit 1 856 2012 1973.891 7447380.695 
9124113 

CJl SI LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 

Ameren to exit rrerchant generation business: Business I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit D 

Page 1 of2 

Ameren to exit merchant generation business 

DECEMBER2o, 2012 8:56AM • BY USA BROWN 

LBROWN @POST -DISPATCH.COM 314-340-8127 

Ameren Corp. plans to get out of the merchant 

generation business, which produces power for 

the competitive wholesale electricity market, as 

power prices remain weak and the cost of 

environmental compliance increases. 

As a result, Ameren will incur a non-cash 

charge ranging from $1.5 billion to $2 billion in 

the fourth quarter. 

However, investors liked the news that the company would exit a business that held weak 

profit prospects. The utility's stock shot up nearly 4 percent to close Thursday at $31.17 a 

share. 

"It's the ongoing low pricing environment," said Andy Smith, a senior analyst with Des 

Peres-based Edward Jones, which changed its recommendation onAmeren's stock from sell 

to hold Thursday. "They're not generating enough money for what it costs them." 

The merchant generation business is operated by the St. Louis-based company's Ameren 

Energy Resources subsidiary, which serves commercial and wholesale power markets in the 

Midwest. 

Collinsville-based AER, which employs about 900 people, was formed in 2000 following 

Illinois' deregulation ofthe state's electricity markets, and its customers include municipal 

utilities and rural cooperatives. 

The merchant generation business represented only about 15 percent of Ameren's $5.3 

billion of revenue in the first nine months of the year. The remainder of Ameren's business is 

derived from regulated utilities Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois. 

Ameren said in a regulatory filing Thursday that the merchant generation business has 

experienced decreasing earnings and cash flows for several years. 

In the filing, Ameren also cited environmental regulations that have resulted in significant 

investment requirements. 

Ameren spokesman Brian Bretsch said a timeline for exiting the business has not been set 

for the exit, and the am10uncement has "no immediate impact on Ameren Energy Resources' 

operations ... or facilities." 

Genco, a subsidiary of AER, will likely sell at least one of its three natural gas-fired power 

plants to improve liquidity, according to the filing. The three Illinois plants are in Elgin, 

'INI-W.stltoday.comlbusiness/local/arreren-to-exit-merchant-generation-business/article_9b768f23-bd51-!366a-8d6e-fdc1dd36f483.html?print=true&cid=print 112 
9124113 

Gibson City and Grand Tower_ 

Ameren to exit merchant generation business: Business I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit D 

Page 2 of2 

The decision to leave this business "resulted from Ameren's analysis of the current and 

projected future financial condition of its merchant generation business segment, including 

the need to fund Genco debt maturities beginning in 2018, and its conclusion that this 

business segment is no longer a core component of its future business strategy," according to 

the filing_ 

Ameren already closed two of its merchant power plants in Illinois in 2011-

WNN.stltoday.comlbusinessllocal/amererrto-exitwmerchant-generation-business/article_9b768123-bd51-566a-8dt)e..fdc1dd36f483.html?print=true&cid=print 212 
Danskammer power plant sale dragging due to taxes 

Company still owes $11M 

By Jessica DiNapoli 

Times Herald-Record 

Published: 2:00AM- 07/02/13 

IPCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit E 

Page 1 of 5 

TOWN OF NEWBURGH - Sale negotiations for the Danskammer power plant have dragged out far 

longer than anticipated, leaving about $11 million in overdue taxes in the balance and the future of 

the plant increasingly uncertain. 

The heart of the stalemate is the property assessment and taxes on 62-year-old Danskammer, 

currently planned to be demolished. 

Owner Dynegy, in a court filing Monday, says the value of Danskammer and sister plant Roseton 

combined is less than the total amount of overdue taxes, and is seeking to have the amount due 

reduced to $8 million. 

The town, Orange County and the Marlboro School District should not be entitled to penalties and 

interest, Dynegy argues. 

The back taxes are based on the town's $313 million valuation of Danskammer. That number comes 

from a 2008 settlement for Danskammer and Roseton that pegged their combined value at $890 

million. 

That figure is "divorced from the economic realities of the value" of the plants and their operating 

results, according to Dynegy's filing. The taxes ultimately contributed to Dynegy's bankruptcy, the 

filing states. 

Dynegy finalized the sale of Roseton to Castleton Commodities International this spring for $19.5 

million. 

Steve Durkee, the president of ICS NY Holdings, which won last year's bankruptcy auction of 

Danskammer with a bid of $3.5 million, said the property taxes and the assessment for Danskammer 

going forward are the last issues to resolve before the deal can close. 

Durkee said it makes no sense to pay taxes that are three times the purchase price of the plant. "Why 

would anyone do that?" 

Durkee has formally contested the 2013 assessment of the retired plant- $189 million, which he 

called a "deal-killer." 
!PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit E 

Page 2 of5 

In an assessment grievance filed with the town in May, he sought to reduce the assessment to $0, 

claiming the property's value is actually negative because of the costs associated with contamination 

on the site. 

Newburgh, however, didn't budge on the assessment. 

It's still $189 million, said Supervisor Wayne Booth. 

David Murphy, the attorney representing Newburgh in the assessment issue, said the town wouldn't 

reconsider the assessment until the site has changed hands. The town is not sure if ICS NY Holdings 

has the financing to buy it. 

"Suppose we reduce the assessment to zero, and then the deal fell through. We'd look a little 

ridiculous, wouldn't we?" Murphy said. "!don't want the Town of Newburgh looking ridiculous." 

Durkee is barred by the court from walking away from the deal until July 9. Dynegy can look for other 

buyers, but has been focused on working through the sale process with Durkee, according to 

spokeswoman Katy Sullivan. 

For Orange County, the problem would get "exponentially worse" if ICS abandoned the deal, Durkee 

said. 

"The asset sits and becomes a massive liability right on the river," Durkee said. 

idinaooli@th-record. com 
Dynegy: Cut tax assessments 90% 

Decision could mean millions 

IPCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit E 

Page 3 of5 

Dynegy is suing to have tax assessments on its Roseton and Danskammer plants reduced by more than 90 percent. The Marlboro 

School District stands to lose $17 million, more than 40 percent of its tax revenue. Newburgh could lose $5 million, which worries 

Supervisor Wayne Booth, who stands before the Roseton plant. Dynegy has already failed to pay its taxes due in January. 

By Jessica DiNapoli 

Times Herald~Record 

Published: 2:00AM- 08/22/12 

Last updated: 8:51 AM - 08/22/12 

The owners of the Roseton and Danskammer power plants have filed lawsuits asking for a more than 

90 percent reduction in their 2012 assessments, a move that could have major consequences for 

taxpayers in the Town of Newburgh and Marlboro School District. 

Those taxpayers would have to come up with most of the money the plants normally pay if Dynegy, 

which is also in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, wins its assessment challenge. Altogether, it may mean 

around $23 million in lost revenues for the Marlboro School District, the Town of Newburgh and 

Orange County. The potential loss is "such an ominous number for the town and school district," 

Newburgh Town Supervisor Wayne Booth said. 

The most severe effects would be in Marlboro, where the tax base is mostly farms and homes. The 

district covers most of the Town of Marlborough and parts of the Towns of Newburgh and Plattekill. 

District officials are expecting the power plants to pay about $17 million in taxes, more than 40 

percent of all the taxes the district will raise for the upcoming school year. 
District may have to borrow 

I PCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit E 

Page4of5 

Superintendent Raymond Castellani said Dynegy needs to pay its taxes until a decision is made on the 

lawsuits. 

"It doesn't concern me as much as them not paying," Castellani said. 

If the Houston power company skips out on the bill in the fall, the district will likely have to borrow 

money until April, when Orange County would have to make it whole, said Neysa. Sensenig, the 

assistant superintendent for business. Sensenig added the scenario could change if the plants are sold 

-a key part in Dynegy's plan to pay back its creditors in bankruptcy. 

If Dynegy wins its new lawsuits, taxpayers in Newburgh will have to come up with an extra $5 million, 

according to this year's budget and levy. The assessments Dynegy is targeting are used for a January 

2013 tax bill, David Murphy, an attorney for the Town of Newburgh, said. 

Dynegy says in court papers that the two plants together have a market value of $64.9 million, a 

drastic decrease from the agreed-upon value of about $895 million reached in a settlement almost five 

years ago. 

The terms of that settlement are in effect through the end of this year and affect some taxes next 

year. But Dynegy is trying to alter the final year with its current lawsuits, Murphy said. The company's 

backtracking will be a part of his defense in court. 

Booth said it's possible that Dynegy, in its new lawsuits, could again get retroactive judgments despite 

the existing settlement. 

Since the previous Dynegy settlement, Marlboro has reduced staff by 20, while Newburgh laid has off 

nine full-timers. The recession also played a role in the staffing changes. 

The $64.9 million price tag for the plants is a lowball figure, Murphy said. 

Expert appraisals ordered during the legal proceedings usually determine the new value of the 

properties, he said. 

The upcoming auction of Roseton and Danskammer in bankruptcy court may also show what the best 

price is, Murphy said. The auction is tentatively scheduled for November, according to bankruptcy 

court filings. 
2012 town, county taxes unpaid 

IPCB Case No. 2014-010 

Exhibit E 

Page 5 of5 

Dynegy already owes the Town of Newburgh and Orange County money. The company skipped out on 

a $7.5 million tax bill due in January because it was unsure of who would ultimately own the plants. 

That bill -now more than $8 million because of penalties -is scheduled to be discussed at Dynegy's 

Aug. 31 hearing. 

But ongoing negotiations may mean it will be settled before then, said attorney Lewis Wrobel, who is 

representing the Town of Newburgh in Dynegy's bankruptcy case. 

jdinapoli@th-record .com 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/24/2013 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

ILLINOIS PO\VER HOLDINGS, LLC and ) 

AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY ) 

COGEN, LLC; ) 

AJ\1EREJ\ ENERGY 

RESOURCES, LLC 

Petitioners, 

Co-Petitioner, 

V. 

ILLINOIS ENVIRON:viENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PCB No. 14-10 

) (Variance- Air) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

NOTICE OF FILING 

To: ALL PERSONS ON TI-lE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 

Please take notice that today we have electronically filed with the Office.ofthe Clerk of 

the Illinois Pollution Control Board a Waiver of St&t lory De~is·o~n eadline, a copy of which 

are herewith served upon you. ' /;) // ;· 

/( /Ufl ';{. /iLt/UG?3' 

Dated: September 24, 2013 

BROWN, HAY & STEPHENS, LLP 

Claire A. Manning 

Willian1 D. Ingersoll 

205 S. Fifth Street, Suite 700 

P.O. Box 2459 

Springfield, IL 62705-2459 

(217) 544-8491 

Fax: (217) 241-3111 

cmanning(,Vbhsla>Y.com 

wingersoll@bhslaw.com 

Claire A. Mmming 

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP 

Renee Cipriano 

Amy Antoniolli 

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(312) 258-5550 

Fax: (312) 258-5600 

rcipriano,'ci),schiffhardin.com 

aantoniolli@schiffhardin.com 

fS 

ATTACHMENT---
Eh:Jctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 08/24/2013 

BEFORE THE ILLINO!S POLLUTION CONTROL BO . .!J>..D 

ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS. LLC and 

AMEREJ'.iENERGY 1v1EDINA VALLEY ) 

COGEN, LLC; } 

) 

Petitioners, ) 

) 

A.J\1EREN ENERGY ) 

RESOURCES, LLC ) 

) 

Co-Petitioner, ) PCB No. 14-10 

) (Variance-Air) 

v. ) 

) 

ILLINOIS ENVIROJ'.i1V1El'iTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

WAIVER OF STATt:TORY DECISION DEADLINE 

Pursuant to the request of the Hearing Officer, Petitioners Illinois Power Holdings, LLC 

and AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC, and Co-Petitioner Amcren Energy Resources, 

hereby waive the statutory decision deadline in the above-captioned matter up to, and including, 

November 21, 2013. 

/j /.A -- {/1w..rL U. h{tvtvJt..A __ · 

Claire A. Manning 

Dated: September 24,2013 

BROWN, HAY & STEPHENS, LLI' 

Claire A. Manning 

William D. Ingersoll 

205 S. Fifth Street, Suite 700 

P.O. Box 2459 

Springfield, IL 62705-2459 

(217) 544-S49l 

Fax: (217) 241-3111 

cmanningtmbhsl a w. com 

wimzcrsollrci:.bhslaw.com 

SCHIFT HARDIN, LLP 

Renee Cipriano 

Amy Anloniolli 

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(312) 258-5550 

Fax: (312) 258-5600 

rcipriano@schiffhardin.com 

aanioniollifa:sehiffhardin.com 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 08/24/2013 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

L the undersigned. certify that on this 24th day of September. 2013, I have served 

electronically the attached ·waiver of Statutory Decision Deadline, upon the following persons: 

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

Suite 11-500 

100 West Randolph 

Chicago, Illinois 6060 I 

and by first class mail, postage affixed upon: 

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer 

Dlinois Pollution Control Board 

1021 North Grand Avenue, East 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

Gina Roccaforte, Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

I 021 North Grand Avenue, East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

Faith E. Bugel 

Andrew Armstrong 

Environmental Law & Policy Center 

35 E. Wacker Drive 

Chicago, Illinois 6060 I 

BROWN, HAY & STEPHENS, LLP 

Claire A Mmming 

William D. Ingersoll 

205 S. Fifth Street, Suite 700 

P.O. Box 2459 

Springfield, IL 62705-2459 

(217) 544-8491 

Fax: (217) 241-3111 

cmmming(a]bhslaw.com 

Vi'ingerso]](a)bhslaw.com 

Claire A. Manning 

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP 

Renee Cipriano 

i'uny Antoniolli 

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(312) 258-5550 

Fax: (312) 258-5600 

rcipriano@schiffhardin.com 

a an toni olli !Wschi ffhardi n. com 

Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 0812412013 - PC# 2336 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC and ) 

AMEREN ENERGY MEDINA VALLEY ) 

COGEN, LLC, ) 

Petitioners, 

) 

) 

) 

AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, ) 

v. 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PCB 2014-010 

(Variance- Air) 

NOTICE OF FILING 

TO: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have electronically filed today with the Illinois Pollution 

Control Board the Comments of the Illinois Attorney General's Office, a copy of which is hereby 

served upon you. 

Dated: September 24, 2013 

BY: 

Respectful! y submitted, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney 

General of the State of Illinois 

JAMES P. GIGNAC 

Environmental and Energy Counsel 

Illinois Attorney General's Office 

69 W. Washington St., 18th Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(312) 814-0660 

jgignac@atg.state.il.us 

{(, ATTACHMENT ___ _ 
' . 

Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office : DB/24/2013 -PC# 2336 

Carol Webb 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19274 

Springfield, IL 62794-9274 

Gina Roccaforte 

SERVICE LIST 

lllinois Environmental Protection Agency 

I 021 North Grand A venue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

Claire A. Manning 

William D. Ingersoll 

Brown, Hay & Stephens LLP 

205 South Fifth Street, Suite 700 

Springfield, IL 62705-2459 

Renee Cipriano 

Amy Antoniolli 

SchiffHardin, LLP 

6600 Willis Tower 

233 S. Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60606-64 73 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: OB/2412013 -PC# 2336 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC and ) 

AMEREN ENERGY MEDINA VALLEY ) 

COGEN, LLC, ) 

Petitioners, 

AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, 

v. 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PCB 2014-010 

(Variance- Air) 

COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 

Pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/32 and 35 Ill. Adm. Code§ 104.224(d), the Illinois Attorney 

General's Office, on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois (the "People"), hereby submits 

the following comments to the illinois Pollution Control Board (the "Board") for its 

consideration in the above-referenced matter. 

INTRODUCTION 

The People strongly support the Board's decision in PCB 12-126 to require Dynegy's 

subsidiary, Illinois Power Holdings, LLC ("IPH"), to make its own independent showing of need 

for a variance and to require that IPH file its request in a new docket to undergo the public 

process requirements set forth in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104, Subpart B. The wisdom of this decision 

is evidenced by the large numbers of public comment (written and oral) received by the Board in 

the current docket, as well as through the exchange of questions and recommendations by and 

between the Board, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA"), and the petitioners. 

One issue, however, that the Board did not appear to squarely address in PCB 12-126 is 

the procedural question of whether it is appropriate for the Board to consider requests for 

I 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 0912412013 - PC# 2336 

variances from entities, such as IPH, who are not yet actually subject to the regulations from 

which they seek relief. Assuming, though, that the Board finds this type of request to be 

allowable, the People provide the following suggestions to aid the Board's analysis of the 

substantive merits of !PH's petition. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Evaluation of Emissions 

Petitioners go to great lengths to attempt to claim that the requested variance will not 

result in higher pollution amounts than if they were required to comply with the MPS. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Board should reject IPH's attempt to claim credit for not operating 

plants that it will not acquire. Also, because IPH is requesting prospective variance relief to 

begin on an uncertain date, the Board should examine a range of emission scenarios and consider 

the use of adjustable emission caps based on the actual date of the closing before determining 

that a variance is warranted. 

A. Medina Valley is an Unnecessary Party. 

In denying the motion to substitute parties in PCB 12-126, the Board pointed out that IPH 

was proposing to acquire only five out of the seven plants that the Board had analyzed in 

granting the variance to AER. Order of the Board (June 6, 2013) at II. The Board stated that it 

"would therefore be required to undertake a new analysis specifically related to the five facilities 

in [IPH's] requested variance." !d. (emphasis added). But instead of following the Board's 

instructions and presenting a new analysis, IPH decided to join with another entity (Medina 

Valley Cogen, LLC) and repackage the same set of pollution calculations involved in PCB 12-

126. As discussed below, the Medina Valley subsidiary is irrelevant to IPH's variance request 

and should be excluded from the Board's analysis in this docket. 

2 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 0912412013 - PC# 2336 

Upon acquiring the two shut-down facilities (Hutsonville and Meredosia), there is 

nothing Medina Valley would need to do to comply with the MPS and therefore no reason for it 

to be before the Board requesting variance relief. Nowhere does Medina Valley state any intent 

of resuming coal-fired power generation at either Hutsonville or Meredosia. It appears that the 

FutureGen 2.0 project, if it is built at the Meredosia plant, would operate at an emission rate of 

.044lb/mmBtu1 and have very little impact one way or the other on the overall MPS group 

compliance due to its relatively small size. To the extent FutureGen would affect anything, it 

would only assist IPH with MPS compliance obligations. The simplest and most straightforward 

way to address FutureGen would be for IPH, as part of the proposed transaction, to agree to 

indemnify Medina Valley in the event Medina Valley is claimed to be in violation of the MPS by 

operating the FutureGen boiler during the tetm of a variance. 

Accordingly, the Board should deny Medina Valley's variance request, focus its analysis 

on the five plants that IPH proposes to acquire, and should follow-through with a new evaluation 

that it determined to be necessary in denying the substitution of !PH for AER in PCB 12-126. 

The Hutsonville and Meredosia plants should be excluded from the revised analysis because they 

have zero impact on the fleet-wide emission rate (no heat input, no sulfur dioxide ("S02') 

emissions) and are, therefore, irrelevant to IPH's compliance with the MPS. IPH's insistence on 

continuing to claim credit for the closures of Hutsonville and Meredosia-plants that it never 

owned and will never own-only serves to obscure the question of harm to public health and the 

environment and represents a fiction that should be rejected by the Board. 

1 According to the draft air permitting documents, the FutureGen boiler would be limited to a 

heat input of 14,500,000 mmBtu/year and an so2 emission limit of322.4 tons/year 

((322.4x2000)/14500000=0.044). http:/ /www.epa.state. il.us/public-notices/20 13/amerenfuturegen-meredosialdraft-pennit-120200 13 .pdf. 

3 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 09/2412013 -PC# 2336 

B. Uncertain Closing Date 

In addition to confining its analysis to the actual plants that IPH proposes to acquire, the 

Board should also reject IPH's attempt to take credit for emission reductions that occur prior to it 

taking ownership of those plants. In PCB 12-126, the Board found that the beginning of AER's 

commitment under the proposed variance conditions was the appropriate starting point for 

analyzing the environmental impact of the variance. Opinion and Order (Sep. 20, 2012) at 56 

("[T]he Board fmds that 2012 is the appropriate start point because the variance will be granted 

in 2012 and commits AER to complying with a more stringent overall [sulfur dioxide ("S02")] 

annual emission rate starting in 2012 ... as a prerequisite to the dual vatiance periods 

themselves."). 

Here, when IPH's commitment will begin is unclear because of the contingent nature of 

the proposed transaction. One of the major contingencies is the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission ("FERC") approval the transaction under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act (16 

U.S.C. § 824b). Dynegy and Ameren filed their application for FERC approval on April16, 

2013. See Joint Application, FERC Docket EC13-93? The FERC must act on a completed 

Section 203 application within 180 days of the filing. 18 C.P.R.§ 33.11. Thus, if the AmerenDynegy application had been deemed complete, the FERC would have had a decision deadline 

of mid-October. But the application was not complete. In a letter dated July 26, FERC staff 

directed the applicants to atnend the application and provide additional information to allow 

FERC to analyze the filing. 3 Ameren and Dynegy submitted the additional information on 

2 http://elibraty.ferc.gov/idmws/docket search. asp 

3 Office of Energy Market Regulation, Letter order directing Ameren Energy Generating 

Company et a!. to provide an amendment to the 4/16/13 application for authorization of a 

disposition of jurisdictional assets and merger under EC13-93 (July 26, 2013). 

4 
Electronic Filing- RecivBd, CIBrk's DfficB: OS/2412013 -PC# 2336 

August 5th, which FERC had stated in its letter would be considered an amendment to the 

application and would involve assigning a new date to the filing. Thus, FERC approval may not 

by achieved by mid-October and may in fact still be pending into 2014. 

The possibility that FERC approval could be delayed appears to have been anticipated by 

Ameren and Dynegy. Through the asset purchase agreement, the parties gave themselves until 

March 14, 2014 to complete the closing before unilateral termination rights accme. See Exhibit 

Bat 26, Motion to Reopen Docket (May 2, 2013), PCB 12-126. They also allowed the option to 

extend this date by an additional thirty days if"govemmental consents" (e.g., FERC approval) 

had not been secured. !d. 

As the requestor of the variance, IPH carries the burden of proof. Marathon Oil Co. v. 

EPA, 242 Ill.App.3d 200,206 (5th Dist. 1993) (citing Monsanto Co. v. PCB, 67 Ill.2d 276,293 

(1977)) ("The party requesting the variance has the burden of establishing that the hardship 

resulting from a denial of the variance outweighs any injury to the public or the environment 

from a grant of the variance."). As of today, IPH is unable to prove when it will assume 

ownership of the plants and can only speak to its expectations or what it anticipates or hopes will 

occur. Under the asset purchase agreement, it is conceivable that IPH would not assume 

ownership and would not become subject to the variance until as late as Aprill4, 2014. 

If in fact the closing date is delayed into 2014, the calculation of differences between 

mass S02 emissions under the MPS and under the requested variance would need to be adjusted. 

Thus, the Board should examine a range of emission scenarios ranging from what it has already 

requested (Fourth Quarter 2013 through 2020) up to and including April2014 through 2020. 

Also, as discussed below, the People support the inclusion of mass emission caps as a condition 

to any IPH variance that may be granted to ensure that actual emissions do not exceed the 

5 
Elactronic Filing - Racivad. Clark's Offica: 0912412013 - PC# 2336 

amounts that the Board finds appropriate. To address the uncertainty of the actual closing date in 

this case, the Board could consider including, as an additional condition to the variance, that IPH 

provide a re-calculation of the emission cap(s) needed based on the date of closing and submit it 

to the Board as part of its certification of acceptance. 

II. Consideration of 1-Hour S02 Modeling Analysis 

The Citizen Groups have submitted air modeling analyses of the unscrubbed plants 

proposed to be acquired by IPH (Edwards, Joppa, and Newton). PC #113. According to the 

results, all three of the plants are estimated to be causing violations of the !-hour S02 national 

ambient air quality standard. !d. For the reasons set forth below, the People believe that it is 

appropriate for the Board to include the analyses in its evaluation of the potential for harm to 

public health as a result of the variance. 

1n order to comply with the MPS, some action would need to be taken by IPH at one or 

more of the Edwards, Joppa, and Newton plants to reduce S02 emissions starting in 2015. 

Depending on the specific action to be taken, the reduction in SOz emissions would help to 

eliminate or reduce exceedances of the !-hour S02 standard at one or more of the plants. 

Instead, under the variance, IPH can operate the three plants as they are being operated today, 

likely continuing to cause exceedances of the 1-hour S02 standard until such time as the sources 

are addressed by a SIP revision (by 2018 in the case of Edwards and even later for Joppa and 

Newton, depending on when USEPA completes the attainment designations for those areas). 

1n PCB 12-126, the People focused their commentary on the higher amounts of S02 

emissions that the variance would permit from 2015-2020 compared to what would otherwise 

occur under the MPS. While the Board ultimately accepted the use of emission reductions in 

2012-2014 to offset the increase, neither the People nor the Board had the benefit of the air 

6 
' . Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: OB/2412013 -PC# 2336 

modeling analyses now being provided by the Citizens Groups. The People believe the analyses 

support the view that citizens could be exposed to unsafe levels of air pollution longer under the 

proposed variance than they otherwise would be if !PH was required to comply with the MPSand that this is true regardless of offsetting emission reductions in earlier years. The Board 

should acknowledge this factor and incorporate it into its evaluation of whether IPH has shown 

that its hardship outweighs harm to public health and the environment. 

III. Additional Conditions to a Granted Variance 

The People support the use of annual mass emission caps as a means of ensuring that 

actual emissions under the variance do not exceed levels that the Board may fmd appropriate in 

its analysis. While petitioners have expressed their willingness to accept an overall cap, 

Response to Sept. 12th Questions at 2-3, annual caps would be preferable as a safeguard against 

pollution spikes occurring in one or more particular years during the variance. The People also 

support inclusion of the additional variance conditions identified by IEPA and agreed to by !PH 

regarding scrubber efficiency, sulfur content of fuel, and the commitment not to operate Edwards 

Unit I upon approval by the system operator. 

7 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 09/24/2013 - PC# 2336 

Dated: September 24,2013 

MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief 

Environmental Enforcement/ 

Asbestos Litigation Division 

BY: 

8 

Respectfully submitted, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney 

General of the State of Illinois 

~ -r,~o -c 

JAMES P. GIGNAC 

Environmental and Energy Counsel 

Illinois Attorney General's Office 

69 W. Washington St., 18th Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(312) 814-0660 

jgignac@atg.state.il.us 

' ' 
l ~ 

Elsctronic Filing- Rscivsd, Clsrk's OfficB: 09/24/2013 - PC# 2336 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, James P. Gignac, an Assistant Attorney General in this case, do certify that I caused to 

be served this 24th day of September, 2013, the foregoing Comments of the Illinois Attorney 

General's Office upon the persons listed on the Service List by depositing same in an envelope, 

first class postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service at 69 W. Washington St., 

Chicago, Illinois, at or before the hour of 5:00p.m. 

JAMES P. GIGNAC 
. ' 
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

ll..LINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC and ) 

AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALlEY ) 

COGEN, LLC, ) 

Petitioners, ) 

) 

AMERENENERGY ) 

RESOURCES, LLC ) 

Co-Petitioner, ) 

) 

~ ) 

) 

ll..LINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL ) 

PR01ECTION AGENCY, ) 

Respondent. ) 

PCB No. 14-10 

(Variance- Air) 

NOTICE OF FILING 

To: 

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer 

illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, lllinois 60601 

therriaj@ ipcb.state.il.us 

cwebb@ ipcb.state.il.us 

Claire A Manning 

William D. Ingersoll 

Brown Hay & Stephens LLP 

204 S. Fifth St., Ste. 700 

Springfield, IT.. 62704 

Tel: 217-544-8491 

Gina Roccaforte 

Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 

lllinois Environmental Protection Agency 

1021 North Grand Avenue, East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Tilinois 62794-9276 

Faith E. Bugel 

Andrew Armstrong 

Environmental Law and Policy Center 

35 E. Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60601 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today electronically filed with the Office of the 

Clerk of the illinois Pollution Control Board the attached AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES' 

BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, copies of which are herewith served upon you. 

11 

ATTACHMENT---
EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficB: 10/0712013 

Dated: October 7, 2013 

Renee Cipriano 

Amy Antoniolli 

SCHlFF HARDIN LLP 

233 Soutb Wacker Drive 

Suite 6600 

Chicago, lllinois 60606 

312-258-5500 

aantoniolli@ schiffhardin.com 
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, certify that on this 7th day of October, 2013, I have served 

electronically the attached AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES' BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO 

COMMENTS, upon the following persons: 

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer 

illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

Suite 11-500 

100 West Randolph 

Chicago, illinois 60601 

therriaj @ipcb.state.il.us 

cwebb@ipcb.state.il.us 

and electronically and by first class mail, postage affixed, upon: 

Gina Roccaforte 

Assistant Counsel 

Division of legal Counsel 

lllinois Environmental Protection Agency 

1021 North Grand Avenue, East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, illinois 62794-9276 

Faith E. Bugel 

Andrew Armstrong 

Environmental Law and Policy Center 

35 E. Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 6060 1 

Renee Cipriano 

Amy Antoniolli 

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 

233 South Wacker Drive 

Suite 6600 

Chicago, lllinois 60606 

312-258-5500 

aantoniolli @schiffhardin.com 

Claire A. Manning 

William D. Ingersoll 

Brown Hay & Stephens LLP 

204 S. Fifth St., Ste. 700 

Springfield, IL 62704 

Tel: 217-544-8491 

~&-y C. Antoniolli 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/0712013 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC and ) 

AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY ) 

COGEN,LLC, ) 

Petitioners, ) 

) 

AMEREN ENERGY ) PCB No. 14-10 

RESOURCES, LLC ) (Variance- Air) 

Co-Petitioner, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL ) 

PROTECTION AGENCY, ) 

Respondent. ) 

AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES' BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

AER and the Petitioners acknowledge the magnitude of the decision before the Board and 

the acute level of public interest. Without a doubt, the granting of the variance relief requested 

herein provides the best option for continued operation of the AER coal plants and the economic 

stability of their surrounding communities. But it does not and will not come at the expense of 

the environment. As in PCB 12-126, Petitioners herein have proposed a compliance plan that 

mitigates the environmental impact of the requested relief. The Parties have crafted a request 

and compliance plan that recognizes the core purpose of the MPS and provides the Board with 

comfort that the MPS 's foundation of overall emission reductions will not be compromised. The 

granting of variance requested provides improved environmental benefits when compared to 

PCB 12-126, while increasing the economic stability of the AER energy centers and their 

surrounding communities. 
Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

I. INTRODUCTION 

ELPC1 asks this Board to deny the variance as a matter of policy.2 They state that 

granting the variance would amount to "bail{ing} out what appears to be a failing indust1y." Tr., 

p. 321. Another opponent states that "if granted, [the variance} would provide future buyers of 

environmentally risky assets a model for how to structure acquisitions to avoid environmental 

compliance costs under the guise of financial hardship." Tr., p. 304. There is further claim that 

the variance request is "an unfair way to set up a choice"-a choice between jobs and the 

livelihood of thousands and others who have health related issues." Tr., p. 318. Despite these 

claims, all of the opponents and proponents before this Board, and respectfully this Board itself, 

must resist approaching this request as a choice between jobs and environmental protection. 

Indeed, Petitioners and Co-Petitioner are not asking the Board to make this choice; the elected 

officials in support of this variance request and the workers who run these energy centers 

everyday are also not asking this Board to make this choice. 

The Illinois Supreme Court has clarified what was envisioned for the Board in a variance 

proceeding: "to decide if a regulation imposes an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on an 

individual polluter. If the Board finds such hardship, it may then grant a variance." Monsanto 

Co. v. IPCB, 367 N.E.2d 684, 67 Ill. 2d 276 (1977). This conduct is quasi-judicial and must be 

based on specific findings of fact, with the exception of setting variance conditions, which is 

considered policy-making and within the Board's rulemaking authority "in the sense that its 

focus is on future conduct and its efficacy depends on agency expertise." Monsanto, 67 Ill.2d at 

1 In this Response Brief, Co-Petitioner will refer to the Natural Resource Defense Council, Sierra Club, Respiratory 

Health Association and Environmental Law and Policy Center collectively as "ELPC" for ease in reference. 

2 This Response Brief filed on behalf of AER will be referred to hereinafter as "AER's Response to Comments." 

This brief is intended to respond to comments made that require a response from AER only and is intended to 

compliment and supplement the Post Hearing Brief filed by Petitioners and Co-Petitioner. Further, the transcript of 

the September 17, 2013 hearing held in this matter will be cited to throughout this brief as "Tr., p. _." 

2 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

290, 367 N.E.2d at 689. In granting variances, the Board has indeed set conditions that narrowly 

tailor each variance to the unique set of facts at hand. And in the MPS context, variance 

conditions the Board has imposed have required a demonstration of continual progress towards 

compliance with requirements more prescriptive and stringent than those found in the underlying 

regulation. 

In its Recommendation3 ("Recommendation"), the Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency ("IEPA" or "Agency"), agrees that the Petitioners' "compliance plan as set forth in the 

Petition shows a net environmental benefit consistent with previous net environmental benefit 

determinations" and proposed three additional conditions. Rec., p. 29-30. IEPA concludes there 

would be no injury to the public if the variance were granted with the conditions proposed. Rec., 

p. 17. The Petitioners have agreed to include the IEPA-proposed commitments as variance 

conditions and IPH has also agreed to an emissions cap to provide the Board with further 

assurance that an overall benefit will be achieved. Together, there is no doubt that 

environmental impact was fully considered and respected. 

For the reasons more fully set forth in the Petitioners' and Co-Petitioners' Post-Hearing 

Brief also filed today and supplemented with the paragraphs below, AER respectfully requests 

this Board to grant the requested relief, subject to the proposed conditions. 

II. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT COMPROMISE THE STRUCTURE 

AND PURPOSE OF THE MPS OR HARM THE ENVIRONMENT. 

The MPS is a unique regulatory structure different from any other regulatory structure on 

the books in Illinois and nationally. The MPS was a negotiated rule and a brief background of 

the creation of MPS provides context for responding to public comments. The United States 

Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") promulgated regulations requiring a reduction 

3 The Agency's Recommendation will be cited to through-out this Brief as "Rec., p._." 

3 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

of NOx and S02 (the "Clean Air Interstate Rule" or "CAIR"), and mercury (the "Clean Air 

Mercury Rule" or "CAMR") in 2005. The Agency proposed rules in Illinois to implement both 

federal rules: Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225 Control of Emissions from Large Combustion 

Sources (Mercwy), R06-25 (Dec. 21, 2006), and (2) Proposed New Clean Air Interstate Rules 

(CAIR) S02, NOx, Annual and NOx Ozone Season Trading Programs, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225, 

Subparts A, C, D, E, and F, R06-26 (Aug. 23, 2007). At hearing, Mr. Dan Thompson presented 

a chart identifYing all of the pollution control equipment that has been installed on the AER 

plants to meet the Illinois Mercury Rule and the MPS, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The total 

cost of these controls has exceeded $1 billion dollars. One only needs to take a cursory look at 

Exhibit 1 to conclude that installation of pollution control equipment at coal-fired power plants is 

very complex. Installations must be sequenced and the equipment must be specifically 

fabricated for each project and site conditions. There are years of lead time for equipment and 

supplies ordering, labor retention, weather considerations, and, of course, permitting. Hundreds 

of workers are required for many of these pollution control installation projects and thousands of 

man hours go into managing the projects internally. With a number of very complex emission 

reduction programs converging at the same time and the State of Illinois' desire to have one of 

the most stringent mercury reduction programs in the nation in place at the state level, AER 

stepped forward "before they were required to do so"4 (as requested by Ms. Joyce Blumenshine 

in her comments before the Board, Tr., p. 166) to develop the MPS with IEPA technical 

expertise and guidance. The goal was to achieve a progressive reduction of emissions across a 

4 ELPC includes as Exhibit B to their Post-Hearing Comments a copy of the Testimony of then Director Douglas 

Scott as he appeared before Congress on July 9, 2009. The Citizen Groups inaccurately cite to this testimony as 

standing for the proposition that the "MPS was adopted, in part, to address particulate matter." The MPS was not 

adopted to address PM but certainly as then Director Scott noted in his testimony, reduction ofNOx and S02 will 

result in lower PM emissions. The testimony also recognizes the genesis of the MPS and Ameren 's efforts in that 

regard, as relevant here. 

4 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

period of time that would result in the synchronized implementation of technology to meet the 

proposed requirements at both the federal and state level. The MPS, which became effective on 

January 5, 2007, was a system-wide rule applicable to AER's fleet of seven coal-fired power 

plants and its structure is wholly dependent on compliance averaging by the Ameren MPS Group 

across all electric generating units in the system. The MPS structure, however, presupposed that 

federal regulations would set a level playing field nationally. That would not be the case.5 

It is important to acknowledge that the MPS goes far beyond what has been accomplished 

at the federal level, and Illinois has imposed more stringent S02, NOx, and mercury 

requirements than surrounding states, all to the benefit of the general public. Had setting a multipollutant standard for coal-fired electric generating units been easy, the U.S. EPA would have 

gotten it right by now. But it has not and compliance with the prescriptive, declining nature of 

the emission rates structured to synchronize with the now non-existing federal rules has been 

challenging especially in the face of additional factors that have arisen since the promulgation of 

the MPS. As a direct result, AER has sought modifications to the MPS emission rate timing on 

two occasions. First, AER sought an amendment to the MPS in 2009 which allowed the 

company to better synchronize construction projects so as to avoid devastating stranded costs. In 

seeking those amendments, AER worked with IEP A within the framework of the MPS to ensure 

that the integrity of the structure and purpose of the MPS were not compromised. AER then 

sought a variance from the 2015 and 2017 annual emission rates for S02 in 2013. In doing so, 

AER also worked closely with IEPA to ensure the integrity of the structure and purpose of the 

MPS was not compromised. Both times, the reworking of the MPS has resulted in additional 

5 As previously, stated, the federal CAMR rule had been vacated (New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F .3d 574, 583 (D.C. Cir. 

2008) and the federal CAIR rule remanded (North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1777-78 (D.C. Cir. 2008). U.S. 

EPA attempted to replace the CAIR with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in 20 II, but that rule was vacated as 

well (EPA v. EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). As of the date of this filing there are still no federal 

replacements for these rules. 

5 
Elsctronic Filing - Rscivsd, Clsrk's Offics: 10/0712013 

commitments above what was required by law to address any environmental impact resulting 

from the requested timing change. Both times, there has been a net benefit to the environment 

that has been crafted "hand in hand" with IEP A. Both times, AER did not make the request 

lightly and recognized the need to work with IEPA to respect the framework that it had helped 

develop. At no time has AER asked the Board or the State to walk away from the MPS, even as 

the Ameren MPS Group struggled through the unanticipated hardship caused by depressed 

power markets while putting best efforts towards reducing emissions from its seven-plant fleet. 

Even today faced with the same hardship, Petitioners, representing the seven-plant Ameren MPS 

Group upon closure of the transaction are not asking the Board or the State to walk away from 

theMPS. 

ELPC's argument that the variance would "confer a benefit to a handful of corporations, 

at an unacceptably high cost to the general public" ignores the achievements of the Illinois 

mercury rule and the MPS to date and the progressively stringent standards to which the Ameren 

MPS Group adheres. AER's fleet has made drastic reductions in S02, nitrogen oxides ("NOx"), 

and mercury emissions over the past decade. With respect to S02, since 1990 AER has achieved 

a steady and significant decline in S02 emissions across the fleet--87% since 1990 and 51% over 

just the last five years. Second, with respect to NOx, AER has achieved a steady and significant 

drop in NOx emissions since 1990. These reductions have been accomplished even while 

utilizing greater quantities of coal. As Mr. Bell of the Coffeen Energy Center noted: "AER has 

spent over a billion dollars on pollution control technology. So what does supporting the 

variance mean for us? It means we will continue to reduce S02 and NOx during this 

timeframe." Tr., p. 137. In granting AER's request for variance in PCB 12-126, the Board 

recognized the benefit that would occur in part due to early reductions in annual emission rates 

6 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB : 10/0712013 

of S02• AER v. !EPA, PCB 12-126, p. 54. Under the variance, the applicable annual S02 

emission rate is currently 0.35lb/mmBtu through December 31,2019. Without the variance, the 

applicable annual S02 emission rate would be 0.50 lb/mmBtu during 2013 and 0.43 lb/mmBtu 

during 2014. ELPC ignores the commitments that AER made in agreeing to meet a more 

stringent emission rate than currently required by the MPS, including higher levels of control at 

the Duck Creek and Coffeen Energy Centers, and procurement of ultra-low sulfur coal for use at 

the Edwards, Newton, and Joppa Energy Centers on an ongoing basis. These commitments 

show that AER has not wavered on its promise to provide the greatest reductions economically 

possible. AER has continuously sought to provide greater environmental benefits than necessary 

to meet the standard required for seeking a variance - in spite of crumbling economic conditions 

and regulatory uncertainty at the federal level. Today, through this proceeding, IPH and Medina 

Valley are seeking to do the same. There can be no question that if granted the variance request 

with the compliance plan, as currently structured, will provide the greatest benefits to the State 

under the MPS to date. 

III. ELPC'S ANALYSES FAIL TO SHOW THAT THE E.D. EDWARDS, JOPPA, 

AND NEWTON ENERGY CENTERS ARE CAUSING LOCALIZED 

ENVIRONMENTAL HARM. 

ELPC relies on a report prepared on behalf of them by Mr. Klafka of Wingra Engineering 

to stand for the technical conclusion that "all three of AER's unscrubbed coal plants all have 

been predicted to cause NAAQS exceedances,"6 and the general proposition that the variance 

"would allow a negative environmental impact ... to continue through the end of the decade." 

PC#2337, p. II, 14-15. The technical conclusion is drawn from what ELPC describes as "a 

dispersion modeling analysis" that was performed by Mr. Klafka for each plant (e.g., Edwards, 

6 Post-Hearing Comments of Environmental Law and Policy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Respirat01y Health Association, and Sierra Club (PC# 2337), PCB 14-10, p. 14. 

7 
Electronic Filing -Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

Newton and Joppa Energy Centers) "to assess compliance with the 2010 S02 NAAQS." !d., p. 

15. They further explain that "[f]ollowing the most recent federal and state guidance, Mr. Klafka 

utilized U.S. EPA's AERMOD air dispersion model to predict the downwind S02 concentrations 

associated with each plant's emissions-both currently permitted and measured actual." !d. 

ELPC goes on to state that "[f]or each plant, Mr. Klafka's analysis predicted exceedances of the 

NAAQS throughout their respective regions, to a maximum distance of eight kilometers for the 

Edwards and Joppa plants, and a maximum distance of eight kilometers for the Newton plant." 

!d. Mr. Gignac now believes that with the Klafka analyses in hand there is support for "the view 

that citizens could be exposed to unsafe levels of air pollution longer under the proposed 

variance than they would otherwise would be ifiPH was required to comply with the MPS-and 

that this is true regardless of offsetting emission reductions in earlier years."7 The Klafka 

analyses are not credible and cannot be used to assess compliance with the !-Hour S02 NAAQS 

standard. Moreover, the requested MPS variance will not impact compliance with the !-hour 

NAAQS. 

In order to respond to the technical conclusions reached by Mr. Klafka in his assessment, 

AER retained Mr. Robert Paine of AECOM. Mr. Robert Paine is a Certified Consulting 

Meteorologist and a Qualified Environmental Professional with 3 8 years of experience in air 

quality modeling and consulting, all with AECOM. He has participated in the design, coding, 

evaluation, and documentation of several air quality models over a period of 30 years, including 

AERMOD, which is EPA's current guideline model. Mr. Paine continues to work with EPA on 

dispersion modeling improvements as an active member of the Technical Modeling Workgroup. 

7 Comments of the Illinois Attorney General's Office (PC# 2336), PCB 14-10, p. 7. Notably, Mr. Gignac appears to 

accept the modeling analysis presented by the Citizens Group as the technical "final word" and omits mention that 

Illinois EPA, based on its review of the technical data, did not recommend designating Hollis Township as nonattainment for the S02 I Hour NAAQS. 

8 
EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB : 10/0712013 

He also has worked with professional trade associations and scientific organizations such as the 

American Petroleum Institute and the Electric Power Research Institute on new modeling 

techniques and advances. Mr. Paine's biographical background and technical experience is more 

thoroughly presented in his Curriculum Vitae attached to Exhibit 6, Attachment A of the 

Petitioners' and Co-Petitioner's Post-Hearing Brief. Mr. Paine found that the modeling analyses 

performed by Mr. Klafka contained a number of flaws resulting in an over prediction of 

emissions from all three plants. 8 Mr. Paine concluded that the approach to modeling employed 

by Mr. Klafka that uses both allowable emission rates as well as peak actual emission rates 

"grossly overstates actual emissions from the three energy centers, as well as their impact on air 

quality." Paine Report, p. I. Mr. Klafka himself admits that there are "a number of modeling 

assumptions that I used that made my analysis conservative." Tr., p. 86. Mr. Paine agrees and 

further concludes that "the Klafka modeling represents a very conservative analysis that does not 

present credible results." Paine Report, p. I. 

A draft guidance document released by U.S. EPA in May 2013, the S02 NAAQS 

Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document, addresses ways in which third-party 

modeling for NAAQS review might be limited. ld., p. 3. A key consideration is whether actual 

emissions data is used. As noted, Mr. Paine's technical review found that the Klafka modeling 

did not use actual hourly emissions monitoring data, but rather used both allowable emission 

rates and peak actual emission rates (which can be regarded, at best, as a conservative screening 

analysis, not evidence of a violation).9 I d., p. 6. In addition, Mr. Paine explains that the Klafka 

8 See Technical Critique of Recent Air Quality Modeling Analyses of the Edwards, Joppa and Newton Plants dated 

September 30,2013, Exhibit 6 to the Petitioners' and Co-Petitioner's Post-Hearing Brief("Paine Repart"). 

9 Mr. Paine notes that both sets of these emission rates are often much higher than actual hourly emissions. Paine 

Report, p. 6. In fact, Klafka used the single highest maximum peak 1-hour S02 emission rate measured and 

assumed the Edwards units emitted at that rate 24 hours per day, seven days a week and 52 weeks per year when the 

9 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

analyses resulted in modeled design concentration that is a factor of about I 0 too high for the 

E.D. Edwards Energy Center. If this factor is corrected by scaling of Klafka' s modeling results 

to represent typical plant conditions, the resulting so2 concentrations fall below the so2 

NAAQS and are more consistent with monitored concentrations in Peoria that are well below the 

NAAQS, while Klafka's modeling indicated predicted violations at that monitor. !d. 

Mr. Paine also found that Mr. Klafka similarly overstated emissions in his modeling for 

the Joppa Energy Center. By using a more typical emission rate to adjust the Klafka modeling 

results using allowable emissions and also with an adjustment correcting for the actual stack 

height for the facility, Mr. Paine found from scaling arguments that the total design concentration 

again falls below the !-hour S02 NAAQS for the energy center. Not surprisingly, Mr. Paine 

found that Mr. Klafka overstated emissions for the two units at the Newton Energy Center as 

well. Id. By scaling the allowable emissions with more typical emission rates for the two units, 

Mr. Paine found that the total design concentration again falls below the 1-hour S02 NAAQS. In 

general, Mr. Paine's analysis shows that the Klafka analyses simply cannot be used as 

"evidence" of nonattainment with the !-hour S02 NAAQS and, more importantly, does not rely 

on accurate information or provide credible results. As such, the Klafka analyses should also not 

be used to "support the view that citizens could be exposed to unsafe levels of pollution longer 

under the proposed variance" as suggested by Mr. Gignac. 

ELPC accurately notes that the U.S. EPA has designated Hollis Township, in Peoria 

County as non-attainment in the federal S02 designations and classifications rulemaking 

actual hourly emissions were significantly less on most days and near zero on other days. !d., p. 2. This same 

methodology was used in the Newton and Joppa modeling studies. 

10 
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

docket. 10 PC#2337, pp. 14-15. This designation has the potential of impacting E.D. Edwards 

Energy Center. However, what ELPC did not explain is that the IEPA did not propose that 

Hollis Township (Peoria County) be included as a non-attainment area based upon its assessment 

of the data and relevant information. 11 They also do not consider that the S02 monitor in the 

Peoria area north of the energy center, more likely downwind of the facility, shows S02 

concentrations well under the NAAQS. AER also submitted comments to U.S. EPA objecting to 

the inclusion of Hollis Township as non-attainment for the !-hour S02 NAAQS. See "Comments 

of Ameren Services dated March 15, 2013," EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233, and attached as Exhibit 

2. Specifically, Ameren disagreed with the inclusion of Hollis Township based on four 

meaningful disputes with U.S. EPA's analysis. Based on Ameren's review of the technical data 

and meteorology and based upon Illinois EPA's analysis, the facilities located north of the 

Tazewell monitor did not contribute to any of the measured exceedances of the !-hour S02 

NAAQS in Tazewell County. !d. The E.D. Edwards Energy Center is located directly north of 

the exceeding monitor. !d. 

The Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group ("IERG"), an affiliate of the Illinois 

Chamber of Commerce, also disagreed with U.S. EPA's inclusion of Hollis Township. See 

!ERG Comments on EPA Responses to Illinois' 2010 Sulfor Dioxide Recommendations, EPAHQ-OAR-2012-0233, dated March 18,2013 and attached as Exhibit 3. IERG states, in part: "we 

do not believe that U.S. EPA gave ample consideration to all of the meteorological information 

provided by Illinois supporting its recommendation to not include Hollis Township. Further, 

10 U.S. EPA, Air Quality Designation for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO:) Primwy National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard, 78 Fed. Reg. 47191 (Aug. 5, 2013). 

11 See also Technical Supp011 Document: Recommended Attainment/Nonattainment Designations in Illinois for the 

2010 Revised Prim my 1-Hour S02 National Ambient Air Quality Standard, AQPSTR 11-01, !EPA, Jun. 2, 2011; 

available from USEPA's website (last viewed Oct. 7, 2013): 

httn://www.epa.gov/so2designations/recletters/R5 IL rec wtechanalysis.pdf. 

11 
EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/07/2013 

analysis of more recent data than 2007-2009 data provided by Illinois also supports the 

conclusion that sources located in Hollis Township do not impact the monitored exceedances of 

the standard that serves as the basis for nonattainment designation." !d. On September 5, 2013, 

AER filed in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals a petition for judicial review of the 

designation by U.S. EPA of Hollis Township as an area that does not meet the !-hour S02 

NAAQS. AERO's appeal, docketed as Case No. 13-2959, is attached as Exhibit 4. 

The process for designating areas following the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act and that process for the future 

designations should proceed as intended. Contrary to Mr. Klafka's analyses, Illinois EPA has 

not proposed to include as non-attainment the areas within which the Joppa and Newton Energy 

Centers are located and in Illinois, this is the state regulatory agency entrusted by Congress to 

recommend air quality designations. Further and importantly, if U.S. EPA believed it was 

prepared to proceed with additional non-attainment designations at this time, it would have done 

so, but it has not. ELPC simply cannot contend today as it does today that "[ d]elaying 

compliance with the MPS means continuing localized NAAQS exceedances at the three 

unscrubbed plants" and therefore, localized environmental harm results. 

IV. THE FORESIGHT PROPOSAL IS NOT A VIABLE COMPLIANCE 

ALTERNATIVE. 

In both its written and oral public comments, Foresight Energy LLC presented a proposal 

that it has termed a "win- win" for the State of Illinois, the Illinois coal industry and the AER 

plants. Specifically, Foresight offers to fund the Newton scrubber in exchange for a long term 

Illinois coal contract or, alternatively, "assume Dynegy's role in the proposed acquisition, 

acquire the assets as structured and construct the scrubbers." PC# 2000, p. 2. Notwithstanding 

its facial appeal, there are many factors that must be considered by the Board before the Board 

12 
EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/0712013 

could determine that the Foresight proposal is a viable alternative to the current plan to complete 

the Newton Scrubber FGD Project by December 31, 2019. 

Importantly, AER wishes to explain at the onset that Ameren Corporation and IPH have 

entered into a formal Transaction Agreement and are obligated to proceed in good faith towards 

closing that transaction. Negotiations with third parties to "assume Dynegy 's role in the 

proposed transaction" would constitute a breach under that Agreement. As explained to the 

Board, Ameren announced its intent to exit the merchant business in December 2012. The intent 

to exit was announced publicly in Ameren's Form 8-K with the Securities Exchange 

Commission. Dynegy, upon learning of Ameren's intent, contacted Ameren to express interest 

in the merchant assets and began the process of formal negotiations and due diligence. After 

three months of negotiation and due diligence, an agreement between the parties was reached. 

At no time during that three month period did Foresight indicate a desire to begin formal 

negotiations with Ameren Corporation. As noted above, now that a Transaction Agreement has 

been signed, neither Ameren nor AER can engage in negotiations with a new third party to 

acquire the business in lieu ofiPH nor can AER negotiate a long-term coal supply contract along 

the lines sought by Foresight. 

Further, based on the limited information presented, it appears that Foresight's proposed 

financing of the Newton FGD Scrubber Project is conditioned entirely upon the execution of a 

long-term coal supply contract from one or more of its Illinois coal mines, with the specific 

commercial terms yet to be defined. The funding for the scrubber project, Foresight explains, 

would be embedded in the cost of the coal. PC# 2000, Attachment A, p. 2. However, the current 

design fuel for the Newton's scrubber FGD project is a full range of PRB coal only. 

Redesigning the project to accommodate Illinois basin coal would result in almost a complete 

13 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

duplication of the current configuration and construction efforts, excluding the stack. AER 

estimates that modifying the scrubber design to accommodate Illinois coal would significantly 

impact engineering, construction, and tie-in costs to well over $1 billion. 12 For the Foresight 

proposal to be commercially viable, such increased costs embedded in a coal supply contract 

would still need to be cost competitive and it is unclear how the additional costs will be reflected 

in a competitive way through a long term coal contract. Under current market conditions, PRB 

coal from the Wyoming basin is more economical than Illinois coal notwithstanding the 

additional transportation and delivery costs. 13 It is hard to understand how these additional costs 

embedded in a fuel contract would improve the economics of the Newton Energy Center. 

As compared to PRB, Illinois coal also has a higher sulfur and different elemental 

properties. These properties impact the scope of the Newton scrubber project and the proper 

operation of the boiler. While originally designed for Illinois coal, AER and its predecessors 

have methodically converted boilers across the fleet to burn PRB coal, in large measure to 

address increasing restrictive S02 emission limitation requirements. Set forth below is a chart 

that reflects the dramatic 87% decline in S02 emissions from AER's fleet. 14 

12 Based upon costs developed prior to the deceleration of the Newton scrubber, completion of the current project 

scope is estimated to be approximately $250M for a total direct project cost of S460M. Such direct costs would 

need to be recalculated once the construction aspects of the project resume in earnest and in accordance with the 

Board's Order in PCB 12-126. 

13 AER does bum a blend of Illinois basin and PRB coal at its Duck Creek and Coffeen Energy Centers. Earlier this 

Spring, AER experimented with burning Illinois coal from Foresight's Deer Run mine at Coffeen Energy Center but 

abandoned such efforts when the boiler back pass became plugged due to high sodium levels within the coal forcing 

the unit to shut down. 

14 The 87% drop in S02 emission since 1990 reflects a system-wide conversion of boilers to PRB coals (Joppa 

1995; Newton 1999; Duck Creek 2004; E.D. Edwards and Coffeen 2005), as well as the installation of scrubber 

systems at Duck Creek and Coffeen. 

14 
350 

(5"300 

0 

C) 

..... 

~ 250 1: 

.3 

~200 

0 

..c: 

~ 

l£ 150 

,Q 

~ 

·"' ElOO 

... 

N 

~ 50 

Electronic Filing -Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

Historical 502 Emissions - MPS Units 

~~~ ~~~~~~~- 20 

18-0 

0 

16 ::;-

0 

14 ,... °-

X 

\~-----------------~----: 12 ~ .3 

10 -;;-

~--------~--~--------------~ 

-----j .2 

8 ~ 

E 

6 ~ 

" 8 4 

2 ~ 

0 ~~----~~--~~ ~~~-~~~~~~-~~---~----------~~----~-~- ~--~~-~--~---- 0 

1990 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

--Total 502 Tons --Coal Consumption 

More significantly, the current scrubber is simply not designed to accommodate Illinois 

coal. 15 The Newton scrubber has been designed for a full range of PRB coals, and AER has 

performed only conceptual engineering design related to the potential use of Illinois coal. To 

scrub Illinois coal would require almost a complete duplication of the current 

configuration/construction efforts, additional gypsum landfill space; and a water treatment 

facility. The current project calls for two absorber vessels and supporting equipment, buildings 

and facilities. If Illinois coal were to be used, the project scope would need to be expanded to 

include the following: two complete absorber vessels (including agitators, slurry nozzles, mist 

eliminators, jet air spargers, absorber bleed pumps, absorber transfer pumps, emergency quench 

system, outlet hoods, and associated piping and electrical); new absorber building (including 

recycle pumps and motors, and associated piping, valves, and electrical); booster fans; additional 

15 The scrubber chimney stack has been designed and constructed to accommodate both PRB and Illinois coals. 

15 
Electronic Filing -Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

ductwork with modifications to existing ductwork; oxidation air blowers; gypsum slurry feed 

pumps; expansion of the existing dewatering system (including: belt filters, and vacuum 

pumps); additional limestone storage tanks with associated equipment (including: rotary feeders, 

limestone conveying blowers, limestone feed screw pumps; and air compressors); an additional 

gypsum storage tank; water treatment facility; new electrical building including all switchgear; 

transformers; and new power feed from the switchyard; miscellaneous valves; and modifications 

to the distributed control system control logic; and additional landfill gypsum storage. Under the 

existing scrubber design, the Newton FGD Project is at 59.3% completion level, with 

engineering at 90.5% complete as of August 23, 2013. 

From an envirorunental impact perspective, in addition to S02, the MPS contains systemwide NOx emission limitations of 0.11 lb/mmBtu. Illinois coal inherently has higher nitrogen 

levels than PRB coal. In response to the Foresight public comments (oral and written), AER has 

examined the impact a conversion to Illinois basin coal would have on NOx emissions at 

Newton. On PRB coal, Newton's NOx emission rate is typically 0.10 lb/mmBtu. In 

comparison, from 1994-1997, Newton Unit 1 burned Illinois coal and its NOx emission rate was 

approximately 0.30 lbs/mmBtu. Even with aggressive tuning and optimization of all existing 

pollution control equipment across the AER fleet (over-fired air; low NOx burners; and SCRs at 

Coffeen, Duck and Edwards), the projected system NOx emission rate would be approximately 

0.133 lb/mmBtu based on current projected generation. The use of Illinois coal at Newton would 

result in an inability to comply with the MPS NOx requirements absent either a regulatory 

change to the MPS or the installation ofNOx control equipment at either Joppa or Newton. The 

original estimate developed several years ago of an SCR was in excess of $150 million. In 

addition, since Illinois coal has a high chlorine level, there is an increased potential for water 

16 
EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's DfficB: 10/07/2013 

wall tube corrosion with low NOx burners and over fire air. Tubes located in the water area of 

the boiler would need to have alloy cladding to prevent corrosion. Such a project would require 

a two months outage and cost approximately $20 million per unit. 

V. AER REQUESTED A VARIANCE IN 2012 IN GOOD FAITH AND IS BACK 

WITH IPH AND MEDINA VALLEY BECAUSE THE HARDSHIP 

DEMONSTRATED EXISTS REGARDLESS OF THE OWNER AND THE NET 

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT EXPECTED BY THE BOARD WILL CONTINUE 

In an effort to diminish the request for relief, ELPC suggests that Ameren Corporation 

and AER were disingenuous in their representation before the Board in PCB 12-126. According 

to Ms. Bugel, Ameren is "yet again c1ying wolf" Tr., p. 320. Mr. Armstrong believes that AER 

"does not have a realistic plan for coming into compliance with the MPS" and that, contrary to 

its prior representations before the Board, Ameren is walking away from these plant and their 

communities. Tr., p. 324. As a consequence, Petitioners and Co-Petitioner are not to be believed 

and ELPC urges the Board to "closely examine !PH's claims." PC# 2337, p. 22. Although AER 

knows this is unsubstantiated rhetoric, it feels compelled to respond appropriately for the Board's 

full consideration. 

First, the Board recognized the viability of AER's proposed compliance plan and in fact 

conditioned relief upon the performance of specific project milestones that insures the Newton 

scrubber project will be in service by the end of 2019. IPH has pledged to continue those 

construction commitments and has budgeted sufficient capital expenditures to complete the 

Newton scrubber project. How is that not a "realistic plan for coming into compliance with the 

MPS?" 

Second, Ameren Corporation and AER wish to reassure the Board that at no time - as 

implied by ELPC and some opponents - did the companies secure variance relief so as to ease 

Ameren Corporation's exit from the merchant business. Rather, as the Board found in PCB 12-

17 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

126, AER approached the Board when it became apparent that market conditions and AER's 

financial resources had deteriorated to the point where it could not continue on its current course 

of construction so as to comply with the MPS's 2015 S02 emission rate. As the Board noted in 

its Order, third-party financing from either a financial institution or parental support from 

Ameren Corporation were not feasible compliance alternatives. The only other compliance 

option available to AER would be to shut down one or more units which would have tremendous 

human and economic repercussions. The Board detem1ined that the evidentiary case presented 

by AER satisfied the regulatory standards for variance relief. AER filed its request for relief in 

the beginning ofMay, 2012 and the Board issued its ruling on September 20,2012. 

As detailed in Mr. Lyons' affidavit, Exhibit I to the Petition, accounting standards 

require public companies such as Ameren Corporation to evaluate, on an ongoing and continual 

basis, the viability of their business operations. Petition Exh. 1, par. 6. This accounting 

requirement is assessed every financial reporting quarter. ELPC cannot credibly dispute that due 

to a deep and lingering recession, power market prices are at or near historically low ranges. Nor 

can they dispute the predicament facing AER in its inability to access financing for the scrubber 

project. In fact, they seem to acknowledge the impact that natural gas prices have had across the 

energy sector. Written Statement of ACM Partners on behalf of Sierra Club and Environmental 

Law and Policy Center (PC#3162), p. 26. The fact remains- which ELPC does not and cannot 

dispute- market conditions in 2012 continued to worsen. Accordingly, Ameren Corporation, 

having performed the requisite accounting evaluation, had no choice but to publicly 

acknowledge that a material change in circumstance had occurred and record a $1.95 billion 

impairment charge relating to the merchant business. Petition Exh. 1, par. 6. Given sustained 

weak market conditions, lack of strategic fit with its regulated businesses and the need to allocate 

18 
Elsctronic Filing - Rscivsd, Clsrk's OfficB: 10/07/2013 

capital within those businesses, Ameren Corporation ultimately determined in December 2012 

that it had no viable alternative but to exit the merchant generation business. !d. Do the 

opponents truly believe that Ameren Corporation would have worked to secure a variance for 

AER and taken a nearly two billion accounting impairment as a marketing ploy to entice 

prospective bidders such as Dynegy? 

In fact, rather than abandoning the AER plants and their communities as argued by 

ELPC, Ameren Corporation has taken pains to ensure sufficient liquidity is left in AER postclosing so as to provide a runway for success. Working capital, proceeds from the Put Option, 

and credit support all speak to Ameren Corporation's desire to provide IPH!New AER with a 

solid financial footing. Ameren chose to negotiate with Dynegy/IPH based in large measure on 

the belief that IPH and Dynegy, with its deep roots in Illinois, will use its commitment to the 

merchant market and operational synergies to bring a more certain future to the energy centers. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

In these economic times, businesses in this nation are fighting to survivei 6 This fight 

exists across almost every industry sector, but acutely within the coal-fired power sector. 

Despite these hard times, environmental regulation advances but the very regulations on paper 

are by nature blind to economic changes and temporary hardships that may challenge timely 

compliance. In its wisdom, the Illinois General Assembly put into place a process to allow our 

regulators and this Board to react to hard or exceptional times in a way the hard words in a 

regulation cannot-that process known as a "variance" is a statutory creature enacted within the 

very body of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. 

16 "Not unlike the autonzobile indust1y after 2008, we just need a little time to fiscally get across this bridge through 

a poor economy and finish the scrubber without decimating our company and the jobs that it provides.", Mr. Larry 

Quick, storeroom stockman, newton Energy Center. (Tr., p. 231) 

19 
EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/0712013 

Petitioners and Co-Petitioners are before this Board requesting that they be granted a 

variance. And even though the Parties are before this Board once more for the purpose of 

demonstrating need for the continuation of the same relief this Board provided the Ameren MPS 

Group in PCB 12-126, this is not, as it was not before, a choice between the plants and jobs on 

one side, and the environment and public health on the other. Just as in PCB 12-126, Petitioners 

and Co-Petitioner worked hard to craft a request that both recognized the core purpose of the 

MPS and then, going further, Petitioners followed through by agreeing to conditions that provide 

the Board with further comfort that the MPS' s foundation of overall emission reductions would 

not be compromised. 

ELPC asks "[s}o why are we back here?" Tr., p. 319. Specifically, Ms. Bugel posits, 

"[tj he granting of the variance was supposed to avoid all of this a year ago. Granting the 

variance a year ago was supposed to allow the plants to stay open, and at that time, we even 

discussed the possibility that granting the variance would not allow the plants to stay open." Tr., 

p. 319. With the utmost respect for the Board, AER and Petitioners would like nothing more 

than to not be here. Ameren would like nothing more than to have AER not be here. AER put 

forth its best effort to make the variance and economics of the energy centers work within the 

Ameren family, but further degradation of economic circumstances coupled with the regulated 

nature of it's core business left Ameren Corporation no choice but to exit the merchant business. 

This was not a shell game move on Ameren's part. This was not a "let's hoodwink the Board 

and get what we want so we can tum around and switch out the owners." This was a decision 

that had to be made and the promise of a company like IPH, as part of the Dynegy family, made 

Ameren more comfortable that AER's representation of "not giving up on the plants" that was 

made to the Board roughly one year ago would still ring true. Petitioners and Co-Petitioners are 

20 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

before this Board again because they have no other viable alternative. The hardships have not 

changed nor will they in time for AER to meet the current MPS rates should the variance not be 

granted. The relief is still vitally needed-indeed, this is just simply not a circumstance of 

"c1ying wolf" 

WHEREFORE, Co-Petitioner Ameren Energy Resources, LLC, respectfully requests that 

the Board grant the requested variance to Petitioners, Illinois Power Holdings, LLC and 

AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC, and Co-Petitioner, Ameren Energy Resources, 

LLC, to become effective after the closing of the transaction and upon filing an executed 

certificate of acceptance with the Illinois Pollution Control Board. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Renee Cipriano 

Amy Antoniolli 

Schiff Hardin LLP 

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Tel: 312-258-5500 

Counsel for Ameren Energy Resources, LLC 

21 
EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/0712013 

AFHDA VIT OF STEVEN C. WHITWORTH 

I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS 

1. My name is Steven C. Whitworth, and I am employed by Ameren Services 

Company as the Director of Environmental Services. Ameren Services Company provides 

business services to Ameren Corporation's operating companies including Ameren Energy 

Resources ("AER") and its subsidiary companies, Ameren Energy Generating Company 

("GENCO") and AmerenEnergy Resources Company. In addition to supervising staff personnel. 

I am responsible for implementing policies and procedures relating to environmental compliance, 

including reporting requirements under federal and state laws. In this capacity, I am responsible 

for representing the Ameren Companies before regulatory and administrative bodies with respect 

to state and federal permitting conditions and regulatory requirements. I am familiar with 

Illinois Multi-Pollution Standard ("MPS") and AER's efforts to comply with that regulation. 

2. I have reviewed Ameren Energy Resources' Brief in Response to Comments and 

confirm the accuracy of the statements contained therein. 

Further affiant sayeth not. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me 

this ~ay of October, 2013. 

Not~ Public 

BECKIE J, EAVES 

Notary Public - Notary Seal 

State of Mlssoufi 

Cornrnissloned for Sl Louis City My Commission Expires: February 21, 2G14 

Commission Number.1 0936572 

;&~----- Steven C. Whitworth 
Eh:!ctronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

AH'IDAVIT OF DUANE E. HARLEY 

My name is Duane E. Harley and I am the Senior Director of Engineering for 

Ameren Energy Resources ("AER"). Through its subsidiary companies Ameren Energy 

Generating, Ameren Energy Resources Generating Company, and Electric Energy Inc. 

(collectively, the "AER Companies"), AER owns the following coal fired generating 

stations: Duck Creek, E.D. Edwards, Coffeen, Newton, Meredosia, Hutsonville and 

Joppa. 

As part of my duties, I am responsible for all aspects of the Newton Scrubber 

Project including the foHowing: engineering design, contract negotiation, budget and 

resource estimate and planning and project construction and execution. I have reviewed 

the written public comment filed by Foresight Energy regarding the proposed use of 

Illinois Basin Coal at the Newton Energy Center. I have reviewed Ameren Energy 

Resources' Brief in Response to Comments including those made by Foresight Energy 

and confirm the accuracy of the statements contained in AER's response. 

Further, Affiant sayeth not. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me 

thisf.,LLday of~ 2()13 

BECKIE J. EAVES 

NotarY Public - No1ary Seai 

Sta1a of Missoun 

Commissioned for St. lou~ Clly My Gommlsslon Expkes: February 21, 2014 

Commission Number: 10938572 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

EXIDBIT 1 

LIST OF AER POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT 
Elactronic Filing- Racivad. Clark's Offica: 10/0712013 

POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT INSTALLED ON AER PLANTS 

COFFEEN 

DUCK CREEK 

CATEGORY 

SO, Control 

NOxControl 

Mercury Control 

Particulate 

Matter 

Mercury Control 

U2 

U2 

U2 

U1 

mercury removal. 

DATE 

2012 

2011 
Elactronic Filing- Racivad, Clark's Offica: 10/0712013 

CATEGORY UNIT 

U2 

EDWARDS 

NOxControl 

U3 

Mercury Control 

U1 

Pe 

EDWARDS ( cont' d) 

U2 

Particulate FGC (SO,Inj) I Upgrade for ESP 

Matter performance 

Power Supply Upgrade 

ESP upgrade forS03 injection 

Elimination 

U3 ESP 

FGC 

NEWTON 

DATE 

INSTALLED 

1993 

1979 I 

2003 

2009 

2012-2013 

1972 

1979 
JOPPA 

JOPPA {cont'd) 

Electronic Filing -Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

CATEGORY 

NOxControl 

Particulate 

Matter 

NOxControl 

NOxControl 

{cant' d) 

UNIT 

Ul 

U2 

U2 ' ESP 

: .. F(j<:;(SC) lf1iJ.LL!iJ~~ade 

U2 

U3 

U4 

us 

U6 

2002 

1994 

2002 

2002 

2002 
Electronic Filing -Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

CATEGORY UNIT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 

U2 

U3 

Particulate 

Matter U4 

us 

U6 

DATE 

INSTALLED 

1994 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

EXIUBIT 2 

AMEREN COMMENTS IN RULEMAKING DOCKET EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 
Electronic Filing -Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

~r~ 

iWAmeren ll.>rmen Ser>~ices 

. . : ;::: ::: ·:: ;.: ... ><•• ......... :::.:::::::::: -:;·:: ;:;, :: :;::: :::::::: :~ ::::.::::::::::::::::: =~:::::.:::::::. :::: :::".; .:::: ... " .. ····-········-- ----·••-><•·• ....... _. •••••. , ........... .- ............. . '''"" .. "''"'""' ····---- ... "'"' -·· ''''"""'··-·· .............. ._ 

March 15, 2013 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Air Docket 

Attention Do<:ket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012.{1233 

Mail Code 6102T 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Sirs, 

Ameren appreciates the opparlunity to comment on the US EPA recommendations for the Pe~in, IL 802 

nonattainmerll area. Ameren Corporaf1on ("Ameren"} is based in St. Louis, MO. and through its operating 

companies serves 2.4 million electrtc and nearly one million natural gas customers across a 64,000-square-mile 

area in Illinois and Missouri. Ameren companies' net generating capacity is more than 16,400 megawatts. Our 

power plants use a variety of fuels to generate electrtcity-principally coal, nuclear, hydro and n;>tural gas. 

Speoffically Ameren disagrees with the inclusion of the Hollis Township in Peoria County to the Pekin, IL S02 

noo-attaimnant area for the loUowing reasons' 

1) The Pekin area map displayed in Figure 2 of the Illinois EPA's technical support docum<'nt1 shows that 

the Hollis Township (in particular the Ameren Edwards Energy Center) is located almost directly north 

of the exceeding Pe~in SO, monitor. Figure 3 in that same document shows the wind rose for the 

nearby Peoria Regional Airport This figure indicates that winds from tne north account for less than 5% 

of total direction occurrences. US EPA makes the following statement in their response to the Illinois 

technical support document: 

"The wind rose provided by Illinois suggests that winds come most frequently from the south, 

and somewhat frequently from !he northwest. but winds come trom all directions with sufficient 

frequency to suggest that meteorology is not a signfficant factor in defining this nonattainment 

area.•c: 

This statement is misleading. W~h such a low percentage of winds from tha north the probability ol 

facilities located north of the exceeding monitor having a significant impact is expected to be low. 

2) Figure 4 ol the Illinois technical support document1 shows the pollu~on rose for the years 2008-2010. 

This figure shows that over 90% of thE' occurrences of hours with S02 > 75 ppb occurred for wind 

directions from the West to Southwest. The remaining hou.rs IIIith SO,~ 75 ppb occurred ior Wiild 

directions from the Ee~st to Sooth-Soutllwest. Figure 1 below and Attachment I shows a more detailed 

picture of this pollutant rose.' This tigure uses data from the Tazewell county S02 monitor and 

meteorology from the Greater Peoria Regional Airport (see Attachment 1). The enhanced pollutant rose 

1 Teclm'1cal Support Document; Recommended Ana~mer.t!Nonattatnment Designations in 11Unois for the 2010 Revised Primary 1-Hoor S~ 

Nall"""l .O.mbieo!Air Qua~ly Slan<lerd (AQPSTR 11-02); June 2, 2011 2 Df'a4 T echnlcsl Support Document Illinois Area DesignatiCfls For the 201 o S02 Ptlme!Y Natiooal Ambient Air Quality SlaMetct; US EPA 

Febtuary 2013. 

"' See references. in Attachment I ror data sources 

1901 Chouteau Avenue 

PO Box66149, MC 6G2 St. 'ouis, MO 6316S-Il149 Amsrefl.COf\1 
ElEctronic Filing- REcivEd, ClErk's OfficE: 10/0712013 

03/15/201;\ 1:54:00 PM Page 2 of~ 

shown in Figure 1 demonstrates that fof the 3 year period 2008-2010 there were no contributions from 

facilities located north of the Ta~ewell county monitor for measured SO, levels greater than or equal to 

75 ppl:>. Actually over 99% of the measured S02 levels 75 ppb or larger occurred for winds from the 

South-Southeast to West-Northwest The majority of these occurred with winds from the West and 

w~t-Sou\h~t. 

3) Further evaluation of Figure 1 (as well as the detailed hourly data in Attachment I) indicates tilat the 

meteorology associated wijh elevated S02 1evels was occurring a majority of the time with wind speeds 

greater than 10 mph. Th<;<se relatively high wind speeds can cause plumes from relatively short stacks 

to experienoe significarttdownwash. Such stac~sexil>l]ust we<o\ ol the T<IZI'I+Ie\\ ccur.\'1 so, mor~i\or. 

4) US EPA in its response to Illinois' analy$is for designating the Pekin, IL area nonattainment insinuates 

that just because there is a significant S02 emitting source north of the monitor th!lt il automatic.!llly 

contributes to the nigher levels monitored. This assumption is false based on the analysis desctibed 

above. In addiUon as US EPA surely knows that the level of emissions emitted is not the only factor 

that should !:Je considered. US EPA oEH3dS to consider the actual location of the source relative to the 

monitor and area's meteorology (as discussed above); the sources stack height; sources stack llow and 

temperature; and the sources other relevant operating characteristics. It is presumptuous of US EPA to 

assume that a source that emits SO, automatically contributes to the exceedances measured without 

considering all relevant information. 

80.00% 

70.00% 

60"00% 

50.00% -

40.00% 

30.00% 

20.00% 

10.00% 

OJ(J% 

Figure 1 

502 Pollutant Rose 2008-2010 

Tazwell Monitor {17-179-0004} 

502 levels >= 75 ppb 

lUI >::.15 .nph 

"10 lSmph 

"'5·10 mph 

110·5 m~h 

Based on this analysis and Illinois ~PA's analysis the facilities located north of the Tazewell monitor did not 

contribute to any of th& measured exceedances of the one hour S02 standard in Tazewell County. US EPA has 

not sufficiently demonstrated that Hollis Townshll), P<aorla. Cou\'\tY sooll\d oo i!\C\oollll in the Pellin, \L so, 

nonattainment area afld thus Hollis Township should be remove<! from US EPA's recommendation. 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/0712013 

03/15/2013 1:S4:00 PM P~ge 3 of .3 

lt you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me at 314-544-2089. 

Sincerely, 

~~ K'<'\lne\\1 1'.\'\00o;oo 

Managing Supervisor- Air Quality Management 

Attachment 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

Attachment I 

Hourly SOz Data from the Tazewell Monitor and 

Wind Data from the Peoria Airport for 

Measured S02 levels >= 75 ppb 

2008-2010 
'I' 

Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

S02 and Wind Data for Tazewell Area 2008 

Wind 

Wind Speed Olrectlon 

Oate Hour S02 (ppb) {mph) (deg) 

12/27/2008 21:00 277 5 200 

ll/08/2.008 0:00 260 17 260 

12/28/2008 0:00 256 18 260 

OS}f:/2/2008 18:00 243 15 260 

12/27/2008 23:00 231 24 270 

11/08/2008 2:00 229 14 260 

12./28/2008 3:00 225 15 260 

12/28/2008 2:00 211 20 250 

ll/07/2008 23:00 207 14 260 

14 260 

17 260 

12/2$/2CO% 1:00 205 18 250 

12/28/2008 6:00 181 13 260 

11/07/2008 22:00 165 15 2.70 

12/27/2008 22:00 164 15 270 

2.2 no 

12/28/2008 4:00 164 11 250 

21 270 

04/12/2008 5:00 160 11 270 

03/25{2008 15:00 155 10 200 

05/03/2008 8:00 155 20 260 

03/25/2008 16:00 143 15 270 

04/12/2008 4:00 143 11 250 

04/12/2008 2:00 142 15 260 

16 260 

05/03/2008 9:00 140 20 270 

11/08/2008 1:00 136 14 260 

04/26/2008 8:00 119 16 250 

15 260 

16 250 

12{29/2.008 ll:OO 119 14 270 

10/02/2.008 14:00 118 11 260 

01/17/2008 2.2:00 117 10 260 

04/26/2008 13:00 115 18 280 

04/07/2008 12.;00 114 16 270 

03/21/2008 13:00 112 11 220 

12/02/2008 1:00 112 8 250 

9 260 

12/28/2008 7:00 111 9 270 
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

01/17/2008 21:00 110 11 260 

14 260 

10/02/2008 15:00 109 7 280 

11/08/2008 9:00 105 20 270 

04/26/2008 5:00 103 14 270 

04/07/2008 11:00 101 14 290 

Ol/17/2008 16:00 100 15 270 

04/12/2008 1:00 97 16 260 

04/25/2008 10:00 96 15 260 

04/12/2008 6:00 95 16 280 

04/26/2008 7:00 90 15 250 

20 260 

12/02/2008 2:00 90 8 260 

7 260 

8 260 

o~/2S/2oog 14·.00 ~ 22 260 

04/26/2008 11:00 87 15 260 

11/07/2008 18:00 86 13 250 

12/28/2008 5:00 85 5 230 

04/26 /'liJO& 12;00 Bl 1B 270 

04/26/2008 9:00 80 15 240 

05/04/2008 16:00 80 9 260 

12/28/2008 8:00 80 15 260 

11/10/2008 U:OO 79 0 0 

06/28/2008 16:00 78 14 290 

05/26/2008 12:00 77 3 VR 

04/12/2008 3:00 77 11 250 

06/28/2008 11:00 77 10 25() 

10/02/2008 16:00 77 7 280 

05/02/2008 19:00 76 10 250 

11/08/2008 4;00 76 13 260 
Electronic Filing -Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

S02 and Wind Data for Tazewell Area 2009 

Wi11d 

Wind Speed Direction 

Date Hour S02 (ppb) (mph) (degj 

03/31/2009 17:00 352 22 260 

11./09/2009 7:00 n1 28 200 

2& 260 

22 260 

26 260 

10/23{2009 16:00 263 14 250 

14 250 

12/09/2009 9:00 262 25 260 

29 2\'Al 

29 260 

26 260 

29 210 

1.2/09/2009 8:00 252 29 260 

30 260 

28 260 

31 260 

26 260 

10/23/2009 17:00 235 14 260 

13 260 

15 260 

11 260 

10 270 

10 270 

10/30/2009 23:00 233 18 260 

13 260 

04/30/2009 10:00 231 17 280 

14 280 

12/28/2009 2:00 230 10 260 

05/Zl/2009 11:00 229 15 210 

0&/20/2009 15:00 202 1(, 270 

12/09/2009 10:00 198 31 270 

28 260 

24 280 

03/31/2009 18:00 197 15 250 

03/10/2009 18:00 193 20 290 

14 290 

10/31/2009 3:00 187 1'> 2'>0 

10/31/2009 2:00 183 15 260 
Electronic Filing -Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

03/08/2009 14:00 181 31 270 

08/20/2009 17:00 175 7 250 

10/31/2009 0:00 173 14 250 

13 280 

01/17/2009 15:00 171 18 290 

12/28/2009 4:00 170 10 260 

11 270 

04/30/2009 14:00 169 14 270 

11 260 

11 2!\0 

04/30/2009 9:00 163 18 280 

18 270 

17 260 

15 260 

06/01/2009 n:oa 161 8 250 

05/21/2009 10:00 160 17 260 

10/31/2tm 7:00 160 13 260 

08/20/2009 14:00 155 17 240 

12/03/2009 21:00 155 13 260 

10/03/2009 3:00 154 10 260 

11 250 

11 250 

12/27/2009 23:00 151 11 270 

11 260 

10/31/2009 5:00 149 8 260 

05/30/2009 14:00 148 5 290 

10/31/2009 4:00 147 13 260 

05/29/2009 11:00 146 3 VR 

03/08/2009 13:00 144 28 280 

05/31/2009 11:00 144 3 160 

03/24f2C'V9 21:00 144 11 250 

10/23/2009 15:00 142 14 260 

15 260 

13 250 

05/14/2009 11:00 142 13 280 

10/06/2009 16:00 141 18 270 

10/03/2009 5:00 140 10 260 

10 260 

08{20/2009 16:00 139 14 250 

12/10/2009 12;00 138 18 260 

12/09/2009 6:00 138 25 260 

25 260 

23 260 
Electronic Filing -Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

12/10/2009 6:00 13& 14 270 

10/23/2009 14:00 137 13 260 

13 250 

ll 250 

06/09/2009 12:00 137 0 0 

10/24/2009 10:00 137 9 270 

06/01/2009 12:00 134 11 280 

12/28/2.009 3:00 134 11 260 

10/24/2009 12:00 133 10 280 

10/02/2009 21:00 130 14 240 

15 250 

10/31/2009 1:00 129 13 270 

14 270 

10/30/2009 22:00 129 25 260 

21 260 

03/2012009 B:OD 127 18 240 

10/03/2009 4:00 127 10 250 

10 260 

05/29/2009 10:00 126 5 280 

0~/31/2<lGS 16:00 125 2fi 270 

10/03/2009 8:00 125 14 250 

06/28/2009 23:00 125 5 260 

10/03/2009 11:00 123 8 260 

9 250 

06/01/2009 15:00 120 8 270 

10/24/2009 13:00 119 10 250 

04/08/2009 10:00 119 9 290 

06/05/2009 9:00 1.18 a 2:W 

11/25/2009 19:00 118 10 270 

08/21/2009 12:00 113 13 270 

10/31/2009 8:00 113 14 280 

14 2.70 

12/09/2009 13:00 112 20 270 

28 270 

11/25/2009 11:00 112 14 280 

11 260 

14 270 

05/31/2009 12:00 112 6 VR 

10/23/2009 20:00 112 17 270 

10 270 

10 260 

12/10/2009 23:00 110 7 260 

05/30/:1.009 12:00 109 13 250 
Electronic Filing -Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

12/10/2009 21:00 108 13 270 

05/10/2009 14:00 107 13 310 

OS/21/2009 11:00 107 8 260 

14 260 

011/25/2009 15:00 105 8 260 

OS/30/1009 11:00 105 13 260 

10/06/2009 14:00 104 17 280 

10/30/2009 20:00 103 15 250 

03/25/2009 12:00 102 ll 240 

12/10/2009 7:00 102 13 260 

12/28/2009 1:00 101 11 260 

03/25/2009 14:00 100 B 250 

05/11/2009 9:00 99 5 VR 

10/04/2009 14:00 98 5 260 

10/24/2009 11:00 98 14 260 

\) 280 

05/21/2009 13:00 97 9 240 

11/04/2009 ll:OO 97 10 270 

06/19/W09 10:00 97 18 250 

03(2.5/2009 1():00 9'1 15 250 

16 260 

14 260 

15 260 

02/07/2009 13:00 96 B 250 

03/08/2009 15:00 95 29 270 

05/23/2009 8:00 95 0 0 

06/01/2009 10:00 95 9 240 

03/15/2009 11:00 94 10 2.60 

12/04/2009 9:00 94 11 260 

05/14/2009 10:00 94 13 260 

12/10/2009 22:00 93 lO 270 

11/25/2009 18:00 91 10 260 

11 260 

04/30/2009 13:00 91 11 270 

04/25/2009 14:00 91 6 270 

05/14/2009 12:00 91 13 260 

11/25/2009 13:00 90 16 270 

06/20/2009 14:00 90 9 260 

10/23/2.009 18:00 89 14 2:60 

15 280 

12/28/2009 0:00 87 J3 260 

12/03/2009 17:00 85 10 260 

07/31/2009 B:OO 85 7 280 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/0712013 

1:2/03/2009 20:00 85 11 260 

12/10/2009 13:00 84 14 28() 

07/15/2009 12:00 84 11 290 

06/09/2009 13:00 83 6 280 

05/29/2009 12:00 83 5 250 

10/23/2009 21:00 83 14 270 

14 260 

11 280 

06/0S/2009 12:00 82 8 240 

03/25/2009 15:00 80 11 250 

11 28() 

OS/21}2009 '>:()() 80 11 260 

12/11/2009 0:00 80 7 260 

10/06/2009 15:00 79 16 270 

04/01/2009 13:00 79 16 270 

OS{Ol/200g lS:OO 7~ 0 0 

11/04/2009 10:00 79 10 270 

03/25/2009 1:00 79 3 210 

04/09/2009 10:00 78 0 0 

11{25(200g Zl:OO 78 15 280 

12/26/2009 21:00 78 10 260 

10 270 

05/27/2009 11:00 77 11 270 

11/03/2009 12:00 76 5 2:10 

07/31/2009 10:00 76 10 280 

06/05/2009 17:00 75 9 240 

05/29/2009 9:00 75 5 300 
EIBctronic Filing - RBciVBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/0712013 

S02 and Wind Data for Tazewell Area 2010 

Wind 

Wind Speed Direction 

Date Hour S02 (pl)b) (mph) (deg) 

05/13/2010 15:00 331 21 250 

06/02/2010 8:00 254 10 260 

01/25/2010 11:00 241 16 270 

09/07/2010 9:00 228 15 260 

09/07/2010 11:00 224 20 260 

10/27/2010 13:00 220 22 250 

09/07/2010 10:00 217 21 260 

09/07/2010 14:00 210 15 270 

09/07/2010 12:00 202 24 260 

10/20/2010 16:00 198 9 250 

10/20/2010 14:00 196 18 260 

09/07/2010 13:00 195 20 260 

05/13/2010 14:00 190 14 260 

04/07/2010 14:00 179 14 260 

01/25/2010 12:00 178 17 280 

17 260 

16 270 

21 270 

22 270 

17 280 

17 270 

17 260 

03/18/2010 13:00 177 9 240 

01/24/2010 12:00 174 10 250 

11 270 

10/20/2010 15:00 173 13 270 

10/30/2010 13:00 172 16 260 

04/21/2010 20:00 170 10 260 

11/13/2010 23:00 167 15 270 

01/24/2010 11:00 161 11 270 

10/14/2010 12:00 160 8 260 

11/13/2010 18:00 151 17 250 

01/25/2010 6:00 150 11 260 

10 250 

11/3.0{2.010 .8.:()0 149 B 2W 

13 260 

15 260 

14 260 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's DfficB: 10/0712013 

10/20/2010 13:00 145 17 260 

11/13/2010 20:00 144 21 270 

11/30/2010 6:00 144 13 2.60 

11/26/2010 7:00 138 10 260 

11/30/2010 12.:00 137 16 270 

11/26/2010 2:00 134 6 240 

04/15/2010 11:00 134 16 250 

10/20/2010 17:00 127 7 250 

11/30/2010 10:00 125 16 270 

H/14/2010 3:00 122 10 260 

11/13/2010 19:00 122 20 270 

10/14/2010 14:00 120 13 260 

03/11/2010 20:00 117 9 250 

11/26/2010 8:00 116 13 270 

04/15/2010 12:00 116 15 230 

06/19/2010 13:00 115 7 290 

11/13/2010 21:00 114 13 260 

02/19/2010 11:00 114 3 190 

11/30/2010 5:00 114 15 270 

11 2&1 

11/30/2010 11:00 114 20 270 

11/30/2010 2:00 113 20 270 

14 270 

11/26/2010 14:00 111 15 26Q 

10/26/2010 15:00 lll 17 250 

09/12/2010 13:00 110 14 250 

04/21/2010 15:00 109 0 0 

03/19/2010 12:00 108 14 2W 

10/14/2010 13:00 108 14 280 

03/23/2010 14:00 108 15 210 

10/27/2010 12:00 107 21 250 

07/2.8/2010 13:00 107 13 260 

05/11/2010 12:00 106 15 270 

10/20/2010 12:00 105 13 270 

11/14/2010 13:00 104 13 240 

05/09/2010 12:00 104 7 VR 

04/03/2010 11:00 102 14 290 

09/16/2010 6:00 102 13 260 

11 260 

11 260 

13 260 

11/13/2010 17:00 102 17 250 

12/31/2010 23:00 99 20 260 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

10/06/2010 15:01) 98 13 260 

OS/09/2010 14:00 97 3 VR 

05/13/2010 16:00 97 16 270 

10/01/2010 13:00 97 6 300 

04/15/2010 13:00 97 15 230 

10/27/2010 16:00 96 22 270 

11/30/2010 14:00 95 21 270 

ll/3D/2010 9:00 95 13 250 

07/28/2010 12:00 94 13 250 

09/12/2010 11:00 92 9 280 

01/25/2010 10:00 91 13 260 

14 250 

13 260 

12/31/2010 22:00 91 16 260 

02[03/2010 12:00 89 3 170 

01/17/2010 1:00 as 5 10 

5 40 

5 20 

3 20 

0 0 

12/11/2010 20:00 88 13 250 

06/27/2010 14:00 87 13 280 

06/27/2010 13:00 87 15 260 

Olj24/2010 13:00 &6 n 280 

05/03/2010 14:00 86 13 280 

03/11/2010 15:00 82 15 240 

12}11/2010 19:00 81 14 270 

03/19/2010 13:00 81 13 240 

05/03/2010 17:00 81 10 280 

06/19/2010 14:00 80 11 260 

10/30/2010 14;00 77 11 250 

02/19/2010 10:00 77 0 0 

01/25/2010 5:00 77 10 260 

11/30/2010 7:00 77 14 260 

02/23/2010 14:00 75 9 270 

OS/14/2010 10:00 75 10 260 

ll/30/2010 4:00 75 21 270 

11/30/2.010 3:00 75 13 270 

Note: 

1. Zero for wind speed/direction indicates calm 
EIBctronic Filing- RBciVBd. CIBrk's OfficB: 10/0712013 

2. Multiple wind speed/direction readings indicate more than one reading was taken for 

that hour because of changing condrtions. 

3. VR-variable 

4. 502 data from U5 EPA Air Data- Tazewell monitor (ID: 17-179-0004) Pekin, ll 

5. Wind Speed/Direction d<!ta from NOAA- Quality Controlled local Climatological Data 

{QCLC) Greater Peoria Regional Airport- Station ID: 14842/PIA 
EIBctronic Filing - RBcind, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/07/2013 

EXHIBIT 3 

IERG COMMENTS IN RULEMAKING DOCKET EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 
Electronic Filing -Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

I~G Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 

An Affiliate of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce 

March 18, 2013 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Air Docket 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 

Mail Code 6102T 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

215 East Adams Street 

Springfield, IL 62701 

217-522-5512 (FAX -5518) 

Email: iergstaff@ierg.org 

Re: Comments on EPA Responses to illinois' 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Recommendations 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments regarding U.S. EPA's February 6, 

2013 response to lilinois' June 2, 2011 recommendations identifYing specific areas of illinois 

that it believed met the criteria for being designated as nonattainment for the 2010 sulfur dioxide 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard. U.S. EPA has accepted illinois' recommendation that 

the nonattainment area in Tazewell County consist of Cincinnati and Pekin Townships. 

However, U.S. EPA is also proposing to include Hollis Township in Peoria County. We believe 

that U.S. EPA has overlooked important and relevant information contained in illinois' submittal 

in proposing this change. Specifically, we do not believe that U.S. EPA gave ample 

consideration to all of the meteorological information provided by illinois supporting its 

recommendation to not include Hollis Township. Further, analysis of more recent data than the 

2007-2009 data provided by Illinois also supports the conclusion that sources located in Hollis 

Township do not impact the monitored exceedences of the standard that serve as the basis for the 

nonattainment designation. 

The lllinois Environmental Regulatory Group ("IERG") is a not-for-profit lllinois corporation 

affiliated with the lllinois Chamber of Commerce. IERG is composed of fifty (50) member 

companies throughout the State of lllinois, including major industrial facilities in the chemical, 

food, pharmaceutical, transportation equipment, energy, heavy manufacturing, steel, oil, cement 

and power generation sectors, that are regulated by governmental agencies that promulgate, 

administer or enforce environmental laws, regulations, rules or other policies. The 

nonattainment designations contained in U.S. EPA's response will ultimately impact the 

permitting and operation ofiERG members with facilities located in the geographic areas 

identified for designation. 

Provided by the lllinois Environmental Regulatory Group 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: ID/0712013 

2 

The five factor analysis used by Illinois pursuant to guidance issued by the U.S. EPA includes 

consideration of emissions-related data (location and sources of potential contribution to ambient 

S02 concentrations) and meteorology (weather/transport patterns) "as well as other relevant 

information." 1 The lllinois recommendation identified 5 emission sources in Peoria and 

Tazewell Counties that are in the general vicinity of the violating monitor and have emitted over 

100 tons per year for at least one of the years from 2007 through 2009. Two of these sources are 

in Tazewell County, with one being in Cincinnati Township and the other in Pekin Township. 

The Ameren-Edwards Station facility is located in Hollis Township approximately 4.5 km (-2.8 

miles) north of the violating monitor. U.S. EPA's analysis states the following: 

" ... EPA finds that Ameren's E.D. Edwards power plant is only 4 kilometers from 

the monitor and has significant emissions with potential to have significant impact 

on concentrations at the monitor. This source is located in Hollis Township, and 

so this township warrants being considered an area that contributes to the 

violation measured in Pekin. "2 

In evaluating the meteorological conditions in the Pekin area, illinois compiled a wind frequency 

distribution that showed," ... that southerly winds are most frequent in the Peoria area, with a 

secondary maximum from the northwest." 3 U.S. EPA acknowledged Illinois' conclusion but 

added that" ... winds come from all directions with sufficient frequency to suggest that 

meteorology is not a significant factor in defining this nonattainment area."4 The following 

Figure A graphically illustrates the wind patterns at the violating monitor in Pekin. Figure A is 

a composite of two figures presented in lllinois' Technical Support Document included with its 

June 2, 2011 recommendation to U.S. EPA. One of the figures in the composite is lllinois' 

Figure 2 (Location of Major S02 Emission Sources in Tazewell and Peoria Counties) and the 

second figure is lllinois' Figure 3 (Greater Peoria Airport Climatological Wind Rose). 

1 Designations guidance memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Attachment 2, Page 1-2. 2 Draft Technical Support Document Illinois Area Designations For the 2010 S02 Primary National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard, U.S. EPA, February 2013. ("U.S. EPA TSD") at 10. 3 Technical Support Document: Recommended Attainment/Nonattainment Designations in Illinois for the 2010 

Revised Primary !-Hour S02 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, AQPSTR 11-02, June2, 2011. ("IL TSD") at 

13. 

4 U.S. EPA TSD at 10. 

Provided by the lllinois Environmental Regulatory Group 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

3 

Figure A: Map of Pekin Area S02 Emissions Sources with Climatological Wind Rose 

Proposed S02 Nonattainmentlc"::' " '". 

A . T C i u. Archer Daniels " 

rea m azewell ounty 1 Midland co. ,· •''" 

PEORM 

COUNTY 

M1dwest Generation 

Powerton 

Keystone Steel 

&Wire Co. 

Ameren 

Edwards 

' 

' ~ 

COUNTY e? 

~ Legend 

. ·' t=l PrC;KJ$-ed NAA 

0 lZS ;:s SM.~s 

Figure A shows that the wind flow in the Peoria area would be capable of blowing emissions 

from any of the 5 major sulfur dioxide sources to the Pekin monitor. However, illinois also 

evaluated the meteorological data in concert with hourly readings from its Pekin sulfur dioxide 

monitor from 2007- 2009 to identify wind directions associated with measured S02 

concentrations exceeding 75 ppb. Since the Ameren facility is north of the Pekin monitor, 

lllinois' analysis shows that the Ameren facility is not contributing to violations measured at that 

monitor. 

The following Figure B graphically illustrates this conclusion and shows the wind directions 

associated with hourly values of sulfur dioxide greater than 75 ppb at the Pekin monitor. This 

Figure is a composite of two figures presented in Illinois' Technical Support Document included 

with its June 2, 2011 recommendation to U.S. EPA. One of the figures in the composite is 

illinois' Figure 2 (Location of Major S02 Emission Sources in Tazewell and Peoria Counties) 

and the second figure is derived from lllinois' Figure 4 (Pekin Pollution Rose). 

Provided by the illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 
Eiloctronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

4 

Figure B: Map of Pekin Area S02 Emissions Sources with Graphical Depiction of Wind 

Directions Associated with S02 Values >75ppb 

Proposed 502 Nonattainment! 

Area in Tazewell County 

PEORIA 

COUNTY 

' ' 

Powerton 

""'~~ 

Legend 

Cl Prop:~~d NAA 

SOZ l•lomtors 

0 1"" ZS S~L~r. 

' 

U.S. EPA did not make comment, or refer in any way, to lllinois' analysis of the relationship 

between wind direction and elevated sulfur dioxide levels when it concluded that Hollis 

Township should be considered nonattainment due to its potential impact at the Pekin monitor. 

U.S. EPA did make note of the same type of analysis conducted for the Lemont area. U.S. EPA 

stated the following in its analysis of Illinois' meteorological assessment: 

"For this area [Lemont], winds can be from any direction. Therefore, for a onehour standard, it is useful to consider all directions to have potential contribution. 

Nevertheless, according to wind information provided with Illinois' 

recommendations, winds in this area come from the west and southwest more 

frequently than from other quadrants, particularly when concentrations are high at 

the Lemont monitor, so sources to the west and southwest of the monitor are most 

likely to contribute to violations at this monitor."5 

'U.S. EPA TSD at 7. 

Provided by the lllinois Environmental Regulatory Group 
Electronic Filing -Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

5 

IERG extended the analysis conducted by lllinois to include quality assured sulfur dioxide data 

for the years 2007- 2011. Hourly wind speed and direction data6 from the Greater Peoria 

Regional Airport was paired with hourly sulfur dioxide data from the Pekin monitor that was 

greater than 75 ppb. Table 1 shows the results of this analysis which further supports the 

conclusion, demonstrated by lllinois' analysis, that the Ameren-Edwards Station facility does not 

impact the Pekin sulfur dioxide monitor when hourly readings exceed 75 ppb. 

Table 1. Wind Directions Associated with Hourly 2007-2011 S02 Values> 75 ppb 

S02 AVERAGE AVERAGE 

WIND VALUES PERCENT S02 WIND 

DIRECTION > 75 PPB OF TOTAL (PPB) DIRECTION 

N 

NNE 

NE 

ENE 

E 

ESE 

SE 

SSE 

s 1 0.2% 114 190' 

ssw 8 1.8% 127 210 

sw 13 2.8% 116 227 

WSW 98 21.4% 131 248 

w 304 66.5% 136 267 

WNW 14 3.1% 117 291 

NW 2 0.4% 103 310 

NNW 

VARIABLE 17 3.7% 102 

The data provided by Illinois and the additional data provided in Table 1 by IERG shows that 

Ameren's Peoria County facility has not been implicated in any of the 457 hours over the last 5 

years where sulfur dioxide values exceeded 75 ppb. 

6 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Local Climatological Data 

from Greater Peoria Regional Airport (14842/PIA), Final Edited (VER3) Data, Hourly Observations 

Provided by the lllinois Environmental Regulatory Group 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficB: 10/07/2013 

6 

IERG encourages U.S. EPA to reconsider its proposal to include Hollis Township as a 

designated nonattainment area. The evaluation of wind frequency coupled with high monitored 

sulfur dioxide values at the Pekin monitor clearly show that the Ameren facility is not a 

contributor to the monitored sulfur dioxide violations. Hollis Township should be designated 

unclassifiable as recommended by Illinois. Once Illinois completes its dispersion modeling for 

the Pekin area, that information can be used to verify the attainment status of Hollis Township 

and the Peoria and Tazewell Counties in general. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

Cordially, 

Alec Messina 

Executive Director 

Provided by the illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/0712013 

EXHIBIT 4 

7rn CIRCUIT APPEAL OF FEDERAL AIR QUALITY DESIGNATIONS FOR THE 2010 

SULFUR DIOXIDE (S02) PRIMARY NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARD 
EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/07/2013 

Case: 13-2959 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/05/2013 Pages: 21 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

AMEREJ\.TENERGY RESOURCES 

GENERATING COMPANY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY and GLI\JA MCCARTHY, 

ADMINISTRATOR, 

Respondents. 

SHORT RECORD 

FILED 9/5/1 3 

Case No. 

APPEAL NO. 13-2959 

PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 

Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Section 307(b) 

of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b), AmerenEnergy Resources Generating 

Company petitions the Court for review of a final action of respondents-the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, and Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency-entitled "Air Quality Designations for the 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide (SOz) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard," 78 Fed Reg. 

47191 (August 5, 2013), a copy of which is attached hereto. 

(1 of 25) 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

Case: 13-2959 Document: 1-1 

Dated: September 5, 2013 

Filed: 09/05/2013 Pages: 21 

Respectfully submitted, 

Re~~ Cipriano 

J. Michael Showalter 

Kathryn McCollough long , TL 

(Motion for Admission forthcoming) 

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 

233 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 6600 

Chicago, lL 60606 

Telephone: (312) 258-5500 

Facsimile: (312) 258-5600 

rcipriano@schiffhardin.com 

mshowalter@schiffhardin.com 

klong@schiffhardin.com 

-2-

(2 of 25) 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

Fohli!,\l!'t: ~?tlll'iWol. ~CNb\lEl§li /M~nday, Ati;oiJ!ill:i59~&lgij~ ancPI1o!i~Jtilatfulns 4 m11t zs) 

(b) The Secretary must provide each 

agency by January 15 of each year with 

the format and guidelines for 

electronically submitting the agency's 

occupational injury and illness 

recordkeeping information. 

{c) Each agency must submit to the 

Secretary by May 1, 2014. a list of all 

establishments. The list must include 

information about the department/ 

agency affiliation, NAICS code, a street 

address, city, state and zip code. Federal 

agencies are also responsible for 

updating their list of establishments by 

lviav 1 of each vear \'•!hen they submit 

the~annual rep~rt to the SecrOtary 

required by§ 19G0.71(a)[1). 

• B. Add new§ 1960.73 to read as 

follo-ws: 

§ 1960.73 Federal agency injury and 

illness recordkeeping forms. 

(a) Wben filling out the OSHA Form 

300 or equivalent, each agency must 

enter the employee's OPM job series 

number and job title in Column (c). 

(b) VVhen recording the injuries and 

illnesses of uncompensated volunteers, 

each agency must enter a ''V" before the 

OPM job series number in Column {c) of 

the OSH Form 300 log or equivalent. 

(c) Each agency must calculate the 

total number of hours v.rorked by 

uncompensated volunteers. 

[FR Doc. 2013-18-157 Filed 8-2-13:8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG-2013-Q6871 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Albemarle Sound to Sunset Beach, 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW), 

Wrightsville Beach, NC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of deviation from 

drmvbridge regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporal')' deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the operation of 

the S.R. 74 Bridge, at mile 283.1. over 

the AIC\,V, at \1\'rightsville Beach, NC. 

The deviation is necessary to facilitate 

electrical system and equipment 

upgrades to the bridge. This temporary 

deviation allows the drawbridge to 

remain in the closed to navigation 

position. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

7 p.m. on August 19, 2013 to 7 p.m. 

August 27,2013. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

deviation, [USCG-2013-0687] is 

available at http://wn.w.regulations.gov. 

Type the docket number in the 

"SEARCH" box and click "SEARCH." 

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line 

associated vdth this deviation. You mav 

also visit the Docket Management · 

Facility in Room \\i12-140 on the 

ground floor of the Department of 

Transportation West Building. 1200 

Ne1v Jersey Avenue SE., \Vashington. 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

deviation, call or email Mr. Jim 

Rousseau, Bridge Administration 

Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; 

telephone (757) 398-6557, email 

james.L.Rousseau2@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on revievving the docket, 

call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, (202) 366-9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North 

Carolina Department of Transportation, 

V•.'ho owns and operates this bascule 

bridge, has requested a temporary 

deviation from the current operating 

regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.821 

(a)(4), to facilitate electrical system and 

mechanical equipment upgrades to the 

bridge. 

Under the regular operating schedule, 

the draw for the S.R. 74 Bridge, at mile 

283.1 over the AICW, at Wrightsville 

Beach, NC shaH open on signal for 

commercial vessels at all times and on 

signal for pleasure vessels except 

betvfeen 7 a.m. and 7 p.m .. need only 

open on the hour; and except for annual 

triathlon events that occur from 

September through November. The S.R. 

74 Bridge has a temporcu·y vertical 

clearance in the closed position of 18 

feet above mean high \Vater due to 

additional ongoing maintenance. 

Under this temporary deviation, the 

drmvbridge will be maintained in the 

closed to navigation position, beginning 

at 7 p.m .. on Monday. August 19, 2013 

until 7 p.m., on Tuesday August 20, 

2013. In the event of inclement \Veather, 

the alternate dates and times wi11 begin 

at 7 p.m., on Monday August 26, 2013 

ending at 7 p.m., on Tuesday August 27. 

2013. The bridge will operate under its 

nmmal operating schedule at. all other 

times. The Coast Guard has carefully 

coordinated the restrictions with 

commercial and recreational waterway 

users. 

Vessels able to pass under the bridge 

in the closed position may do so at 

anytime and are advised to proceed 

with caution. The bridge ·will be able to 

open for emergencies but at a slower 

rate. There is no immediate alternate 

route for vessels transiting this section 

of the AIC\1\! but vessels may pass before 

and after the closure each dav. The 

Coast Guard v.•ill also inform~ additional 

v .. 'aterv.;ay users through our Local and 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the 

closure periods for the bridge so that 

vessels can arrange their transits to 

minimize any impacts caused by the 

temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: July 25, 2013. 

Waverly \rV. Gregory, Jr., 

B1idge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doe. 2013-18740 Filed 8-2-13:8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 911Q-04-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA-HQ-<JAR-2012-0233; FRL 9841-41 

RIN 2060-AR18 

Air Quality Designations for the 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO,) Primary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environ men tal Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule establishes air 

quality designations for certain areas in 

the United States for the 201 0 primary 

Sulfur Dioxide (SOl) National Ambient 

Air Qualitv Standard (NAAQS). The 

EPA is iss{;_ing this rule to identify areas 

that, based on recorded air quality 

monitoring data shovdng violations of 

the NAAQS, do not meet the 2010 S02 

NAAQS and areas that contribute to S02 

air pollution in a necu·by area that does 

not meet the S02 NAAQS. At this time. 

the EPA is designating as nonattainment 

most areas in locations ·where existing 

monitoring data from 2009-2011 

indicate violations ofthe 1~hour so:! 

standard. The EPA intends to address in 

separate future actions the designations 

for all other areas for \Vhich the agency 

is not yet prepared to issue designations 

and that are consequently not addressed 

in this final rule. The Clean Air Act 

(CAA) directs areas designated 

nonattainment by this rule to undertake 

certain planning and pollution control 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

FJdiJ,>ilLR~?t~ii,B; ol. f11P.CNW Ell3o /M:lmday, A J;oiJ!ilfl5 p;!{il§ij~ ancPR€!l'illill4\;lns ( 4 of 25) 

========~========~==~======~======= 

47192 

activities to attain the NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of this rule is October 4, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the H'lt'w.regulalions.gm' index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and v,ril} be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in lt'Ww.regulatiom>.gov or 

in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 

EPA \·Vest, Room 3334. 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., \Nashington. 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30a.m. to 4:30p.m., Monday 

Regional offices 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566-1742. 

In addition, the EPA has established 

a VVeb site for this rulemaking at: http:!/ 

IH\·11r.epa.goF/so2designalions. The \Veb 

site includes the EPA's final S01 

designations, as \veil as state and tribal 

initial recommendation letters, the 

EPA's modification letlers. technical 

support documents, responses to 

comments and other related technical 

information. 

FOR FURTHER JNFORMATJON CONTACT: For 

general questions concerning this 

action. please contact Rhonda Wright, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Air Quality Planning 

Division, C539-04, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-

1087, email at wright.rhonda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regional Office Contacts: 

Region f-Donald Dahl (617) 918-

1657, 

Region If-Kenneth Fradkin (212) 

637-3702. 

Region III-Ruth Knapp (215) 814-

2191. 

Region IV-Lynorae Benjamin (404) 

562-9040, 

Region V-John Sumrnerhays (312) 

886-6067, 

Region VI-Dayana Medina {214) 

665-7241, 

Region VII-Larry Gonzalez (913) 

551-7041, 

Region VIII-Crystal Ostigaard (303) 

312-6602. 

Region IX-John Kelly (415) 947-

4151.and 

Region X-Steve Body (206) 553-

0782. 

The public may inspect the mle and 

state-specific technical support 

information at the following locations: 

States 

Dave Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA New England, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023, (617) 918-1661. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island 

and Vermont. 

Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Planning Section, EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. (212) 637-4014. 

New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, 

EPA Region Ill, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2187, 

{215) 814-2178. 

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and 

West Virginia. 

R. Scott Davis, Chief, Air Planning Branch, EPA Region IV, Sam Nunn 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 12th Floor, Atlanta, 

GA 30303, {404) 562-9127. 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina and Tennessee. 

John Mooney, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region V, 77 West 

Jackson Street, Chicago, JL 60604, (312) 886-6043. 

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. 

Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, (214) 665-7242. 

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. 

Joshua A. Tapp, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region VII, 11201 

Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66129, (913) 551-7606. 

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska. 

Gail Fallon, Acting Unit Chief, Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA Region 

VIII, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129, {303) 312-

6281. 

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. 

Doris Lo, Air Planning Office, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105, {415) 972-3959. 

American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada and 

Northern Mariana Islands. 

Debra Suzuki, Manager, State and Tribal Air Programs, EPA Region X, 

Office of Air, Waste, and Taxies, Mail Code OA0-107, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, {206) 553-0985. 

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. 

Table of Contents 

The follmving is an outline of the 

Preamble. 

I. Preamble Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 

II. \'\'hat is the purpose of this document? 

Ill. \Vhat is sulfur dioxide? 

IV. What is the 2010 S02 NAAQS and lNhat 

are the health concerns that it addresses? 

V. What are the CAA requirements for air 

quality designations and what action has 

the EPA taken to meet these 

requirements? 

VJ. What guidance did the EPA issue and 

how did the EPA apply the statutory 

requirements and applicable guidance to 

determine area designations and 

boundaries? 

VII. ·what air quality data has the EPA used? 

VIII. How do designations affect Indian 

Country? 

IX. Where can I find information forming the 

basis for this rule and exchanges 

between the EPA, states and tribes 

related to this rule? 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Revie\VS 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination \'\lith Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

L. Judicial Review 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/07/2013 

FthlilMt: Re1t?tllJi>Wol. i71P.CNIJ.lE!13li ;:MJ,nday, At!;oiJ@£1 i;}l;J{fq§ij~ ancP~Bfflht?,ks 

I. Preamble Glossary of Terms and 

Acronj'lllS 

The following are abbreviations of terms 

used in the preamble. 

i\PA Administrative Procedure Act 

Cr\A Clean Air Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DC District of Columbia 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Qualitv 

Standards -

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Otv1B Office of :rvtanagement and Budget 

S02 Sulfur Dioxide 

SOx Sulfur Oxides 

RF A Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SlP State Implementation Plan 

U!v1RA Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 

1995 

TAR Tribal Authoritv Rule 

TSD Technicol SupJlort Document 

U.S. United States 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

II. \.Vhat is the purpose of this 

document? 

The purpose of this action is to 

announce and promulgate designations 

and boundaries for certain areas of the 

country not meeting the 2010 S02 

NAAQS based on available information, 

in accordance ·with the requirements of 

the CAA. The initial list of areas being 

designated nonattainment in each state 

and the boundaries of each area appear 

in the tables within the regulatory text. 

This notice identifies the 29 initial 

areas being designated as nonatlainment 

areas for the 2010 S02 NAAQS. The 

basis for designating each area as 

"nonattainment" is monitored air 

quality data from calendar years 2009-

2011 indicating a violation of the 

NAAQS in the area. For these areas 

being designated non attainment, the 

CAA directs states to develop State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) that meet 

the requirements of sections 172(c) and 

191-192 of the CAA and provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than October 4, 2018. The CAA directs 

states to submit these SIPs to the EPA 

within 18 months ofthe effective date 

of these designations, i.e., by April 6, 

2015. 

III. \1\lhat is sulfur dioxide? 

S02 is one of a group of highly 

reactive gasses known as "oxides of 

sulfur" (SOx). The largest sources of 

SOz emissions are from fossil fuel 

combustion at power plants (73 percent) 

and other industrial facilities (20 

percent). Smaller sources of S02 

emissions include industrial processes, 

such as extracting metal from ore, and 

the burning of high sulfur containing 

fuels by locomotives, large ships and 

non-road equipment. S02 is linked \Vith 

a number of adverse effects on the 

respiratory system. 

IV. What is the 2010 SO, NAAQS and 

what are the health concerns that it 

addresses? 

The Administrator signed a final rule 

revising the primary S02 NAAQS on 

June 2, 2010. The rule was published in 

the Federal Register on June 22, 2010 

(75 FR 35520), and became effective on 

August 23, 2010. Based on the 

Administrator's revie\v of the air quality 

criteria for oxides of sulfur and the 

primary NAAQS for oxides of sulfur as 

measured by SOz, the EPA revised the 

primary S02 NAAQS to provide 

requisite protection of public health 

11\'ilh an adequate margin of safety. 

Specifically. the EPA established a new 

1-hour S02 standard at a level of 75 

parts per billion (ppb), which is met at 

an ambient air quality monitoring site 

i·vhen the 3-year average of the annual 

99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations is less than or 

equal to 75 ppb, as determined in 

accordance w·ith Appendix T of 40 CFR 

part 50.40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). The EPA 

also established provisions to revoke 

both the existing 24-hour and annual 

primary S02 standards, subject lo 

certain conditions. 40 CFR 50.4(e). 

Current scientific evidence links 

short-term exposures to S02 , ranging 

from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an 

array of adverse respiratory effects 

including bronchoconstriction and 

increased asthma symptoms. These 

effects are particularly important for 

asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates 

(e.g., \\•hile exercising or playing). 

Studies also show a connection between 

short-term exposure and increased visits 

to emergency departments and hospital 

admissions for respiratory illnesses, 

particularly in at-risk populations 

including children, the elderly and 

asthmatics. 

The EPA's NAAQS for SO, is 

designed to protect against exposure to 

the entire group of SOx. S02 is the 

component of greatest concern and is 

used as the indicator for the larger group 

of gaseous SOx. Other gaseous SOx (e.g., 

S03) are found in the atmosphere at 

concentrations much lower than S02 • 

Emissions that lead to high 

concentrations of SOz generally also 

lead to the formation of other SOx. 

Control measures that reduce S02 can 

generally be expected to reduce people's 

exposures to all gaseous SOx. This may 

also have the important co-benefit of 

reducing the formation affine sulfate 

particles, which pose significant public 

health threats. SOx can react with other 

compounds in the atmosphere lo form 

small particles. These particles 

penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of 

the lungs and can cause or worsen 

respirator~y disease, such as emphysema 

and bronchitis, and can aggravate 

existing heart disease, leading to 

increased hospital admissions and 

premature death.' The EPA's NAAQS 

for particulate matter are designed to 

provide protection against these health 

effects. 

V. \.Vhat are the CAA requirements for 

air quality designations and \\'hat 

action has the EPA taken to meet these 

requirements? 

After the promulgation of a nev .. , or 

revised NAAQS. the EPA is required to 

designate areas as "nonattainment," 

''attainment," or "unclassifiable," 

pursuant to section 107(d)(l) of the 

CAA. 

The process for designating areas 

follm.-.•ing promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS is contained in section 

107(d) of the CAA. The CAA requires 

the EPA to complete the initial 

designations process \·vithin 2 years of 

promulgating a ne'\v or revised standard. 

If the Administrator has insufficient 

information to make these designations 

by that deadline, the EPA has the 

authoritv to extend the deadline for 

completing designations by up to 1 year. 

On July 27, 2012, the EPA announced 

that it had insufficient information to 

complete the designations for the 1-hour 

SOz standard within 2 years and 

extended the designations deadline to 

June 3, 2013. 

At this time, the EPA is initially 

designating as nonattainment most areas 

in locations where existing monitoring 

data from 2009-2011 indicate violations 

of the 1-hour S02 standard. In some 

cases, we have had to use data from a 

different three-year period or are still 

evaluating whether data from 2009-

2011 are influenced by exceptional 

events. In separate future actions. the 

EPA intends to address the designations 

for all other areas for 1vhich the agency 

is not yet prepared to issue designations 

and that are consequently not addressed 

in this final rule. \1\Tith input from a 

diverse group of stakeholders, the EPA 

has developed a comprehensive 

implementation strategy for the future 

so2 designations actions that focuses 

resources on identifying and addressing 

unhealthy levels of S02 in areas where 

people are most likely to be exposed to 

violations of the standard. For 

1 SeP. Fact Sheet Revisions to the Primary 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Jvi:onitoring 

Network, and Data Reporting Requirements for 

Sulfur Dioxide atl!tlp:/hnnt'.epa.gov/ahqualityl 

su lfrmlioxidei pdf s/201 00602 f.;;. pdf. 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/0712013 

F.fde'-ilt:Rt®?t~iiWol. ~CllJIJ.l1~.13li/M~nday, A~oiJfildtP;l{)q§ij~ ancP~~at4\iks (6 of 25) 

========~============~~========~======~ 

47194 

informational purposes, the strategy is 

available at: http://wvt·w.epa.gayf 

airq u ali tyl sui furdi oxide/ 

implement.html. The EPA plans to 

continue to work closelv with state, 

tribal and local air quality management 

agencies to ensure healthRprotective. 

commonsense implementation oft he 1-

hour S02 NAAQS. 

Bv not later than 1 year after the 

proinulgation of a ne,~r or revised 

Ni\.AQS, CAA section 1 07(d)(1)(A) 

provides that each state governor is 

required to recommend air quality 

designations, including the appropriate 

boundaries for areas, to the EPA. The 

EPA reviews those state 

recommendations and is authorized to 

make any modifications the 

Administrator deems necessary. The 

statute does not define the term 

"necessary," but the EPA interprets this 

to authorize the Administrator to 

modify designations that did not meet 

the statutory requirements or were 

othen·\•ise inconsistent ·with the facts or 

analysis deemed appropriate by the 

EPA. If the EPA is considering 

modifications to a state's initial 

recommendation. the EPA is required to 

notify the state of any such intended 

modifications to its recommendation 

not less than 120 days prior to the EPA's 

promulgation of the final designation. 

During this period of no less than 120 

days, if the state does not agree with the 

EPA's modification, it has an 

opportunity to respond to the EPA and 

to demonstrate ·why it believes the 

modification proposed by the EPA is 

inappropriate, as contemplated by 

section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii). Even if a state 

fails to provide any recommendation for 

an area, in vd1ole or in part, the EPA 

still must promulgate a designation that 

the Administrator deems appropriate, 

pursuant to section 107(d)(l)(B)(ii). 

Section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA 

defines a nonattainment area as any area 

that does not meet an ambient air 

quality standard or that is contributing 

to ambient air quality in a nearby area 

that does not meet the standard. If an 

area meets either prong of this 

definition, then the EPA is obligated to 

designate the area as "nonattainment." 

The EPA believes that section 107(d) 

provides the agency with discretion to 

determine huw best to interpret the 

terms in the definition of a 

nonattainment area (e.g .. "contributes 

to" and "nearby") for a new or revised 

NAAQS, given considerations such as 

the nature of a specific pollutant, the 

types of sources that may contribute to 

violations, the form of the standards for 

the pollutant, and other relevant 

information. In particular, the EPA 

believes that the statute does not require 

the agency to establish bright line tests 

or thresholds for ·what constitutes 

"contribution" or "nearby" for purposes 

of desionations.z 

SimiTarlv, the EPA believes that the 

statute per~mits the EPA to evaluate the 

appropriate application of the term 

"area" to include geographic areas 

based upon full or partial county 

boundaries, and contiguous or noncontiguous areas, as may be appropriate 

for a particular NAAQS. For example. 

section107(d)(1)(B)(ii) explicitly 

provides that the EPA can make 

modifications to designation 

recommendations for an area "or 

portions thereof," and under section 

107(d)(1)(B)(iv) a designation remains in 

effect for an area "or portion thereof" 

until the EPA redesignates it. 

Designation activities for federallyrecognized tribal governments are 

covered under the authoritv of section 

301(d) of the CAA. This provision of the 

CAA authorizes the EPA to treat eligible 

tribes in a similar manner as states. 

Pursuant to section 301 (d)(Z), the EPA 

promulgated regulations. kno·wn as the 

Tribal Authority Rule (TAR). on 

February 12. 1999. 63 FR 7254, codified 

at 40 cFR part 49. That rule specifies 

those provisions of the CAA for ·which 

it is appropriate to treat tribes in a 

similar manner as states. Under the 

TAR, tribes may choose to develop and 

implement their ovm CAA programs, 

but are not required to do so. The TAR 

also establishes procedures and criteria 

by ·which tribes may request from the 

EPA a determination of eligibility for 

such treatment. The designations 

process contained in section 107(d) of 

the CAA is included among those 

provisions determined to be appropriate 

bv the EPA for treatment of tribes in the 

s8.me manner as states. Under the TAR, 

tribes generally are not subject to the 

same submission schedules imposed by 

the CAA on states. As authorized by the 

TAR, tribes may seek eligibility to · 

submit designation recommendations to 

the EPA. In addition, CAA section 

301(d)(4) gives the EPA discretionary 

authority, in cases w·here it determines 

that treatment of tribes as identical to 

states is "inappropriate or 

administratively infeasible,'' to provide 

for direct administration by regulation 

to achieve the appropriate purpose. 

To date, six t.riDes have applied under 

the TAR for eligibility to submit its o·wn 

recommendations under section 107(d). 

Nonetheless, the EPA invited all tribes 

to submit recommendations concerning 

designations for the 201 0 S02 NAAQS. 

The EPA v.rorked V•.'ith the tribes that 

2This view was confirmed in CatClwb(l Caunly v. 

EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (DC Cir. 2009). 

requested an opportunity to submH 

designation recommendations. Tribes 

were provided an opportunity to submit 

their m..vn recommendations and 

supporting documentation and could 

also comment on state 

recommendations and the EPA 

modifications. 

Designation recommendations and 

supporting documentation "~Nere 

submitted by most states and several 

tribes to the EPA by june 3, 2011. After 

receiving these recommendations, and 

after revie·wing and evaluating each 

recommendation, the EPA provided a 

response to the states and tribes on 

February 7, 2013,3 In these letter 

responses, we indicated v.rhether the 

EPA intended to make modifications to 

the initial state or tribal 

recommendations and explained the 

EPA's reasons for making any such 

modifications. For the majority of the 

areas, the EPA agreed \'\'ith the state's 

recommended boundary. The EPA 

requested that states and tribes respond 

to any proposed EPA modifications by 

April8, 2013. The EPA received 

comments from some states suggesting 

changes to the EPA's proposed 

modifications and providing additional 

information. The EPA evaluated these 

comments, and all of the timely 

supporting technical informatfon 

provided. As a result. and based on that 

input and analysis, some of the final 

designations reflect further 

modifications to the initial state 

recommendations. The state and tribal 

letters, including the initial 

recommendations, the EPA's February 

2013 responses to those letters, any 

modifications. and the subsequent state 

comment letters, are in the docket for 

this action. 

Although not required by section 

107(d) of the CAA, the EPA also 

provided an opportunity for members of 

the public to comment on the EPA's 

February 2013 response letters. In order 

to gather additional information for the 

EPA to consider before making final 

designations, the EPA published a 

notice on February 15.2013 (78 FR 

1124) which invited the public to 

comment on the EPA's intended 

designations. In the notice, the EPA 

stated that public comments must be 

received on or before March 18, 2013. 

The EPA received several requests from 

stakeholders for additional time to 

prepare their comments. Some of the 

requesters noted that the original 30-day 

comment period ·was insufficient lime to 

:lAs indicated in the February 2013 letters, the 

EPA is not yet prepared to designate any areas in 

Indian cmmtrv. The EPA intends to address the 

designations for these areas in separate future 

actions. 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office : 10/0712013 

FMili'lfl: ~?t~foifi\r a!. IMlQI.IIl.lt1131i /M.IJnday, A J;o\llilflt 9~&/gij~ ancP!'t~at:fulns 

review the EPA's responses to states' 

and tribes' recommended designations 

and to compile meaningful responses 

due to the complexity of the issues 

impacting certain m·eas. Taking that into 

consideration. the EPA extended the 

public comment period to AprilS. 2013. 

State and tribal initial recommendations 

and the EPA's responses. including 

modifications, 1·\'ere posted on a 

publically accessible Web site (http:// 

Wl-t'lv.epa.gov/so2designalions). Timely 

comments from the public and the 

EPA's responses to significant 

comments are in the docket for this 

action. 

VI. What guidance did the EPA issue 

and how did the EPA apply the 

statutory requirements and applicable 

guidance to determine area 

designations and boundaries? 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking 

for the revised 802 NAAQS (74 FR 

64810; December 8. 2009).lhe EPA 

issued proposed guidance on its 

approach to implementing the standard, 

including its approach to initial area 

designations. The EPA solicited 

comment on that guidance and, in the 

notice of final rulemaking (i5 FR 35520; 

June 22. 2010), provided further 

guidance concerning implementation of 

the standard and hO\v to identif'v 

nonattainment areas and bound.aries for 

the SO, NAAQS. Subsequently, on 

March 24, 2011. the EPA provided 

additional designations guidance to 

assist states tvith making their 

recommendations for area designations 

and boundaries. 4 In that guidance, the 

EPA recommended that monitoring data 

from the most recent three consecutive 

years be used to identify a violation of 

the S02 NAAQS. This is appropriate 

because the form of the S02 NAAQS is 

calculated as a 3-year average ofthe 

99th percentile of the yearly distribution 

of 1-hour daily maximum so:! 

concentrations (specifically the most 

recent 3 consecutive years).s The EPA is 

basing these initial fiilal designations on 

monitored so:! concentrations from 

Federal Reference Method and Federal 

Equivalent Method monitors that are 

sited and operated in accordance \Vith 

40 CFR Parts 50 and 58. The EPA notes 

that data from 2008-2010 were the most 

recent data available to slates and tribes 

\Vhen they made their recommendations 

to the EPA in June 2011. Accordingly, 

4 See, "Area Designations for the 2010 Revised 

Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards," memorandum Lo Regional Air 

Division Directors, Regions 1-X. from Stephen D. 

Page, dated ?\{arch 24,2011. 

5Th is notice refers to monitoring data for 

"calendar vears 2009-2011" which includes data 

from Janua'ry 2009 through December 2011. 

although the determination of\vhether 

an area violates the standard •vas based 

on 2009-2011 data, the EPA considered 

state recommendations and data from 

2008-2010, as appropriate, in 

determining boundaries for 

nonattainment areas. 

In the guidance, the EPA slated that 

the perimeter of a county containing a 

violating monitor would be the initial 

presumptive boundary for 

nonattainment areas, but also stated that 

the state, tribe and/or the EPA could 

conduct additional area-specific 

analyses that could justify establishing 

either a larger or smaller area. The EPA 

indicated that the following factors 

should be considered in an analysis of 

·whether to exclude portions of a county 

and v·:hether to include additional 

nearby areas outside the county as part 

of the designated nonattainment area: 

(1) Air quality data; (2) emissionsrelated data; (3) meteorology: (4) 

geography/topography; and (5) 

jurisdictional boundaries. as well as 

other available data. States and tribes 

may identify and evaluate other relevant 

factors or circumstances specific to a 

particular area. 

Most states and several tribes 

submitted their designations 

recommendations in June 2011. In each 

case, the EPA revie·wed the state 

recommendations and, where 

appropriate, the EPA accepted the 

state's recommendations. Hovvever, 

,;.,.rhere the EPA determined that changes 

'"''ere necessary to a state's initial 

recommendation, we conveyed those 

preliminary determinations-to the state 

in February 2013, and have worked 'i.Vith 

states to further revie•v appropriate 

boundaries. 

VII. What air quality data has the EPA 

used? 

The final S02 designations contained 

in this action are based upon violations 

of the NAAQS determined by air quality 

monitoring data from calendar years 

2009-2011, except where it \Vas 

necessary or appropriate to use a 

different three-year period. The form of 

the standard requires a calculation of 

monitoring values from 3 consecutive 

years. The 1-hour primary standard is 

violated at an ambient air quality 

monitoring site when the 3-year average 

of the annual 99th percentile of the 

daily maximum 1-hour average 

concentrations exceeds 75 ppb. as 

determined in accordance with 

appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. For 

comparison to the level of the standard, 

ambient air quality shall be measured by 

a reference method based on appendix 

A or A-1, or by a Federal Equivalent 

Method designated in accordance with 

40 CFR pari 53. 

VIII. How do designations affect Indian 

Country? 

All counties, partial counties or Air 

Quality Control Regions listed in the 

tables within lhe regulatory text are 

designated as indicated. For the first 

round of S02 designations. the EPA is 

only designating certain nonattainment 

areas shown to be violating the NAAQS 

based on monitored data. There are no 

areas in Indian Country being 

designated nonattainment at this time. 

All remaining areas, including areas of 

Indian Country, for \·Vhich the EPA is 

not yet prepaJ.·ed to issue final 

designations will be addressed in a 

subsequent round of designations. 

IX. \\There can I find information 

forming the basis for this rule and 

exchanges between the EPA, States and 

tribes related to this rule? 

Information providing the basis for 

this action are provided in several 

technical support documents (TSDs), a 

response to comments document (RTC) 

and other information in the docket. 

Tbe TSDs. RTC, applicable EPA's 

guidance memoranda, copies of 

correspondence regarding this process 

bet\'l'een the EPA and the states, tribes 

and other parties, are available for 

review at the EPA Docket Center listed 

above in the ADDRESSES section of this 

document and on the agency's so:! 

Designations ·web site at http:// 

W11·'1V.epa.gov/so2designations. Areaspecific questions can be addressed to 

the EPA Regional Offices. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the 

EPA to designate areas as attaining or 

not attaining the NAAQS. The CAA 

then specifies requirements for areas 

based on whether such areas are 

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. In 

this final rule, the EPA assigns 

designations to selected areas as 

required. 

A. Executit'e Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Rel'iew and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action responds to the CAA 

requirement to promulgate air quality 

designations after promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS. This type of 

action is exempt from review under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735. 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (67 FR 3821. 

january 21, 2011). 
Elactronic Filing -Racivad. Clark's Offica: 10/0712013 

F&l~: Re}i>lt~~Wol. 111P,Qi.J&JEJJ§ti/M1,nday, Ati;oiJfll>ltPiUG!?&~ ancf'R~at4'0lns (8 of 25) 

========~==~====~~~======~======= 

47196 

B. Pape1work Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Papenvork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action 

responds to the requirement to 

promulgate air quality designations after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. This requirement is prescribed 

in the CAA section 107 of title 1. This 

action does not establish any ne\v 

information collection aparl from that 

already required by law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final rule is not subject to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), ·which 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis for any 

rule that v.•ill have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The RF A 

applies only to rules subject to noticeand-comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) or any other statute. This action 

is not subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the APA or any 

other statute because the action is not 

subject to the AP A. CAA section 

107(d)(2)(B) does not require the EPA to 

issue a notice of proposed rulemaking 

before issuing this final action. 

D. Unfunded l>1andates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandate under the provisions of Title II 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.1531-1538 for 

slate, local or tribal governments or the 

private sector. The action imposes no 

enforceable dutv on any state. local or 

tribal governme-nts or tiH'! private sector. 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small govermnents. It 

does not create any additional 

requirements beyOnd those of the CAA 

and SO, NAAQS (40 CFR 50.17); 

therefore. no UNLRA analysis is needed. 

This action establishes nonattainment 

designations for certain areas of the 

country for the 2010 SO, NAAQS. The 

CAA requires states to develop plans. 

including control measures, based on 

the designatim;s for areas \Vithin the 

state. 

The EPA believes that anv ne•v 

controls imposed as a result of this 

action will not cost in the aggregate 

$100 mi11ion or more annually. Thus. 

this federal action will riot impose 

mandates that \Vill require expenditures 

of $100 million or more in the aggregate 

in any 1 year. 

E. Executi\'e OJ'der 13132: Federalism 

This final action does not have 

federalism implications. It \Vill not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The CAA 

establishes the process whereby states 

take primary responsibility in 

developing plans to meet the so~ 

NAAQS in areas designated 

nonattainment by this action. This 

action will not modify the relationship 

of the stales and the EPA for purposes 

of developing programs to attain and 

maintain the SO~ NAAQS. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

F. Executi~'e OJ'der 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian TTibal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (55 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action concerns the 

designation of certain areas as 

nonattainment for the 2010 so~ 

NAAQS, but no areas of Indian Country 

are being designated by this action. 

Because this action does not have tribal 

implications, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this rule, the EPA 

communicated with tribal leaders and 

environmental staff regarding the 

designations process. The EPA also sent 

individualized letters to all federallv 

recognized tribes to explain the .. 

designation process for the 2010 502 

NAAQS, to provide the EPA 

designations guidance, and to offer 

consultation with the EPA. The EPA 

provided further information to tribes 

through presentations at the National 

Tribal Fon1m and through participation 

in National Tribal Air Association 

conference calls. The EPA also sent 

individualized letters to all federally 

recognized tribes that submitted 

recommendations to the EPA about the 

EPA's intended designations for the 502 

standards and offered tribal leaders the 

opportunity for consultation. These 

communications provided opportunities 

for tribes to voice concerns to the EPA 

about the general designations process 

for the 2010 S02 NAAQS, as well as 

concerns specific to a tribe, and 

informed the EPA about key tribal 

concerns regarding designations as the 

rule •vas under development. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action as defined 

in Executive Order 12866. \1Vhile not 

subject to the Executive Order. this final 

action may be especially important for 

asthmatics, including asthmatic 

children, living in 502 nonattainment 

areas because respiratory effects in 

asthmatics are among the most sensitive 

health endpoints for S02 exposure. 

Because asthmatic children are 

considered a sensitive population. the 

EPA evaluated the potential health 

effects of exposure to 502 pollution 

among asthmatic children as part of the 

EPA's prior action establishing the 2010 

SO, NAAQS. These effects and the size 

of the population affected are 

summarized in the EPA's final S02 

NAAQS n1les. See http:!ltVH'w.epa.gov/ 

ttn/naaqs/standards/so2/frl 

20100622.pdf. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution. OJ' Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)). because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Tmnsfer and 

AdFancemenl Act (NTTAA] 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of1995. 

Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use 

voluntcu_.v consensus standards (VC5) in 

its regul3.tory activities unless to do so 

\vould be inconsistent ·with applicable 

law or othen ... rise impracticable. VC5 are 

technical standru·ds (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OiviB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA did not 

consider the use of any VC5. 

f. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Lmv-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16. 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 
Electronic Filing -Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

F&iiJM!:~?t@J;l.Biol. ~Q\!b\lE!®li/M~nday, A~oiJ!ilP59:l&IG.'l~ ancP~~at~s 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by la\V, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and lo·w-income 

populations in the U.S. 

The CAA requires that the EPA 

designate as nonaltainrnent '·any area 

that does not meet (or that contributes 

to ambient air quality in a nearby area 

that does not meet) the national primary 

or secondary ambient air quality 

standard for the pollutant." By 

designating as nonattainment areas 

t'l'here available information indicate a 

violation of the 2010 S02 NAAQS or a 

contribution to a nearby violation, this 

action protects all those residing, 

working, attending school. or othenvise 

present in those areas regardless of 

minority or economic status. 

The EPA has determined that this 

final rule 'INill not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations vdthout having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or lmv-income population. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the n1le. to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the U.S. The EPA vvill submit a report 

containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives and 

the Comptroller General of the U.S. 

prior to publication of the rule in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot 

take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a "major rule" as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be 

eiTective October 4, 2013. 

L. Judicial Review 

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates 

v.•hich Federal Courts of Appeal have 

venue for petitions of revie·H' of final 

actions bv the EPA. This section 

provides: in part, that petitions for 

revie·w must be filed in the Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit: (i) \'\Then the agency action 

consists of "nationally applicable 

regulations promulgated, or final actions 

taken, hv the Administrator," or (ii) 

when sUch action is locally or regionally 

applicable, if "such action is based on 

a determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such a 

determination." 

This final action designating areas for 

the 2010 SO, NAAQS is "nationally 

applicable" ·within the meaning of 

section 307(b)(1). This final action 

establishes designations for areas across 

the U.S. for the 2010 S02 NAAQS. At 

the core of this final action is the EPA's 

interpretation of the definition of 

nonattainment under section 107(d)(1) 

of the CAA, and its application of that 

interpretation to areas across the 

country. For the same reasons. the 

Administrator also is determining that 

the final designations are of natiom,vide 

scope and effect for the purposes of 

section 307(b)(1). This is particularly 

appropriate because, in the report on the 

1977 Amendments that revised section 

307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted 

that the Administrator's determination 

that an action is of "nationwide scope 

or effect" would be appropriate for any 

action that has a scope or effect beyond 

a single judicial circuit. H.R. Rep. No. 

95-294 at 323, 324. reprinted in 1977 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here. the scope 

and effect of this final action extends to 

numerous judicial circuits since the 

designations apply to areas across the 

country. In these circumstances, section 

307(b)(1) and its legislative history calls 

for the Administrator to find the action 

to be of "nationwide scope or effect" 

and for venue to be in the DC Circuit. 

Thus, any petitions for review of final 

designations must be filed in the Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit within 60 days from the date 

final action is published in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection. Air 

po11ution controL National parks, 

\Vilderness areas. 

Dated: July 25, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

EPA Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 81 is amended as 

follo·ws: 

PART 51-DESIGNATIONS OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

• 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follovvs: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq, 

Subpart C-Section 107 Attainment 

Status Designations 

§81.301 [Amended] 

• 2. Section 81.301 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

''Alabama-Sulfur Dioxide'' to read 

"Alabama-1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 

§ 81.302 [Amended] 

• 3. Section 81.302 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "AlaskaS02" to read "Alaska-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

• 4. Seclion 81.303 is amended as 

follmvs: 

11 a. By revising the table heading for 

"Arizona-S02 " to read "Arizona1 971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primarv 

and Secondary)"; and ~ 

• b. By adding a nev .. , table entitled 

"Arizona-201 0 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primary)'' following the ne\vly 

designated table "Arizona-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)" to read as follm:\rs: 

§ 81.303 Arizona. 

" " • 

ARtZONA-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area 

Hayden, AZ, ................................................................................................................................................. . 

Gila County (part) 

The portions of Gila County that are bounded by: T4S, R14E; T4S, R15E; T4S, R16E; T5S, 

R15E; TSS, R16E 

Pinal County (part) 

Designation 

Date Type 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 
47198 

Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

FJdil,liln~~$l~l'>Wol. llW,QIJIJ.lEl§!i /lvi~nday, Atfgillil£1 59!2&1!}4~ ancP~Ii\!tllat?dns (10 of 25) 

ARIZONA-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)-Continued 

Designation 

Designated area 

Date Type 

The portions of Pinal County that are bounded by: T4S, A14E; T4S, R15E; T4S, R16E; T5S, 

R14E;T5S, R15E;T5S, R16E;T6S, R14E;T6S, R15E;T6S, R16E 

Miami, AZ 1 ................................................................................................................................................. . 10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

Gila County {part) 

The portions of Gi!a County that are bounded by: T2N, R14E; T2N, R15E; T1N, R13E; T1N, 

R14E; T1N, R15E; T1S, R14E; T1S, R141/2E; T1S, R15E 

1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified. 

* * * • • 

§ 81.304 [Amended] 

• 5. Section 81.304 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"Arkansas-802" to read "Arkansas1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

§ 81.305 [Amended] 

B 6. Section 81.305 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"California-S02" to read '"California1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary}". 

§ 81.306 [Amended] 

B 7. Section 81.306 is amended bv 

revising the table heading for · 

"Colorado-802'' to read "Colorado1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)''. 

§ 81.307 [Amended] 

B 8. Section 81.307 is amended bv 

revising the table heading for · 

"Connecticut-SO/' to read 

;<Connecticut-1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 

§ 81.308 [Amended] 

a 9. Section 81.308 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

·'Delaware-S02 '' to read ''Delmvare1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

§ 81.309 [Amended] 

• 10. Section 81.309 is amended bv 

revising the table heading for "Di;trict 

ofColumbia-S02 '' to read "District of 

Columbia-1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 

B 11. Section 81.310 is amended as 

follows: 

a a. By revising the table heading for 

''Florida-S02'' to read ''Florida-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary}"; and 

a b. By adding a new table entitled 

"Fiorida-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primary)" following the newly 

designated table "Florida-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)" to read as follov.·s: 

§ 81.310 Florida. 

* * ' * 

FLORIDA-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area Designation 

Date Type 

Hillsborough County, FL 1 ....... 10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

Hillsborough County (part) 

That portion of Hillsborough County encompassed by the polygon with the vertices using Universal Traverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates in UTM zone 17 with datum NAD83 as follows: 

{1) vertices-UTM Easting (m) 35881, UTM Northing 3076066; (2) vertices-UTM Easting (m) 

355673, UTM Northing 3079275; (3} UTM Eas1ing (m) 360300, UTM Northing 3086380; (4) 

vertices-UTM Easting (m) 366850, UTM Northing 3086692; (5) vertices-UTM Easling (m) 

368364, UTM Northing 3083760; and (6) vertices-UTM Easting (m} 365708, UTM Northing 

3079121 

Nassau County, FL 1 ...................................................................................................................................... . 1D-4-13 Nonattainment. 

Nassau County, (part) 

That portion of Nassau County encompassing the circular boundary with the center being UTM 

Easting 455530 meters, UTM Northing 3391737 meters, UTM zone 17, using the NAD83 

datum (the location of the violating ambient monitor) and the radius being 2.4 kilometers 

1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified. 

* * * • * 

§81.311 [Amended] 

• 12. Section 81.311 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"Georgia-S02" to read ''Georgia-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary}", 

§81.312 [Amended] 

• 13. Section 81.312 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "HawaiiS02" to read "Ha\vaii-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS {Primary and 

Secondary}", 

§81.313 [Amended] 

a 14. Section 81.313 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "IdahoS01' to read "ldaho-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". · 

B 15. Section 81.314 is amended as 

follmNs: 

a a. By revising the table heading for 

"Illinois-S02" to read "Illinois-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)''; and 

• b. By adding a new table entitled 

"IIIinois-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 
Electronic Filing -Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

F&ii'!,lllr ~?t~J;>.Blol. \i1P,Q\i8.1Et®li f:}yi~nday, A.fgil@£1 5}l;!{fl§ij~ ancP~~at~s 

{Primary)" follov.ring the newly 

designated table "Illinois-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)" to read as f0llm'\!s: 

§ 81.314 Illinois. 

* * * * 

ILLINOI5-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designation 

Designated area 

Date Type 

Lemont, IL 1 .................................................................................................................................................. . 1 0-4-13 Nonattainment. 

Cook County (part) 

Lemont Township 

Will County (part) 

DuPage Township and Lockport Township 

Pekin, IL 1 ............................................................................ . 

Tazewell County (part) 

Cincinnati Township and Pekin Township 

Peoria County {part) 

Hollis Township 

1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, 1f any, unless otherwise specified. 

' • ' * 

B16.Section81.315isarnendedas 

follows: 

a a. By revising the table heading for 

''Indiana-S02 " to read ''Indiana-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)"; and 

Db. By adding a ne1-v table en tilled 

"Indiana-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primary)'' follo\ving the ne\vly 

designated table "Indiana-19i1 Sulfur 

1G-4-i3 Nonattainment. 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primarv and 

Secondary)" to read as fdllmvs: 

§ 81.315 Indiana. 

* * * * * 

INDIANA-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area 

Indianapolis, IN 1 .•.•••.. ., •• ,.,.,., •••••••••••..•.••.••••.•••••••••••• ., . .,., 

Marion County (part) 

Wayne Township, Center Township, Perry Township 

Morgan County, IN 1 ............ ., . .,................ ., .. ., .... ., .. . 

Morgan County {part) 

Clay Township, Washington Township 

Southwest Indiana, IN 1 ................ . .......•..•••.•••.••• ., ••.••••••.•.••• .,., .... .,., .. ., ..... ., ...................... . 

Daviess County (part) 

Veale Township 

Pike County (part) 

Washington Township 

Designation 

Date Type 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

Terre Haute, IN 1 .................................................................................................................................... . 1G-4-13 Nonattainment. 

Vigo County (part) 

Fayette Township, Harrison Township 

1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, 1f any, unless otherwise specified. 

' ' * 

B17.Section81.316isamendedas 

follows: 

a a. By revising the table heading for 

"Iowa-S02'' to read ''Imva-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Second8l·y)"; and 

a b. By adding a new table entitled 

"lowa-201 0 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

{Primary)" following the nev.rly 

designated table "Iowa-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)" to read as follows: 

§81.316 Iowa. 

* * * * * 

IOWA-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area 

Muscatine, !A1 ............ ., .. ., ............................ .. 

Muscatine County (part) 

Sections 1-3, 10-15, 22-27, 34-36 of T77N, R3W {Lake Township) 

Sections 1-3, 10-iS, 22-27, 34-36 of T76N, R3W {Seventy-six Township) 

T77N, R2W (Bloomington Township). 

T76N, R2W (Fruitland Township) 

All sections except 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, 36 of T77N, R1W (Sweetland Township) 

1 Excludes lnd1an country located m each area, if any, unless otherwise spec1f1ed. 

Designation 

Date Type 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

47200 FMi~~lr ~S't\li"Wol. I?\P,Q\.IWEJ.I31i ;:M;I,nday, Atfgijfil£159~lf!§ij~ anJ'R~at~s (12 of 25) 

* * * * 

§81.317 [Amended] 

B18.Section81.317isamendedby 

revising the table heading for "KansasS02" to read "Kansas-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

a 19. Section 81.318 is amended as 

follo-ws: 

• a. By revising the table heading for 

''Kentucky-S02" to read "Kentucky1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondarv)"; and 

NAAQS (Primary)" following the nev.·ly 

designated table "Kentucky-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)" to read as follmvs: 

§81.318 Kentucky. 

11 b. By adding a new table entitled 

"Kentucky-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

* * 

KENTUCKY-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area 

Campbell-Clermont Counties, KY-OH 1 .................................... . 

Campbell County (part) 

That portion of Campbell County which lies south and west of the Ohio River described as fol· 

lows: Beginning at geographic coordinates 38.9735 North Latitude, 84.3017 West Longitude 

(NAD 1983) on the edge of the Ohio River running southwesterly to KY Highway 1566; thence 

continuing running southwesterly along KY Highway 1566 to KY Highway 9 (AA Highway); 

thence running north westerly along KY Highway 9 (AA Highway) from Hwy 1566 to Interstate 

275; thence running northeasterly along Interstate 275 to Highway 2345 (John's Hill Road), 

Hwy 2345 to US-27, US-27 to 1-275, 1-275 to the Ohio River; thence running southeasterly 

along the Ohio River from Interstate 275 to geographic coordinates 38.9735 North Latitude, 

84.3017 West Longitude (NAD 1983) 

Jefferson County, KY 1 ................................................................................................................................. . 

Jefferson County (part) 

That portion of Jefferson County compassed by the polygon with the vertices using Universal 

Traverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates in UTM zone 16 with datum NAD83 as follows: 

(1) Ethan Allen Way extended to the Ohio River at UTM Easting (m) 595738, UTM Northing 

4214086 and Dixie Highway (US60 and US31 W) at UTM Easting (m) 59751, UTM Northing 

4212946; 

(2) Along Dixie Highway from UTM Easting (m) 597515, UTM Northing 4212946 to UTM Easting 

(m) 595859, UTM Northing 421 0678; 

(3) Near the adjacent property lines of Louisville Gas and Electric-Mill Creek Electric Generating Station and Kosmos Cement where they join Dixie Highway at UTM Easting (m) 595859, 

UTM Northing 4210678 and the Ohio River at UTM Easting (m) 595326, UTM Northing 

4211014; 

(4) Along the Ohio River from UTM Easting (m) 595326, UTM Northing 4211014 to UTM Easting 

(m) 595738, UTM Northing 4214086 

1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified. 

* * 

Designation 

Date Type 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

* * * * 

a 20. Section 81.319 is amended as 

follows: 

1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondarv)"; and 

• b. By adding a ne\\' table entitled 

"Louisiana-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary)" follo·wing the nev .. rly 

designated table "Louisiana-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)" to read as follm.vs: 

a a. By revising the table heading for 

''Louisiana-S02'' to read ''Louisiana-

§ 81.319 Louisiana. 

* * * * 

LOUISIANA-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area 

St. Bernard Parish, LA 1 ............................................................................... . 

St. Bernard Parish 

1 Excludes lnd1an country located 1n each area, 1f any, unless otherw1se specified. 

* * * * * 

§ 81.320 [Amended] 

• 21. Section 81.320 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "Maineso;· to read "Maine-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)", · 

§ 81.321 [Amended] 

• 22. Section 81.321 is amended bv 

revising the table heading for ¥ 

"Maryland-S02" to read "Maryland1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

Designation 

Date Type 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

§ 81.322 [Amended] 

• 23. Section 81.322 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"Massachusetts-S02 '' to read 

"Massachusetts-1 971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)''. 

• 24. Section 81.323 is amended as 

follows: 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

FMi!,1ilni~!?t~JiiAr a!. I11P,QIJ1iDEll§ti /MJ.nday, A ~oi,l§p 5 9;!{/q ~ij~ and" ~til@llatfOlns 4(:;i3b 1l f 2 5) 

a a. By revising the table heading for 

'':tvfichigan-802 '' lo read ''Michigan1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)"; and 

11 b. By adding a new table entitled 

"Michigan-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary)'' following the ne'\vly 

designated table "Michigan-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)"' to read as follov,:s: 

§81.323 Michigan. 

* * 

MICHIGAN-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designation 

Designated area 

Date Type 

Detroit, Ml 1 Wayne County (part) ............... . ................................................................................. . 10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

The area bounded on the east by the Michigan-Ontario border, on the south by the Wayne CountyMonroe County border, on the west by Interstate 75 north to Southfield Road, Southfield Road to 

Interstate 94, and Interstate 94 north to Michigan Avenue, and on the north by Michigan Avenue to 

Woodward Avenue and a line on Woodward Avenue extended to the Michigan-Ontario border 

1 Excludes lnd1an country located in each area, 1f any, unless otherwise specified. 

* * * * 

§ 81.324 [Amended] 

a 25. Section 81.324 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"Minnesota-SO:!" to read 

"Minnesota-1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)". 

§ 81.325 [Amended) 

a 26. Section 81.325 is amended bv 

revising the table heading for ~ 

''Mississippi-SO:!" to read 

"Mississippi-1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'". 

a 27. Section 81.326 is amended as 

follmvs: 

a a. By revising the table heading for 

''Missouri-SO:!'' to read ''Missouri1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)"; and 

a b. By adding a nevv table entitled 

''Missouri-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary)" follm.• • .ring the nevdy 

designated table "Missouri-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)'' to read as follows:· 

§ 81.326 Missouri. 

* * * * 

MISSOURI-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area 

Jackson County, MO 1 Jackson County (part) ............................................................................................ . 

The portion of Jackson County bounded by 1-70/1-670 and the Missouri River to the north; and, to 

the west of 1-435 to the state line separating Missouri and Kansas 

Jefferson County, M01 Jefferson County (part) ........................................................................................... . 

That portion within Jefferson County described by connecting the following four sets of UTM coordinates moving in a clockwise manner: 

(Herculaneum USGS Quadrangle) 

718360.283 4250477.056 

729301.869 4250718.415 

729704.134 4236840.30 

718762.547 4236558.715 

(Festus USGS Quadrangle) 

718762.547 4236558.715 

729704.134 4236840.30 

730066.171 4223042.637 

719124.585 4222680.6 

(Selma USGS Quadrangle) 

729704.134 4236840.30 

730428.209 4236840.3 

741047.984 4223283.996 

730066.171 4223042.637 

(Valmeyer USGS Quadrangle) 

729301.869 4250718.415 

731474.096 4250798.868 

730428.209 4236840.3 

729704.134 4236840.30 

1 Excludes lnd1an country located m each area, 1f any, unless otherwise specified. 

Designation 

Date Type 

1 0-4-13 Nonattainment. 

10--4-13 Nonattainment. 

* * * * 

• 28. Section 81.327 is amended as 

follmvs: 

1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)"; and 

• b. By adding a ne"v table entitled 

"Montana-201 0 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary)" follmving the newly 

designated table "Montana-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)" to read as follmvs: 

a a. By revising the table heading for 

"Montana-S02 " to read ''Montana-

§ 81.327 Montana. 

* * * * 
47202 

Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

F&ii!.>un~~?tll~Aiol. f71P,q~jbl:JEil31i /M~nday, AJ';a\l@fl tP;J{:Ggij~ ancP!Ui\~lliatfO!ns 

MONTANA-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area 

Billings, MP 

Yellowstone County (part) ....................... ,. ................................................................................. . 

The area originates at the point defined as the southwest corner of Section 11, Township 1 S, 

Range 26E. From that point the boundary proceeds north along the western section line of 

Section 11 to the point of intersection with the midline of Interstate Highway 90. From that 

point the boundary follows the midline of Interstate Highway 90, across the Yellowstone River, 

to the point where the highway midline intersects the northern boundary of Section 35, Township iN, Range 26E. From that point the boundary proceeds east along the northern section 

line of Sections 35 and 36 to the point where Old US 87/Hardin Road leaves the section line 

and turns southeast. The boundary follows the midline of Old US 87/Hardin Road southeast to 

the point where the road intersects the western boundary of the SE i of the SE :t of Section 

31, Township 1 N, Range 27E. From that point the boundary proceeds south along the 1 section line to the southern boundary of Township 1 N, then east to the northeast corner of Section 5, Township 1 S, Range 27E. The boundary then proceeds south along the eastern section line of sections 5 and 8 to the southeast corner of Section 8, Township 1 S. Range 27E, 

where it turns west and follows the south section line of Sections 8 and 7, Township iS, 

Range 27E; and Sections 12 and 11, Township 1 S, Range 26E, back to the point of origin 

1 Excludes lnd1an country located 1n each area, 1f any, unless otherwise spec1f1ed. 

Designation 

Date Type 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

(14 of 25) 

* * * 

§ 81.328 [Amended] 

• 29. Section 81.328 is amended bv 

revising the table heading for -

''Nebraska-S02 '' to read ''Nebraska1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

S02 ., to read "Nevada-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

• 31. Section 81.330 is amended as 

follov.,rs: 

• a. By revising the table heading for 

"Ne•v Hampshire-S02 " to read "Nev .. , 

Hampshire-1 9i1 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)''; and 

• b. By adding a new table entitled 

"Ne\v Hampshire-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly 

designated table "New Hampshire19i1 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primarv 

and Secondary)'' to read as follows: v 

• 30. Section 81.329 is amended by 

revising the table heading for ·'Nevada-

§81.330 New Hampshire_ 

* * * * 

NEW HAMPSHIRE-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area 

Central New Hampshire, NH 1 

Hillsborough County (part) ................................................................................................... .. 

Goffstown Town 

Merrimack County (part) 

Designation 

Date Type 

10-4-13 Nonattainmenl. 

Allenstown Town, Bow Town, Chichester Town, Dunbarton Town, Epsom Town, Hooksett Town, 

Loudon Town, Pembroke Town, Pittsfield Town, City of Concord 

Rockingham County {part) 

Candia Town, Deerfield Town, Northwood Town 

1 Excludes lnd1an country located m each area, 1f any, unless otherwise spec1f1ed. 

* * • ' * 

§ 81.331 [Amended] 

a 32. Section 81.331 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "Ne\v 

Jersey-S0 2 " to read ''New Jersey-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

§ 81.332 [Amended] 

a 33. Section81.332 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "Ne\v 

Mexico-S02 " to read "Nev,r Mexico1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

§ 81.333 [Amended] 

a 34. Section 81.333 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "Ne'N 

York-802 " to read "New York-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

§ 81.334 [Amended] 

• 35. Section 81.334 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "North 

Carolina-S02" to read "North 

Carolina-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primary and Secondary)''. 

§81.335 [Amended] 

a 36. Section 81.335 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "North 

Dakota-SO/' to read "North Dakota1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". · 

• 37. Section 81.336 is amended as 

follows: 

a a. By revising the table heading for 

"Ohio-SO," to read "Ohio-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondarv)"; and -

• b. By adding a nevv table entitled 

"Ohio-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primary)'' following the newly 

designated table "Ohio-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)'' to read as follows: 

§ 81.336 Ohio. 

• * 
EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/0712013 

F.\clilfitJ: Helt2tlli'Ar ol. f1J;P,QIJIJ.l EtJ3g ilv1i.nday, A J;,oiJ!Bfl 5 9!2{jq~ij~ ancP!t~lhtfuins 

OHID-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area 

Campbell-Clermont Counties, KY-OH 1 

Clermont County (part) .................. . 

Lake County, OH 1 

Lake County ...................................... . .......................................... . 

Muskingum River, OH 1 ................................................................................ . 

Morgan County (part) 

Center Township 

Washington County {part) 

Waterford Township 

Steubenville OH-WV1 

Jefferson County (part) ........... ................................................... . ............................................ . 

Cross Creek Township, Steubenville Township, Warren Township, Wells Township, Steubenville 

City 

1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified. 

Designation 

Date Type 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

1o-4-13 Nonattainment. 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

* * * 

§ 81.337 [Amended] 

• 38. Section 81.337 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"Oklahoma-So;· to read "Oklahoma1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

§ 81.338 [Amended] 

• 39. Section 81.338 is amended bv 

revising the table heading for "OregonSO:!'' to read "Oregon-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS {Primary and 

Secondary)''. · 

• 40. Section 81.339 is amended as 

follows: 

"Pennsvlvania-1 971 Sulfur Dioxide 

N1\AQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and 

• b. By adding a ne·w table entitled 

"Pennsvlvania-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary)'' fo11m.ving the newly 

designated table "Pennsylvania-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)"' to read as follows: 

B a. By revising the table heading for 

"Pennsylvania-SO:!" to read 

§81.339 Pennsylvania. 

* * 

PENNSYLVANIA-201 0 SULFUR DiOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Allegheny, PA 1 

Allegheny County (part) ....................... . 

The area consisting of: 

Borough of Braddock 

Borough of Dravosburg 

Borough of East McKeesport 

Borough of East Pittsburgh 

Borough of Elizabeth 

Borough of Glassport 

Borough of Jefferson Hills 

Borough of Uberty 

Borough of Lincoln 

Borough of North Braddock 

Borough of Pleasant Hills 

Borough of Port Vue 

Borough of Versailles 

Borough of Wall 

Borough of West Elizabeth 

Borough of West Mifflin 

City of Clairton 

City of Duquesne 

City of McKeesport 

Elizabeth Township 

Forward Township 

North Versailles Township 

Beaver, PA 1 

Designated area 

Beaver County (part) .............................................................................................................................. . 

Area consisting of Industry Borough, Shippingport Borough, Midland Borough, Brighton Township, Potter Township and Vanport Township 

Indiana, PA, ................................................................................................................................................... . 

Indiana County 

Armstrong County (part) 

Area consisting of Plumcreek Township, South Bend Township, and Elderton Borough 

Warren, PA 1 

* * 

Designation 

Date Type 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

10-4-13 NonaUainment. 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 
Eh=Jctronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

47204 FMil,ji(j: ~1/tlli'Aia!. 17-\P,QlJIJ.lE!15o /M~nday, Atf;oillilP 5PillJ4~ij~ ancP~flglllat?Oins (16 of 25) 

PENNSYLVANIA-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY)-Continued 

Designated area 

Designation 

Date Type 

Warren County (part) .................................... ., ........................................................................................ . 10-4-13 Nonattainment 

Area consisting of Conewango Township, Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of 

Warren 

1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, if any, unless otherwise specified. 

• • * 

§ 81.340 [Amended] 

• 41. Section 81.340 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "Rhode 

Island-S02 " to read "Rhode Island1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

§ 81.341 [Amended] 

• 42. Section 81.341 is amended bv 

revising the table heading for "So~th 

Caro1ina-S02" to read "South 

Carolina-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primary and Secondary)". 

§ 81.342 [Amended] 

11 43. Section 81.342 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "South 

Dakola-S02 " lo read "South Dakola1971 Sulfur Dioxide NA/\.QS (Primary 

and Secondary)''. 

11 44. Section 81.343 is amended as 

follmvs: 

11 a. By revising the table heading for 

"Tennessee-S02 " to read 

"Tennessee-1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"; and 

B b. By adding a nev .. r table entitled 

"Tennessee-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary)" follo\ving the ne\vly 

designated table "Tennessee-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS [Primary and 

Secondary)" to read as follO\vs: 

§ 61.343 Tennessee. 

TENNESSEE-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designation 

Designated area 

Date Type 

Sullivan County, TN 1 

Sullivan County {part) ............................................................................................................................. . 1 0-4-13 Nonattainment. 

That portion of Sullivan County encompassing a circle having its center at the 8-253 power 

house coordinates 36.5186 N; 82.5350 Wand having a 3·ki!ometer radius 

1 Excludes !nd1an country located in each area, 1f any, unless otherwise specified. 

• * • * * 

§ 81.344 [Amended] 

• 45. Section 81.344 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "TexasS02" to read ''Texas-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

§ 81.345 [Amended] 

• 46. Section 81.345 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "UtahSOi' lo read "Utah-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". 

§ 81.346 [Amended] 

11 47. Section 81.346 is amended bv 

revising the table heading for · 

"Vermont-S02 " to read "Vermont1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

§ 81.347 [Amended] 

11 48. Section 81.347 is amended bv 

revising the table heading for · 

"Virginia-802" to read "Virginia1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAi\QS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

§ 81.348 [Amended] 

11 49. Section 81.348 is amended bv 

revising the table heading for · 

"'"'ashington-S02" to read 

"'"'ashington-1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)'". 

• 50. Section 81.349 is amended as 

follm'\•s: 

11 a. By revising the table heading for 

''V\lest Virginia-S02'' to read ''VIJest 

Virginia-1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS 

(Primary and Secondary)"; and 

11 b. By adding a new table entitled 

"\Vest Virginia-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary)" following the newly 

designated table ''VVest Virginia-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)" to read as follO\vs: 

§61.349 West Virginia. 

• * * * • 

WEST VIRGINIA-2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area 

Steubenville, OH-WV 1 

Brooke County (part) ............................................................................................................... . 

Area bounded by the Cross Creek Tax District 

Marshall, WV 1 

Marshall County (part) ............................................................................................................................ . 

Area consisting of Clay Tax district, Franklin Tax District, and Washington Tax District 

1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, 1f any, unless otherwise spec1f1ed. 

Designation 

Date Type 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 

10-4-13 Nonattainment. 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

FMil,>i!'t: ~?t\li'i,&;ol. 111P,Q\Jb\1EJ.I31i /lv!Jmday, A '-FgiJfll£!5 9!2ifl\?ij~ ancPR~at:fulns imJs>f 25) 

* * 

11 51. Section 81.350 is amended as 

follows: 

11 a. By revising the table heading for 

"V~'isconsin-80 " to read 

'''Wisconsin-1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)''; and 

a b. By adding a ne'IN table entitled 

"''Visconsin-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary)" following the ne•vly 

designated table ''\Visconsin-1 971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)'' to read as follO\vs: 

§ 81.350 Wisconsin. 

WISCONSIN-201 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS (PRIMARY) 

Designated area 

Rhinelander, WP 

Oneida County {part) ................................................................................................................ . 

City of Rhinelander, Crescent Town, Newbold Town, Pine Lake Town, and Pelican Town 

1 Excludes Indian country located in each area, If any, unless otherwise spec1f1ed. 

• • • * 

§ 81.351 [Amended] 

• 52. Section 81.351 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"\-\Tvominu-SQ2 " to read "\Vvoming197.1 Sulf~r Dioxide NAAQS ['Primary 

and Secondary)". 

§ 81.352 [Amended] 

a 53. Section 81.352 is amended by 

revising the table heading for 

"American Samoa-S02" to read 

"American Samoa-1971 Sulfur Dioxide 

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)"'. 

§ 81.353 [Amended] 

• 54. Section 81.353 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "GuamS02" to read "Guam-1971 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)"'. 

§ 81.354 [Amended] 

a 55. Section 81.354 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "Northern 

Mariana Islands-S02" to read 

"Northern Mariana Islands-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS {Primary and 

Secondary)". 

§ 81.355 [Amended] 

a 56. Section 81.355 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "Puerto 

Rico-SOz" to read "Puerto Rico-1971 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary and 

Secondary)". · 

§ 81.356 [Amended] 

a 57. Section 81.356 is amended by 

revising the table heading for "Virgin 

Islands-S02 " to read "Virgin Islands1 971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS (Primary 

and Secondary)". 

[FR Doe. 2013-18fl35 Filed 8-2-13:8:45 am] 

BILUNG CODE 6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-200()-()003; FRL 9842-71 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Direct 

Deletion of the Imperial Refining 

Company Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency {EPA) Region 6 is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Imperial Refining Co. Superfund Site 

located in Ardmore, Carter County, 

Oklahoma, from the National Priorities 

List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation. and Liability 

Acl (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP}. This direct 

final deletion is being published by EPA 

with the concurrence of the State of 

Oklahoma. through the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQJ, because EPA has determined 

that all appropriate response actions 

under CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews 

have been completed. Hov·.rever, this 

deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective September 19. 2013 unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

September 4, 2013. If adverse comments 

are received, EPA will publish a timely 

v .. ,ithdrm .... ral of the direct final deletion 

in the Federal Register informing the 

public that the deletion will not take 

effect. 

Designation 

Date Type 

1 0-4-13 Nonattainment. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified bv Docket ID No. EPA-HQSFUND-2000-0003. by one of the 

following methods: · 

• http:! !ww11'.regulations.gov: Follow 

internet on-line instructions for 

submittino comments. 

• Ema/l Brian V'll. :t'vfueller, 

mueller.brian@epa.gov. • Fax: 214-665-6660. 

• j\tfail: Brian VV. Mueller; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6; Superfund Division {6SF-RA): 

1445 Ross Avenue. Suite 1200: Dallas, 

Texas 75202-7167. 

• Hand delhen.r: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agenc)•. Region 6; 1445 Ross 

A venue, Suite 700; Dallas, Texas 75202-

2733; Contact: Brian \V. Mueller {214) 

665-7167. Such deliveries are onlv 

accepted during the Docket's nonrial 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-AFUND-2000-

0003. EPA·s policy is that all comments 

received ·will be included in the public 

docket '\Vithout change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

Wl1'1v.regulations.gmr, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information {CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that )'ou 

consider to be CBI or othenvise 

protected through http:! I 

t1'11'1v.regulations.gov or email. The 

http:/lwH-'W.regulations.govV\leb site is 

an "anonymous access'' system, '\vhich 

means EPA '"'ill not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA ·without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 
Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

Case: 13-295C9lRCUD

11QcRuUmLeEn2

t:

6

1.

1

-1 Filed: 09/05/2013 Pages: 21 - DISCLOSURE STA TEMEJ\.Tf 

(18 of 25) 

Appellate Court No:------

Short Caption: AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Companv v. U.S. Environmental Protection 

A encv eta!. 

To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a nongoven1illental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must 

furnish a disclosure statement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 

26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1. 

The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the 

disclosure statement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, 

petition, or answer in this court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended 

statement to retlect any material changes in the required information. The text of the statement must 

also be included in front of the table of contents of the party's main brief. Counsel is required to 

complete the entire statement and to use N/ A for any information that is not applicable if this 

form. is used. 

[x] PLEASE CHECK I-IERE IF ANY INFORMATION ON THIS FORM IS NeW OR 

REVISED Al\lD INDICATE WHICH INFORMATION IS NEW OR REVISED. 

(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a CO!j)Oration, 

you must provide the corporate disclosure iriJormationrequired by Fed. R. App. P 26.1 by 

completingitem#3): . · AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company ("AERG") 

(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case 

(including proceedil:tgs i~1 the district court or before an admimstrative agency) or are expected to 

appear for the party 111 th1s court: 

Schiff Hardin Ll.P . 

(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation: 

i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and 

AmerenEnergy Resources Company LLC ("AER"). Ameren Corporation is the parent of AER. 

ii) list any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party's or amicus' stock: 

Ameren Corporation is a publicly held company and O\H\S 100% of the membership interests in AER. 

c~' q . , . Attorney's Signature: ·~~'vv~..._____, Date: September 5. 2013 

Attorney's Prjnted Name: .1·'-'.l\>l1i"'ch'"a"'e'-l Szch"'o"w-'"alo;te"-r------------------------

Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes _£ No 

Address: Schiff Hnrdin LLP 233 S. Wacker Dr. Ste. 6600 
EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 10/07/2013 

~c~h~ic~·g~o~5Lfstl~~6r~$~3_-2_9_5_9 ___ D_o_c_u_m_e_n_t:_1_-1 ______ F_il_e_d_:o_9_1o_5_1_20_1_3 ____ P_ag~e-s_:_2_1 ____ ~(19of25) 

Phone Number: _c(~'-''1=.~2)_:25""8"'·5""56!1..1 ________ Fax Number: (312) 258~5600 

E-lvfail Address: mshowalter@schiffhardin.com 

-2-
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

Case: 13-2959 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/05/2013 Pages: 21 

TN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

AMERENENERGY RESOURCES 

GENERATING COMPAl\lY, 

Petitioner, 

V. 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY and GINA MCCARTHY, 

ADMii'JISTRATOR, 

Respondents. 

Case No. ------

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Petition for Judicial Review and Rule 26.1 

Statement have been served by first-class U.S. mail postage prepaid on this 5th day of 

September, 2013, upon each of the following: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Correspondence Control Unit 

Office of General Counsel (2311) 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

Attorney General 

U.S. Department ofJustice 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20530-0001 

Lisa Bonnett 

Director 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

Gina McCarthy 

Administrator (4101M) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

The Honorable Pat Quinn 

Governor of lllinois 

207 State House 

Springfield, Illinois 62706 

Julie Armitage 

Chief, Bureau of Air 

lllinois Environmental Protection Agency 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

Springfield, lllinois 62794-9276 

(20 of 25) 
Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

Case: 13-2959 Document: 1-1 

Alec Messina 

Executive Director 

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 

215 East Adams Street 

Springfield, IL 62701 

CH2\ 13489241.1 

-2-

Filed: 09/05/2013 Pages: 21 

. I J. Mtchael Showalter 

(21 of 25) 
Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

Case: 13-2959 Document: 1-2 Filed: 09/05/2013 Pages: 2 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse 

Room 2722- 219 S. Dearborn Street 

Chicago, Il!inois 60604 

September 5, 2013 

NOTICE OF CASE OPENING 

Office of the Clerk 

Phone: (312) 435-3850 

www.ca7.uscourts.go\' 

AMERENENERGY RESOURCES GENERATING COJ\1PANY, 

Petitioner 

No.: 13-2959 v. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., 

Respondents 

.. . Originating Case Information: • . 

Agency Case No: EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 

Environmental Protection Administration 

Clerk/Agency Rep null Envirorunental Protection Agency 

Case date filed: 09/05/2013 

Case type: ag/rvw 

Fee status: Due 

The above-captioned appeal has been docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Seventh Circuit. 

Deadlines: 

Appea!No. 

13-2959 

13-2959 

An1erenenergy 

Resources Generating 

Company 

Environ1nental 

Protection Agency 

Document Due Date 

Fee Due 09/19/2013 

Agency record due 10/15/2013 

(22 of 25) 
Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 10/0712013 

Case: 13-2959 Document: 1-2 Filed: 09/05/2013 Pages: 2 

13-2959 Gina McCarthy Agency record due 10/15/2013 

NOTE:This notice is issued to counsel of record, in h1rtherance of the re\·ised Circuit Rule 3(d), to provide necessary 

information regarding this appeal. Please verify this notice for accuracy. Counsel are encouraged to provide a fax 

and/or e-mail address to the court. If any corrections are necessary, please indicate those corrections on this notice 

and return it to the Clerk's Office vl'ithin ten ('JO) days. 

THIS NOTICE SHALL NOT ACT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR MOTIONS FOR NON-INVOLVEMENT I 

SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL. COUNSEL ARE STILL REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPROPRIATE MOTIONS. 

Important Scheduling Notice! 

Notices of hearing for particular appeals are mailed shortly before the date of oral argument. Criminal 

appeals are scheduled shortly after the filing of the appellant's main brief; civil appeals after the filing of the 

appellee's brief. If you foresee that you 1-vill be unavailable during a period in which your particular appeal 

might be scheduled, please write the clerk advising him of the time period and the reason for such 

unavailability. Session data is located at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/cal/calendar.pdf. Once an appeal is 

formally scheduled for a certain date, it is very difficult to have the setting changed. See Circuit Rule 34(e). 

form name: c7 _Docket_Notice(form ID: 108) 

(23 of 25) 
Electronic Filing -Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

Case: 13-2959 Document: 1-3 Filed: 09/05/2013 Pages: 1 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse 

Room :;:722 * ::!19 5. Dearborn Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

September 5, 2013 

AGENCY PETITION FOR REVIEW 

CASE OPENING COVER LETTER 

Office of the Clerk 

Phone: (312) 435-5850 

www .ca7. uscou rts. gov 

AMERENENERGY RESOURCES GENERATING COMPANY, 

Petitioner 

No.: 13-2959 v. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., 

Respondents 

Originating Caseinforrnation: .... .. .·•.·· ·. . . .··· . 

Agency Case No: EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 

Environmental Protection Administration 

.··· 

A petition for review of an order of the Environmental Protection Administration has been 

filed this day in this court in the above entitled cause, and a copy of said petition is herewith 

served upon you. 

CC: 

AviGarbow 

Bharat Mathur 

James Michael Showalter 

form name: c7 _Agency _PetRev _Cover Letter( form ID: 184) 

(24 of 25) 
Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 10/07/2013 

Case: 13-2959 Document: 1-4 Filed: 09/05/2013 Pages: 1 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

Everett McKinley Dirksen Unitl>d Stales Courthouse 

Room :!712 • 119 S. Dearborn Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

AGENCY CIRCUIT RULE 3(b) FEE NOTICE 

September 5, 2013 

Office of the Clerk 

Phone: (312) 435·5850 

www.ca7. uscourls.goY 

AMERENENERGY RESOURCES GENERATING COMPANY, 

Petitioner 

No.: 13-2959 v. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., 

Respondents 

Originating Case Information: ' .... ',, ... , . 

.· .. ·. .. · ..... ·. . ·· .·. .. .. / . Agency Case No: EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 

Environmental Protection Administration 

. ·' 

Circuit Rule 3(b) empowers the clerk to dismiss a petition for review if the docket fee is not 

paid within fourteen (14) days of the docketing of the petition for review. Tl1is petition for 

review was docketed and the fee has not been paid as of September 5, 2013. Depending on 

your situation, you should: 

1. Pay the required $450.00 docketing fee to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. 

2. File a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the Court of 

Appeals. An original and three (3) copies of that motion, with proof of service 

on your opponent, is required. This motion must be supported by an affidavit 

in the form of a sworn statement listing the assets and income of the 

petitioner(s). See Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

If one of the above stated actions is not taken, the petition for review will be dismissed. 

form name; c7 _Agency _Fee_Letter(fonn ID: 185) 

(25 of 25)