# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: OB/05/2013

BEFORE THE ILLII'IOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

ILLINOIS PO\VER HOLDIKGS. LLC 

### and ) AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY l COGEN, LLC: ) ) 

### Petitioners, ) ) AMERENENERGY 

### l RESOURCES.LLC ) ) PCB No. 14-10 

### Co-Petitioner. ) (Variance- Air) ) V. ) ) ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION AGENCY. ) ) 

### Respondent. )

NOTICE OF FILING To: ALL PERSONS ON THE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 

### Please take notice that today we have electronically filed with the Office ofthe Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Petitioners' Responses to the Illinois Pollution Control Board's Questions for Petitioners. copies ofwhich are herewith served upon you. 1 

# 1 / '

Dated: September 5. 2013**BRO\V~,** 

### HAY & 

### STEPHENS, LLP 

### Claire A. 

### Manning William D. Ingersoll 205 

### S. Fifth Street. Suite 700 P.O. 

### Box 2459 

### Springfield. IL 62705-2459 (217) 544-8491 Fax: (217) 241-3111 

# . 'i

. UI{L

# d !tta:t£/tLc/ Claire A. 

### Mannin@

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP 

### Renee Cipriano Amy 

### Antoniolli 233 

### South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 

### Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 258-5550 Fax: (312) 258-5600 

# q ATTACHMENT

__ _

# EIBctronic Filing- RBcivE!d, CIBrk's OfficE!: 08/05/2013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
L the undersigned, certify that on this 5th day of September, 2013. l have served electronically the attached Illinois Pollution Control Board Petitioners' Responses to the Illinois Pollution Control Board's Questions for Petitioners, upon the following persons: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center Suite 11-500 100 West Randolph Chicago, lllinois 60601 and by 

### first class mail, postage affixed upon: Carol Webb, Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue, East Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 Gina Roccaforte, Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 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 60601



### BROWN, HAY &**STEPHE~S,** 

### LLP Claire A. Manning William D. Ingersoll 205 S. Fifth Street Suite 700 P.O. Box 2459 Springfield, 

### 11 62705-2459 (217) 544-8491 Fax: (217)241-3111 

# !leu**dvf'-~"-),/** Claire A. Manning ( )



### SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP Renee Cipriano AmyAntoniolli 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 258-5550 Fax: (312) 258-5600

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD



### ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC and ) AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY ) COGEN, LLC; )

AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC Petitioners,

Co-Petitioner,



### v. ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### PCB No. 14-10 (Variance- Air)



### PETITIONERS' RESPONSES TO THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD'S QUESTIONS FORPETITIONERS 

### Petitioners Illinois Power Holdings, LLC ("IPH") and AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC ("Medina Valley") and Co-Petitioner Ameren Energy Resources, LLC ("AER") seek a variance from the multi-pollutant standard ("MPS") otherwise applicable to seven coalflred power plants located in seven downstate counties (the "MPS Group") and found at Sections 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iii) and 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iv) of the Illinois Pollution Control Board's ("Board") rules. The instant variance petition mirrors the variance that the Board granted relevant to this MPS Group in PCB 12-126 on September 20, 2012. That variance decision provided prospective relief- specifically changing the triggering date for the emission rate set forth in Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iii) to December 31, 2019 (from January 1, 2015) and changing the triggering date for the emission rate set forth in Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iv) to

1

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 09/05/2013

January 1, 2020 (from January 1, 2017). The requested reliefis necessary because ofa planned change in ownership ofthe MJ>S Group prior to those triggering dates. Petitioners respectfully offer the following pre-hearing responses to questions posed by the Board on August 14, 2013, through Order ofHearing Officer Carol Webb. The Order directs

a response on or before September 5, 2013. Below, the Petitioners set forth the Board questions requiring responses from Petitioners in bold italics and provide an answer immediately following each question. The answers are followed by affidavits attesting to these responses by: Robert C. Flexon, ChiefExecutive Officer and President of Dynegy Inc. and IPH; Daniel P. Thompson,

. Vice President and General Manager for Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC and Vice President of IPH; Aric D. Diericx, Senior Director

- Environmental Compliance for Dynegy Operating Company; and Steve Whitworth, Director of Environmental Services, Ameren Services Company. See 

### Attachments A- D. QUESTIONS FORPETITIONERS 

### Proposed Variance Conditions 1. To demonstrate a "net benefit" of

### 7,778 

### tons S02 from 2013 

### through 2020, 

### petitioners present a table accountingfor "Variance S02 Tons," "S02 Reduced Tons," and

"CumulativeReductions in S02 

### Variance Tons." Pet. at3, Exit. 10, 

### Table 2. 

### Although theproposedvariance includes limits on 'tlte S0 2annual emission rates consistent with Table 2, petitioners did notpropose a cap on annual S01 mass emissions in tons that would also be consistent with Table 2 

### to ensure that the proposed "net benefit" is realized. The Board included conditions capping the annual system-wide S0 2 mass emissions, and requiring thepetitioner to report annuallv to theAgencv its system-wide mass SO, emissions, in granting the variance in PCB 13-24. 

### !Wdwest Generation v. !EPA, PCB 13-24, 

### slip op. at 82 

### (Apr. 4, 2013). 

### (a) Please comment on revising theproposed conditions in the variance request as follows:



## Ifat any time, Illinois Power Holdings, LLC (IPH) acquires ownership or control ofthejive operatingpower stations in the Ameren MPS Group, IPH must assure compliance with Condition 2 

### of this Order and must comply with an overall S02 annual emission rate of0.35 

### lblmmBtu through December 31, 2019, 

### andbeginning January 1, 2020, 

### must comply with an overallS02annual

2

### RESPONSE: 

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

emission rate of0.23/blmmBtu. In addition, through December 31,2016. IPH must limit svstem-wide SO, emissions to no more than 51.289 tons; andfrom January 1. 

### 2017through December 31, 2019, IPHmust limit svstem-wide SOz emissions to no more than 51,879 tons. For the purposes ofthis variance, "svstem-wide" and "the five operating power stations in the Ameren MPS Group" entail: Coffeen, Duck Creek, E.D. Edwards, Joppa, and Newton Energy Centers. IPHmust also report to theAgency its svstem-wide mass 

# so, emissions each vear o(thevariance with itsAnnualEmissionsReport.

Petitioners appreciate the careful review conducted by the Board, as is evident 

### in this and the following questions. · While nothing in the Act or the Board's rules requires Petitioners to demonstrate a "net benefit" to the environment when requesting a variance, IPH remains open to considering possible alternative approaches to address the Board's interest in ensuring a "net benefit" and, 

### in that vein, has engaged in discussions with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA") related to reducing overall emissions 

### in illinois. Significantly, JEPA and IPH have executed a Memorandum ofAgreement ("MOA") which will have the benefit ofreducing the environmental footprint ofDynegy subsidiary plants in lilinois, including the operating MPS Group plants anticipated to be acquired in the underlying transaction. Specifically, as relevant to the MPS Group, IPH has agreed to retire E.D. Edwards Unit 1 as soon as allowed to do so by the Midcontinent Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. ("MISO"). IPH would accept a Board condition, consistent with the MOA, which would make the retirement ofE.D. Edwards Unit 1 an enforceable condition ofthe variance. Other environmental benefits resulting fTOm the MOA, ancillary to the requested variance but nonetheless, in part, subject to closing on the underlying transaction, are the permanent retirement ofthe air operating permits at Stallings (Madison Connty) and Oglesby (LaSalle County) Combustion Turbine Facilities and the installation of Advanced Gas Path Technology at Kendall Power Station (Kendall County). Petitioners assert that the proposed compliance plan, enhanced by the agreed

3

## EIBctronic Filing
- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/05/2013

approach in the MOA, is more appropriate than imposition of annual emission caps for the following reasons. First, Petitioners seek continuity for the variance granted in PCB 12-126, which the Board already recognized provides a net benefit. Annual mass emissions caps were not part of the variance granted in PCB 12-126. As it is prospectively triggered, Petitioners reasonably' transacted with the understanding thatthe MPS Group's S02 

### emission limits would remain annual system-wide emission rates and that reliefhad been granted by the Board in a manner that would allow a reasonable and necessary period oftime for market conditions to recover prior to required completion ofthe FGD Project at the Newton Energy Center. The projected net environmental benefit resulting from the variance request, should the request be granted, is constructed and demonstrated pursuant to the same methodology deemed appropriate by AER and the IEPA, and accepted by the Board in PCB 12-126. In developing Table 2, the Petitioners here used an annualized heat input over the time period deemed appropriate in the above-referenced methodology. The baseline heat input is thus believed to be reasonable for purposes ofthis Petition, as the baseline heat input and projected mass emissions in
tons S02 were deemed reasonable for purposes of the variance petition in PCB 12-126. The Petitioners recognize thatin a down energy market the actual heat inputs may be lower than those utilized to develop Table 2, thus resulting in fewer actual tons of S02 generated than allowed under the MPS and greater environmental benefit than set forth in Table 2. While Petitioners fully expect that emissions will be consistent with the numbers provided in Table 2, Petitioners at this time do not support annual emission caps relative to the MPS Group, for the reasons expressed above.

4

# Elsctronic Filing - Rscivsd, Clsrk's Offics: 08/05/2013

However, as to reporting ofthe annual emissions for the five operating power plants, IPH would accept a proposed Board condition similar to that suggested in the final sentences ofthe Board's question, requiring that it report the mass S02 emissions ofthe five plants it will acquire inthe underlying transaction, such as: IPH must report to the Agency the mass S02emissions each year ofthe variance with its Annual Emissions Report. For purpose of this condition the mass 

## so2 emissions would be the combined tons ofS02 emitted by the five operating power stations in the Ameren MPS Group: Coffeen. Duck Creek, E.D. Edwards, Joppa and Newton Energy Centers. Second, as set forth inthe Petition at pages 5 -10, 

### a cap on annual S02 mass emissions in
tons is contrary to the spirit and intent ofthe underlying MPS. After much negotiation, Ameren and IEPA agreed that for the Ameren MPS Group, a system-v.-ide rate-based regulatory structure, based upon rate of emissions, presented the best approach. The MPS regulatory approach establishes limits that are numeric S02 emission rates in pounds per million Btu (lbs/mmBtu) or emission rates based on a percent reduction Imposing additional annual emission caps would rewrite the MPS to eliminate operating flexibility intrinsic in the rate-based MPS regulatory structure, particularly where the "net benefit" ofreductions in the requested variance is reflected

overthe entire variance term. The Petitioners recognize that limitations on mass emissions were part of Midwest Generation's compliance plan in PCB 

### 13-24. However, we understand that Midwest Generation proposed annual mass S02 emissions caps for its own reasons to 

### demonstrate that the company would achieve a net environmental benefit within the original timeframe of the Combined Pollutant Standard ("CPS"). By doing so, Midwest Generation planned all of its requests for relief in conjunction with the various compliance plan components and within its predicted operational circumstances. Nonetheless, the mass emissions linlitations incorporated in the

5

# Elactronic Filing - Racivad, Clark's Offica: OB/0512013

variance order in PCB 13-24 are duplicative in purpose and are not consistent with the CPS and MPS. AER took a different approach in PCB 12-126 by accepting a voluntary lower interim emission rate (consistent with the system rate structure ofthe MPS) and a construction schedule for the Newton FGD Project in exchange for more time to comply with the MPS. Thus, in lieu of the emissions cap approach taken by Midwest Generation, Petitioners here assert that the proposed compliance plan provides sufficient assurance of achieving betterthan-otherwise-required emissions reductions, and already incorporates features not anticipated or required under the MPS. Further, in its recommendation, filed on September 5, 2013, the IEPA states that it "agrees with Petitioners thatthere will be a continued net environmental benefit 

### ifthe Board were
to grant the requested relief subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Petition." Recommendation, at p. 29. Nonetheless, IEPA recommends three additional conditions in order
to "ensure and enhance this environmental benefit." !d. 

### The Petitioners have briefly reviewed those recommendations and believe that they are consistent with the approach taken in the requested variance. The condition related to the closure ofE.D. Edwards Unit 1 has been agreed to in the MOA and, as stated above, IPH would accept its inclusion as a variance condition, consistent with the MOA. The other proposed conditions each relate to the operations ofspecific stations in the MPS Group (use oflow sulfur coal and operational efficiencies). IPH would not object to the inclusion ofappropriate language concerning these proposed conditions in a Board Order. Given the above, the Petitioners continue to believe that the imposition of annual emissions caps is neither warranted nor appropriate.

6

# Electronic Filing

-Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

(b) Please comment on including a condition oftlze variance that would cap S0 2 

### mass emissions on an annual basisfrom tlze E.D. Edwards station at 2012 levels of 11,803 

### tons until Unit 1 ispermanently retired. Pet. Exit. 6. 

### RESPONSE: For the reasons discussed above, Petitioners do not at this time support an annual S02


### mass emissions cap for the E.D. Edwards station. Although E.D. Edwards is located in an area that the U.S. EPA has recently designated as nonattaimnent with the 1-hour S02 National Ambient 

### Air Quality Standard ("NAAQS"), the Board's suggested annual 802 

### emissions cap would not provide assurance of compliance with the short-term !-hour 802NAAQ8 or even

assure progress toward attaimnent of the standard. Moreover, should the nonattainment area designation become applicable, the IEPA will need to perform an air emissions modeling analysis to determine culpable sources and would then need to determine an appropriate emission limit or control measures as part of its state implementation plan ("SIP") attainment plan. 1 

### Thus, an annual S02 emissions cap on the E.D. Edwards station at this time is premature and not warranted. In 

### addition, Petitioners respectfully respond that the Board's suggested use of the E.D. Edwards station's 

### 2012 actual 802 emissions as an annual cap for the term ofthe variance is not representative of the station's normal operations, since in 

### 2012 the station's operations were lower than usual due to reduced demand and other operational issues. Specifically, the E.D. Edwards station's 

### 2012 heat input was approximately 18% lower than the station's 

### 2007-201 I annual average heat input. (c) Please comment on including a condition after Unit 1 ispermanently retired that would cap annualS02 mass emissions from the E.D. Edwards station at a lower level to reflect tlze operation of only Units 2 and3.

1 Notably, the E.D. Edwards station is only one ofseveral major sources that, as identified U.S. EPA, may contribute to the 1-hour S02NAAQS exceedance monitored in the Pekin, Illinois area. 7

# Electronic Filing

-Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

RESPONSE: 

### An annual 

### SOz emissions cap is not believed to be appropriate for the reasons discussed above. 

### NewPMl.sNationalAmbientAir Ouafif!, Standard (NAAOSI 2. Pleaseprovide a copy oftlte memorandum referencedinfootnote 33 onpage 66 oftlze petition: "USEPA Memorandum, From: Gina McCarthy, AssistantAdministrator, To: RegionalAdministrators, Regions 1-10, Subject: InitialAreaDesignations for tlze 2012 Revised Primary Annual Fine Particulate National Ambient Air Quality Standard (Apri/16, 2013)." RESPONSE: A copy ofthe requested memorandum is attached hereto. 

### See Attachment E.
QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONERS AND THEAGENCY2 

### Effect on PCB 12-126 Variance 6. Please address the ongoing legal effect, 

## ifany, oftlze variance granted in Ameren Energy·Resources, PCB 12-126 (Sept. 20, 2012), 

## if tlte requested variance in the instant case is granted and the transaction by which IPH would acquireAER's active coal-firedpowerplantsgoes forward. RESPONSE: The variance reliefgranted in PCB 12-126 will be superseded by the Board's granting of the reliefrequested here following the closing ofthe transaction and the transfer ofov.'llership of the Ameren MPS Group to the Petitioners IPH and Medina Valley. If that scenario does not
occur, Petitioners understand that the Order in PCB 12-126 will remain effective as to AER without change.

2 As Questions 3

- 5 were directed solely to the JEPA, the Petitioners do nothere provide aresponse to those questions. 8·

# Electronic Filing - Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

CONCLUSION If the Board members or staff require further information and/or have follow-up questions related to these responses, the Petitioners would be happy to provide such and respectfully suggest that to the extent such questions can be provided in advance ofthe hearing, the betterequipped the Petitioners will be toprovide an informed and thoroughresponse.

Respectfully submitted, 

### ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC 

# /)

.11

. LA 

## Ltfi 

# /f· !Zl[tl lttt By: One ofIts Attorneys / 

### BROWN, HAY & 

### STEPHENS, LLP Claire A. Manning William

### D. Ingersoll 205 S. Fifth Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 2459 Springfield, IL 62705-2459 (217) 544-8491 Fax: (217) 241-3111 cmanningfalbhslaw.com wingersollfalbhslaw.com 

# '"

9 

### AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC and AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY COGEN, LLC ,

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP Renee Cipriano Amy Antoniolli 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 258-5550 Fax: (312) 258-5600 rcipriano@schiffhardin.com aantoniolli@schiffuardin.com

# Elsctronic Filing- Rscivsd, Clsrk's OfficB: 08/05/2013

ATTACHMENT A

A-FFIDAVIT OF ROHERT C. FLEXON My name is Robert C. flexon. I am the President and ChiefExecutive Officer ofDyncgy Inc. (''Dyncgy'"). I am also the President and Chief Executive Officer of lllinoi' Power Holdings, LLC {"JPH"), an indirect. wholly O\\lled subsidiary ofDynegy. My business address io 601 Travis Street, Suite 1400, Houston, Texas 77002. I make this affidavit based on personal knowledge or on knowledge I have obtained through inquiry ofindividuals employed by Dynegy
or its affiliates. I have reviewed the Board's questions that have been presented in the llearing Officer Order dated August 14,2013. I have also reviewed the Petitioners' responses to those questions, have assisted in their development, and concur in these responses. To the best ofmy knowledge and belief, the facts contained therein are true und correct.



### fURTHER, Affiant saycth not. DATED: 

# qj b

# /1**~ ~i'** 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this S"T"-' day ofSeptember

### 20)3.

' >



# ___**_.L(1f=.94~** 

## ,<j NOTARY PUBLIC

# ~~~j 

# c :J{j£)**~** Robert C. Flexozy

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/0512013

ATTACHMENT B

AFFIDAVIT OF DANIEL P. THOMPSON 

### My name is Daniel P. Thompson. I am Vice President and General Manager 

### lor Dynegy :v!idwest Generation, 

### LLC ("DMG"), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy''). I also serve as Vice President ofIllinois Power Holdings, LLC 

### ("!PH"), which is also an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary ofDynegy. My business address is 604 Pierce Blvd., O'Fallon, llli.nois, 62269. I make this affidavit based on personal knowledge or on knowledge I have obtained through inquiry ofindividuals employed by Dynegy orits affiliates. As Vice President of 

### DMG, I am 

### responsible for the safe and efficient operation of Dynegy's coal-fired electric generating fleet in Illinois. My responsibilities include oversight of enviromnental compliance at Dynegy's Illinois coal fleet. Subject to the IPH-Ameren transaction closing, this responsibility will include the five plants in the Ameren MPS Group that
are the subject ofthe requested variance. I 

### have reviewed the Board's questions that have been presented in the Hearing Officer Order dated August 14, 2013. I have also reviewed the Petitioners' responses to those questions, have assisted in their development, and concur in these responses. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the facts contained therein are true and correct.

FURTHER, Affiant sayeth not. DATED:

# --~__;::3,::....___

Subscribed and swam to /) before me this 

### Y-1:':: day ;

# ~fS~~~~~~er**2013.~~--** .NOTARY PUBLIC

GLENN AARON COWI.ES NOTARY PUBliC, STATE OfMI

GOWTY OF VAll BUREN MYCOMMISSION EXPIRESAug 16,2017 ACTING IN COUNTY OF 11 

# B ;.._ ( vc. 11 H -, o . 

### o;G1iel P. Thompson 

# l

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's DfficB: 

# 08/0512013

ATTACHMENT C

AFFIDAVIT OF AR1C D. DIERICX
\1y name is Anc D. Diericx. l am the Senior Directc>r- Environmental Compliance for Dynegy Operating Company. Dynegy Operating Company. an artiliate 

### of Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy"), provides business services to Dynegy's operating subsidiaries, including Illinois Power Holdings, LLC (''!PJ-T'} and Dynegy \1idwesl Generation, LLC ("DMG"). My business address is 604 Pierce Blvd., O'Fallon, Illinois, 62269. I make this affidavit based on personal knowledge or on knowledge I have obtained through inquiry ofindividuals employed by Dynegy


### o:· its affiliates.
1 have been employed with Dynegy in my current position or similar enviromnental compliance positions for the past 13 years. As Senior Director- Environmental Compliance, my responsibilities include oversight ol' penni!ting. regulatory and policy development, and compliance for air, water, waste and orher envirorunental matters at D\1G's coal-fired power plants in 111inois. as well as Dynegy's power plants in other states. Subject to the IPH-Ameren transaction closing, this responsibility will include the five plants in the Amercn MPS Group that
are 

### the subject 

### ofthe requested vilriance. 

### Ihave reviewed the Board's questions 

### that have been presented in the Hearing Ofilcer Order dated August 14. 2013. 1have reviewed the Petitioners' response to those questions, have assisted in their development, and concur in these responses. To the best ofmy knowledge and belief, the facts contained therein are true and correct. FURTHER, Afiiant saycth not.

' I ED -11 :;:>
. '7 :i D

AT : I .· ._)
- _;/I·,.,!_

__ _

Subscribed and sworn to 

# ., .· belorc me this 

## _S ' ' day ofSeptembe 

## _flr:f.:=j- 

# s··

1 /**~**

- .</**~-~** '-...._ 2==z--rv""'\.--'< -...._

### -~OTARY PUBLIC )



# ........_____

# ___ 

# -- 

# ------

.. _.....

## --·-

"OFFICIAL SEAL" DANE SCHICKF.DANZ NotaJy Public •State o11JIIoolo My Commission**;xp~ras** June 14, 2016

# EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficB: OB/05/2013
ATTACHMENTD

AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN C. WHITWORTH I. 

### My name is Steven C. Whitworth, and I am employed by Ameren Services Company 

### as Director, Enviromnental 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. I have been employed with Ameren Services Company since I998 following the merger ofCentral Illinois Public Services Company and Union Electric

. Company. During the course ofmy career I have worked in the environmental air quality and

pennitting arena since 1989. I have been in my current position since 2007. In addition to supervising staffpersonnel, I am responsible for implementing policies and procedures relating
to enviromnental compliance. In this capacity, I am responsible for representing the Ameren Companies before regulatory and administrative bodies with respect to state and federal pennitting conditions and regulatory requirements. 2. I have read the Petitioners' Response to the Illinois Pollution Control Board's Questions tbr Petitioners, to which this affidavit is attached.



# "

# Electronic Filing

- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

3. 1 attest that the statemertts of facts contained in the Petitiorters' response to the Illinois Pollution Control Board's first question are true and 

### correct to the best ofmy knowledge and belief

Further affiant sayeth not.

Subscribed and sworn to beforeme this 5th dayofSeptember, 2013.**CHl\13~89809.1** LYNNM SMITH**Nat~ry** Pvbl1c- Notary Seal STATE OF MiSSOURi Commission for St. louis City My CorrHnl:;slon E:qJires St!pt. 28. 2.014 Co·nm!ssion #i0402618

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013 ATTACHMENT E

UNITED STATES ENVI.RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

### APR 1 6

## 2013

MEMORANlHlM OFFICE OF A;lR AND**Rr~Dir\TlON**

SUBJECI': Initial Area 

### Designations tbrthe 2012Revised Primary Annual Fine Particle National AmbientAir Quality S.tandard · FROM: Gina McCarthy

# c:A~") Assistlmt

### Admin€f-ato~· .

### ~· TO: Regional 

### Adminislrators, Regions l-10 This memorandum provides irum.matiort on the schedule and pro:cess 

### tor initially designating areas for the pmpose ofimplementing the 2()12**r~vlsed** prim!lry annual fine particle (PM2.!) nalional 

### ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

### ln. addition, 

### tltis nte111orandmn:Jaentiiios important factors that the EPA intends to .evaluatdn making tina! nonattainment area boundary dectsions for this standard. TheEPA**reeomm~nds** :tharstates and 1rlbes also·consider these factors in making their recommendations forarea·designations and nonattainnient area boundaries. As in prior 

### designations for the 

### PM 2

### .5NAAQS, the EPA will alSo consider ariy otherrelevant 

### information for this purpose. Please share this inj'ormati:on with state 

### and tribal 

### agencies inyour Region. On December 14, 20!2, tbe EPApromulgated lirevised primary.anntlal PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 3086, January 15,2013). In that action, the EPA revised the ptiumry annual Pl\ch.; standard, strengthening it from I5.0 micrograms 

### per cubic meter.**(~g/m }** to 12.0**~lg/m ;**  retained the existing 24-bmu· PM2.; stand•)rd at 35·j.lglm3; retnihed the existing24-hourPM10 (coarsepmticle) rrtandard at 150 11g!m\ and retained

### ·tile current silite ofsecondary l'lvr st>1ndards. The EPA revised the primMy mmual PM25 standard based on an 

### integrated ·assessment ofan 

### extensive body ofnew scientific evidence, which·substaritially strengthens our body of

### knowledge regarding PM2.. ,-related health effects. The revised primary annual 

### PM,,, standard 

### will provide increased protection 

### ·Jor children, older 

### adults, persons 

### wiih pre-existing 

### heart: and lung disease, 

### and other at-risk populations 

### ''gainst an array ofPM1.s-re!ated adverse itea!th effeets, 

### including J:>remature 

### -------morWTJty,!ncreaswnospltal adnussions 

### and·elnergency d,piil:tment**vi,~its,** 

### and developmentand exacerbation ofclrronic 

### respiratory disease. Clean Air Act Requirements Section 107(d) oflhe Clean Air Act (CAA) governs the process for initial area designations**~fter** ti1e EPA establishes a new OJ' revised NAAQS. lJnder section 1 07(d), states arc required to submit area designation l'ecornmendations to the EPA, by a date speci11ed by the EPA, which cannot be
lnhHTiot Addms,') (UHL}**~** http:/1\'tww.apa.gov P.coychui/Rooyclr:ab!,_ •f'l!!ltoa with 1/ogolflbl'l Oi Bat!l}d**Ink~** Otl FlPGyclcd Pnpor (M!nlmum !lO'%Postr.ontllfMtJ

# Electronic Filing
- Recived, 

# Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

sooner than I20 days after promulgation.ofthenewor revised NAAQS and cannot be later than l year after the promulgation ofthe NAAQS. If, after careful consideration ofthese recommendations, the EPA be.lieves tlw.t 

### it.ili necessary to modify a state'·s recommendation and 

### to promulgate n.designation different 

### from a 

### slate's.rccon:imendation, then the EPA

### must notify the state at least I20 days prior to promulgating the final 

### designation and ti1e EPA must provide the state 

### an opportunity to comment on the potelithtl modification. These modifications.may relate either to the designation ofan areaorto·the boundaries ofan ar.ea. The 

### CAA requires the EPA to complete the initial 

### d!:signation process within 2**y~ars** 

### ofpromulgation 

### ofa new 

### orrevised NAAQS, unlessthe Administratorhas insufficient information 

### to make initial designation decisions io the 2-yeartime franlc. In such circumstances, the EPA may take up to I additional year to make initial area designation decisious (i.e., no later than 3 years afterpromulgation ofthe standard). While section I07(d) ofthe CAA 

### specitlcaJly addresses the designations process between the EPA and**.st~1:tes,**

### ·the.EPAintends

### to. follow the 

### sameprocess to the extent practicable for tribes that choose to makeinitial designation 

### recommendations pursuant

### to section 30l(d) of 

### the CAA regarding tribal authority, and 

### ih,eTribal Authority Rule 

### (TAR) (63 

### FR 7254; February 12, 199.8). To provide clarity"·.and consistei)cy, ln December20I! the EPA ·issued a guidance memorandum conceming collaborationbetween th<)EPA and tribes during the designations process. 1 ln**aecordanc~** with.the TAR andthe December 2011 tribal designations guidance memorandum, and .in eonsu!tation.wiihthe· tribes.• ;the·EPA intends to designate tribal 

### areas on the same schedule as stat.e**designatio~'ls.** !fastate or tribe does not submit designation recommendations .• then the EPA 

### will promu\gate the initial designations that it deems appropriate. Schedule for PM,..Initi&l Area Designations Consis.tent with the schedule in se.ction.l07{d)0) ofthe CAA, as stated in the PM2,5NAAQS final mlc, state Governors are requi.red to ·submit; .and.tr.ibcs can choose to. submit, their initial designationrecomniendations.to tlie"EPAtbrthe2012**ann~;t.al**PM2.s NAAQS to the EPA no later than! year following promulgation ofthe.:revised NAAQS; or by**Decemb~r** 13,2013. Because of the form ofthe 2012 annual 

### Fi\12.5 NAAQS, the ·EPA believes that these 

### recommendations should be based on air quality dtita 

### from the three most recent y.cars ofmoniloriltg data available at that time, i.e., 2010 to 2012

..**Ba~ed** l!JlOn these monitoring data, States should identify areas as attainment, nonattainment, oi·**uncla~sifiable** on the.basis ofava,ilable inforn>'<Jction.2 Ifthe EPA believes it is necessary to makeany 

### modificat.icms. to a state's ortribe's initial t•ecommendatlons, including area boundaries, then.the El'A.is Tequited ·to notifY the state ortribe ofthis fact 

### by ·letter no later than 120 days prior 

### to finalizing the**d~..signation.** The EPA intends to issue this "120-day

1 Guidance to Regi<ms for Worldngwith Tdbes<luring the National. AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS) Dcsi_gnations Process. Memorandum H·om**S~ephen** D, Pagc1 D'irect-or.,.EPA OAQPS to Regional Administrators, Regions 1-X. DeMmber20,2011. Avaiilib!e at hlrp:!lwwrv. cpa.govlttnloarpgll1 !mcmwrani/a12"Ql21JIJ 7 naaqsguidonce.pclf

---- · ·.._- __**__;;_Forihdnh'tnFP·M-arca--dcsi·g~ti_o.ns-irr260S-"C'l997-tmnttni-PMiTki1Uifdn!'tl}-arlti-2009"-(200-6Pt-=limifl'M~.s ~tai'ruara;;···**  ·**~** ---···--- \he EPA used ades"igwation category**Df' 11** **U1)c}ass!"f1abi~/atta1nmc:ntu** for**~reas** that nre mon'itol'·lng attair1ment and for arm1s that do not )lu-ve monitors but fol' which**tb~.EPAhas** reosml to- be.Uev.e.are "likely nrtaintuent and (Ire not contl'ibuting to nearby viOlations. Tho .EPA reser\ted**th~ ~ategory**  11Unclas"siflablc:: 11 for areas where the EPA cn[mot dt:::termine"basod On available infOrmation wlrcthc_!' the ar¢a is meetin_g.o1·**not·meeti~g 11)~**  NAAQS or wherC**lh~** EPA has not dctnt'minodthat the area contdbut.es to a tfeniby vloJntion. WJ1ilestates tan sl1bmit recommendations identifying urens flS**"~tttainment,"** the E-PA cip6ct"s to continue to uscthe 11ttnclassifiable/artainment" categot"y for de•ig11ations for the 1012 ·onnuai·PM;s 1'-lAAQS. Page 2 of34

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/05/2013

letter" no laterthan August 14, 2014. Ifa state or tribe has additional information relevant to the area that it wants the EPA to consider with respect to a designation recommendation that the EPA plans to modify, then the EPA i·cqutlsts that such information be submitted no later than 60 clays from the date ofthe EPA's 

### J20-qay**le\Jer~** Tliis schedule 

### will ensure thatthe El' 

### A can fully considex any Sllch .additional information prior toissuing final designations. Also,.although section 

### 1 07(d) explicitly exempts the des\ghaliori process fi·om the normal public notice and comment rulemaldng process, 

### ilie EPAdocs intend to 

### consider public input in the designation process. Accordingly, we plail to**provide~~** 30-day public commentperiod immediately foJlowing issuance 

### ofthe EPA's letters responding to 

### the designatiOil recommendations from states 

### and tribes. 3Attachment 

### I summarizes 

### this anticlpated schedule. DefiningNonattainment Areas Section 1 07(d)(l) ofthe 

### CAA**dir~cts** the EPA to designate an area "non.atiainment"

### i.fit is violating the NAAQS or 

### if

### it is contributingto a violation ofthcNAAQS i;1 apearby area. To start**th~** initial area designations**proc~ss,** stares and th¢ ,EPA mustidentify the areas that are violating theNAAQS. Thus, 

### the first step in designating .nonattaimnent areas is to identify air quality monitoring sites with data**th~t** show a violation qfth02012 annual PMuNAAQS. For this purpose, the EPA intends to 

### eva!u.ate areas 

### 11sing 

### the most.recent completethree consectnive calendar years ofquality-assured, certified air qtlallty data in

# the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). 4 In general, violations are idenlifiep lising data from. Feqeral Reference 

### Meth<id (FRM), Federal Equivalent Method·(FEM), and/or Approved Regional Method (ARM) monitors that are sited and operated in accorcj£;J1Ce with 40 CFRPart 58, Pi·ocedures fon1sing the air quality datu to determine·whethcr a violation has occurred are.giveli in40 CFR 

### Part 50 Appendix N, as revised by afinal action published in tbeFedera/Register .QnJAnuary 

### !.5, 2013 (78 FR 3086), We expect that in providing designation recommendations to the·EPA by December 13, 2013, states and tribes will also review air quality data from 2010 to 2012, However, prior to the EPA makin.g final designation decision.s,**quality~assured,** certified air quality monitoring data from 2013 may be available, Ifso, the EPA's fmal designation decisions w1lllie based on data from 20ll to 2013. States 

### may also update their designation**recommendation~** when these new data become available. The EPA notes that theprocess .for evaluating areas that are not themselves violating 

### the NAAQS, but are nearbyarcas contributing to the violations of"the NAAQS in a violating area, is discussed in more detail below in cot\nectio.n with the process for determining appt:opriate nonattuinment a:rea.boundaries. Ambient Air MonitoringRequirements in Near-Road 

### Environments

'1 Section 1 07(d)(2) ·explicitly proVides that do-.signal.ions -o·1·e exempt frorn the notice nnd conuncnt provisions ofthe Admini}itrntive Prclc-Cdure Act (APA}. Likewise, de:.;igno.tions undtw section 1 07(d) nrc 11ot ftlnong the Jist ofactions**----•thnl-ar.c...subject-t.o-the...twtice.and-comtJWI~t-proc~m:cs-o..t:secr.iml-3-Q-:7{d},..':J:hus:rne-ithor-the-GAA-nar-HH1-A.:P--A-r.t:~qulre-----.** -· -- ·-·- notice and commentrulemaking_fol'**.promUig~tion** ofthe**cJesi~nf1tions** for thfs or- !lilY otherNAAQS. HaweYe-r, the EPA intends to solicit directpublic**comnH:~it** bn its responses to 'the initial arc-a designation recommen.d[ltloos ofthe states 011d tribes beouuse we believe this**proce~s\vlll** be l!Seful to gl)ther udditionnl informqtion aod to nssure tl1atthe Agency is more clire.ctly aware.- ofiSsues raised bY initial area desi.gnations. Despite the. EPA's intet\tion to provide a public comment period, however, the process for ioitlal area de:;;ignations**un~er** the 2012 p1·imnry annllal PM:t.s NAAQS is not on oction subject

## to notice and comment undo•• either CAA 307(d) or U1C APA.

'1This int01'r11a!'ion is -available on the IZPA•s·wcbsitc at www.epa.gov/trnlairslair.wqd. Page 3 of34---·-·------ 

## EIBctronic Filing
- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficE!: 

# 08/0512013

In the final rule for the revised primary annual PM2 

### s standard, the EPA also finalized changes to the ambient air monitoring, reporting, and network designrequirements applicableto the PM NAAQS, including the addition ofanear•road component to the PM2.s monitoring network. Because the EPA is requiring placement ofthe first phase ofn$ar-i'oad monitors by Jammry 1, 20 !55
, 

### we do not anticipate having·sufficient data available ftom any ofthe newly-required monitors in time for consideration 

### il1theinitial des\gnatiotJS 

### forthe 2012 annual 

### PM2.s NAAQS in 2014. The EPA belleves that given the form ofthe NAAQS, itis tiecessary to have three complete calendar years ofquality-assUl'ed, certitled alrqualilymonitoring datafrom 

### al'M2.s monitor for that monitor to 

### be used forcom]'llitmce purposes 

### alid.in particular

### for designations purposes.6

### The EPA docs not expect 

### to have.a 

### comptete set ofPMz.; air qualily data from these new monitors until2018. Exceptional Events and .Dcsignathms 

### Exceptional events have the potential to. influence.-regu!atory decisions, including it1itia! area designations for the 2012**annu~l** 

### PMuNAAQ$·

..

### Airquality motJ.i!oring data affected 

### by exceptional events may be excluded from use.in identifying 

### n. violation at.a monitor ifthe data meet the criteria 

### for exclusion, 

### as specified in 

### the .Final Rule 

### oil. the Treatment 

### ofData Influenced 

### by Exceptional Events 

### ('72 FR·13560; March 22,2007). In the 2012 PM NAAQS ±lnal r.ule, the EPA 

### established schedules for.air agencies

. .to. flag data 

### inJ:Juettc.ed.by exceptional.events and submit rehited documentation sp.ecrtically 

### !or PM data collected from 2010 through 2013 that will 

### be use.d in the initial designations process for tl1e

### 2.012 annual 

### PM1..s NAAQS. Although 

### some of these deadlines are accelerated, they Were promulgated:

## to align closely withthe timing ofthe initial designations recommendatiOtlS from ·states nnd tribes in Dccembct 2013 

### and/orthe EPA's potential issuance of120-day letters pertaining to designations in August 2014.**Thes~** 

### schedules reflect the EPA's interest in 

### ensurlng:-that wecan futly 

### consider exceptional events claims, as 

### appropriate, in the tina! designations deCisions. The EPA regional 

### offices a.re encouraged 

### to work with states and tribes with exceptional event.claims to prioritize and expedite the demonstration development and rev.iew 11roccssfor tb.ose c!<Ums 

### having the potentia! 

### to influence regulatory decisions such as the i.nitial desigMtionspi·oce.ss. Sitililarly, the EPA encom·ages states.and tribes to co.ntact and collaborate with 

### the appropriate EPA regional 

### oil'ice aftel'ldentifying any exceptional event influencing ambient air quality concentrat1ons in away that could potentially affect compliance with the 2012 anm1al PM2

### .s NMQS. The promulgated exceptional event schedules are identified in Attachment 2. TheEl'Ahas also developed interim exceptional events implementation guidance documents that air agencies can use when reviewing potential exceptional events and developing appropriate exceptional event demonstrations. Additional in.fom1ation and examples ofexceptional event**submi.~sions** 

### and best practice components can be found at the EPA's excepiional events website located at**=======~-----·----····--·--·---··** 'lulhe p1·omulgated PM NAAQS (78 FR 30g6),the EPA fmalb.ed a phased schedule for deployment ofthe I'Mu monitors at near-road stations and requjie(l collocating tl niinhnurn ofone PMz.s monitor in each Core Based Statis\icnl Area (CBSA) with a population ;:.2.5 million with a ne01·-road NO, monitoring station by January 1. 2015. PM2..s monitors nl nearwroad stations must be cnlloca1ed and ·operational at the t·emaining Cl3SAs (i.e., those CBSAs witil populations ;:1 million, but less than 2.5milli<m)-by January I, 2017. 6 Data completeness crlteria, including data substituti0nlncthodol6gie!i1·are specified in Appendix Nof40 CFR part 50. 

### Page 4 of34

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/05/2013

http:/ lwww. epa.govlttn/cmalysis/exevents.him. NonRttainment Area Analyses mid Bonndlwy Determinatinn The EPA believes that the boundaries for each nonattainmcnt 

### area should be evaluated and determined on a case-by-casebasis considering the.specific facts and**clrcumstanc~s** unique l\} the area. Section I07(d) explicitly requires that the EPA designate as nonattainmentnot only the. area that 

### is violating the standard atissl!e, bui .also those 

### 1iearby are.as that contribute to the violatiDii in the violating area. After identifying each.rncmitor 

### or·groUp 0'£mollitors that indicate 

### a violation 

### of the standard in anarea, the·EPA intends tO bt')gin its analysis of**wh~t.areas** contribute to that violath1g 

### area by considering those cbtmties in the 

### entiremetropoliianarea (e.g., 

### Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) or Combined Statistical Area (CSA)) ·in which the violating 

### monJtor(s) is (arc) 

### I ocated. The EPA also 

### intep.ds tu 

### .evaluate .an.y 

### a<:ljaeeJjt'counties to the CBSA

# orCSA that have the potential to contrib\lte. 

### The EPA believes thati't is appropriateto stl!ft the analysis with the relevant CBSA or CSA for the area bec.ause measured ambient.PM25 concentrations 

### across urban-scale distances tehd to 

### be highly 

### correlated and .comp1;lsed 

### ofdirect emissions**~nc!** multiple 

### secondarily-formed pollutants attribJ.ltable

### to avariety ofsources commonly found throughout urbanized areas. 7 In other words, violations ofthe aniiual**PM~.s** NAAQS areusmil!y 

### the result 

### of emissions from a broad variety of

### sources that are typically located across a rn.etropolitan area, and the CBSA or CSA 

### ior that area is thus.a, reaso.nabkstarting point fur an analysis ofwhat nearby u.reas may be contributing'to the·violationoftheNAAQS al'a given monitor or monitors in a violating m·ea. Although the CBSA or CSA, as appmpri'ute, is :the starting pointfor the EPA's evaluation ofcontribution, the EPA does not intend itto be.a presmned nonattainmcnt area boundary. The nonattainmcntarea 

### boundary; or mui.tiplc nonMtalnment area boundaries, 

### will encompass the arca(s) that violate(s) th!' standard and tho nearby areas that contribute to the violations. 

### In relatively 1Jrbanizcd.areasthis may include 

### an entire metropolitan area (e.g., CBSA or CSA); in rural locations the nonatlaimnent area .boundary could include

..several 

### small towns, each with a few sources that contribute to a Violating monitor..S As described 

### in more. detail in this section 

### and in the attachments 

### to this memorandum, the EPA believes that·lhe weight ofevidence approach to determining area boundaries for initial nonatttllnmentarea decisions could, under 

### proper circumstances, result i11 

### nonattainroent,arcas ·consisting 

### .ofsingle counties or partial counties. As a framework fot· area-specific analyses, the EPAn:cornmends that states 

### and tribes base their boundary 

### recommendations on an 

### evaluation of

### information relevant to five factors: air quality

7 U.S. El' A (2009). Integrated Science Assessment l'ilr Pa1ticulnte Matter: Final Hepmt. National Center fm· Environmental**A~:~essmont·RTP** Division, Office ofResearch r.nd**Dcvelopm~nt,** Research Triangle Park, NC. EPN&OO/R-081139F. December2009, ChapterZ·, I>· 2-8; Chapter 3, iJ•. ;!·4, 3-7, 3-70, 3·108. Available ut ht!p:fh.,•ww.epa.govittnlnaaqs!standardslpml:'i_pnl_2007 _isa.hrml,

..-.**-----'-O.Ml3-lidopted.stalldar.ds.£oJcdcfininl!-11lelrop~)jtno.and**..**mit:r.Ojio>lltan.sll\tistical.al<>a&<>n.Decemoer..;2.(,j000-(6,~.FJ<**..-------- B2229). These standards established the terms Cl:lSAs and CSt;.s. ln2010, OMB adopted revised**standard~** ftll' delinc»ting met1·o.politnn und micnipoliton stotistkal uroas (75 fR 37246; June .28, 201 0). OMB will use tho 20 i0 smndards When itupdates the list ofCBSAs andCSAs, antkipated in hmc 2013. Tbe cwrcnt list ofCBSAs and CSAs and the;ir geographic -cOmponents is provided in aQeeember 1, 2009 update.available at hffp:!IWW'rP. ceris'us.gov/papulatlonlmetro/jit:e.\'/lists/2009/Ust1.1.\'t and ht1p:l/www.ceJ1SUs.gov/populdtiorilmetro/jifesllists!2009/Llst6.txl. ·The EPA intends to use tho December 1, 2009 updafe· in**~his** designations process. Page 

### 5 of34

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/05/2013

data, emissions and emissions-related data, meteorology, geography/topography, and jurisdictional boundaries. Attachment 3. 4escribes these factors in geneml and provides guidance regarding.analyses relevant to each ofthese factorsthat 

### are consfstetlt with those used in the designations process for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.s 

### standwcls andin designations for other NAAQS.9 Additionally, states .and tribes may identifyood.evallmte otherrelevant information 

### or circmnstances**specifi~;r·io** a particular areato suppo11nonaita!nment area boundary recommendations. For cases in which stat¢s .alld**trib~s** choose .not to conduct a sufficient anaJysis justifyingtheir boundary 

### recommendation, the. EPA wiUpropose.those boundaries 

### tlmt it determines 

### to be appropriate based upon th9 five factor .analyses and any other relevant intom1ation for a given m·ea. .While the 

### EPA generally believes it is appro_priate to**jr~c(tide** 

### the.entirety ofa violating or 

### contributing county in 

### aPM2.s 

### nonattainmeni·area, we recognizethat. 

### in some 

### cases, an assessment 

### ofrelevant**inform~tion** may supp{irt

### inclusion ofonly pwtofacounty. Forexample, as has. been the case in past PM2.s designations, there may be low elevation areas (e.g., valleys) with poor <tir 

### quality in violation.ofthe

### NAAQS due to restrictedatmospheric dispersion where higher elevations (e.g., mountainous. areas) 

## in tl;e same cow1ty can be shown not to have sources ofemissions that contribute to.the violation. Al'teinative)y, partial 

### county boundaries may be appropriate in situations where the soui•ces locate.(! in·.a contributing county are located only in a small portion ofa large C·Otmty that 

### is ()therwige :not contributing to thenew·by violations

..In such circumstances, the EPA has also previously c<ii1sidercd designating onl)' poitions ofcont,ributing counties that are not contiguous tb the violating area a11 acceptable.approach, in appropriate circumstalwes. For 

### de.fining. partial \'Ounty bo"ndarics, the· EPA recommencls the·use ofwcll.- detlned legal jurisdictional boundaries, such

### 'as townships; tax maps; or immovable landmarks, such as major

### roadways; or other permanentand readily 

### identifiable boundaries. In addition to nearby areas with·somces.contl'ibuting to nonattaimnent, PM 2.5 concentrations in an area with 

### a violating 

### monitor riuty be Uffecled'by long-raJJge or

### regiomil transpmt 

### ofPM2.; and its precursors (e.g., nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S02), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and 

### ammonia (NH 3)).' 0 Wherethi:S is.the case, the CAA does n.ot require that all contributing areas ·be 

### designated nonatiainmei'lt,· Dtity the·contrib\t!ing areas that are nearby, As provided in CAA section 188(a),.theEPA will initiall)iclassify all nonattainmem areas as "Moderate" nonattaimuei1\ areas when ii promulgates the initial area designations for the 2012

.. annual PM2.s NAAQS. 11 In accordance with CAA section l88(c), the attainment date for each Modernte m·ea shall be as exped·itiously as practicable but no later than the end oftbe·sixth

'In the designation guidance for the 1991 PM,,, standards and the 2006 PM2J standards, lhe SPA Identified nine fltctms lo consider in making**dcsignatioilrecomtn~ndations:** emissions data, air quality duta, population density nnd

.__________**_____degt:e-e..of.w:bani.zntio.llrtr:af-fle-and-cqJutniltin~-patt-emsr.,g.rowth--Hl~n.d-·~ntternsnne!eoro1ogy-;----·--·-----** geographyltopo.g-taphy,jut·isdictioll"l bou11darles., and level ofconti'Ol ofemission source. In April and Mny of2012, whan the .EPA promulgated designations JOt· the 2008 ozone strtndard;:, the EPA gr[)-l]ped·the emissions-rela!ed factors together in t11e e1nissions and emissions·reJnted datn facto!\ 'resulting .in five overall faCtors. 10

### ·nw muin**prc~ursor** gases associated with fine par·Jcle fonrilition nre SO:;,, NOxl volatile orgnnlc. compounds. and nmmonia. (Seen FR 20586 at 20589, Apr1t 25, 2007). Unless other•wlse .noted, nit references to PM,,precursors in this memOrandum and its aH«duuetus refer to at leasnhese !Our gases. 11 Nalui'Ct! Resources Defimse Council andSierl'll Club v. EPA, No. 08-1250 (D.C. Cir. JaJ). 4, 20'l3). Page 6 of34

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/0512013

calendar year after the designation. This memorandum provides the EPA's preliminary views on 

### the process for initial area designations and for boundary d,terminations for the2012 a·nnual PM2.5designations process. 

### Any guidance <:ontained 'herein 

### is not binding on 

### states, tribes, 

### the public, or the EPA. The EPA 

### will make the actual designations det_erminations and decisions concerning 

### nonat(ltinmentarea boundary issues in the 

### final action that 

### designates all areas 

### for the 2012 annual PM2.s standard. When the EPA promulgates the 

### initiai nrea designatio1ls, those dctem1inations 

### will be bindit1g on states, tribes, the public, and the EPA as a.mat.ter ofl_aw. Four attachments provide addi.tio.oal-infbn'nation relevant to the initial area designations process. Attachment I is an anticipated time line ofiinportant milestones intheinitial area designations process for !he 2012 annual**Pl\~b:s** NAAQS. AWtchment 2 identities the-promulgated exceptional event schedule for initial data flagging and 

### Stibrttlssi'On ofexceptional event demonstrations. Attachment 3 identifies the five.general factors that the'EPA in1ends to consider ih eva:Juating and making decisions on nonatta,inment .area bo>mdari<;s 

### and provides guidance regarding analyses relevant to 

### support each of1hese factors. Attachinenl4 provides additional 'information o.n preparing and running a HYSPLlT {HYbrid**Singl~"Partiqlii**Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) modeling analysi.s that niay 

### be relevant to designations evaluations. Staff

### in the EPA's Oflice ofAir 

### QualityPlanning and Standards m·e available forassistance and consultation throughout the initial area designation process. Quesiiotls on -this guidance may be directed to Beth Palma at 919-541-5432 or Martha Keating at 919-541·9407. Attachments: 4



# __________..............

### ------------------------- ·-- .... 

### --·-··-

### ---

Page 7 of34

# Elsctronic Filing - Rscivsd, Clsrk's Offics: 08/0512013

cc: Stephen D. Page, OAQPS Scott Mathias, OAQPS 

### Anna Wood, OAQPS 

### Lydia Wegman, OAQ::?S Richard**Wayland~** OAQPS 

### Greg Green, OAQPS PeterTsirigotis, OAQPS Air Division Directors, Regions I-X Christopher Grundler, OTAQ Saruh Dunham, 

### OAP

Page 8 of34 -------- -------------

# EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: OB/0512013

A'i:'TACHl\1ENT 1



### ANTICiPATED TIMitLINJ<; FOR

### 20.12 ANNllALPM1.; 

### NAAQS DESIGNATION 

### PROCESS



# - Milestone Date 

### The EPA promulgates 2012 PM2.s 

### NAAQS rule
' • I 

### December 14, 2012 Sta:tes and 

### tribes submitrecommendations for PMu 

### No 

### .laterthan December 13, 2013 designations to the 

### EPA The EPA notifies states and tribes concerning any No laterthan August 14,2014 (J 

### 20 intended modifications to 

### .thcit recortunendations days pr.ior to tina! PM1.s area 

### (120-day letters) designations) The EPA publishes public notice ofstl\te recommendations and the EPA's intended No laterthan August 29., 2014 mod.ifications, ifany, and initiates 30-daypublic comment .pe.riod 

### End nf30-day 

### pub]ic comment·period No lati:rthanSeptcntber 29,2014 States and tribes submit additimml information, if any, to respond to the EPA's modification ofa No late!' than October 29, 2014 recommended designatiqn The EPA 

### promulgates final 

## PM 2.5 area

### designations No later than December 12,2014



### ----·--------· .....

### --.

Page 9 

### of34

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: DB/05/2013

ATTACHMENT2

Revised Schedulefor ExceptinnalEventFJaggh1g and Documentntion**Submissit~n** for Data to beUsed in !nitialAl'ca DesignationsJor the 

### 26l1Ann.unl PM2.s NAAQS Air QualityData 

# - 

# r Detailed NAAQS l'ollutnnt! Eve[ltFlagging & Standanl/(Lcvel)/ 

### Collected for l.nitlaiJ)escription Documentation Promuleation Date CalendarYcar 

### pcadHnc Submission.Dead{iue PMu/ J>dmary Anrmal 2010 and 20H 

### July 1, 2.013 

### December 12, 2013 Standard 

### 2012 July I, 2Q13' 

### December 12, 20I 3 (12.0 p.g/m3) 

# I Ju\y 1, 20!4' 

# . Promulgated 

# ! Dccombcr 14,2012 2013 

### August l,2014



# - - "This date is provided bY the general schedule in 40 CFR 50.14(c)(2)(iii). 

### Note: The table ofrevised deadlines 

### only applies to 

### data the EPA will use to establish the initial area designations for the 

### 2..012 Nvisoa primary**~nual** PM2.s NAAQS. Thegeneral 

### schedule applies for all otherpurposes; most 

### notably, 

### fox data used by the EPA for redesignations to attainment.

--·---·· ..--·----

Page 10 ofJ4

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/0512013

ATTACHMENT3

Factors the EPA Plans to**Consl~eJ·** in Determining

### Nonnttainmcnt Area Boundaries in Deslgnntions for the 2012 Annual PM;,,5 NAAQS and Gni(lancc un Analyses to Support th!)so**F~ctors** For 

### init.ial area 

### designations for the 

### 2012aimnal PM2.s NAAQS, theEPA will rely 

### on monitoring 

### data to identify 

### areas to b!' 

### designated no11attainmeilt <iue to n1.ohitored violations ofthe standard. Consistent with the directives ofthe CAA

## and with previous .area designation 

### !)rocesses, the EPA will then determine the appropriate 

### nearby**aj·etL~** io include within in 

### the nonattai.nmentarea 

### boundaryfor the violating area, 

### based on**emissknt~** that

### contri,mte to 

### these violations. For each 

### monitor or group of

### monitors indicating.a viola\ion, the EPA 

### intends to 

### assess information related to tlve factors 

### for the purpose ofestablishing_the ilppropriategeqgniphic boundaries for 

### desi!,'llated PM2
.5

### nooattainmentareas. 

### The'EPA will evaluate 

### rdevat1t information.

### from the entire 

### urbanized area (i.e., ·CBSAfCSA) 

### containiilg the violafi;Jg 

### lllOJu(or.(s) and any adjacent 

### coU)lties that 

### have the potential to contribute. Forthose.·portiOils

### nftlie urbanized area

### where an evaluation ofthe available information·clearly establishes that emissions sources 

### in that portion ofthe ar.ea do not contribute 

### to exceedaoce§ atthe·vioiating monitor(s), 

### the EPA believes it

### would be appropriate 

### to exclude 

### thatportion oftbear.ea :from the nonattainrnent 

### area. This weight of evidence approach to detennining areaboundaries. coul.d result in 

### nonattainmeilt·areas 

### c6nsisting ofthe entire Utbanized area, sin,!lle couhties, or, in cases 

### Sl:!Jlported by relevant evidence, partial counties, including 

### partial counties within-larger 

### urban areas. While technical**assessment~** 

### can help to define the magnitude and relative 

### magt1itude ofcontribution from nearby areas, the EPA is not setting u threshold**contrfbutionl~vcJ** or bright 

### Jlne test for dct<mnining whether-an area shou]d be included withiil the boundaries of.a given nonilttainmen) area. Section l07(d) ofthe CAA does· not require 

### the EPA to set a threshold contl'ibi.ition and the EPA does not believe 

### that such a threshold 

### is helpfnl as it could be cither·ovei'· .orunder inclusive. As a general example, a threshold contTibutionJeveJ would not Identify contribut1on Ji·om sources located upwind ofa nonattainment area but for which

### tltere is 

### no downwind monitor. Forthese reasons and as was done h1 prior designations for the )997 and 2006 

### PM2;s NAAQS, the 

### EPA believes that the contribution determination should· be made ihrou!fh a c;Isc-by·case**evalti~tion** ofthe relevm1t facts and 

### ci.rcumstances in each nonattainrnent area. · As uframework for area·specific analyses to support nonatta\nment 

### area boundary 

### recommendations and final boundary 

### det&ln1inations, the EPA believes 

### it is appropriate 

### to evaluate the 

### following five factors: 

### I. 

### air quality data 

### 2. emissions and emissions-related data :l. 

### meteoJ:Ology -----·------·---·· 4. geography/topography 5. jurisdictional boundaries 

### ····------·-·----

The 

### EPA notes that these llve 

### f\tctors arc 

### comparab-le to the factors that stutes and tribes and 

### tl1e EPA have used successfullyfot analytical purposes in prior designations for the 1997 and 2006 

### Page 11 of34

# Electronic Filing
- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

PM2 .5

### NAAQS. The recommendatioJrofthese 

### factors is 

### not intended to indicate tl1at 

### other relevant info1mation should not be conslder.ed hi tlte initial area designations process, as appropriate. The EPA 

### will 

### also evaluate·any otherrelevant 

### area-specitk information not included within the tive factor analysis in cases where those assessments are provided by states ?Jld ll'ibes. This attaclunentis intended to provide. descriptive**guid~nce** 

### regarding available data that states and 

### tribes may 

### wishto assess when evaluating

### thesefive facto

### i-s.This guidance also provides insight into the EPA's subseq\lentreview.and evaluation ·ofthe state and.tribal nonattainment 

### area boundary recommendations: The guid,u;ce·offel's suggestiol1S about techniques and approaches; it does not contain requirements to 

### be strictly foliowect··atld should not be read as prescriptive \vith respect to the specific techniques recommended. The EPArecognizes that some ofthe ·recommended assessments can be resource 

### .intensive. To mitigate this potential cot1cern, the .EPA.intends,.Wlierevqr.possible, to providethe relevant data to facilitate the analyses. Table 3- I below outlines 

### the 

### aatasets thattile EPA expects to make available to 

### the. public on the**P:tvh.~** 

### designq.tions websit!'. at

### hllp:!lwww.epa.gov/pmdesignationsl and the expected date

# oravailability. The EPA tnay update tl1iS website during !he initial area designations 

### process as other relevant dataseis·areidentifi.ed. Table 3-1. Datnsets the EJ>A will Providevia 

### the EPA PM

### Designations Website Dataset 

## -·- Expecteil**Avail~biHIY** 

### J?ate

___

## l Current annual PM....u_dcsjgn values**Aori12~13** CSN speciation da!u (raw and SAN])\V!CHBD) AerJI20 13

--**lM~ROVE** speciation data (mw and Apri1.20J 3 SANDWICHED) National .Emissions lnventmy (NEI) emissions Aprll 20!3**~paries** · Gridded emissions* 

# ---· Aptil2013

Urban tncrements_ TBD Wind speed/direction data April20!3 {· Wind toses Aori12013 .....6Eill.:?.Q13**HYSP~IT b·n~'l:..!!n\a**  

# . *Provtded as part of web·based mappmg to.ol. This guidance also otTers recommend.ations concemii1g

### how states and tribes may wish to describe the basis for their initial del\ignatioilsrecoimnendathms. 

### Tlle EPA anticipates that states and tribes will elect to provide an atticulatecl explanation f·or 

### those recommendations in a narrative format. Thus, this guidance provides 

### ·some direction regarding 

### the content and sequence ofthe narrative states and tribes may 

### wishto develop when describ.ing the nonattaimnentproblem in an area \.lith monitored violations ofthe NAAQS

.. Acomprehensiv<Jnarrdtive should atticulate**----:a..conGGl>tllal-meael-of-P-M,::;-nenottail)lllent-thitt-e~p!ailJ.s-the·natur.;am:l-cm~es-oitiWPJii!2.5liir----** ------· 

### quality problem in the specific area, icle.ntily the ·scope 

### and scale ofthe air 

### quality problem in that area, and describe all nearby emiss.io11 sources thai contribute to.the problem. The EPA encourages regions (and states and tribes) to work.collnhora:tively to d.evelop a single narrative for m11iti-state, ormulti·regi-on, nonattainmentareas. However, the EPA anliGipates that states or tribes with al'eas contributing to potchtial multi-.state designated noni\ttainmentareas would Page 12 of34

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's DfficB: 

# 08/05/2013

develop a conceptual model that describes only the contribution from their**~rea** to the larger nonattaimnent area, rather than at\empting to desc1·ibe the scope and scale ofthe air quality problem throughout the entire area artd in thej)lrisdiction wfth the violating monitor. The underlying analytical framework ofthe,recoinm·erjocd n;u:rative carj be S1.munarlzed as follows:

• Determine violating monitorhig sites ·and gather data that enables an assessment of potential nearby contribQting areas arid the·sources ·in those areas.

• Assess and characterize air quality pattems at, and in the proximi\y ot; the violating monitoring s.ite. Identify the conditions th:at.are lnosras.so.ciated with high average concentration levels**ofPivh~** in the area·by season of

### the year. Furlher, idenfify the spatial extent ofthehigh PM2.5concentr(!tions.. This analysi\'3. 

### will ptovide a basic construct from which to evaluate :potential contributing sources.

• Assess and characterize the PM2 , 5



### .spec]es that are mostprevalent overthe analysis area. Determine the fractional magnitudes Oftotal PM2.5by component, noting that efforts will need to 

### be made to ensure that speciaJion 

### data ·are adjusted to reflectFRM 

### mass at the violating site(s). All parts ofthe year are imj:mrtant

# in determining contributions to the annual average COJlcetltration

..However; a seasonal or episodic compositional increment analysis in con;tbinatio·n with other fflctor info1mation mayprovide addmonal insight as to wbid1 sources or factof'S 

### may c·ont.dbute at-·a·_greaier level. This analysis can be .an important first step in linking specific ,riearby sources ofemissions to the violation.

• Assess-and characterize the increase in seasonal and-annual average PM 2

### .s_thot 

### is observed atthe violating m_onito.ring site(s) r1Jlative to monitori!lg sites outside the area under evaluation that reflect regio1ial backgrout)d**c.oncentr~tio,ns**.. This "urban increment" analysis will he-lp to ·differentiate.the influence from more distant emission sources fl·om the inJ1uence ofcloser·emiBslons sotu·ces,-and thus l<i identify the i'elative magnitude of contributions from nearby emissions sourc.es.

• Assess and characterize the spatial and temporal ditl'erences in PM2

### .s co.ncentmtions within an urban area using FRM/FEM ·data as well as (lata from non-regulatoryPM2.s monitodng sites. ·
• Oncethe air quality factor unalyscs identified in the previous bullets are compiled they can be evaluated ·in COI\itu1ctionWith emissions 

### data and emissions-related data (e.g., 

### vehicle m.iles traveled, population) 

### to determine which source categories and sourc-e regions are most likely to contributeto the monitored**viol~tions. ----•--Once.the-~m~sslons.and.ai.J:.qua~ity-<Js~essn.lents** ..**h<t><e.bcen-e¥?.!.~ated,..it-is-v.al.uat>l~t\l-lhen** assess the mcteorological.charaoteristic:s·ofair qtiality thtoughout the year in the violating area. In many locations, the- weather pattcms will have a large .impact on the eventual determination ofwhich source cat_e-go.ries·and·smu·ce regions in the area are most likely to contribute. This analysis will further help to identify the re1ative magnitude of coutributions from emission sources in netu'by areas. Page 13 of34

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

• lt may be useful to assess any geographic/topographic orjmisdictional considerations that are relevant in 

### the identification 

### ofthe nonattainment area boundary.

o Finally, 

### all ofthe above assessments mL\.St

### be aggregated or 

### synthesized into a 

### consistent nanative that describes 

### the relationship belween.so·urces in the analysis area and the measured violation. This 

### synthesis shouldrepresellt a collective "weight ofevidei1ce" regarding the most appropriate boundaries forthe nonattainment area. 

### While the general five factor framework is expected to be comprehensive 

### and provide the foundation for each .assessment ofboundary aren.s, the extent 

### cifthe analyses 

### may**v~ry** on an areaby-area basis**bas~d** on the nature, cause, and :extentoft)le violating PM2.s air qualityproblem. This guidance suggests analy$es 

### ofcertairi 

### data'SetS fuat can· he useful 

### to assess which nearby areas contribute to nonattaimnentin

..ngiven area. [n**ca~es** where more highly-resolved otn.ewer data sets are available that are notexpiicitlymentioned in.this guidance, states and tribes should consider dleiruse, as appropriate.

# rrthese 

### data .are.(lsed, 

### the EPA recommends that the states or tribes fully describe the data 

### and. its derivation in

### their sttpport'inwdocumentation for the designation recommendation. The following sections provide more d.etall onthe specific.live·factor analyses and th.e supplemental synthesis approaches'that the EPAplans to consider when evaluating state recommendations and determining nonattaillinen! area boundaries -for the a1\nual PM2.sNAAQS,

l. Air Quality Data The initial area designation process for PMu shot!ld begin with.an evaluati011 ofavailable ambient air quality measuretnents to**detennin~** the location and magnitude ofviolations ofdle st11ndard. In addition to datafrom violating monitors, the air: quality 

### duta from other I1lonitors can add to the weight ofevidencein assessing ihe C9l1tribution ofsomccs in areas outside the violating county. Examples include the use o:fchemical speciation datato help characterize contributing emissions SOllfces and ·the determination ofnearby contributions through analyses that differentiate local and regional source contrihutions.

a. PML< Design Values and Intra-anntlll!Pnttcrt)S The first. step in ide.ntifying an area fuat must be designated "nonattainment" and to determine an appropriate nonattainment area boundary is to identify all monitored violations ofthe revised 

### <mmtal standard using the mostrecemly available air quality data. The EPA determines NAAQS eompliance 

### by cons'ideril)g the "design valuc"ftKeach air quality monitoring site. The design

. _____**vac..l.,.tt~.** for the 201.2**~~Lt,al :l\1u~AAQ§_is** **tl.le~:xear** average**(~"¥u,2.QlD,J]tiQJ2)..oi1he_t:nuua!--·---"-­** mean concenttahons. fh1s requ\res calcttlatmg ammal PM2.5 des\gll values b@sed on amb1ent mr

I:!: The specific methodology tbr calculflting·the PMu·des·i_gn valuos; ·Including computational fiJrmulas and data completeness**requirementS~** is described in 40 .CFRP.art 50, AppendixN. Forbitsic instructions on calculating annual mean va.lues, see Guideline on DataHandling Conventions for· the PMNAAQS. EPA-454/R·99·00S April 1999 located at hrrp:!/www.upa.gov/trn!nuaqs/pmlpm25_jfuide.hrml. Design values al'e computed and publishcG annually Page 14 of34

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/05/2013

quality datu from the most recent three c.alendar yearpedod (i.e., December2013 designatioJ1S recommendations should focus on data frotn 2010 to 2012) :from all Federal Reference MethOd (FRM), Federal Equivulent Method (FEM), and Appt•pved Regional Method (ARM) moniiors. The EPA will designate as 11onattnininent all areas with o.ne o.r more ambieilt PM;ts air quulity monitors with a design value greatei· than the rumual stMdard of 12.0 f!gim3• Because ofthe form ofthe NMQS, monitored**umbiet!tPM~.slevels** throughout the entire 3-year period, including monitored levels below t!1e n.umedcaUev.el oftheNAAQS, are integral to the calculation ofthe design value ofthe monitor,and hence integral to determining whether**til~re** is a violation ofthe NMQS. The amotmt by which moniiored )evels exceed theNAAQS througholtl the period canbe an important**considerli~io.\1** in determining appropriateboundaries for the nonattainment area because themonitored"level ·indicates.themagnitude ofemissions contributions that result in such exceedance levels and whetherthere isa likelihood ofinfluences from summnding areas. Accordingly, contributions to**monitor~d** ambient PMz.s at aviolating monitorthroughout the enti1·e 3wearpel'iod ru-e relevant to determi'ning the approptiate bound!u'ies for a 11011atta.fnment aj:ea. Only PM2.5 measurements produced atllRM/VEMlARMmopitoring sites can be used for NAAQS comparisons. The EPA usesFRMIFEM/ARMmeasurement data residing in \he EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) to calculate the annmil PMudes:ign values. 13 Individual measurements that the EPA determines tobe."exceptional'' in accordance with the Exceptional Events Rule 14 (such as days with poor air quality caused by wildfire ordustevents) are not included in these calculatio

.. os.**State~** local, and tribal rnonitorit1g agencies

## are requb·ed to certify data submitted to AQS on an annual basis, by May 1" ofthe subsequent yeat, The EPA typically extracts ambient data fr\lm AQS and calculates official design values for regulatorypurposes shortly al'tor that ccrtiftcation due date (e.g., typically

### 'by Jufy 

### 15'h).and then pcfsts NAAQS design values tor each monitor on apnblic website. In addition to identifying monitor sites·where themost recentdcsig11**val~tes** violate·the 2012 anmral PM,·.s NAAQS, exan1ining'trends in 

### l'i\1z.l air quality values (including.design values) can improve our understaodin,g ofth·e JJatilre of!l)e:J'M2J ambient airquality prol:iletu in a violaiing area and thereby inform decisions regm'ding the· sufficient size and shape ofthe nonattainment areaboundary. Analyzing design voJt\e trends, paiticulai'ly across.multlple monitors in an area being evaluated, can showhow

### PM2.s com:entrations**·h~><e** changed.and whether the recent design value is consistent with thattrend. Additionally these trends analyses canshow haw frequently the design value a1 the 'deiining' site (i.e., the monitoring site with the highest design val>le tor the area) has occurred at ot1Jer monitoring locatioJ.lS in tllC <irca under consideration,'and whether the design value trend across the evaluationarea is homogeneo\tS. ·This information can help to ------by-tlle-.SJWIM'jHie..'obHt--t;!ttality-l'lattlling·i!lld-$ttrndntd>r<iltd"l'eviewed-Jtt-conjtmotiun-witlrthe·Ei'A-rogionai----------· offices. When desig11 values are used in aregulatory nction 1 they nre bused on !he latest nvallable information nne! vnlid diJtu tb2>.t suppot't that action. Cui-rent dOsig.11 ,;alues atld histOrical1rcnd infol1tJ<liion are uvai!ablc at http:!:\vww.c.pa.govlaif'tNmdr!values.html. 13 Information Jtom non.-F'.R.M/FEM/ARM monitors**an~** ai1· quali.!y modeHng, where awtilable, mny help**d~fine** an appropriate boundary tbr areas contributhtg to FRMIF[lMIARM-based monitored violations, but are nol valid for dctenninlng official violations ofthci'M2.,NAAQS. 1'1Final Rule on the 'l'reatlhenl offJatR Influenced by Exccptionul Events, 72 PR 13 560; March 22, 2007. Page 15 of34

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/0512013

identify spatial and temporal patterns in the des.il!;n values and, when combined with other information from the five factor review, can help identify**ne~rby** 

### areas with emissions**source~** 

### contributing to an area with amonitored violatioJl. Under normal circumstances, the mere fact-that a nearby areahas amonitor with a design value below the level ofthe NAAQS wo.uld noi answerthe question o.fwhether that area was contTibuting to violations at..a**monitor-in<~nother** 

### area, SL!.Ch

### an area inight contain sources releasing very large a:nounts -ofemissions that togetherwW1 emissions from nearby-sources combine to cause the violation 

## atthemonitol'. However, there may be circumstauces_in which the trettd in emissions at the t'\M•violatingmonitor 

### ill**th~** 

### potenti'all)' contributing area could be relevant to the evaluation ofcmttributim\. Fer .example, amonitor on.the .border of.anearby county may show a downward trend in 

### l'Nhs design values below the level ofthe standard although a neighboring county has a clearly violacl11g monitol' for the current design value period. While the county with the violating mon)torwHl be pc;5ignated as "nonattainmeni;" the downward trend in the monitor on the harder ofa· nearby county·ma)', rilong with other evidence from the five factor analysis, support a**w~ight** 

### o±)Vidence conch!sion !O. 

### exclude the nearby county from being included as part ofthe·nonatta.inment area. Sin1ilarly,.an upward trending site may be indicative ofgrowth in

### nearby contriputing-emissions source£ and providemore weight toward inclusion. In addition to covaluating trends·Jn annual PM4

### svalues, themagnitude ofquarterly or daily average PM2

### .s concentrations over the cOtirse ofeaChyear. .canalso provide clues to fhe nature of the contributing emissions sources. MotJthly and seasonal proft:Jes ofdaily average PM2.5 

### concentrations may illustrate the presence{orlack)ofseasonal conditions conducive to PM2 .5 

### formation, and/or seasonallyimportnnt_ernissions ·sources. Areview ofthe trend in daily 

### PM 2

### .s concentrations, including speciated rneastU'elJJent data as elaborated oninthe next section, could identify a distinct S<Y<Jsonal or episodic pattet·n ofdaily exceed<i;Jces'thatis tl1e main-driver tor the annual desig11 value violation. lfthese.seasonalepisodes ultimateJy iniluence the annuat design value calculation, then evaluating_the emission sources and otherfactors described in tllis guidance as theyrelate -to 

### lhese episodes could help**defin~>.contributing** 

### areas. For example, the occurrence ofhigh levels ofammonium nitro,te during certain winter days, when meteorological conditions.enhance 

### its formation, could contribute to
..annuaL design vah1e exceed.ances in cc11ain areas. In combination with the ui·harilhcrern()nt**~md** 

### emissions data analyses described below, this type oftrenct analysis ofmonitor.data.couldprov\de further insight and evidence ofspecific contributing influences on the violating monitor sites. b. PM2.s Compositiomi! Analysis Measurements or esrimates ofthe components ofambient PM2.5 can be "sed to determine what**chemic~~pecies consti~:_:t:_J:.M2.s**  

### in the**Pru:\i~l!}-~_area** 

### of**iht~rest** 

### amllor**at1~Jicldlar** 

### vig_@ti.ng

_____ _

-- -----·-----rn:omto.t·s. IdentiTying the chen1\cul components ofthe PMz5ruass inthe area (e.g., sulfate, nitrate, organic carbrnmass, elemental carbon, and c.rustalmaterial) can help to give insight i11to the types ofemission sources that.are contributing to the monitored PM2.s 

### concentrntions at the violating monitor, either throngh**dlr~cl** 

### PM2.s emissions or fh.rongh emissions ofPM2.5 

### precursor emissions. However, analysis ofPMu composition at the violating monitor alone will generally not be able to distinguish between local/nearby source contributions al\d regional background Page 16 of34

# Elsctronic Filing- Rscivsd, Clsrk's Offics: OB/0512013

contl'ibutions. This assessment.is therefore only one step .in establishing a link between nearby emission sources to violating monitors (i.e.,the SDllrcetypesthat.appear to be important to the 

### violations in the area but not specific 

### facilities). Detenniningthe specific 

### facilities and emission sources 

### that are contributing·.to theviqlations**requir~s** the sy.ntl1es!s 

### ofresults 

### t\·om an "urban increment" analysis, emissions data analysis, 

### and an assessment 

### ofmeteorological information as explained in subsequent sections. 15 · The 

### PM speciation measurements for some locations 

### me available from 

### the routine urban and rural speciation monitoring networks·- the 

### Chemkru SpecJatjon Network (CSN) and Interagency Monitoring ofProtected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), respectively. There may not always be a co-located speciation monitor at 

### tbe eX:aci ·location ofuviolating n1onitor site; in these cases, and where there 

### are other nearby**~peciation** monitors available, measuremet\t 

### data from these nearby monitors can be considered for:use in a manner (e.g., through a distance- weighted average) that bestrepresents tl)c conditions anbeviolating monitor site. Where speciation monitors are not available at.all, or**vihete·s1.1.Pplem~htal.coverage** ofspeciation data is needed, additional limited measurements may b£; a1so avail!!ble fh)ttt lmalyzing FRM/FEM moititor filters. While FRMIFEM Teflon® filters normally arc not chemically analyzed for PM2.s species; it is possible to perfom1 certain types ofchemical filter analysis. 

## Atechnical report describingthe Tetlon® filter analysis based on previous appliaations related to the 2006 PM4.5 standards provides information 

### em generalprocedmes· and ·lintitations of.lhe.filter analysis. 16 Evaluating the raw speciation monitoi;data eMprovide insightinto source contributions related to that monitor site, but becauseofdifferences·in measurementtech.niqu.es, the data must be sdjusted when attempting to compare it directlylo violating. FRM/FEM.monitor values. 'the 

### FRM PM2•5 mass measw·ement does notretait:r.all ammonium**nitrate.~nd** other semi-volatile materials, but lt does include particle-boun(l**w~ter,assoeiated** with sulfates, nitrates nnci otherhygroscopic species, which result in concentrations 

### and percent ctmlributions 

### to PM2.5mass that may be different than 

### the measurements ofambient 

### levels ofsome PM2.s chemical constituents. ·n,erefore, to relate speciation data to FRM PM2

### .s concentrations, irisneceooary to accountfor the·actual PM2.; mass**meas~tred** at the FRMmonitors, which does not include all 

### PM2}; chemical constituents. Tu address this inconsistency, speciationmeasurement 

### data·should 

### be adjusted using 

### the EPAdevelored "SANDWICH" p.rocedure to represcnt.the chemical oonstitue11ts 

### ofFRMPM2.s mass. 1 .tiThe SANDWICH technique stands 

### for measured Sulfate, Adjusted Nitrate, Derived 

### Water, Inferred Carbonaceous 

### mass Hybrid.Matcrial.Balauce Approach." 

### A full description of

15 Rao, V. and N. Fnmk,.A. Rush, F ..D.immick Chemical SpeciatiOn ofPM2..5 in Urban nnd Rural Areas. Special Studies, National Air Quality and Emi>siOJis To·erids Report, 2003. Available at htlp:llwww.epa.govfalrtrendsl.stlidfes.html.**----·---~eehnieal-••oporron-Hlter-mlOIJ'•is-can-be-foimd·a** . ----·-· -----·-·-- http:llwnn,l'.epa.govlllnlna(tqslpmldocslavailahle_new_ ..**~pecialio.n._**dara._ph12.5 _naa.ptj{.

. l1 Ft·ank, N. H.J SANDWICH Material Balance ApproaCh for PM2.5 Drita**Analysis.~** National Air Monitoring Conference, Las Vegas, Ncvnda, November 6-9,2006. http:l/wur.,,.epa,IJOV/tlnlomtidjflesl2006cm1f•rencelji·ank.pdj: 18 Frank, N.H.. The Chemical Composition o!'PM2.5 to support.PM lmpiementation, EPA Slate I Local /Tribal Training Wo.rkshop: PM 2.5 F·illal Rule lmple.mentation and 2006 PM 

### 2:s Designoiion Process., Chichgo .IL,**.J~mi! ~W~21,**  2007, hllp://wv.•w.e.p•tgav/ tlninaaqslpml presenlslpm2.5 ....

ohcm.icol_comp**o.~**ition.pt[{ Page 17 of34

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/0512013

the SANDWICH procedure is 

### proVided inFrank (2006). 19 Thepurpose of

### the SANDWICH technique

### ls to provide 

### estimates ofPM:;.s components as measured 

### by the 

### Plvh.s FRM.20 These estimates can be different than the data provided directly 

### by. the speciation measurements from the CSN network.



### c. Urban Increment Analyses PM2.5mass concentrations are gene:rally higlier

### in urban areas compared to sunoundlng regions. This "urban increment," 

### also known 

### as·Lhe "urban 

### excess,.''i.s due to 

### locally generated and largely directly-emitted 

### PM2.s in additionto regional contri(Jutlons. Al)wng the major contributors to PM:u mass, 

### stilfate tei}ds to 

### originate.from rcgionril sources;**o~;ganic** carbon and nitrate. originate .ti·om regional and local sources, while black cat'lion, .assoC'iated soot and crustal material tend to originate 

### from local souJ'ccs. The 

### goal offue. urban.increment analysisjsto estimate the local contribution 

### to urban l'M 2

### s as measured at 

### violating FRM/FE!Yl!ARM

### monitonites:andfu·ereby provide additional evidence to consider in deciding whicluiearby areas with so'LU·ces contributing·to tl1e monitored violations in the areat:o include within the boundary· ofthe designated nonattainnwnt area. The urban increment analysis 

### is akey part of'llw itirquality**d~ta** factor 

### evaluation because it can 

### suggest spatial and temporal 

### con·elations between contributing influences 

### and areas by ii1tegrating information from violating monitors and 

### PM2.s composiiional;:Jata 

### as described in the previous sections. An urban increment analysis can also be desi·gned to differentiate local'contributions ft·om regional contributions as well a.s to differentiate·i/ilraturl>an difl'erences; these basic approaches are described below. Analyses ofthese differentspaiial layers 

### (.rural, urban and sub-mban) of 

### PM2.s mass and· components 

### can hclp'isolate and hetter explain the contributions 1l·om urban and nem monitor emissions, separate f'rpm 

### the .regilmal 

### background contributi?nS. UrbanlncrementAnalysis to identifyRegionql vs. Locaf.Co,ntribution An urban increment analysis is b<Jsed on the premise that rural conc.entrations of

### PM2. 5 

### concentrations r.esult il·om ar'e!,'\onal geographic 

### distri.btition of

### contributing sources that result from·atmospheric formation ofsecondary aerosols and 

### long-range transport. Therefore, rural 

### PM1:' concentmtiort5 typically do not vary as much as url)an concentratioiiS and are less impacted by local source emissioJ\s. Also, tural concentrations ofthemajorcomponents 

### ofPM2.s tend to be more spatially homogenous than the urban concentrations. Due to t11ese altributes, the urban

l'l Frank, N.H. RetainedNitrate, llydrafeilBulfotes, and**Cal'bo'naC&ou~** Mass in FederalRefaremfe Methodfine -·-----·--_J!.aJ:tJculat<Mmte!'{<Ji'-SiX-Eilst<>Fi>-!/.S..Gitle&·J7Air-&-Wnote-M·1111age:-mso"C;"Z0611"'5·6;SOO=:;rr,--------·· · · wThe SANDW.TCH adjustment u:-eS an FRM mass construCtiGn methodology thatresults in reduced nitrates (l'clativc to the amountmeasured byroutine speciation networks)) higher mass ussocfa1cd with sulfates (reflecting water included in gnwimct.ric·PRM measurements) and ameasure of·organic carbonaceous mnss dt!rivcd fmm the diffcnmcc between meast.tred PM2.s and its non-carbon components. This ch'arflt;terizatiOn ofPM 2.5mass also reflects**crust~l** material and other minor**-constitu~nts.** The resulting chm"n.'cterization provides acomplete mnss**closurt~** for the measured FRM I)M2,$mass. Page 18 df34

# EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficE!: 08/05/2013

increment analysisprovides a first-order indication ofthe type, size, and spatial patterns ofnearby or local emission sources that are cm:itrib\tti.ngto tbenonnttainment**conc~ntratio.ns** experienced at 

### the urban monitors. 21 The basic 

### approach for 

### the urbaJ) increment.analysis is to calculate the d.ifferencc between the ambient 

### PM2.5 level at an urban area 

### monitoring site and -the ambient 

### PM2.s level at a

### nearby rural area monitoring site(s). Local contributions(<> PMz.s 

### mass can

### be estimated by subtracting 

### the rural con.centration from the measurQd·\U:ban .conoeritnttion.Asstuning 

### thatthe**rur~l** · concentrations represent the regional background·copcet1tration, th1s difference isdefined as the urban increment and calculated .as 

### follows: l 1t"b·at•**tn~..~r** !'om v.v" · ' '• 1 u**~** '•P-MZ.Ij**l,C"~·("t"'.i .:r.;;:>'I-VI~;t~-**  :: 1J

### rba:'t 

## c·o**)'\-.t.~ntt·atio.1~**$\\!'!.t"·('t-JH;1 •.H'**.:t-:>1~'".{.'~-:r)**

-**R~g!**01-tcil Ba.(!kt:t·;•r.;**tt-,~d** C**0"~"-~t:C',.!tr·ati~n.. P;~.,f** 

### 5**(Nt.:.~-.n· ;r;:,~.:tu)**  In the equation above, the 'Urban-Concentration' .should preferably come from the same site as 

### the violating 

### PM2.s design value 

### monitor, a representative site, or

### -oombi.naticin ofsites consistent with conditions at the violating monitorsite in caseswhere· a speciation monitor is 

### not co-located with the violating 

### PNh.s design valuemonitor. The calculation ofthe 'ltegional Background Concentration' should be 

### prepared by s_patiallyaveragingacross nntlfiple-rural monitm sites, where available, in order to 

### bestrepresentt11e.rcgional CO!Jtr-ibutions to 

### ·PM:u mass. Monitors in net1rby smaller urban arens may also"be· considered in assessing contributio.ns to the upwind concentrations that are part oftheregional.backgro.und.-The selected rural aud.upwind urban. monitors should fall within a pre-determlnetl.radius ofthe violating PM2.s monitor site to reasonably reflect background influendng areas m1d·J.t1ust'have 

### measurement data available for days cons-istent witl1 the violating mot1ito!' databeing a·milyzed. There are seveml suitable averaging approaches to constructthe urban inci'j)meht. Fotexample, an inverse-distance weighted average ofthe urban incrcmeiit.across-ihe se.lect-ed· ntra1 monitors can then be calculated to account 

### for differences in the distances that sepatate the rural monrtor**site~** from tl1e violating urban monitor site. Averaging based on multiple m01iitors lessens 1111)' bias issues that may be as·sociated with selecting only a sing1.1lar·ruralfw'banmonitor pairit1g for calculathtg the urban increment and should be more representative ofthe-regional influence. As shown in the equation above, th.e.urban increment 

### call be estimated 

### on either a total 

### Pl\hs 

### basis, or on a

### PMu species component 

### basis (i.e., comparing 

### species ofurban increments of vmious violatingmonitors in.the area). This cal1 be a**pow~rfu\** analytical tool for examining the influence 

### ofspatial patterns oLsoi!rce-specific 

### emissions on monitor 

### s.ites that are violating the 2012 annual 

### PM2.; NAAQS. Linking the previously descrlbe!i PM2.s compositional assessment with the urban increment**~alysis** can also help iderrtify tire )ike)y cot1tributing emission 

### source**-----typgs.t<NJle-!Gcai-Gr.!r.tcarf;y2-ooacAAirat-iGa-inG-Fii>tll<'nt~1=his-iJ;-~ossihl!i!-be&au~e-differ-ent-----------·--·-·­** measured components ofihePM2.s mass can b.e·Jmked fo spec1fic 

### types ofemission sourcos. For example, large stationary sources such as electric genemting units (EGUs) are preclominm1t "Rno, V. and N. Ft'ank, A. Rush, F. Dimmick. Chomical Specl>\tlon ofPM2.l in Urban •nd Rllrol Areas. Speclol Stt!dios, Nntionul Air Quality and- Emissions Trends Rcpot"t, .2003, Available at littp; 1/Ww\>V .epa.govl a

irtrendslsludi es.htm l. Page 19 of34

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/05/2013

contributors to the sulfate component ofJ?M 2.5

•. Highnitrate levels (i.e., both oxides of.nitrogen (NOx) and ammonia (Nrh)) often indicate thepresence oflocalized mobile sources, local or regional tuel-combustion sot.trces, or aiegional contribution from agricultural sources.. or a combination ofthese sources, Carbonaceous mass .is typically associ.ated with mol)ile sources, wood or biomass burning,.and localized combustion SO\Jrces. Carbonaceous mas's is commonJ.y a substantial componentDf' urban**cxce-~s.** A high ekmental carbonto organic**c~rbon.mass** ratio can be a·signature ofdiesel combustion solu"Ce cantrilmtions, such as diesel trucks, construction engines and vehicles, ships andtrains. Ahigh o'ganic carbon to.clemcntal carbon ratio, on the other hand, is often a signature ofbiomass burning. States and tribes with areas qxperiencing seasonal and episodic t1uctuations in PM2.s collccntrations may find it useful to pcrfoi'm a cornpositi'orml analysiS ofthe urban increments during these specific periods and conlparc th.ose results to otherperiods ofthe year !hat experience lower or less varial:>le 'PM2.5colicentratiDns. While all parts ofthe year are .important to consider to determine t'.Ontribmions tO'.the anntral a'ver<\ge concentration, a seasonal or episodic compositi<mal increment**analysi~** in combination witl1 other: factor information ma.y provide addiiional insight into contributing**sour~-es** and/or contl'ibutihgfactors(e.g., local meteorology) influencing monitored**violation~.** For example, residential wood combu&'tion has a unique PM signature and can contribute 

### appreCiably to the organic 

### frat<tiqll·ofwirit.er-ti:me PM2.5.Likc>Vise, a compositional tmalysis showlnghigh weekday**nitrat~** levels may be associate<;! with increased vehic.Jetraffic during the tra.clitional work**we~k.** A revievi()fboth the t.trban incrementresults and the seasonal orepisodic**emi~sfon** invehtOJY

### for the area can be an important synthesis analysis to betterur1d.crstand what specific emlssi.on sources, and therefote areas, may be contributing to a violating monitor. Previous guidance prepared for the designations for the 2006 24-hr PM1.5 NAAQS is relevant to**the~e** seasonal and episodi-c evaluations. 22 The 2006 guidm1ce illustrates l1ow the l'IPA derives fine particle colnpos.itioli .associated with PM2.s nJassmeasurements, how the typ.ical high day and average composition vades spatially and temporally, and how these data 

### relate to potential 

### emission sources. 

### Incremem Analysis to Define Intra-Urban D/ffffrences In addition to looking at the rura.l versus u1'ban gradient, an Infra-urban analysis may be useful to ·urtderstand emerging "within m•ban" gradients nem: the violating monitor site, which become more apparent as regional concentrations decline. ··n1is analysis can help fUJ'ther diti'erentiate aud isolate nearby contributing in:fluences to the violating monitDr site(s), particulm·ly those that may be more evident at a refined seale such as localizect·pJumes or Stiburban intlucnces. This refined characterization 

### ofcontribllting emi.ssi.on influences within the immediate urban area may ill turn hdpto further identify the relative importance o.fsurrou!).ding areas interins oftheir contribution to the violuti11g monitor. In combinatiOll,·al'lalyzing the three: spatial layers (rural., urban and suburban) ofP!'v1,,

### 5mass and 

### C()mponents can prol'jde a moN CQ..m..illlli».JJ!ldemtsnding o:Lthe.....--

----·----- contributTi1g urban and neat' monitor emissions, separate !himthe regional contributions. The ability to conduct an intra-urban. a,nalysis, however, is predicated onhaving data f'rom·multipfc
"Frank,N. H. '/'he Chemical Composition of PM,,, to support PMImplem<mlalion, Presentation at EPA State ILocal ITribal T1·aining Workshop: PM2 ..s Fh1al Rule lmpiemetHation and 2006**PM~.s**Designation Process,**Junc20~2l,** 2007. Availubie ut: htrp:IA1'ww.epa.govlttn!naaqslpmlpm25 .:)006 _rechiqfo. 11tmf. Page 20 of34

# Elsctronic Filing
- Rscivsd, Clsrk's Offics: OB/0512013

monitors, preferably PM 2

### s speciation monitors, within the urban study 1\fca, whkh may not be feasible for 

### some areas being evalualed. With very few exceptions, the PM1.sniass**concent1:atioo~** 

### haW been reported to be quite uoifonnly distributed across urban monitoringJocations.23 

### However, this .finding is dependent on the PM2.s composition 

### in apmticularmetropoiitan 

### area, the season ofthe year, and.the relative amounts ofits chemical constituents 

### thnl originate fr.01:n regional or local 

### emission sources. There arc many possible drivers for intrJFiJtbatl 

### variubillty in1'M2.s mass, 

### including the following influences: local sources 

### ofprimary P!-.'1 ei:nis.sions;

### iransie.!lt emission events; topographic barriei-s that isolate sub-regions ofthe urban area; tn<:teoro!ogical phenomena that vary on spatial scales 

### within the m·ban 

### area; differences in behavior 

### ofsemi-volatile components; a11d measurement error.24
The 

### larger the contribution of

### regional sourc.es, ·the.rnore·uniformis

### tlw .intra-urban PM2,;. 

### ReQognizing that the 

### amow1t ofregional and or locaLcontributions are expected to continue to decli11e 

### in response to regional and local control 

### progralliS"(bUi.\Je.thaps at different rates), intramban spatial variability ofPM2.s and. its constituents 

### ·may increase in the future. This potential change in intra-lU'ban variability may be ciiffe)'ent among areas.

2. 

### Emissions and Emissions-Related 

### Datu The sources and levels 

### ofemission.s ofPM 2.5

### -re]atedpollutmJts is an important 

### factor inthe initial area designations process. As noted above, ambientPM2:l is· formed thxough complex atmosphericprocesses with contributions fromdi!·eet.emissions ofpalticles and from secondarilyformed 

### particles that result ti·om rnullipkPM2.s**precursor~.** Air 

### quality in a nonattaimnent area is also typically 

### the resuh ofa combination ofregional 

### anc!Jocal eniissions. 

### ln 

### the designations process, for each metropolitan**.are~** 

### withav-iolating monitol', the'EPA evaluates the emissions data from nearby counties to assess each cotlDty's c011t1'ibotkm 

### to PM2.s concentrations atthe violating monitor or monitors in the .arealmder evaluation. 

### Be.cause PM2.s compb)leats 

### such as S\llfates 

### and nitrates are formed through atmosp'her.ic processes :and 

### can be transported many hundreds 

### ofmiles, sources of

### emissions outside the cotmties comprising the metropolitan area (CBSA or 

### CSA) may 

### also influence 

### the regional contributionmeasured 

### at apa1ticular site, but may not be considered in 1he designation determinat'ionto be "nearby" sources. Thus, the. cvaluali(lll ofthe 

### area is also a means to differentiate b.etweeu.thbsetransported pollutants ·!\·om more distai1t sources ofemissions and·lhose sources 

### o-femissions 

### innearby areas 

### that should be pati 

### of1hc designated nonattahm1entarea becausethey are**p~rt** 

### o:flhe local nonattainment ptoblem. For initial area designations associated wi!b the20 12 annual PMz.sNAAQS, we intend to 

### --------exai'i'ilneemiSSlOns oT1ilcmifieasoul'ces ot'"d1recrPMn,

# me·maJor 

### components 

### ol'airect P111'l,S11 U.S. EPA. lntegmted ScienceAsses:.:m.ent for Particulate Mattr;r (Firml Repo.rt). U.S. Evvironmenta1 Protection Agency, Washington, DC, BPA/600/R-0811 39F, 2009. " Tm'ner, J.R. A Conceptual Model ftJrAmbient Fin. Parli,7JIIite Matter OverSoutheast Michigan; High Concentmtion**Day.\~.** Version 1.0. Prcpar6d for SoutheastMichigan Council ofGovernments, Detroit, Ml. October I, 2008. 

### Page2!<Jf34

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/05/2013

(organic carb:on, elemental carbon, crustaltnateriat(andlorindividual tmce metal compotmds)), primary nitrate and primary sulfate, 

### and precursor gaseous pollat!!Ilts (e.g., S02, NOx, total VOC, and NH3). Direct PM2,; emissions·are expected to be generally local in nature·and influence monitored values in a more direct fashion with 

### little long-range transpmt, The gaseous precursors, 

### on the other hand, are ex.pected to be more regiorii:llln 

### natw'e (although

### the EPA also expects some localNOx and. VOC emissions contributions from mobile and srationary sources) and transport from neighboring areas can contribute to higher PM2.5leve!s 

### atthe vi.oJati!lg monitors. Analyses should include reviewing 

### data from the latestNational Emissions Inven.tory (NEI) or otherrelevant sources ifavailable, The analysis should· also in<;:Jude examining themagnitude of relevant, county-level**emission~** and ihe geographic locations ofsources of·thc relevant pollutants. · Analyzing the magnitude and spatial extent.ofemissions further informs tile analysis of

### the urban/rural ambient relationship discu.ssed 

### eadH:r. Iil; addition, colrtb.ining· these analyses (e.g., magnitude ofemissions and poilltofrelease) withmeteorological information coi1 inform the evaluation ofthe degree ofcontrlbl.!tion from nearby·areas. The 

### EPA will-also consider any additional infonnation we receiv.e 011 changes to ettrissiohs tewls that are not reflected in the most recent emissions inventories. These changes may include emissions reductions-due to permanent and enforceable emis·sioils controls that·Wtll be in**pl~ce** before final designatiops are issued, and likewise may include emissions i11creases from .now sources or increases·ar existing somces. For the initial area designations for the 2012 annual PM2.;

### NAAQS, the EPA believestJmt it will be appropriate to use 2011 NEI version I datab.ecause that 

### will be themostrecent emissi<ms inventory infonnation available at the bcginnhtg ofthis designations process. The NEI represents data, generally, on an annual basis.at the county !.eye!.**Emi~sio.ns** ·fi'om large stationary sources m-e available at a pointlnspace; emissions from large fires

### .are available inday-specific format. More detailed inventories (higherresolution-than <!otmty estimates) are also available, although not in the 

### NE!.25 

### For the initial area dcsignations.:t:or'the 

### 2012 mm.ual PM2.s NAAQS, gridded emissions data (at 12km grid resolution) ure also available.for 2007,2009, and 2010 for tbe contiguous 48 states, and 

### may potentially be ·useful in areas where partial counties need to 

### be considered in nonattainment area boundary detenniliations,These gri-clded eniissions data can be provided on m1 annual basis or for shortertime periods. The EPA does nothave gridded emissions.for Alaska or Hawaii, but the EPA would reconunend thatthese states**u~e** gridded data, as appropriate, i:l'theyare available. Any data submitted in this fashion to the EPA will bereviewed against emissions estimates developed by the EPA. 

### Population den.l'ily anddegree of urbanization (including commercictldevelopment) As noted in footnote 8, the EPA has -consolidated several !actors (e.g. population densit)', degree ofurbanization, and transportation arteries) within the "Emissions and**Eruissions-&ll.ru~_dJ)Jltn'_'**______ _ ·!actor as these elements stipplementand help to infoi'm the analysis ofemissions data. The EPA intends to provide tl1ese 

### data as available although the

### <EPA expects that states 

### and ttibes 

### may

3sThe r:::PA. develops griddecl emissions by npplying temporal (e.g., seasonal variations in emissions o.s reponed to the NEJ) and spatial (e.g., incorparntes latitude and rongitude location information as reported to the NEJ) adjustments to the countyHbased NEJ estimates to produce the mo1·e fincfyresolved gridded emissions. Page22 of34

# Elsctronic Filing - Rscivsd, Clsrk's OfficB: 08/05/2013

have independently developed datasets to betterinform.these elements, which are not available to the 

### El'A. 

### The EPA recommends that.population density analyses examine 

### the locatiOil and trends in population growth 

### and the 

### patterns of**r~idential** and commerciitl development 

### as potential indicators ofthe probable location anc\Jnagnitudc ·ofemissi<ins sources 

### that may contribute to 

### PM1.s concentrations in 

### agivennonattainment ar.ea. 

### l11e NET also contains county-l()vel aggregate ·estimates ofsmaller statio11ary area 

### a11d mobile sources emissions (gddded emissions. as well.as 

### sub-annual emissions come

### from. spatially and temporal.ly allocating the NE! emissions), An analysis ofpopulation density, degree of urbanization, and transportationarteries 

### may provide.the location ofthis emission-related activity within the large.r cotmty, and thus may serve.

### as aproxy 

### for the**~pa;iaLdistribution** ofCounty-level emissions. 

### The EPA believes that·areas 

### ofdense populationand commerdal development 

### are an 

### indicator ofpotentially higher 

### levels tlfsta:tionary**aren·~ourc~** 

### ax,d.moblle source emissions 

### that may contribute to PM2

### .s formation iii 

## agiven 

### area. Rapid poptila1ion growth in 

### a COUJlty on the urbanperimctermay signify increas.itlg integration.wlth the core urban area, which likely will be the same 

### as the CBSA 

### or CSA in question, 

### andmay indicate that 

### tbe associated 

### area andmolJile source emissions may be appropriate to include In thenonattainment area. 

### Th>.Uic andcommutingpal/ems As with the previous factors di.scussed above; these factors arc also secondary in nature to the act1ml emissions that the

### EPA will pxovide. Traffic 

### and conimutingpattern data 

### can help assess the influence ofmobile source emissions in 

### a·given m·ea. Analyses should 

### examine the location of major transportation arteries 

### and information on. traffic vol.ume and commuting 

### in and around the area containing a violating monitor. This may include examining the number 

### ofcommuters in each nearby county who drive to a cow1ty within**~he·**area 

### that. has aviolating monitor, the percent 

### oftotal commuters 

### in each cotmty. who comrtlu.teto·.o.thcr counties witlH.iolating monitors·within 

### tl1e metropolitan area, ·and 

### the total 

### VehicleMiles Traveled 

### (VMT) foJ' 

### each county. Areas 

### with higher VMT and commuting levels can be an indicator ofthe location ofmobile source emissions that may contribute to PM2.5 concentralions·at·the**~ieila!lng.t)lDnitOI'.** 

### The NET is one source 

### ofthe county-wide 

### VMT data andfacilitates relMive comparisons oftraffic and commuting patterns between counties in a larger ru'ea.i6However; more detailed assessments provided by states or tribes could. help to hlghllght 

### the magnitude 

### and location 

### ofemissions activity. Ifthe EPA provides g;ridded emissions, then the EPA can also provide gridded VMT data; bowever, as mentioned previously, these estimatesmay not COITespond directly with statebased. VMT data to which individ,ml areas already ll1!l.Y have access. 'fable 3.1 details all the datasets that the 

### EPA will provide 

### for use 

### in this process.

3. Meteorology

26 NEI countyMlovel VM1 estimates arc developed ·ii1 nwp·iiown ilppro.ach from Federal Highway Administration estimates ofstatewide VMT by road class that f!re allocated t.o counties based·on sun·ogatcs. Accordingly. the NEI c:stimntes do noralways compm·e well to dc.utiled areaw.spedfi<: studrcs thatarc de-veloped in amore robust way (e.g., lmvel demand mode:! data). Page 23 of34 

### -----·---

# EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: OB/0512013
•

The evaluation ofmeteorological data helps to det!"tmine t)le effect 011 the Jltte.and transport of emissions contributing to**PM .~**  concentrations alld:to identify areas._p6tentia!ly contributing to the monitored violations. This section oflhegliidance._provides recommendations 

### for**summarizi~1g** meteorological data 

### and results 

### iii 

### snppott (Jfnppropiiatc·nonattainment 

### area boundaiies. One basic type ofmeteorological analysis involves 

### assessing potential source-receptorrelatio'nsliips in the area using 

### summaries of

### emieysiO\JS, wind.speed, acid 

### '\Yind direction data. Amore sophisticated assessmentilwo.lves modeling 

### airparce'l trajectories. A simplified meteorological assessment

### imiy i11c.ll1de identifyingthe fi·equency ofsurface level wind speed and direction on days wi.thhigh observed**PM~,s·eoncentratlons** 

### and comparing this frequency to the frequency of

### wind sp_eecl'and direction for other·meteorologica.l periods, years or seasons, for example. A more sophisticated meteorological assessment woilld employ trajectory models to help understand complextransport sit\lations by illustrating the:three-dimensional paths traveled by air parcels to violating monitor. '!1\e 

### HYSP!Xt (B.Yb:dd Sln:gl-e-ParticleLagrangianIntegrated**Tr~jectory)** modeling system may be useful for some areas to·prod.uce air parceltrajectories. Attachment 4 contains additional inf6rmation 

### onconductingmeaningfnl mctcorol.ogical analyses, including HYS.i'JAT 

### modeling and source apportionme1ii modeling.

4. Geography/topography Consideration of-geography or: topography c.fli:l provide additional information relevant to defining nonattainment 

### area boundaries. 

### Analyses sh6ufd examine

### thephysical .features of

### the lat1d that might 

### detlne the au·shed and, tlterefore, affect 

### t)le fO!'Jl).ation anddistribution ofPM2.s concentrations over an area. Mountains 

### or-otherphysic-al features may 'influence the·fate and transpmt ofemissions at1d.'PM2.s concentrations;

### Additional analyses 

### may consider topographical features that cause local**stagn~tion** episodes via· inversions

.. Valley-type.**f~atures** can cause loesl cold-air drainage patterns .and ·vertical temperature 

### inversi.ons.that effectively "trap".air pollution. Under these conditions emissions 

### can accumulate leadin·g·tQJJeriods ofelevated PM:u 

### concentrations. These air drainage pattet·ns and Inversions maybe limited in extent and thereJbre may need to be separated from regions withmore conventi()nal air flow 

### and PM2.5concentration patterns. Similarly, the absence of>my 

### such geographic ortopographic fealttres may also be a relevant consideration in. a given nonattainment**ar~a.** 

### 5. Jurisdictional**boundarl~s** Once the geogmphic extent ofthe area violating the.PM2.s standmd.and the nearby area contributing to violations is.deteJmined, the EPA intends 

### to consider existingjurisdictional boundaries for the purposes ofprovidinga clearly defined**!~gal** boundary and carrying out the air quality planning and enforcement .functions for nonattainmerit areas. Examples of jurisdictional 

### boundaries include, but are 

### not limited to: cotmties, air districts, areas of

### Indian country, Page 24 of34

# Electronic Filing - Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/05/2013

metropolitan planning organizations, and existing nonattainment areas, If

### an existing jurisdictional boundary is used to help define ihe nonattnhJ.tnent.area, it

### must encompass all ofthe area that has been identified 

### as meeting the nonattainment 

### definition. Where existing jtu·isdlctional botmdaries are 

### not adequate to describe the n0 nattatl1U1ent 

### area, other cleal'ly defined and permanent landmarks orgeographic coordinates 

### should be used.

,

# ___________

Page 25 of34

# Elsctronic Filing - Rscivsd. Clsrk's OfficB : 08/05/2013

Synthesizing the .Five Factors fn making designations·recommendations 

### for vioLating areas or contributing areas, and the nonattainment area boundaries for such areas, the EPA recommends that states and tribes consider the five recommended factors together and\!Sea weight of-evidence approach tbr tbis analysis. As explained above

.. the**~tnrting**poiilt for evaluating thefactors is the airquality analysis. Of particular importance is the locatltin(s) ofthe violatilig monitm(s) based on20l0-20l2 

### data and the characteristics oftho.sc violations (e.g., speeiatlofl. and urban increment analyses). Once the chnracteristics ofthe violations are.establishe(i; onecanbeg!n to assess Whichnearby emissions sources 

### or source categories ana 

### source t'eg(ons.may 

### .have contriblJtedto those violations. This contribution evaluation should generally consider ihelocutio'n**an~** magnitude ofemissions, and the potential for these emissions to .contribnte to the ambient.conditions at the violating mon.itol's as informed by the meteorolog1cal .and geographical!topqgraphical analysis factors. T11e guiding principle for this evaluation should beto include within the boundaries ofthe nonattainment area, any nearby areas with emissions ofPM2.l or PM2,s precursors (e.g., S02,NOx, VOC, and NI-b) that have the potential to qe transportedlo the violatilig monitor. The final factor,jurisdictional boundaries, should be consideredto refine the nonaitainment area.boundary to ensure meaningful ait· quality planni11g and**regulati~n** dljring the NAAQS.iniplementation phase. As in prior designations for the [997 and :2006 PMt.s NAAQS, the EPA generally believes that it is appropriateto use existinglegal boiuidaries where ·possible,.to assure effective planning and implementation. The EPA believes that the five factor analysis described here is generally comprehensive and intends to usc a weight ofevidence approach based OJJ the$.e five factors inestablishing the nonattainment boundaries for the 2012 annua!·PMn NAAQS

.. In some cases, howevel', the EPA recognizes that it may also be useful to emploY one ofthe additional analytical approaches described below to fwther evaluate information relevantto the factors, such as emissions data, air quality inloimation, and meteorology .in an .cffo1tto bettcr.evaluatc contribi1tion from nearby areas. The EPA does not expect to complete, nor.do we expccJ.Staies or tribes to complete the additional analyses in all cases. Ratl1ex, we li11tlcipa(e undertaki1ig this effort when the .analysis based on the five factors WO\lld benefit from an. (idditional. analytical method to further qualitatively or quantitatively identify relative co)ltriqutions froiJ1 source regions to violating monitors. The EPA also recognizes the·potential v.alue

# oradditional analytical methods not already specified in this guidance (e.g., pollution roses) that may b.e used to q11alitatively describe or quantify tho relative contribu.tioti.s from contrlbuting areas to violatLIJg monitors. 

### By their na.ture, some ofthese supplemental methodologies may synthesizeair quality, emissions, and meteorological data**into_gtl~t~~itutive**estimate$ ofthe.contributionsfrom 

### specifi.u!l:e.as.

...J:his__

____. ____._ g\Jidance documentprovides limitedinibrmationregardii1g.rhree specific quantitativetechniques thatcan be used to assist any individual states or l:ribes choosing to employ one or more ofthese approaches. As noted earlier, the EPA does .not require siates or tribes to C<mduct these analyses as part ofthe ir1itial area designations process for the 2012 annual PM2.s NAAQS.
Page 26 of34

## EIBctronic Filing - RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/0512013

The EPA has conside1·cd three such approaches in past designation efforts: (i) the weighted 

### emissions score (WES); (ii) the corrtributing emissions scorc(CES); 

### a11d (iii) source appottio.nment modeling 

### (SAM). 'rhe 

### EPA has 

### used two ·ofthe'se techniques, the 

### WES and CES, to suppm1 previous PM2

### .s designations. St!\tes may 

### find them useful, with some rnoditications, in preparing 

### designations recommendtitio11S for the 2012.PMi.s 

### standard. Some states usad the third 

### technique, SAM, in their boundary determin:ations for

### the 2oOS OzoneNAAQS. 

### Tiw EPA does not plart to provide 

### WES, CBS, or 

### SAM assessm.ents for 

### any areas as 

### .part ofthe 

### illi.tial area designations process for the 2012 annual PM2,5 NAAQS. Like other aspects ofthe !actoranalyses, these three aggregation 

### techniques produce inf 0rmatioil lhaL.can help to 

### detcm1ine potential 

### boundaries for tile area that should be 

### desJgnated nomtttalnment for the 

### 2012 ann11al 

### PM2.5 NAAQS ina given area. Therestllts oJthesesynthesis approaches should beconsideredjustone part ofan overall assessment ofthe potential nonattaininent

### ·are&boundaries. The 

### EPA also recognizes that there are partic11lar uncertainti¢S associatl:d**~vith. int~rpretlng**  

### the outputs ofeach ofthese methods; however; they can be·useftit

### teehnicjues for comparing the

### relative contributiDn 

### ofcounty by county 

### emissions of'PM ptecursor em'issio.ils ·in 

### a simplified way. States and tribes may tllso Wi\!1(to conside.r the potential

### value ofadditional methods beyond those described below, .such .as receptor

### ·maddingtechniques (e.g., .Positive·Matrix Factorization [PMFJ 

### tmd Chemical Mass Balance fCMB])and ad\!MMdStati.stical Malyses (e.g., non

### parametric regression and cJuster·Malyses) to·bettenmderstand contributing influeRccs.to the air quality. Because ofthe EPA'> limited·,experience a·pplyi·n:g s\1ch techniques 

### to tlie designations factor analysis, states·

### and tribes intending to use suchmethods should consult with their 

### EPA regional office regarding their usageillld 

### intended applications. In considering

### the synthesis approaches identified·in 

### tllis .guidance docllinent, it is important to remember tlHtl the assessmetll ofpotential nonattainment

## area.boundari·es i·s based on all ofthe information 

### available to the Agency for·all oftlHi :lactors 

### iden'Cified in the 

### EPA's guidance. The 

### EPA will base lts fmal decisions on attainment arid no:ilnttaimnent 

### tlreas on the collective assessment' ofthefive factors.



### a. Weighted Emissions

### Score (WES) The WES analysis takes the urban. increment 

### compositional fractions ofPM.z.s determined through the technique described in Section Lb and c, 

### and ·<IJ:lPlics them to each county's 

### fractiOJ< oftotal emissions in the urban area for each PM species.In this.manner it attempts to evaluate the level of contribution ofa couaty's emissions to ·aviolating monitor site. by weighting each county's emissions bythe fhwtional componc11t observed at the violatingmo.nitor. The basic steps arc as 

### follows:**----~,S,_tcp** 

### t The counties to be analyzed in**rcla~.o.!l.c~O** each urban area are first identified. Step 2. For each 

### analysis area, the ul'ban incremerit compositional 

### fraction ofPM2,5 mass is 

### calculated according to the methodologies described in Section 

### 1.band 

### 1,c above. Step 3. The next step involves calculating, foreach 

### p'o!Jutmlt, the percentage of.analysis area emissio11s attributable to each county (counties within and adj'aceJlt to CBSA/CSA as applicable). Page 27 of34

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficE!: 

# 08/0512013

Step 4. The county's percentage ofanalysis area emissiorm for 

### each poJ!utant is then multiplied by the corTcsponding PM2.5 component percentage ofurban incremetlt mass. St!W...i_Sum the results for 

### eachPM2.s species within each county to get

### the county WES 

### The.WES should 

### be regarded simply 8$ one iilol to evaluate 

### the relative importance ofmultipollutant emissions from one county to others inthe·same nbnattainment 

### area The WES•score 

### of a county in one nonattainment area is:not a suitablepoint ofcomparison to the WES score ofa county in another nonattninment area; the WES is only arneaningful tool to evaluate the relative contribution ofconnties within the samc·nonaitainmi:mt area, The weighted emissions score combines air quality and emissi011s :information, but does,so fn a less rigorous way than the contributing emissions score described**~elow** .. 'rhis >U1alysjs m\jst be considered in combination with otherair quality and**emi~sions-related** information,' aswell as information supporting the meteorology and geography factors, to support more speciJ!c conclusi.ons.27
b. Contributing Emissions Score (CES) The CBS method is intended to be a moredctitiled·n1odel ofthe actual processes that affectthe contribution linkage between a monitored violation ii1 a violating county and emission sources 

### in anearby potentially contributing county. ,[heCES is a metricthat takes into consideration emissions data, meteorologictil 

### data, distance, and air'quality.monitoring infonnation to provide 

### a relative ranking ofthe contrjbution ·potential 9f·counties in and .nearan area. Designed speciticai!y for the 24-honr FM2.5 NAAQS, it expands on the methodology for calculatingthc WES by adding considerations for episodicvariatiotm in emissions, meteorology, and emiss.ions transport distances. These**consideration.~.**may be'relevantto designations for a24;hour PM!.s NAAQS, but are not as useful for evaluating contribltlion'for-jlltrposes ofan annual PM2.5 NAAQS for which monitored values on every moiiitored tiayare**p~rt** oftht'calcll)ations necessary to determine**wh~ther** there is a violation ofiheNAAQS ata partictllar monitor. The CES represents the relative maximum influence that.cmissions inthat county 

### hawon acounty with a violating monitor. While the CES is ametric, it is. aJso a genel'al methoqo[ogy for considering many ofthe recommended factor'S: The CES28 for each co1mty is derived by incorporating similarinfonnation used or developed for other analyses in the tlve-factor analytical fran1ewpr-k:

• Major PM,.s ambient**components~** total carbon (organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC)), sulfate, ni\J'atc, m1d inorganic pat1icles (crustal).

0**Directl}'.J'mil£~4** 

### Plvh,;. and**~.Qt.(Jl.**..**g..,_SQ:z.J,!Q.,_Y.Oc,..and.Nl{'l}..e.missions-fot~the--···--·------­** highest (e.g., top 5-1 0%) PM2.s ainbi.et1t concentration days (herein called "high**d~ys")** within each season.

27 For mere in/brmation about the WES procedures See: http://www.epa.govlpmdesignationsll99?standards/tcch.hJm. <!S For more intbt·mation on the**bt~sic** CES p·mcedufes.see:**hup:llwvrw.epa.govlttn!naaqs/pmldocsl!sd_ces~methodology.pcf(.** 

### Page 21l of34

# Elsctronic Filing- Rscivsd, Clsrk's Offics: OB/05/2013

• Meteorology on high days using the NOAA HYSPLIT model for detcnnining trajectories ofair masses f-or specified days.**~** The "urban increment" associated \'lith a violating monitor on high days, which is the mban l'Ml.s concentration that kinuddition to a regional background**f>MJ.~** concentration, determined 

### for each PM1 ..5 component.

• Distance JJ·om each potentially**oontrib~tting** county to a county with a violating monitor. lt should be noted that the CBS guidance 

### proced\ires listed het;e were designed**aro~ind** a 24-hour PM2.5 standard analysis. However, calculated apnual.PM25 concent.l'atii:ms**v.~ll.be** impacted by the trends in concentration levels 

### throughout the 

### year;pilrticularJyseasonal periods and days When concentrations peak during the year. The 

### CES procedl!l'e can thus stiltb.e applied'io assess these short

### term periotls, or it c>tn be**1n9~ifled** to appJy to .broadertemporal periods (e.g, the e0tire year) for the analysis ofanarn)ual PM25 standard. Like the 

### WES, the CES should be regarded as one tool to evaluate 

### the relative. impori&nce ofnmfli-pollutant em.issions from one county to others in thc same nonattainrrieo.t.area. The CES scoreofacotuity. in one nonattaimnent area is not a so.itable point ofcompal'isoilto the CES score ofa county.in Mother nonattainment area; the CES is only a meaningful tool to evaluate therelative contribution of**~ounties** within the same nonattainment area.

c. Source Apportionm()nt Modeling Source apportionment modeling i·s

### -athird aggregation technique whichmay be uset\tl to assess contribution to elevated P1hslcvels and thm,;:by tohelp identify possible areas for inclttslon in the nonattainment area because oftheir contrib11tion.to violations innem'by areas with violating monitors. 

### Source apportionment mode.ling can trackthe contribution ofdirectly etnitted 

### PMz.s and PM2s precursors (e.g., 

### S07.,.J\IO,, VOC, and NHJ} at 

### a receptor tfotn any numberofuser-def.ined source regions. Emil>sions .are tracked with source apportionnient through 

### PM2.5formation, transport, and deposition p1·ocesses inthe host·photoc;hemicalmodel (Yarwood, ct al., 2007). 

### Source app0rtiomnentmodeling

### <:·orn[)ines into a**~.i'hgie** analysis several ofthefactors that the. EPA believes arc impottant for determining ·nonattaJnmcnt area boundaries; emissions, meteorology, and geography/tbpography. Ifa state chooses to conduct sourceapportionment modeling, the .EPA recommends that at least one entire year be modeled to captru;e as many source-receptor transport patterns as possible. Further, we recommend that states and tribes follow the relevant EPA guidanc·e Jbr photochemical modeling attainment demonstrations (USBPA, 20'07) whe11 eStablishing their source 

### _..'!.02Q!·tionrnent**IlJOQ~;I**ing.ll]_att'Q!'m,.**fn~S<@oh.Ushj~~Jl<lt=l.\U:S-OW.o.urc.e...~p,por.ti.oun=j___**_______ _ modeling exercise it would be expected

### that the violating monitors would establish the receptors in the analysis. The source regi6ns'Sho·uJd include-any and all nearby contributing m·eas broken out into appropriatejurisdictional areas (e.g., all C:BSA/C:SA c.ounties and adjacent counties associated with the violation). When -summadzing·lhe outputs from the source apportionment modeling, it is sugge.sted ·ihat the relative contributkms fi·orn nearby 

### SO\lrce regions be compared against one 

### another. ltis expected that the primary metTic :!rom tlie SAM modeling would be tl1c Page 29 of34

# Elsctronic Filing - Rscivsd. Clark's Offics: 08/0512013

source region's contribution to the PM2.5 

### annual mean. While it is notpossible to estabLish an a priori

### threshold contribution level, a reladve.cmnparison 

### ofsource 

### regions.should ensure capturing themajority ofpotential contributing

### sources within the

### nonattahunent area.



## ---- -------·-·-···----

Page 30 of34

## EIBctronic Filing
- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/05/2013

ATTACHMENT 4 Preparing and Running a HYSPLIT modeling**unaly~ls** f!Jr Ev.nlulltingNonattaimncnt Area**Boundarie_~** for the20.12 Annual PM2.s NAAQSDesignations

a. Wind Speed and Direction Sumniaries!Wind Roses A basic component ofthe meteorology factor lsa simple assessment ofthe wind**dlrection.~nd** speed fox the location under el(.amination, with the mostfrequently occurring wind direction and speed on days with high PM2.s concentrati\lnS biting 

### compaced to the most .frequently 

### occurring wind direction and-speed at othertimes, Many**di_ff~rJ)nt** combip'!tipns ofmonitors and data 

### periods- season, 

### sing'Je year, 

### all data**years-~**xnay 

### be compar(id, Some 

### comparioons may reveal 

### clear relationships between 

### particular wind·pattems and**PMz.~** concentra.!\(Jns, 

### and other comparisons 

### may be 

### inconclusive. Theresufts ofthese

### ecirnparisollS

### may inform the 

### multi-factor analysis in assessxnents associated with deterniinmg·no.nattahrrrientarea boundaries. A basic wind**~ssessmcnt** 

### ·can he constructed 

### fr<im houtJy observations ofwind direction and 

### speed. Hourly observations 

### for many National Weather

### Sen<ice locations 

### are available fi·om the National Climate Data Center.29 Additiimally, some air qualitymonitoring .sites 

### have collocated meteorological sampling stations, and windobservaWons at H1ese sites that may be avai.lable 

### via AQS. (Some wind data may not bereported 

### hourly.) .In many cases, there are fewer wind observation sites than there are uir quality monitors in im area.)0 Hourly wind data may be summarized in a-basic histogtam.or any other display offi·equenqy distribution 

### for direction and 

### speed. lfisnot appi'O]>riate to arithmetically 

### average wind directions to obtain

### a mean wind 

### direction as-representative ofa**gener~l** 

### wind direction. The n)ode, not the mean., ofwind d'irections is an appropriate statistic. A common i1lt1stration offrequency ofwind 'direction and speed ls awind ·rose, Most wind rose tools convert a 

### table ofhourly wind speeds .•md dfr.ections in.to a·fl:equency distribution for speed and direction, which can be illustrated in table 

### form Ol: 

### in'the graphic known ns a \'.1nd

.

### .rosc. The EPA does not recommend a·specifictool for 

### producing windroses, and there are many such tools available. 

### However, as with any too·I 

### 11sedinthese assessments, the results snould be reproducible. Tile underlying data tiscd to· populate a wind rose should hemade av.a'ilable along with fmy analysis that reHes upon the results o{thewind rose. Long-term (annual m· longer) wind speed and direction in l11e vicinity ofthe Violating mo.nitor(s) ·can be informative, especially in the case ofstandards ofthe annua:! average torm. However; more 

### detailed analyses will 

### usually be required to complete the picture of**riJ~~_orology's cffect~on** **th~!!':1.2,s** concentratimls in the area.

29

ftp.ncdc. noatt.goy/pub/datalnoaa ur hlrp:l!gis,ned c.noaa.gov!map/viewerl#app:::-cdo&ofg"""'cdO&t**heme=hourlyi.~**layers= J &node=gls Quality.ass;urance of lhe National Vleathcr Service datn is described here: hllp
.. ·!lwwwl.ncdc.nnira.gov!pub/datalinvei1torieslish-qc.pdf :w Quality assmance ofthc collocated**metcorologict~l** datn is descdbed liere: htrp:I/WIVw.epa.go\•lafrlwiba(/pdfsll!.PA%10QA %20H andbook%20 Voft<me%20VersionI.0%2011.0I.06.pdj Page 31 of34

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/0512013

b. HYSI>LJT Trajectory Modeling Atmospheric trajectory models use meteorological data andmathematical equations to simulate three-dimensional transport in the utlllbspherc. Generally, the position ofparticles or parcels ofair with time are calculated bascdunmeteorological data such as wind speed and direction, temperature, hmnidity, and pressure.

### Model results depend onthe spatial and temporal resolution oft.he atmospheric data used; and also·otlthe complexityofthemodel itself The HYSPLIT (HYbrid Single-Particle Lagraugi:artIntegrated Trajectory) model31 is frequently used to produce trajectories for assessments associate(! with.determining nonattainment area boundaries. HYSPLIT contains models for trajecioty;. dispersion, and deposition, however, analyses here only use**the..t:rajec~orycomponent.** The ·trajectory model, which uses existing meteorological**foreca~t**fiel!js fro11i regi'ohal 

### 9i· glo'bal.m.or!l.els 'to compute advection (i.e., the rate ofchange ofan atmos,phe<ic property caused

## qy the horlzoni:almovcme!lt ofair) and stability, is designed to support a wide range of-simulations relatedto the atmospheric transport ofpollutants. HYSPLITtmjectories maybe.prOcltJced for various combinations oftime and locations, and those trajectories can be compared in 

### Ina11ners similarto wind rose comparisons. WhenHYSPLJT trajectories·are produced for specific monitor...locations for**d~ys**

### -ofhigh PM 25 concentrations., the results illustrate the potential source regionfor the' air parcel tl1at affected the monitor on the day ofthe hlgh concentration. :while HYSPLIT is a useful tool for identifying meteorologicalpatterns associated with exceedance events, HYSPLIT trajectories aione do not .conclusively indicate contribution to meosured high concentrations ofPM2.S· Tberefore, they crmnot be used in isolation to determine inclusion or exclusion ofan area within a ncmattainm¢lnt boundBl:y. While a HYSPLIT trajectory analysis alone cannot yield a conclusi.on .that" pitrticuJar region contributes to PM 2.s concentrations, itmay be conceivable thata set ofHYSPLIT trajectories that show no ·wind t1ow from a partic.ularreg,jo·n on aoy day withhighPM1.s**concent~ation**measurements might 

### supp01t disconnting that region as contl'ibuting to**J'M ,;.conc~>ntrations.**  HYSP.LlT trajectories are very useful in GOmbination with'information on the urban increment ofPM2.s, the typical species of PM2

### .s from local sources,-and the magnitude'81\d location ofthesectnissions sotJrccs.



### c. InterpretingHYSPLIT Results A HYSPLIT backward trajectory, ihc most commonttajecte>ry used in assessments nssociuted with dete.rminiug nonattaimnent.nrea boundatics, is-usually depl'cted brta standard map as a single line extending i.n two dimensional (x,y) 

### space from a starting point, regressing backwal'd in time as the line extend.s fi·om the starting point. An individual trajectory can have only one startil)g height; HYSPLIT can plot traj.ectcnies of**differ~nt** startingheights at the same latituclc!longitude starting point on the smi1e**~nap, automatica~1**  using different colors far the**difi~tm:tihg** 

### ____. ________



### ·----- ne)ghts. HYSi'LIT will also include ·a vertical plot ofthe trajectories in time, with 

### colors corresponding to the same trajectory in the (x,y) plot. This display catt be easily misinterpreted as having finer accm·acy than the llllclerlyin·g model and data,

·' 1http:llready.arl.noaa.gov!JJYSP LJT.php Page 32 o£34

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/0512013

It is important to observe the overall size ofiheplot, its width and lengthinkilometers,.and consider the size ofan individual grid cell in the jt1jl\lt meteorologi1;al data set. These input grid 

### cells are usually 

### 40 km in width and length,.so 

### the total 

### area**of~ tr~jectory**  plot may sometimes represent only a few meteorological grid cells. 

### Jt 

### is also Hnportatit to understand the trajectory line itself. The line thickness is predeterminedas ause.r option, so ,{ril.oes notimply covemge other than to represent the .centerline ofan airparcel's.rnotion calculatedto arrive atthe startin.g location at the starting time. Uncertainties·are clearly :presenHnthese. results, and these uncertainties can be thoughtto. be arange on eitber side ofthe center linein which the a'irparcel may he tbund, Further back·in time along the trajectmy p.ath, that range may be assumed.to increase. !n other words, one should avoid conch1ding a.rcgion is not along a n·ajectory's path if that tr!\jectory missed the region 

### by arelatively small dista!)ce. As mentioned in the beginning of this section. 

### the same cautions thai 

### apply to ·intcrptetation·ofwim:lroses apply 

### to interpretation of HYSJ>L!T trajectories. Detailed information for downloading, installing, and operating HYSPLIT .can be .found at'these websites: 

### http://ready.arl.noaagov/HYSPLTJ:php http.;l/www.art.

### noaa.govldocumentslreportslhysplit,_user _guide,pdj 

### http:llwww.arl.noaa.gov/document.vlreports/cir/-i24.pdf HYSPL!T's many setup options allowgreat flexibility and. versatllity. However, careful selection and recording ofthese options is necessaryto provide 1oevlewers the ability to reproduce the model results. The. fo1Jowing paragraphs describe the options that should be recorded, at u minimum, to reproduce a HYSPUT model nm. Model Version. Ifthe HYSPLIT trajectory is produced vla the·NOAA AirResources Laboratory (ARL) website 

### (hltp:l/i'eady. ail.noaa.gov/HYSPJ.JT_iraj.php), ·note the 

### "Modified:" date in the lower-left corner of.the webpage, a$ well ilirthe dat.e'the trajqctoty was produced. Ifthe n·ajeat.ory is produced using a stand-alone version ofHYSPLlT, note 

### the release date, which 

### will be. displayed after exiting the main GUI screen, Basic Trajectory Information. Note the 

### starring time (YY MM DD HR), the 

### dw·alion ofihe lrajeclory in hours, and whether ihe trajectory is· 

### backward or forward Note the 

### latitude and longitude, 

### as well 

### as the

### starting height, 

### for eachslart]ng location. Starting heigh\ 

### is given by defau.lt in meters above grpund level (AGL) unless another·option is selected. S:tarting heights are typically no less than 100 metersAGLto avoid direct"interference ofterrain, and are typically no greaterthan 1500 meters AGL to confine the air**p~rcel** V{ithin tlie mixed layer, Some trajectories can escape the mixed layer, and ttiis result would be**con.~idei:ed** in the interpretation. Starting height and starting location 

### will**id~>ntil)'** the three-dimensional location ofthe trajectory's latest endpoint in time ifa backward trajectarx.:I:s selected (i.e. the**s1a~_2:f_a traj~ctory**  goin,g

_______ _ backward in time). Input Met•orologlcal Data Set. Note the 

### input meteorological dala set used in the HYSPLJT model 1'\111. The 

### origlmll file mune provides suflicient informatioJlto ldenti.cy the data set. Meteorological data fields to run tire model are already available for access through the HYSPLIT menu system, or by direct l'TP fi·om ARL. The ARL web server contains several meteorological Page 33 of34

# Elsctronic Filing- Rscivsd. Clsrk's Offics: 09/05/2013

model data sets already converted into a HYSPUT

### comp1;1tible f<mnat.in the public directories. Direct access via FTP to these data files is builtInto HYSPLIT's graphical user interface. The data 

### files arc automatically updated 

### on the server

## witP each new forecast cycle. Only an email address is required for the .password to access the server. ·The ARL analysis data archive ocnsists ofoutput from the Global 

### DataAnalysis Sygfem 

### (GPAS)and the NAM

### Data.Analysis System (NDAS -previously 

### called EDAS) 

### coveringnmch ofNortb.America. Both data archives are availabie from 

### 1997 in semi-monthly 

### files (SM). The

### EDAS was saved 

### at 80 kmresolution 

### every 3-h through 2003, 

### and then a:t 40km

### tesotution starting 

### in. 2004. 

### Detailed information on**~1!** 

### meteorological

### data available for use 

### in HYSPLITcan be.found in the 

### HYS.PLIT4 Users Guide 

### (hltp:llwww:drl.noaa,gov/do.cumentskeports/hysplit_user_gulde.pdf). Vertical Motion Options. HYSPUT 

### c.an employ one

# of5 different 

### methods for computing 

### vertical motion. A sixth method is to accept.the 

### vertical :motion values 

### e;oil:tained within the input meteorological data**~et,** 

### effectively.using 

### the vertical motion method used by theometeorological model that created the datasetNote whfch method was.selecteil as well us the vaTue chosen for 

### the top of the model,**inmet~rs** AGL. Trajectory

### Display Options; 

### The HYSPLIT

### trajectory model 

### generates a text output ±lle ofendpoint positions. The cnd.,point pos.ltionfile; is:processcd

### by a\lother HYSPL!T modl.lle to produce a Postscript 

### display ·file otoutput files in nther display formats. Bomc parameters, such as map 

### pl'ojcction and size, can be automatically computed base.d on the.Jocation and length ofthe trajectory, or they can be mat1uaUy set

### bji.the user. White these dispfay options do 110\ 

### directly affect the trajectory information itself, 

### noting these options will 

### eliminate possible misinterpretation of

### identical trajectories because of

### differing display options, An .important display option is the choice of

### vertical 

### coordinate, 

### usually set to meters AGL for these assessments.



### Page 34 of34ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD September 12, 20 13 ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS. LLC AND AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY COGEN,LLC, Petitioners, AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, Co-Petitioner,


### v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTALPROTECION) AGENCY, ) Respondent. ) ) ) ) PCB 14-10 (Variance- Air)

HEARING OFFICERORDER 

### RECeiVED CLERK'S OFFrCE



## SEP 1 2 LUI::! STATE OP ILLINOIS Polfulion Control Board 

# 1J ORIGINAL

On September

### 5, 2013, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) filed its recommendation (Agency Rcc.) and both Petitioners and IEPA filed responses to questions posed by the Boardon August 14, 20 13 through the Hearing Officer (Pet. Resp. to Aug. 8, 2013 Hearing Officer Order; Agency Resp. to Aug. 14, 20!3 Hearing Officer Order). In their response, Petitioners suggested the Board provide any additional orfollow-up questions relatedto the response in advance ofthe hearing so that Petitioners might be bellerequipped to provide an informed and thorough response. PeL Resp. to Aug. 14, 2013 Hearing OfficerOrder at 9. Thehearing is scheduled for September 17,2013 in Springfield. As such, follow-up questions to the responses from the Board's staffare provided in Attachment A. Petitioners and TEPA are dire.cted to respond to the attached questions no later than 10:00 a.m. onSeptember 16, 2013. Theresponses may be filed through the Clerk's Office On-Line (COOL) on the Board's website at www.jpcb.statc.jl.us. The "mailboxrule" (35111. Adm. Code I0 1.300(b)(2)) does not apply to thefiling ofthese responses. Therefore, the Clerk mustreceive responses to the attached questions by 10:00 am onMonday, September 16,2013. The responses must 

### also be served on those persons on the PCB 

### 14-to service list, which is available onCOOL IT IS SO ORDERED.



### ATTACHMENT_/_O

__2


### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It

### is hereby certified that true copies ofthe foregoing order were mailed, first class, on September 12, 2013, to each ofthe persons on the attached service list. It is hereby certified that a true copy ofthe foregoing order was hand delivered to the following on September 12, 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 SouthFifth Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 2459 Springfield, IL 62705-2459

PCB 2014-010 Renee Cipriano SchiffHardin, 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 3
PCB 2014-010 Claire A. Manning Brown, Hay & Stephens LLP 205 SouthFifth Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 2459 Springfield, IL 62705-2459

PCB 2014-010 Amy Antoniolli SchiffHardin, LLP 6600 Willis Tower 233 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-6473



# ..

### PCB 14-10 ILLINOIS Pm'VERHOLDINGS,LLC 

### and AlVIERENENERGY MEDINA 

### VALLEY COGEN, LLC 

### Attachment A QUESTIONS FORPETITION"ERS 

### Annual Emissions 1. Petitioners present Tables 1 and 2 

### in Exhibit I0 ofthe petition to demonstrate 

### a "net benefit to the environment" of74,303 tons in reduced 

### S02 emissions from 

### 20I0 through 2020, and 

### 7,778 tons inreduced 

### S02 emissions from 2013 through 2020. Pet. E:<h. 10. (a) Petitioners state that lPH and Ameren anticipate closing on the transaction inthe fourth quarter of2013. Pet. at 31. Pleasepresent a revised version 

### ofTable2 in the petition that takes into account only the emissions attributable to the fourth quarter of2013 through the end of2020 and theemission reductions attributable to retirernentofE.D. Edwards Unit 1

### as early as 2017. (b) In PCB 12-126, Ameren Energy Resources (AER) provided 

### a table showing the projected emissions during the years 2013 through 2019 using

### a revised heat input and emission reductions to reflect the closures ofthe Meredosia and Hutsonville plants. 

### See PCB 12-126 AER's Resp. to [IPCB} Technical Unit's Questions filed July 

### 30, 2012 at 

### 8-9, Table

### 2. Please provide a similar table for projected emissions from the fourth qumter of2013 through the end of2020 that also includes the projected retirement ofE.D. Edwards Unit 1 as early 

### as 2017. 2. In response to question #1 

### in the August 14,2013 Hearing Officer Order, petitioners state, "'vVhilc Petitioners fully expect that emissions 

### will be consistent 

### with the numbers provided inTable 2,Petitioners at this time do not support annual emissioncaps relative to the MPS Group

...." Pet. Resp. to Aug. 14, 2013 Hearing Officer Order. Please comment on whether the current air permits for thefive operating stations 

### in. the 

### MPS Group include 

### a limitation onheat

### in.put, operatinghours, or mass emissions. 

### Proposed Variance 

### Conditions 3. !EPA's Recommendation suggested three additional conditions for the variance. 

### See Agency Rec. at30. Please comment onincluding these conditions in therequested variance. 

### IPH-Ameren Transaction 4. Assume for purposes ofthis question that the Board grants the variance requested in this matter andpetitioners timely accept it. Pleaseaddress 

### t!Je legal effect on such a variance if after its acceptance the transaction throughwhichlPH would acquire AER's active coal-fu·ed power plants nevercloses. 5. The first condition in petitioners' proposed varianceorderbegins as follows: "lfat any time [lPH] acquires ownership or control ofthe five operating power stations in the

# - 

# .

Ameren MPS group, IPH must assure compliance

...." Pet. at 69. Please address whether this contingency or threshold includes approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ofthe transaction by which IPH would acquire AER's active coal.fired power plants. QUESTIONFOR THE AGENCY SIPRevisions 

### 6. Please comment on whether SIP revisions that would include the requested variance would require assessing annual mass emissions under the variance. Ifso, please comment onthe merits ofincluding an annual mass emissions cap consistent with petitioners' projections inTable 2 ofthe petition along with the proposed mitigation 

### S02 emission rate in the variance conditions (as mentioned in the August 14, 2013 Hearing Ofticer Order question #1).

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficB: 08/IB/2013

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 14-10 (Variance

- Air)

NOTICE TO: John Therriault, Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center I00West Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 6060I SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control Board the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO TilE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD'S QUESTION, a copyofwhich is herewith served upon you.

DATED: SeptClllber 16,2013 I021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield!, lllinois 62794-9276 217.782.5544 217.782.9143 (TDD) ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY By:

# ~-**-p{tJ..c-~~-...s-­** GinaRoccaforte Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel

THIS FILINGIS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 

# f[ ATTACHMENT----

# '



# . El8ctronic Filing

- R8civ8d, Cl8rk's Offic8 : 

# 08/1612013

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ILLINOIS POWERHOLDINGS, LLC and ) AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY ) COGEN, LLC, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, ) ) PCB 14-10 Co-Petitioner, ) (Variance

- Air) ) v. ) ) ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION AGENCY, ) ) Respondent. ) ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY'S RESPONSE TO THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD'S QUESTION NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency ("Illinois EPA"), by its attorney, and pursuant to the Hearing Officer's Order dated September 12, 2013, respectfully submits the Illinois EPA's Response to the Illinois Pollution Control Board's follow-up question provided in Attachment A ofthat Order. QUESTIONFOR THEAGENCY SIPRevisions 6. Please commenton whetherSIP revisio11s that would includethe requested varia11ce would require assessi11g annualmassemissions underthe variance. 

### If so,please comme11t 011 themerits of ittcludillg an a11nualmass emissions cap consistelltwith petitioners'projections itt TableZ of thepetition alottg with theproposedmitigatio11 S0 2 emission rate itt tlte varia11ce co11ditio11s (as mentioneditt theAugust14, 2013 Heari11g Officer Order question #1). Yes, as was required in the SIP revision for the previously granted Amerenvariance, the Illinois EPA would need to assess annual mass S02 emissions in a revised SIP revision forthe requested variance. However, there is no increase in S02 emissions from the requested variance over what is currently allowed inthe variance previouslygranted to Ameren. Therefore, the Illinois EPA does not need to relyupon any annual mass emissions cap associated with the requested variance for approval ofa SIP revision. In

## EIEH::tronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/16/2013

fact, the Illinois EPA believes that the additional S02 reductions from the shutdownof E.D. Edwards Unit 1 will provide even greater S0 2 reductions than those contained in the previous SIP submittal for the already granted Ameren variance.

DATED: September 16,2013 I021 North Grand Avenue East P. 0. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 2171782-5544

2 Respectfully submitted, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY By:

# r;ii;-J~- Gina Roccaforte Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/16/2013

BEFORE THE lLLINOIS POLLUTlON CONTROL BOARD ILLINOIS POWERHOLDINGS, LLC and ) A.MERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY ) COGEN, LLC, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, ) ) Co-Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION AGENCY, ) ) Respondent. ) PCB 14-10 (Variance

- Air)

AFFIDAVIT I, Jim Ross, under oath, hereby state thatI amthe Manager ofthe Division ofAir Pollution Control in the Bureau ofAir ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. I assisted inpreparing and havereviewed the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's Response

## to theIllinois PollutionControlBoard's Question and the facts statedtherein aretrue and correct to the best ofmyknowledge and belief.


# {3;. nager

Division ofAirPollutionControl

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TOBEFORE ME

# Thisj}~of**.S~fe.Mbe._r** ,2013 Bureau ofAir Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency

### .. ' 

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/16/2013

STATE OFILLINOIS COUNTY OF SANGAMON ) ) ) ) ) 

## ss

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronicallythe attached ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY'S RESPONSE TO THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD'S QUESTIONupon thefollowing person: John Therriault, Clerk Illinois Pollution ControlBoard James R. Thompson Center I00 WestRandolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601 and electronically and by mailing it by first-class mail from Springfield, Illinois, with sufficient postage afflXed to the fullowing persons: SEEATTACHED SERVICE LIST

DATED: September 16,2013 102'1 North Grand AvenueEast P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL62794-9276 217.782.5544 217.782.9143 (TDD) ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

# ~-~- GinaRoccaforte Assistant Counsel DivisionofLegal Counsel

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: DS/16/2013

Carol Webb, Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board I021 N. Grand Ave. East P.O. Box 19274 Springfield, IL 62794-9274 Claire A. Manning William D. IngersoII Bro,vn, Hay & Stephens, LLP 205 S. Fifth Street, Suite 700 P.0. Box 2459 Springfield, IL 62705-2459 SERVICE LIST Renee Cipriano AmyAntoniolli SchiffHardin LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 Faith Bugel Andrew Armstrong EnvironmentalLaw and Policy Center 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 6060I

## EIBctronic Filing
- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB : 

# 08/16/2013

BEFORE THEILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC and · ) AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY ) COGEN, LLC; ) ) 

### Petitioners, ) ) 

### AMERENENERGY ) RESOURCES, LLC ) ) PCB No. 14-10 Co-Petitioner, ) (Variance- Air) ) 

## v. ) ) 

### ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENT.I\L ) PROTECTION AGENCY, ) ) 

### Respondent. )

NOTICE OF FILING To: ALL PERSONS ON THE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST Please take notice that today we have electronically filed with the Office ofthe Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Petitioners' and Co-Petitioner's Response to Illinois Pollution Control Board's Questions Set Forth in Hearing Officer Order of September 

### 12, 2013, 

### copies ofwhich are herewith served upon you.

Dated: September 16,2013 BROWN, HAY & 

### STEPHENS, LLP Claire A. 

### Manning William D. Ingersoll 205 S. Fifth Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 2459 Springfield, IL 62705-2459 (217) 544-8491 Fax: (217) 241-3111 cmanning@bhslaw.com wingersoll@bhslaw.com /s/ Claire A. 

### Manning Claire A. 

### Manning

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP Renee Cipriano Amy Antoniolli 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 258-5550 Fax: (312) 258-5600 rcipriano@schiffhardin.com aantonio!li@schiffhardin.com

# /~ ATIACHMENT---

# EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's DfficB: DB/1612013

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC and ) AMERENENERGY MEDINA VALLEY ) COGEN, LLC; )

AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC Petitioners,

Co-Petitioner,



### v. ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### PCB No. 14-10 (Variance- Air)

PETITIONERS' AND CO-PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD'S QUESTIONS SETFORTH IN HEARING OFFICER ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 Petitioners Illinois Power Holdings, LLC ("IPH") and AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC ("Medina Valley") and Co-Petitioner Ameren Energy Resources, LLC ("AER") provide the following response to questions posed by the Illinois Pollution Control Board in a Hearing Officer Order dated September 12, 2013. QUESTIONS FOR PETITIONERS AnnualEmissions 

### 1. Petitionerspresent Tables 1 and 2 in Exhibit 10 of thepetition to demonstrate a "net benefit to the environment" of 74,303 tons in reduced 

## so2 emissions from 2010 through 2020, and 7,778 tons in reducedS02 

### emissionsfrom 2013 through 2020. Pet. Exh.JO.

('

# .. (a) Petitioners state that !PHandAmeren anticipate closing on the transaction in the fourth quarter of2013. Pet. at 31. Pleasepresenta revised version of Table 2 in thepetition that takes into account only the emissions attributable to the
1

# Elsctronic Filing- Rscivsd. Clsrk's Offics: 08/16/2013

fourth quarter of2013 through the end of2020 and the emission reductions attributable to retirement of E.D. Edwards Unit 1 as early as 2017. (b) In PCB 12-126, Ameren Energy Resources (AER)provided a table showing the projected emissions during the years 2013 through 2019 using a revised heat input and emission reductions to reflect the closures ofthe Meredosia atrd Hutsonvilleplants. See PCB 12-126AER'sResp. to [IPCB] Technical Unit's Questions filed July 30, 2012 at 8-9, Table 2. Pleaseprovide a similar tablefor projected emissionsfrom thefourth quarter of2013 through the end of2020 that also includes theprojected retirement of E.D. Edwards Unit 1 as early as 2017. RESPONSE: The Tables, with some modifications explained below, are attached as Attachment A (responsive to !.a) and Attachment B (responsive to l.b). The Petitioners and Co-Petitioner understand from the nature ofthe Board's question that these Tables would begin withthe period ofPetitioners' ownership ofthe plants. In

### preparing the Petition, Petitioners and Co-Petitioner took the very same approach and methodology approved by the Board in the AER variance, as developed through discussions AER had with IEPA in advance ofits filing (and as developed by IPH with IEPA in advance ofthis filing). Thus, in a very real sense, the environmental benefits recognized by the Board in granting the variance to the MPS Group in PCB 12-126 

### would continue under IPH's ownership of the five operating plants in the MPS Group, as sho'\\'11 in Tables I and 2 

### ofthe Petition (Pet., Ex. 10-1 

### and 2). 

### However, the Board's question focuses solely on the period of time of IPH's O'\\>nership, and Petitioners believe that to be the wrong regulatory analysis. Nonetheless, in furtherance ofits environmental commitment, IPH would
agree to accept as an additional condition ofthe variance order a cap on tonnage S02 emissions

over the period 4th Quarter 2013

- 2020 

### to ensure that the environmental benefit identified inthe Petition (i.e., a reduction of S02 

### emissions of 7,778 tons) is achieved solely during the IPH o'\\'llership period. Specifically, as identified in the attached tables, provided in response to

2

# EIBctronic Filing
- RBcivBd, CIBrk's DfficB: DB/1612013

questions 1(a) and l(b ), IPH proposes to accept a cap of327,996 tons ofS02 

### over the period 4th Quarter 2013

- 2020, which is 7,778 tons below the MPS baseline S02 

### tons. Such a cap is significantly more stringentthan the terms ofthe existing variance. IPH will meet the proposed emission cap at the end ofthe variance term by a variety of methods, many ofwhich have been identified in the Petition but were not quantified, and are not quantifiable, due to the difficulty in doing so at this time. For example, the additional commitments recommended by the IEPA and accepted by IPH, use oflow sulfur coal, operation ofthe Duck Creek and Coffeen FGD systems at 98% removal efficiency, and closure ofEdwards Unit I (see answer to question 3), are expected to result in additional S02 

### emission reductions during the term ofthe variance. The construction ofthe FGD system at Newton also will garner emission reductions in advance ofthe end ofthe variance term, which have not been provided for in Tables 1 and 2 of the Petition (Pet. Ex. 10-1 and 2). Construction will not be immediate, as each unit must be non-operational during the installation ofits FGD system. Thus, emission reductions will occur during the fmal phase of construction. On the basis of the above, as well as other methods, including management ofunit utilization, IPH believes it can agree to the emission cap proposed in the attached Tables, which would demonstrate an environmental benefit during the period 4th Quarter 2013

- 2020 that equates to the environmental benefit identified in Table 2 of the Petition. (Pet. Ex. 1 0-2). Although not directly responsive to the Board's question, IPH would be remiss ifit did
not also point out, as IEPA advised the Board in the IEPA Recommendation, that IPH and Dynegy executed a Memorandum ofAgreement ("MOA") with the IEPA on September 4, 2013.

3

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: 08/1612013

The MOA memorializes the commitment to close E.D. Edwards Unit 1 and, as well, provides the following environmental benefits:

• Implementation ofAdvanced Gas Path Technology at Kendall Power Station; and

• Permanent Retirement of the air permits for the Stallings and Oglesby Combustion Turbine Facilities. This MOA again demonstrates IPH and Dynegy's commitment to environmental progress. 

### 2. In response to question #I in the August 14, 2013 Hearing Officer Order, petitioners state, "While Petitionersfully expect that emissions will be consistent with tlze numbers provided in Table 2, Petitioners at this time do not support annual emission caps relative to the MPS Group

...." Pet. Resp. to Aug. 14, 2013 Hearing Officer Order. Please comment on whether tlze current airpermitsfor thejive operating stations in the MPS Group include alimitation on heat input, operating hours, ormass emissions.
RESPONSE:
The five operating stations in the MPS Group are permitted for operation at 100% capacity, 8760 hours per year and do not have heat input or operating hour restrictions. However, all of the plants have air permits with mass emissions limits for S02 

### in 

### accordance with state regulations (Coffeen, Edwards and Joppa; lb/hr limit on a plant-wide basis) or federal regulations (Duck Creek and Newton; NSPS Subpart D emission rate limits on a unit basis; the Newton Unit 2 primary air duct burners are also subject to pounds per hour and ton per year limits). The relevant conditions ofthe air permits for the five operating stations in the MPS Group, responsive to question2, are provided as Attachment C. 

### 3. IEPA 's Recommendation suggested three additional conditionsfor the variance. See Agency Rec. at 30. Please comment on including these conditions in the requested variance.

4

## EIBctronic Filing
- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/16/2013

RESPONSE:
The IEPA's recommendation sought the following commitments from IPH and, additionally, requested that the Board include those commitments as variance conditions. The conditions are as follows: i. Petitioner IPH must operate the existing FGD systems at the Duck Creek and Coffeen Energy Centers at an S02 removal rate ofat least 98 percent;

n. Petitioner IPH must continue to burn low sulfur coal (no more than 0.55 

### sulfur/mmBtu) from the Powder River Basin at the E. D. Edwards, Joppa and Newton Energy Centers; and iii.· Petitioner IPH must permanently retire E.D. Edwards Unit 1 as soon as MISO allows E.D. Edwards Unit 1to be retired (as early as 2017). IPH consents to include each ofthese commitments as variance conditions for which IPH is responsible. 

### As the Hearing Officer's Order did not provide sufficient time for IPH and IEPA
to discuss appropriate language to malce these conditions enforceable, IPH will propose such language inits Post-Hearing Comments, following discussions with IEPA. 

### 4. Assumeforpurposes ofthis question that the Board grants the variance requested in this matter andpetitioners timely accept it. Please address the legal effect on such a variance 

## ifafter its acceptance the transaction through which !PH would acquire AER's active coal-firedpowerplants never closes. RESPONSE: Petitioners and Co-Petitioner anticipate that at the time the Board grants the requested variance, there will be no remaining contractual conditions or regulatory approvals which would preclude the closing ofthe transaction. Petitioners and Co-Petitioner continue to believe that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") will approve the transaction in the fourth quarter of2013. As such, closing is expected to occur shortly afterthe Board issues its order. At
5

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: DB/1612013

closing, the Petitioners will execute a signed certificate of acceptance. Consistent with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.240, the signed acceptance renders all terms and conditions ofthe variance relief granted in the Board's order in docket PCB 14-10 as effective, enforceable, final 

### and binding. The signed certificate of acceptance will be filed with the Board and served on the Agency. Upon execution ofthe certificate of acceptance, the order granting variance relief in docket PCB 12-126 Vl'ill 

### be superseded by the order granting variance reliefindocket PCB 14-10 and the order in docket PCB 12-126 will be void. A draft ofthe acceptance form is included for the Board's use as Attachment D. Further, Conditions 1 and 2 ofthe proposed Board order can be modified as follows: I. 

### Ifat any time Illinois Power Holdings, LLC (IPH) acqffires ewnersffip er centre! ef tfie five eperating pevrer statiens in 

### 1he 1\rneren A4PS Greup, IPH must assure compliance with Condition 2 ofthis Order and must comply with an overall S02 

### annual emission rate of 0.35 lb/mmBtu through December 31, 2019, and beginning January 1, 2020, must comply with anoverall S02 

### annual emission rate of0.23 lb/mmBtu. 2. At any titne AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC acquires evrnership er eentrel ef tfie Mereelesia anel Hutsenville Fewer Statiens, it shall not operate the electrical generating units at the Meredosia and Hutsonville Power Stations these plants until after December 31, 2020. The FutureGen project at the Meredosia Energy Center is exempt from this restriction. Assuming hypothetically that the transaction does not close, the certificate of acceptance would not be executed, and AER would continue to ovm the active and inactive energy centers and would continue to comply with the order issued in PCB 12-126. 

### 5. Thefirst condition in petitioners'proposed variance order begins asfollows: 

## "Ifat any time [IPH] acquires ownership or control ofthefive operatingpower stations in

6

# EIBctronic Filing
- RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficE!: 08/1612013

theAmeren MPSgroup, IPHmustassure compliance

. ..." Pet. at 69. Please address whether this contingency or threshold includes approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the tra1zsaction by which IPH would acquire AER's active coal-fired powerplants. 

### RESPONSE: FERC approval of the transaction is a mandatory regulatory and contractual condition. Such approval is pending and expected, as the Applicants have satisfied FERC's criteria for the transfer ofownership ofthe active coal plants to Dynegy and the inactive coal plants to Medina Valley. Again, the certification of acceptance of the variance will not be executed until after FERC approval occurs.
Respectfully submitted, 

### ILLINOIS POWERHOLDINGS, LLC

By: /s/ Claire A. Manning One of!ts Attorneys


### BROWN, HAY & 

### STEPHENS, LLP Claire 

### A. Manning Daniel K. Wright William D. Ingersoll 205 S. Fifth Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 2459 Springfield, IL 62705-2459 (217) 544-8491 Fax: (217) 241-3111 cmanning@bhslaw.com wingersoll@bhslaw.com

7 

### AMERENENERGYRESOURCES, LLC and AMERENENERGYMEDINA VALLEY COGEN, LLC

By: /s/ Renee Cipriano One ofTheir Attorneys



### SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP Renee Cipriano AmyAntoniolli 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 Chicago, illinois 60606 (312) 258-5550 Fax: (312) 25 8-5600 rciprianolalschiffhardin.com aantoniollilalschiffhardin.com

## Elsctronic Filing- Rscivsd, Clsrk's OfficB: 

# DB/1612013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, certify that on this 16th day of September, 2013, I have served electronically the attached 

### Petitioners' and Co-Petitioner's Response to Illinois Pollution Control Board's Questions Set Forth in Hearing Officer Order ofSeptember 12, 2013, upon the following persons: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center Suite I 1-500 100 West Randolph Chicago, Illinois 60601 and by first class mail, postage affixedupon: Carol Webb, Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 1021 North Grand Avenue, East Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 GinaRoccaforte, Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal 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 & 

### Policy Center 35 E. Wacker Drive Chicago, lilinois 60601

./s/ Claire A. Manning Claire A. Manning

8

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/16/2013

AFI<li>AVIT OF DANIEL P. THOMPSON 

### My name is Daniel P. Thompson. I am Vice President and General Manager for Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC 

### ("DMG"), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Dynegy 

### Inc. ("Dynegy"). I 

### also serve as Vice President ofIllinois Power Holdings, LLC 

### ("!PH"), which is also an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary ofDynegy. My business address is 

### 604 Pierce Blvd., O'Fallon, Illinois, 

### 62269. I make this affidavit based on personal knowledge or on knowledge 

### I have obtained through inquiry ofindividuals employed by Dynegy or its affiliates. As Vice President of DMG, I 

### am responsible for the safe and efficient operation of Dynegy's ccal-fired electric generating fleet in Illinois. My responsibilities include oversight of environmental compliance at Dynegy's Illinois coal fleet. Subject to the IPH-Ameren transaction closing, this responsibility will include the five plants in the Ameren MPS Group that
are the subject ofthe requested variance. I 

### have reviewed the Board's questions that have been presented in the Hearing Officer Order dated September 12, 2013. l have also reviewed the Petitioners' responses to those questions, have assisted in their development, and concur inthese responses. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the facts contained therein are true and correct.

FURTHER, Affiant sayeth not. 11 ,·**~** 

### DA

### 'I"ED·.

## ~· ) ' 

### n-'- I 7 

# 7**~I) ~(**  

## , ·I

## llJ,.~.L_J**--+"'"4"-~**.!.____:__:o__c--'------ 1



### Subscribed and sworn,to before methis 

# I(_o·l'i-1day o(St(ptember**201~.** 

### , 

## l\

# c~J 

# /Jtl/rufJt;;**.~l**

# clrlt{iliL 

# /f Ne\TARYP B IC '. OFFICIAL SEAL 

# u JENNIFER L. POWERS NOTARY PUBUC, STATE OF ILLINOIS.**w;>IIV;.;C:;;O;;;MM;;;ISS~ION;;;.:;EX:;;Po;IR:,:,ES.,_.:•·\8;2015**

# ~ Danit9Thompson

# Electronic Filing
- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/16/2013



# ATTACHMENT ABaselineHeatInputMMBtu''Eh:JctronicFiling-Recived,Clerk'sOffice:08/1612013ResponseTable1(a)CumulativeMPSBaselineS02S02IIReductionsinVarianqeS021ReducedNetVariance.S02VarianceNoteforthe"CumulativeReductionsinS02VarianceTons"column,apositivenumberindicatesanemissiondecrease(benefit)_{1)Reducedtonsshownfor2013-2020arebasedonnotoperatingHutsonvilleandMeredosia.Reducedtonsin2017-2020arelessnearlytwotimes(1.8)worst-casepotentialS02emissipnsfromFutureGen2.0.Tonsshownfor2013-2016donotincludeanyS02emissionsforFutureGen2.0becauseFutureGen2.0isnotscheduledtobeginoperationsuntilmid-2017.Beginningin2017,reducedtonsshownincludetheemissionsreductionsattributabletotheprojectedretirementofE.D.Unit1(asearlyas2017).

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/1612013

ATTACHMENTBBaselineHeatI,MP8802InputRateElectronicFiling-Recived,Clerk'sOffice:08/1612013Baseline802ResponseTable1(b)Variance802RateIAdjustedHeatInput!Variance802CumulativeNoteforthe"CumulativeReductionsinS02VarianceTons"column,apositivenUmberindicatesanemissiondecrease(benefit).TableincludestheprojecledretirementofE.D.EdwardsUnit1asearlyas2017.

# l:lectronic Filing
- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/16/2013



# ATTACHMENT C

# r)



# 0 EIBctronic Filing- RBcivE!d, CIBrk's OfficE!: 08/1612013

.c.-_. ,I ILliNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
P.O. Box 19506, SPRINGFIELD, illiNOI> 62794-9506 RENEE**CiPRI~NO,** DIRECTOR Y< <' CV 

### //1 j.;>c:, 

## Rf\-L.. CDfj

217/782-2113

l'ERMITTEE Ameren Energy Generating Company (CIPS) Attn: Michael L. Menne, l1anager Environmental, Safety and Health 1901 Chouteau Avenue P.O. Box 66149, MC602 St. Louis, Missouri 63IG6-6149 I.P. No.: 143805AAG Date Received: June l0 1 2004 Expiration Date: June 30, 2005 7800 South Cilco Lane,**Bartonville~** Peoria county
Permit is hereby granted to the above-designated Permittee to OPERATE emission source(s) and/or air pollution control equipment consisting of Boiler Nos. 1, 2, and 3 with electrostatic precipitators, low NOx burner combustion system, flue gas conditioning systems, fuel handling facilities, and fuel storage tanks as described in the**above~~eferenced** application. This permit is subject to standard conditions attached hereto and the following special condition(s): la. The average S01 emissions from Boilers 1, 2 and 3 as a group shall not exceed**4.7~** lb/mmBtu of actual heat input, on a daily basis 1 pursuant to 35 IAC 214.56l{a). b. The average SO: emissions from each boiler shall not exceed 5.6 pounds of so2 per mmBtu of actual heat input on a daily basis, pursuant to 35 IAC 2H.561 (b).

c. S02 emissions from Boilers**~,** 2 and 3, as a group, shall not exceed 34,613 pounds per hour, on a 24-hour average basis, pursuant to 35 IAC 214.561 (c). Note: The above limit reflects a site-specific determination of the applicable limit adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board in Regulatory Proceeding R02-21. 2. Emissions of particulate matter from the boilers shall not exceed the following limits in any one-hour period:

Boiler 1 Boiler 2. Boiler 3 Limit (Lb/mmBtu) 0.20" 0.15" 0.10 Rule 35 IAC 212.203(a) 35 IAC 212.203 (a) 35 IAC 212.202 This limit reflects a site-specific determination of the applicable limit adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board in Regulatory Proceeding RB2-1.

Roo R. BlAGOIEYICH, GOVERNOR PRINTED ON RECYCleD PArER

## l:lsctronic 1-iling
-**l~scivsd, ~lsrk's**  

## UtticB: UB/1612013

Page 2
3. Except as provided by Conditions 1 and 2, emissions and opacity from the boilers shall**compl~** with the standards of general applicebility for existing coal-fired boiler including the new requirements of the**NO~** trading**Program~ 4a~**  .The Permittee shall submit a quarterly excess emission report of emissions in excess of those allowed 

### Py Title 35 subtitle 

### a for each boiler as indicated in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.405. This report shall be**p~stmarked** within forty-five days after the end of each calendar quarter and shall be based on data from the Continuous Emissions Monitor System (CEMS). i. EXcess emission and monitor performance reporting shall include the following, A. The starting date and time of the excess emissions; B. The duration of the excess emissions;
c. The magnitude of the excess emissions; D. The oause of the excess emissions; if known; E. Corrective actions taken to lessen the emissions; and F. The operating status of the monitoring system including the dates and times of any periods during which it was inoperative. ii. This report shall be effective beginning with the first Quarter, 1995 (January lst through March 31st, 1995} iii. If there were no excess emissions during the reporting period, the report shall so state and include information about the operating status of the monitoring equipment during that**pe~iod.** b. All records produced by the continuous systems shall be retained by the Permittee for a period of not less than two (2) years. Sa. Operation in excess of applicable opacity, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide emission standards 1 is allowed during periods of startup, malfunction 1 and breakdown. b.**~he** Permittee shall keep a record of each startup, including information as to the length of time that such operation exceeded applicable standards and limitations, and a justification for the length of startup.

c. The Permittee a·hall notify tl'ie ··Illinois EPA's Regional Office by telephone as soon as possible during normal working hours upon the occurrence of excess emissions due to malfunctions or breakdowns. The Permittee shall comply with all reasonable and safe directives of the Regional Office regarding such malfunctions and breakdowns.

# ) EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/1612013

Page 3

d. The Permittee shall maintain records of excess emissions during malfunctions and breakdowns. As a minimum, these records shall include: i. The date and duration of the malfunction or breakdown. ii. A full and detailed explanation of the cause for such emissions. iii. The type and quantity of contaminants emitted. iv. The measures used to reduce the quantity of emissions and the duration of the occurrence.
v. The steps taken to prevent similar malfunctions or breakdowns and/or to reduce their frequency and severity.

e. The Permittee shall retain the records required by this special condition for a period of at least two (2) years following an event. These records shall be maintained at a readily accessible location at the plant and shall be made available to representatives of the Illinois EPA during normal working and/or operating hours. f. The Permittee shall not continue operation during malfunction or breakdown beyond such time as is necessary to prevent injury to persons or severe damage to equipment or to provide essential services. Ga. Organic liquid by-products or waste materials other than those permitted by Condition 6(b) and (c) shall not be burned in Boilers 1, 2, and 3 without written permission from this Illinois EPA. b. Waste oils fitting the following description may be burned in the above referenced boilers! i. Lubricating oil from coal mills, coal handling machinery, fan motors, pumps, turbines, and internal combustion engines. ii. Hydraulic fluids. iii. Mineral oil dielectric fluids containing less than two {2) ppm PCBS. iv. Used grease.
c. Boiler chemical cleaning wastes may be burned in the above referenced boilers. d. The Permittee**sh~ll** analyze, on an annual basis, a representative sample of the materials listed in condition 6(b) above for arsenic,· chromium, cadmiuml lead, flash point, total halogens, and heat content.
e. The Permittee shall analyze, on an annual basis, a representative sample of the materials listed in Condition 6(c) above for pH, flash point, heat content, total halogens, arsenic, barium, mercu:r;y 1 chromium, lead, selenium, and silver.

## ( 

## tiBctronic t-iling-**I~BcivBd, ~IBrk's**  

## Uttic8:**U~/11:1/LUI::J**

Page 4

7a. None of the waste materials described in Conditions G{b) and (c) shall be hazardous. i. Upon written request by the Illinois EPA, the particulate matter concentrations in the effluent streams of Boiler{s} shall be measured by an approved testing service, during conditions which are representative of full load. ii. The following methods and procedures shall be used for testing of emissions, unless another method is approved by the Illinois EPA: Refer to 40 CFR Go, Appendix A for USEPA test methods. Location of Sample Points Gas Flow and Velocity Particulate Matter US!lPA Method l US!lPA Method 2 US6PA Method 5 b. Prior to carrying out these tests, the lllinois EPA

- Air Compliance section and Illinois EPA

- Air Regional Field Office, shall be notified a minimum of thirty (30} days prior to the expected date of these tests and further notified a minimum of five (5) working days prior to the test of the exact date, time, and place of these tests. to enable the Illinois EPA to witness these tests. i. Illinois EPA- Air Compliance Section Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Air Compliance & gnforcement Section (MC 40) P.O. Box l92?6 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 ii. Illinois £PA

- Air Regional Field Office Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Division of Air Pollution control 5415 North University Peoria, Illinois 51614

c. Three (3) copies of t.he Final Report(s) for these tests shall be submitted to the Illinois EPA within l4 days of the compiling and finalizing of the test results. B. The Illinois EPA shall be allowed to sample all coal at the station and shall be furnished replicate coal samples upon request. 9a. This permit allows for· the burning of sub bituminou·s coal from Powder River Basin (PRE) in the boilers (not to exceed 120 days) of operational and emissions testing**purposes~** as described in the Permittee's letter of June 4, 2004 1 such that the boiler continues to comply with applicable rules and regulations governing air pollution and with the conditions set: fol:"th in this operating permit.**.~·· ~"\** 

### (~,

### ..

## ) 

# Elsctronic Filing- Rscivsd, Clsrk's OfficB: 08/16/2013

Page s

b. i. The**~ermittee** shall notify the Illinois BPA in writing at least fourteen (l4) days prior to initial burning of any coal from a new mine. This notification shall be sent to the Illinois EPA's Regional Office and the Illinois EPA's Source Emission Test Specialist and shall include as a minimum! Information regarding fuel analyses, quantities and types of fuel(s) to be burned, planned start time and date, duration of test period, and a description of the test plan. The duration of any teat burn shall not exceed 120 days unless the Illinois EPA has approved a longer period. ii. Notwithstanding the 120-day period specified above, the Permittee may conduct an evaluation or trial burn of sub bituminous coal from the Powder River Basin until July 30, 2004.

c. Prior to revising this operating**permi~** to allow for the continued burning of coal from a new mine in significant amount or a specific alternative fuel, the Illinois SPA may require appropriate emission testing to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Condition 7. It should be noted that this permit has been revised to address changes in the coal supply to the boilers and reflect current emission standards for the boilers. (--,\ !f you haV'e any questions on this**permit~** please contact Kunj Patel at ' ' I B \._j Zl7 7 2-2113.

Donald E. Sutton, P.E. Manager 1 Permit Section Division of Air Pollution Control DES:KP:jar

cc: Region 2

## electronic Hling
-**l~ecived, ~lerk's**  

## Uttice

STATE Or ILLINOIS ENVIP.OUMSUThL PROTECTION**~G&NCY** DlVISlON Of' AIR POLLU'.riON CONTROL P.O. BOX 19506 SPRlNGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794·9Sd6

### U~/ll:i/LUid

..

L)

## -----------::==-=::==-----------, STANDARD**CONDI~IONS** FOR**OPt~~IN~** PERMITS May,**1~9J** The Illinois Environmental Protection A.ct {Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 111-1/2, Section 1039) grants the Environmental Protection**Ag~ncy** authority to**1~pose** conditions on per.mits which it i:Jsues. The following**condition~** are applicable unless**~uper~eded** by special**pe~it** conditions{s). 1. The issuance of this permit doe" not release the !?a..rmittee £tom compliance \fith .state and tederal regulations Which are part of the Illinois State Implernentation E'le.n, as wall as With other applicable statues and re9ulations of the United States or thG State of Illinois or with applicable local law3, ordinances Dnd regulations.
2 I The Illinois EPA has issued this permit based upon the infornta.tion submitted oy the Permittee in the permit application. Any m!sinto.rrnation 1 false**.,t~tement** or mi.srepresentation in the application shall be ;round for revocation under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.166. 3. a. The Permittee shall not authorize,**cau~e,** direct or allow any modification, 3S defined in 35 Ill. A.dm. Code 201.102, of equipment, operations or practices which are reflected in the permit application a.s submitted unless a new application or .tequest for rev:i.$ion of the existing permit is filed with the Illinoi5 EPA and unless a new petrnit or revision of the existing permit{s} is issued for such modification. b. This permit only**cov~ks ~ission** **source~** and control equipment while physically present at the indicated plant location (s). Unless the permit .5pecifically provides for equipment relocation, this permit is void for**~n ite~**  of Qquipment on the day it is removed from**th~ perm~tted**  location{s) or if all equipment is removed, notwithstanding the expiration date specified on the permit. 4. The Permittee shall allow any duly authorized agent of the Illinois tPA, upon the presentation of credentials, at reasonable times:

a. To enter the Pern'.ittee' s p:;oparty where actual or potential effluent, emission or noise sources are located or where any activity i$ to be conducted pursuant to this permit; b. 'to have access to aod to copy any records required to be kept undet the terrn.s and conditions of this permit;

c. 'l'o inspect, including du.ring any hours of opet"ation of equipment constructed or operated under this permit, such equipment and any equipment required to be kept, used, operated, calibrated and**~intalned** under this permit; d. To obtain and remove samples of any**discha~ge** or emission of**pollutant~;** and

e. To enter and utilize any photographic, recording, testing, monitoring or other equipment for the purpos.e. of presQrving, te3ting, monitor.l.ng or recording any activity 1 discharge o_r emiss"!Oh authorized by this pe:crn.it. 5. The issuance of this permit:

a. Shall not be consider.ed as in any manner affecting the title of the premises upon which the pennitted facilities Bre located;**S12-022~** 090-005 1\f'C 161 Rev. Hat-ch, 2C}Gl PRINTED ON RECYCLED**~APER**

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficE!: 

# DB/16/2013

.·
' '



## ..

.. 

## Directory Environmental ProtectionAgency Bureau ofAir May :Z:Z, :ZOOJ 

### Forassistance inpreparing apermit applfcation, contactthePermitSection: Illinois EPA Division ofAir Pollution Control PermitSection 1iili N, GrandAve E. 

### P.0.Box 19506 Springfield,Illinois 62794·9506 :mnB2-:Z11J 

### Orcontact;z

### regionalofficeof theFlelt1 

### Operaticms Secfi'tm. The 

### regional officesandtlleirareas ofresponslbUizy are shown on the

### map. The IU!dresses ,.·-··)!elephone numbers of the regional 

## t....,.•ces flnasft>ltom: 

### Illinois EPA Region 1 

### Bureau ofAir, FOS 9511 WestHarrison Des Plalnes,IUinols 600lG 

### 84

### 7/l94-4000 lllinolsEPA**R~glon** 

### :Z 

### 5415 North Un!viverilty Peoria, Illinois 

### 61614 30!1/693·5461 Illinois 

### EPA Region3 

### 2009 Mall Street Colliusville, 

### Illinois**622~_** 

### 618/346-5120

'• 

## .. ;. 

# ·-·

## tlectronic riling- l<ecived, L;ierk's Uttice:**U~/11:i/LU1:5** 

## Rece.tvd /ti-tf-2oos- Sct-J

n'le: 

### Aeii .3./.1/...J ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1021 NoRTH GRAND AveNue EAST, P.O. Box 19506, SPRINGFIELD, IlliNOIS 52794-9506-1 2171 782-2113 ROD R. BLACOJEVICH, GOVERNOR DoUGlAS P. ScoTT, DIRECTOR 217/782-2113**CLE~** AIR ACT PERMIT PROGRAM (CAAPP) PERMIT

PERMITTEE AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company Attn: Michael L. Menne 1901 Chouteau Avenue St. Louis, Missouri 63101 Application No.: 95070026 I.D. No.: l43805AAG Applicant's Designation: Date Received: July 10, 1995 Operation of: Electrical Power Generation at Edwards plant Date Issued: September 29, 2005 Expiration Date': September 29, 2010 source Location: 7800 South CILCO Lane. Bartonville. Peoria County Responsible Official: Gregory T. Russell, Manager Edwards Power Station
This per.mit is hereby granted to the above-designated Permittee to OPERATE an electrical power generation station, pursuant to the above referenced permit application. This per.mit is subject to the conditions contained herein. The current federal Acid Rain Permit issued to AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company by the Illinois EPA for this source is incorporated into this CAAPP permit (See Attachment 5). If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact the Utility Unit at 217/782-2113 (217/782-9143 TTD).

Donald E. Sutton, P.E. Manager, Permit Section Division of Air Pollution Control DES:MNP:jar

cc: Illinois EPA, FOS, Region 2 USEPA Exeept addresssd in Condition B./ of this per.mit.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

# Elsctronic Filing- Rscivsd, Clsrk's Offics: 08/16/2013

7 .1. 4 Applicable Emission Standards

a. The affected boilers shall comply with the standard in Condition 5.2.2(b) [35 IAC 212.123], which addresses the opacity of the emission of smoke or other particulate matter from the affected boilers. b.

c. i. The emissions of PM from affected boiler 1 shall not exceed 0.20**lb/~~tu** of actual heat input in any one hour period, pursuant to 35 IAC 212.203. This standard applies because the affected boiler qualifies for the alternative standard provided by this rule, as recognized by the Illinois Pollution Control Board in Regulatory Proceeding R82-l. In particular, in accordance with 35 IAC 212.203(a), as of April 14, 1972, this boiler had an hourly emission rate based on the stricter of the original design or equipment performance test conditions that was less than 0.20 lb/mrnBtu of actual heat input, i.e., 0.15 lb/mmBtu. Thereafter 1 under this rule, the emission rate is not allowed to degrade by more than 0.05 lb/rnrnBtu from the base emission rate, resulting in an emission standard of 0.20 1b/nunBcu. ii. The emissions of P!.'-:1 from the affected boiler 2 shall not exceed 0.15 lb/rnmBtu of actual heat input in any one hour period 1 pursuant to 35 IAC 212.203 1 as also recognized by the Illinois Pollution Control Board in Regulatory Proceeding R82-1. As of April 14r 1972,, this boiler had an hourly emission rate of 0.10 lb/rnrnBtu. Thereafter, under this rule, the emission rate is not allo.,.1ed to degrade by more than 0. 05 lb/mmBtu from the base emission rate, resulting in an emission standard of 0.15 lb/mmBtu. iii. The emissions of PN from affected boiler 3 shall not exceed 0.10 lb/mmBtu of actual heat input in any one hour period, pursuant to 35 IAC 212.202. i. The average SOz emissions from the affected boilers as a group shall not exceed 4.71 lb/mmBtu of actual heat input, on a daily basis, pursuant to 35 IAC 214.561(a). The average 502 emissions from any one affected boiler may not exceed 6.6 pounds of so2 per mmBtu of actual heat input on a daily basis, pursuant to 35 IAC 214.561 (b). S02 emissions for all three affected boilers, as a group, may not exceed 34,613 pounds of 

### so 2 per hour, on a 24-hour average basis, pursuant to 35 lAC 2l4.561(c).

31

## tiBctronic riling-**I~BcivBd,** 

## L;JBrk's Uttic8: U8/ll:i/LUI::J

217/782-2113 CLEAN AIR ACT PERMIT PROGRAM (CAAPP) PERMIT

PERMITTEE Electric Energy, Inc. Attn: Manager, Technical Services 2100 Portland Road Post Office Box 165 Joppa, Illinois 62953 Application No.: 95090120 I.D. No.: 127855AAC Applicant's Designation: JOPPA STEAM Date Received: September 8, 1995 Operation of: Electric Power Plant Date Issued: September 29, 2005 Expiration Date 1 : September 29, 2010 Source Location: 2100 Portland Road, Joppa 1 Massac County Responsible Official: Terence H Larbes, Manager, Technical Services
This permit is hereby granted to the above-designated Per.mittee to OPERATE the Electric Energy, Inc. Joppa Steam Electric Station, pursuant to the above referenced permit application. This permit is subject to the conditions contained herein. The current federal Acid Rain Permit issued to Joppa Steam by the Illinois EPA for this source is incorporated into this**C~PP** permit (Refer to Attachment 5)

. If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact the Utility Unit at 217/782-2113 (217/782-9143 TDD).

Donald E. Sutton, P.E. Manager, Permit Section Division of Air Pollution Control DES :MNP:jar

cc: Illinois EPA, FOS, Region 3 USEPA Except as addressed in Condition 8.7 of this permit.

# Eh:!ctronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/1612013

7 .1.4 v. This authorization does not relieve the Permittee from the continuing obligation to minimize excess emissions during malfunction or breakdown. As provided by 35 IAC 201.265, an authorization in a permit for continued operation with excess emissions during malfunction and breakdown does not shield the Permittee from enforcement for any such violation and only constitutes a prima facie defense to such an enforcement action provided that the Permittee has fully complied with all terms and conditions connected with such authorization. Applicable Emission Standards

a. The emissions of PM from each affected boiler shall not exceed 0.19 lb/mmBtu of actual heat input in any one hour period, pursuant to 35 IAC 212.203. This standard applies because affected boilers qualify for the alternative standard provided by this rule, as recognized by the Illinois Pollution Control Board in Regulatory Proceeding RB2-1. In particular, in accordance with 35 IAC 212.203(a), as of April 14, 1972, the affected boilers had,hourly emission rates based on the stricter of the original design or equipment performance test conditions that were less than 0.20 lb/roroBtu of actual heat input, i.e., 0.14 lb/mmBtu. Thereafter, under this rule, the emission rates are not allowed to degrade by more than 0.05 lb/rnmBtu from the base emission rate, resulting in an emission standard of 0.19 lb/rnmBtu. b. The total emissions of 80 2 from the affected boilers shall not exceed 36,865 lb/hour, pursuant to 35 IAC 214.182 and 214.184. These are the 802 emissions allowed by the following formula in 35 IAC 214.184, as selected by the Permittee, which when applied to the boilers at the source results in a total allowable S02 emission rate of 36 1 865 lb/hr: E**~** 0.2222H2 Where:
E Total emissions o.f S02, in pounds per hour, from all fuel combustion emission units owned or operated by such person and lOcated within 1 mile from the center point of any such unit*;
H and

30

## tlsctronic riling-**I~BCiVBd,** 

## [;lsrk's UtticB:**U~/ll:i/LUI~** f'/...e_c.eiVt::t{ /0-'f-ZODb :SC.W 

## File. :**A~** 

### a.J.t3. 2. ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1021 NoRTH GR.-.ND Av<NUE EAST, P.O. Box 19506, SPRINGfiELD, ILLINOIS 62794·9506

- 1217) 782-2113 Roo R. 8LAGOJEVICH, GovERNOR DOUGLAS P. ScOTT, DIRECTOR
2171782-2113 CLEAN AIR ACT PEru{IT PROGRAM (CAAPP) PERMIT
PERMITTEE Ameren Energy Generating Company Attn: Michael L. Menne 1901 Chouteau Avenue St. Louis, Missouri 63103

This permit is hereby granted to the above-designated Permittee to OPERATE an electrical power generation station, pursuant to the above referenced permit application. This permit is subject to the conditions contained herein. The current federal Acid Rain Permit issued to Ameren Energy Generating company by the Illinois EPA for this source is incorporated into this CAAPP permit (See Attachment 5)

. If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact the Utility Unit at 217/782-2113 (217/762-9143 TDD).

Donald E. Sutton, P.E. Manager, Permit Section Division of Air Pollution Control DES:HNP:jar

cc: Illinois EPA 1 FOS 1 Region 3 USEPA Except as addressed in Condition 8.7 of this permit.

PRINTED ON RECYClED PAPER ·( '

## EIBctronic Filing
- RBcivBd, CIBrk's OfficB: 

# 08/1612013

7.0 UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 7.1 Coal Fired Boilers- Subject to NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart D 7 .1.1

7 .1. 2 Description The Permittee operates two coal-fired boilers for electric generation. The boilers are currently operated for base load generation, normally operating for weeks at a time between startups. The boilers, which were built in 1972 and 1975, have nominal capacities of 5,500 mmBtu/hour each and served by separate stacks. These boilers also have the capability to fire at various modes such as combination of coal and fuel oil as their principal fuel. In addition to coal 1 these boilers fire fuel oil as auxiliary fuel during startup and for flame stabilization.

Periodically small amounts of used oil or boiler cleaning residue are fired with the.coal in these boilers. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from the boilers are controlled by low-NOx burners and overfire air systems. In addition, boiler·2 is equipped with a duct burner for the primary air supply to facilitate control of NOx. Particulate matter {PM) emissions are controlled by electrostatic precipitators (ESP) equipped**~...-ith** Flue Gas Conditioning (FGC) systems. The FGC systems are operated on an as needed basis. List of Emission Units and Air Pollution Control Equipment These unit-specific conditions address the following emission units:

Boiler Descriotion Control Eauipment Boiler 1 Coal-fired Boiler Low NOx Burners with Overfire

7.1.3 NB-1 Nominal 5,500 Air, and ESP with FGC mmBtu/hr Boiler 2 Coal-fired Boiler Primary Air Duct Burners, NB-2 Nominal 5,500 NOx Burners with Overfire mmBtu/hr and ESP with FGC Applicability Provisions
a, i. An ''affected boiler" for the purpose of these unit-specific conditions is a boiler described in Conditions 7.1.1 and 7.1.2. ii. The affected boilers are also ''affected facilities" for purposes of the NeH Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators for Nhich Construction Is Commenced After August 17, 1971, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.40. As affected facilities, the boilers are also subject to applicable requirements of the NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart D and related requirements in the NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart A, General Provisions. 27**Lm<~** Air,

## electronic riling-**l~ecived,** 

## L:lerk's Uttice:**U8/ll:i/LUI~**

7 .1. 4 v. This authorization does not relieve the Permittee from the continuing obligation to minimize excess emissions during malfunction or breakdown. As provided by 35 IAC 201.265 1 an**authori~ation** in a permit for continued operation with excess emissions during malfunction and breakdown does not shield the Permittee frorn enforcement for any such violation and only constitutes a prima facie defense to such an enforcement action provided that the Permittee has fully**co~plied** with all terms and conditions connected with such authorization. Applicable Emission Standards

a. Federal NSPS standards i. The affected boilers are subject to New source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators, 40 CFR 60, Subparts A and D. ii. Pursuant to the NSPS, emissions from each affected boiler shall not exceed the following emission standards: Standard Pollutant {lb/rnmBtu)**~** PM 0.10 40 CFR 60.42{a) {1) 1.20 40 CFR 60.43 {a) {2) NOx 0.70 40 CFR 60.44{a) {3) iii. Opacity from each affected boiler shall not exceed 20 percent, as measured on a six minute average, except for one 6 minute period per hour of not more than 27 percent pursuant to NSPS, 40 CFR 60.42 {a) {2)

. iv. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8{c) and 60.ll{c), the above emission limitations do not apply during star.tup, malfunction, and shutdown, as defined by 40 CFR 60.2. Notwithstanding this provision, pursuant to 40**C~R** 60. 7{b) and (c), exceedances of these limitations during startup, malfunction, and shutdown are still subject to recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the NSPS. b. The emissions of PM from each affected boiler shall not exceed 0.10 lb/mmBtu of actual heat input in any one hour period, pursuant to 35 !AC 212.204.

c. The emissions of S02 from each affected boiler shall no·t exceed 1.2 lb/rrunBtu of actual heat input, pursuant to :l5 IAC 214.121 {aI

. 30

# Electronic Filing- Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/1612013

b. L

.i.i

.**Th~** uuly**.Cut~l;:; fl.n~u**  ln Lhe p.d.maxy air ctu:.-:t burners of affected boiler 2 shall be natural gds and**di.:sti~lct.e** fuel oil. !'!'1] A.



### a. rrbe fuel tlsage of the primnry o!l.i:t" cluet burners of affected boiler 2 shall not exceed 250 gallon.s/houl-,**total~** [Tl] T.he t<Otel. anr..ue.l £ue:l cort5umpt.ion by primary air ctuct !:mxners o£ af·tected**sh£J.11~** not exceed 1, GlOr 000 SJ!l.llon:r. the boiler 2 [Tl] C. Fo.r thi:!i purpoee 1 i£ ne.tural gc.3 i8 burned, l1 000 stan-dard cubic feet of gas .shall be conside:-ecl equivalent to 7. 45 gallons of o.il. 

### rn; iii. 'l'he emissions of the primary air duct burners of affec:ted boile1.· 2 shall r.tot exc-'l:ad thG :follow-ing linli

..**tations~** [TlJ

Pcllt:rtant NOx 

### co so2 PM Li.mitation LbiPJ.· (Each) 'l'on/Y.ear (Totel} 5.0 16.1 1.25 4

### .o 51.94 32.0 0.5 1.6 i v. Cornp.li.ance wit-h annual L:Lmitat.ions shall be determined on a rncnt:hly basis £rom**th~** Stlrn of the data for the current month plus the preceding 11 months {running 12 .month total)

. { 11"1) Not:.e: ThB above requirentents \Vere established in Permit 01030065. 7 .1.7 Testing Requirements Pursuant to Section 39. 5 { 7 J**(d~** (ii) of the**Act~** the Permittee shall have the PM end CO emissions of each affected boile.r measurGd as specified below:
a. ?1-1 emission measurements ezhall .be made no later thar1 one vea:r. aftee the. effective date of**thi~** condition. (Measurements made after December 31, 2003 may satisfy this requirement

. ) ii. PM emission me-asurements shall be made within 90 days of operating an affected boiler for more than 30 hours total in a calendar qua:r:ter at a loa.dW tha:t is more than 2 percent higher than the greatest load on the boiler, durirJg**th~** most recent set of Pl'-1 tests on the affected boiler in w-hich compliance is shown (refer to Condition 7.1.7(e) [iii) (D)), provided, however, that the Illinois ZPA may 35

# \ tiBctronic riling-**I~BCiVBd,** 

## l.;IBrk's UtticB:**U~/ll:i/LUI::J**



## ... JLUNOJS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1021 NORTH GRANOAVENUE EAST. P.0. BOX 19506, SPRINGFIELD, IU.INOJS 62794-9506•(217) 782·2113 PAT QUrNN, GOVERNOR JOHN J, KIM, INTERIM 0\lli:.ctOR 217/782-2113
CLEAN AIR ACT PSRMIT ?ROGRAM (CAAPP) PERMIT*
PERI1ITTEE Ameren Energy Generating Company Attn: Michael L, Menne 1901 Chouteau Avenue St. Louis, t.Ussouri 63101 Application No.: 95090009 I.D. No,i**l35803~AA** Applicant's Designation: Date Received: September 01, 1995 Operation of: Electrical Pm.,rer Generation at Coffeen Date Issued: September 29, 2005 Effective Date: September 20, 2012 Source Location: 134 C!PS Lane, Coffeen, Responsible Official: James L. Yiilliams, Expiration Date 1 : September 20, 2017 Montgomery County Jr. 1 Manager, Coffeen Power Station
This permit is hereby granted to the above-designated Permittee to OPERATE an electrical power generation station, pursuant to the above referenced permit application. This permit is**s~bject** to the conditions contained herein. The current federal Acid Rain Permit issued to Ameren Energy Generating Company by the Illinois EPA for this**~ource** is incorporated into this CAAPP permit (See Attachment 5). rf you have any questions concerning this**pe~rnit~** please contact the Utility Unit at 217/782-2113 (217/782-9143**TD~**

# £_~ 

# (!,pkJ;)**'f;;fl-~\{V** Edwin C. Bakowski, P.E. Managerr Permit Section Division of Air Pollution Control E'.CB: MNP: psj
cct Illinois EPA, FOSf Region 2 USEPA 

# q'(:-'

Except as addressed in Condition 8.7 of this**pe~mlt** By order of the Pollution Control Board in the matter of Ameren Energy Generating co. v. If:PA, PCB No. 06-64, the administrative SCdY of this issued CAAPP permit 1{.3$ partially Hfted on September 20,**2012~** ellow.:tng the uncontested conditions of the appealed perro1t eo Oscome final and effective. As d consequence ot: the Boards**order~** tfJe effective c.nd er.piration dAtes of the permit are set forth dbova to correspond with the full term of the pe.rnd t 's duration,

PRINTE.O ON REC\'GLED PAPER

# Electronic Filing

-Recived, Clerk's Office: 08/16/2013

malfunction and breakdown does not shield the**~ermittee** from enforcement for any such violation and only constitutes a prima facie defense to such an enforcement action provided that the Permittee has fully complied with all terms and conditions connected with such authorization. 7. 1.4 Applicable Emission Standards
a, The affected boilers shall comply with the standard in Condition 5.2.2(b) [35 IAC 212.123], which addresses the opacity of the emission of smoke or other particulate matter from the affected boilers. b. i 0 The emissions of PM from the affected boiler 1 (CBl) shall not exceed 0.19 lb/mmBtu of actual heat input in any one hour period, pursuant to 35 IAC 212.203. This standard applies because the affected boiler qualifies for the alternative standard provided by tHis rule, as recognized by the Illinois Pollution Control Board in Regulatory Proceeding RB2-1. In particular, in accordance with 35 IAC 212.203(a), as of April 14, 1972, the affected boilers had an hourly emission rate based on the stricter of the original design or equipment performance test conditions that was less than 0.20 lb/mmBtu of actual heat input, i.e., 0.14 lb/mmBtu. Thereafter, under this rule, the emission rate is not allowed to degrade by more than 0.05 lb/mmBtu from the base emission rate, resulting in an emission standard of 0.19 lb/mmBtu. ii. The emissions of PM from the affected boiler CB2 shall not**e~ceed** 0.15 lb/mmBtu of actual heat input in any one hour period, pursuant to 35 IAC 212.203. This standard applies because the affected boiler qualifies for the alternative standard provided by this ruLe, as recognized by the Illinois Pollution Control Board in Regulatory Proceeding RB2-l, In particular, in accordance With 35 IAC 2l2.203(a), as of April 14 1 1972, the affected boiler had an hourly emission rate based on the stricter of the original desi9n or equipment performance test conditions that was less than 0.20 lb/mmBtu of actual heat input, i.e. 1 0.10 lb/mmBtu. Thereafter, under this rule, the emission rate is not allowed to degrade by more than 0.05 lb/mmBtu from the base emission rate, resulting in an emission standard of 0,15 lb/mrnntu.
32

## tlectronic riling-**l~ecived, ~lerk's**  

## Uttice:**U~/ll:i/LUI~**

c. The total emission of 502 from the affected boilets combined shall not exceed 55,555 lb/hour, pursuant to 35 IAC 214.143, 214.182, and 214.184. These are the SOz emissions allowed by the following formula in 35 IAC 214.184, as selected by the Permittee: E 0.2222 H'

Where; E = Total emissions of 80 21 in pounds per hour, from all fuel combustion emission units owned or operated by such person and located within 1 mile from the center point of any such unit. ?ercentage of total emissions E emission unit i divided by 100. P, + •• . + P,**~** l) emitted from (Note; P1 +

H1 Height in feet above grade of stack i. {Note; The height used may not exceed the good engineering practice [GE?] height for such stack. The actual height of the stacks for the affected boilers is 500 ft, but the GEP height is 213 ft.) d. The emissions of CO from each affected boiler shall not to exceed 200 ·ppm, corrected to 50 percent excess air, pursuant to 35 IAC 216.121.

e. The affected boilers are subject a**NO~<.** emission standard pursuant to Section 407 of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Part 76, as addressed in Condition 6.2.2 and Attachment 5 of this permit. f. The affected boilers are each subject to the following requirements related to NOM emissions pursuant to 35 !AC Part 217 Subpart V: i. During each ozone control period (May 1 through September 30): A, The emissions of NOx from an affected boiler shall not exceed 0.25 lb/mrnBtu oE actual heat input based on a ozone control period average for that unit,**~ursuant** to 35**I~C** 217.706(a), or S. If the Permittee elects to participate in a NOx averaging plan, the emissions of NOx from the affected boiler and other
33

# Electronic Filing- Recived. Clerk's Office: DB/1612013 Rece1ve.!.. 10-4 -2.t:>OS 

### SCu.. 

### F,'k: 

## AG. ,3,f, IS: 

### /.I ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1021 NORTH GRANO AVENUE fMT, P.O. 60X 1950&, SPRINGfiELD, ILLINOIS 62794-950& -I 217) 782-2113 Roo R. BlAGOJEVICH, GOVERNOR DOUGLAS P. Scan, DIRECTOR 217/782-2113 CLEAN AIR ACT PERMIT PROGRAM (CAAPP) PERMIT
PERMITTEE AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company Attn: Michael L. Menne 1901 Chouteau Avenue St. Louis, Illinois 53103 Application No.: 95070025 I.D. No.: 057801AAA Applicant 1 s Designation: Date Received: July 10, 1995 Operation of: Electrical Power Generation at Duck creek Plant Date Issued: September 29, 2005 Expiration Date': September 29, 2010 Source Location: 1?751 North Cilco Road, Canton, Fulton County**Respons~ble** Official: James L. Luckey !II,**Manager~** Duck creek Power Station
This permit is hereby granted to the above-designated Permittee to OPERATE an electrical power generation station, pursuant to the above referenced permit application. This permit is subject to the conditions contained herein¥ The current federal Acid Rain Permit issued to AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company by the Illinois EPA for this source is incorporated into this CAAPP permit (See Attachment 5) , If you have any questions concerning this per.mit, please contact the Utility Unit at 217/782-2113 (217/782-9143 TTD).

Donald E. Sutton, P.E.**Manager~** Permit Section Division of Air Pollution Control DES:MNP:jar

cc: Illinois EPA, FOS, Region 2 USEPA Except as nddreBsed in condition 8.7 of this permit.

PRINTm ON RECYCLED PN'ER

## tiBctronic**~iling-** 

## I<BcivBd, [.;IBrk's UtticB: U1::1/lti/LUJ::J

7.0 UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 7,1 Coal Fired Boiler- Subject to NSPS, 40 CFR 60, Subpart D 7 .1.1

7' 1.2

7 .1. 3 Description The Permittee operates a coal-fired boiler for electric generation. The boiler is currently operated for base load generation, normally operating for weeks at a time between startups. The boiler, which was built in 1976, has a nominal capacity of 3713 mmBtu/hour. This boiler also has the capability to fire at various modes such as combination of coal 1 petroleum coke, and fuel oil as its principal fuel. In addition to coal, the boiler fires fuel oil as an auxiliary fuel during startup and for flame stabilization. Periodically small amounts of used oil or boiler cleaning residue are fired with the coal in this boiler. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from the boiler are controlled by low-NOx burners and a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system. Particulate matter (PM} emissions are controlled by an electrostatic precipitator (ESP)

. Sulfur dioxide (502 ) emissions are controlled by a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubber system. The Permittee currently plans to operate the SCR and FGD on an as needed basis to comply with applicable NOx and S02 emission standards. List of Emission Units and Air Pollution Control Equipment Emission Unit Description Control I.D. Equipment Boiler B-1 Riley Stoker Boiler LNB, SCR, ESP Nom. 3, 713 mmBtu/hr (1976) and FGD Applicability Provisions

a. i. The "affected boiler'' for the purpose of these unitspecific conditions is the boiler described in Conditions 7 .l.l. and 7 .1. 2, ii. The affected boiler is also an ''affected facility" for purposes of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators for Which c·ons truction Is Commenced After August 17 I 1971, pursuant to 40 CFR 60,40. As an affected facility, the**boile~** is subject to applicable re"qulrements of the NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart D and related requirements in the NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart A, General Provisions. b. Startup Provisions Subject to the following terms and conditions, the Permittee is authorized to operate the affected boiler in violation of the applicable standards in Condition 27

## EIBctronic Filing- RBcivBd. CIBrk's OfficE!: 

# 09/16/2013

7 .1. 4 Applicable Emission Standards

a. Federal emission standards i. The affected boiler is subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Fossil**~uel** Fired Steam Generators, 40 CFR 60 D. ii. Pursuant to the NSPS, emissions from the affected boiler shall not exceed the following emission standards: Standard Pollutant (lbs/mmBtu) Rule PM 0.10 40 CFR 60.42(a) (11 

### so, 1.2 40 CFR 60.43(a) (2) NOx 0.70 40 CFR 60.44 (a) (3) iii. Opacity from the affected boiler shall not exceed 20 percent, as measured on a six minute average, except for one 6 minute period per hour of not more than 27 percent pursuant to the NSPS, 40 CFR 60.42 (a) (2). iv. A. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(c) and 60.11(c), the above emission limitations do not apply during startup 1 malfunction 1 and shutdown, as defined by 40 CFR 60.2. Notwithstanding this provision, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.7(b} and (c), exceedances of these limitations during startup, malfunction 1 and shutdown are still subject to recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the NSPS. B. At all times, the Permittee shall maintain and operate the affected boiler, including associated air pollution control equipment 1 in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for. minimizing emissions, as required pursuant to the NSPS, 40 CFR 60.1l(d). b. The emissions of PM from the affected boiler shall not exceed 0.10 lb/rrunBtu of actual heat input tn any one hour period, pursuant to 35 IAC 212.204.

c. The emissions ·of S02 from the affected hailer shall not exceed 1.2 lb/mmBtu of actual heat input in any one hour period, pursuant to 35 IAC 214.121(a). d. The emissions of CO from the affected boiler shall not exceed 200 ppm, corrected to 50 percent excess air, pursuant to 35 IAC 216.121.

3D

## electronic riling-**l~ecived, ~Jerk's**  

## Uttice:**W:l/ll:i/LUI~**


# ATTACHMENT D

# Elsctronic Filing- Rscivsd. Clsrk's OfficB: 08/1612013

CERTIFICATE OFACCEPTANCE AND NOTICE OF CLOSING

On , Ameren Corporation and Tilinois PowerHoldings, LLC closed the transactionreferenced in the Order ofthe illinois Pollution Control Board dated

I (We), , having read the opinion and order ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board in docket PCB 14-10, dated ' 

### understand and accept the opinion and order, realizing that this acceptance renders all terms and conditions ofthe variance set forth in that orderbinding and enforceable.

ILLINOIS POWER HOLDINGS, LLC

By: Authorized Agent
Title:
Date:
MEDINAVALLEY COGEN, LLC

By: Authorized Agent
Title:



### - Date