Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0705-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Proposed Approval the Illinois variance for Illinois Power Holdings, LLC (IPH) and AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen
Posted Date: 2015-04-20T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 75 (Monday, April 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21681-21685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08896]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0705; FRL-9926-27-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Illinois; Illinois Power Holdings and AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen 
Variance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve into the Illinois Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
a variance for the electrical generating units (EGUs) included in the 
Ameren multi-pollutant standard group (Ameren MPS Group). The Ameren 
MPS Group consists of five facilities owned by Illinois Power Holdings, 
LLC (IPH) and two facilities owned by AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, 
LLC (Medina Valley). The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
(IEPA) submitted the variance to EPA for approval on September 3, 2014.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2014-0705, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 408-2279.
    4. Mail: Doug Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and Maintenance 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Doug Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and 
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal 
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2014-0705. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of

[[Page 21682]]

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental 
Engineer, at (312) 886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental 
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767, 
dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the variance for IPH and Medina 
Valley?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. What is the background for this action?

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is caused by the 
cumulative emissions of fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., 
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon and dust) and its 
precursors (sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), and in some cases ammonia and volatile organic 
compounds) from numerous sources over a wide geographic area. Fine 
particulate precursors react in the atmosphere to form 
PM2.5. Aerosol PM2.5 reduces the clarity and 
distance one can see by scattering and absorbing light.
    The visibility protection program under sections 169A, 169B, and 
110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA is designed to protect visibility in national 
parks and wilderness areas (Class I areas). On December 2, 1980, EPA 
promulgated regulations, known as ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment (RAVI), to address visibility impairment in Class I areas 
that is reasonably attributable to a single source or small group of 
sources. On July 1, 1999, EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule which 
revised existing visibility regulations to incorporate provisions 
addressing regional haze impairment. EPA's Regional Haze Rule, as 
codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 51.308 (40 CFR 
51.308), requires states to submit regional haze SIPs. Among other 
things, the regional haze SIPs must include provisions requiring 
certain sources install and operate best available retrofit technology 
(BART).
    At 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), the regional haze rule allows states to 
meet BART requirements by mandating alternative measures in lieu of 
mandating source-specific BART, so long as the alternative measures 
provide better visibility protection. Given the regional nature of 
visibility impairment, an alternative that results in lower emissions 
of SO2 and NOX will generally provide better 
visibility protection. Thus, in the absence of a difference in the 
spatial distribution of emissions, a modeling analysis is generally not 
necessary to be able to conclude that an alternative strategy with 
lower SO2 and NOX emissions provides better 
visibility protection.
    On June 24, 2011, Illinois submitted a plan to address the 
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, as codified at 40 CFR 51.308. 
EPA approved Illinois' regional haze SIP on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39943). 
In its approval, EPA determined that the emission reductions from 
sources included in the Illinois plan are significantly greater than 
even conservative definitions of BART applied to BART subject units (77 
FR 39945). EPA also addressed whether the Illinois plan, achieving 
greater emission reductions overall than the application of BART on 
BART-subject units, can also be expected to achieve greater visibility 
protection than application of BART on BART-subject units. Given that, 
in general, the Illinois power plants are substantial distances from 
any Class I area, and given that the averaging in Illinois' plan is 
only authorized within the somewhat limited region within which each 
utility's plants are located, EPA determined that a reallocation of 
emission reductions from one plant to another is unlikely to change the 
visibility impact of those emission reductions significantly. 
Consequently, EPA concluded that the significantly greater emission 
reductions that Illinois required in its regional haze SIP will yield 
greater progress toward visibility protection as compared to the 
benefits of a conservative estimate of BART.
    One of the rules approved in that action to meet BART requirements 
is 35 Illinois Administrative Code (Ill. Adm. Code) rule 225.233 Multi-
Pollutant Standard (MPS), specifically subsections (a), (b), (e), and 
(g). Section 225.233(e)(3)(C) contains the sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) emission standards applicable to the Ameren MPS Group. 
Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(i) establishes an overall SO2 
annual emission rate for EGUs in the Ameren MPS group of 0.50 pounds 
per million Btu (lb/mmBtu) for calendar years 2010 through 2013. 
Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(ii) establishes an overall SO2 
annual emission rate for EGUs in the Ameren MPS group of 0.43 lb/mmBtu 
for calendar year 2014. Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iii) establishes an 
overall SO2 annual emission rate for EGUs in the Ameren MPS 
group of 0.25 lb/mmBtu for calendar years 2015 and 2016. Section 
225.233(e)(3)(C)(iv) establishes an overall SO2 annual 
emission rate for EGUs in the Ameren MPS group of 0.23 lb/mmBtu 
beginning in calendar year 2017 and continuing each calendar year 
thereafter.
    On November 21, 2013, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) 
granted IPH and Medina Valley a variance from

[[Page 21683]]

the applicable requirements of Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iii) for a 
period beginning January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019, and 
Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iv) for a period beginning January 1, 2017, 
through December 31, 2019, subject to certain conditions. IEPA 
submitted the variance as a revisions to the Illinois Regional Haze SIP 
on September 3, 2014. The IPH facilities included in the Ameren MPS 
group and subject to the variance include: Coffeen Energy Center 
(Montgomery County), Duck Creek Energy Center (Fulton County), E.D. 
Edwards Energy Center (Peoria County), Joppa Energy Center (Massac 
County), and Newton Energy Center (Jasper County). The two Medina 
Valley facilities included in the Ameren MPS group and subject to the 
variance are the Meredosia Energy Center (Morgan County) and the 
Hutsonville Energy Center (Crawford County).

III. What is EPA's analysis of the variance for IPH and Medina Valley?

    As stated above, the IPCB granted IPH and Medina Valley a variance 
from the requirement of Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iii) to comply with an 
overall SO2 annual emission rate of 0.25 lb/mmBtu in 2015 
and 2016 for the time period from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 
2019, and from the requirement of Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iv) to 
comply with an overall SO2 annual emission rate of 0.23 lb/
mmBtu for the time period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 
2019. This variance was granted subject to numerous conditions 
including, but not limited to, the following:

    1. The IPH facilities in the Ameren MPS group must comply with 
an overall SO2 annual emission rate of 0.35 lb/million 
Btu from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019, and an overall 
SO2 annual emission rate of 0.23 lb/mmBtu beginning on 
January 1, 2020.
    2. Medina Valley must not operate the EGUs at Meredosia and 
Hutsonville Power stations until after December 31, 2020, except 
that the FutureGen project at the Meredosia Energy Center is exempt 
from this restriction.
    3. Through December 31, 2019, IPH must continue to burn low 
sulfur coal at the E.D. Edwards, Joppa, and Newton Energy Centers. 
The combined annual average stack SO2 emissions of these 
three stations must not exceed 0.55 lb/mmBtu on a calendar year 
annual average basis.
    4. Through December 31, 2019, IPH must operate the existing Flue 
Gas Desulfurization systems at the Duck Creek and Coffeen Energy 
Centers to achieve a combined SO2 removal rate of at 
least 98 percent on a calendar year annual average basis.
    5. IPH must permanently retire E.D. Edwards Unit 1 as soon as 
allowed by the Midcontinent Independent Transmission System 
Operator, Inc. (now called the Midcontinent Independent System 
Operator).
    6. From the time period beginning October 1, 2013, through 
December 31, 2020, IPH must limit the MPS Group system-wide mass 
emissions of SO2 to no more than 327,996 tons.
    7. For the time period beginning October 1, 2013, through 
December 31, 2020, IPH must report annually to IEPA the combined 
tons of mass SO2 emissions and the overall SO2 
annual emissions rate from its five Ameren MPS group facilities. The 
report must show the mass SO2 emissions for each time 
period (October 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, and each year 
thereafter) along with a running total of the remaining emissions 
available under the system-wide mass SO2 emissions limit.
    8. The variance also includes a condition with a schedule for 
completing the flue gas desulfurization project at the Newton Power 
Station, with major equipment components in position by September 1, 
2019, and requirements for IPH to file annual progress reports with 
IEPA from 2013 through 2019.

    In evaluating the variance submitted by Illinois, EPA assessed the 
effect the variance would have on the emissions reductions expected 
under the MPS as currently approved into the Regional Haze SIP. Under 
the conditions of the currently approved Regional Haze SIP, the Ameren 
MPS group would be expected to emit 335,774 tons of SO2 for 
the 2013-2020 time period. Under the variance, the Ameren MPS group is 
limited to 327,996 tons of SO2 over that same time period; 
7,778 tons less than would be expected under the current SIP.
    In addition, EPA evaluated the variance to ensure that the 
alternative measures contained in the variance continue to provide 
better visibility protection than the application of BART on BART-
subject units. Because the deadline for implementation of BART level 
controls in Illinois is 2017 (within 5 years of approval of Illinois' 
SIP), EPA compared the 2017 emissions under the variance to the 
application of typical Best Available Control Technology (BACT) control 
levels to the BART subject units in the Ameren MPS group. BACT limits 
are imposed on new units or units undergoing major modifications. 
Therefore, BART limits, which by definition apply to relatively old 
existing units, are unlikely to be lower than the limits that would 
apply to a new unit and would in many cases be significantly higher.

 Table 1--Comparison of Emissions Reductions at Ameren MPS Group Units Under the Variance Versus Emissions Reductions From Application of BACT Limits to
                                                                   BART Subject Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Base year            BACT (0.06#/MMBtu)                Variance (2017)
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Facility                   Unit      MMMBtu                  Emissions    Emissions    Reduction                 Emissions    Reduction
                                                                 #/MMBtu       (tons)       (tons)       (tons)      #/MMBtu       (tons)       (tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cofeen.................................        1       18,570         1.54       14,332          557       13,775         0.35        3,250       11,082
Cofeen.................................        2       37,545         1.49        27999        1,126       26,873         0.35        6,570       21,429
Duck Creek.............................        1       22,635         0.97        11026          679       10,347         0.35        3,961        7,065
E D Edwards............................        1        6,417         3.55        11399  ...........  ...........         0.35        1,123       10,276
E D Edwards............................        2       17,222         1.70        14666          517       14,149         0.35        3,014       11,652
E D Edwards............................        3       15,972         1.21         9683          479        9,204         0.35        2,795        6,888
Hutsonville............................        5        3,161         4.53         7163  ...........            0            0  ...........        7,163
Hutsonville............................        6        3,443         4.53         7791  ...........            0            0  ...........        7,791
Joppa..................................        1       13,548         0.51         3441  ...........            0         0.35        2,371        1,070
Joppa..................................        2       16,258         0.51         4139  ...........            0         0.35        2,845        1,294
Joppa..................................        3       15,396         0.51         3947  ...........            0         0.35        2,694        1,253
Joppa..................................        4       13,402         0.52         3448  ...........            0         0.35        2,345        1,143
Joppa..................................        5       15,094         0.52         3932  ...........            0         0.35        2,641        1,291
Joppa..................................        6       16,063         0.52         4182  ...........            0         0.35        2,811        1,371
Meredosia..............................        1        1,134         5.02         2844  ...........            0            0  ...........        2,844
Meredosia..............................        2        1,337         5.02         3356  ...........            0            0  ...........        3,356
Meredosia..............................        3        1,069         5.04         2694  ...........            0            0  ...........        2,694
Meredosia..............................        4        1,406         5.00         3518  ...........            0            0  ...........        3,518

[[Page 21684]]

 
Meredosia..............................        5       10,810         2.34        12639  ...........            0            0  ...........       12,639
Newton.................................        1       40,631         0.45         9046  ...........            0         0.35        7,110        1,936
Newton.................................        2       38,533         0.46         8823  ...........            0         0.35        6,743        2,080
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.............................  .......      309,646  ...........      170,108  ...........       74,348  ...........       50,275      119,833
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows SO2 emissions reductions of 74,348 tons in 
2017 if typical BACT limits were applied to BART subject sources in the 
Ameren MPS group. With the variance, Table 1 shows SO2 
emissions reductions of 119,833 tons in 2017. More reductions are 
required in 2017 under the variance than would be required by the 
application of typical BACT limits to BART subject sources. Even 
assuming that the 22,360 MMBtu generated at the Hudsonville and 
Meredosia units would be shifted to other units in the group, applying 
the 0.35 pound/MBtu group average results in an additional 3,913 tons 
of emissions under the variance in 2017, or a total of 54,188 tons of 
SO2. This would result in 2017 SO2 emissions 
reductions under the variance of 115,920 tons, which remains 41,572 
tons greater than emissions reductions under the application of BACT at 
BART subject sources. In addition, for the reasons set forth in EPA's 
approval of the Illinois regional haze sip (77 FR 39946) and summarized 
above, EPA continues to conclude that the significantly greater 
emission reductions required under the variance will yield greater 
progress toward visibility protection as compared to the benefits of a 
conservative estimate of BART. Therefore, EPA concludes that the 
revised limits under the variance continue to satisfy BART requirements 
for the Ameren MPS Group sources.
    In evaluating the approvability of the variance, EPA must also 
consider whether the SIP revision meets the requirements of section 
110(l) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). To be approved, a SIP revision 
must not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable 
requirement of the CAA. Currently, the SIP establishes overall annual 
SO2 emissions rates for the Ameren MPS Group, beginning in 
2010. The SIP allows flexibility in achieving these overall emissions 
rates, not requiring reductions at any particular source. It should be 
noted that none of the Ameren MPS Group sources are located in a 
PM2.5 nonattainment area and the only source located in an 
SO2 nonattainment area is the E.D. Edwards facility in 
Peoria County. The variance adds specific conditions applicable to this 
facility, including the requirement that the E.D. Edwards, Joppa, and 
Newton Energy Centers continue to burn low sulfur coal through December 
31, 2019, and that E.D. Edwards permanently retire Unit 1 as soon as 
allowed by the Midcontinent Independent Transmission System Operator, 
Inc. The variance will not result in any increase in SO2 
emissions, but rather will result in fewer SO2 emissions 
over the 2013-2020 time period. In addition, the measures contained in 
the variance provide better visibility protection than the application 
of BART on BART-subject units. Therefore, the variance will not 
interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other 
applicable requirement of the CAA.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the IPH and Medina Valley variance, 
submitted by IEPA on September 3, 2014, as a revision to the Illinois 
Regional Haze SIP.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference Illinois Pollution Control Board Order PCB 14-10, effective 
November, 21, 2013. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
documents generally available electronically through 
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as

[[Page 21685]]

appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, 
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    This rule is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land 
or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that 
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule 
does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: April 2, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015-08896 Filed 4-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P