Roccaforte, Gina From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 10:55 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana; Roccaforte. Gina Subject: [External] Call In Information Good morning ladies. The call in number for our 1:30 pm call is: 1-888-255-1101 Passcode: I am not sure who else is attending at your end so I will let you distribute. Talk to you at 1:30 pm. Thank you. Renee Renee Cipriano Partner rcipriano@schiffhardin.com d+1.312.258.5720 f+1.312.258.5600 Schiff Hardin LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 7100 Chicago, IL 60606 schiffhardin.com v-card I view bio info . If y?$?bel eve plead repl error. - RECO :Jsr RELEASAELE AUG 2 5 2017 MED Roccaforte, Gina From: Vetl'erhoffer, Dana 'Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 8:55 AM To: Cipriano. Renee; Roccaforte, Gina Cc: EXT Ferry. Jeffery; Diericx. Rick Subject: RE: Call Today We?ll be in the Bureau Chief?s Conference Room, so please come to the North Entrance and have security call Brenda Jones. From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 8:53 AM To: 'Cipriano, Renee' Roccaforte, Gina Cc: EXT Ferry, Jeffery Cc: EXT Ferry, Jeffery Diericx, Rick Subject: [External] Call Today Good morning Dana and Gina. We are set for 10 am. Participants at our end include Jeff, Rick and me. Both Jeff and Rick will be in Springfield and would like to meet in person with the Agency folks. I will be on the phone. I will still set up a call in just in case others from EPA may need to dial in. Please let us know ifan in person meeting works and if so, the location and entrance. Call in: 1-888-255-1101 Thank you. Renee State of Illinois CO FIDENTI ITY NOTICE: The inform on contain in this communication is sit nay-client priv' aged or attorne ork product. ma onstitute inside in aiion or inierna com unication, nd is intended only fo addressee. Unauthorized us Identiai. may Iberaiive staff osure or copying of this ?l Roccaforte, Gina From: Bloomberg. David E. Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 2:29 PM To: Dowson, Sharon Cc: Vetterhoffer, Dana; Roccaforte, Gina Subject: FW: Illinois EPA FOIA Request Received - Renee Cipriano Attachments: Outreach Contact List.xlsx Sharon, Attached is a Spreadsheet that represents our response to this FOIA from Renee Cipriano. Dana mentioned to me that she had told you we?d be sending you what you need to reply. - David From: epa.foia@illinois.gov Sent: Friday, July 28yr 2017 10:57 AM To: Cipriano, Renee Subject: Illinois EPA FOIA Request Received - Renee Cipriano 6 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency FOIA Request Received Friday, July 28, 2017 Ms. Renee Cipriano Schiff Hardin 233 Wacker Drive, Suite 7200 Chicago, IL 60606 Requester Type: Attorney Dear Renee Cipriano, We have received your request for information under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. Listed below is a summary of what we received in your online request. Please do not reply to this email. If you have questions about your request please call (217) 558-5101. Request Summary Received 7328:2017 10:57:08 AM Reference Id(s) Date Range 07:22:90] 7 - 0738.520] 7 Request Narrative I would like to request a copy of the outreach list used by the Agency to complete outreach to stakeholders for revisions to the MPS portion of Part 225 of the Illinois Adminstrative Code. Thank you. 2015 Illinois EPA State of Illinois CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is con?dential. may be attorney-client privile or attorney work product, may constitute inside information or internal deliberative staff communicati .an is communicati no anyp rtthereof is stric error. please Karen Hobbs . lack Darin Brian Urbaszewski Faith Bugel Lindsay Dubin Ellen Rendulich Teresa Haley Alec Davis lennifer Walling Angela Tin Kathy Hodge loyce Blumenshine Environmental Control Division Kathy Andria Keith Harley Maria Race Jack Darin ldubin el c.or ADavis@ierg.org iwailing@ilenviro.org Executive Director Dir Env Programs khodge@hddattorneys.com mdunn@atg.state.il.us IVIatt Dunn Ma nrg.com or Maria.Race@nrgenergy.com NRDC- Deputy Director of Midwest Office iaclcdarin@sierracluborg USEPA Respiratory Health Association ELPC CARE Illinois NAACP IL E'nv Regulatory Group Illinois Environmental Council Am Lung Assn II. HeplerBroom Heart of Illinois Sierra Club Illinois Attorney General American Bottoms Conservancy Chicago Legal Clinic Midwest Generation 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 122 W. Washington, Suite 830 1440 W. Washington 35 E. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1600 PO Box 536 P.O. Box 1524 215 E. Adams 230 Broadway - Ste 150 2501 Chatham Rd. 3150 Roland Ave, PO Box 5776 PO Box 3593 100 W. Randolph St. P. O. Box 4242 2938 E. Street Chicag Madis Chmag Chicag Lockp Sp?ng Sp?ng Sp?ng Sp?ng Peo?e Chicag Fauvk Hemhi Chicag Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:40 PM To: Messina, Alec Subject: RE: [External] Chat I think you said you would return 3:15 ish. I?ll be around. From: Messina, Alec Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 1:48 PM To: Armitage, Julie Subject: Fwd: [External] Chat Let?s discuss. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Ferry, Jeff" Date: February 16, 2017 at 8:10:39 AM CST To: Alec Messina Subject: [External] Chat Alec - in follow up, we do need to chat about meeting yesterday. Would you have time later today or tomorrow? Jim Ross is running some numbers and I will get something to you on Tuesday. Most concerning was ?nding out that a former Air Bureau Chief may have submitted the SIP revision based on 44,920 tons rather than 60,000 tons or the 802 rate limits). Does that mean that if the DMG and MPS groups had a great generating year and emitted more than 44,920 tons but complied with their re5pective rate limits that they would be in violation of the If correct about 44,920 tons, not sure how Chief could submit something beyond what was approved by the Board. Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Dynegy Inc a _1 2604 Parsley Lane Spring?eld IL 62711 I l_ {till} 0 slit. 217-519-4762 (cell) ferrv.ieff@comcast.net RF a} ieff.ferry@dynegy.com attorne - -clie privileg/e? or attorne work produ commuhicatio an 's intended only be of the addressee. ed use. disclosure or copying of this communication any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. if you have received this communication in 1 Armita?e, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:56 PM To: Becker, PJ Subject: FW: Dynegy and MP5 Revisions From: Ferry, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 9:48 AM To: Armitage, Julie; Messina, Alec Subject: [External] Dynegy and MP5 Revisions Greetings ?As discussed with Sherie last week, I am checking in ?midweekmeeting to continue our dialogue on possible MPS revisions. in furtherance of that effort, if there is anything more that Rick or Jim can provide or questions that can be answered in advance or prepared to answer at meeting please let me know or feel free to reach out to Rick and Jim directly. Thanks, Jeff. Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Dynegy 133 S. 4th, Suite 306 Springfield, lL 62701 217 519 - 4762 (Cellular) Jeff.ferrv@dynegy.com i=9; . 15163.! Lup? . 4-.-.- . nit?- Bloomber?, David E. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 11:18 AM To: Armitage, Julie Subject: Voicemail from Jim Ross Julie, I got a voicemail from Jim Ross asking if I knew any updates on where we are with the MP5 or when they might hear from us. I'm obviously not calling back unless you say so, but wanted you to know. (From the timing, he probably called right about the time I was asking you the same question in your office.) - David IEPA- DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 MED $02 A 8 0 (B )1 $72,000 (c Existing 2002 Actual HI eGrid annual 2002 MP5 Actual estimated Allowable 502 Emission allowed Emissions Proposed MP5 Units (all (mmbtu) maximum Actual 502 allowable 502 emissions using Emissions under BART per estimated to occur Cap shutdown (actual annual Hl (mmbtu/yr) Emissions (lbs/mmbtu) 2002 HI as calculated using USEPA 2012 SIP after imposition of units hours (allowable annual (tonshr) -No limit on ?representative? of MP5 limit and approval MPS per USEPA removed) 2,000/vr) hours 8,760 mmbtu/yr estimated future HI allowable Hi 2012 SIP Approval hrs/yr) Baldwin 1 43,884,000 61,320,000 0.19 4,169 5,825 Baldwin 2 37,135,000 54,312,000 0-19 3,528 5,160 Baldwin 3 46,403,000 59,568,000 0-19 4.408 5.559 Havana 28,514,000 50,457,600 0-19 2,709 4,793 . Hen nepin 1 4,684,000 8,234,400 0-19 445 782 Hennepin 2 17,575,000 26,280,000 0-19 1,670 2,497 Coffeen 1 18,570,000 33,436,920 0-23 2,136 3,845 - i - Coffeen 2 37,545,000 57,544,440 0-23 4,318 6,618 I - Duck Creek 22,635,000 44,045,280 0-23 2,603 5,065 . I - . - i . Edwards 2 17,222,000 29,091,960 0-23 1,981 3,346 Em issions . - . Edwards 3 15,972,000 40,243,440 0-23 1,837 4,628 . .loppa 1 13,548,000 21,462,000 0-23 1,558 2,468 a I . Joppa 2 16,258,000 21,462,000 0-23 1,870 2,468 to equal 10003 3 15,396,000 20,148,000 0-23 1,771 2,317 required . Joppa 4 13,402,000 20,148,000 0-23 1,541 2,317 BA RT 10003 5 15,094,000 20,148,000 0-23 1,736 2,317 ioppa 6 16,063,000 20,148,000 0-23 1,847 2,317 Newton 1 40,631,000 557253.240 0-23 4,673 7,504 420,531,000 653,303,280 237,761 69,926 140,968 78,386 56,000 Total tons/yr tons/yr tons/yr tons/yr tons/yr tons/yr Shutdowns (may also be able to use reductions associated with shutdown of Meredosia and Hutsonville in SIP demonstration): Retired Units 502 reductions - Ave. 0f 3 Highest since 2004 (tons/yr) 2011 Meredosia 0.: agcaage law 2011 Hutsonville 1 and 2 11,321 2015 Edwards 1 8,092 2016 Wood River 1 and 2 AUG 2 5 2017 9,139 2016/2017 Newton 2 6,500 TptaL Ill?11'. ,1 .475342 tons/yr Above retirements can be used in Regional Haze SIP to show reasonable further progress - girrentlv don?t appear to be. Additional 502 requirements: 1. 2. 3. CSAPR caps 502 and provides allowances to each Dynegy unit. CSAPR Cap 60,817 tons/yr (note: Per USEPA CSAPR better than BART) Consent Decree limits: 0.100 SOZ/mmbtu on Baldwin 1, 2, 3 and Havana 6 on 30 day rolling average much more stringent than the MPS. MATS limit in some permits: For acid gases, A. Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.9991 and Table 2 to Subpart 00000 of 40 CFR Part 63, emissions from the affected EGUs shall comply with one of the following limits: I. Emissions of SOzshall not exceed, as a 30-boiler operating day rolling average: a. 0.20 lb/mthu (mass per heat input); or b. 1.5 lb/MWh (mass per gross output). Acid Rain requirements. Potential Reg Haze RFP Projected Actual after Potential Reg Haze RFP revised MPS Projected Actual after revised (Option 1) MP5 (Option 2) Method used to estimate emissions Existing Units (all shutdown units removed) Consent Decree (CD) 2,194 (CD) 0.100 mmbtuhr 2,194 Baldwin 1 (MP5 0.19 lbs/mmbtu) (0.100 2002 2,000 IEPA method Baldwin 2 0.100 lbs/mmbtu (CD) 1,857 1,857 (CD) Baldwin 3 0.100 lbs/mmbtu (CD) 2,320 2,320 (CD) Havana 0.100 lbs/mmbtu (CD) 1,426 1,426 (CD) Hennepin 1 CSAPR or MP5 cap 706 (MP5) Hennepin 2 CSAPR or MP5 cap 2,592 (CSAPR cap combined) 2,253 (MPS) Coffeen 1 0.20 lbs/mmbtu MATS 1,857 2,866 (MP5) Coffeen 2 0.20 lbs/mmbtu - MATS 3,755 4,933 MP5) Duck Creek CSAPR or MP5 (MATS option) 2,810 (CSAPR cap) 3,775 (MP5) Edwards 2 MP5 Calculated by Hl/combined Hl*56,000 2,494 (MP5) Edwards 3 MP5 5,944 (MPS cap combined) 3,450 (MP5) Joppa 1 CSAPR or MP5 1,840 (MP5) Joppa 2 CSAPR or MP5 1,840 (MP5) Joppa 3 CSAPR or MP5 1,727 (MP5) Joppa 4 CSAPR or MP5 1,727 (MP5) Joppa 5 CSAPR or MP5 1,727 (MP5) loppa 6 CSAPR or MP5 9,903 (CSAPR cap combined) 1,727 (MP5) Newton 1 MP5 5,593 5,593 (MP5) Total Projected Actual Emissions after MPS revision 40,251 44,435 N0: A 3 0 (B (c El/2,000 Existing 2002 Actual HI eGrid annual 2002 MP5 Actual estimated Allowable Emission allowed Emissions Proposed MPS Units (all (mmbtu) maximum Actual N01: allowable emissions Emissions under BART per estimated to occur Cap shutdown (actual annual HI (mmbtu/vr) Emissions (lbs/mmbtul using 2002 HI as calculated using USEPA 2012 SIP after imposition of units hours (allowable annual (tons/yr) -No limit on "representative" of MP5 limit and approval MPS per USEPA removed) 2,000/vr) hours 8,760 mmbtu/vr estimated future HI allowable HI 2012 SIP Approval hrs/yr) Baldwin 1 43,334,000 61,320,000 0-10 Baldwin 2 37,135,000 54,312,000 0?10 Baldwin 3 46,403,000 59,563,000 0-10 Havana 23,514,000 50,457,600 0?10 . 0 I 0 Hennepin 1 4,634,000 3,234,400 0-10 I a I Hennepin 2 17,575,000 26,230,000 0-10 Coffeen 1 13,570,000 33,436,920 0-11 3 Coffeen 2 37,545,000 57,544,440 0-11 - Duck Creek 22,635,000 44,045,230 0-Edwards 2 17,222,000 29,091,960 0-Edwards 3 15,972,000 40,243,440 0-11 . allOWEd . .loppa 1 13,543,000 21,462,000 - . . Joppa 2 16,253,000 21,462,000 0-11 to equal Joppa 3 15,396,000 20,143,000 0-11 reqUIred .loppa 4 13,402,000 20,143,000 0-11 BA RT Joppa 5 15,094,000 20,143,000 0-11 loppa 6 16,063,000 20,143,000 0-11 Newton 1 40,631,000 55.253240 0-11 420,531,000 653,303,280 79,679 34,631 37,279 31,738 25,000 Total tons/yr tons/yr tons/yr tons/yr tons/yr tons/yr Shutdowns (may also be able to use reductions associated with shutdown of Meredosia and Hutsonville in SIP demonstration): Retired Units reductions - Ave. of 3 Highest since 2004 (tons/yr) 2011 Meredosia 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2,878 2011 Hutsonville 1 and 2 1,550 2015 Edwards 1 1,277 2016 Wood River 1 and 2 2,682 2016/2017 Newton 2 1,400 Total 9,787 tons/yr Above retirements can be used in Regional Haze SIP to show reasonable further progress - currentl don?t 3 Roccaforte, Gina From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:33 PM To: Davis. Rory Cc: Vetterhoffer, Dana; Roccalorte, Gina Subject: MP8 TSD I finished my review of the MPS TSD. Rory, please review, accept all changes (unless you disagree), and then address the various comments so we can easily see the new changes that are made. Thanks. a David State of ois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The formation contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorne - ormation or intern liberative staff comm I dressee. author ed use, disc? ure 0 Opying of this commgni ation or an partt ereof i strictly hibited a . ou have; ceived thi 0mm nic?'tion in error, notify th der immed el - destroy this com nication and all copies thereof, including attachmen s. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege. attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. Ma RECORDS IEPA - getcasAsLE AUG 2 5 2017 MED Roccaforte, Gina From: Davis, Rory Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 11:01 AM To: Gina Subject: MPS TSD The TSD in its current form is in the folder: N:\BOA\share\Regulations\MPS Considerations Rory A. Davis Environmental Protection Engineer Bureau of Air Illinois Environmental Protection Agency rorv.davis@illinois.gov (217)732-7397 Stat of ois - CONFIDEN ALITY NOTICE: Th information contained i - '5 communication is con?de 'al. may be atto ne ent privileged or attrney work prod t, constitute inside orm ion or internal deliber we 51 nic tion. an is intende only for the of th addressee. Una horized .- disclosure or pying oft 's unic tion or ny part ther of is strictl prohibite and may be awful. lfyo have receive is communiction in the senderi mediate by return e- ail and de my this comm nication a all copies thereo . inc uding II at chments. Receit by a unintended rec ient do not waive attorne -clie rivilege. attorney work IEPA- DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Roccaforte, Gina From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:39 AM To: Roccaforte. Gina Subject: FW: Docs Attachments: Support for and MP8 Revisions_ to lEPA_February_21 2017 ahl ATT00001.txt See below and attached. Thanks Dana From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:35 AM To: Becker, Bloomberg, David Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: FW: Docs review asap. Thanks. Share others as necessary. From: Elzinga, Sherrie Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:32 AM To: Armitage, Julie Subject: FW: Docs From: Ferry, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:31 AM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: [External] Docs ibited and may be turn e-mail and estroy this communication and al copies thereof, I'd-3? - Lx-xiquUJ MAN n' Rut AUG 2 5 2017 RLVIEWEFZ. March 22, 2017 Illinois MPS Proposed Rule Change - Negotiated Terms 1. The Illinois EPA will expeditiously seek changes to the Multi-Pollutant Standard (MP5) in a proposed rulemaking before the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Dynegy agrees to provide Illinois EPA with any and all technical/operational information needed to support the proposed rulemaking. 2. The MP5 proposal will combine the IPH and DMG MP5 groups into a single merged group. 3. The MPS proposal will replace the MP5 rate limits with the following permanent tonnage caps that will not be changed as the result of unit retirements: a. Annual 502 i. 55,000 tons for the merged MP5 group, and ii. Of that cap for the merged MP5 group, Joppa Power Station may not emit more than 19,860 tons 502 annually. b. Annual i. 25,000 tons for the merged MPS group c. Ozone season (May 1 September 30) N0): i. 11,500 tons for the merged MPS group, ii. A requirement to operate existing SCR control systems on operating units in accordance with good operating practices, and An ozone season average limit of 0.10 #NOx/mthu for the group of operating SCR units. 4. Newton Unit 2 will be removed from Newton?s CAAPP permit and a requirement to retire the unit may be included in the revised MPS rule. 5. Changes to the Illinois Mercury Rule with the federal MATS will not be included in this MP5 rule change proposal. Vetterho?er, Dana From: Vetterhoifer, Dana Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 1:17 PM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: FW: Question from Call Fyi, see below. I did end up saying she could let us know if further discussion is needed because I want her to know discussing over the phone is preferred. From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 1:10 PM To: Cipriano, Renee Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: Question from Call Hi Renee. We talked to David about this issue. You are correct, in part, that the requirement to operate SCRs year- round is needed to address concerns about transport. We think what might have been misunderstood, though, is how the MPS relates to that. The existing MP5 is already considered a part of the PM2.5 infrastructure SIP (which addresses transport) and is referenced in the document as one of the SIP-approved major programs related to interstate transport. It is partially because the MP5 is already in place that Illinois is able to state that no further actions will be necessary. The current MP5 effectively requires year-round operation of the SCRs, so it is important to note that such year-round operation will continue. We did not see this as a major concession on the part of Dynegy because Dynegy repeatedly indicated it intended to operate its control devices in much the same way as it already does - but Illinois EPA needs that requirement to be enforceable for the variety of reasons previously discussed, so it needs to be in the rule. If you?d like to discuss further, please let me know; it may be easier to schedule a call. Thanks Dana From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 11:02 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] Question from Call Hello. Thank you again for the time you provided to us to discuss the approach to the rule. We look forward to receiving the rule for review during stakeholder outreach. There was one thing that David said that caught our attention and we wanted to make sure we understood it. We had understood that the requirement to operate the SCRs year round was needed to satisfy the transport concerns of the Northeast states. As you know this was a big concession for the company. During our call, however, David said the requirement for year round SCR operation was NOT part of the State?s Good Neighbor transport SIP that is out for ?rst notice. If the requirement is not necessary at this point, can we remove it from the rule? Does the Agency have some other rationale for the requirement and if so, what is it? Again, this was a big concession and one that we feel was made to provide the Agency with a commitment that can be used to speci?cally address the transport concerns of the Northeast states. Please let us know the Agency?s thoughts on this issue. Thank you again. Renee DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELEASABLE Renee Cipriano AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Partner rcipriano@schiffhardin.com +1.312.258.5720 f+1.312.258.5600 Schiff Hardin LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 7100 Chicago, IL 60606 schiffhardin.com v-card view bio This message and any attachments may contain confidential Carney-alien or other privil Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 8:55 AM To: Marr, Linda Subject: FW: [External] MP5 Rule print From: Messina, Alec Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 8:34 AM To: Armitage, Julie Subject: Fwd: [External] MPS Rule Email 2 of 2 I've put this off for a bit, but I'm ready to start mulling. Take a look, and let's have a quick chat. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Ferry, Jeff? Date: November 7, 2016 at 1 1:09:56 AM CST To: Alec Messina Subject: [External] MPS Rule We have discussed this in the past but wanted to take your pulse on combining or merging the MPS groups, rules, and mixing Kincaid in the the overall Dynegy rule, since the MPS only applies to Dynegy. We are still looking at this internally, but are also wondering if it would be best approached by inserting into a large energy legislation package should the opportunity arise, running as separate bill, or managing via ?lings at and/0r IPCB. Thinking that the easier the route the better but am not sure what the easier route is as I am not sure what would be required by IEPA, IPCB if we Opted to go in that direction. As for legislation, if we are put on spot in next couple of weeks and need an additional ask, this could be worked into mix but would not do without getting some comfort level with you and Governor?s Of?ce of course. Thoughts. Happy to chat. Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Byling 133 S. 4th, Suite 306 Spring?eld, IL 62701 IEPA - DIVISION OF RECORDS HELL-.ASABLE 217 519 4762 (Cellular) Jeff.ferrv@dvne2v.com AUG 25 2017 REVIEWER: MED Armitage. Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 2:41 PM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: RE: IEPA Meeting We 3 can do Monday at 1:30. We 3 can do Thursday afternoon. Don't forget that I?d like to wedge Dana in somewhere on 2 grant appeals issues. I can do that around our checkin time if I have to. thanks From: Elzinga, Sherrie Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 2:32 PM To: Armitage, Julie Subject: FW: IEPA Meeting Julie -I am trying for December 14?1 in the afternoon for Ferry and Co. Also, what time on Monday 12/12 works for you and crew to meet with the Director? 1:30 looks good to knock off both topics. (Sorbent and Dynegy issues) From: Ferry, Jeff Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 2:05 PM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: [External] Re: IEPA Meeting Am checking. I think that it would be okay. Will let you know. Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Dynegy 133 S. 4th, Suite 306 Springfield, IL 62701 217 - 519 - 4762 (Cellular) Jeff.ferrv@dvneev.com From: "Elzinga, Sherrie" Date: Friday, December 9, 2016 at 1:52 PM To: Jeff Ferry Subject: RE: IEPA Meeting I think so. We may be able to do the afternoon of the Would that work? From: Ferry! Jerf - OF RECORDS Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 11:11 AM RELEASABLE To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: [External] Re: IEPA Meeting AUG 2 5 2017 Jim Ross has to be in St. Louis on Monday. Would 20th work? 1 Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Dynegy 133 S. 4th, Suite 306 Springfield, IL 62701 217 - 519 4762 (Cellular) Jeff.ferrv@dvneev.com ?Ca. From: "Elzinga, Sherrie" Date: Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 3:43 PM To: Jeff Ferry Subject: RE: IEPA Meeting Jeff? Not sure if Alec got back to you but we could definitely meet before Christmas. Let me check with Julie and see what works and get back to you. I would say the 19th or 20?'1 would be good for Alec. Thanks. Sherrie From: Ferry, Jeff [mailtoneff.FerLdeynegycom Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 8:56 AM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Cc: Messina, Alec Subject: [External] IEPA Meeting Would the agency have any availability over the next two weeks to meet with Dynegy to discuss options for addressing the MP5 rule. We are thinking about various options such as repeal, in light of federal rules that now supersede to a large extent, repeal and replace, merging the MPS groups, and pathways such as legislation and/or a hearing before the IPCB. Alec, anytime for coffee this week? Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Dynegy 133 S. 4th, Suite 306 Springfield, IL 62701 217 - 519 4762 (Cellular) State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be te inside information ori al deliberative-staff 3 . communic an 9 add 55 e. of this may eu awful. ave received this communication in error, ple o'yt troy this communication and all copies thereof, Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:20 AM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: FW: [External] MPS From: Ferry, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:15 AM To: Armitage, Julie Subject: [External] MPS Julie Rick and Jim are going to be in town on Friday for some meetings and are wondering if there would be any value to them stopping in up at IEPA to discuss MPS documents to answer any questions or address any preliminary concerns prior to a full meeting in coming week or so. Thanks, Jeff. Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Dvnegv 133 S. 4th, Suite 306 Springfield, IL 62701 217 - 519 4762 (Cellular) Jeff.ferm@dynegy.com 0F RECORDS MM. - DIVISION RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2m? MED Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 4:40 PM To: Ferry, Jeff; Messina, Alec Cc: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: RE: Dynegy and MP5 Revisions Hi Jeff. Sorry for the delayed response. BOA has nearly finalized its review of your proposal. At this time, I would guess that we could be ready to meet late next week or early the following week. Of course, the meeting will be dependent on respective schedule availability. I believe that Sherrie returns Monday. If we can place hold until then, she might be best situated to work on scheduling. Looking forward to the next dialogue. Take care. From: Ferry, Jeff [mailtoneff.Ferry@dynegy.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 9:48 AM To: Armitage, Julie; Messina, Alec Subject: [External] Dynegy and MP5 Revisions Greetings - As discussed with Sherie last week, I am checking in ?midweekmeeting to continue our dialogue on possible MPS revisions. In furtherance of that effort, if there is anything more that Rick or Jim can provide or questions that can be answered in advance or prepared to answer at meeting please let me know or feel free to reach out to Rick and Jim directly. Thanks, Jeff. Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Dvnegv 133 S. 4th, Suite 306 Springfield, IL 62701 217 519 4762 (Cellular) Jeff.feri_y@ dynegycom ?s - DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 9:53 AM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: RE: Dynegy Meeting with IEPA PJ and I can both do next Wednesday. If possible, we?d prefer to do it other than 9:30- 10:30. We will likely have Dana and David with us. From: Elzinga, Sherrie Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 8:54 AM To: Armitage, Julie Subject: FW: Dynegy Meeting with IEPA From: Ferry, Jeff mailto:Jeff.Fer ne .com Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 8:42 AM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Cc: Ross, James Diericx, Rick; Wilcoxon, Bruce; Ellis, Dean Subject: [External] Dynegy Meeting with IEPA I had discussion with Alec yesterday evening. He is not going to be available this week and suggested next Tuesday. I will be in Washington for meetings and he suggested Wednesday. I can fly back on Tuesday night and be here for a meeting next Wednesday. Any thoughts on times? I am checking with Rick and Jim as well and have included them in chain. Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Dynegy 133 s. 4th, Suite 305 Springfield, IL 52701 217 - 519 4762 (Cellular) Jeff.ferg@dynegy.corn in State of ois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney? ient privileged or attorney wor product, may stitute inside in ation or internal deliberative staff ati n, and is inte ded only fort use of the add ssee. Unauthoriz use, disclo/s or copying of this or any part ereoi is strict! prohibited and ay be unlawful. If ou have ceive this communication in ereoi, ient privilege. attorney work ma? Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 5:46 PM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: RE: tomorrow Hey, I just heard from Bloomberg that Jim indicated we won?t be meeting as there are ongoing assessments. They are still exchanging info us re some modelling developments. So, hopefully that is what you hear from Jeff. From: Elzinga, Sherrie Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 5:31 PM To: Ferry, Jeff (Jeff.Ferry@dynegy.com) Cc: Armitage, Julie Subject: tomorrow Jeff-just confirming that we do not need a meeting tomorrow at 2 PM. Thanks. Sherrie Sherrie Elzinga Chiel of Stall - Director?s Office Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Office: 217/782-1676 Sherrie.Elzinga@Illinoisgov State of linois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney lient privilege or attorney work product, may constitute inside mation or internal detiber aff comm i ation, an in nded only for the - a the addressee. Uuthori use, disclosure opying of com ni ation or ny pa thereof is stric prohibitd and may in nlawful. If have re 'ed this communica ion in error plese no the sen immedia - by return - mail a v. destroy this communication and all copies thereof, incl ing II a chments. Ft eipt unintended recr - tdoes not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product 'ge, or any other a - ption from disclosure. 1 Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 9:58 AM To: Becker, PJ Subject: RE: Dynegy Meeting with IEPA Yep. I put in our alert dana and david to save the clay not sure what time yet. From: Becker, PJ Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 9:42 AM To: Armitage, Julie Subject: FW: Dynegy Meeting with IEPA I am assuming she sent this to you as well, I am open next Wednesday besides 9:30-10:30 State - Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be atto ne client privil -c or attorney work prod ma onstitute inside informativ or int - deliberative staff co' mun otion, a is int ded only for the of the ad a see. Unauthorize se, disclosure 0 - ying of this mmuniation any part reof is strict prohibited and be unlaw . If you have received this co nitration in error, plea . - ify the senderi -- ediu ly by return e-mail and a this communication and all copies thereof, including a tachments. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. From: Elzinga, Sherrie Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 8:56 AM To: Becker, PJ Subject: FW: Dynegy Meeting with IEPA From: Ferry, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 8:42 AM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Cc: Ross, James Diericx, Rick; Wilcoxon, Bruce; Ellis, Dean Subject: [External] Dynegy Meeting with IEPA I had discussion with Alec yesterday evening. He is not going to be available this week and suggested next Tuesday. I will be in Washington for meetings and he suggested Wednesday. I can fly back on Tuesday night and be here for a meeting next Wednesday. Any thoughts on times? I am checking with Rick and Jim as well and have included them in chain. Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs - DIVISION or RECORDS DVnegV RELEASABLE 133 s. 4th, Suite 306 Springfield, IL 62701 AUG 2 5 2017 217 519 4762 (Cellular) jeffofeerdxnegnxom :1 Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 6:10 PM To: Bloomberg. David Vetterhoffer, Dana Are you two available Thursday pm to meet Dynegy. advise. Thanks. - DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 10:20 AM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: RE: I know. I'm going to assume she is okay and if not, we?ll roii without her. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:17 PM To: Armitage, Julie Subject: Re: I am. Dana won't be back til Tuesday to reply, though. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 9, 2017, at 6:10 PM, Armitage, Julie wrote: Are you two available Thursday pm to meet Dynegy. advise. Thanks. State i Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is conii ntial, may be attorney-client privileged or attorney work prod ct, may constitute insi - 'formation or in ma eliberative -. - communicatio a is intended only rt - use of the addrsee. Una th use, diclosur or copying I this - ommunicatio or any I: thereof is rictly proh ited an unlaw If you ve rece'ed this cmmunicat'n in error. ase no the sender im eiate by urn e-mail nd de my this co unic ?on and all copie - - eof, including all at me 5. ceipt by an un - - ded recipient -: ot waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work pr uct vi *ge, or any other exemption from disclosure. IEPA - OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 10:22 AM To: Elzinga, Sherrie David and are avail for Thurs pm Dynegy mtg. Dana likely is, but won?t return from vaca until Tues. Again, we need to exchange more info for any in person to serve a productive purpose. Thanks. Keep me posted. Thanks. IEPA - OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Monday, March 13. 2017 2:36 PM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: RE: Greetings Well we still haven?t seen anything from them. I thought we were holding Thurs in the event we're ready to might ask him when he thinks they'll be ready. From: Elzinga, Sherrie Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 1:47 PM To: Armitage, Julie Subject: FW: Greetings Let?s discuss From: Ferry, Jeff Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 1:17 PM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: [External] Greetings Sherrie wanted to check and see where we were in terms of another meeting? I can look at other times and dates if those provided previously do not work. Just let me know. Thanks Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Dynegy 133 S. 4th, Suite 306 Springfield, IL 62701 217 - 519 - 4752 (Cellular) OF RECORDS RELEASAULE AUG 2 5 2017 MED IDENTIALIT NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be com Iunic tion, nd is 'ntended only addressee. Unau orized use, discl or copying of com unic tion or any rt thereof is ictly prohibite nd may be unlawf If you have receiv this communicatio errg pleas otiiy the by return 9- and destroy this 0 munication and al copies thereof. incl ding all attachments. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege. attorney work pro uct privilege. or any other exemption from disclosure. ll? Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 9:44 AM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: RE: Draft That works. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 2:25 PM To: Ross, James Subject: RE: Draft Jim, Ididn't have a chance today (as you may remember, it?s my early day) and I am out of the office on Monday. Maybe we can set up something Tuesday, but I have a few meetings on the calendar already. From: Ross, James Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 9:52 AM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: [External] Draft What's a good time to call you on this either later today or Monday (hopefully)? Thanks. . sure copying of this received ommunication in eas not? the se er im ediately by return e-mail and destroy this communication and all copies here'ch.? product privilege. or any other exemption irorn disclosure. AGEMENT - DIVISION OF RECORDS MAN IEPA REI EASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Armitage, Julie From: Elzinga, Sherrie Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:56 PM To: Armitage, Julie Subject: FW: call FYI From: Ferry, Jeff Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:31 PM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: [External] Re: call Renee is reviewing our updated document. I had hoped to have it to you today but it is looking like early tomorrow. i will be in touch early tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Dynegy 133 S. 4th, Suite 306 Springfield, IL 62701 217 519 4762 (Cellular) Jeff.ferrv@dvnegv.com From: "Elzinga, Sherrie" Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 9:36 AM To: Jeff Ferry Cc: "Armitage, Julie" Subject: RE: call Hi Jeff? 2 PM on Thursday works for us. Alec is available and will attend along with Julie and staff. Thanks. Sherrie From: Ferry, Jeff [mailtoneff.Ferg@dynegy.com] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 5:30 PM To: Elzinga, Sherrie cc. Armitage Julie DIVISION OF RECORDS RELEASABLE Subject: [External] Re: call Afternoon on TH would work for us. Thanks AUG 2 5 20V Jeffrev A- Ferry EVI EWE R: Senior Director State Government Affairs Dynegy Inc 2604 Parsley Lane Spring?eld lL 62711 217-519-4762 (cell) fergg.ieff@comcast.net ieff.ferrv@dvnegv.com On Feb 17, 2017, at 4:28 PM, Elzinga, Sherrie wrote: I need to move a few things but I think we could do Thursday afternoon. Possibly 2 PM. I will confirm on Tuesday morning. Thanks. Sherrie From: Ferry, Jeff Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 1:45 PM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: [External] Re: call Thanks for setting up call. We chatted but did not discuss a tentative time for meeting on Thursday. We are generally open. Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Dynegy 133 S. 4th, Suite 306 Springfield, IL 62701 217 - 519 4762 (Cellular) Jeff.ferrv@ dvnegy.com From: "Elzinga, Sherrie" Date: Friday, February 17, 2017 at 10:36 AM To: Jeff Ferry <'eff.fer ne .com> Subject: call Hi Jeff Alec is delayed. Are you still OK for a call? Sherrie Sherrie Elzinga Chief of SIalf Director?s Office Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Office: 217/782-1676 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is -- rmation and. may unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and destroy this wing/Eamon and all copies thereof, including all I Bloomberg, David E. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 9:20 AM To: Ross, James Cc: Becker, PJ Subject: RE: call this morning Jim, We checked with FOIA this morning, found that they hadn?t sent you the documents yet, and had them do so. So they should be in your hands at this point. Hopefully, that gives you the information you need. If you still need to talk, we can do that too. - David From: Ross, James Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 6:52 AM To: Bloomberg, David p.j.becker@illinois.gov Subject: [External] call this morning Do either or both of you have time for a quick call this morning? Earlier the better. Thanks. DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELI- AEAJLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Bloomberg, David E. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:52 PM To: Becker, PJ Subject: RE: [External] time today Works for me. From: Becker, PJ Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:36 PM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: FW: [External] time today 1:30 in my office work for you? Bring Rory if you want. PJ State of a . 0? CE: The information contained this communication is confidential, ma be attorne clien privileged or torney product, may constitu inside 'nformotion or internal delibero - staff com nicotio and is int ded only for use of the addres e. Unoutho ?zed use, disclosure or mg of this unicotio or any rt thereof is stric prohibited on may be unlowfu . i you have rece' -- this communication in error, please a tifyt - sender immediately return - oil and destroy this co -- a? - 'n and all copies thereof, including all at ac ents. Receipt by an unint recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. LA) From: Ross, James Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:34 PM To: Becker, PJ Subject: RE: [External] time today OK sounds good. Talk to you then. From: Becker, PJ Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:03 PM To: Ross, James Cc: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: Re: [External] time today OF RECORDS ANA RELEASABLE GEMENT EXTERNAL EMAIL AUG 2 5 2017 How does 1:30 work for you? We can call you Sent from my iPhone On Feb 28, 2017, at 10:04 AM, Ross, James wrote: For us to brie?y talk? David should likely be there also. I can call. Let me know. Thanks. State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged or attorney work product, may constitute inside information or internal deliberative staff communication, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Unauthorized use. disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error. please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy this communication and all copies thereof. including all attachments. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege. attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. This email originated from outside of Dynegy. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and are con?dent the content is safe. Bloomberg, David E. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:33 PM To: Ross, James Subject: Re: [External] Mp5 meeting I understand that Gina and Renee worked out a meeting time. Sent from my iPhone On May 18, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Ross, James wrote: Are you able to meet on Monday or Tuesday? If yes, 10 am or 1:00 work best for start times. Let me know. Thanks. IEPA- DIVISION OF M- RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER MED Bloom berg, David E. From: Sent: To: Subject: Bloomberg, David E. Monday, June 12, 2017 11:30 AM Ross, James Re: [External] RE: time for quick call today? Unfortunately I can't right now. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 12, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Ross, James wrote: Can she do now? From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 11:03 AM To: Ross, James Subject: RE: time for quick call today? EXTERNAL EMAIL Not sure. My understanding is that communication is still through the attorneys, so I?d need to check with them for availability. I believe Gina is out at 2:15 for at least a little while before coming back. From: Ross, James Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 11:02 AM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: [External] time for quick call today? OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT AUG 2 5 2017 With Rick and I. At 2, 2:30, or 3? REVIEWER: MED State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY E: The information contained in this communication is confidntiai, a be attorney-client - vilege or attorney work pr ay constitute inside information or int nal elibrative staff com nicalion. a is intended for the se of the addressee. Una ho? ed u, disclosure a copying of thi communic on or any pa thereof is strictl hibited and . be unlwful. Ii yo ave received this ommu' ation in error, pl ase notiiyt - ender im eiately by eturn e- ail and destroy this so nication and all copie er a Including all attac ments. Ft eipt an unintended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, . ny other exemption from disclosure. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Dynegy. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and are con?dent the content is safe. Bloomberg, David E. From: Ross, James Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 2:33 PM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: [External] RE: Draft 0K how about around 9 or 10 Tuesday? Just a quick call. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 2:25 PM To: Ross, James Subject: RE: Draft EXTERNAL EMAIL Jim, I didn?t have a chance today (as you may remember, it?s my early day) and I am out of the office on Monday. Maybe we can set up something Tuesday, but i have a few meetings on the calendar already. From: Ross, James Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 9:52 AM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: [External] Draft What's a good time to call you on this either later today or Monday (hopefully)? Thanks. State of CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The i ormation contained in this communication is confidential, may be a orney-cli pr ileged or attorney work pro may stitute inside information or internal - - ?berative staff uimuni tion, a - is intended only for th se of the addr see. Unauthorized use, discl re or ing of this cmmun' ation or a part thereof is str? prohibited and be unlawful. If you hav ceiyed this co munication in or, ase notifyt - sender imme'tely by return email an estroy this commu' ation and all copies thereof, in lud' 9 all attachme s. Receip an unintended recipient doe ive .- ey-client privilege. attorney work pr . ct privilege, or any a - xemption from disclosure. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Dynegy. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and are con?dent the content is safe. IVISIONI OF REFORDS fr. i RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 MED Armitage, Julie From: Elzinga, Sherrie Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:29 PM To: Becker. Armitage. Julie Subject: FW: Meeting From: Ferry, Jeff Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 12:25 PM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: [External] Meeting Update- Rick and Jim had a meeting this morning with staff to review modeling and discuss some tech matters. Sense was that we are getting close. We will be prepared to answer any questions from agency once we receive. We understand that David will be out next We-Fri. Can we target Monday or Tuesday of next week for next meeting? If not, we can look at early the following week. Thoughts Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Dynegy Inc 2604 Parsley Lane Spring?eld IL 62711 217-519-4762 (cell) ferry.jeff@comcast.net jeff.ferry@dynegy.com State a II no - CONFIDENTIALITY I ICE: The information contained in this communication is con?dential, may be attor ey clien privileged or at rney wo . product, may constitute insid nfor tion or internal deliberative com icatio and is inten only for th - use of the addressee. Un thorized us disclosure or copying is com nication or any pa hereof is strictly - ohibited and may unlawful. If you received this munication in please otify the ender immediately eturn e-mail destroy this communl 'n . - . copies thereof, including all atta men . Receipt by an unintende does twaive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, - . ny other exemption from disclosure. )6 WV Vetterhaffer, Dana From: Becker, PJ Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:48 AM To: Vetterhoffer. Dana Subiect: FW: Dynegy pre-meeting Oops meant to go to you State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be att ney-clie tp ivileged or attorne -- rk product, may constitutei 'e information or internal de 'erative staff com unicaion, is intended a ly for ?e use of the addressee naut arized use, disclosure copyin of this com unic tion or ny part the of is strict - prohibited and be unlawf If you have eived this com unication in error plese notify - he send immediately eturn e-rna' nd destroy this ca - a tion and all copies thereof, inclu 'n all attachm - . Receipt by an uninten - - - 'ient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. I From: Becker, PJ Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:12 AM To: Bloomberg, David E. Bloomberg, David E. Armitage, Julie Subject: Dynegy pre-meeting Let's meet in my office 9:15 to chat about Dynegy and then we can all walk over from here - thanks. State - Iinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The informatio -- tained in this communication is confidential, may be at ey- Iient privilege a a orney work product, ma onstit te inside information or - I deliberative staff cIf muniation, andi ntende only for the use of - addressee. Unauthorized use, sclosure 0 copying of this mmuni - tion or a part ther is strictly proh'rted and may a unlawful. If have received communication in 'Irror, plea notify the sender im diater turn e-mail and de my this mmunication and all copies thereof, including a lotto hments. Receipt by a - . ntended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product pr: ile: e, or any other exemption from disclosure. IEPA - DIVISION OF RECO RDS RELEASABLE MENT AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWEH: MED Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Tuesday. March 14.201712z11 PM To: Armitage, Julie Cc: Bloomberg, David E. Subiect: I?m available then. From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Thursday, March 09,. 2017 6:10 PM To: Bloomberg, David Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: Are you two available Thursday pm to meet Dynegy. advise. Thanks. State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY I CE: The information conta' - i In '3 communication is confidential, may be attorn -c ient rivileged or attorn ork pr uct. may constitute' side inform ion or internal deliberative - com 1 ice :nd is intende nly for the - of the addres e. Unauthorized e, disclosure orc of this co niction 0 any part - reoi is strictly pro 'ited an ay be unlawful. It you ve receiv a :3 communication in error, a: se notif the se er immediately by return e-mail and destroy this communica Ion and all copies thereof, inclui - all attach - . Receipt by an unintended recipient does not attorney-client privilege, attorney work prod privilege. or any other exemption from disclosure. ma Vetterho?er, Dana From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 8:54 AM To: Vetterhofier, Dana Subject: RE: Dynegy meeting OK, thanks. From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 8:49 AM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: Dynegy meeting Gina is on the board as coming in late. I emailed her and asked that, if she gets in anytime between 9:30 and 11, she join the meeting. Thanks, Dana Vetterhoffer Deputy General Counsel, Air Regulatory Unit Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (217)782-5544 fax: (217)782-9807 This e?mail and its contents may be a confidential attorney-client, attorney work product and/or pre-decisional FOIA-exempt document intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not an/the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error, please be advised that any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. State of ois CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney- 9. rivileged a torney work pr i uct, ay constitute ins' 'niormation or internal deliberative staff commu . Ion, and is i and only forth use oft addressee. nauthrized use, disclosure - ing of this commu tion a any art threof is stri ly prohibite and may unlawful. fyou have rec' this co unication in error, - -- se noiy th sender immedi ely by return mail a i destroy this 0 ?munic and all copies th includ' c. all atta nts. Fiecipt unintended reCIi ideas not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work produ privilege any other a . - - ption from disclosure. /0 WW Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterho?er, Dana Sent: Monday, March 27. 2017 2:08 PM To: Bloomberg. David E. Subject: Dynegy meeting with Alec Importance: High Hi David. Alec called me and said Julie is in his office and he?d like us to come over to discuss Dynegy. Are you available? Thanks, Dana Vetterhoffer Deputy General Counsel, Air Regulatory Unit Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (217)782-5544 fax: (217)782-9807 . - orney work product and/or pre-decisional - - - . -- -. .--. -. ceiyedthise-mailinerror, Is prohibited. Mgo DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAG l' RELEASABLE VENT AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER. MED Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, April 03. 2017 9:05 AM To: Fioccaforte, Gina Subject: FIE: Let me know when you have a few minutes to talk Dynegy language. Thanks. I have a few minutes Thanks, Dana From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 9:01 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: Let me know when you have a few minutes to talk Dynegy language. Thanks. State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attrn ~client privileged or attorney wo roduct, may constitute in s- ormation or internal delibe - - aff co nication a dis intended only use of the addresse nautho' ed use, disclosure - copying of co - nicatio or part thereof? strictly - ohibited and - unlawful. If u- have *2 - ed this communication in er 0 lease otify senderi ediately by turn e-m' . nd destroy this communication and all copies thereof, in mg a attachrn ts. Fiec pt by an unintende - Ipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work produ - vilege,ora otrexemptionfromdisclosure.?D JAGEMENT - 0F RECORDS MAI IEPA DIV RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 9:52 AM To: Becker, Bloomberg, David Vetterhoffer, Dana don?t think y0u have yet rec?d a calendar notice however, there is a Dynegy today at 1 in D0 on the reg proposal matter. I have a 10 in DO so if you don?t see me before the pm mtg, just head on over. Thanks. Stat? of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY The information contained in this communication is confidential. may be atto ey Ilient privileg - or attorney work may constitute inside i tion or internal deliberative it co - iation,and' innded only for a use an the addressee. Un . orize se, disclosure or cop of this co rn iation or . pa thereof is ctly prohib ed and may be .. lawful. It you ave received communication in err r, lese noti - the senerimmiately by return -mail an estroy this commun - a all copies thereof, inc Ing att hments. . -e an unintended rec: - does not waive attorney-client privilege. attorney work pr - ct pri' ge, or any other exemption from disclosure. IEPA DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELL-AFABLI: AUG 25 2017 REVIEWER: MED Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:34 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana; Davis, Fiory Subject: RE: Meet to discuss Dynegy You have a strange idea of what ?fun? is. From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:32 PM To: Davis, Rory; Bloomberg, David E. Subject: RE: Meet to discuss Dynegy Sounds fun. From: Davis, Rory Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:28 PM To: Bloomberg, David Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: RE: Meet to discuss Dynegy Sure. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:28 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana; Davis, Rory Subject: Meet to discuss Dynegy Do you want to meet to discuss the Dynegy numbers at 3:00? State of TY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be atto ne -C l nt or atto - ?on or internal deliberative staff com - - use of the addresse I nauthorized - disclosure or copyin f. this com or any part ereof is strictly - hibited and . be unlawful. If you have - -: ommunication in . ny other exemption from disclosure [9 product privilege, IEPA- DIVISION OF RECORDS RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Tuesday. January 24, 2017 9:33 AM To: Armitage, Julie; Becker, Bloomberg, David E. Subject: Fievions to Mercury Rule: Boone Memo Attachments: Boone Memo re Impact of Averaging Time 12-9-11.pdf Hi all. Attached is the memo that Dynegy quoted on p. 1 of its submittal regarding the impact of emissions averaging time on the stringency of emission standards. Thanks, Dana Vetterhoffer Acting Deputy General Counsel, Air Regulatory Unit Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (217)782-5544 fax: (217)782-9807 rasgogsun itN AUGZ5 [117 ME) MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: The Impact of Emissions Averaging Time on the Stringency ol'an Emission Standard FROM: Stephen Boone, Roy Neulicht. and .Ieft'Cole. RTI TO: Bill Maxwell, EPA, SPPD, Energy Strategies Group DATE: December 9. 20 1 Purpose These analyses were conducted on the Part ll CEMS data to evaluate the impact of averaging time on variability and to ?predict? the UPL value for different averaging times for the MACT ?oor Facilities. This predictive tool has not been previously used and is intended to "ground truth? the variability estimated by the UPL calculation methodology. These analyses are not the result of additional statistical analyses of the stack testing data collected under Part II or any data received under Part Ill, directly. Note: These results have not been through an extensive QA. General Approach I. Part II data from 87 units were evaluated for data completeness and hours ?agged as invalid were removed prior to conducting any calculations. For each unit, each hour of data was evaluated to determine the operating load (gross MW) and to determine if zero emissions were reported for the hour. Hours of zero reported emissions were excluded from the calculation of daily averages. Hours were classified as startup or shutdown periods if the gross megawatts recorded for the hour were less than 5 percent of the maximum hourly generating rate recorded in the data set. These hours were not included in the calculation of daily averages. Daily averages were calculated in accordance with Equation 19-l9 from Method 19. Contiguous six-hour periods of valid CEMS data at operating conditions equivalent to typical stack testing conditions steady-state flow rate and steady load at greater than 90 percent of the maximum recorded operating load) were used to calculate all the short-term emission rate averages occurring in the data set that were analogous to short-term stack test averages; these periods are referred to as ?surrogate stack tests? in this memo. IEPA OF RECORDS RELEASABLE EMENT AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED DELIBERATIVE - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION PRELIMINARY RESULTS, CIA CHECKS NOT COMPLETED 5. All averaging periods calculated (30-day, 60-day, 90-day, ISO-day, and 360-day) excluded startup and shutdown periods. 6. For each averaging period analyzed. the variability ratio of [the 99lh percentile long-term average] to [the 3'd percentile surrogate stack test value] was calculated for each operating unit with a sufficient number of hourly records to calculate at least one long?term period. These percentiles were used to eliminate outliers in the data sets. 7. The variability ratios for all units within a given averaging period data set were used to develop a general equation defining the relationship between the 99th percentile long-term average and the near-minimum achieved surrogate stack test. The general form of the equation is presented as Equation l: [Equation 1] Cx'z Where the estimated long term emissions average it the near-minimum short-term emissions average 2 was a calculated exponent derived from all available CEMS hourly data. was a calculated coef?cient derived from all available EMS hourly data. 8. For each averaging period analyzed, the general equation, developed in step 6, was used to transform short-term emissions data for each unit floor into an estimate of the 99?h percentile .long-tenn performance for the ?oor unit. The transformed estimates were calculated by inserting the minimum actual stack test data from each ofthe 47 units into the general equation from step 6. Appendix A of this memorandum only includes the two plots utilized to determine the equation for transforming MACT floor stack test averages to 30-day averages. The attached spreadsheets contain the plots of all other averaging periods. 9. The upper predictive limit for each long-term average Hg emissions rate was calculated for the ?oor units using the equation from step 6. Only the minimum test value row 5 in the UPL spreadsheet) was used; all other stack test rows previously used to determine unit- speciflc variability were excluded. Conclusion Table presents the results of the analysis of what the Hg MACT floor for existing coal units would look like if EPA decides to promulgate a compliance period longer than 30 days. As shown in Table l, the amount of data available for each averaging period analysis varied. For example, only 23 units had sufficient data to calculate at least one 360-day average. Since the objective ofthis analysis was to compare achievable emissions rates based on the duration ofthe DRAFT DELIBERATIVE NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION PRELIMINARY RESULTS, 0A CHECKS NOT COMPLETED averaging period, the analysis used only the 23 units with suf?cient data to calculate all averaging periods as a ?control? to assess the impact of comparing the different data sets. Table Calculated with All Available Data Average Period Available CEMS Calculated UPL (days) Data Sets With All Available CEMS Data (lb 30' 87 1.1 lE-06 60 83 1.01 E-06 90 77 9.13E-07 180 66 8.04E-07 360 23 7.60E-07 To quantify the effect ofthe reduction in the count ofavailable datasets with suf?cient data as the averaging periods increase, the analysis also includes a series of UPL calculations using only the ?control? data set. Table 2 presents a comparison of the calculated UPLs for each averaging period without the analytical artifacts caused by the limited availability of very long-term semi-annual and annual) CEMS data. Table 2 Calculated with Control Data (23 Units Only) Average Period Available CEMS Calculated UPL (days) Data Sets With Control CEMS Data (lb 302 23 1.32E-06 60 23 1.l3E-06 90 23 1.03E-O6 180 23 9. 360 23 7.60E-07 The data in Table 2 confirms that an appropriate ratio between a 30-day compliance period and a 360-day compliance period is approximately 60 percent. This is consistent with the ratio Note that the data set of 87 units utilized to derive the UPL of 1.1 lE-06 is presented in Appendix A, Figure A-l. Note that the data set of 23 units utilized to derive the UPL of 1.32E-06 is presented in Appendix A. Figure A-2. 3 DELIBERATIVE - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION PRELIMINARY RESULTS, QA CHECKS NOT COMPLETED achieved by San Juan Unit 4 based on the maximum averages recorded by CEMS with no statistical variability added. SanJuan Unit 4 - ORIS Code 2451 y: Avg [b5 by CEMS Maximum Ave rages for 1day to 360 day averaging periods. 1.6E-06 1.4 E-DG 1.2E-06 1.0E-05 1 2 8.0507 0.9806 6.0 4'05? 2.0E-Days in Ave ragng Period Figure l.-San Juan Unit 4 Actual CEMS Dala Averages Appendix A Typical Data Sets Used to Derive Average Data Sets DRAFT - DELIBERATIVE - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION PRELIMINARY RESULTS, CIA CHECKS NOT COMPLETED ?0 - .A . - Figure A-l: Relationship Between Minimum Single Point Stack Tests and 30 Day Rolling Averages Based on Hg CEMS Data for 87 Units 140.0 - - y= (30 Day Rolling Surrogate for Stack Test) 120.0 100.0 - 6hr Surrogate: 3rd Percentile (0.03) 30 Day Rolling Aug: 99th Percentile (0.99) 300 1.1 E-06 60.0 40.0 - 0.0032x-0-521 R2 0.7323 20.0 x: Surrogate Stack Test (lbs A a -7 I ?1 2.0E-06 4.0506 6.0E-06 8.05-06 1.0E-05 1.2E-05 1.4E-05 1.65-05 DRAFT DELIBERATIVE NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION PRELIMINARY RESULTS, OA CHECKS NOT COMPLETED 140.0 1 20.0 100.0 80.0 00.0 20.0 0.0 Figure A-Z: Relationship Between Minimum Single Point Stack Tests and 30 Day Rolling Averages Based on Hg CEMS Data for 23 y: (30 Day Rolling Surrogate forStack Test) . Control Data Set Same 23 Units Used in 360 Day Average Analysis 6hr Surrogate: 3rd Percentile (0.03) 30 Day Rolling Aug: 99th Percentile (0.99) UPL 1.32 5-06 9: fl2 0.8326 x: Surrogate Stack Test (lbs 8.0E-06 LEE-95 Davis, Rog From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: David, Russo, Andrew Monday, January 30, 2017 9:44 AM Bloomberg, David Davis, Rory Sims, Jackie DMG MMPS Historic Unit Operations I have put the file whose path is shown below into the shared folder: \BOA\share\Regulations\MPS Considerations\DMG Historical Operations.xlsx An example of the contents follows: 50; Tons 502 Re Unit Facility Name ID 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2011 2012 201 Baldwin Energy Complex 1 A 7,332 1,591 1,513 1,213 1,503 1,275 0.38813 0.07279 0.07t Baldwin Energy Complex 2 9,974 6,765 1,714 1,490 1,062 1,577 0.44238 0.35172 0.071 Baldwin Energy Complex 3 1,753 1,847 1,576 1,706 1,595 1,168 0.06903 0.07624 0.07! Coffeen 0.00298 0.00444 0.00! Coffeen 0.00279 0.00347 0.00: Duck Creek 0.01383 0.02346 0.01! Edwards 2 4,900 4,871 4,107 4,021 3,609 2,306 0.46842 0.54484 0.45: Edwards 3 5,548 4,958 4,852 4,244 2,826 3,584 0.43870 0.52541 0.43( Havana 9 I 7,784 5,814 1,130 1,068 858 1,141 0.42266 0.35283 0.065 Hennepin Power Station 1 1 1,489 1,313 883 1,002 1,048 1,099 0.50409 0.49963 0.48: Hennepin Power Station 2 4,601 4,593 3,396 2,959 2,922 2,966 0.50259 0.50185 0.48! Joppa Steam 1 4,506 3,005 2,843 3,080 2,360 1,576 0.62597 0.47378 0.453 Joppa Steam 2 3,695 2,918 2,741 3,093 2,131 1,562 0.62420 0.47287 0.45: Joppa Steam 3 4,325 2,727 2,622 2,950 2,070 911 0.63469 0.48595 0.45: Joppa Steam 4 0 4,536 3,007 2,783 3,137 2,268 1,333 0.63194 0.48391 0.453 Joppa Steam 5 4,527 2,521 2,802 2,866 2,332 1,015 0.61693 0.46516 0.45! Joppa Steam 6 4,591 2,812 2,751 3,154 2,070 1,237 0.61512 0.46623 0.45! Newton 1 10,817 10,538 7,270 8,126 6,938 4,827 0.54788 0.59054 0.46! Newton 2 10,054 5,981 8,865 8,291 5,867 2,916 0.55100 0.58824 0.474 Proposed MMPS Group 90,682 65,662 52,189 52,673 41,574 30,526 0.37597 0.30475 0.23! IEPA ownsrow OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT 502 Tons by Unit AUG 2 5 2017 12.000 g" 10,000 Davis. Rory From: Becker, PJ Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 7:50 AM To: Davis, Rory Cc: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: table Rory - Can you give me a copy of table that had the ?mistakes? in them that we discussed yesterday, thanks. PJ State NOTICE: The information contained in this communicat' - .- idential, may be attor ey-cl'nt pr ileged or attorney war rodu - may constitute inside informatio rinternal de rative staff com nix ation, a is intended only the use oft - - addressee. Unauthorized e, disclosure or copy: of this com a ication or a part thereof strictly prahibite and may be unlawful you have received this comm ication in erro lease notify senderi ediately by return e- il and destroy l5 communication and all copies thereof, incl - ng all attachm ts. Re ipt by an unintended recipien .- .- - . a waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work pr ct privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. NV IEPA- DIVISION OF RECORDS MAN RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Davis, Rom From: Davis, Rory Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:53 PM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: RE: 1:30 call with Jim? Should be fine. I?ll be there. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:52 PM To: Davis, Rory Subject: 1:30 call with Jim? Are you available for a call with Jim at 1:30? It'll be in PJ's office. State of "Ii :5 - ONFIDENTIALITY NOTIC. ormation contained in this communicatio onfidentiat. may be attorney- tent pr iieged or attorney wor roduct, ma constitute inside information or i - nal delibe tive staff co ication, -. is intended only the use of the adressee. Unauthorized disctosure or cop of this nication 0 any part thereo strictly prohibited an may be unlawful. If have received this co unication in r, please notif the sender mediater by return e-mai nd destroy communication and all cepies thereof, including all attach ents. Ft eipt by an unintended recipien - .- - - - waive attorney-ctient privilege. attorney work product privilege, er exemption from disclosure. WI) IEPA- DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Davis, Rom From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 2:06 PM To: Davis, Rory Subject: Re: [External] MPS Revision-?Requested Information Have you reviewed these numbers yet? What are your thoughts? Sent from my iPhone On May 25, 2017, at 8:38 AM, Vetterhoffer, Dana wrote: See below and the attached. From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:02 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina; Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: [External] MPS Revision-~Requested Information Dear Dana and Gina. Please ?nd attached the information requested on unit allocation in the event of a transfer. Please call with any questions. I will review the narrative portion of the draft rule revision as contained in the Agency?s draft tomorrow. Sorrytoday! Best, Renee Renee Cipriano Partner Schiff Hardin LLP 312.253.5720 233 South Wacker Drive 312.258.5600 Suite 6600 Chicago, Il. 60606 schiffhardinrom in error, he mes in IEPA- DIVISION OF RECORDS MAN AG RELEASABL WENT Meg/?0 AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED ntained in this communication is is intended only for this communication or any thereof is strictly prohibited eived this communicatio error, plea er 1 Roccaforte, Gina From: Frost. Brad Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:17 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: Inquiries Yep, will do From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:08 PM To: Frost, Brad Subject: RE: Inquiries Dana has a meeting scheduled for next Thursday, I believe, so if possible, by next Wednesday. Does that work for you? From: Frost, Brad Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:06 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: Inquiries What is the timeframe to get you the requested info? . DIVISION From: Roccaforte, Gina RELEASABLE Em Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:04 PM To: Frost, Brad Subject: Inquiries AUG 2 5 20V Hi Brad' MED As to Illinois Power Holdings, LLC (a subsidiary of Dynegy), which now owns and operates the Coffeen, Duck Creek, Newton, Edwards, Joppa, Baldwin, Havana and Hennepin plants, do you know if any of these plants are located in El areas? Also, do you by any chance have an outreach list pertaining to the Illinois mercury rule or, if not, an outreach list for informing those interested in BOA rulemakings involving power plants? Thank you very much! Gina This e-mail, and any documents attached or included hereto, is a con?dential attorney-client, attorney work product and/or pre-decisional FOIA-exempt document intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed, and should be handled accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use. dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-maii is strictly prohibited. if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify: Gina Roccaforte Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 N. Grand Ave. East PO. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544 (217) 782-9807 fax NTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be att hey-client pr' 'eged - attorney work product, may const' - 'de information or internal deliberative staff co municatio and is inte ded only for the use of the a a essee. Un thorized use, disclosure or co ,ying-ef, this cmmunica 'n or any part 1 ereof is strictly prohibit a and may be unla uI. If you have?glgixr?d this communication in a ror, ple . notify the send immediately by e-mail and destroy thI . --. and all copies thereof, i clud? 9 all attachments. Recipt by an nded recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work u. a ct privilege or any other - - from disclosure. Mg? Roccaforte, Gina From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:31 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] RE: Rule Revision Great. I will try you after lunch or tomorrow if I miss you! From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:09 PM To: Cipriano, Renee Subject: RE: Rule Revision Thanks, Renee! Yes, it looks very helpful. Feel free to call me at your convenience to chat. l'm in all week. Gina .-nd any document attached or included hereto, is a confidential attorney-client, attorn work product and/or -deci onl FOlA?exemp oc ent intended solely for us fthe individual to whom it ddres d, and should be . a acco dingly. yu are not he Int ded reCIpIent. advised at you have received e-m . error and that any use, diseminatio fo rding, printing or a yin a this e-mail is strictly proh' ited. If you have received this e-mail in error, ease notify: Gina Roccaforle Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 N. Grand Ave. East PO. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544 (217) 782-9807 fax From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:07 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] Rule Revision Hi Gina! I thought the attached might be helpful to you. Do you have time to chat this week? Thanks! Renee Renee Cipriano Partner Schiff Hardin LLP 312.258.5720 233 South Wacker Drivi'EPA' 0F RECORDS Hardln Suite 6600 RELEASABLE Chicago, IL 60606 schiffhardin.com AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Proposed MP5 Group Simpli?ed Corporate Structure 1 Dynegy Inc. i Dynegy Coal Holdco, I. LLC IPH LLC IPH, LLC Dynegy Coal Investments i Holdings, LLC Illinois Power Resources, LLC Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC "linOiS POWEF Generating Illinois Power Resources Company 3 Generating, LLC Electric Energy, I Inc. Elmer/operator Plant(s) Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC Baldwin, Havana, Hennepin Power Generating Company Coffeen, Newton Duck Creek, Edwards Illinois Power Resources Generating, LLC Electric Energy, Inc. J_oppa 4/6/2017 Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Becker, PJ Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 10:01 AM To: Bloomberg, David E.: Vetterhotfer, Dana Subject: FW: Dynegy Meeting with IEPA Try to keep next Wednesday open for tuned. State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney- tprivileged or attorney work a I. may constitute inside information or internal deliberative staff It rnu Icati n, and is intended only the use of addressee. Unauthorized use, dis -.- . - .- opying of this I: nicotio' or any part thereof strictly prohibite and may be unlawful. If . ave received this a munication in 0, please - ify the senderi I ediately by return e- ii and destroy ommunication and all copies thereof, i ding all att hments. - - ipt by an unintended recipien - .- - - waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, - a. a her exemption from disclosure. From: Elzinga, Sherrie Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 8:56 AM To: Becker, PJ Subject: FW: Dynegy Meeting with IEPA From: Ferry, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 8:42 AM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Cc: Ross, James Diericx, Rick; Wilcoxon, Bruce; Ellis, Dean Subject: [External] Dynegy Meeting with IEPA I had discussion with Alec yesterday evening. He is not going to be available this week and suggested next Tuesday. I will be in Washington for meetings and he suggested Wednesday. I can fly back on Tuesday night and be here for a meeting next Wednesday. Any thoughts on times? I am checking with Rick and Jim as well and have included them in chain. Jeffrey A. Ferry Senior Director State Government Affairs Dynegy 133 5. 4th, Suite 306 Springfield, IL 62701 IEPA DIVISION OF Reconos RELEASABLF 217 519 4762 (Cellular) Jeff.ferm@dynegy.com AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED commun ation nd is intende Iy for the use of communic or any part thereof is Ited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 1 Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterhofier, Dana Sent: Tuesday, April 11,2017 4:27 PM To: Bloomberg, David Davis, Flory Subject: FW: Fiule Revision Attachments: proposed MPS Group - simplified corporate structure diagrampdf Gina might?ve already forwarded, but fyi. Thanks Dana From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:12 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: FW: Rule Revision Gina Fioccaiorte Assistant Counsel 0f Legal Counsel IEPA- DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT Illinois Environmental Protection Agency RELEASABLE 1021 N. Grand Ave. East P.0. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 AUG 2 5 2017 (217) 782-5544 (217) 782-9807 fax MED From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:07 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] Rule Revision HI Gina! I thought the attached might be helpful to you. Do you have time to chat this week? Thanks! Renee Renee Cipriano Partner Schiff Hardin LLP 312.258.5720 . 233 South Wacker Drive 312.258.5600 Suite 6600 iripriano@schiffhardin.com Chicago, IL 60606 schif?rardinxom Roccaforte, Gina - From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:03 PM To: Cipriano, Renee (RCipriano@schiffhardin.com) Subject: MPS Draft Revisions Attachments: Part 225 Discussion Draft 5-1.docx Hi Renee. Attached are the Agency?s draft revisions to the MP5, for your and Dynegy's review. Please direct any proposed changes, comments, or questions to Gina Roccaforte or myself. Thanks, Dana Vetterhoffer Deputy General Counsel, Air Regulatory Unit Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (217)782-5544 fax: (217)782-9807 e-decisional FOIA-exempt document intended to whom it is addressed. If you are n/the intended recipie nd have received this e- rror, that any use, forwar inting or co IS e-mail is prohibited. CO I NV State - linois - CONFIDENTIALIT OTIC . The information contained in this co unication confidential, may be attrn-?y- ient privileged or attorn work produt, may constitute inside inform on or internal deli rative staff co unic:tion, and is intende nly for the use - the addressee. Unautho ed use, disclosure or co a ing of this co unica ion or any part th eof is strictly prohibi and may be unla - I. If you have received this munication in err please notify the sen immediately by return -. ail and de 1 this communication and all cepies - - - inc ding all a achments eceipt by an unintended recip - . not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work pr uct privileg or . other exemption from disclosure. OF RECORDS i' Ni RELEASABLE: AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Please note that the document provided below is in draft form only and is subject to any and all applicable disclaimers found on the Illinois EPA's "Privacy Policy and Disclaimers" webpage. The contents herein may be changed during the course of the development of the described rulemaking proposal and will not be considered in "?nal" form until it is ?led with the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Further, any reference to or use of the draft document below for any purpose other than as a basis for providing comments to the Illinois EPA, including the reference to or use of the draft documents as "?nal" documents or information, is prohibited. TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUBTITLE B: AIR POLLUTION CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SUBCI-IAPTER c: EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY Section 225.100 225.120 225.130 225.140 SOURCES PART 225 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS Severability Abbreviations and Acronyms De?nitions Incorporations by Reference SUBPART B: CONTROL OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC Section 225.200 225.202 225.205 225.210 225.220 225.230 225.232 225.233 225.234 225.235 225.237 225.238 225.240 225.250 225.260 225.261 GENERATING UNITS IEPA - DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAG M. RELEASABLE Purpose Measurement Methods Applicability Compliance Requirements Clean Air Act Permit Program (CAAPP) Permit Requil?h?iig?] Emission Standards for EGUS at Existing Sources Averaging Demonstrations for Existing Sources Multi-Pollutant Standardg (MPS) Temporary Technology-Based Standard for EGUs at Existing Sources Units Scheduled for Pennanth Shut Down Emission Standards for New Sources with EGUs Temporary Technology-Based Standard for New Sources with EGUs General Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Initial Certi?cation and Recerti?cation Procedures for Emissions Monitoring Out of Control Periods for Emission Monitors Additional Requirements to Provide Heat Input Data AUG 25 2017 225.263 225.265 225.270 225.290 225.29] 225.292 225.293 225.294 225.295 225.296 225.297 225.298 225.299 Monitoring of Gross Electrical Output Coal Analysis for Input Mercury Levels Noti?cations Recordkeeping and Reporting Combined Pollutant Standard: Purpose Applicability of the Combined Pollutant Standard Combined Pollutant Standard: Notice of Intent Combined Pollutant Standard: Control Technology Requirements and Emissions Standards for Mercury Combined Pollutant Standard: Emissions Standards for and SO: Combined Pollutant Standard: Control Technology Requirements for 302, and PM Emissions Combined Pollutant Standard: Permanent Shut-Downs Combined Pollutant Standard: Requirements for and SO: Allowances Combined Pollutant Standard: Clean Air Act Requirements SUBPART C: CLEAN AIR ACT INTERSTATE RULE (CAIR) SO: TRADING PROGRAM Section 225.300 225.305 225.310 225.315 225.320 225.325 Section 225.400 225.405 225.410 225.415 225.420 225.425 225.430 225.435 225.440 225.445 225.450 225.455 225.460 225.465 225.470 Purpose Applicability Compliance Requirements Appeal Procedures Permit Requirements Trading Program SUBPART D: CAIR ANNUAL TRADING PROGRAM Purpose Applicability Compliance Requirements Appeal Procedures Permit Requirements Annual Trading Budget Timing for Annual Allocations Methodology for Calculating Annual Allocations Annual Allocations New Unit Set-Aside (NUSA) Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Gross Electrical Output and Useful Thermal Energy Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Energy Ef?ciency and Conservation, Renewable Energy, and Clean Technology Projects Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Allowances Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications 225.475 Agency Action on Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications 225.480 Compliance Supplement Pool SUBPART E: CAIR OZONE SEASON TRADING PROGRAM Section 225.500 Purpose 225.505 Applicability 225.510 Compliance Requirements 225.515 Appeal Procedures 225.520 Permit Requirements 225.525 Ozone Season Trading Budget 225.530 Timing for Ozone Season Allocations 225.535 Methodology for Calculating Ozone Season Allocations 225.540 Ozone Season Allocations 225.545 New Unit Set-Aside (NUSA) 225.550 Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Gross Electrical Output and Useful Thermal Energy 225.555 Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) 225.560 Energy Ef?ciency and Conservation, Renewable Energy, and Clean Technology Projects 225.565 Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Allowances 225.570 Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications 225.575 Agency Action on Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications SUBPART F: COMBINED POLLUTANT STANDARDS 225.600 Purpose (Repealed) 225.605 Applicability (Repealed) 225.610 Notice of Intent (Repealed) 225.615 Control Technology Requirements and Emissions Standards for Mercury (Repealed) 225.620 Emissions Standards for and SO: (Repealed) 225.625 Control Technology Requirements for $02, and PM Emissions (Repealed) 225.630 Permanent Shut-Downs (Repealed) 225.635 Requirements for CAIR CAIR N03, and CAIR Ozone Season Allowances (Repealed) 225.640 Clean Air Act Requirements (Repealed) 225.APPENDIX A Speci?ed EGUS for Purposes of the CPS Midwest Generation?s Coal- Fired Boilers as ofJuly I, 2006) 225.APPENDIX Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems for Mercury A Speci?cations and Test Procedures 225. EXHIBIT Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures 225. EXHIBIT Conversion Procedures 225 EXHIBIT Quality Assurance and Operating Procedures for Sorbent Trap Monitoring Systems AUTHORITY: Implementing and authorized by Section 27 of the Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/27]. SOURCE: Adopted in R06-25 at 31 Ill. Reg. 129, effective December 2 I 2006; amended in R06-26 at 31 Ill. Reg. 12864, effective August 31, 2007; amended in R09-I 0 at 33 111. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009; amended in R15-21 at 39 Ill. Reg. 16225, effective December 7, 2015: amended in R17- at Ill. Reg. effective SUBPART B: CONTROL OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS Section 225.233 Multi?Pollutant Standards (MPS) a) General. 1) As an alternative to compliance with the emissions standards of Section the owner of eligible EGUs may elect for those EGUs to demonstrate compliance pursuant to this Section, which establishes control requirements and standards for emissions of and 802, as well as for emissions of mercury. 2) For the purpose of this Section, the following requirements apply: A) An eligible EGU is an EGU that is located in Illinois and which commenced commercial operation on or before December 31, 2004;and B) Ownership of an eligible EGU is determined based on direct ownership, by the holding of a majority interest in a company that owns the EGU or EGUs, or by the common ownership of the company that owns the EGU, whether through a parent-subsidiary relationship, as a sister corporation, or as an af?liated corporation with the same parent corporation, provided that the owner has the right or authority to submit a CAAPP application on behalf of the EGU. 3) The owner of one or more EGUs electing to demonstrate compliance with this Subpart pursuant to this Section must submit an application for a CAAPP permit modification to the Agency, as provided in Section 225.220, that includes the information speci?ed in subsection of this Section and which clearly states the owner?s election to demonstrate compliance pursuant to this Section 225.233. A) If the owner of one or more EGUs elects to demonstrate compliance with this Subpart pursuant to this Section, then all b) EGUs it owns in Illinois as of July 1, 2006, as de?ned in subsection of this Section, must be thereafter subject to the standards and control requirements of this Section, except as provided in subsection Such EGUS must be referred to as a Multi-Pollutant Standard (MPS) Group. B) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the owner may exclude from an MPS Group any EGU scheduled for permanent shutdown that the owner so designates in its CAAPP application required to be submitted pursuant to subsection of this Section, with compliance for such units to be achieved by means of Section 225.235. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this subsection on and after Janua? 1, 2018: A) The following EGUs shall be merged into a new MPS Group: Baldwin Units 1. 2. and 3: Coffeen Units 1 and 2; Duck Creek Unit 1; ED. Edwards Units 2 and 3; Havana Unit 9; Hennepin Units 1 and Jenna Units and Newton Unit 1. Ifone or more of the above EGUs are transferred to a different owner, such EGU or EGUs will become a separate MPS Group on and after the date of transfer. For purposes of this Section, ?transfer? means sale, conveyance. transfer. or other change in EGU ownership of an and B) No other EGUs except for those listed in subsection of this Section are subiect to the requirements of this Section. Q4) When an EGU is subject to the requirements of this Section, the requirements apply to all owners or operators of the EGU. Notice of Intent. The owner of one or more EGUs that intends to comply with this Subpart by means of this Section must notify the Agency of its intention by December 31, 2007. The following information must accompany the noti?cation: l) The identi?cation of each EGU that will be complying with this Subpart by means of the multi-pollutant standards contained in this Section, with evidence that the owner has identi?ed all EGUS that it owned in Illinois as of July 1, 2006 and which commenced commercial operation on or before December 31, 2004; 2) If an EGU identi?ed in subsection of this Section is also owned or operated by a person different than the owner submitting the notice of c) 3) 4) 5) intent, a demonstration that the submitter has the right to commit the EGU or authorization from the responsible of?cial for the EGU accepting the application; The Base Emission Rates for the EGUs, with copies of supporting data and calculations; A summary of the current control devices installed and operating on each EGU and identi?cation of the additional control devices that will likely be needed for the each EGU to comply with emission control requirements of this Section, including identi?cation of each EGU in the MPS group that will be addressed by subsection of this Section, with information showing that the eligibility criteria for this subsection are satis?ed; and Identi?cation of each EGU that is scheduled for permanent shut down, as provided by Section 225.235, which will not be part of the MPS Group and which will not be demonstrating compliance with this Subpart pursuant to this Section. Control Technology Requirements for Emissions of Mercury. 1) Requirements for EGUs in an MPS Group. A) For each EGU in an MPS Group other than an EGU that is addressed by subsection of this Section for the period beginning July 1, 2009 (or December 31, 2009 for an EGU for which an SO: scrubber or fabric ?lter is being installed to be in operation by December 31, 2009), and ending on December 31, 2014 (or such earlier date that the EGU is subject to the mercury emission standard in subsection of this Section), the owner or operator of the EGU must install, to the extent not already installed, and properly operate and maintain one of the following emission control devices: i) A Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System, complying with the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section, except as may be otherwise provided by subsection of this Section, and followed by a Cold-Side Electrostatic Precipitator or Fabric Filter; or ii) If the boiler ?res bituminous coal, a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) System and an Scrubber. B) An owner of an EGU in an MPS Group has two options under this subsection For an MPS Group that contains EGUs smaller than 90 gross MW in capacity, the owner may designate any such EGUS to be not subject to subsection of this Section. Or, for an MPS Group that contains EGUs with gross MW capacity of less than 1 15 MW, the owner may designate any such EGUs to be not subject to subsection of this Section, provided that the aggregate gross MW capacity of the designated EGUs does not exceed 4% of the total gross MW capacity of the MPS Group. For any EGU subject to one of these two options, unless the EGU is subject to the emission standards in subsection of this Section, beginning on January 1, 2013, and continuing until such date that the owner or operator of the EGU commits to comply with the mercury emission standard in subsection of this Section, the owner or operator of the EGU must install and properly operate and maintain a Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System that complies with the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section, except as may be otherwise provided by subsection of this Section, and followed by either a Cold-Side Electrostatic Precipitator or Fabric Filter. The use of a properly installed, operated, and maintained Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System that meets the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section is de?ned as the ?principal control technique.? For each EGU for which injection of halogenated activated carbon is required by subsection 1) of this Section, the owner or operator of the EGU must inject halogenated activated carbon in an optimum manner, which, except as provided in subsection of this Section, is de?ned as all of the followinginjection system designed for effective absorption of mercury, considering the con?guration of the EGU and its ductwork; The injection of halogenated activated carbon manufactured by Alstom, Norit, or Sorbent Technologies, Calgon Carbon?s FLUEPAC CF Plus, or Calgon Carbon's FLUEPAC MC Plus, or the injection of any other halogenated activated carbon or sorbent that the owner or Operator of the EGU has demonstrated to have similar or better effectiveness for control of mercury emissions; and The injection of sorbent at the following minimum rates, as applicable: i) For an EGU ?ring subbituminous coal, 5.0 per million actual cubic feet or, for any cyclone-?red EGU that will D) install a scrubber and baghouse by December 31, 2012, and which already meets an emission rate of 0.020 mercury-?GWh gross electrical output or at least 75 percent reduction of input mercury, 2.5 per million actual cubic feet; For an EGU ?ring bituminous coal, 10.0 per million actual cubic feet for any cyclone-?red EGU that will install a scrubber and baghouse by December 31, 2012, and which already meets an emission rate of 0.020 1b mercury/GWh gross electrical output or at least 75 percent reduction of input mercury, 5.0 per million actual cubic feet; For an EGU ?ring a blend of subbituminous and bituminous coal, a rate that is the weighted average of the above rates, based on the blend of coal being ?red; or A rate or rates set lower by the Agency, in writing, than the rate speci?ed in any of subsections or of this Section on a unit- speci?c basis, provided that the owner or operator of the EGU has demonstrated that such rate or rates are needed so that carbon injection will not increase particulate matter emissions or opacity so as to threaten noncompliance with applicable requirements for particulate matter or opacity. For the purposes of subsection of this Section, the ?ue gas flow shall be the gas ?ow rate in the stack for all units except for those equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot- side electrostatic precipitator; for units equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator, the flue gas ?ow rate shall be the gas ?ow rate at the inlet to the hot- side electrostatic precipitator, which shall be determined as the stack ?ow rate adjusted through the use of Charles? Law for the differences in gas temperatures in the stack and at the inlet to the electrostatic precipitator (Vesp Vstack Tcsp/T slack, where gas flow rate in acf and gas temperature in Kelvin or Rankine The owner or operator of an EGU that seeks to operate an EGU with an activated carbon injection rate or rates that are set on a unit-speci?c basis pursuant to subsection of this Section must submit an application to the Agency proposing such rate or rates, and must meet the requirements of subsections and of this Section, subject to the limitations of subsections and of this Section: 4} A) B) C) D) The application must be submitted as an application for a new or revised federally enforceable operating permit for the EGU, and it must include a summary of relevant mercury emission data for the EGU, the unit-speci?c injection rate or rates that are proposed, and detailed information to support the proposed injection rate or rates; and This application must be submitted no later than the date that activated carbon must ?rst be injected. For example, the owner or operator of an EGU that must inject activated carbon pursuant to subsection of this subsection must apply for unit-speci?c injection rate or rates by July 1, 2009. Thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU may supplement its application; and Any decision of the Agency denying a permit or granting a permit with conditions that set a lower injection rate or rates may be appealed to the Board pursuant to Section 39 of the Act; and The owner or operator of an EGU may operate at the injection rate or rates proposed in its application until a ?nal decision is made on the application, including a ?nal decision on any appeal to the Board. During any evaluation of the effectiveness of a listed sorbent, an alternative sorbent, or other technique to control mercury emissions, the owner or operator of an EGU need not comply with the requirements of subsection of this Section for any system needed to carry out the evaluation, as further provided as follows: A) B) C) D) The owner or operator of the EGU must conduct the evaluation in accordance with a formal evaluation program submitted to the Agency at least 30 days prior to commencement of the evaluation; The duration and scepe of the evaluation may not exceed the duration and scope reasonably needed to complete the desired evaluation of the alternative control technique, as initially addressed by the owner or operator in a support document submitted with the evaluation program; The owner or operator of the EGU must submit a report to the Agency no later than 30 days a?er the conclusion of the evaluation that describes the evaluation conducted and which provides the results of the evaluation; and If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows less effective control of mercury emissions from the EGU than was achieved with the principal control technique, the owner or 5} 5} operator of the EGU must resume use of the principal control technique. If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows comparable effectiveness to the principal control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU may either continue to use the alternative control technique in a manner that is at least as effective as the principal control technique, or it may resume use of the principal control technique. If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows more effective control of mercury emissions than the control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU must continue to use the alternative control technique in a manner that is more effective than the principal control technique, so long as it continues to be subject to this subsection In addition to complying with the applicable recordkeeping and monitoring requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU that elects to comply with this Subpart by means of this Section must also comply with the following additional requirements: A) B) C) For the ?rst 36 months that injection of sorbent is required, it must maintain records of the usage of sorbent, the ?uegas ?ow rate from the EGU (and, if the unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator, ?ue gas temperature at the inlet of the hot-side electrostatic precipitator and in the stack), and the sorbent feed rate, in pounds per million actual cubic feet of ?ue, on a weekly average; After the ?rst 36 months that injection of sorbent is required, it must monitor activated sorbent feed rate to the EGU, gas ?ow rate in the stack, and, if the unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator, ?ue gas temperature at the inlet of the hot?side electrostatic precipitator and in the stack. It must automatically record this data and the sorbent carbon feed rate, in pounds per million actual cubic feet of ?ue gas, on an hourly average; and If a blend of bituminous and subbituminous coal is ?red in the EGU, it must keep records of the amount of each type of coal burned and the required injection rate for injection of activated carbon, on a weekly basis. Until June 30, 2012, as an alternative to the CEMS or excepted monitoring system (sorbent trap system) monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU may elect to comply with the emissions testing, monitoring, 10 d) 7) recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Section (2), and (4), and In addition to complying with the applicable reporting requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU that elects to comply with this Subpart by means of this Section must also submit quarterly reports for the recordkeeping and monitoring conducted pursuant to subsection of this Section. Emission Standards for Mercury. 1) 2) 3) 4) For each EGU in an MP8 Group that is not addressed by subsection of this Section, beginning January 1, 2015 (or such earlier date when the owner or operator of the EGU noti?es the Agency that it will comply with these standards) and continuing thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU must comply with one of the following standards on a rolling 12-month basis: A) An emission standard of 0.0080 lb mercury-"GWh gross electrical output; or B) A minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury. For each EGU in an MP8 Group that has been addressed under subsection of this Section, beginning on the date when the owner or operator of the EGU noti?es the Agency that it will comply with these standards and continuing thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU must comply with one of the following standards on a rolling 12-month basis: A) An emission standard of 0.0080 lb mercuryx'GWh gross electrical output; or B) A minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury. Compliance with the mercury emission standard or reduction requirement of this subsection must be calculated in accordance with Section 22S.230(a) or or Section 225.232 until December 31, 2013. Until June 30, 2012, as an alternative to demonstrating compliance with the emissions standards in this subsection the owner or operator of an EGU may elect to comply with the emissions testing requirements in Section and ofthis Subpart. Emission Standards for N03 and $02. 11 1) A) 13) Emission Standards. Beginning in calendar year 2012 and continuing through calendar year for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall NOg-x annual emission rate of no more than 0.1 1 lb/million Btu or an emission rate equivalent to 52 percent of the Base Annual Rate of emissions, whichever is more stringent. Beginning in the 2012 ozone season and continuing through the ozone season-thereafter, for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall seasonal emission rate of no more than 0.11 lb/million Btu or an emission rate equivalent to 80 percent of the Base Seasonal Rate of emissions, whichever is more stringent. Exce tas otherwise rovided in subsection of this Section winning in calendar year 2018 and continuing in each calendar year thereafter. the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MP8 Group must not cause or allow to be disch?gcd into the atmosphere combined annual N03 emissions in excess of 25.000 tons from all EGUs. Except as otherwise provided in subsection of this Section. beginning in the year 2018 and continuing in each year thereafter. from May 1 to September 30. the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MP3 Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined emissions in excess of 1 1,500 tons ?'om all EGUS. On and after January 1. 2018. the owner and operator of Baldwin Units 1, 2, and 3: Coffeen Units 1 and 2: Duck Creek Unit 1: ED. Edwards Unit and Havana Unit 9 must: Operate existing SCR control systems on the EGUs in accordance with good operating practices at all times the EGUs are operating; and From May 1 to September 30. comply with a combined average emission rate of no more than 0.10 Emission Standards. 12 A) Beginning in calendar year 2013 and continuing in calendar year 2014, for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall SO: annual emission rate of0.33 1b/million Btu or a rate equivalent to 44 percent ofthe Base Rate of emissions, whichever is more stringent. B) Beginning in calendar year 2015 and continuing through calendar year for the EGUs in each MPS Grouping, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall annual emission rate for SO: of 0.25 lbs/million Btu or a rate equivalent to 35 percent of the Base Rate of emissions, whichever is more stringent. Exce tas otherwise rovided in subsection of this Section beginning in calendar year 2018 and continuing in each calendar year thereafter, the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MP8 Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined annual emissions in excess of 55,000 tons ?'om all EGUs. Q) Beginning in calendar year 2018 and continuing in each calendar vear thereafter. the owner and Operator of Joppa Units must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosnhere combined annual SO: emissions in excess of 19,860 tons from such EGUs. Beginning in calendar year 2018 and continuing in each calendar year thereafter. the owner and Operator of each EGU in an MP8 Group must comply with an annual 502 emission rate of no more than 0.55 lba?mthu for each EGU. Shutdown or Transfer of EGU or EGUs in an MP3 Group. 1_1 If one or more EGUs in an MP8 Group permanenth shut down, such EGU or EGUs are no longer part of an MP8 Group and no longer subject to the requirements of this Section. For the remaining EGUS in an MP8 Group. the combined emissions limitations set forth in subsections and (e112) of this Section, as applicable, must be adiusted by subtracting from those limitations the applicable unit allocation amounts set forth in Columns A, B, and in subsection (m3) of this Section that are attributable to the shutdown EGU or EGUs. The owner and operator of the EGUS in the MPS Group must comply with the adiusted combined emissions limitations beginning in the calendar year in which the pertinent regional transmission organization approves the removal of the shutdown EGU or EGUs from the electrical grid. The owner and operator must 13 notify the Agency?s Bureau of Air, Compliance Section, in writing within seven days of the date of such approval. The noti?cation must include the following information: A) Name and address of the owner and Operator: List of the EGU or EGUs permanently shut down: and For the remaining EGUs in the MPS Group, calculations pursuant to this subsection 1) demonstrating the adiusted combined annual emissions limitation, the adiusted combined emissions limitation from May 1 to September 30, and the adiusted combined annual SO: emissions limitation that are applicable to the MPS Group. If one or more EGUs in an MPS Group are transferred to a different owner: For the MPS Group ??om which one or more EGUs is transferred: The combined emissions limitations for the MPS Group set forth in subsections and of this Section, as applicable, must be adiusted by subtracting ?'om those limitations the applicable unit allocation amounts set forth in Columns A. B, and in subsection ?t 3) of this Section that are attributable to the transferred EGU or EGUs. The owner and operator of the MPS Group must comply with the adiusted emissions limitations beginning in the calendar year in which the transfer takes place. E) For a new MPS Group consisting of the acquired EGU or EGUs: The owner and operator of the EGUs in an MPS Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined annual emissions in excess of the applicable annual limitation ?'om all EGUs. The applicable annual limitation shall be the sum of the unit allocation amounts attributable to all EGUs in the MPS Group set forth in Column A of subsection of this SeLion. From May 1 to September 30, the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MPS Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined emissions in excess of the applicable seasonal N03: limitation from all EGUs. The applicable seasonal NO): limitation shall be the sum of the unit allocation amounts attributable to all EGUs 21 Q) in the MPS Group set forth in Column of subsection ofthis Section. u?o unno- The owner and operator of the EGUs in an MPS must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined annual SO: emissions in excess of the applicable annual SO: limitation from all EGUs. The applicable annual limitation shall be the sum of the unit allocation amounts attributable to all EGUs in the MPS Group set forth in Column of subsection (m4) of this Section. If any of the EGUs speci?ed in subsection (elf lliE) of this Section are transferred to a different owner, the new owner and operator of the EGU or EGUs must comply with the provisions of subsections and of this Section on and after the date of transfer. If the transfer takes place between May 1 and September 30. the new owner and operator must also demonstrate compliance with the provisions of subsection )1 Elgii) of this Section for the entire May 1 throunh September 30 compliance period. The owner and operator of the EGU or EGUs as of the last day of the applicable compliance period must demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of this Section for the entire applicable compliance period. Unit Allocation Amounts in the Event of Transfer or Shutdown of EGUs. BEEP: Column A. Column B. Column C. Unit Unit Unit 802 Allocation Allocation Allocation Amount Amount (May Amount (TPY) in the 1 - Sept 30 (TPY) in the Event of Tons) in the Event of Transfer or Event of Transfer or Shutdown Transfer or Shutdown Shutdown Baldwin 1 2,300 1,048 5,800 Baldwin 2 2.200 4,700 Baldwin 3 2,300 1,041 5,000 Havana 9 2,000 4,300 $5 cegtebbEpwe Hennepin Hennepin 2 Coffeen 1 Coffeen 2 Duck Creek 1 ED. Edwards 2 ED. Edwards 3 Loam?l LOW Loam Loam?4 Loam?5 Loam 2.9.183. ?33.41 2% 4.51% 83 an 23.374 1,800 1,212 5,800 Unit Allocation Amounts for EGUS in a New MP8 Group. g1 g) g) Baldwin 1 Baldwin 2 Baldwin 3 16 Column A. Column B. Column C. Unit N03 Unit Unit S02 Allocation Allocation Allocation Amount Amount (Mav Amount (TPY) for I - Sept 30 (TPY) for New MPS Tons) for New New MPS Group in the MPS Group in Group in the Event of the Event of Event of Transfer Transfer Transfer 2,100 1,048 2,100 1,800 2,251 1,800 2,200 1,041 2,300 Q) Havana 9 13m) as 1,399 E) Hennepin 1 1 E) Hennepin 2 1,299 Q1 Coffeen 1 9m 1 900 E) Coffeen 2 LI $3199 Duck Creek 1 1M ED. Edwards 2 ED. Edwards 3 L) J_013.P.a_l 3_7& 142% LOW 3_7?_l 13m Loam L299 91 $1.4 L299 Bl Loam 8_9 33% LE Q1 _37_4 L199 3) Newton 1 If one or more EGUs in an MP8 Group are transferred to a different owner: A) The transferring owner must notify the Agency?s Bureau of Air, Compliance Section, in writing within seven days of the date of transfer. The noti?cation must include the following information: i) Name and address of the transferring owner and operator; List of the EGUs transferred: For the remaining EGUs in the MPS Group, calculations pursuant to subsection of this Section demonstrating the adiusted combined annual emissions limitation, the adiusted combined NO, emissions 1? limitation from May 1 to September 30. and the adiusted combined annual emissions limitation that are applicable to the MPS Group; Name and address of the new owner and operator: and Date of transfer. The acquiring owner must notifv the Agency?s Bureau of Ai_r, Compliance Section, in writing within seven days of the date of transfer. The noti?cation must include the following information: I-?v H. Name and address of the acquiring owner and operato_r; Name and address of the transferring owner and operator; List of the EGUS acquired: Calculations pursuant to subsection (BONE) of this Section demonstrating the combined annual emissions limitation, the combined N03 emissions limitation from May 1 to September 30: and the combined annual 802 emissions limitation that are applicable to the acquiring owner and operator?s MPS Group: and Date of transfer. 18 g0 6) 1) Compliance with the N03 and SO: emission standards must be demonstrated in accordance with Sections 225.310, 225.410, and 225.510. The owner or operator of EGUs must complete the demonstration of compliance before March 1 of the following year for annual standards and before November 1 for seasonal standards, by which date a compliance report must be submitted to the Agency. Requirements for N0): and SO: Allowances. The owner or operator of EGUs in an MP8 Group must not sell or trade to any person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person allowances allocated to the EGUs in the MPS Group for vintage years 2012 and beyond that would otherwise be available for sale, trade, or 19 2} 3) 4} 51 exchange as a result of actions taken to comply with the standards in subsection of this Section. Such allowances that are not retired for compliance must be surrendered to the Agency on an annual basis, beginning in calendar year 2013. This provision does not apply to the use, sale, exchange, gi?, or trade of allowances among the EGUs in an MPS Group. The owners or Operators of EGUs in an MPS Group must not sell or trade to any person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person allowances allocated to the EGUs in the MPS Group for vintage years 2013 and beyond that would otherwise be available for sale or trade as a result of actions taken to comply with the standards in subsection of this Section. Such allowances that are not retired for compliance, or otherwise surrendered pursuant to a consent decree to which the State of Illinois is a party, must be surrendered to the Agency on an annual basis, beginning in calendar year 2014. This provision does not apply to the use, sale, exchange, gift, or trade of allowances among the EGUs in an MPS Group. The provisions of this subsection do not restrict or inhibit the sale or trading of allowances that become available from one or more EGUs in a MPS Group as a result of holding allowances that represent over? compliance with the or SO: standard in subsection of this Section, once such a standard becomes effective, whether such over-compliance results from control equipment, fuel changes, changes in the method of operation, unit shut downs, or other reasons. For purposes of this subsection NO, and allowances mean allowances necessary for compliance with Sections 225.310, 225.410, or 225.510, 40 CFR 72, or Subparts any ?Jture federal or emissions trading programs that modify or replace these programs. This Section does not prohibit the owner or operator of EGUs in an MPS Group ?'om purchasing or otherwise obtaining allowances from other sources as allowed by law for purposes of complying with federal or state requirements, except as speci?cally set forth in this Section. By March I, 2010, and continuing each year thereafter, the owner or Operator of EGUs in an MPS Group must submit a report to the Agency that demonstrates compliance with the requirements of this subsection for the previous calendar year, and which includes identi?cation of any allowances that have been surrendered to the USEPA or to the Agency and any allowances that were sold, gifted, used, exchanged, or traded because they became available due to over-compliance. All allowances that are required to be surrendered must be surrendered by August 3 1, unless USEPA has not yet deducted the allowances from the previous year. A 20 ?nal report must be submitted to the Agency by August 31 of each year, verifying that the actions described in the initial report have taken place or, if such actions have not taken place, an explanation of all changes that have occurred and the reasons for such changes. If USEPA has not deducted the allowances from the previous year by August 3 I the ?nal report will be due, and all allowances required to be surrendered must be surrendered, within 30 days after such deduction occurs. (Source: Amended at 111. Reg. effective Roccaforte, Gina From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:17 AM To: Roccaforte, Gina; Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: [External] Draft Changes to MP8 Rule Revision Language Attachments: Hi Gina/Hi Dana. This attachment provides you with our suggested changes to the draft MPS Rule Revision Language. We thank you for the opportunity to review and share our position. I would like the chance to explain the changes to both of you, and Julie, if she would like to participate. Since time is of the essence, I will make myself available today or tomorrow. For today, I have a call starting at 11:30 am and it should last for about 1 hour. I also have a call at 3 pm for about V2 hour. Otherwise, I will make myself available at your convenience (I am on cell all day today at 773647-1111). Tomorrow, just name the time and I will be free. Thank you both so much for all of your work. Best, Renee This message nd a attachments may con information rotect by the attorney- you bel eve that has been se ient or othe to you in error, received the me privilege. age in IEPA DIVISION OF RECORDS MAN AGEME RELEASABLE NT AUG 2 5 2017 MED Please note that the document provided below is in draft form only and is subject to any and all applicable disclaimers found on the Illinois EPA's "Privacy Policy and Disclaimers" webpage. The contents herein may be changed during the course of the development of the described rulemaking proposal and will not be considered in "?nal" form until it is filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Further, any reference to or use of the draft document below for any purpose other than as a basis for providing comments to the Illinois EPA, including the reference to or use of the dralt documents as "?nal" documents or information, is prohibited. TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUBTITLE B: AIR POLLUTION CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SUBCHAPTER c: EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES PART 225 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 225. [00 Severabiliiy 225. I 20 Abbreviations and Acronyms 225.130 De?nitions 225. I40 Incorporations by Reference SUBPART B: CONTROL OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS Section 225.200 Purpose 225.202 Measurement Methods 225.205 Applicability 225.210 Compliance Requirements 225.220 Clean Air Act Permit Program (CAAPP) Permit Requirements 225.230 Emission Standards for EGUs at Existing Sources 225.232 Averaging Demonstrations for Existing Sources 225.233 Mum-Pollutant Standards (MPS) 225.234 Temporary Technology-Based Standard for EGUs at Existing Sources 225.235 Units Scheduled for Permanent Shut Down 225.237 Emission Standards for New Sources with EGUs OF RECORDS NT 225.238 Temporary Technology-Based Standard ror New Sources with EGUs RELEASABLE 225.240 General Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 225.250 Initial Certi?cation and Receni?cation Procedures for Emissions Monitoring 225.260 Out of Control Periods for Emission Monitors 2 5 225.261 Additional Requirements to Provide Heat Input Data I 225.263 225.265 225.270 225.290 225.29l 225.292 225.293 225.294 225.295 225.296 225.297r 225.298 225.299 Monitoring of Gross Electrical Output Coal Analysis for Input Mercury Levels Noti?cations Rocordkecping and Reporting Combined Pollutant Standard: Purpose Applicability of the Combined Pollutant Standard Combined Pollutant Standard: Notice of Intent Combined Pollutant Standard: Control Technology Requirements and Emissions Standards for Mercury Combined Pollutant Standard: Emissions Standards for and SO: Combined Pollutant Standard: Control Technology Requirements for 802. and PM Emissions Combined Pollutant Standard: Permanent Shut-Downs Combined Pollutant Standard: Requirements for and SO: Allowances Combined Pollutant Standard: Clean Air Act Requirements SUBPART C: CLEAN AIR ACT INTERSTATE RULE (CAIR) SO: TRADING PROGRAM Section 225.300 225.305 225.310 225.315 225.320 225.325 Section 225.400 225.405 225.410 225.415 225.420 225.425 225.430 225.435 225.440 225.445 225.450 225.455 225.460 225.465 225.470 Purpose Applicability Compliance Requirements Appeal Procedures Permit Requirements Trading Program SUBPART D: CAIR NO. ANNUAL TRADING PROGRAM Purpose Applicability Compliance Requirements Appeal Procedures Permit Requirements Annual Trading Budget Timing for Annual Allocations Methodology for Calculating Annual Allocations Annual Allocations New Unit Set-Aside (NUSA) Monitoring. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Gross Electrical Output and Useful Thermal Energy Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Energy Ef?ciency and Conservation. Renewable Energy. and Clean Technology Projects Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Allowances Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications Is) 225.475 225.480 Section 225.500 225.505 225.5 l0 225.5 l5 225.520 225.525 225.530 225.535 225.540 225.545 225.550 225.555 225.560 225.565 225.570 225.575 225.600 225.605 225.610 225.615 225.620 225.625 225.630 225.635 225.640 Agency Action on Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications Compliance Supplement Pool SUBPART E: CAIR OZONE SEASON TRADING PROGRAM Purpose Applicability Compliance Requirements Appeal Procedures Permit Requirements Ozone Season Trading Budget Timing for Ozone Season Allocations Methodology for Calculating Ozone Season Allocations Ozone Season Allocations New Unit Set-Aside (NUSA) Monitoring. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Gross Electrical Output and Useful Thermal Energy Clean Air Set-Aside (CA SA) Energy Ef?ciency and Conservation, Renewable Energy. and Clean Technology Projects Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Allowances Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications Agency Action on Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications SUBPART F: COMBINED POLLUTANT STANDARDS Purpose (Repealed) Applicability (Repealed) Notice of Intent (Repealed) Control Technology Requirements and Emissions Standards for Mercury (Repealed) Emissions Standards for and 502(Repealed) Control Technology Requirements for 80:. and PM Emissions (Repealed) Permanent Shut-Downs (Repealed) Requirements for CAIR $03, CAIR and CAIR N0. Ozone Season Allowances (Repealed) Clean Air Act Requirements (Repealed) 225.APPENDIX A Speci?ed EGUs for Purposes of the CPS Midwest Generation's Coal- Fired Boilers as ofJuly l. 2006) 225.APPENDIX Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems for Mercury 225.EXHIBIT A Speci?cations and Test Procedures 225. EXHIBIT Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures 225. EXHIBIT Conversion Procedures 225 EXHIBIT Quality Assurance and Operating Procedures for Sorbent Trap Monitoring Systems AUTHORITY: Implementing and authorized by Section 27 ofthe Environmental Protection Act [4l5 ILCS 5-27]. SOURCE: Adopted in R06-25 at 31 Ill. Reg. [29, effective December 2006; amended in R06-26 at 31 Ill. Reg. l2864, effective August 2007; amended in R0940 at 33 Ill. Reg. [0422, effective June 26, 2009; amended in 5-2] at 39 Ill. Reg. 16225, effective December 2, 2015; amended in Rl7- at Ill. Reg. . effective . B: CONTROL OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS Section 225.233 Mold-Pollutant Standards (M PS) a) General. I) As an alternative to compliance with the emissions standards of Section the owner of eligible EGUs may elect for those EGUs to demonstrate compliance pursuant to this Section, which establishes control requirements and standards for emissions of and $03, as well as for emissions of mercury. 2) For the purpose of this Section, the following requirements apply: A) An eligible EGU is an EGU that is located in Illinois and which commenced commercial operation on or before December 3 2004:and B) Ownership of an eligible EGU is determined based on direct ownership, by the holding ofa majority interest in a company that owns the EGU or E0 Us, or by the common ownership of the company that owns the EGU, whether through a parent-subsidiary relationship, as a sister corporation, or as an af?liated corporation with the same parent corporation, provided that the owner has the right or authority to submit a CAAPP application on behalf of the ECU. 3) The owner of one or more EGUs electing to demonstrate compliance with this Subpart pursuant to this Section must submit an application for a permit modi?cation to the Agency, as provided in Section 225.220, that includes the information speci?ed in subsection of this Section and which clearly states the owner?s election to demonstrate compliance pursuant to this Section 225.233. A) If the owner of one or more EGUs elects to demonstrate compliance with this Subpart pursuant to this Section, then all bi EGUs it owns in Illinois as ofJuly l, 2006, as de?ned in subsection of this Section. tnust be thereafter subject to the standards and control requirements of this Section. except as provided in subsection Such EGUs must be referred to as a Multi-Pollutant Standard (MPS) Group. B) Notwithstanding the foregoing. the owner may exclude from an MP8 Group any EGU scheduled for permanent shutdown that the owner so designates in its CAAPP application required to be submitted pursuant 'to subsection of this Section. with compliance for such units to be achieved by means of Section 225.235. Notwithstanding any contrarv provision in this subsection on and after Januag: l, 20l8: The following: EGUs shall be merged into a new MPS Group: Baldwin Units and 3; Coffeen Units and 2; Duck Creek Unit 1: ED. Edwards Units 2 and 3: Havana Unit 69; Hennepin Units and; Joppa Units and Newton Unit I. Ifone or more of the above EGUs are transferred to a different owner, such EGU or EGUs maywill become a separate MPS Group on and after the ditt_e of transfer as provided in subsection (ft of this Section. For purposes of this Section. ?transfer? means sale. conveyance, transfer, or other change in EGU ownership of an and No other EGUs except for those listed in subsection of this Section are subiect to the requirements of this Section. Q4) When an EGU is subject to the requirements of this Section, the requirements apply to all owners or operators of the EGU. as applicable. Notice of Intent. The owner of one or more EGUs that intends to comply with this Subpart by means of this Section must notify the Agency of its intention by December 3 200?. The following information must accompany the notification: l) The identi?cation of each EGU that will be complying with this Subpart by means of the multi-pollutant standards contained in this Section. with evidence that the owner has identi?ed all EGUs that it owned in Illinois as of July I, 2006 and which commenced commercial operation on or before December 3 2004; Ci 3) 4) 5) If an identi?ed in subsection ofthis Section is also owned or operated by a person different than the owner submitting the notice of intent, a demonstration that the submitter has the right to commit the EGU or authorization from the responsible of?cial for the EGU accepting the application; The Base Emission Rates for the EGUs, with copies of supporting data and calculations; A summary of the current control devrces installed and operating on each EGU and identi?cation of the additional control devices that will likely be needed for the each EGU to comply with emission control requirements of this Section, including identi?cation of each EGU in the MPS group that will be addressed by subsection of this Section, with information showing that the eligibility criteria for this subsection are satis?ed; and Identi?cation of each EGU that is scheduled for permanent shut down, as provided by Section 225.235, which wili not be part of the MPS Group and which will not be demonstrating compliance with this Subpart pursuant to this Section. Control Technology Requirements for Emissions ofMercury. 1) Requirements for EGUs in an MP8 Group. A) For each EGU in an MP8 Group other titan an EGU that is addressed by subsection 1 of this Section for the period beginning July I, 2009 (or December 3 i 2009 for an EGU for which an SO: scrubber or fabric ?lter is being installed to be in operation by December 3 2009), and ending on December 3 2014 (or such wrlier date that the EGU is subject to the mercury emission standard in subsection I) of this Section), the owner or operator of the EGU must install, to the extent not already installed, and properly operate and maintain one of the following emission control devices: it A Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System, complying with the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section, except as may be otherwise provided by subsection of this Section, and followed by a Cold-Side Electrostatic Precipitator or Fabric Filter; or ii) If the boiler tires bituminous coal, :1 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) System and an 502 Scrubber. B) An owner of an EGU in an MP5 Group has two options under this subsection For an MP8 Group that contains EGUs smaller titan 90 gross MW in capacity. the owner may designate any such EGUs to be not subject to subsection of this Section. Or, for an MP8 Group that contains EGUs with gross MW capacity of less than 115 MW, the owner may designate any such EGUs to be not subject to subsection of this Section, provided that the aggregate gross MW capacity of the designated EGUs does not exceed 4% ofthe total gross MW capacity ofthe MPS Group. For any EGU subject to one of these two options, unless the ECU is subject to the emission standards in subsection of this Section, beginning on January I. 20l3. and continuing until such date that the owner or operator of the EGU commits to comply with the mercury emission standard in subsection of this Section, the owner or operator of the EGU must install and properly operate and maintain a Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System that complies with the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section, except as may be otherwise provided by subsection of this Section, and followed by either a Cold-Side Electrostatic Precipitator or Fabric Filter. The use of a properly installed, operated, and maintained Halogcnated Activated Carbon Injection System that meets the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section is de?ned as the ?principal control technique." For each EGU for which injection of halogenated activated carbon is required by subsection l) of this Section. the owner or operator of the EGU must inject halogenated activated carbon in an optimum manner, which. except as provided in subsection of this Section. is de?ned as all ofthe followinginjection system designed for effective absorption of mercury. considering the con?guration of the ECU and its ductwork: The injection ofhalogenated activated carbon manufactured by Alstom, Norit, or Technologies, Calgon Carbon?s FLUEPAC CF Plus, or Calgon Carbon's FLUEPAC MC Plus, or the injection of any other halogenated activated carbon or that the owner or operator of the EGU has demonstrated to have similar or better effectiveness for control of mercury emissions; and The injection of sorbent at the following minimum rates, as applicable: 3) D) i) For an EGU ?ring subbituminous coal, 5.0 per million actual cubic feet or. for any cyclone-?red EGU that will install a scrubber and baghouse by December 3 2012, and which already meets an emission rate ol'0.020 gross electrical output or at least 75 percent reduction of input mercury. 2.5 per million actual cubic feet; ii) For an ?ring bituminous coal, l0.0 per million actual cubic feet for any cyclone-?red EGU that will install a scrubber and baghouse by December 31. 2012, and which already meets an emission rate of 0.020 lb mercury-Own gross electrical output or at least '75 percent reduction of input mercury, 5.0 per million actual cubic feet; For an EGU firing a blend of subbituminous and bituminous coal, a rate that is the weighted average of the above rates, based on the blend of coal being ?red; or iv) A rate or rules set lower by the Agency, in writing, than the rate speci?ed in any ol'subsections or of this Section on a unit- speci?c basis. provided that the owner or operator of the EGU has demonstrated that such rate or rates are needed so that carbon injection will not increase particulate matter emissions or opacity so as to threaten noncompliance with applicable requirements for particulate matter or opacity. For the purposes of subsection of this Section, the flue gas ?ow shall be the gas ?ow rate in the stack for all units except for those equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot- side electrostatic precipitator; for units equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator. the ?ue gas flow rate shall be the gas ?ow rate at the inlet to the hot- side electrostatic precipitator, which shall be determined as the stack ?ow rate adjusted through the use of Charles? Law for the differences in gas temperatures in the stack and at the inlet to the electrostatic precipitator (Veg? mG Tap/T511151? where gas flow rate in acf and gas temperature in Kelvin or Rankine The owner or operator of an EGU that seeks to operate an EGU with an activated carbon injection rate or rates that are set on a unit-specific basis pursuant to subsection ofthis Section must submit an application to the Agency proposing such rate or rates. and must meet the requirements of subsections and of this Section, subject to the limitations of subsections and ofthis Section: 131' A) B) C) D) The application must be submitted as an application for a new or revised federally enforceable operating permit for the EGU, and it must include a summary of relevant mercury emission data for the ECU, the unit-specific injection rate or rates that are proposed, and detailed information to support the proposed injection rate or rates; and This application must be submitted no later than the date that activated carbon must ?rst be injected. For example, the owner or operator ofan EGU that must inject activated carbon pursuant to subsection of this subsection must apply for unit-specific injection rate or rates by July I, 2009. Thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU may supplement its application; and Any decision oftlte Agency denying a permit or granting a permit with conditions that set a lower injection rate or rates may be appealed to the Board pursuant to Section 39 ofthe Act; and The owner or operator of an EGU may operate at the injection rate or rates proposed in its application until a ?nal decision is made on the application, including a ?nal decision on any appeal to the Board. During any evaluation of the effectiveness of a listed sorbent, an alternative sorbent, or other technique to control mercury emissions, the owner or operator ofan EGU need not comply with the requirements of subsection ofthis Section for any system needed to carry out the evaluation, as further provided as follows: A) B) C) D) The owner or operator ol'the EGU must conduct the evaluation in accordance with a formal evaluation program submitted to the Agency at least 30 days prior to commencement of the evaluation; The duration and scope oftlte evaluation may not exceed the duration and scope reasonably needed to complete the desired evaluation of the alternative control technique, as initially addressed by the owner or operator in a support document submitted with the evaluation program: The owner or operator of the ECU must submit a report to the Agency no later than 30 days after the conclusion of the evaluation that describes the evaluation conducted and which provides the results of the evaluation: and If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows less effective control of mercury emissions from the EGU than was 5} f1} achieved with the principal control technique, the owner or operator of the ECU must resume use of the prinCIpal control technique. If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows comparable effectiveness to the principai control technique, the owner or operator of the EC Li may either continue to use the alternative control technique in a manner that is at least as effective as the principal control technique, or it may resume use ofthe principal control technique. If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows more effective control of mercury emissions than the control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU must continue to use the alternative control technique in a manner that is more effective than the principal control technique, so long as it continues to be subject to this subsection In addition to complying with the applicable recordkeeping and monitoring requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator ofan EGLI that elects to comply with this Subpart by means ofthis Section must also comply with the following additional requirements: A) B) C) For the ?rst 36 months that injection of sorbent is required, it must maintain records of the usage of sorbent, the ?uegas flow rate from the ECU (and, ifthe unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator, ?ue gas temperature at the inlet of the hot-side electrostatic precipitator and in the stack), and the sorbent feed rate, in pounds per million actual cubic feet of flue, on a weekly average; After the first 36 months that injection of sorbent is required, it must monitor activated sorbent feed rate to the EGU, gas ?ow rate in the stack, and. if the unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator, ?ue gas temperature at the inlet ofthc hot-side electrostatic precipitator and in the stack. it must automatically record this data and the sorbent carbon feed rate, in pounds per million actual cubic feet of flue gas, on an hourly average; and If a blend of bituminous and subbituminous coal is tired in the ECU, it must keep records of the amount of each type of coal burned and the required injection rate for injection of activated carbon, on a weekly basis. Until June 30, 2012, as an alternative to the CEMS or excepted monitoring system (sorbent trap system) monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Sections 225.240 througlt 225.290, the owner or operator of an may elect to comply with the emissions testing, monitoring, l0 7) recordkecping, and reporting requirements in Section l) and (2). and (4), and In addition to complying with the applicable reporting requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU that elects to comply with this Subpart by means ofthis Section must also submit quarterly reports for the recordkeeping and monitoring conducted pursuant to subsection of this Section. d] Emission Standards for Mercury. l) 3) 4) For each EGU in an MP5 Group that is not addressed by subsection ofthis Section. beginning January I, 20l 5 (or such earlier date when the owner or operator ofthe EGU noti?es the Agency that it will comply with these standards) and continuing thereafter, the owner or operator of the ECU must comply with one of the following standards on a rolling 12-month basis: A) An emission standard of 0.0080 lb gross electrical output; or B) A minimum 90-pcrcent reduction of input mercury. For each EGU in an MP5 Group that has been addressed under subsection I of this Section, beginning on the date when the owner or operator of the ECU noti?es the Agency that it will comply with these standards and continuing thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU must comply with one ofthe following standards on a rolling 12-month basis: A) An emission standard of 0.0080 lb gross electrical output; or B) A minimum 90-pcrcent reduction of input mercury. Compliance with the mercury emission standard or reduction requirement of this subsection must be calculated in accordance with Section 225.230(a) or or Section 225.232 until December 3 2013. Until June 30. 2012, as an alternative to demonstrating compliance with the emissions standards in this subsection the owner or operator of an EGU may elect to comply with the emissions testing requirements in Section and ofthis Subpart. u) Emission Standards for NO: and 502. ?1 A) 3) NO: Emission Standards. Beginning in calendar year 2012 and continuing through calendar year for the EC Us in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall No?x annual emission rate of no more than lbi?million Btu or an emission rate equivalent to 52 percent of the Base Annual Rate of emissions, whichever is more stringent. Beginning in the 2012 ozone season and continuing through the gman ozone seasonmerea?er, for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of the EGUS must comply with an overall seasonal emission rate of no more than lbr'million Btu or an emission rate equivalent to 80 percent of the Base Seasonal Rate of emissions. whichever is more stringent. Except as otherwise provided in subsection of this Section, bctzinninaLin calendar vear 2018 and continuing in each calendar year thereafter. the owner and operator ofthe EGUs in an MP5 Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined annual emissions in excess of 25,000 tons from all EGUS. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (ft of this Section, beginning in the vear 20] 8 and continuine. in each Vear thereafter, from Mav to September 30, the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MP5 Group must not cause or allow to be dischareed into the atmosphere combined emissions in excess of I 1.500 tons from all EGUs. On and after Januarv l. 2018, the owner and operator of Baldwin Units 1 .and land?3; Coffeen Units and 2; Duck Creek Unit I: E.D. Edwards Unit 3; and Havana Unit (19 must: i) Operate existing SCR control systems on the EGUs in accordance with good operating practices at all times the EGUs are operating; and From Mav to September 30. complv with a combined average emission rate of no'more than 0.10 SO: Emission Standards. A) Beginning in calendar year 20] 3 and continuing in calendar year 2014, for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of the EGUS must comply with an overall SO: annual emission rate of0.33 lbfmillion Btu or a rate equivalent to 44 percent of the Base Rate of SO: emissions. whichever is more stringent. B) Beginning in calendar year 20l 5 and continuing through calendar year for the EGUs in each MPS Grouping. the owner and operator ofthe EGUs must comply with an overall annual emission rate for SO: of0.25 Btu or a rate equivalent to 35 percent ofthe Base Rate of SO: emissions, whichever is more stringent. Except as otherwise provided in subsection of this Section. beginning in caiendar year 20l8 and continuing in each calendar year thereafter, the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MP5 Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined annual SO: emissions in excess of 55.000 tons from all EGUs. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (I) of this Section, Blieginnitig in calendar year 20l8 and continuing in each calendar year thereafter, the owner and operator of Joppa Units must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosnhere combined annual SO: emissions in excess of 19.860 tons from such EGUs. veaF-th?ea?er-W ?ii?5994' .Wm' Shutdown-or Transfer of EGU or EGUs in an MP8 Group. (eh?1H. approves-the-removal of the shutdown l3 Heti' .h Wh?am?ka?ae?na??aa?amm?elmlme Formatted: lndent: ten: Don't adjust space between 3 Mm?! Mik?? ?rm a Latin and Asian text. Tab stops: Not at 0.5? 1" {am?w Fnr~tlteremaining?EG UHn?tlte-M P-S-Grmm. calculations-mama"Ha with-tde . 'IHhe-eaJendat: Wt?tth??NQt?emi??iatMtW [Jar?The Seetiea: his?Semen: qupezeHhr-tlrin~Gnlumn this Seaimk Elm-4% this-Seali?n?fur Q) JFheLowner and-opera Inrwutllhe ECU or? RC Ur; {lav m7 Gawain?An Gelmm?r?B: Gelawa?G Ham: Unit?SQ; Mloeatinn Mlueau'im AW Amaum #8691130 Wmhe Event?of lionsl-in?the Ewart)? Wafer?49F Event-9F Shutdevm T?ratMeF-or Shuklmm Q?Baldwin-??Q-SG mu r00- Mi?een -, 0.. I mm 1141 13m I ll I In.an "1 mm ??11 [Jun I ?l In I I 13'} Jamie 99!! 1,399 {n 1 unn "1?71 I (?In Luann {Inn 171 I I I'll .I I I 1.420 11% 3'33 I I 31') 4 I Inn-?- Gamma-A: Gamma-B: G?h?l?m-G UanG, lJ niltNG? LJni A-llematiem Allocation A?lkwatinn Amount Amount-{MW A-nmum mme 4??Sept-30 ESSEWWS lia?l?ir??w; MME GmmoiIHhe M-PS?Gmun?in Gmm?mhe Evan-9f IheEvem?ef [went-0f liranst'er- 31mm;be Mnsfer Bilidwin-J - 21?300 .9 L493 893 L190- w??H-ienng?in I 2m; (?99 MHJenttgitaMlW?-?l?i?l Coi-?i?een I 100- m?B??Q?r?r 6.. I. I IanrI-I I on '1 4 I 7n? J"I'lltl I I?il" Joplin 2 Silt} 3'34 15700 3:300 gm: 4. 3.33. 1.3.00 Inna-v.1 1 1.I'llmore EGUs in an MP5 Groun are transferred to :1 different owner: The transferring owner and acquiring owner must iuintlv notify the Agency?s Bureau of AirI Compliance Section, in writing within seven of the date of transfer. The noti?cation must include the following information: i) Name and address ofthe transferring and neguiring owners and operators; List of the EG Us transferred: pursuant (?t-3MBof-this-Seetion l7 nondeahlemhe-MP-SGW Date of transfer and. iv.) Identi?cation of the means hv which the EC Us listed to subsection comm) ofthis Section intend to comply with the applicable combined and SO). limitations: set forth in subsections teiilitCi. [c)t1)(Di. teit2)(C), and ofthis Section after transfer. B) The transferring owner and acquiring owner mav iointlv petition the Board to create a separate MP5 Group containing the transfm'red EGU or EGUs in accordance with the procedures for adiusted standards specified in Section 23.] of the Act and 35 [ii Adm. Code G. The Board mav cram such petition if: i} the transfean owner and acquiring: owner demonstrate that the emissions of the transferred EGU or of the new PS Group and EGUs remaining in the PS Group identified to subsection Section combined prong; 3:913; than the applicable combined and $02 limitations set forth in subsections iiCl. {cit {claim} and {citZitD}: and ii) the acquiring owner states it will complv With all ECU speci?c limitations of this Section applicable to any and all EG Us transferred. Nothing in this suhsection shall prex ent the Board from promulgating revisions to this Section pursuant to its anthoritv specified in Section 2? of the Act. . . te?ef Formatted: Indent: Hanging: Tab stops: Left waimtsw Tab stops: 2' emissimHiiW?W?J?m?Senwmbegme Hialeeuimmuma?s?MP-S?Gmum??g - Hanging: lg"; I?f_t_ math?Dateiilltramfer??NGn-En?ssion?andards: more-?mn-Q?l?Fkhn?limvBmpbkwiih-an ewraH?NQ. . iblmilliewBak . .Wm?mm Wh?miliion?Btu: Ham .: .mw?w I hung I II I .I . ?Egg, I . . l9 st) Btu: Btu: Requirements for and SO: Allowances. The owner or operator of EGUs in an MPS Group must not sell or trade to any person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person allowances allocated to the EGUs in the MPS Group for vintage years 2012 and beyond that would otherwise be available for sale, trade, or exchange as a result of actions taken to comply with the standards in subsection ofthis Section. Such allowances that are not retired for compliance must be surrendered to the Agency on an annual basis, beginning in calendar year 20 l3. This provision does not apply to the use, sale, exchange, gift, or trade ofallowances among the EGUs in an MP5 Group. The owners or operators of EGUs in an MP5 Group must not sell or trade to any person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person SO: allowances allocated to the EGUs in the MP5 Group for vintage years 20] 3 and beyond that would otherwise be available for sale or trade as a result of actions taken to comply with the standards in subsection of this Section. Such allowances that are not retired for compliance, or otherwise surrendered pursuant to a consent decree to which the State of Illinois is a party, must be surrendered to the Agency on an annual basis, beginning in calendar year 2014. This provision does not apply to the use, sale, exchange, gift, or trade of allowances among the EGUs in an MP8 Group. 3] The provisions ofthis subsection (Fg) do not restrict or inlnbit the sale or trading of allowances that become available from one or more in a MP5 Group as a result of holding allowances that represent or er- complianee with the or SO: standard in subsection of this Section. once such a standard becomes effective, whether such over-compliance results from control equipment. fuel changes, changes in the method of operation, unit shut downs, or other reasons. 4} For purposes of this subsection and allowances mean allowances necessary for compliance with Sections 225.310, 225.4 or 225.510, 40 CFR 72, or Subparts any future federal NO, or SO: emissions trading programs that modify or replace these programs. This Section does not prohibit the owner or operator of EGL's in an MP5 Group from purchasing or otherwise obtaining allowances from other sources as allowed by law for purposes of complying with federal or state requirements, except as speci?cally set forth in this Section. 5] By March I, 2010, and continuing each year thereafter, the owner or operator of EGLIs in an MP5 Group must submit a report to the Agency that demonstrates compliance with the requirements of this subsection for the previous calendar year, and which includes identi?cation of any allowances that have been surrendered to the USEPA or to the Agency and any allowances that were sold, gifted, used, exchanged, or traded because they became available due to over-compliance. All allowances that are required to be surrendered must be surrendered by August unless USEPA has not yet deducted the allowances from the previous year. A ?nal report must be submitted to the Agency by August 3 of each year, verifying that the actions described in the initial report have taken place or, if such actions have not taken place, an explanation of all changes that have occurred and the reasons for such changes. If USEPA has not deducted the allowances from the previous year by August 3 the ?nal report will be due, and all allowances required to be surrendered must be surrendered, within 30 days after such deduction occursnphed' (Source: Amended at__ Ill. Reg. effective GlaBug?-SJ-B-?lrl 1? ?5 Formatted: Roccaforte, Gina From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:15 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana; Roccaforte. Gina; Davis, Rory Subject: meeting this afternoon I'm hoping we can meet with Julie to discuss the most recent Dynegy stuff at around 3:00. Julie has a meeting at 2:30 but hopes to be done around that time. State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileg -. ttorney work product. may constitute inside information or internal deliberative staff ommunication, an? intend a only for the use of the addresseeuse, disclosure or copying of this error as including all attachments. Receipt by a . -: cipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. W5) Roccaforte, Gina From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:02 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina; Vetlerhoffer. Dana Subject: [External] MP8 Revision--Requested Information Attachments: Proposal to Modify 225 233 3.pdf Dear Dana and Gina. Please ?nd attached the information requested on unit allocation in the event of a transfer. Please call with any questions. I will review the narrative portion of the draft rule revision as contained in the Agency?s draft tomorrow. Sorry, ldid not get to it today! Best, Renee Renee Cipriano Partner Schiff Hardin LLP 312.253.5720 . 233 South Wacker Drive 312.258.5600 Hardln Suite 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 IEPA - DIVISION OF RECOR DS MANAG RELEASABLE EMENT AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Proposal to Modify Section Unit Allocation Amounts in the Event of Transfer of EGUs Station Column A. Station N0x Column B. Station NOX Column C. Station 502 Allocation Amount Allocation Amount Allocation Amount in the Event of (May 1 Sept 30 Tons) (TPY) in the Event of Transfer in the Event of Transfer Transfer Baldwin 6,000 2,400 6,000 Havana 1,800 720 1,500 Hennepin 1,500 600 5,000 Coffeen 2,000 800 250 Duck Creek 1,400 560 250 Edwards 3,000 1,200 10,000 Joppa 5,200 2,080 18,000 Newton 2,700 1,080 10,000 IEPA DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT EASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 VIEWER: MED Roccaforte, Gina From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Thursday. May 25. 2017 8:38 AM To: Armitage, Julie; Bloomberg, David Davis, Rory Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: FW: [External] MPS Revision-Requested Information Attachments: Proposal to Modify 225 233 3.pdf See below and the attached. From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:02 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina; Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information Dear Dana and Gina. Please ?nd attached the information requested on unit allocation in the event of a transfer. Please call with any questions. I will review the narrative portion of the draft rule revision as contained in the Agency?s draft tomorrow. Sorrytoday! Best, Renee Renee Cipriano Partner Schiff Hardin LLP r312.253.5720 . 233 South Wacker Drive r312.2ss.ssoo Hardln Suite 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 schiffhardin.com State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client Ivil ed or attorney work produ -- . constitute inside information or internal 'erative staff - unlawful. If you a - - received this communication in error, plea . tify the :nder imme' ely by return e-mail and de - -- - munication and all copies thereof. including - - - an unintended recipient do 5 not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. ll\ Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterhoifer. Dana Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:26 PM To: Bloomberg, David Armitage, Julie Subject: FW: [External] MPS Revision-Requested Information Hi Julie and David. See below. Thanks, Dana From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:25 PM To: 'Cipriano, Renee' Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information Hi Renee. Thank you for the information. The Agency is liker ok with the numbers, pending receipt of an explanation of how Dynegy arrived at them (for our understanding and for the T50). Also, have you had a chance to review the narrative portion of the draft rule revisions? Finally, the Agency is working on some minor rule changes that will be included in the next draft we provide to you. Thanks, Dana From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:02 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina; Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information Dear Dana and Gina. Please ?nd attached the information requested on unit allocation in the event ofa transfer. Please call with any questions. I will review the narrative portion of the draft rule revision as contained in the Agency?s draft tomorrow. Sorrytoday! Best, Renee Renee Cipriano Panner Schiff Hardin LLP :3122535720 I 233 South Wacker Drive f312.258.5600 Suite 6600 rcipriano@schiffhardin.com 11] Chicago, IL 60606 schiffhardin.com IEPA- OF RECORDS ii. AHAG RELEASABLF AUG 2 5 2017 nder that you recelved the message in en delete it. Thank you. 1 Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 8:39 AM To: Bloomberg, David Davis. Rory Subject: FW: [External] MPS Revision--Fiequested information Fyi. Thanks, Dana From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 5:14 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information lam checking on 1:30 pm. Be back as soon as I hear back. Thanks! Renee From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 4:44 PM To: Cipriano, Renee Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information Any time between 1:30 and 3:00 is good. 9:30 that morning works as well. From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 4:10 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information 0k great. 0n the call, we will make Monday work. Any particular time? From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 4:06 PM To: Cipriano, Renee Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision?Requested Information We?re making those types of tweaks to the rule language, so hopefully they address your issues. David and I are both unavailable tomorrow and David is out on Friday. Would you and Rick be free for a call on Monday? From: Cipriano, Renee 2?33: Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:31 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Roccaforte, Gina AUG 2 5 2017 Subject: RE: [External] MP5 Revision--Requested Information 1 L. -- Hi ladies. Yes, I have looked at the narrative and it needs to be tweaked just because we have one chart not two. Perhaps we should schedule a call? Does tomorrow work? I can also have Rick explain the chart so if you would like to have David and Roryjoin that might be helpful. Thank you! Renee From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:25 PM To: Cipriano, Renee Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information Hi Renee. Thank you for the information. The Agency is likely ok with the numbers, pending receipt of an explanation of how Dynegy arrived at them (for our understanding and for the T50). Also, have you had a chance to review the narrative portion of the draft rule revisions? Finally, the Agency is working on some minor rule changes that will be included in the next draft we provide to you. Thank; Dana From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:02 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina; Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: [External] MPS Revision-?Requested Information Dear Dana and Gina. Please find attached the information requested on unit allocation in the event of a transfer. Please call with any questions. I will review the narrative portion of the draft rule revision as contained in the Agency?s draft tomorrow. Sorrytoday! Best, Renee Renee Cipriano Partner 8 Schiff Hardin LLP 312.253.5720 I 233 South Wacker Drive f312.258.5600 0 Suite 6600 rcipriano@schiffhardin.com Chicago, IL 60606 ntained in this communication is confidential, may be ide information or internal deliber staff thorized use, disclos copying of this rohibited and may be unlaw . eceived this communication in by return wt] and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, 2 Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterhoffer. Dana Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 8:43 AM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision--Flequested Information I believe the purpose of the call is for Dynegy to explain their transfer numbers. Renee might have a thing or two to say about our original draft as well. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 8:39 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information UK - do we know speci?cally what we are talking about, since they haven't seen our latest draft yet (and we just got it on Thursday afternoon)? From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 5:02 PM To: Bloomberg, David E. Davis, Rory Subject: FW: [External] MP5 Revision--Requested Information Fyi. Gina will be sending out a meeting invite. Thanks Dana From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 5:01 PM To: 'Cipriano, Renee'; Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information That works, thanks Renee. Should we just call you? I?m not sure yet where we'll be at our end. From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 4:47 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana; Roccaforte, Gina Subject: FW: [External] MP5 Revision?-Requested Information Please let me know if Monday at 1:30 pm works for the IEPA Team. We are good with that time. Thank you! Renee Renee Cipria I10 IEPA or: RECORDS rcipriano@schiffhardin.com +1.312.258.5720 f+1.312.258.5600 AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: I?v? Schiff Hardin LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 7100 Chicago, it 60606 schiffhardin.com I v-card View bio From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 5:14 PM To: 'Vetterhoffer, Dana' Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information I am checking on 1:30 pm. Be back as soon as I hear back. Thanks! Renee From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 4:44 PM To: Cipriano, Renee Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision-Requested Information Any time between 1:30 and 3:00 is good. 9:30 that morning works as well. From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 4:10 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information 0k great. On the call, we will make Monday work. Any particular time? From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 4:06 PM To: Cipriano, Renee Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information We're making those types of tweaks to the rule language, so hopefully they address your issues. David and I are both unavailable tomorrow and David is out on Friday. Would you and Rick be free for a call on Monday? From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:31 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information Hi ladies. Yes, i have looked at the narrative and it needs to be tweaked just because we have one chart not two. Perhaps we should schedule a call? Does tomorrow work? I can also have Rick explain the chart so if you would like to have David and Roryjoin that might be helpful. Thank you! Renee From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:25 PM To: Cipriano, Renee Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: [External] MPS Revision?Requested Information 2 Hi Renee. Thank you for the information. The Agency is likely ok with the numbers, pending receipt ofan explanation of how Dynegy arrived at them (for our understanding and for the TSD). Also, have you had a chance to review the narrative portion of the draft rule revisions? Finally, the Agency is working on some minor rule changes that will be included in the next draft we provide to you. Thanks Dana From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:02 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina; Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: [External] MPS Revision--Requested Information Dear Dana and Gina. Please ?nd attached the information requested on unit allocation in the event of a transfer. Please call with any questions. I will review the narrative portion of the draft rule revision as contained in the Agency?s draft tomorrow. Sorrytoday! Best, Renee Renee Cipriano Partner Schiff Hardin LLP 312.253.5720 I 233 South Wacker Drive f312.258.5600 0 Suite 6600 rcipriano@schiffhardm.com Chicago, IL 60606 schiffhardrn.com use, disclosure or copying of this have received this mmunication in -mail and destroy this commu opies thereof, Roccaforte, Gina From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 4:55 PM To: Roccaforte. Gina Cc: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: [External] Re: Latest Draft of MP5 Thank you both! Renee Excuse Typos Sent from my iPhone On Jun 6, 2017, at 2:48 PM, Roccaforte, Gina wrote: Renee, Please find attached, for your review, the latest draft of the MPS. Let us know when you wish to discuss. Thank you, Gina This e-mail, and any docu ts attached or included hereto, is a confidential attorney-client, attorney vised that you have use, mination, forwarding, printing or - ail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error. please notify: Gina Roccaforte Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 N. Grand Ave. East (11'966627943276 IEPA DIVISION (217) 782-5544 (217) 782-9807 fax gina.roccaforte@illinoisgov . AUG 2 5 2017 L-.- EW: i 3 St a of Illinois - CO - it IALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is co fiential, may 2 - attorney- ient privileged or attorney work product, may constitute inside information ori ternal deli rative staff co unication, and is intended only for the us - . . ssee. Unuthorize use, disclosure or pying of this communication or a rt thereof is strict ohibited an may a - unlawful. If you have ceived this communication rror, please notify the sende im edi ely by return e-mail and troy this communica and all copies thereof, including all atta - ents. Receipt by an unintend recipient do ot waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other egrtion - a sclosure. (W 1 ?Part 225 Discussion DRAFT_060617.docxb This message and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney?client or other privilege+ If you believe that it has been sent to you in error. please reply to the sender that you received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you. Please note that the document provided below is in draft form only and is subject to any and all applicable disclaimers found on the Illinois EPA's "Privacy Policy and Disclaimers" webpage. The contents herein may be changed during the course of the development of the described rulemaking proposal and will not be considered in "?nal" form until it is ?led with the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Further, any reference to or use of the draft document below for any purpose other than as a basis for providing comments to the Illinois EPA, including the reference to or use of the draft documents as "?nal" documents or information, is prohibited. TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUBTITLE B: AIR POLLUTION CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SUBCHAPTER c: EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY Section 225.100 225.120 225.130 225.140 SOURCES PART 225 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS Severability Abbreviations and Acronyms De?nitions lncorporations by Reference SUBPART B: CONTROL OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC Section 225.200 225.202 225.205 225.210 225.220 225.230 225.232 225.233 225.234 225.235 225.237 225.238 225.240 225.250 225.260 225.261 225.263 225.265 GENERATING UNITS Purpose Measurement Methods Applicability Compliance Requirements Clean Air Act Permit Program (CAAPP) Permit Requirements Emission Standards for EGUs at Existing Sources Averaging Demonstrations for Existing Sources Multi-Pollutant Standards (MPS) Temporary Technology-Based Standard for EGUs at Existing Sources Units Scheduled for Permanent Shut Down Emission Standards for New Sources with EGUs Temporary Technology-Based Standard for New Sources with EGUs General Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Initial Certi?cation and Recerti?cation Procedures for Emissions Monitoring Out of Control Periods for Emission Monitors Additional Requirements to Provide Heat Input Data Monitoring of Gross Electrical Output Coal Analysis for Input Mercury Levels lEl??A - DIVISIOH OF RECORDS MANAGEMFNI RELEASABLE AUG 25 2017 MED 225.270 225.290 225.291 225.292 225.293 225.294 225.295 225.296 225.297 225.298 225.299 Noti?cations Recordkeeping and Reporting Combined Pollutant Standard: Purpose Applicability of the Combined Pollutant Standard Combined Pollutant Standard: Notice of Intent Combined Pollutant Standard: Control Technology Requirements and Emissions Standards for Mercury Combined Pollutant Standard: Emissions Standards for and SO: Combined Pollutant Standard: Control Technology Requirements for $02, and PM Emissions Combined Pollutant Standard: Permanent Shut-Downs Combined Pollutant Standard: Requirements for N03 and 802 Allowances Combined Pollutant Standard: Clean Air Act Requirements SUBPART C: CLEAN AIR ACT INTERSTATE RULE (CAIR) SO: TRADING PROGRAM Section 225.300 225.305 225.310 225.315 225.320 225.325 Section 225.400 225.405 225.410 225.415 225.420 225.425 225.430 225.435 225.440 225.445 225.450 225.455 225.460 225.465 225.470 225.475 225.480 Purpose Applicability Compliance Requirements Appeal Procedures Permit Requirements Trading Program SUBPART D: CAIR ANNUAL TRADING PROGRAM Purpose Applicability Compliance Requirements Appeal Procedures Permit Requirements Annual Trading Budget Timing for Annual Allocations Methodology for Calculating Annual Allocations Annual Allocations New Unit Set-Aside (NUSA) Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Gross Electrical Output and Useful Thermal Energy Clean Air Set?Aside (CASA) Energy Ef?ciency and Conservation, Renewable Energy, and Clean Technology Projects Clean Air Set?Aside (CASA) Allowances Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications Agency Action on Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications Compliance Supplement Pool Section 225.500 225.505 225.510 225.515 225.520 225.525 225.530 225.535 225.540 225.545 225.550 225.555 225.560 225.565 225.570 225.575 225.600 225.605 225.610 225.615 225.620 225.625 225.630 225.635 225.640 225.APPENDIX A SUBPART E: CAIR OZONE SEASON TRADING PROGRAM Purpose Applicability Compliance Requirements Appeal Procedures Permit Requirements Ozone Season Trading Budget Timing for Ozone Season Allocations Methodology for Calculating Ozone Season Allocations Ozone Season Allocations New Unit Set-Aside (NUSA) Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Gross Electrical Output and Use?ll Thermal Energy Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Energy Ef?ciency and Conservation, Renewable Energy, and Clean Technology Projects Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Allowances Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications Agency Action on Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications SUBPART F: COMBINED POLLUTANT STANDARDS Purpose (Repealed) Applicability (Repealed) Notice of Intent (Repealed) Control Technology Requirements and Emissions Standards for Mercury (Repealed) Emissions Standards for N03 and SO), (Repealed) Control Technology Requirements for 802, and PM Emissions (Repealed) Permanent Shut-Downs (Repealed) Requirements for CAIR CAIR and CAIR Ozone Season Allowances (Repealed) Clean Air Act Requirements (Repealed) Speci?ed EGUS for Purposes of the CPS Midwest Generation?s Coal- Fircd Boilers as of July 1, 2006) 225.APPENDIX Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems for Mercury 225.EXHIBIT A Speci?cations and Test Procedures 225. EXHIBIT Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures 225. EXHIBIT Conversion Procedures 225 EXHIBIT Quality Assurance and Operating Procedures for Sorbent Trap Monitoring Systems AUTHORITY: Implementing and authorized by Section 27 of the Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS SOURCE: Adopted in R06-25 at 31 Ill. Reg. 129, effective December 21, 2006; amended in at 31 111. Reg. 12864, effective August 31, 2007; amended in R09-10 at 33 Ill. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009; amended in R15-21 at 39 111. Reg. 16225, effective December 7, 2015; amended in at 111. Reg. effective SUBPART B: CONTROL OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS Section 225.233 Multi-Pollutant Standards (MPS) a) General. 1) 2) 3) As an alternative to compliance with the emissions standards of Section the owner of eligible EGUs may elect for those EGUs to demonstrate compliance pursuant to this Section, which establishes control requirements and standards for emissions of and $02, as well as for emissions of mercury. For the purpose of this Section, the following requirements apply: A) An eligible EGU is an EGU that is located in Illinois and which commenced commercial operation on or before December 31, 2004;and B) Ownership of an eligible EGU is determined based on direct ownership, by the holding of a majority interest in a company that owns the EGU or EGUs, or by the common ownership of the company that owns the EGU, whether through a parent-subsidiary relationship, as a sister corporation, or as an af?liated corporation with the same parent corporation, provided that the owner has the right or authority to submit a CAAPP application on behalf of the EGU. The owner of one or more EGUs electing to demonstrate compliance with this Subpart pursuant to this Section must submit an application for a CAAPP permit modi?cation to the Agency, as provided in Section 225.220, that includes the information speci?ed in subsection of this Section and which clearly states the owner?s election to demonstrate compliance pursuant to this Section 225.233. A) If the owner of one or more EGUs elects to demonstrate compliance with this Subpart pursuant to this Section, then all EGUs it owns in Illinois as of July 1, 2006, as de?ned in b) subsection of this Section, must be therea?er subject to the standards and control requirements of this Section, except as provided in subsection Such EGUs must be referred to as a Multi-Pollutant Standard (MPS) Group. B) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the owner may exclude from an MP8 Group any EGU scheduled for permanent shutdown that the owner so designates in its CAAPP application required to be submitted pursuant to subsection of this Section, with compliance for such units to be achieved by means of Section 225.235. 3) Notwithstanding anv contrarv provision in this subsection on and after Januag; I, 2018: A) The following EGUs shall be merged into a new MPS Group: Baldwin Units 1, 2, and 3; Coffeen Units 1 and Duck Creek Unit 1; ED. Edwards Units 2 and 3: Havana Unit 9: Hennepin Units 1 and 2: Joppa Units and Newton Unit 1. Ifone or more of the above EGUs are transferred to a different owner, such EGU or EGUs will become a separate MPS Group on and after the date of transfer. For purposes of this Section, ?transfer? means sale, conveyance, transfer, or other change in ownership of an and No other EGUs except for those listed in subsection of this Section are subiect to the requirements of this Section. Q4) When an EGU is subject to the requirements of this Section, the requirements apply to all owners or operators of the EGU. Notice of Intent. The owner of one or more EGUs that intends to comply with this Subpart by means of this Section must notify the Agency of its intention by December 31, 2007. The following information must accompany the noti?cation: l) The identi?cation of each EGU that will be complying with this Subpart by means of the multi-pollutant standards contained in this Section, with evidence that the owner has identi?ed all EGUs that it owned in Illinois as of July 1, 2006 and which commenced commercial operation on or before December 31, 2004; 2) If an EGU identi?ed in subsection of this Section is also owned or operated by a person different than the owner submitting the notice of intent, a demonstration that the submitter has the right to commit the EGU 3) 4) 5) or authorization from the responsible of?cial for the EGU accepting the application; The Base Emission Rates for the EGUs, with copies of supporting data and calculations; A summary of the current control devices installed and operating on each EGU and identi?cation of the additional control devices that will likely be needed for the each EGU to comply with emission control requirements of this Section, including identification of each EGU in the MPS group that will be addressed by subsection of this Section, with information showing that the eligibility criteria for this subsection are satis?ed; and Identification of each EGU that is scheduled for permanent shut down, as provided by Section 225.235, which will not be part of the MPS Group and which will not be demonstrating compliance with this Subpart pursuant to this Section. Control Technology Requirements for Emissions of Mercury. 1) Requirements for EGUs in an MPS Group. A) For each EGU in an MPS Group other than an EGU that is addressed by subsection of this Section for the period beginning July 1, 2009 (or December 31, 2009 for an EGU for which an SO: scrubber or fabric ?lter is being installed to be in operation by December 31, 2009), and ending on December 31, 2014 (or such earlier date that the EGU is subject to the mercury emission standard in subsection of this Section), the owner or operator of the EGU must install, to the extent not already installed, and properly operate and maintain one of the following emission control devices: i) A Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System, complying with the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section, except as may be otherwise provided by subsection of this Section, and followed by a Cold-Side Electrostatic Precipitator or Fabric Filter; or ii) If the boiler ?res bituminous coal, a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) System and an Scrubber. B) An owner of an EGU in an MPS Group has two options under this subsection For an MPS Group that contains EGUs smaller than 90 gross MW in capacity, the owner may designate any such 3} EGUs to be not subject to subsection of this Section. Or, for an MP8 Group that contains EGUs with gross MW capacity of less than 1 15 MW, the owner may designate any such EGUs to be not subject to subsection of this Section, provided that the aggregate gross MW capacity of the designated EGUs does not exceed 4% of the total gross MW capacity of the MPS Group. For any EGU subject to one of these two options, unless the EGU is subject to the emission standards in subsection of this Section, beginning on January 1, 2013, and continuing until such date that the owner or operator of the EGU commits to comply with the mercury emission standard in subsection of this Section, the owner or operator of the EGU must install and properly operate and maintain a Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System that complies with the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section, except as may be otherwise provided by subsection of this Section, and followed by either a Cold-Side Electrostatic Precipitator or Fabric Filter. The use of a properly installed, operated, and maintained Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System that meets the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section is de?ned as the ?principal control technique.? For each EGU for which injection of halogenated activated carbon is required by subsection of this Section, the owner or operator of the EGU must inject halogenated activated carbon in an optimum manner, which, except as provided in subsection of this Section, is de?ned as all of the followinginjection system designed for effective absorption of mercury, considering the con?guration of the EGU and its ductwork; The injection of halogenated activated carbon manufactured by Alstom, Norit, or Sorbent Technologies, Calgon Carbon?s FLUEPAC CF Plus, or Calgon Carbon?s FLUEPAC MC Plus, or the injection of any other halogenated activated carbon or sorbent that the owner or operator of the EGU has demonstrated to have similar or better effectiveness for control of mercury emissions; and The injection of sorbent at the following minimum rates, as applicable: i) For an EGU ?ring subbituminous coal, 5.0 per million actual cubic feet or, for any cyclone-?red EGU that will install a scrubber and baghouse by December 31, 2012, and 3i D) iv) which already meets an emission rate of 0.020 mercury-?Ger gross electrical output or at least 75 percent reduction of input mercury, 2.5 per million actual cubic feet; For an EGU ?ring bituminous coal, 10.0 per million actual cubic feet for any cyclone-?red EGU that will install a scrubber and baghouse by December 31. 2012. and which already meets an emission rate of 0.020 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical output or at least 75 percent reduction of input mercury, 5.0 per million actual cubic feet; For an EGU ?ring a blend of subbituminous and bituminous coal, a rate that is the weighted average of the above rates, based on the blend of coal being ?red; or A rate or rates set lower by the Agency, in writing, than the rate speci?ed in any of subsections or of this Section on a unit- speci?c basis, provided that the owner or operator of the EGU has demonstrated that such rate or rates are needed so that carbon injection will not increase particulate matter emissions or opacity so as to threaten noncompliance with applicable requirements for particulate matter or opacity. For the purposes of subsection of this Section, the flue gas ?ow shall be the gas ?ow rate in the stack for all units except for those equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot- side electrostatic precipitator; for units equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator, the ?ue gas flow rate shall be the gas ?ow rate at the inlet to the hot- side electrostatic precipitator, which shall be determined as the stack ?ow rate adjusted through the use of Charles? Law for the differences in gas temperatures in the stack and at the inlet to the electrostatic precipitator (Vcsp where gas ?ow rate in acf and gas temperature in Kelvin or Rankine The owner or operator of an EGU that seeks to operate an EGU with an activated carbon injection rate or rates that are set on a unit-speci?c basis pursuant to subsection of this Section must submit an application to the Agency prOposing such rate or rates, and must meet the requirements of subsections and of this Section, subject to the limitations of subsections and of this Section: A) The application must be submitted as an application for a new or revised federally enforceable operating permit for the EGU, and it 4} B) C) D) must include a summary of relevant mercury emission data for the EGU, the unit-speci?c injection rate or rates that are proposed, and detailed information to support the proposed injection rate or rates; and This application must be submitted no later than the date that activated carbon must ?rst be injected. For example, the owner or operator of an EGU that must inject activated carbon pursuant to subsection of this subsection must apply for unit-speci?c injection rate or rates by July I, 2009. Thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU may supplement its application; and Any decision of the Agency denying a permit or granting a permit with conditions that set a lower injection rate or rates may be appealed to the Board pursuant to Section 39 of the Act; and The owner or operator of an EGU may operate at the injection rate or rates proposed in its application until a ?nal decision is made on the application, including a ?nal decision on any appeal to the Board. During any evaluation of the effectiveness of a listed sorbent, an alternative sorbent, or other technique to control mercury emissions, the owner or operator of an EGU need not comply with the requirements of subsection of this Section for any system needed to carry out the evaluation, as ?lrther provided as follows: A) B) C) D) The owner or operator of the EGU must conduct the evaluation in accordance with a formal evaluation program submitted to the Agency at least 30 days prior to commencement of the evaluation; The duration and scope of the evaluation may not exceed the duration and scope reasonably needed to complete the desired evaluation of the alternative control technique, as initially addressed by the owner or operator in a support document submitted with the evaluation program; The owner or operator of the EGU must submit a report to the Agency no later than 30 days after the conclusion of the evaluation that describes the evaluation conducted and which provides the results of the evaluation; and If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows less effective control of mercury emissions from the EGU than was achieved with the principal control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU must resume use of the principal control technique. If the evaluation of the alternative control technique 5} 5} shows comparable effectiveness to the principal control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU may either continue to use the alternative control technique in a manner that is at least as effective as the principal control technique, or it may resume use of the principal control technique. If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows more effective control of mercury emissions than the control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU must continue to use the alternative control technique in a manner that is more effective than the principal control technique, so long as it continues to be subject to this subsection In addition to complying with the applicable recordkeeping and monitoring requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU that elects to comply with this Subpart by means of this Section must also comply with the following additional requirements: A) B) C) For the ?rst 36 months that injection of sorbent is required, it must maintain records of the usage of sorbent, the ?uegas ?ow rate from the EGU (and, if the unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator, ?ue gas temperature at the inlet of the hot?side electrostatic precipitator and in the stack), and the sorbent feed rate, in pounds per million actual cubic feet of ?ue, on a weekly average; After the ?rst 36 months that injection of sorbent is required, it must monitor activated sorbent feed rate to the EGU, gas ?ow rate in the stack, and, if the unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator, ?ue gas temperature at the inlet of the hot-side electrostatic precipitator and in the stack. It must automatically record this data and the sorbent carbon feed rate, in pounds per million actual cubic feet of ?ue gas, on an hourly average; and If a blend of bituminous and subbituminous coal is ?red in the EGU, it must keep records of the amount of each type of coal burned and the required injection rate for injection of activated carbon, on a weekly basis. Until June 30, 2012, as an alternative to the CEMS or excepted monitoring system (sorbent trap system) monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU may elect to comply with the emissions testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Section and (2), and (4), and 10' d) 7) In addition to complying with the applicable reporting requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU that elects to comply with this Subpart by means of this Section must also submit quarterly reports for the recordkeeping and monitoring conducted pursuant to subsection of this Section. Emission Standards for Mercury. 1) 2) 3) 4) For each EGU in an MP8 Group that is not addressed by subsection of this Section, beginning January 1, 2015 (or such earlier date when the owner or operator of the EGU noti?es the Agency that it will comply with these standards) and continuing thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU must comply with one of the following standards on a rolling 12-month basis: A) An emission standard of 0.0080 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical output; or B) A minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury. For each EGU in an MPS Group that has been addressed under subsection 1 of this Section, beginning on the date when the owner or Operator of the EGU noti?es the Agency that it will comply with these standards and continuing thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU must comply with one of the following standards on a rolling 12-month basis: A) An emission standard of 0.0080 lb mercury-"GWh gross electrical output; or B) A minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury. Compliance with the mercury emission standard or reduction requirement of this subsection must be calculated in accordance with Section 225.230(a) or or Section 225.232 until December 31, 2013. Until June 30, 2012, as an alternative to demonstrating compliance with the emissions standards in this subsection the owner or operator of an EGU may elect to comply with the emissions testing requirements in Section and of this Subpart. Emission Standards for and $02. 1) N0x Emission Standards. I A) B) Beginning in calendar year 2012 and continuing through calendar year for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall N099 annual emission rate of no more than 0.11 lb/million Btu or an emission rate equivalent to 52 percent of the Base Annual Rate of emissions, whichever is more stringent. Beginning in the 2012 ozone season and continuing through the ozone season-therea?er, for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall seasonal emission rate of no more than 0.11 lbfmillion Btu or an emission rate equivalent to 80 percent of the Base Seasonal Rate of emissions, whichever is more stringent. Except as otherwise provided in subsection of this SectionJ beginning in calendar year 2018 and continuing in each calendar year thereafter, the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MPS Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined annual emissions in excess of 25,000 tons from all EGUs. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (0 of this Section, beginning in the year 2018 and continuing in each year thereafter, from May 1 to September 30. the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MPS Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined N03: emissions in excess of 11.500 tons from all EGUs. On and alter anuarv I. 2018. the owner and operator of Baldwin Units 1 and 2: Coffeen Units 1 and 2: Duck Creek Unit 1; ED. Edwards Unit 3; and Havana Unit 9 must: Operate existing SCR control svstems on the EGUs in accordance with good operating practices and at all times the EGUs are operating: and From Mav 1 to September 30. complv with a combined average emission rate of no more than 0.10 lb/mthu. 2) SO: Emission Standards. A) Beginning in calendar year 2013 and continuing in calendar year 2014, for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall SO: annual emission rate B) of 0.33 lb/million Btu or a rate equivalent to 44 percent of the Base Rate of S02 emissions, whichever is more stringent. Beginning in calendar year 2015 and continuing through calendar year for the EGUs in each MPS Groupi-H-g, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall annual emission rate for of 0.25 lbs/million Btu or a rate equivalent to 35 percent of the Base Rate of SO: emissions, whichever is more stringent. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (B of this Section, beginning in calendar vear 2018 and continuing in each calendar year thereafter. the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MPS Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosnhere combined annual SO). emissions in excess of 55.000 tons ?'om all EGUs. Beginning in calendar vear 2018 and continuing in each calendar year thereafter, the owner and operator of Joppa Units must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined annual emissions in excess of 19,860 tons from such EGUS. Transfer of EGUs in an MPS Group. If EGUs in an MPS Group are transferred to a different owner: A) For the MPS Group from which EGUs are transferred: The combined emissions limitations for the MPS Group set forth in subsections l) and of this Section, as applicable, must be adiusted bv subtracting from those limitations the applicable allocation amounts set forth in Columns A, B, and in subsection of this Section that are attributable to the transferred EGUs. The owner and Operator of the MPS Group must complv with the adiusted emissions limitations beginning in the calendar year in which the transfer takes place. For a new MPS Groun consisting of the acquired EGUs: i_1 The owner and Operator of the EGUs in an MPS Grour) must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined annual emissions in excess of the applicable annual limitation from all EGUs. The applicable annual NO): limitation shall be the sum of the allocation amounts attributable to all EGUs in the MPS l3 Group set forth in Column A of subsection (W2) of this Section. From May 1 to September 30, the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MPS Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined emissions in excess of the applicable seasonal limitation from all EGUs. The applicable seasonal limitation shall be the sum of the allocation amounts attributable to all EGUs in the MPS Group set forth in Column of subsection (W2) of this Section. The owner and operator of the EGUs in an MPS Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined annual SO: emissions in excess of the applicable annual SO: limitation from all EGUs. The applicable annual limitation shall be the sum of the unit allocation amounts attributable to all EGUs in the MPS Group set forth. in Column of subsection (W2) of this Section. If any of the EGUs specified in subsection 1e)! 1 of this Section are transferred to a different owner. the new owner and operator of the EGU or EGUs must comply with the provisions of subsections and (cltl )(Ellii) ofthis Section on and after the date of transfer. If the transfer takes place between May 1 and September 30. the new owner and operator must demonstrate compliance with the provisions of subsection tell 1 )(Ellii) of this Section for the entire Mav throunh September 30 compliance period. Q) The owner and operator of the EGUs as of the last day of the applicable compliance period must demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of this Section for the entire applicable compliance period. g) Allocation Amounts in the Event of Transfer of EGUs. Column A. Column B. Column C. LL05 .59; Allocation Allocation Allocation Amount Amount (Mav Amount (TPY) in the 1 - Sept 30 (TPY) in the Event of Tons) in the Event of Transfer Event of Transfer Transfer l4 A) Baldwin 6,000 2,400 6,000 B) Havana 1,800 720 1.500 C) Hennepin 1,500 600 6,000 D) Coffeen 2,000 800 250 E) Duck Creek 1,400 560 250 F) Edwards 3,000 1,200 10000 G) .1013sz 5,200 2.080 18,000 H) Newton 2,700 1,080 10,000 If EGUs in an MPS Group are transferred to a different owner: A) The transferring owner must notifv the Agencv?s Bureau of Air, Compliance Section, in writing within seven days of the date of transfer. The noti?cation must include the following information: 1) i) ii) Name and address of the transferring owner and Operator; List of the EGUs transferred; For the remaining EGUs in the MPS Group, calculations pursuant to subsection A) of this Section demonstrating the adiusted combined annual emissions limitation, the adiusted combined emissions limitation from Mav to September 30, and the adiusted combined annual SO: emissions limitation that are applicable to the MPS Group; Name and address of the new owner and operator; and Date of transfer. The acquiring owner must notify the Agency?s Bureau of Air, Compliance Section, in writing within seven days of the date of transfer. The noti?cation must include the following information: Name and address of the acquiring owner and operator: Name and address of the transferring owner and operator; 15 List of the EGUS acquired; i1) Calculations pursuant to subsection (W 1 KB) of this Section demonstrating the combined annual emissions limitation. the combined NOX emissions limitation ?om May I to September 30. and the combined annual $02 emissions limitation that are applicable to the acquiring owner and operator?s MPS Group: and 1) Date of transfer. l? gt) 1) 2) Requirements for and SO: Allowances. The owner or operator of EGUs in an MPS Group must not sell or trade to any person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person allowances allocated to the EGUs in the MPS Group for vintage years 2012 and beyond that would otherwise be available for sale, trade, or exchange as a result of actions taken to comply with the standards in subsection of this Section. Such allowances that are not retired for compliance must be surrendered to the Agency on an annual basis, beginning in calendar year 2013. This provision does not apply to the use, sale, exchange, gift, or trade of allowances among the EGUs in an MPS Group. The owners or operators of EGUs in an MPS Group must not sell or trade to any person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person SO: allowances allocated to the EGUs in the MPS Group for vintage years 2013 and beyond that would otherwise be available for sale or trade as a result of actions taken to comply with the standards in subsection of this Section. Such allowances that are not retired for compliance, or otherwise surrendered pursuant to a consent decree to which the State of Illinois is a party, must be surrendered to the Agency on an annual basis, beginning in calendar year 2014. This provision does not apply to the use, 3) 4) 5) sale, exchange, gift, or trade of allowances among the EGUs in an MP8 Group. The provisions of this subsection do not restrict or inhibit the sale or trading of allowances that become available from one or more EGUs in a MP3 Group as a result of holding allowances that represent over- compliance with the or standard in subsection of this Section, once such a standard becomes effective, whether such over?compliance results from control equipment, ?Jel changes, changes in the method of operation, unit shut downs, or other reasons. For purposes of this subsection and SO: allowances mean allowances necessary for compliance with Sections 225.310, 225.410, or 225.510, 40 CFR 72, or Subparts AA and of40 CFR 96, or any future federal or SO: emissions trading programs that modify or replace these programs. This Section does not prohibit the owner or operator of EGUs in an MP3 Group from purchasing or otherwise obtaining allowances from other sources as allowed by law for purposes of complying with federal or state requirements, except as speci?cally set forth in this Section. By March 1, 2010, and continuing each year thereafter, the owner or operator of EGUs in an MP3 Group must submit a report to the Agency that demonstrates compliance with the requirements of this subsection (0 for the previous calendar year, and which includes identi?cation of any allowances that have been surrendered to the USEPA or to the Agency and any allowances that were sold, gifted, used, exchanged, or traded because they became available due to over-compliance. All allowances that are required to be surrendered must be surrendered by August 31, unless USEPA has not yet deducted the allowances ?'om the previous year. A ?nal report must be submitted to the Agency by August 31 of each year, verifying that the actions described in the initial report have taken place or, if such actions have not taken place, an explanation of all changes that have occurred and the reasons for such changes. If USEPA has not deducted the allowances from the previous year by August 31, the ?nal report will be due, and all allowances required to be surrendered must be surrendered, within 30 days after such deduction occurs. Recordkeeping. On and after January 1. 2018. the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MP3 Group must keep and maintain all records used to demonstrate compliance with this Section. including but not limited to those listed in subsections (h)(ll and Copies of such records must be kept at the source and maintained for at least ?ve years from the date the document is created and must be submitted by 13 the owner and operator to the Agency within 30 days after receipt of a written request by the Agency. l_1 g1 All emissions monitoringinfonnation gathered in accordance with 40 CFR 75. Copies of all reports. compliance certi?cations. and other documents necessary to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this Section. Reporting. 1_1 2) Prior to January 1. 2018. compliance with the and S02 emission standards must be demonstrated in accordance with Sections 225.310. 225.410, and 225.510. The owner or operator of EGUs must complete the demonstration of compliance before March 1 of the following year for annual standards and before November 1 for seasonal standards. by which date a compliance report must be submitted to the Agency. 0n and after anuary l, 2018, the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MP3 Group must demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements set forth in this Section as set forth below. Beginning in 2019. the owner and operator of EGUs in an MP8 Group must submit to the Agency?s Bureau of Air. Compliance Section. 21 report demonstrating compliance with the emissions standards under subsections (em )1 C), (e112 11C). [e112 11D), and (W1) of this Section. as applicable. and with the requirements under subsection of this Section. as applicable. on or before March 1 of each year. Such compliance report must include the following for the precedingcalendar year: Actual emissions of each pollutant. expressed in tons. for each individual EGU in the MPS Group. Combined actual emissions of each pollutant. expressed in tons. for all EGUs in the MPS Group. Combined actual emissions of S02. expressed in tons. for all oppa EGUs. ii) A statement indicating whether the SCR control systems on Baldwin Units 1 and 2; Coffeen Units 1 and 2: Duck Creek Unit 1; ED. Edwards Unit 3; and Havana Unit 9 were operated at all times such EGUs were operating and in accordance with operating practices. l9 p) A statement indicating whether the EGUs in an MPS Group were operated in compliance with the requirements of this Seam E) A certi?cation by a responsible of?cial that states the I certifv under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under mv direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that Quali?ed personnel propeer gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on mv inquirv of the person or persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are signi?cant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibilng of ?ne and imprisonment for knowng violations. Bv November 1 of each vear. the owner and operator of EGUs in an MPS Group must submit to the Agency?s Bureau of Air, Compliance Section, a report demonstrating compliance with the emissions standards under subsections (elt 1ND). (elt ll(El(iil. and of this Section. as applicable. Such compliance report must include the following for the preceding May 1 through September 30: Actual emissions of NOX. expressed in tons. for each individual EGU in the MPS Group. Combined actual emissions of expressed in tons. of all EGUs in the MPS Grouo. average emission rate (lbs/mthu) for each of Baldwin Units 1 and 2; Coffeen Units 1 and 2; Duck Creek Unit 1: ED. Edwards Unit 3: and Havana Unit 9. i1) Combined average emission rate (lbs/mthu) for Baldwin Units 1 and 2: Coffeen Units 1 and 2: Duck Creek Unit 1; ED. Edwards Unit 3: and Havana Unit 9. g) A statement indicating whether the EGUs in an MPS Group were operated in compliance with the reduirements of this Section. 20 vi) A certi?cation by a responsible of?cial that states the following: I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that quali?ed personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons directly resnonsible for gathering the information. the information submitted is. to the best of my knowledge and belief. true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are signi?cant penalties for submitting false information. including the possibility of ?ne and imprisonment for knowing violations. 1) For each EGU in an MP8 Group, the owner or operator must notify the Agency of deviations from any of the requirements of this Section. At a minimum. these noti?cations must include a description of such deviations within 30 days after discovery of the deviations. a discussion of the possible cause of such deviations, and a description of any corrective actions and preventative measures taken. (Source: Amended at 111. Reg. effective Roccaforte, Gina From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:34 AM To: 'Cipriano, Renee' Subject: RE: MPS Revisions Sounds good! I will check with Dana first thing Monday morning. l?m here until 3:30 today, so call when it is convenient. From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:01 AM To: Roccaforte, Gina Cc: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: [External] Re: MPS Revisions How about if we do both. I will preview the changes and then the three of us can talk Monday. Does that work? Excuse Typos Sent from my iPhone On Jun 9, 2017, at 8:13 AM, Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Friday, June 09. 2017 2:44 PM To: Roccaforte. Gina Subject: [External] Attachments: Revised Proposal for Transfer Sale Tons.pdf Hi Gina: As requested, the revised allocations. Thank you. Have a good weekend! Renee RECORDS 0 AUG 2 5 2017 MED Revised Proposal to Modify Section Unit Allocation Amounts in the Event of Transfer or Sale of EGUs Station tolumn A. Station N0x "Column B. Station Column C. Station 502 Allocation Amount Allocation Amount Allocation Amount (TPY) in the Event of (May 1 - Sept 30 Tons) (TPY) in the Event of Transfer in the Event of Transfer Transfer Baldwin 6,000 2,700 6,000 Havana 1,800 810 1,500 Hennepin 1,500 675 6,000 Coffeen 2,000 900 250 Duck Creek 1,400 630 250 Edwards 3,000 1,350 10,000 Joppa 5,200 2,340 18,000 Newton 2,700 1,215 10,000 DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 9:14 AM To: Davis, Rory Hi Rory. Are you free for a 9:30 meeting in David?s office re the Thanks, Dana Vetterhoffer Deputy General Counsel, Air Regulatory Unit Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (217)782-5544 fax: (217)782-9807 nay-client, attor work product and/or pre-d IA-exempt document intended for is addressed. if you are not an Ipient and have received this e-mail in error, advised that any use, forwarding, printing or copying this e-mail is prohibited. I - OF RECORDS ANAGE RELEASABLE MENT AUG 2 5 2017 MED Davis, Rom From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 11:03 AM To: Ross, James Subject: RE: time for quick call today? Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Not sure. My understanding is that communication is still through the attorneys, so I'd need to check with them for availability. I believe Gina is out at 2:15 for at least a little while before coming back. From: Ross, James Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 11:02 AM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: [External] time for quick call today? With Rick and I. At 2, 2:30, or 3? State a ois - CONFIDENTIALI NOTI :The information contained in -: - ication is confidential, may be attr ey-cl ent privileged or atto ey work pro ct, may constitute insid ormation or int i deliberative staff a munic tion, and is inten onty forthe use i the addressee. authorized use. disciosur copying of this mmunic ion or any pa ereoi is strictly prohi'ted and - unlawful. If you have received . -- - . ion in .- rror, pleas -- notify the nder immediately by return I and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all ttachm 5. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privil any other exemption from disclosure. - ON OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Roccaforte, Gina From: Bloomberg. David E. Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 2:46 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina Cc: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: Please email when you get back Gina, please shoot Dana me an email when you get back so we can see about calling Jim. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone in error, ple 5e notify sender immediately return e-mail and des Is communication and all copiest ereof, including all ttac ents. Receipt by an unintende es not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work IEPA - DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterholfer, Dana Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:55 PM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: FW: MPS changes-?another call today? Importance: High Time set? Thanks, Dana From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:54 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] RE: MPS changes--another call today? Yes. Still two areas we would like to discuss. was going to call Gina. Sorry. Do you have a time set? From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:42 PM To: Cipriano, Renee Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: MPS changes-?another call today? Hi Renee. Jim reached out to David about having a quick discussion this afternoon regarding the rule language. Are you available to participate? IEPA- DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEHE v7 Thanks" RELEASABLE Dana Vetterhoffer Deputy General Counsel, Air Regulatory Unit Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (217)782-5544 fax: (217)782-9807 . REVIEWER: MED AUG 2 5 2017 tained in this communication is confid?tl?5, may be staff an unintended recipient do exemption from not waive at ?c Ient privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any 0 Roccaforte, Gina From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 4:02 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] RE: MPS changes-another call today? I will check and set up a call in number. From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:58 PM To: Cipriano, Renee Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: MPS changes-another call today? How about 4:15? Gina is out of the office right nowback today. I believe Rory is out as well, so it may just be David and myself. From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:54 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] RE: MPS changes--another call today? Yes. Still two areas we would like to discuss. I was going to call Gina. Sorry. Do you have a time set? From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:42 PM To: Cipriano, Renee Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: MPS changes--another call today? Hi Renee. Jim reached out to David about having a quick discussion this afternoon regarding the rule language. Are you available to participate? nos 0 Thanks, DIVISION Dana Vetterhoffer Deputy General Counsel, Air Regulatory Unit AUG 2 5 2017 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (217)782-5544 fax: (217)732-9307 MED its contents may be a confidential attorney-client, attorney work product and/or pre-decisional FOIA-exempt document intended ed. If you are not an/the intended re have received this e- rror, ng, printing or copyi is e-mail is State of Illinoi contained in this 0 unication is con?dential, may be at rney- constitute inside information or In I deliberative 1 Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 4:03 PM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: FW: MPS changes--another call today? See below. Thanks, Dana From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 4:02 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] RE: MPS changes--another call today? I will check and set up a call in number. From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:58 PM To: Cipriano, Renee Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: MPS changes--another call today? How about 4:15? Gina is out of the office right nowback today. I believe Rory is out as well, so it may just be David and myself. From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:54 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] RE: MP5 changes--a nother call today? Yes. Still two areas we would like to discuss. I was going to call Gina. Sorry. Do you have a time set? From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:42 PM To: Cipriano, Renee Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: MPS changes--another call today? Hi Renee. Jim reached out to David about having a quick discussion this afternoon regarding the rule language. Are you available to participate? - I 1 IL . Thanks, AUG 2 5 2017 Dana Vetterhoffer 1 MFD Deputy General Counsel, Air Regulatory Unit Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (217)782-5544 fax: (217)782-9807 tents may be a confiden torney-client, attor re-decisional FOlA-exempt document intended it is addressed. If you are not an/the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error, rwarding, printing or ying of this e-mail is prohibited. This e-mail and its State of - CONFIDENTI TY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be work product. may constitute i rrnation or internal deliberative staff . Unauthorize disclosure or copyin IS communication in sender immediately e-mail and destroy this communication and all copies thereof. ments. Receipt by an unintended regglt does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work re including all product privilege. or any other exemption from disWEL may contain confidential the att rney-client or other Roccaforte, Gina From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Monday. June 12, 2017 4:15 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: Re: Please email when you get back Please come to my of?ce. We're calling now. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Roccaforte, Gina wrote: Just got back. Message-m- From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 2:46 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina Cc: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: Please email when you get back Gina, please shoot Dana 8: me an email when you get back so we can see about calling Jim. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorneysclient privileged atto ey work product, may constitute inside information or internal deliberative staff communication, and is i ended for the use of the addressee. Unauthori - se, disclosure or copying of this co - ication or any art thereofi strictly prohibited and may be un . ful. If you . - received this communication i error, lease noti he sender imm iater by return e-mail an a stray this communic and all copies thereof, cluding . lattach ents. Receipt by an nintended recipient - es not waive attorney-client privl - - - - - product pri ilege any other exemption om disclosur - IEFA - OF RECORDS RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 s?u?E? Roccaforte, Gina From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Tuesday, June 13. 2017 10:03 AM To: Roocaforte, Gina; Vetierhoffer, Dana Subject: [External] SCR Information CD paragraph 55: ?Beginning 30 days after entry of the Consent Decree, and continuing thereafter, DMG shall operate each SCR in the DMG system at all times when the Unit it serves is in operation, provided that such operation of the SCR is consistent with the technological limitations, manufacturer?s Specifications, and good engineering and maintenance practices for the SCR. During any such period in which the SCR is not operational, DMG will minimize emissions to the extent reasonably practicable.? CD paragraph 123: ?in addition to the progress reports required pursuant to the Section, DMG shall provide a written report to EPA, the State of Illinois, and the Citizen Plaintiffs of any violation of the requirements of the Consent Decree within fifteen (15) days of when DMG knew or should have known of any such violation. In this report, DMG shall explain the cause or causes of the violation and all measures taken or to be taken by DMG to prevent such violations in the future.? Suggested MPS language based on CD paragraph 55: Each SCR control system shall be operated at all times when the EGU it serves is in operation, provided that such operation of the SCR control system is consistent with the technological limitations, ma nufacturer?s specifications, and good engineering and maintenance practices for the SCR. During any such period in which the SCR control system is not operational, the owner or operator of the EGU will minimize emissions from that EGU to the extent reasonably practicable. Suggested MPS language to replace based on CD paragraph 123: A statement indicating that the SCR control systems on Baldwin Units 1 and 2; Coffeen Units 1 and 2; Duck Creek Unit 1; ED. Edwards Unit 3; and Havana Unit 9 were operated at all times, when the EGU each serves is in operation, consistent with the technological limitations, manufacturer?s specifications and good engineering and maintenance practices for the SCR control systems. Deviations would remain covered by Thank you Renee Renee Cipriano Partner rcipriano@schiffhardin.com +1.312.258.5720 f+1.312.258.5600 IEPA - DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELEASABLE Schiff Hardin LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 7100 Chicago, IL 60606 schiffhardin.com v-card view bio AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: This message and in rmation prot cted by chments may contain confidential attorney-client or Roccaforte, Gina From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 10:19 AM To: Roccaforte, Gina Cc: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: [External] RE: Latest Draft of MP8 Thank you. From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 8:33 AM To: Cipriano, Renee Cc: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: Latest Draft of MP5 Good morning Renee, Please find attached the latest draft of the MP5. The new provisions are highlighted. Thank you, Gina A fe-mail. and ny documents attached or included hereto, is nfidential attorney-client, attorn or roduct and/or ecisional r0 -exempt documnt' tended solely forth use 0 he individual to whom iti dressed. . should be 3 led accoingl . 'ient, be adv ed the ou have received this - all in error and that any use. dissemination. forwar'ng, Inting or cOpying - Is e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify: Gina Roccaforte Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 N. Grand Ave. East PO. Box 19276 Springfield, lL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544 (217) 782-9807 fax 2ina.roccafortc@illinoisgov IEPA . mmsrow OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOT may be 1 Please note that the document provided below is in draft form only and is subject to any and all applicable disclaimers found on the Illinois EPA's "Privacy Policy and Disclaimers" webpage. The contents herein may be changed during the course of the development of the described rulemaking proposal and will not be considered in "?nal" form until it is ?led with the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Further, any reference to or use of the draft document below for any purpose other than as a basis for providing comments to the Illinois EPA, including the reference to or use of the draft documents as "?nal" documents or information, is prohibited. TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUBTITLE B: AIR POLLUTION CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SUBCHAPTER c: EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY Sec?on 225.100 225.120 225.130 225.140 SOURCES PART 225 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS Severability Abbreviations and Acronyms De?nitions Incorporations by Reference SUBPART B: CONTROL OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM ELECTRIC Section 225.200 225.202 225.205 225.210 225.220 225.230 225.232 225.233 225.234 225.235 225.237 225.238 225.240 225.250 225.260 225.261 225.263 225.265 GENERATING UNITS Purpose Measurement Methods Applicability Compliance Requirements Clean Air Act Permit Program (CAAPP) Permit Requirements Emission Standards for EGUs at Existing Sources Averaging Demonstrations for Existing Sources Multi-Pollutant Standardg (MPS) Temporary Technology-Based Standard for EGUs at Existing Sources Units Scheduled for Permanent Shut Down Emission Standards for New Sources with EGUs Temporary Technology-Based Standard for New Sources with EGUs General Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Initial Certi?cation and Recerti?cation Procedures for Emissions Monitoring Out of Control Periods for Emission Monitors Additional Requirements to Provide Heat Input Data Monitoring of Gross Electrical Output Coal Analysis for Input Mercury Levels IEPA - OF MANAGEMENT RELEASABLI: AUG 2 5 2017 DFVIEWER: MED 225.270 225.290 225.291 225.292 225.293 225.294 225.295 225.296 225.297 225.298 225.299 Noti?cations Recordkeeping and Reporting Combined Pollutant Standard: Purpose Applicability of the Combined Pollutant Standard Combined Pollutant Standard: Notice of Intent Combined Pollutant Standard: Control Technology Requirements and Emissions Standards for Mercury Combined Pollutant Standard: Emissions Standards for and Combined Pollutant Standard: Control Technology Requirements for N03, 802, and PM Emissions Combined Pollutant Standard: Permanent Shut-Downs Combined Pollutant Standard: Requirements for and SO: Allowances Combined Pollutant Standard: Clean Air Act Requirements SUBPART C: CLEAN AIR ACT INTERSTATE RULE (CAIR) SO: TRADING PROGRAM Section 225.300 225.305 225.310 225.315 225.320 225.325 Section 225.400 225.405 225.410 225.415 225.420 225.425 225.430 225.435 225.440 225.445 225.450 225.455 225.460 225.465 225.470 225.475 225.480 Purpose Applicability Compliance Requirements Appeal Procedures Permit Requirements Trading Program SUBPART D: CAIR ANNUAL TRADING PROGRAM Purpose Applicability Compliance Requirements Appeal Procedures Permit Requirements Annual Trading Budget Timing for Annual Allocations Methodology for Calculating Annual Allocations Annual Allocations New Unit Set-Aside (NUSA) Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Gross Electrical Output and Use?il Thermal Energy Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Energy Ef?ciency and Conservation, Renewable Energy, and Clean Technology Projects Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Allowances Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications Agency Action on Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications Compliance Supplement Pool SUBPART E: CAIR NO): OZONE SEASON TRADING PROGRAM Sec?on 225.500 Purpose 225.505 Applicability 225.510 Compliance Requirements 225.515 Appeal Procedures 225.520 Permit Requirements 225.525 Ozone Season Trading Budget 225.530 Timing for Ozone Season Allocations 225.535 Methodology for Calculating Ozone Season Allocations 225.540 Ozone Season Allocations 225.545 New Unit Set-Aside (NUSA) 225.550 Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Gross Electrical Output and Useful Thermal Energy 225.555 Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) 225.560 Energy Ef?ciency and Conservation, Renewable Energy, and Clean Technology Projects 225.565 Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Allowances 225.570 Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications 225.575 Agency Action on Clean Air Set-Aside (CASA) Applications SUBPART F: COMBINED POLLUTANT STANDARDS 225.600 Purpose (Repealed) 225.605 Applicability (Repealed) 225.610 Notice of Intent (Repealed) 225.615 Control Technology Requirements and Emissions Standards for Mercury (Repealed) 225.620 Emissions Standards for and SO), (Repealed) 225.625 Control Technology Requirements for 802, and PM Emissions (Repealed) 225.630 Permanent Shut-Downs (Repealed) 225.635 Requirements for CAIR 302, CAIR NOX, and CAIR Ozone Season Allowances (Repealed) 225.640 Clean Air Act Requirements (Repealed) 225.APPENDIX A Speci?ed EGUs for Purposes of the CPS Midwest Generation?s Coal- Fired Boilers as of July 1, 2006) 225.APPENDIX Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems for Mercury A Speci?cations and Test Procedures 225. EXHIBIT Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures 225. EXHIBIT Conversion Procedures 225 EXHIBIT Quality Assurance and Operating Procedures for Sorbent Trap Monitoring Systems AUTHORITY: Implementing and authorized by Section 27 of the Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5?27]. SOURCE: Adopted in R06-25 at 31 111. Reg. 129, effective December 21, 2006; amended in R06-26 at 31 Reg. 12864, effective August 31, 2007; amended in R09-10 at 33 Ill. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009; amended in R15-21 at 39 Ill. Reg. 16225, effective December 7, 2015; amended in Rl7-_ at 111. Reg. effective B: CONTROL OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS Section 225.233 Multi-Pollutant Standards (MPS) a) General. 1) 2) 3) As an alternative to compliance with the emissions standards of Section the owner of eligible EGUs may elect for those EGUs to demonstrate compliance pursuant to this Section, which establishes control requirements and standards for emissions of and 302, as well as for emissions of mercury. For the purpose of this Section, the following requirements apply: A) An eligible EGU is an EGU that is located in Illinois and which commenced commercial operation on or before December 31, 2004;and B) Ownership of an eligible EGU is determined based on direct ownership, by the holding of a majority interest in a company that owns the EGU or EGUs, or by the common ownership of the company that owns the EGU, whether through a parent-subsidiary relationship, as a sister corporation, or as an af?liated corporation with the same parent corporation, provided that the owner has the right or authority to submit a CAAPP application on behalf of the EGU. The owner of one or more EGUs electing to demonstrate compliance with this Subpart pursuant to this Section must submit an application for a CAAPP permit modification to the Agency, as provided in Section 225.220, that includes the information Speci?ed in subsection of this Section and which clearly states the owner?s election to demonstrate compliance pursuant to this Section 225.233. A) If the owner of one or more EGUs elects to demonstrate compliance with this Subpart pursuant to this Section, then all EGUS it owns in Illinois as ofJuly 1, 2006, as de?ned in 13) subsection of this Section, must be thereafter subject to the standards and control requirements of this Section, except as provided in subsection Such EGUs must be referred to as a Multi-Pollutant Standard (MPS) Group. B) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the owner may exclude from an MP3 Group any EGU scheduled for permanent shutdown that the owner so designates in its CAAPP application required to be submitted pursuant to subsection of this Section, with compliance for such units to be achieved by means of Section 225.235. 4_1 Notwithstanding any contrarv provision in this subsection on and after Januag 1, 2018: A) The following EGUs shall be merged into a new MPS Group: Baldwin Units 1, 2, and 3: Coffeen Units 1 and 2; Duck Creek Unit 1; ED. Edwards Units 2 and 3: Havana Unit 9: Hennepin Units 1 and 2; Joppa Units and Newton Unit 1. lfone or more of the above EGUs are transferred to a different owner, such EGU or EGUs will become a separate MPS Group on and after the date of transfer. For purposes of this Section, ?transfer? means sale, conveyance, transfer, or other change in ownership of an and g) No other EGUs except for those listed in subsection of this Section are subiect to the requirements of this Section. Q4) When an EGU is subject to the requirements of this Section, the requirements apply to all owners or operators of the EGU. Notice ofIntent. The owner of one or more EGUs that intends to comply with this Subpart by means of this Section must notify the Agency of its intention by December 31 2007. The following information must accompany the noti?cation: 1) The identi?cation of each EGU that will be complying with this Subpart by means of the multi-pollutant standards contained in this Section, with evidence that the owner has identi?ed all EGUs that it owned in Illinois as of July 1, 2006 and which commenced commercial operation on or before December 31, 2004; 2) If an EGU identi?ed in subsection of this Section is also owned or operated by a person different than the owner submitting the notice of intent, a demonstration that the submitter has the right to commit the EGU cl 3) 4) 5) or authorization from the responsible of?cial for the EGU accepting the application; The Base Emission Rates for the EGUs, with copies of supporting data and calculations; A summary of the current control devices installed and Operating on each EGU and identi?cation of the additional control devices that will likely be needed for the each EGU to comply with emission control requirements of this Section, including identi?cation of each EGU in the MPS group that will be addressed by subsection of this Section, with information showing that the eligibility criteria for this subsection are satis?ed; and Identi?cation of each EGU that is scheduled for permanent shut down, as provided by Section 225.235, which will not be part of the MPS Group and which will not be demonstrating compliance with this Subpart pursuant to this Section. Control Technology Requirements for Emissions of Mercury. 1) Requirements for EGUs in an MP3 Group. A) For each EGU in an MP8 Group other than an EGU that is addressed by subsection of this Section for the period beginning July 1, 2009 (or December 31, 2009 for an EGU for which an scrubber or fabric ?lter is being installed to be in operation by December 31, 2009), and ending on December 31, 2014 (or such earlier date that the EGU is subject to the mercury emission standard in subsection of this Section), the owner or operator of the EGU must install, to the extent not already installed, and properly operate and maintain one of the following emission control devices: i) A Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System, complying with the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section, except as may be otherwise provided by subsection of this Section, and followed by a Cold-Side Electrostatic Precipitator or Fabric Filter; or ii) If the boiler ?res bituminous coal, a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) System and an 802 Scrubber. B) An owner of an EGU in an MP8 Group has two options under this subsection For an MPS Group that contains EGUs smaller than 90 gross MW in capacity, the owner may designate any such 2} EGUS to be not subject to subsection ofthis Section. Or, for an MPS Group that contains EGUS with gross MW capacity of less than 115 MW, the owner may designate any such EGUS to be not subject to subsection of this Section, provided that the aggregate gross MW capacity of the designated EGUS does not exceed 4% of the total gross MW capacity of the MPS Group. For any EGU subject to one of these two options, unless the EGU is subject to the emission standards in subsection of this Section, beginning on January 1, 2013, and continuing until such date that the owner or operator of the EGU commits to comply with the mercury emission standard in subsection of this Section, the owner or operator of the EGU must install and properly operate and maintain a Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System that complies with the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section, except as may be otherwise provided by subsection of this Section, and followed by either a Cold-Side Electrostatic Precipitator or Fabric Filter. The use of a properly installed, operated, and maintained Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System that meets the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section is de?ned as the ?principal control technique.? For each EGU for which injection of halogenated activated carbon is required by subsection of this Section, the owner or operator of the EGU must inject halogenated activated carbon in an optimum manner, which, except as provided in subsection of this Section, is de?ned as all of the followinginjection system designed for effective absorption of mercury, considering the con?guration of the EGU and its ductwork; The injection of halogenated activated carbon manufactured by Alstom, Norit, or Sorbent Technologies, Calgon Carbon?s FLUEPAC CF Plus, or Calgon Carbon's FLUEPAC MC Plus, or the injection of any other halogenated activated carbon or sorbent that the owner or operator of the EGU has demonstrated to have similar or better effectiveness for control of mercury emissions; and The injection of sorbent at the following minimum rates, as applicable: i) For an EGU ?ring subbituminous coal, 5.0 per million actual cubic feet or, for any cyclone-fired EGU that will install a scrubber and baghouse by December 31, 2012, and 3} D) which already meets an emission rate of 0.020 mercuryr?GWh gross electrical output or at least 75 percent reduction of input mercury, 2.5 per million actual cubic feet; For an EGU ?ring bituminous coal, 10.0 per million actual cubic feet for any cyclone-?red EGU that will install a scrubber and baghouse by December 31, 2012, and which already meets an emission rate of 0.020 lb mercuryx'GWh gross electrical output or at least 75 percent reduction of input mercury, 5.0 per million actual cubic feet; For an EGU ?ring a blend of subbituminous and bituminous coal, a rate that is the weighted average of the above rates, based on the blend of coal being ?red; or A rate or rates set lower by the Agency, in writing, than the rate speci?ed in any of subsections or of this Section on a unit- speci?c basis, provided that the owner or operator of the EGU has demonstrated that such rate or rates are needed so that carbon injection will not increase particulate matter emissions or opacity so as to threaten noncompliance with applicable requirements for particulate matter or opacity. For the purposes of subsection of this Section, the ?ue gas ?ow shall be the gas ?ow rate in the stack for all units except for those equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot- side electrostatic precipitator; for units equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator, the ?ue gas ?ow rate shall be the gas ?ow rate at the inlet to the hot- side electrostatic precipitator, which shall be determined as the stack ?ow rate adjusted through the use of Charles? Law for the differences in gas temperatures in the stack and at the inlet to the electrostatic precipitator (Vcsp Vstack Where gas ?ow rate in acf and gas temperature in Kelvin or Rankine The owner or operator of an EGU that seeks to operate an EGU with an activated carbon injection rate or rates that are set on a unit-speci?c basis pursuant to subsection of this Section must submit an application to the Agency proposing such rate or rates, and must meet the requirements of subsections and of this Section, subject to the limitations of subsections and of this Section: A) The application must be submitted as an application for a new or revised federally enforceable operating permit for the EGU, and it 4} B) C) D) must include a summary of relevant mercury emission data for the EGU, the unit-speci?c injection rate or rates that are proposed, and detailed information to support the pr0posed injection rate or rates; and This application must be submitted no later than the date that activated carbon must ?rst be injected. For example, the owner or operator of an EGU that must inject activated carbon pursuant to subsection of this subsection must apply for unit-speci?c injection rate or rates by July 1, 2009. Thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU may supplement its application; and Any decision of the Agency denying a permit or granting a permit with conditions that set a lower injection rate or rates may be appealed to the Board pursuant to Section 39 of the Act; and The owner or operator of an EGU may operate at the injection rate or rates proposed in its application until a ?nal decision is made on the application, including a ?nal decision on any appeal to the Board. During any evaluation of the effectiveness of a listed sorbent, an alternative sorbent, or other technique to control mercury emissions, the owner or operator of an EGU need not comply with the requirements of subsection of this Section for any system needed to carry out the evaluation, as ?thher provided as follows: A) B) C) D) The owner or operator of the EGU must conduct the evaluation in accordance with a formal evaluation program submitted to the Agency at least 30 days prior to commencement of the evaluation; The duration and scepe of the evaluation may not exceed the duration and scope reasonably needed to complete the desired evaluation of the alternative control technique, as initially addressed by the owner or operator in a support document submitted with the evaluation program; The owner or operator of the EGU must submit a report to the Agency no later than 30 days after the conclusion of the evaluation that describes the evaluation conducted and which provides the results of the evaluation; and If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows less effective control of mercury emissions from the EGU than was achieved with the principal control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU must resume use of the principal control technique. If the evaluation of the alternative control technique 5} 5} shows comparable effectiveness to the principal control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU may either continue to use the alternative control technique in a manner that is at least as effective as the principal control technique, or it may resume use of the principal control technique. If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows more effective control of mercury emissions than the control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU must continue to use the alternative control technique in a manner that is more effective than the principal control technique, so long as it continues to be subject to this subsection In addition to complying with the applicable recordkeeping and monitoring requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU that elects to comply with this Subpart by means of this Section must also comply with the following additional requirements: A) B) C) For the ?rst 36 months that injection of sorbent is required, it must maintain records of the usage of sorbent, the ?uegas ?ow rate from the EGU (and, if the unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator, ?ue gas temperature at the inlet of the hot-side electrostatic precipitator and in the stack), and the sorbent feed rate, in pounds per million actual cubic feet of ?ue, on a weekly average; After the ?rst 36 months that injection of sorbent is required, it must monitor activated sorbent feed rate to the EGU, gas ?ow rate in the stack, and, if the unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator, ?ue gas temperature at the inlet of the hot?side electrostatic precipitator and in the stack. It must automatically record this data and the sorbent carbon feed rate, in pounds per million actual cubic feet of ?ue gas, on an hourly average; and If a blend of bituminous and subbituminous coal is ?red in the EGU, it must keep records of the amount of each type of coal burned and the required injection rate for injection of activated carbon, on a weekly basis. Until June 30, 2012, as an alternative to the GEMS or excepted monitoring system (sorbent trap system) monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU may elect to comply with the emissions testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Section and (2), and (4), and d) 7) in addition to complying with the applicable reporting requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU that elects to comply with this Subpart by means of this Section must also submit quarterly reports for the recordkeeping and monitoring conducted pursuant to subsection of this Section. Emission Standards for Mercury. 1) 2) 3) 4) For each EGU in an MP8 Group that is not addressed by subsection of this Section, beginning January 1, 2015 (or such earlier date when the owner or operator of the EGU noti?es the Agency that it will comply with these standards) and continuing thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU must comply with one of the following standards on a rolling 12-month basis: A) An emission standard of 0.0080 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical output; or B) A minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury. For each EGU in an MPS Group that has been addressed under subsection of this Section, beginning on the date when the owner or operator of the EGU noti?es the Agency that it will comply with these standards and continuing thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU must comply with one of the following standards on a rolling 12-month basis: A) An emission standard of 0.0080 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical output; or B) A minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury. Compliance with the mercury emission standard or reduction requirement of this subsection must be calculated in accordance with Section 225.230(a) or or Section 225.232 until December 31, 2013. Until June 30, 2012, as an alternative to demonstrating compliance with the emissions standards in this subsection the owner or operator of an EGU may elect to comply with the emissions testing requirements in Section and of this Subpart. Emission Standards for and S02. 1) Emission Standards. 2) A) 13) Beginning in calendar year 2012 and continuing through calendar year for the EGUS in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of the EGUS must comply with an overall NOxx annual emission rate of no more than 0.11 lb/million Btu or an emission rate equivalent to 52 percent of the Base Annual Rate ot'NOx emissions, whichever is more stringent. Beginning in the 2012 ozone season and continuing through the wand-continth ozone season-therea?er, for the EGUS in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of the EGUS must comply with an overall NOX seasonal emission rate of no more than 0.11 lbfmillion Btu or an emission rate equivalent to 80 percent of the Base Seasonal Rate of emissions, whichever is more stringent. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (0 of this Section, beginning in calendar year 2018 and continuing in each calendar year therea?er, the owner and operator of the EGUS in an MP8 Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined annual emissions in excess of 25.000 tons from all EGUS. Except as otherwise provided in subsection of this Section, l?ginning in the year 2018 and continuing in each year thereafter, from May I to September 30. the owner and operator of the EGUS in an MP3 Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined emissions in excess of 1 1.500 tons from all EGUS. On and after anuarv l, 2018, the owner and operator of Baldwin Units 1 and 2, Coffeen Units 1 and 2, Duck Creek Unit 1, ED. Edwards Unit 3, and Havana Unit 9 must: Operate each existing SCR control system on each EGU in accordance with good Operating practices and at all times when the unit it serves is in operation, provided that such operation of the SCR control system is consistent with the technological limitations, manufacturers? speci?cations, and good engineering and maintenance practices for the SCR control system. During any such period in which the SCR is not operational, the owner and operator must minimize emissions to the extent reasonably practicable; and From May 1 to September 30. comply with a combined average emission rate of no more than 0.l0 SO: Emission Standards. 12 A) 13) Beginning in calendar year 2013 and continuing in calendar year 2014, for the EGUs in each MPS Group, the owner and operator of the EGUS must comply with an overall SO: annual emission rate of 0.33 lb/million Btu or a rate equivalent to 44 percent of the Base Rate of SO: emissions, whichever is more stringent. Beginning in calendar year 2015 and continuing through calendar year for the EGUs in each MPS Grouping, the owner and operator of the EGUs must comply with an overall annual emission rate for SO: of 0.25 lbs/million Btu or a rate equivalent to 35 percent of the Base Rate of emissions, whichever is more stringent. Except as otherwise provided in subsection of this Section, beginning in calendar year 2018 and continuing in each calendar Year thereafter. the owner and Operator of the EGUs in an MP8 Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined annual SO: emissions in excess of 55.000 tons from all EGUs. Beginning in calendar Vear 2018 and continuing in each calendar year thereafter. the owner and operator of Joppa Units must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atm05phere combined annual emissions in excess of 19,860 tons from such EGUs. 1) Transfer of EGUs in an MP3 Group. If EGUs in an MP8 Group are transferred to a different owner: For the MPS Group from which EGUs are transferred: The combined emissions limitations for the MPS Group set forth in subsections 1) and (e)(2l of this Section, as applicable. must be adiusted by subtracting ?'om those limitations the applicable allocation amounts set forth in Columns A. B. and in subsection (m2) of this Section that are attributable to the transferred EGUS. The owner and Operator of the MPS Group must comply with the adiusted emissions limitations beginning in the calendar vear in which the transfer takes place. In determining compliance with the adiusted emissions limitations for such calendar year, the owner and Operator shall not include emissions from the transferred EGUs in the calculations of annual and seasonal emissions. For a new MPS Group consisting of the acquired EGUs: 13 11 The owner and operator of the EGUs in an MP8 Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined annual NO): emissions in excess of the applicable annual limitation from all EGUs. The applicable annual limitation shall be the sum of the allocation amounts attributable to all EGUS in the MPS Group set forth in Column A of subsection (W2) of this SeLion. From May 1 to September 30. the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MP8 Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined emissions in excess of the applicable seasonal N03 limitation from all EGUs. The applicable seasonal limitation shall be the sum of the allocation amounts attributable to all EGUs in the MPS Group set forth in Column of subsection (Jim; The owner and operator of the EGUs in an MP3 Group must not cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere combined annual emissions in excess of the applicable annual limitation from all EGUS. The applicable annual SO: limitation shall be the sum of the unit allocation amounts attributable to all EGUs in the MPS Group set forth in Column of subsection (W2) of this SeLion- Notwithstanding subsections if)! 1 )1 Mi) through above. if all the EGUS set forth under subsection (all4lfA) of this Section are transferred to the same owner on the same date. the owner and operator of the EGUs in the new MPS Group must comply with the emission limitations under subsection (6) of this Section beginning in the calendar year in which the transfer takes place; the allocation amounts in subsection 2 of this Section shall not apply. In determining compliance under this subsection for the calendar year in which the transfer of the EGUs takes place, the owner and operator of the acquired EGUs must include the acquired emissions for the entire applicable compliance periods in the calculations of annual and seasonal emissions. l4 If any of the EGUS speci?ed in subsection E1 of this Section are transferred to a different owner. the new owner and operator of the EGU or EGUS must comply with the provisions of subsections and of this Section on and after the date of transfer. If the transfer takes place between May 1 and September 30. the new owner and operator must demonstrate compliance with the provisions of subsection of this Section for the entire May 1 through September 30 compliance period. The owner and operator of the EGUS as of the last day of the applicable compliance period must demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of this Section for the entire applicable compliance period. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to relieve owners and operators of EGUS in an MP8 Group from any of the other requirements set forth in this Section. including the mercury standards under subsection of this Section. Allocation Amounts in the Event of Transfer of EGUS. Column A. Column B. Column C. E2. Allocation Allocation Allocation Amount Amount (May Amount (TPY) in the - Sept 30 (TPY) in the Tons) in the Event of Transfer Event of Transfer Transfer All Baldwin 6.000 2.700 6.000 Havana 1.800 810 1.500 H?inepin 1 .500 675 6.000 D) Coffeen 2.000 900 250 Duck Creek 1.400 630 250 Edwards 3 .000 .350 10.000 Joppa 5.200 2,340 1 8.000 Newton 2.700 1.215 10.000 15 i) If EGUs in an MPS Group are transferred to a different owner: A) The transferring owner must notify the Agency?s Bureau of Ai_r; Compliance Section. in writing within seven days of the date of transfer. The noti?cation must include the following information: i_1 m) Ly) Name and address of the transferring owner and operator; List of the EGUs transferred; For the remaining EGUs in the MPS Group. calculations pursuant to subsection ?t A) of this Section demonstrating the adiusted combined annual N0): emissions limitation, the adjusted combined emissions limitation from May 1 to September 30; and the adiusted combined annual SO: emissions limitation that are applicable to the MPS Group; Name and address of the new owner and operator; and Date of transfer. The acquiring owner must notify the Agency?s Bureau of Air. Compliance Section, in writing within seven days of the date of transfer. The noti?cation must include the following information: i_1 n?o. 1.3. Name and address of the acquiring owner and operator; Name and address of the transferring owner and operator; List of the EGUs acquired; Calculations pursuant to subsection (W 1)(Bl of this Section demonstrating the combined annual emissions limitation. the combined emissions limitation from May 1 to September 30, and the combined annual emissions limitation that are applicable to the acquiring owner and Operator?s MPS Group; and Date of transfer. gt) 1) 2) 3) 4) Requirements for and SO: Allowances. The owner or operator of EGUs in an MP8 Group must not sell or trade to any person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person NOK allowances allocated to the EGUs in the MPS Group for vintage years 2012 and beyond that would otherwise be available for sale, trade, or exchange as a result of actions taken to comply with the standards in subsection (6) of this Section. Such allowances that are not retired for compliance must be surrendered to the Agency on an annual basis, beginning in calendar year 2013. This provision does not apply to the use, sale, exchange, gi?, or trade of allowances among the EGUs in an MP8 Group. The owners or operators of EGUs in an MP8 Group must not sell or trade to any person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person allowances allocated to the EGUs in the MPS Group for vintage years 2013 and beyond that would otherwise be available for sale or trade as a result of actions taken to comply with the standards in subsection of this Section. Such allowances that are not retired for compliance, or otherwise surrendered pursuant to a consent decree to which the State of Illinois is a party, must be sitrrendered to the Agency on an annual basis, beginning in calendar year 2014. This provision does not apply to the use, sale, exchange, gift, or trade of allowances among the EGUs in an MP3 Group. The provisions of this subsection do not restrict or inhibit the sale or trading of allowances that become available ?'om one or more EGUs in a MP8 Group as a result of holding allowances that represent over- compliance with the or SO: standard in subsection of this Section, once such a standard becomes effective, whether such over?compliance results from control equipment, fuel changes, changes in the method of operation, unit shut downs, or other reasons. For purposes of this subsection (0, NO, and SO: allowances mean allowances necessary for compliance with Sections 225.310, 225.410, or 225.510, 40 CFR 72, or Subparts AA and of40 CFR 96, or any future federal or $02 emissions trading programs that modify or replace these programs. This Section does not prohibit the owner or 18 5) operator of EGUs in an MP8 Group from purchasing or otherwise obtaining allowances from other sources as allowed by law for purposes of complying with federal or state requirements, except as speci?cally set forth in this Section. By March 1, 2010, and continuing each year thereafter, the owner or operator of EGUs in an MP8 Group must submit a report to the Agency that demonstrates compliance with the requirements of this subsection (0 for the previous calendar year, and which includes identi?cation of any allowances that have been surrendered to the USEPA or to the Agency and any allowances that were sold, gifted, used, exchanged, or traded because they became available due to over-compliance. All allowances that are required to be surrendered must be surrendered by August 31, unless USEPA has not yet deducted the allowances from the previous year. A ?nal report must be submitted to the Agency by August 31 of each year, verifying that the actions described in the initial report have taken place or, if such actions have not taken place, an explanation of all changes that have occurred and the reasons for such changes. If USEPA has not deducted the allowances from the previous year by August 31, the ?nal report will be due, and all allowances required to be surrendered must be surrendered, within 30 days after such deduction occurs. Recordkeepin g. On and after January 1, 2018, the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MP8 Group must keep and maintain all records used to demonstrate compliance with this Section, including but not limited to those listed in subsections (113(1) and Copies of such records must be kept at the source and maintained for at least ?ve years from the date the document is created and must be submitted by the owner and operator to the Agency within 30 days after receipt of a written request by the Agency. All emissions monitoring information gathered in accordance with 40 CFR 75. 2) Copies of all reports, compliance certi?cations, and other documents necessary to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this Section. Reporting. Prior to January 1, 2018, compliance with the and $02 emission standards must be demonstrated in accordance with Sections 225.310, 225.410, and 225.510. The owner or operator of EGUs must complete the demonstration of compliance before March 1 of the following year for 19 2) annual standards and before November I for seasonal standards, by which date a compliance report must be submitted to the Agency. On and after January 1. 2018, the owner and operator of the EGUs in an MPS Group must demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements set forth in this Section as set forth below. A1 Beginni_ng in 2019, the owner and operator of EGUs in an MP8 Group must submit to the Agency?s Bureau of Air, Compliance Section. a report demonstrating compliance with the emissions standards under subsections (elt2)(C), and 1) of this Section. as applicable, and with the requirements under subsection (cit 1 )(Eltil of this Section. as applicable. on or before March I of each year. Such compliance report must include the following for the preceding calendar year: 9 Actual emissions of each pollutant, expressed in tons, for each individual EGU in the MPS Group. Combined actual emissions of each pollutant, expressed in tons. for all EGUs in the MPS Group. Combined actual emissions of $02, expressed in tons, for all Joppa EGUs. A statement indicating whether each existing SCR control system on Baldwin Units 1 and 2, Coffeen Units 1 and 2, Duck Creek Unit 1. ED. Edwards Unit 3. and Havana Unit 9 was operated in accordance with good operating practices and at all times when the unit it serves was in Operation. consistent with the technological limitations, manufacturers? speci?cations. and good engineering and maintenance practices for the SCR control system. A statement indicating whether the EGUs in an MP8 Group were operated in compliance with the requirements of this Section. A certi?cation by a responsible of?cial that states the following: I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that Qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the 20 information submitted is. to the best of my knowledge and belief. true. accurate. and complete. I am aware that there are signi?cant penalties for submitting false information. including the possibility of ?ne and imprisonment for knowi_ng violations. Bv November 1 of each year. the owner and operator of EGUs in an MPS Group must submit to the Agency?s Bureau of Air. Compliance Section. a report demonstrating compliance with the emissions standards under subsections (cit 1 ltD). BM ii). and 1) of this Section. as applicable. Such compliance report must include the following for the preceding May 1 through September i0; Actual emissions of expressed in tons, for each individual EGU in the MPS Greuo. Combined actual emissions of exoressed in tons. of all EGUs in the MPS Group. N03 average emission rate (lbs/mthu) for each of Baldwin Units 1 and 2; Coffeen Units 1 and 2: Duck Creek Unit 1: ED. Edwards Unit 3; and Havana Unit 9. Combined average emission rate (lbs/mthu) for Baldwin Units 1 and 2; Coffeen Units 1 and 2: Duck Creek Unit 1: ED. Edwards Unit 3; and Havana Unit 9. A statement indicating whether the EGUs in an MP3 Group were operated in compliance with the reguirements of this Section. A certi?cation bv a reSponsible of?cial that states the mg; I certify under penaltv of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under mv direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that Quali?ed personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inguiry of the person or persons directly responsible for gathering the information. the information submitted is. to the best of mv knowledge and belief. true. accurate. and complete. I am aware that there are signi?cant penalties for submitting false information. including the possibilitv of ?ne and imprisonment for knowing violations. 21 11 For each EGU in an MP8 Group, the owner or operator must notify the Agency of deviations from any of the requirements of this Section. At a minimum, these noti?cations must include a description of such deviations within 30 days after discovery of the deviations, a discussion of the possible cause of such deviations. and a description of any corrective actions and preventative measures taken. Within 30 days of the beginning of a period duri_ng which the SCR control system on Baldwin Unit 1, Baldwin Unit 2, Coffeen Unit 1, Coffeen Unit 2. Duck Creek Unit 1, ED. Edwards Unit 3, or Havana 9 is not Operated, the owner and operator must notify the Agency?s Bureau of Air, Compliance Section, in writing. This noti?cation must include, at a minimum, a description of why the SCR control system was not Operated. the time frames during which the SCR control system was not operated, and the steps taken to minimize emissions during these time frames. (Source: Amended at 111. Reg. effective I 22 Roccaforte, Gina From: Roccaforte. Gina Sent: Monday, June 19. 2017 3:04 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: MPS Update Renee phoned today to inform me that she is waiting to hear from one person on the latest draft of the MP5. She said all is good, but for a few things. She will call me back on Wednesday, because I am out of the office tomorrow. Gina This e-mail, and any documents attached or included hereto, is a con?dential attorney-client, attorney work product and/or pre-decisional FOIA-exempt document intended sol or the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. should be handled accordingly. intended recipie advised that you have receive error and that any use. din ng or copying of this ail is strictly prohibited. if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify: Gina Roccaforte Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 N. Grand Ave. East PO. Box 19276 Spring?eld, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544 (217) 782-9807 fax State of lliino' - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-cli rivileged or attorney work pro t. may constitute inside information or internal deliberative staff seas: AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 10:56 AM To: Bloomberg, David Davis, Flory Subject: FW: MPS Update Gina might?ve already forwarded this, but fyi. From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 3:04 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: MPS Update phoned today to inform me that she is waiting to hear from one person on the latest draft of the MPS. She said all is good, but for a few things. She will call me back on Wednesday, because I am out of the of?ce tomorrow. Gina This e-mail, and any documents attached or included hereto, is a confidential attorney-client, attorney work product and/or pre-decisional FOlA-exempt document intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed, and should be handled accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, fonivarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify: Gina Floccaforte Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 N. Grand Ave. East PO. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544 (217) 782-9807 fax einaxoccaforte@illinois.eov . . - . - . .Lil'? L?i\ Lll? ?UtmEN'l RELEASABLE E, AUG 2 5 2017 it REVIEWER MED State of Illin a IS - ONFIDENTIALITY E: Th information contained in this co - - I tion is confidential, may be alt ney-cl'nt pn ileged or attorney - rk product, constitute inside infor ?n or intern eliberative staff co mun' ation, a is intended yfor the use of the ddressee. Unaut ed use. disclosureo -n co mu ication or a a reof is strictly prohibited at - . awful. If you have received this communication in err lease notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and this communication and all copies thereof, 1 Roccaforte, Gina From: Roccaforle, Gina Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 11:11 AM To: 'Cipriano, Renee' Subject: RE: Follow up Yes, no problem! We'll talk tomorrow. From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 10:11 AM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] Follow up Sorry Gina! forgot I am in DC today. Are you in tomorrow? Sent from my iPad. Please excuse typos! A Then delete it. Thank you. pi MENT - DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGE IEPA RELEASABLE AUG 25 2017 REVIEWER: MED Roccaforte, Gina From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:52 AM To: 'rcipriano@schiffhardin.corn' Subject: MPS Outreach Renee, This is to inform you that the Agency expects, this afternoon or tomorrow, on sending out the email to interested parties to begin the 30-day outreach period regarding the proposed amendments to the MPS. Thanks, Gina recipient. be advis that you have eived this e-mail in erro nd that any use, ing. printing or copying his e-ma' strictly prohibited. If you have e-mail in error, please notify: Gina Roccaforte Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 N. Grand Ave. East PO. Box 19276 Spring?eld, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544 (217) 782-9807 fax ginaxoccafortcaDiIlinoiseov State Illinois - CONF I.- IALITY NOTICE: The information cont? in this communication is confidential, may be alto y-client priv' ged or att ey work product, may constit Inside i rmation or internal deliberative staff co nication. nd is intended oly for the use of the ad see. Unauthorl use, disclosure or copying of thi -- -- nicati or any part thereofi trictly prohibit - nd may be unlawful. If have received this - -- nication in error, lea - notify the sender immedia - rn e-mail and destroy this commu . copies thereof, includin all attachments. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or any other exemption from dIWe. or RECORDS I WW WENT REIEASABLF AUG 25 2017 1 REVIEV 'Ei ?Li; Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterhoffer. Dana Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:13 AM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: FW: Outreach List Hi David. See Renee's request below. Thanks Dana From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 10:51 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] Outreach List Good morning ladies. May I obtain a copy of the outreach list for the MPS revisions? I will be submitting a FOIA request shortly. Thank you! Renee sender that you it. Thank you. IEPA- DIVISION OF RELEASASLF AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER. MED Roccaforte, Gina From: Cipriano. Renee Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:30 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] RE: Outreach List Thank you! Have a great weekend as well! From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:27 AM To: Cipriano, Renee; Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: Outreach List Hi Renee. Gina and I actually don?t have a copy of the outreach list, but I forwarded the FOIA request to David; he'll be back in the office on Monday. Have a great weekend! From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 10:51 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] Outreach List Good morning ladies. May I obtain a copy of the outreach list for the MP5 revisions? I will be submitting a FOIA request shortly. Thank you! Renee that it has bee the sender State of Illinois I DENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is con?dential, may be attor y-clien a rivilege attorney work product, may constitute :c - ormation or internal deliberative staff including all attachments. Recel by an uninten - recipient does no aive attorney- product privilege, or any other exen - a disclosure. - DIVISION OF RECORDS MAM RELEASABLE AGEMENT AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER: MED Roccaforte, Gina From: Sent To: Cc: Subject: Here it is. Thanks, Dana Vetterhoffer. Dana Friday. July 28, 2017 11:23 AM Bloomberg, David E. Roccaforte, Gina FW: Illinois EPA FOIA Request Received - Renee Cipriano From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 10:58 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] FW: Illinois EPA FOIA Request Received - Renee Cipriano See below thank you. Renee From: Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 10:57 AM To: Cipriano, Renee Subject: Illinois EPA FOIA Request Received - Renee Cipriano 6 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency FOIA Request Received Friday, July 28, 2017 Ms. Renee Cipriano Schiff Hardin 233 Wacker Drive, Suite 7200 Chicago, IL 60606 Requester Type: Attorney Dear Renee Cipriano, - DIVISION Ol- RECORDS RELEASABLE AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWEH MED We have received your request for information under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. Listed below is a summary of what we received in your online request. Please do not reply to this email. If you have questions about your request please call (217)558-5101. Request Summary Received 7/28/2017 10:57:08 AM Reference Id(s) Date Range 07/223017 - 0728/2017 Request Narrative I would like to request a copy of the outreach list used by the Agency to complete outreach to stakeholders for revisions to the MPS portion of Part 225 of the Illinois Adminstrative Code. Thank you. 2015 Illinois EPA State of is - CO IDENTIALITY NOTICE: The inform .. Ion cont'ned in this communication is confidential. may be attorney- ient privilegx or attorney work product, may nstitute insi - information or internal deliberati - ta comm cation. and is Itended only for the use of the ddressee. Unau orized use, disclosure or ying of this com nication or any pa thereof is strictly prohibit and may be unlawf If you have recei a - his communication in erro lease notify the sener immediately by rat email and destroy this co -- - and all copies thereof, inc ding all attachments. Re eipt by an unint ed recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other - - ption disclosurm Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Friday. July 28, 2017 3:12 PM To: Dowson. Sharon Subiect: FW: Illinois EPA FOIA Flequest Received - Fienee Cipriano Hi Sharon. ljust wanted to give you a head?s up that I forwarded the FOIA Request below to David Bloomberg?he has the outreach list that?s being requested, and should be back in the office on Monday. Thanks Dana From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 10:58 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [External] FW: Illinois EPA FOIA Request Received - Renee Cipriano See below thank you. Renee From: epa.foia@illinois.gov Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 10:57 AM To: Cipriano,r Renee Subject: Illinois EPA FOIA Request Received - Renee Cipriano 0 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency FOIA Request Received Friday, July 28, 2017 Ms. Renee Cipriano Schiff Hardin 233 Wacker Drive, Suite 7200 Chicago, IL 60606 2 IEPA- DIVISION or RECORDS MANN Eh Requester Type: Attorney Dear Renee Cipriano, AUG 2 5 2017 REVIEWER MED We have received your request for information under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. Listed below is a summary of what we received in your online request. Please do not reply to this email. If you have questions about your request please call (217) 558-5101. Received Reference Id(s) Date Range Request Narrative rror. Then Request Summary 7/28/2017 10:57:08 AM 07/22/2017 - 07/28/2017 I would like to request a copy of the outreach list used by the Agency to complete outreach to stakeholders for revisions to the MPS portion of Part 225 of the Illinois Adminstrative Code. Thank you. 2015 Illinois EPA 1t. Thank you. Roccaforte, Gina From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Thursday, August 10. 2017 8:55 AM To: 'Cipriano, Renee? Cc: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: RE: [External] Re: USEPA Review of MP3 Amendmenls Hi Renee, Dana and I recently left message on your cell phone voice mail regarding our outreach meeting yesterday. I will be away from my desk 9:30-11:00 this morning, but available at 11:00 to talk. Does that work for you? From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 8:45 AM To: Roccaforte, Gina Cc: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: [External] Re: USEPA Review of MP5 Amendments Hi Gina. I will call this am! Excuse Typos Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Roccaforte, Gina wrote: Renee, USEPA has begun review of the proposed amendments to the MP8 and so far has only one concern. We believe it is inconsequential, but we need to address it in order to alleviate their concerns. USEPA is concerned that the language in Section reads as if it provides SSM relief. After discussions with them, we believe simply adding a clarifying sentence addresses this situation by explaining that the mass emissions cap complies continuously regardless of SCR Operation. We believe this reflects what Dynegy and the Agency already agreed is the case. Here is our suggested language change, highlighted below: IEPA - OF 6) Emission Standards for and $02. 1) Emission Standards. AUG 2 5 2017 MED E) 03' and'a?er anuarv 1. 2018. the owner and Operator of Baldwin Units 1 and 2. Coffeen Units 1 and 2. Duck Creek Unit 1. ED. Edwards Unit 3. and Havana Unit 9 must cornpr with the following: 9 Operate each existing SCR control system on each EGU in accordance with good operating practices and at all times when the unit it serves is in operation, 1 provided that such operation of the SCR control system is consistent with the technological limitations, manufacturers? speci?cations, and good engineering and maintenance practices for the SCR control system. During any such period in which the SCR is not operational. the owner and operator must minimize emissions to the extent reasonably practicable. All emissions from each EGU, regardless of whether the SCR is operational or non-operational. must be included in determining compliance with the emission standards set forth under subsections and of this SeLion- From May 1 to September 30, comply with a combined average emission rate of no more than 0.10 lb/mthu. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Gina This e-mail, and documents attached or included hereto, is a confidential attorney-client, attorney advised that you have receive - ail in error and that any use, dissemination. forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is 'ctly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify: . Gina Roccaforte Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 N. Grand Ave. East PO. Box 19276 Spring?eld. IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544 (217) 782-9807 fax 2ina.roccaforte@illinoisgov rm tion contained in this communication is rney product. may constitute inside information State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The i confidential, attorney-client privileged or a or Inte ald see. Unaut ori prohibited and ay eunlawfu .l is communicationi error, please ify the se der this communication an co I ereof. including all attachments. Receipt by an ded recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege. or any other exemption from disclosure. ma Roccaforte, Gina From: Vetlerhoffer, Dana Sent: Thursday. February 16, 2017 1:07 PM To: Roccaforte. Gina Subject: FW: Udpaled Summary of the Dynegy MPS Proposal Attachments: Dynegy MPS Preposaldocx This is a summary BOA put together earlier on. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 2:22 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana; Davis, Rory Subject: Udpated Summary of the Dynegy MP5 Proposal FYI, Julie had me make a few very minor updates to this ?just wanted to make sure you have the most up-to-date version. David attorne -client pi ileged ora lorney work uct, ma onstitute inside informxali or inter Ideliberalive staff comm nicali . and is intend only for use of the a dressee. Unaulho ?z?d use. disclos or copying of this pro tprivilege. or any othe mption from disclosure. {1450 Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 10:02 AM To: Vetterhofier, Dana; Becker, Bloomberg. David E. Subject: FIE: Dynegy?s MPSICPSIIMR documents From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 10:00 AM To: Becker, Bloomberg, David E. Cc: Armitage, Julie Subject: RE: Dynegy's documents From: Becker, PJ Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 8:03 AM To: Bloomberg, David Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Armitage, Julie Subject: Dynegy's documents I dropped off a copy of Dynegy?s documents in your mail box or of?ce. PJ State of Illinai - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: ation con tained in this communication is confidential, may be product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. We IEPA - DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT AUG 2 8 2017 REVIEWER: MED Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 11:24 AM To: Vetlerhoffer, Dana Subject: RE: Dynegy's documents She wants to meet today to at least discuss ?homework? for each of us, but we're not sure how that will work due to schedules. And I?ll probably be in St. Louis tomorrow. So I?m not sure what the plan is. From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 11:02 AM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: FW: Dynegy?s documents From: Becker, PJ Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 8:03 AM To: Bloomberg, David Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Armitage, Julie Subject: Dynegy's documents I dropped offa copy of Dynegy's documents in your mail box or of?ce. State of NH ois - CONFIDENTIALITY a. motion contained in this communication is confidential, may be product pri ge, or any other exemption from disclosure. we? Roccaforte, Gina From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:33 AM To: Rocoaforte, Gina Subject: Revisions to Mercury Rule: meeting will' Dynegy and IAPA Hi Gina. Just fyi, Julie said Dynegy will likely wept to meet regarding its proposed changes either next week or the next. I?ll let you know when there?s a date. Thanks Dana Vetterhoffer Acting Deputy General Counsel, Air Regulatory Unit Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (217)782-5544 fax: (217)7829807 l?Vl . eipt by an unintendec recipient does not waive attorney-client riyilege, attorney work Produ privilege. or any other exemption from disclosure. Armitage, Julie From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 10:01 AM To: Bloomberg, David Becker1 Armitage, Julie Subject: RE: Regional Haze SIP and Progress Report From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:14 PM To: Becker, Armitage, Julie Cc: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: Regional Haze SIP and Progress Report Julie Here are the original Regional Haze SIP Submittal and the Progress Report. The first 45 pages of the ?Regional Haze SIP Attachment 2 and Appendices A to E.pdf? is the original BART TSD. I will also ask Brenda to print copies for both of you. - David State of ?mm QNFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: - ormation contained in this communication is confidential. may be attor - ;clie tpriv aged or attorney work pr ct. may insrde Information or Internal de -- - - - - com: unic ion an is intended only for use of the ad ssee Unauthorized use. disc] re or copying of this com: un? ation or an part thereof is 'ctly prohibited and be unlawful. lfyou ha - ?eceived this communicaton in error, a see notify the ender immiately by return e-mail an destroy this com . ication and all copies thereof including all attachment Recei an unintended reCipient do not waive rney-chent priwlege attorney work product priviege. or any ot er exemption from disciosure. 4 1. Roccaforte, Gina From: Pressnall. Chris - Sent: Thursday, April 06. 2017 9:35 AM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: Dynegy Yes 674/73? Fatwa/f Environmental Justice Officer Illinois EPA (217) 524-1284 (217) 785-8346 (fax) chris.gressnall@illinois.gov TICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential. may be side information or inter liberative staff co ni ation are part lher of is strictl rohibited an may be unl se notify th sender' mediater etutigr?l and destroyt comm ncation and all copies thereof, . eipt by an uninten cipient does not 've a orney-client privilege, attorney work privilege, or any 0 er exemption from disclosure. From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 9:34 AM To: Pressnall, Chris Subject: RE: Dynegy - --. a From: Pressnall, Chris Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 9:33 AM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: Dynegy II- a? - - .v n? ?m'r ?rearm/i Environmental Justice Officer Illinois EPA (217) 524-1284 (217) 735-3345 (fax) chris.pressnall@illinois.gov la Illinois - CONFIDENTI NOTICE: The infoimW in this communic Ion n?dential, may be at rn -client privileged or attorneyi duct; may constitute in grmation or internal delibera laff 1 f} communication, and i ded only for the use of the addressee. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this reof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in mediately by retur -ma nd destroy this commu ies thereof, ey-client privilege, attorney work From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 9:28 AM To: Pressnall, Chris Subject: RE: Dynegy From: Pressnall, Chris Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 9:07 AM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: Dynegy Gina Kiwi" Premier/y Environmental Justice Of?cer Illinois EPA (217) 524-1234 (217) 785-8346 (fax) by return e-maii and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, includin ll attachments. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney?client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 9:12 AM To: Pressnall, Chris Subject: RE: Dynegy So, you miss legal, but not me?? I believe Christina won, with Ian in second. Awesome! Below are the facility ID I had the old Ameren ones in documents on my desk, but looked up the DMG ones. Hopefully, they are all accurate. If not, or you need additional information, just let me know. Thank you! Baldwin r? Coffeen Duck Creek E.D. Edwards 143805AAG Havana 125804AAB Hennepin Joppa 127855AAC Newton From: Pressnall, Chris Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 8:57 AM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: Dynegy Gina Thanks for your note, I miss Legal but getting settled in over here. I was also rooting for Gonzaga. Really hard game to watch. Who won the brackets contest? Back to business, it would really help if you could provide BOA ID numbers along with the facility name in order to conduct a search on El START. 62/413" Environmental Justice Of?cer Illinois EPA (217) 524-1284 (217) 785-8346 (fax) chris.pressnall@illinois.gov DENTIALITY NOTICE: The i State of Illinois - contained in this communication is con?dential, may be attorney-client ay constit inside information or internal deliberative staff commu icatio nauthorized use, disclosure or copyin is? comm nica or any par hereof is stric prohibited and may be wful. If you have received mmunication in ely by return e-mail and destroy I. munic ?nancial] copies thereof, all attachments. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege. attorney work produc privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. VVL From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 4:30 PM To: Pressnall, Chris Subject: Dynegy Mr. Of?cer, I miss you! How?s everything going? I was rooting for Gonzaga last night, but it is what it is. recall correctly, you told me to come to I did not get info as to whether or not any of the Dynegy and Illinois Power Holdings? (subsidiary of Dynegy) power stations (Coffeen, Duck Creek, Newton, E.D.Edwards, .loppa, Baldwin, Havana and Hennepin) are located in EJ areas. Can you assist Thank you! ?ne dissemination, fo ing, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error. please notify: mgo Gina Roccaforte Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 N. Grand Ave. East PO. Box 19276 Spring?eld, IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544 (217) 782-9807 fax State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is con?dential, may be ed or attorney work product, may constitute inside information or internal deliberative staff comm nica ion, and I intended only for the use of the addr Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this wful. If you have received this communication in se notify the se er immediately by retu e-mail and destroy communication and all cepies thereof, includi 9 all attachments. by an ?ded recipient does not waive rney-client privilege. attorney work product privilege, or any other exemp Ion from disclosure. ?0 yI/Ie Roccaforte. Gina From: Roccaforte. Gina Sent: Thursday, April 06. 2017 11:48 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: Dynegy and EJ Dana. I contacted Chris about the affected power stations and he informed me that Hennepin is the only station in an EJ area Gina This e-mail, and any documents attached or included hereto. is a con?dential attorney-client. attorney work product and/or pre-decisional FOIA-exempt document intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed, and should be handled accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding. printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error. please notify: Gina Roccaforte Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 N. Grand Ave. East PO. Box 19278 Spring?eld. IL 62794-9276 (217) 782-5544 (217) 782-9807 fax includi 9 all atta hm nts. Receipt by ended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege. attorney work produ tprivileg 0 any other exemption from disclosure. (MEG Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:16 PM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: FW: Draft Changes to MP8 Fiule Flevision Language You and Gina can just talk. From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:15 PM To: Bloomberg, David E. Subject: RE: Draft Changes to MP5 Rule Revision Language From 3:15 to 3:45. I have sexual harassment training from 1?3. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:11 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: Re: Draft Changes to MP5 Rule Revision Language Doubt I will be. I ran out for lunch, not knowing there would be a sudden rush. When are you available afterthat? Sent from my iPhone On May 17, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Vetterhoffer, Dana wrote: I?m only free until 12:45?if you?re free to chat before then, let me know and we can come up to Julie?s of?ce. From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:45 AM To: Bloomberg, David Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: RE: Draft Changes to MP5 Rule Revision Language From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:42 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Armitage, Julie; Roccaforte, Gina Subject: Re: Draft Changes to MP5 Rule Revision Language lam not available this afternoon at that time. l'm available part of tomorrow afternoon but not 1-3. Sent from my iPhone On May 17, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Vetterhoffer, Dana wrote: See below and the attachedThanks Dana From: CiprIano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:17 AM To: Roccaforte, Gina; Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: [External] Draft Changes to MP5 Rule Revision Language Hi Gina/Hi Dana. This attachment provides you with our suggested changes to the draft MPS Rule Revision Language. We thank you for the opportunity to review and share our position. I would like the chance to explain the changes to both of you, and Julie, if she would like to participate. Since time is of the essence, I will make myself available today or tomorrow. For today, I have a call starting at 11:30 am and it should last for about 1 hour. I also have a call at 3 pm for about hour. Otherwise, I will make myself available at your convenience (I am on cell all day today at 773-547-1111). Tomorrow, just name the time and I will be free. Thank you both so much for all of your work. Best, Renee State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged or attorney work product. may constitute in in rmation or internal deliberative staif communication. and is Receipt by an unintended recip not waive attorney-clien product privilege, or any other exemption from disciosur 7 Roccaforte, Gina From: Sent To: Subject: Roccaforle. Gina Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:26 PM Bloomberg, David E. RE: MPS revisions: call with Renee Jim, Rick, and the other guy (Ferry?) will also be attending. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:23 PM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: Re: MP5 revisions: call with Renee Is it just going to be her or technical people too? Sent from my iPhone On May 18, 2017, at 12:50 PM, Roccaforte, Gina wrote: I spoke with Renee and we have scheduled a meeting for Mondaygoing to drive down here. I will find a room and send a meeting invitation. From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:55 AM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: FW: MPS revisions: call with Renee Can you call Renee and see if she?s aware that Jim called with times/dates? From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:53 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Roccaforte, Gina; Armitage, Julie Subject: RE: MPS revisions: call with Renee Jim emailed me a little while ago asking if we are able to meet Monday or Tuesday at 10 or 1. However, you indicated that Renee was going to provide the available times. Are they getting wires crossed again? Do you want to check with Renee? I?m not going to reply to Jim at this point. From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:21 PM To: Bloomberg, David E. Armitage, Julie Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: MPS revisions: call with Renee Gina and I spoke to Renee this afternoon regarding Dynegy's proposed changes. Renee is going to provide proposed dates and times for a call among the larger group, which can hopefully take place Mon. or Tues. I?ll keep you posted. Thanks, Dana Vetterhoffer Deputy General Counsel, Air Regulatory Unit Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (217)782-5544 fax: (217)782?9807 This - and/or pre-decisional FOlA-ex'empt do nt in in recrpient and rec . at any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this?UI ited. cSitate of minois ONFID TIA TY NOTICE: The info mation contained in this communication is onfide ial. rney-clie tprivileged or attorne work prod constitute inside information I rinter al eliber i staff corn unic tion, and is inten ed on] or the use fthe addressee. Ira-d iater by eturn e?mail a estroylhis commu 0 Ion and ali'copies th reof. incl log all Va; ments. tended recipient doe egaltorney work pr uct priyil ge. or any other exemption from discl Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:56 PM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: FW: MPS revisions: call with Renee Fyi. Alec is not needed for this. Just BOA and Dynegy will be involved. you know. From: Roccaforte, Gina Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:51 PM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Armitage, Julie; Bloomberg, David Davis, Rory Subject: RE: MP5 revisions: call with Renee I spoke with Renee and we have scheduled a meeting for Mondaygoing to drive down here. I will find a room and send a meeting invitation. From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:55 AM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: FW: MPS revisions: call with Renee Can you call Renee and see if she?s aware that Jim called with times/dates? From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:53 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Cc: Roccaforte, Gina; Armitage, Julie Subject: RE: MP5 revisions: call with Renee Jim emailed me a little while ago asking if we are able to meet Monday or Tuesday at 10 or 1. However, you indicated that Renee was going to provide the available times. Are they getting wires crossed again? Do you want to check with Renee? I?m not going to reply to Jim at this point. From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:21 PM To: Bloomberg, David E. Armitage, Julie Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: MPS revisions: call with Renee Gina and I spoke to Renee this afternoon regarding Dynegy?s proposed changes. Regarding the big issues, Renee explained the following. by Renee is going to provide pr0posed dates and times for a call among the larger group, which can hopefully take place Mon. or Tues. I?ll keep you posted. Thanks, Dana Vetterhoffer Deputy General Counsel, Air Regulatory Unit Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (217)782-5544 fax: (217)782-9807 -- intended recipient . - 2 his e-mail is prohibite. State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attor lient privileged or attorn work oduct, may constitute inside information or internal deliberative staff co munic tion, and is intended nly for the including all atta . eceipt by an unintended recip not waive attorn -client privilege, attorney wo product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. Armita?e, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Thursday, December 08. 2016 3:24 PM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Subject: FW: Updated Summary of the Dynegy MPS Proposal Attachments: Dynegy MP5 Proposaldocx The other homework piece for Alec for the Ferry meeting. ?a From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 2:17 PM To: Armitage, Julie Cc: Becker,r PJ Subject: Updated Summary of the Dynegy MPS Proposal Julie, . .5. .-.--. - David State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client - ivileged or attorney work pro may constitute inside information or i - al deliberative staff communicatlo disclosur copying of this comm nicat you have receivedt '5 communication in error lea - noti ediately by return e-mal - I a - is communication and all copies thereof, wents ceipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work produ privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. ?0 IEPA - DIVISION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT RELEASABLE AUG 2 3 2017 REVIEWER: MED Armitage, Julie From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 12:26 PM To: Bloomberg, David E. Cc: Becker, PJ Subject: RE: Updated Summary of the Dynegy MPS Proposal Ifl were to guess I think it will either be wed pm or thurs am. You may have to juggle. But let?s just see how it plays out. It could also carry over to the 19?? or I?m certain they will push to deal with any and all air matters before I take off for the holidays. From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 8:52 AM To: Armitage, Julie Cc: Becker, PJ Subject: RE: Updated Summary of the Dynegy MPS Proposal Just so you know, my Tuesday is already almost completely booked (interviews), as is my Wednesday afternoon. From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 6:23 PM To: Bloomberg, David E. Cc: Becker, PJ Subject: RE: Updated Summary of the Dynegy MPS Proposal PJ and David Keep schedules as open as possible TH of this next week also the following as we will be Dynegy on this matter before Christmas at Alec?s availability. When we meet on this From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 2:17 PM To: Armitage, Julie Cc: Becker, PJ Subject: Updated Summary of the Dynegy MPS Proposal Julie, inclu iqg all a ments. Receipt an 'ntended recipient Wraith privilege. attorney work prod ct pr' liege, ranyother emption fro Io 6) Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Becker, PJ Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 2:31 PM To: Vetterhoiter, Dana; Armitage, Julie; BIo-smberg, David E. Subject: RE: Revions to Mercury Flute: Boone Memo Attachments: 2014 _08 PJ State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be at 'ent privile or at a ney war product, onstitute inside information or internal deliberative staff i ica 'on, an isi tenddolyfo - use of ad essee. Unauto 'zed use, di sure or copyin this 0 if nicati or ny po tt ereo 's rictli prol ited and cry be an wfu. If you It ye eived this 0mm nicotion in rr_ please if these 1 rimmeiatelyb eturn e-moil an .- - oy this ication - al opies thereof, i I ding all attachments. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. my From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:33 AM To: Armitage, Julie; Becker, Bloomberg, David E. Subject: Revions to Mercury Rule: Boone Memo Hi all. Attached is the memo that Dynegy quoted on p. 1 of its submittal regarding the impact of emissions averaging time on the stringency of emission standards. Thanks, Dana Vetterhoffer Acting Deputy General Counsel, Air Regulatory Unit Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (217)732-5544 fax: (217)782-9807 State of Illinois - NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is con?dential, may be attor ent pr' ileged or attorney product. i'iy constitute inside inlor ation or internal deliberative staff 00 icatio ,a is intnc only art a use - the 'tddress e. Unaulh we use, disc 5 .- or cop of this i. mun ati or at p: tthe ot' strictl ro ibiteda dm ybe lav ul.lty0L av ecelvec hi or un? a on in rror. plea. - notin th enderi ediately return e-ma' nd riestr . this comm in ~1ation not at opies reot, Including all attachments. Receipt by an unintended recipient not w-iive attorney-stem attorney work :3roduct privilege, or any other exemption from Wig? Sections Affected NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING TITLE 18. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CHAPTER 2. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PREAMBLE Rulemaking Action RI 8-2-70] Amend Rl 8-2-733 Repeal Repeal 8-2-734 Amend The statutory authorig for the rulemaking:I including both the authorizing statute (general! and the statutes the rules are implementing (speci?c): Authorizing Statutes: A.R.S. 49-] l) and Implementing Statutes: A.R.S. A list of all previous notices appearing in the Register addressing the rules: Notice of Rulemaking Docket Opening: 20 A.A.R. September 20l4 (in this issue). The name and address of agency personnel with whom persons may communicate regarding the rulemaking: Name: Steve Burr, Executive Consultant II Address: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 1 10 W. Washington Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85007 Telephone: (602) ?I'll-425] (This number may be reached in-state by dialing l-800-234-5677 and entering the seven digit number.) Fax: (602) 771-2366 E-mail: Burr.Steve@azdeq.gov An explanation of_tl_le rules, including the agency?s reasons for initiating. the rules: Summag. These proposed amendments to the state standards for emissions of mercury by coal- ?red electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) in Rl8-2-733. -733.0l and -734 (the ?Arizona Mercury Rule") would revise those rules to re?ect EPA's repeal of its cap-and-trade program For mercury emissions and adoption of maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. Speci?cally, the amendments would repeal provisions of the Arizona Mercury Rule (R 1 8-2- 733 and -733.01) that incorporate and modify the now defunct cap-and-trade program and (ii) amend the emission limits in R18-2-734 to be consistent with the MACT standards. Amended Rl 8-2-734 would also serve as a backstop state program for mercury emissions in case the MACT standards, which are currently being challenged in federal court, are vacated or repealed. The Clean Air Mercurv Rule and the Arizona Mercurv Rule. ADEQ adopted the Arizona Mercury Rule in 2006 in response to 2005 adoption of the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). i2 A.A.R. 470! (Dec. 22. 2006). CAMR imposed a cap-and-trade program under section I l(d) of the Clean Air Act that would have allowed individual EGUs to comply solely through the purchase of mercury emission allowances rather than the installation of controls. In order to assure that coal-?red EGUs in Arizona would achieve actual reductions in mercury emissions, rather than simply purchasing suf?cient allowances to cover their emissions, the Arizona Mercury Rule imposed a limit of ?10 percent of inlet mercury or 0.0087 pound per gigawatt-hour whichever is greater" less stringent). A.A.C. Rl The health and environmental concerns that lead to adoption of state standards to supplement CAMR with state emission limits are summarized in the economic, small business and consumer impact statement in section 8 of the preamble. Compliance with the Arizona Mercury Rule emission limits was to be determined on the basis of 12-month rolling averages measured through continuous monitoring performed in accordance with CAMR. Emissions averaging across all EGUs at a plant was expressly permitted. For existing EGUs, compliance was required for the 12-month average ending on December 20 I 3 and each subsequent 12-month period. A.A.C. Rl (C). The Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFRM) for the Arizona Mercury Rule recognized that most EGUs in Arizona burn subbituminous coal and that the 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions effectively required by the rule could not be achieved without the installation of mercury-speci?c controls, such as ACI. l2 A.A.R. at 4703-04, 4708. Subsection ofthe Arizona Mercury Rule provides an exemption for a plant that installs controls designed to achieve the rule?s limits in accordance with an ADEQ?approved control strategy, (2) is nevertheless unable to achieve compliance with the limits, (3) conducts an analysis of the "incremental best available control technology? and (4) obtains a permit revision imposing a new limit based on the results ofthat analysis. The D.C. Circuit vacated CAMR on February 8, 2008. To address the uncertainties created by the vacatur, ADEQ and each of the ownen?operators of the four Arizona coal-fired power plants subject to the state standard entered into consent orders that: - Extended the deadline for compliance with the Arizona Mercury Rule from December 31, 2013 to December3l, 2016. - Required a plan for interim reductions in mercury emissions of 50 or 70 percent, depending on the date they were implemented. The consent orders anticipated that in response to the vacatur, EPA might promulgate a MACT standard under section I l2(d) of the Clean Air Act. The orders stated that: At the time that EPA promulgates a MACT Standard that addresses mercury emissions from ADEQ intends to propose amendments to A.A.C. R18- 2-734 to ensure that the Arizona Mercury Rule is not incompatible with the MACT Standard. The MATS Rule. EPA in fact promulgated MACT standards for mercury, as well as numerous other hazardous air pollutants emitted by EGUs, in the MATS rulemaking on February I6, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 9304 (20l2). The MATS limits for mercury emissions from existing coal-?red EG Us burning bituminous and subbituminous coal are as follows: Averaging Period Averaging Across Units Allowed? Limit 30 days, rolling daily No .013 lb/GWh 90 days. rolling daily Yes lb/GWh 40 CPR. 63.999 1 63. 0009(a)(2), 63.1002 Table 2. The MATS rule also expresses these limits in terms of weight per heat input (lb/TBtu). Unlike the Arizona Mercury Rule, the MATS rule allows averaging across emissions units only in the case of the 90-day standard and then only if a number of conditions are satis?ed. For example, a facility intending to use emissions averaging must prepare and submit an emissions averaging plan. Existing EGUs are required to comply with the MATS rule by April I6. 2015. The MATS rule includes a separate, much more stringent limit for new EGUs. 73 Fed. Reg. 24073, 24075 (Apr. 24, 201 3). Because the Arizona Mercury Rule and the MATS rule use different averaging periods, a conversion is required to compare the two. EPA has provided a basis for making this conversion. In the course ofdeveloping the MATS, EPA conducted an analysis to ?evaluate the impact of averaging time on variability and to ?predict? the UPL [upper predictive limit] value for different averaging times for the MACT ?oor facilities.? Memorandum from Stephen Boone, et al., re The Impact of Emissions Averaging Time on the Stringency of an Emission Standard (Dec. 9, 20] Referenced at 77 Fed. Reg. at 9385. On the basis of CEMS data from 23 EGUS, EPA calculated that the MACT ?oor emission limits for different averaging periods would be as follows: Average Period Calculated UPL (days) With Control CEMS Data (lb 30 90 360 7.60E-07 Thus, in order to convert a 360-day limit to a 30-day limit of equivalent stringency, one should multiply the 360-day limit by a ratio of 1.74 The appropriate ratio for a 360-day to 90-day conversion is L36 (l.03 If these ratios are used to convert Arizona?s l2-month lb?GWh standard to 30?day and 90-day equivalents and compare the converted values to standards, the results are as follows: Averaging Period EPA Standard Arizona Eguivalent 30 days .0l3 lb/GWh .015 lb/GWh (.0087Xl.74) 90 days .01] .0l2 lb/GWh (.0087Xl.36) Thus, the Arizona Mercury Rule?s lb/GWh limit is equivalent to but somewhat less stringent than the MATS limits. The Arizona Mercury Rule is less stringent than the MATS rule in additional ways: i The Arizona Mercury Rule requires compliance determinations at the end of each month. The MATS rule requires daily compliance determinations. Unlike the MATS rule, the Arizona Mercury Rule allows compliance on the basis of a percentage reduction in mercury emissions as an alternative to the lb/GWh limit. If mercury concentrations in the inlet coal are sufficiently high, the percentage reduction standard could be signi?cantly less stringent than the lb/GWh limit. - The MATS rule does not include the Arizona Mercury Rule?s incremental BACT exemption or anything like it. The Arizona Mercury Rule automatically allows emissions averaging across all EGUs at a power plant. The MATS rule places a number ot?limits and conditions on emissions averaging. - The MATS rule includes a separate, much more stringent limit for new EG Us. - The MATS rule has an earlier compliance date (April 16., 20l5) than the date (December 3 2016) speci?ed in the consent orders. Litigation. Although the MATS rule is somewhat more stringent than the Arizona Mercury Rule. ADEQ is not proposing to repeal the state rule at this time. Numerous state and industrial parties ?led petitions for review of MATS, including the mercury emission limits. in the United State Court oprpeals for the DC Circuit. The DC. Circuit denied those petitions and upheld MATS in White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA. 748 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 2014). A petition for certiorari challenging this decision has been ?led with the Supreme Court and is currently pending. lf ADEQ repealed the Arizona Mercury Rule and mercury emission limits in the MATS rule were vacated or repealed as a result of a decision by the Supreme Court. the state would be left with no limits on EGU emissions on mercury. ADEQ is therefore proposing to amend the Arizona Mercury Rule to serve as a backstop program in case the MATS mercury emission limits are vacated or repealed. Section by Section Explanation of Proposed Rules: Amend de?nitions relating to mercury emissions from EGUs to be consistent with MATS rule. Repeal definitions that are no longer needed as a result of repeal of rules incorporating and modifying CAMR. R18-2-733 Repeal incorporation by reference which has been vacated and repealed. R18-2-733.0l Repeal provisions requiring owners and operators of EGUs to purchase additional mercury allowances in market established by CAMR under certain circumstances. R18-2-734 Amend state standards for mercury emissions to incorporate MATS emission limits for mercury by reference; (ii) eliminate inconsistencies with the MATS rule, such as the incremental BACT provision; assure that interim emission reductions required by the consent orders remain in effect; (iv) establish procedures for the state rule to take effect if the MATS emission limits for mercury are vacated or repealed; and allow EC: Us the option in that event to comply with the existing state limit or the MATS emission limits. A reference to any study relevant to the rules that the agencv reviewed and either relied on ip its evaluation of or iusti?cation for the rules or did not rely on in its evaluation of or iusti?cation for the rules, where the public may obtain or review each study, all data underlying each study, and any analysis of egh study and other supporting material: ADEQ, ?Fact Sheet: Fish Consumption Advisories? (October 2012), l'ca.pdf. EPA, ?Mercury Study Report to Congress Volume 1: Executive Summary" (December I997), 1 .pdf. EPA, ?Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards? (December 20] I221MATS?nalRlA.pdf. A showing of good cause why the rules are necessa? to promote a statewide interest if the rules will diminish a revious rant of authori of a olitical subdivision of this state: Not applicable. s, The preliminary sum man of the economic. small business, and consumer impact: The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for an economic, small business and consumer impact statement (ESBCIS) under A.R.S. 41?1055. An identification of the rule making. The rule making addressed by this ESBCIS consists of the repeal of A.A.C. RI 8-2-733 and -733.0l and amendments to the state limits on mercury emissions from coal-?red electric generating units at A.A.C. RI 8-2-734. The purpose of the amendments is to assure that the state mercury standards are consistent with and no more stringent than the corresponding federal law addressing the same subject matter as required by A.R.S. 7) and to provide a backstop program that will take effect if the corresponding federal law (the federal mercury standards in 40 CPR. Part 63, Subpart is repealed by EPA or vacated by a court. The amendments to the state mercury standards are described in greater detail in section 5 of this preamble. As discussed in section 5, the proposed amendments to the standards will make them somewhat less stringent and therefore will impose no new costs or bene?ts as compared to the status quo. The following discussion of the costs and bene?ts of the rule making therefore re?ects the costs and benefits of implementing the state mercury standards in Arizona. not the costs that would result from amending the standards. In addition, the state standards will result in the imposition of costs and accrual of bene?ts only if EPA repeals or a federal court vacates the federal standards. Unless that contingency occurs, any costs and benefits associated with reducing mercury emissions at coal??red electric generating units in Arizona will be the result of the federal, rather than the state, mercury standards. As noted in section 5, the emission limits imposed by the state mercury standards are equivalent in stringency to the federal standards, although the state standards will allow some additional flexibility if the federal standards are vacated or repealed. The level of control required by, bene?ts derived from and costs imposed by the two standards are therefore comparable. An identi?cation of the persons who will be directly affected by, bear the costs of or directly bene?t from the rule making. The persons who will be directly affected by and bear the costs ofthe rule making will be the owners and operators of coal??red electric generating units producing more than 25 megawatts of electricity for sale in the State of Arizona. Speci?cally, the rule will apply to the following 13 electric generating units: Operator Plant Number of Units Arizona Electric Power Cooperative Apache 2 Arizona Public Service Company Cholla 4 Salt River Project Coronado 2 Tucson Electric Power lrvington Tucson Electric Power Springerville 4 A cost bene?t analysis of the following: The probable costs and bene?ts to the implementing agency and other agencies directly affected by the implementation and enforcement of the rule making. ADEQ estimates that the current number of FTEs assigned in the Permits and Compliance sections are adequate to implement and enforce the mercury rule. The costs ofthe rule to the implementing agency will therefore be minimal. In addition. the cost ofreviewing and approving the signi?cant permit revisions that may be required by will be covered by permit fees. No other state agencies will be affected by the rule making. The probable costs and bepel'tts to a political subdivision of this state directly affected by the implementation and enforcement of the rule making. No political subdivision of the state operates a coal-fired electric generating unit. By statute, ADEQ has original jurisdiction over all coal-?red power plants in the state. A.R.S. Pima County, however, has received delegation to issue and enforce the air quality permit for the Sundt Generating Station in Tucson and therefore will have responsibility for enforcing the state mercury standards with respect to the coal-?red unit at that plant. As in the case of ADEQ, however, the costs of enforcing the standards are likely to be minimal and will in any case be recoverable through permit fees. The probable costs and benefits to businesses directly affected by the rule making, including any anticipated effect on the revenues or payroll expenditures of employers who are subiect to the rule making. Mercury exposure and health effects Mercury exists in the environment in three forms: elemental, inorganic and organic. Elemental mercury metal is a heavy, silvery white liquid at ambient temperatures and atmospheric pressures. Mercury metal vaporizes readily under ambient conditions. Inorganic mercury is found in two forms: mercurous and mercuric which may exist as ions or in salts. The form of mercury that is of greatest concern is organic mercury, primarily is a potent neurotoxin that can cause IQ de?cits and other neurological abnormalities in infants and children through direct or fetal exposure. In addition, exposure to sufficient amounts of organic mercury can produce other serious health effects such as cardiovascular illness, immune system and reproductive problems and adverse impacts on the central nervous system, kidneys and liver, any of which can contribute to premature mortality. (EPA 20]] EPA 1997) Inorganic mercury can be convened by bacteria or chemical processes into organic mercury. including Because organic mercury is not excreted as rapidly as it is taken in, it bioaccumulates. As bacteria, algae and plants contaminated with are consumed by detritivores and herbivores, which are eaten by small carnivores, which are in turn eaten by larger carnivores, the mercury content of the organisms in each step up the food chain increases. Highest concentrations are found in large predatory fish, such as bass, walleye, albacore tuna, sword?sh and sharks. As noted in the 2006 Notice of Final Rulemaking for the existing state mercury standards, ADEQ had at that time issued ?sh consumption advisories for ten Arizona lakes found to contain fish with unacceptably high concentrations of mercury. 12 A.A.R. 470], 4702. Since that time, ADEQ has issued mercury fish advisories for four additional water bodies: Lake Pleasant. Lake Powell. Roosevelt Lake and Tonto Creek. (ADEQ 2012) Mercury contamination of aquatic ecosystems in Arizona arises from a wide variety of sources, including mining, pesticide use, global transport of power plant emissions and local emissions from coal-fired power plants. Mercury emissions and controls Coal-?red electric power plants are the single largest source of mercury emissions in the U.S., accounting for approximately halfof anthropogenic air emissions. Mercury is present in coal used as the feedstock in boilers and on combustion is emitted in three forms: elemental, oxidized and as particulate matter. (EPA 20! 1) Controls designed to reduce emissions of other pollutants may also control mercury emissions. Oxidized mercury is water soluble and can therefore be captured by a wet ?ue gas desulfurization (FGD) system. (FGDs are employed primarily to reduce emissions.) Mercury emitted in particulate form is, of course, subject to control by particulate matter control devices, such as electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric filters (FF). (EPA 20] 1) ii} Elemental mercury, however, is non-soluble and emitted as a vapor; it is therefore not captured by FGDs or particulate matter controls. Mercury emissions from the combustion of subbituminous coals, such as those typically burned in Arizona electric generating units, is primarily elemental in form. In order to achieve emission reductions comparable to those achieved at plants burning bituminous coals. which is required by both the state federal mercury standards. plants burning subbituminous coal must therefore employ additional control strategies. They may, for example, use selective catalytic reduction (SCR), which is a technology for reducing NO, emissions, or the injection of halogens to oxidize the elemental mercury before it passes through a FGD system. Alternatively, they may inject activated carbon into the gas stream to adsorb the mercury before it passes through a particulate matter control device. (EPA 20] l) Arizona power plants burn mostly subbituminous coal and will probably have to employ one ore more of these strategies to comply with either the state or federal mercury standards. Costs of Control The Arizona plants that will be subject to the state and federal mercury standards have not yet settled on a ?nal control strategy. it is therefore not possible to provide an estimate of the actual costs that will be incurred in order to meet the standards. In the ESBCIS for the original rulemaking adopting the state mercury standards, ADEQ estimated that capital costs for adding sorbent injection to an existing control system could range from $750,000 to $2.4 million and that operating costs could be expected to be from $1.6 million to million, depending on the size of the plant. If the plant were required to install or upgrade particulate matter controls in order to capture the sorbent, capital costs would be much higher, on the order oftens of millions of dollars. 4 A.A.R. at 4709. In the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the MATS rulemaking, EPA estimated that the cost of compliance nationwide would be approximately $9.6 billion and that this would amount to ?less than a 3% increase in the cost to meet electricity demand.? This estimate was based on the cost to comply with all of the MATS requirements, including standards designed to reduce emissions of acid gas HAPs and heavy metals. The cost to comply solely with the federal mercury standards, and therefore the state mercury standards, would be substantially less. (EPA 2011) Bene?ts The speci?c bene?ts of mercury reductions are dif?cult to quantify. EPA estimated the bene?t of avoiding the loss ole points through reductions in exposure from self-caught ?sh at $500.000 to $6 million but was unable to monetize the other benefits expected from mercury emission reductions. (EPA 20! I) EPA nevertheless concluded that total health bene?ts from the MATS rulemaking would range from $33 billion to $90 billion. As noted above, effective control of mercury emissions requires the installation of controls that will also reduce emissions of 5, as well as and which are precursors. The MATS rulemaking will therefore produce substantial "co- bene?ts? in the form of reductions in PM: 5-related mortality, and these reductions account for the ?great majority" of the benefits attributable to the rule. 77 Fed. Reg. 9304, 9306 (Feb. l6, 20l2). Some of these co-bene?ts are attributable to the rule?s limitations on HAPs other than mercury, such as acid gases. In addition, Arizona coal-?red power plants are relatively well-controlled compared to plants elsewhere in the county. The co-bene?ts of the state mercury standards can therefore be expected to be proportionately less than nationwide estimates. Nevertheless, if estimates are accurate, and the benefits of MATS will outweigh the costs by a margin of 3 to or better, it seems probable that the benefits of the state mercury standards will also outweigh the costs. The existence, noted above, of unquantifiable benefits from mercury reductions enhances this probability. A general description of the probable impact on private and public employment in businesses, agencies and political subdivisions of this state directly affected by the rule making. ADEQ believes that employment impacts will be minor. ADEQ anticipates a higher demand for labor requirements for sources affected by this rulemaking, as well as increased labor requirements from the other classes of persons as discussed earlier. ADEQ does not expect short- or long-run employment, production, or industrial growth in Arizona to be negatively impacted. Further, no sources are expected to close from the implementation ofthis rulemaking. A statement of the probable impact of the rule making on small businesses. An identi?cation of the small businesses subiect to the rule making. Under A.R.S. ?Small business? means a concern. including its af?liates. which is independembr owned and operated. which is not dominant in its?eld and which emplqufewer than one hundred full-time employees or which had gross annual receipts ofless thanfom' million dollars in its (as! ?scalyear. (Emphasis added.) The amended mercury rule will apply only to companies that own and operate large coal-?red power plants in the state. None of these companies quali?es as a small business. lb) The administrative and other costs reguired for compliance with the rule making. Not applicable. A descri tion of the methods that the a cue mav use to reduce the im act on small businesses. 1i! Establishing less costly compliance reguirements in the rule making for small businesses. Not applicable. (ii) Establishing less costly schedules or less stringent deadlines for com plianee in the rule making. Not applicable. Exem pting small businesses from any or all reo uirements of the rule making. Not applicable. The probable cost and bene?t to private persons and consumers who are directly affected by the rule making. Not applicable. A statement of the probable effect on state revenues. Since any costs associated with the amendments will be recoverable through air quality permit fees. there will be no net effect on state revenues. A description of any less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of achieving the purpose of the rule making. ADEQ was not able to identify any less intrusive or costly alternative methods for achieving the rule making?s purpose of providing a backstop program for control of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, in case the federal mercury standards are vacated or repealed. The name and address of agencv personnel with whom persons may communicate regarding the accurracv of the economic. small business, and consumer impact statement: Name: Steve Burr. Executive Consultant [1 Address: ADEQ, Air Quality Legal Support Section. I l0 West Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 Telephone: (602) 771-4251 (Any extension may be reached in-state by dialing 1-800-234- 5677, and entering the seven-digit number.) Fax: (602) 771-2366 E-mai l: gov m, The time, place, and nature of the proceedings for the making, amendment, or repeal of the rule or, if no proceeding is scheduled. where. when and how persons may request an oral proceeding on the proposed rule: Date: October 20, 2014 Time: 1:00 pm. Location: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Conference Room [0 W. Washington St. Phoenix. AZ 85007 Nature: Public hearing on the proposed rules with opportunin for formal comments on the record. Please call (602) 771-4795 for special accommodations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The close ot'the written comment period will be 5:01} pm. October 20. 2014. Submit comments to the individual identi?ed in item Close of Comment: October 20, 2014 u; Any other matter prescribed bv statute that is applicable to the Specific attech or to anv other specific rule or class of rules: Not applicable lncorporations by reference and their location in the rules: 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart RI 8-2-734 The full text of the rules follows: TITLE 18. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CHAPTER 2. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ARTICLE 7. EXISTING STATIONARY SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS I 8-2-70 1. De?nitions RI 8-2-733. Regealed 8-2-7310] . Repealed RIB-2-734. State Standards of Performance for Mercury Emissions from Gael-Fired Electric SEea-m Generating Units ARTICLE 7. EXISTING STATIONARY SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS R18-2-701. De?nitions For purposes ofthis Article: 30 ?Acid mist" means sulfuric acid mist as measured in the Arizona Testing Manual and 40 CFR 60, Appendix A. ?Architectural coating" means a coating used commercially or industrially for residential. commercial or industrial buildings and their appurtenances. structural steel, and other fabrications such as storage tanks, bridges, beams and girders. ?Asphalt concrete plant? means any facility used to manufacture asphalt concrete by heating and drying aggregate and mixing with asphalt cements. This is limited to facilities, including drum dryer plants that introduce asphalt into the dryer, which employ two or more of the following processes: a. A dryer. b. Systems for screening, handling, storing, and weighing hot aggregate. Systems for loading, transferring, and storing mineral filler. d. Systems for mixing asphalt concrete. e. The loading, transferring, and storage systems associated with emission control systems. ?Black liquor? means waste liquor from the brown stock washer and spent cooking liquor which have been concentrated in the multiple-effect evaporator system. ?Calcine? means the solid materials produced by a lime plant. ?Coal? means any solid fuel classi?ed as anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, or lignite by the ASTM Method D388-05 "Standard Speei-?eatien?Fer- Classification of Coals by Rank: Wand coal refuse. fuels derived from coal for the purpose of creating useful heat including but not limited to. coal derived gases (not meeting the definition of natural gas), solvent-re?ned coal. coal-oil mixtures, and coal-water mixtures. are considered ?coal? for the purposes of this suboart. l7 7. "Coal refuse? means anv of coal mining. Dlwsical coal cleanin?. and coal preparation operations (ea. culm. eob. etc.) containina coal. matrix material. clav. and other organic and inorganic material with an ash content greater than 50 percent (bv weiszht) and a heating value less than 13.900 kiloioules per kiloeram (6,000 Btu per pound) on a dry basis. +45. ?Concentrate? means enriched copper ore recovered from 'the froth ?otation process. ?g 1: '35 3 I: lg 5.3 "Concentrate dryer? means any facility in which a copper sul?de ore concentrate charge is heated in the presence of air to eliminate a portion of the moisture from the charge, provided less than 5% of the sulfur contained in the charge is eliminated in the facility. "Concentrate roaster" means any facility in which a copper sul?de ore concentrate is heated in the presence of air to eliminate 5% or more of the sulfur contained in the charge. ?Condensate stripper system" means a column. and associated condensers, used to strip. with air or steam. TRS compounds from condensate streams from various processes within a kraft pulp mill. ?Control device? means the air pollution control equipment used to remove particulate matter or gases generated by a process source from the ef?uent gas stream. ?Converter? means any vessel to which copper matte is charged and oxidized to copper. ?Electric generating plant" means all electric generating units located at a stationary source. ?Electric generating unit? meanse a combustion unit of more than 25 megawatts electric that serves a generator that produces electricity for sale and that burns coal for more than 10.0 percent of the average annual heat input during any 3 consecutive calendar years or for more than 15.0 percent of the annual heat input during any one calendar year. A unit that cogenerates steam and electricity and supplies more than one-third of its potential electric output capacity and more than 25 megawatts electric output to any utility Dower distribution system for sale is considered an electric generating unit. :5 ?Existing source" means any source which does not have an applicable new source performance standard under Article 9 of this Chapter. ?Facility? means an identi?able piece of stationary process equipment along with all associated air pollution equipment. ?Federal mercurv standards" means the emissions limits. monitoring. testing. recordkeepine. reporting and noti?cation requirements applicable or relating to emissions of mercury from electric generating units under 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ?Fugitive dust? means fugitive emissions of particulate matter. ?High sulfur oil? means fuel oil containing 0.90% or more by weight of sulfur. 2-821. ?Inlet mercury? means the average concentration of mercury in the coal burned at an electric generating unit, as determined by ASTM methods, EPA-approved methods or alternative methods approved by the Director. "Lime kiln? means a unit used to calcinate lime rock or kra? pulp mill lime mud, which consists primarily ofcalcium carbonate, into quicklime, which is calcium oxide. "Low sulfur oil? means fuel oil containing less than 0.90% by weight of sulfur. "Matte" means a metallic sulfide made by smelting copper sul?de ore concentrate or the roasted product of copper sul?de ores. ?Mercury? means mercury or mercury compounds in either a gaseous or particulate form. ?Miscellaneous metal parts and products? for purposes of industrial coating include all of the following: a. Large farm machinery, such as harvesting, fertilizing and planting machines, tractors, and combines; b. ?Small farm machinery, such as lawn and garden tractors, lawn mowers, and rototillers; c. Small appliances, such as fans, mixers. blenders, crock pots, dehumidi?ers, and vacuum cleaners; d. Commercial machinery. such as of?ce equipment. computers and auxiliary equipment, typewriters. calculators. and vending machines; e. Industrial machinery, such as pumps, compressors, conveyor components, fans. blowers. and transformers; f. Fabricated metal products, such as metal-covered doors and frames; g. Any other industrial category which coats metal parts or products under the Code in the "Standard Industrial Classi?cation Manual, 1987" of Major Group 33 (primary metal industries), Major Group 34 (fabricated metal products), Major Group 35 (non-electric machinery), Major Group 36 (electrical machinery), Major Group 37 (transportation equipment), Major Group 38 (miscellaneous instruments), and Major Group 39 (miscellaneous manufacturing industries), except all of the following: i. Automobiles and light-duty trucks; ii. Metal cans; Flat metal sheets and strips in the form of rolls or coils; iv. Magnet wire for use in electrical machinery; v. Metal furniture; vi. Large appliances; vii. Exterior of airplanes; Automobile re?nishing; ix. Customized top coating of automobiles and trucks, if production is less than 35 vehicles per day; x. Exterior of marine vessels. 343. "Multiple-effect evaporator system? means the multiple-effect evaporators and associated condenser and hotwell used to concentrate the spent cooking liquid that is separated from the pulp. 4-436. ?Neutral sul?te semichemical pulping? means any operation in which pulp is produced from wood by cooking or digesting wood chips in a solution ofsodium sul?te and sodium bicarbonate, followed by mechanical de?brating or grinding. ?Petroleum liquids? means petroleum. condensate. and any finished or intermediate products manufactured in a petroleum re?nery but does not mean Number 2 through Number 6 fuel oils as speci?ed in ASTM D396-90a (Speci?cation for Fuel Oils). gas turbine fuel oils Numbers 2-GT through 4-GT as speci?ed in ASTM D2880-90a (Speci?cation for Gas Turbine Fuel Oils). or diesel fuel oils Numbers 2-D and 4-D as speci?ed in ASTM 0975-90 (Speci?cation for Diesel Fuel Oils). "Potential electric output capacity? means 33% of a unit?s maximum design heat input. divided by 3,413 Btu per kilowatt-hour. divided by 1,000 kilowatt~hoursfper megawatt- hour. and multiplied by 8,760 hours per year. ?Process source? means the last operation or process which produces an air contaminant resulting from either: a. The separation of the air contaminants from the process material, or b. The conversion of constituents of the process materials into air contaminants which is not an air pollution abatement operation. ?Process weight? means the total weight of all materials introduced into a process source. including fuels, where these contribute to pollution generated by the process. ?Process weight rate? means a rate established pursuant to "Recovery furnace? means the unit. including the direct-contact evaporator for a conventional furnace, used for burning black liquor to recover chemicals consisting primarily of sodium carbonate and sodium sul?de. "Reid vapor pressure? means the absolute vapor pressure of volatile crude oil and volatile non-viscous petroleum liquids, except liqui?ed petroleum gases, as determined by ASTM D-323-90 (Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products) (Reid Method). ?Reverbatory smelting furnace? means any vessel in which the smelting of copper sul?de ore concentrates or calcines is performed and in which the heat necessary for smelting is provided primarily by combustion of a fossil fuel. ?Rotary lime kiln? means a unit with an included rotary drum which is used to produce a lime product from limestone by calcination. ?Slag? means fused and vitri?ed matter separated during the reduction of a metal from its ore. I'm?i l:-u1 44$. 48%. 494_l. 52%. "Smelt dissolving tank? means a vessel used for dissolving the smelt collected from the kraft mill recovery furnace. ?Smelter feed? means all materials utilized in the operation of a copper smelter. including metals or concentrates. fuels and chemical reagents. calculated as the aggregate sulfur content ofall fuels and other feed materials whose products ofcombustion and gaseous by-products are emitted to the atmosphere. ?'Smelting" means processing techniques for the smelting of a copper sul?de ore concentrate or calcine charge leading to the formation of separate layers of molten slag. molten copper, or copper matte. ?Smelting furnace? means any vessel in which the smelting of copper sul?de ore concentrates or calcines is performed and in which the heat necessary for smelting is provided by an electric current. rapid oxidation of a portion of the sulfur contained in the concentrate as it passes through an oxidizing atmosphere, or the combustion of a fossil fuel. ?Standard conditions" means a temperature of 293K or and a pressure of l0l.3 kilopascals (29.92 in. Hg or lOl3.25 mb). ?Supplementary control system" (SCS) means a system by which sulfur dioxide emissions are curtailed during periods when meteorological conditions conducive to ground-level concentrations in excess of ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide either exist or are anticipated. ?Vapor pressure? means the pressure exerted by the gaseous form of a substance in equilibrium with its liquid or solid form. a. R18-2-73-l. State Standards of Performance for Mercury Emissions from Goal-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units A. Applicability and Purpose. The requirements of this Section apply to owners and operators of electric generating units. The purpose of this Section is to establish: 1. Interim standards for mercum emissions from electric generating units that shall apply until compliance with the emissions limits in the federal mercugy standards is reguired. 2. State standards for mercugy emissions from electric generating units that shall apply in the event the federal mercug standards are vacated by a federal court or rep_ealed by the administrator. B. Interim Standards. The following reguirements shall apply until the date compliance with the federal mercug standards or subsection (G) is reguired: l. The owners and operators shall comply with the mercuyy control strategy operations and maintenance plan approved as part of the permit for the electric generating plant. 2. The owners and operators shall operate and maintain the electric generating plant, including any associated air pollution control eguipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing mercury emissions. This reguirement shall apply to any air pollution control eguipment installed pursuant to paragraph (B )1 1 or to anv new air pollution control equipment installed to complv with the federal mercurv standards if such equipment replaces equipment installed pursuant to paragraph (Elli); Incorporation of Federal Mercurv Standards. The federal mercurv standards in 40 CFR Part 63. Subpart as ofJulv I. 20l3 {and no future amendments or editions} are incorporated bi; reference and shall remain effective to the extent speci?ed in this Section regardless of whether thev are vacated bv_a federal court or repealed bv the administrator. The owners and operators shall provide to the director a copv of all notices and reports submitted to the Administrator under the federal mercurv standards. except for anv reports or data submitted to the Administrator through electronic svstems (for example. Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface Emission Collection Monitorina Plan Svstem Qlient Tool or the Emissions Reporting Tool Notice of State Standard Applicabilitv. The director shall provide notice to the responsible of?cial for each electric generating plant ofanx repeal or federal court vacatur of the federal occurred after the date the electric aeneratiniz plant was required to with the emission limits in the federal mercury standards. the plantsh_all continue to complv with the federal mercurv standards until the date compliance with subsection (G) is reguired. Application for Permit Revision. Within 120 davs of receipt of written notice from the director under subsection (D). the owners and operators shall submit an application for a permit revision that proposes: l. The mercurv emission limit or limits in subsection that shall applv to the electric generating plant. A date for demonstrating compliance with the mercurv emission limit consistent with subsection (F112). 3. A mercurv monitoring plan consistent with subsection (Hll2). to Permit Revision Setting State Standard. A permit revision eranted in response to the application submitted under subsection (El shall contain the following conditions:- l. The mercurv emission limit or limits in subsection (G) that shall applv to the electric generating plant. 2. The date compliance with the emission limit or limits shall be repaired. Unless the application requests an earlier date. the compliance date shall be the later of December 3 2016 or the end of the first averaging period commencing no later than 180 days after permit issuance. 3. The date for demonstrating initial compliance with the emission limit or limits, which shall be 45 days after completion of the ?rst full averagingperiod after the compliance date established under subsection FliZi. 4. The date on which compliance with subsection (B). or the obligation to comply with the federal mercury standards in subsection (D). as applicable. shall no longer be required. 5. A mercury monitoring plan consistent with subsection (H). 6. Compliance reporting requirements consistent with subsection (I). G. State Mercury Emission Limits. Emissions from an electric generating unit shall comply with one or more of the emission limits speci?ed in the following table. as selected by the owners and Operators under subsection (Fl. up; Limit Averaging Period Applicable To 10 percent of inlet mercury Rolling ill-month Electric generating plant 0.0087 pounds per gigawatt- Rolling IZ-month Electric generating hour plant 0.0] 1 pounds per gigawatt? Rolling 90-boiler EGUs identi?ed in hour operating days 5., LG pounds per Trillion Btu Rolling 90-boiler EGUs identi?ed in operating days averaging group i 0.013 pounds per gigawatt? Rolling 30-boiler Individual electric hour operating days generating unit 12 pounds per Trillion Btu Rolling 30-boiler Individual electric operating days generating unit H. Compliance Monitoring and Recordkeeping. 1. Compliance with subsection (G) shall be determined using a mercugy CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system pursuant to Appendix A of the federal mercugy standards and in accordance with an approved mercury monitoring plan. The mercury monitoring plan shall include the following elements: a. Identi?cation ofthe emission limit or limits in subsection (G) for which compliance will be demonstrated. Ix.) b. identi?cation of whether a mercugg CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system will be used as the primarv compliance method. Backup methods mav be identi?ed and approved in the plan. c. Description ol?the parameters that will be monitored. includina mercurv concentration. stack ?ow. the] mercurv content. l'uel rate. electricitv generation rate. moisture percent. and anv diluent or other aas or process parameters necessarv to calculate compliance in terms of the applicable emission limit. d. Description and example ofthe calculations required to convert monitored parameters to mercurv emissions in terms of the emission limit. e. Establishment analyzer data availability. and requirements. f. Procedures for completing an initial demonstration of compliance, except as otherwise provided in subsection (lit i. At least once per month. the mercurv emissions data shall be compiled into a record demonstrating compliance with the emission limit or limits established in the permit revision issued under subsection (F). This record shall be completed no later than the 15th day ofthe followinu month. Records shall be maintained as follows: a. Records demonstrating compliance with the emissions limits shall be maintained for live vears. b. If a mercury CEMS is used. daily CEMS data. data identified in the mercurv monitorina plan. anv maintenance work conducted on the GEMS or data loaeina svstem. and a calculation of all mercurv CEMS downtime shall be maintained for ?ve vears. c. If a sorbent trap monitoring svstem is used. all sorbent monitorina data and an! maintenance work conducted on the svstem shall be maintained for five vears. Reporting. The owners and operators shall submit to the director the followina reports: An of compliance. which must be submitted to the director within l80 days after completion of the ?rst full averaaina period. This requirement shall not applv to an electric aeneratina unit if an initial demonstration of compliance has been completed for that unit under section 63.10005fdjt3) of the federal mercurv standards and the demonstration shows compliance with subsection For that unit. The report shall include: a. The name of the electric Qeneratina plant and electric aeneratina units. b. The applicable emission limit or limits for the plant or the electric generating c. The mercupy emissions for the plant, group of averaged units, or each unit. as applicable. durinar the initial compliance demonstration in terms ofthe applicable standard. d. A certification bv a responsible of?cial. 2. Semiannual compliance reports, which must be submitted to the director on the dates established in the electric generating plant?s air gualitv permit. The remrt shall include: a. The name of the electric generating plant and electric generating units; b. The applicable emission limit or limits for the plant or the electric generating units. c. The mercum emissions for the plant, or each unit, as applicable, for each month during the six month period ending the month prior to the semiannual report in terms of the applicable standard. d. An explanation of any excess emissions, the duration of the excess emissions, and corrective actions taken if anv to resolve those excess emissions. e. A certi?cation by a responsible official. Exem tion. A?er recei tof notice under subsection in lieu ofsubmittin the ermit revision application required by subsection the owners and operators may noti? the director in writing that they elect to complv with the vacated or repealed federal mercurv standards at an electric generating plant. If the owners and operators for an electric aeneratingplant make this election, the plant shall be exempt from subsections (E) through (I). If the owners and operators of an electric plant elect this option: l. ?Administrator? shall mean ?Director? whenever it appears in the federal mercury standards or regulations referenced therein. shall mean Air ualit Division? whenever it a ears in the federal mercury standards or regulations referenced therein. 3. In lieu of reports submitted to the Administrator through electronic systems (for example, Compliance and Emissions Data Remrting Interface (CEDRI), Emission Collection Monitoring Plan System Client Tool (ECMPS) or Emissions Reporting Tool pursuant to the federal mercum standards, the owners or ogrators shall submit to the Director, semiannually at the time required by permit, the RATA or the rolling 30-day or rolling 90-day average mercupy value for each EGU or the plant, as applicable. i? 30 3 Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Friday, February 10. 2017 5:43 PM To: Becker, Bloomberg, David E. Co: Vetterhofler, Dana Alec has Dana's memo and the MP5 doc. As I noted to Dana today, he?ll let us know if we need to pre meet. We have all day Tues and a spot of time Wed am. keep schedules flexible. Enjoy the weekend. See you all Tuesday. State of ?nois - 4 NOTICE: The inform ion ntained in this communication is confidential, may be attor ?c ient privileged - attor work product, may onstitute side iniormation or inter - tn: ative staff corn niction, and is i ended addressee. nauthorized use, dis sure or cop ?ng of this co uniction or any art thereof strictly prohib' and may be lawful. If you received this communication in err pleae notilyt - sender imm lately by rn e-mail and destr this co 1 nication and all copies thereof. inc ding a attach ents. Receipt by uni nded recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work prduct pri 'Iege. any other exemption rom disclosure. Armitage, Julie From: Messina, Alec Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 1.48 PM To: Armitage, Julie Subject: Fwd: [External] Chat Let's discuss. Sent from my il?hone Begin forwarded message: From: "Ferry, Jeff? Subject: FW: ILTS entry From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 9:55 AM To: Hollis, Dawn Cc: Kim, John J. Subject: ILTS entry Hi Dawn. Attached for ?ling with the GO is an ILTS form for ou?treach approval for Gina's Part 225 rulemaking, and the draft amendments that will be going to outreach. Thanks! Dana Vetterhoffer Deputy General Counsel, Air Regulatory Unit Environmental Protection Agency (217)782-5544 fax: (217)782-9807 attorney-client privilege ratto ey work communication, and communicati nor . error. pleas??q including all attachments. Receipt by an LITY NOTICE: The information contained for the use of the ader . ly by retur in this communication is con?dential. may be product. may constitut ?e information or internal deliberative staff - use, disclosure or copying of this may be unlawtulIcatlon In -mail and destroy this communication and all copies thereof. (1 recipient does not waive a?rney-client privilege. attorney work product privilege. or any other exemption from disclosure. FH- Vetterhoffer, Dana From: Bloomberg, David E. Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:43 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: Re: Docs email coming momentarily. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 22, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Vetterhoffer, Dana wrote: . From: Armitage, Julie Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:35 AM To: Becker, Bloomberg, David Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: FW: Docs review asap. Thanks. Share others as necessary. From: Elzinga, Sherrie Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:32 AM To: Armitage, Julie Subject: FW: Docs Message-m? From: Ferry, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:31 AM 0F RECORDS MANAGEMENT To: Elzinga, Sherrie RELEASABLE Subject: [External] Docs AUG 2 8 2017 REVIEWER: MED State of illinois - ONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is con?dential, may be attorney-cliept ivi ged or attorney 0 roduct rn constitute inside inf rative taff communication and intended on forth use of th 3 dressee. Unau pying oft is communicayti? or an part there . ou have receive this communication in error, plea notify he sende immediately re rn e- munlcatlon nd all copies thereof, including s. Rec pt by an uninten recipien does wilege attorney work product prlv'llege, or an oth exemption from Subject: RE: Question from Call I From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 11:17 AM To: Bloomberg, David E. Cc: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: FW: Question from Call Hi David and Rory. See Renee?s email below. Thanks, Dana From: Cipriano, Renee Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 11:02 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Roccaforte, Gina Subject: [E'xternal] Question from Call Hello. Thank you again for the time you provided to us to discuss the approach to the rule. We look forward to receiving the rule for review during stakeholder outreach. There was one thing that David said that caught our attention and we wanted to make sure we understood it. We had understood that the requirement to operate the SCRs year round was needed to satisfy the transport concerns of the Northeast states. As you know this was a big concession for the company. During our call, however, David said the requirement for year round SCR operation was NOT part of the State?s Good Neighbor transport SIP that is out for first notice. If the requirement is not necessary at this point, can we remove it from the rule? Does the Agency have some other rationale for the requirement and if so, what is it? Again, this was a big concession and one that we feel was made to provide the Agency with a commitment that can be used to specifically address the tranSport concerns of the Northeast states. Please let us know the Agency's thoughts on this issue. Thank you again. Renee Renee Cipriano Partner rcipriano@schiffhardin.com f+1.312.258.5600 Schiff Hardin LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 7100 Chicago, IL 60606 schiffhardin.com v-card view bio fksr?r?lessage fan. .-I . Th- . irj?ff ation ?prot. 1.1.30 bel'eve that it ha.? 'Easivf/efly to th- or. 'nen delete - - St TICE: The informatioanicati . 'fidential, maybe 2 Wu? Confidentia! Business Information Revised: 3/10/2017 3 TO SHOW MASS CAPS ARE MORE PROTECTIVE OF ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH Proposed mass caps provide: 1. Greater emission reduction percentages than required under the MP8. 2. Lower mass emissions than allowed under the MP8. 3. Lower than equivalent mass-based emissions using USEPA conversion method. Addressing each of the above separately: 1. Greater emission reduction percentages than required under the MPS. Annual 802: The baseline year for the MPS was the average annual actual emissions from 2003 to 2005. The average annual 2003 to 2005 actual tons of SO2 emitted from the original IPH and DMG MPS Groups was 226,245 tons/yr (combined total). The objective, and requirement, of the original MPS rule was a 65% reduction from this amount. . The proposed mass?based cap for 802 is 55,000 tons per year. The 55,000 tons cap represents a 76% reduction in 802 emissions from the 2003 to 2005 baseline, which is greater than the 65% reduction identi?ed in the MPS. Therefore, the proposed mass cap results in 802 emissions being limited to 11% percent below the level of the current MPS. Annual The average annual 2003 to 2005 actual tons ofNOx emitted from the original and DMG MPS Groups was 56,826 tons/yr (combined total). The objective, and requirement, of the original MPS rule was a 48% reduction from this amount. The 25,000 tons cap represents a 56% reduction in emissions from the 2003 to 2005 baseline, which is greater than the 48% reduction identi?ed in the MPS. Ozone Season NOX: The average ozone season emissions from 2003 to 2005 from the original IPH and DMG MPS Groups were 15,761 tons per season (combined total). The objective, and requirement, of the original MPS rule was a 20% reduction from this amount. In the 2017 ozone season and subsequent ozone seasons, the proposed mass?based cap for NOX is 11,500 tons per ozone seasOn. The 11,500 tons cap represents a 27% reduction in seasonal NOX emissions from the 2003 to 2005 baseline, which is greater than the 20% reduction identified in the MPS Confidential Business Information 2. Revised: 3/10/2017 Lower mass emissions than allowed under the MPS. . Annual $02 Under the existing MPS rule, different emission rate limits apply to the IPH MPS Group the ?Ameren MPS Group? identified in 35 IAC and the DMG MPS Group: 0 The IPH MPS Group units at Coffeen, Duck Creek, Newton, Edwards and Joppa) is subject to an annual SO2 rate limit in 2017 and beyond of 0.23 lbs/inmbtu. The DMG MPS Group units at Baldwin, Havana and Hennepin) is Subject to an annual 802 rate limit in 2017 and beyond that is the more stringent of 0.25 lbs/mmbtu or a rate equivalent to 35 percent of the Base Rate of SO2 emissions 0.19 lbs/mmbtu). To determine the current allowable emissions under the MPS, the H1 capacity of the existing EGUs is multiplied by the allowable MPS annual SOZ rate limit (lbs/mmbtu) and divided by 2,000 pounds. it is appropriate and necessary to use maximum HI capacity because there is no limit on HI and therefore allowable emissions must be calculated using the maximum H1 capacity and not actual or expected H1. This method of calculating the allowable emissions has been established over decades of environmental practice and outlined in numerous permitting regulations and guidelines PSD and NSR). This is similar to calculating the maximum allowable emissions for a unit that only has an emission limit in lbs/hr and no limit on hrs/yr. In order to calculate the allowable emissions, 8,760 hrs/hr are used and not the historic actual operating hrs/yr 2,000 hrs/yr). Using this methodology, the MPS rate limit for the IPH MPS Group is equivalent to 45,210 tons per year and 24,716 tons per year for the DMG MPS Group. The annual allowable SO2 emissions for the merged and DMG MPS Groups would be 69,926 tons. In order to provide additional environmental benefits beyond the objectives of the MPS rule, the Merged MPS Group the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups) would need to be subject to an annual ?eet?wide 802 emission cap below 69,926 tons. The proposed annual 802 emission cap is 55,000 tons. Annual Under the existing MPS rule, different emission rate limits apply to the IPH and DMG MPS Groups: 0 The IPH MPS Group annual rate limit in 2017 and beyond is 0.11 lbs/mmbtu. The DMG MPS Group annual rate limit in 2017 and beyond is the more stringent of 0.11 lbs/mmbtu or a rate equivalent to 52 percent of the Base Annual Rate of NOX 0.10 lbs/minbtu). Confidentiai Business information -- Revised:3/10/2017 To determine the current allowable under the MPS, the heat input capacity of the existing EGUs is multiplied by the allowable MPS annual rate limit (lbs/mmbtu) and divided by 2,000 pounds. Using this methodology, the MPS rate limit for the IPH MPS Group is equivalent to 21,622 tons per year and 13,009 tons per year for the DMG MPS Group. The allowable emissions for the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups would be 34,631 tons. In order to provide additional environmental bene?ts beyond the objectives of the MP rule, the Merged MPS Group the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups) would need to be subject to an annual fleet-wide emission cap below 34,631 tons. The proposed annual emission cap is 25,000 tons. 3. Ozone Season NOX Under the existing MPS rule, different emission rate limits apply to the IPH MPS Group and the DMG MPS Group: 0 The IPH MPS Group ozone season NOX rate limit in 2017 and beyond is 0.11 lbs/mmbtu. The DMG MPS Group ozone season rate limit in 2017 and beyond is the more stringent of 0.11 lbs/mmbtu or a rate equivalent to 80 percent of the Base Seasonal Rate of NOX 0.10 lbs/mmbtu). To determine the current allowable under the MPS, the heat input capacity of the existing EGUs is multiplied by the allowable MPS seasonal rate limit (lbs/nunbtu) and divided by 2,000 pounds. Using this methodology, the MPS rate limit for the IPH MPS Group is equivalent to 10,811 tons per ozone season and 6,504 tons per ozone season for the DMG MPS Group. The allowable emissions for the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups would be 17,315 tons over the period April 1 to September 30 each year. In order to provide additional environmental benefits beyond the objectives of the MPS rule, the Merged MPS Group the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups) would be subject to a seasonal ?eet-wide NOX emission cap below 17,315 tons. The preposed seasonal NOX emission cap is 11,500 tons. 3. Lower than equivalent mass-based emissions using USEPA conversion method. Conversion of Rate?Based Emission Rates Limit to an Equivalent Mass?Based Limit Under the federal Clean Power Plan, USEPA provided a mechanism for converting a rate?based limit to an equivalent mass-based limit. The formula provided for conversion is: Mass limit 3 Emission rate it Generation rate Confidential Business Information --DRAFT Revised: snip/2017 The Generation rate is equal to the historic generation rate used to establish the emission rate limit. Under the MPS, the historic generation rate was the average of calendar years 2003, 2004, and 2005. MP8 Generation =3 the average heat input in mmbtu/yr (used in place of generation) MPS emission rate allowable rate in lbs/mmbtu. Using this established USEPA formula an equivalent mass limit can be calculated for the MPS: Mass limit (tons/year) Emission rate (lbs/imbtu) Generation rate (mmbtu/year) 2,000 (lbs/ton) This will provide the most stringent way of calculating and equivalent mass limit. USEPA stated that this was the starting point from which States could then seek to adjust higher their mass caps. 802 03-05 Avg HI MPS Limit Avg HI )1 MPS Tons 802 Equivalent IPH 317,488,445 0.23 36,511 DMG 218,831,349 0.19 20,789 Total 57,300 Annual NOX 03405 Avg HI MPS Limit Avg HI MPS Tons Equivalent IPH 317,488,445 0.11 17,462 DMG 218,831,349 0.10 10,942 Total 28,403 MPS massed based equivalent 802 57,300 tons/yr NOX 28,403 tons/yr The proposed mass caps are less than these levels 55,000 and 25,000 tons reSpectively). Note: Under the CPP, this massmbased limit was the baseline, or starting point, from which states could seek to then increase their mass cap based on factors such as alternative methods of calculating equivalencies, including using more representative generation rates rated capacities, average of 3 years as opposed to only a single year). It was widely recognized that only a single year of generation was not considered ?representative?. commented on this in the OFF. December 1, 2014 comments on CPP: ?9 Consider using a two or three year average of generation, emissions, and other data for the starting point in the determination of Illinois? goals given that the baseline, or starting point, for the determination of emission reduction goals should be representative of historic {or projected in the absence of historic), normal operation and emissions of affected EGUs and systems. Illinois believes that the use of a single year?s data 2012) does not provide an appropriately representative starting point as operations and emissions of affected sources may have been outside of historic norms during this single year. The use of an average of multiple years of data 2010, 2011 and 2012 works to normalize any anomalies in operations or emissions during any single year and typically results in more representative data. Examples of anomalies include signi?cant EGU downtime for installation of controls and accidents that require extensive equipment repair. Use of multiple years of data for regulatory Confidential Business Information -- Revised: axle/2017 baselines by USEPA and state agencies has longstanding precedent. In any event, the baseline year should not include calendar year 2013 or later, as this would exclude credit for 2013 C02 reduction measures that have occurred after the proposal?s release in June 2013. eAdjust illinois? emission reduction goals to account for the absence of any representative data for use in baseline and goal determinations. In particular, illinois points out that the 1600 MW Prairie State Generating Station in Washington County did not reach full and expected normal operating levels and emissions in, or prior to, the year 2012. recommends that our emission reduction goals be adjusted to reflect projected normal, representative operation and emissions of this facility going forward.? The mass cap/limit was not required to be adjusted due to retirements/shutdowns that occurred after 2012, the baseline year of the CPP. MPS baseline was the average of 2003, 2004, and 2005. Addendum to Support Option 2 Allowable Emissions: The term allowable emissions can be found throughout USEPA and Illinois EPA laws and regulations. General practice is that allowable emissions are calculated using the ?maximum rated capacity? and the applicable emission limits. This practice is used in: 9 Modeling NAAQS impact analysis, PSD increment analysis) a Rule applicability (board rules, federal rules such as PSD and nonattaininent NSR) 8 Compliance determinations Two examples of Support for using of this method are provided below: 1. USEPA PSD 40 CFR 52.21: meansthe emissions rate of a stationary source calculated using the (unless the source is subject to federally enforceable limits which restrict the Operating rate, or hours of operation, or both) the most stringent of the following: (16) The applicable standards as set forth in 40 CFR parts 60 and 61; (ii) The applicable State Implementation Plan including those with a future compliance date; or The emissions rate specified as a federally enforceable permit condition, including those with a future compliance date 2. IEPA website: Confidential Business information --DRAFT Revised: 3/10/2017 ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS The emission rate of a source calculated using the to enforceable permit conditions or other enforceable limits adopted by 35 Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitle Chapter B, or the under Section 113 of the Clean Air Act. of the source, subject gov/topics/air-q reports/tables/de?nitions?ndex Confidential Business information Revised 3/10/2017 ?Whv does Dvnegv need a 55,000 tons vear 802 mass can? Although no increase is forecasted in 802 emissions, a cap of 55,000 tons/year addresses two primary issues: 1. A mass cap at this low level allows for a clear and strong demonstration that the environment and public health are not adversely impacted, and in fact bene?t from revising the MP8. [See ?3 Ways to Show Mass Caps Are More Protective of Environment and Public Health?]. 2. Provides suf?cient room for returning to more historic levels of generation. Recent years emissions from Dynegy?s units have been below historic normal levels, although the MPS does not constrain emissions to these levels. As recent as 2014, 802 emissions were 59,806 tons versus a proposed cap of 55,000 tons. The ten year average 802 emissions from the MPS groups is 92,285 tons, much greater than the proposed mass cap. Although some units have retired over the years, it is possible that past generation from such units will be made up by those units that continue to operate. Historically, annual emissions from Dynegy?s units, like other generation units, have ?uctuated for many reasons including the weather, MISO dispatch decisions, natural gas prices, and scheduled and unscheduled unit outages. Under the current MPS emission rate limits Dynegy?s emission levels could increase signi?cantly and far exceed recent year emission levels (and the proposed 55,000 ton cap) while compliance with the MPS would still be maintained. Over the past ten years the emissions from units covered by the MPS have periodically been much greater than the proposed mass caps, although in recent years the emissions have been less than. If the MP3 is revised as proposed, Dynegy?s units would be capped at the new allowable tonnage level regardless of electricity demand. Confidential Business Information Revised: 3/14x2017 Summary of Information Available to be Provided Question 1: Actual emissions may increase as a result of MP8 revision: Response: 9 Proposed revision significantly reduces the allowable mass emissions from the MPS group. Proposed revision caps mass emissions at well below the percent reductions identi?ed in the MPS rule. For 802, emissions are capped at 76% below the baseline whereas MPS requires a 65% reduction. For annual NOX, emissions are capped at 56% below the baseline versus 48% required by the rule, and at 27% versus 20% for seasonal NOX. Proposed mass caps are less than the MPS group 10-year average of actual emissions for both NOX and 802. For NOX, the 10~year average is 26,575 tons, versus a proposed annual cap of 25,000. For 802 the 10?year average is 92,285 tons, versus a proposed annual cap of 55,000 tons. Proposed mass caps are less than emissions from the MPS groups in recent years. In 2014 802 emissions from the MPS groups were around 60,000 tons per year compared to a proposed annual cap of 55,000 tons per year. in 2011, emissions from the group were 27,430 tons per year compared to a proposed annual mass cap of 25,000 tons. Actual emissions ?uctuate each year dependent on a variety of factors and could signi?cantly increase above previous actual levels if the MP8 is not revised. Historically, annual emissions from MPS units have fluctuated for many reasons including the weather, MISO dispatch decisions, natural gas prices, and scheduled and unscheduled unit outages. Currently when units are retired, the mass emissions allowed by the MPS rule are not reduced, they remain unchanged, and ?eet?wide actual emissions may remain unchanged or even increase. When units are retired the generation from such units could be made up for, and hopefully exceeded, by the remaining units. As a result, overall emissions may increase. The remaining units are more pro?table and ef?cient and hence are selected to remain Operable whereas the retired units were likely losing money and inef?cient. Retirement of such units allows the MPS group operator to focus its resources on operating the remaining units. Question 2: Why is IEPA proposing revision to the IPCB: Response: 5 main reasons why IEPA is proposing a rule change now. 1. IEPA was required to review rules under the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act and Executive Order 2016-12. IEPA determined that it is appropriate to revise the MPS based on its findings, which included: 2. MP3 802 and NOX requirements are duplicative of numerous other requirements on the affected sources for these identical pollutants, including requirements found under consent decrees, CSAPR, Acid Rain, other Board rules, and MOA and MOUs. It is appropriate and consistent with original MPS rule to have only a single MPS group for each unique owner and/or operator. 4. Converting to mass caps will not result in less enviromnental and public health protection, in fact, it will result in lower allowable mass emissions and therefore be more protective. [See ?3 Ways to Show Mass Caps Are More Protective of Environment and Public Health?] 5. Mass caps are more definitive, readily understood, and a more useful form of regulation relative to emission rate limits. D.) Page 1 oil Confidential Business Information Revised: 3/14/2027 NOX mass caps: 0 There is a need for mass caps and such a revision should be pursued. If emission rates are not converted to mass caps at this time, then such conversion at a later date may be necessary. A primary goal of this rule revision is to avoid the need for any future revisions. All source categories should understand that if additional reductions are necessary to meet some future federal requirement that IEPA may come to them for additional reductions. Information and data shows that additional NOX reductions are not currently needed for Regional Haze requirements. Further, actions taken by MPS groups have resulted in far more reductions than from any other company or source category in Illinois. During the MPS negotiations and in the final agreement between IEPA, Dynegy and Ameren; the agreed both in person and in writing that meeting the MPS requirements equates to Illinois? coal units being ?well-controlled? and that if additional reductions of 802 and/or were needed anytime in future that EPA would seek such reductions from other sources ?rst. See IEPA, Ameren and Dynegy joint statements to the IPCB on the MPS (Dynegy and EPA joint statement to IPCB on August 21, 2006 and Ameren and IEPA joint statement to the IPCB on July 28, 2006). Actual emissions of are not forecasted to increase as a result of the proposed conversion of the MP8 from emission rate limits to mass caps. When IEPA proposes the MPS revision to the IPCB, Dynegy is the ultimate affected party and has the most at stake. It is important that use its best arguments to support the revisions. A critical argument, and one that is likely readily understood by the IPCB and others, is that mass caps are more protective and more useful than emission rate limits. This is readily demonstrated as it is chosen method for major coal unit rules CSAPR, Acid Rain). If the IEPA proposes mass caps for 80?. yet keeps an emission rate limit for the premise that demonstrated fact that the proposed mass caps are more protective and useful is severely and unnecessarily undermined, and consequently the risk of problems arising increases. The proposed mass caps are clearly shown to be more protective. Risk increases if best arguments are not used, IPCB less likely to adopt as proposed and environmental group arguments are stronger. Proposing mass cap revisions for both 802 and NOX signi?cantly increases the likelihood of the IPCB accepting and adopting the proposed revisions. Wherein if differing limits are proposed, the question of the appropriateness of mass caps at all will be highlighted and attacked. It is critical to have consistency in how its emissions are regulated. Having mass caps for 802 and emission rate limits for NOX results in different tracking and analysis tools as well as reporting and compliance evaluation tools. It can be readily demonstrated that the proposed mass caps are actually more protective of the environment and public health. This is because: 0 The preposed mass caps allow fewer emissions of NOX on an annual and ozone season basis. 0 Existing ozone season emission rate limits are not more protective during ?peak? hours because the limit is averaged over the entire ozone season. Page 2 of 2 DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION Revised: 2.1211201? Follow up information 0 The MP8 currently imposes limits on emission rates in lbsr?mmbtu for NO): and 802. These emission rate limits are federally enforceable as a result of inclusion in Illinois? Regional Haze SIP. approval of Illinois? Regional Haze SIP states that ?this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.? a The MP8 (1065 not limit Heat Input maximum capacity or hours of operation. Emission rate limits, such as those in the MPS, do not limit mass emissions because they do not limit Hi or operating hours and, therefore, allow for growth in generation. This is a primary reason power plant owners often prefer emissioa rate limits over mass emissions caps, such as in the MP8. 0 A mass cap associated with an emission rate limit can readily be calculated by multiplying the emission rate by the maximum HI capacity of a unit. This calculation was performed in Dynegy?s proposal to demonstrate that the proposed mass caps were substantially lower than the existing aiiowable based on maximum Hi. It Allowabie emissions are defined as those allowed under a rule or other applicable requirement. Projected, estimated or expected emissions are those actual emissions forecasted to occur ?expected actual emissions?). 0 Illinois original regional haze submittal (June 201 i) took the approach that the MPS would satisfy the Clean Air Act?s Best Available Retro?t Technology (BART) obligations for the affected EGUS and that an analysis of emission reductions expected from the MPS conclusively demonstrated that Illinois? approach would yield much larger reductions of and 802 than BART implementation on EGUs subject to BART. Illinois analysis identified expected actual emissions by multiplying 2002 HI by the MPS emission rates. As discussed below. this was an overly conservative approach. Illinois February 20H Five-Year Progress Report for the Regional Haze SIP takes the same approach, but refers to ?expected emissions? as ?projected emissions." 0 USEPA approved Regional Haze SIP based on analysis of expected emission reductions under the MPS. in particular, approved the lilinnis SIP because it achieved signi?cantly greater reductions than through imposition of source?speci?c BART. The numbers in ?nal approval (which rely upon fewer reductions than estimated by Illinois EPA) are as follows: DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL BUSIN ESS iN FORMATION Revised: Difference between 2002 Base Year Emissions (Cols. 1002 Base Year Emission Reductions under and Expected Emission E?missions the MPS - Table 1 of Reductions (Cols. USEPA ?nal rule Expected Actual Emissions approving SIP tons 802 tons N03: tons 502 tons tons 502 tons (Col. A) (Col. B) (Col. C) (Col. Dynegy 34,538 67,653 23,867 47,378 10,671 20,275 Ameren 45,141 170,108 24,074 111,997 21,067 58,l 11 Total 31,738 78,386 Expected Actual Emissions Numbers obtaincd?'om Illinois EPA '3 Technical Support Document for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the Regional Haze Ride (April 29, 20} I), ?3 proposed rule to approve lilinois' original Regional Haze SIP (77 Fed. Reg. 3966 (Jan. 26, 2m ?s?nai rule approving Illinois" original Regional Haze SIP (77 Fed. Reg. 3 9943 {Jul}; 6, 20! and 19 Febi?aaiy l. 2017 i ve- Year Progress Repoi?tjor tlie lliinois Regional Haze SIP. 0 The above table provides the actual emission reductions relied upon by USEPA in its ?nal approval of Illinois? Regional Haze SIP. - Based upon discussions with IEPA, EPA is concerned that USEPA would not accept expected actual emissions above those relied upon for SIP approval. Per the above table, USEPA approved lilinois? SIP based on expected actual emissions of31,738 tons per year for and 78,386 tons per year for 802. Although allowable emissions are greater than expected actual emissions, Dynegy will agree to limit its proposed allowable mass emissions caps below these expected actual emissions levels to allow for a readily approvable SIP revision. LUSEPA does not state in any of its lilinois? Regional Haze SIP approvals that a future SIP revision request must contain federally enforceable limits on mass emissions below the expected actual emission levels used in previous approvais. is no statutorv or i'cguiatorv prescribed methodologv For complving with Regional Haze requirements through alternative non- BART limitations. Accordinglv, USEPA originallv approved the alternative emission rate approach on grounds that it provided more signi?cant emission reductions than BART. Dvnegv?s proposed tonnagc~bascd limits would do nothing to alter this approach. As a result. Dvneg'v?s proposal does not run afoul ot?anv restrictions on revising aimed at ensuring reasonable further progress. Section 1 nun-s) of the Clean Air Act does not prohibit USEPA approval of a SIP revision that alters an emissions limitation provided that the revised limit coniinues to demonstrate reasonable further progress. In fact, USEPA recentlv opined in approving a revision to the Arizona Regional Haze SIP that: DRAFT - CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION Revised: 2121x2017 The critical question under section I 1 Oil) is not whether the SIP revision will cause an increase in actual emissions, it is whether that increase in actual emissions will interfere with attainment ofthe NAAOS or {reasonable further progress}. or iftlie revision interferes with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The fact that actual emissions will increase means that the analysis must include an evaluation of how that emission increase affects attainment and [reasonable Further progress] and other applicable requirements of the CAA. See EPA Approval and Revision of Air Plans; Arizona: Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans (Jan. 13. 2017}. Here. Dvnegv?s proposal will not even cause an increase in actual emissions. Thus. concern over the proposals conflict with Clean Air Act Section I IOtl) restrictions is unfounded. In fact, USEPA approved the variance as part of Illinois? Regional Haze SIP and, in doing so, recognized reduced emissions expected reductions at IPH from 131,36? tons (original SIP) to 1 19,833 tons (revised SIP to reflect variance). Thus, so long as expected reductions remain signi?cantly greater than BART, greater progress to visibility protection occurs compared to BART and USEPA can approve a SIP revision. 0 At the recent meeting, EPA indicated that any revision to the Regional Haze SIP would not be approved unless the revision shows that annual $02 and emissions are limited to 44,920 and 22,469 tons, reSpectiver. These numbers re?ect projected emissions based on 2002 actual l-Il multiplied by the MPS rates. 0 The 44,920 tons per year ?projected? emissions of 802 should not be considered a cap that cannot be exceeded. This number is simply an estimate of future expected actual emissions. responsibilitxr in approving a revision to the Regional Haze Si? is to ensure that reasonable further is maintained and that emissions do not impact a NAAOS or other Clean Air nets-ii" requirement. iiurthermorersgimply lowering the allowable emissions under the MPS via establishment of the Dynegy proposed cap merer changes the methodologv and standard bv which to ensure compliance with the regional haze i-eguirements. 0 Even after the MPS revision proposed by Dynegy, if necessary, Illinois EPA can readily show that ?projected? emissions will remain below 44,920 tons per year of $02 by changing the emission estimation method and by utilizing all applicable limits to NO): and 302 emission from the EGUs. While Illinois EPA has historically relied solely on DRAFT - CONFIDENTIAL BUSIN ESS lN FORMATION Revised: 2.1221201? projected emission reductions under the MP8 to demonstrate reasonable progress in addressing regional haze, multiple options exist for demonstrating reasonable progress. For example, illinois EPA can use CSAPR in combination with MATS, MPS, consent decree emission rate limits acid rain and other requirements. Since the allowable mass emissions would decrease under a newly established mass cap, it is reasonable to expect that any projection of actual emissions would also likely decrease. This is because affected sources are cognizant of a lower allowable emission limit and operate accordingly. 1. The Clean Air Act does not require that EPA disapprove Wyatt)! revision to Regional Haze SIP sad-Hanatube-apprevenleunless it shows that annual 802 and emissions are limited in a federally enforceable manner to less than 44,920 and 22,469 tons, respectively. approvals of Illinois? Regional Haze SIP did not approve or expressly identify either such did not require federally enforceable limits on mass emission levels in previous approvals of Regional Haze _insteed?lnstead. US EPA relied upon ?expected? emissions ineseased: Given that illinois under Dvnegv?s proposal can continue to project emissions to show that regional haze requirements are met. and that the revised MP8 would signi?canth reduce the allowabie mass emissions of both 802 and Dvnegv?s proposal is consistent with Clean Air Act requirements- . . -. -. 3-. {91.iiegiz?s 3% w. . ?ne} defendable: -- most recent annrovai ot? illinois? Reaionai Haze SIP. USEPA identi?ed esaeetedMSOZ emissions Frothe IPH unitsthatare substantiallsjiigher than the 44.920 tons ot?nroicetcd emissions. 80 Fed. Reg, 2168 l, 21681-94 Anni 2i}, 2015i tai?m. alts?tz?? teas. in 20 i DRAFT - CON FEDENTIAL BUSI ESS INFORMATION Revised: 2. US rulemaking notices regarding approval of Illinois? Regional Haze SIP demonstrate that USEPA relied upon and approved the emission rate limits of the MPS into the SIP. While USEPA estimated the associated mass expected emission reductions, these expected emission reductions are not federally enforceable, as US EPA identi?es. Rather, the expected emission reductions were only estimated and provided in an illustrative manner of reductions to be ?expected? per the MPS emission rate limits, and not as independently enforceable limits. Notably, USEPA (and used the term ?expected? emission reductions, not ?required? reductions. Regardiess, Dynegy?s proposed mass caps are below the combined total emissions USEPA estimated in its approval oflilinois? Regional Haze SIP S02: 56,000 tons vs. 78,386 tons; 25,000 tons vs. 31,738 tons). Moreover, the proposed mass caps provide a substantial cushion of compliance compared to implementation of BART on only the Illinois EGUs subject to BART DMG 85 presumptive BART tonsfyear $02 reductions compared to baseline 85,812 v. tonsiyear $02 reductions under Dynegy?s preposed cap compared to baseline In fact, Dynegy?s proposed caps provide more compliance margin relative to BART implementation than analysis in the originai Regional Haze SIP tonsfyear 802 reductions under Dynegy?s proposed cap 181,?6l v. tonsi?year S02 reductions under the existing analysis 2 128,654 (in 2015)). The Current Regional Haze 811? does not restrict the amount of an acceptable mass can under the MPS. indeed. Regional Haze SIP submittals have not relied upon any mass caps under the MPS, have relied solely upon the MPS emission rate ected? emission reductions for the combined Dynegy DMG and lPl-i units under the proposed mass caps are greater than the expected emission reductions estimated by both illinois EPA and USEPA in the Regional Haze SIP submittals and approvals. Therefore, Dvnegv?s proposal will continue to result in improved emission reductions consistent with reasonable further progress requirements: a . 1 . Mable Further, the 802 and caps identi?ed by lliinois EPA (44,920 and 22,469) appear to be calculated using 2002 heat inputs multiplied by the MPS aliowabie emission rate. This is only one of many ways to forecast expected actual emissions. Using this method and conciuding that Dynegy cannot exceed those amounts in essence limits Dynegy to its 2002 heat inputs, which is contrary to the reason why Illinois power ptant owners selected a rate based emission limit over a mass cap in the MPS rulcmaking negotiations. Illinois power plants preferred emission rate limits to allow for growth in energy demand, as emission rates allowed affected units to operate both more often and at higher DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL BUSIN ESS INFORMATION Revised: 2f21f2017 capacities as long as they compiied with the emission rate. There was, and is, no limit in the current MP8 on mass emissions, other than that inherent in the ratedloperational capacities of the units. 5. Regarding Newton Unit 2, Dvnegy has provided revised proposed mass caps with Newton Unit 2 removed. Dynegy will agree to remove Newton Unit 2 from the CAAPP permit. 6. Regarding continuance of an MPS emission rate limit on ozone season emissions, Dynegy believes this is probiematic for several reasons, inciuding: a. There is no environmental or public protection reason to maintain emission rate limits during the ozone season. The proposed mass caps during the ozone season are, in fact, more protective in that they wiil lower the overall amount of emissions allowed than currently aliowecl under the MPS. b. The MPS NOX ozone season emission rate limits are not more protective during ?peak? hours because wSinee-the MPS ozone season N0): limit is averaged over the entire ozone seasonComma-no would suggest raising 1 . c. Notably, the 9? uses mass caps during the ozone season. d. Ozone season NOX reductions are not speci?cally reguiated in the Regional Haze ruie. Rather, annuai NOX emissions are the targeted emissions. review of Regionai Haze SIP only considered annual emissions, not seasonai emissions. 6- [it Lii'?d?'r? that min, '1 area 'ii??ii?iei?misi's'i'dri li?iit's. was 'th?fiiz'bii?i f. beyond :th?inieh't' of the origina are; The MP8 was as:aeaa;isj;se the ?gamma: -_fo_r "any reductions needed canned pave i??ntsi ewwmm? when:Thisaipearib?? p'oiisv Praised arguments that. nit! suggestomittihgf ThePrimsrv aissmsi?is in. this assitidn'pap enough'on'theirown. . 5' semester: {Lem}: sit enam- sugg'est came? correcting any: apparent overestimatic this was" Somet Eng the'Conjipanv'c'tiseessed with IEEA at the Revised MPS Support memes-.2 5 .. .ri - - Formatted: Normal, Line spacing: Multiple 1.15 DRAFT CONFEDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION Revised: 321.1201? This document supplements and revises previous portions of the original proposal in regards the Ellinois Multi-Pollutant Standards (MPS) rule. The beiow revisions to the proposed mass-based caps reflect the removal of Newton Unit 2. I. Mold-Pollutant Standards Proposed Revision and Support Speci?cally, as proposed, the remaining operating EGUS in the DMG MPS Group and Ameren MPS Group would be merged into a single MPS Group, comprised of Baldwin 1, 2 and 3, Havana 6, Hennepin and 2, Coffeen 1 and 2, Duck Creek 1, Edwards 2 and 3, Joppa and Newton i. For simpiicity, the proposed newly merged MPS Group is referred to herein as the ?Merged MPS Group? or MMPS. A. Proposed mass-based caps. 1. W92. Under the existing MPS rule, different emission rate limits apply to the MPS Group the ?Ameren MPS Group? identi?ed in 35 and the DMG MPS Group: 0 The IPH MP3 Group units at Coffeen, Duck Creek, Newton, Edwards and Joppa) is subject to an annual S02 rate limit in 201'? and beyond of 0.23 The DMG MPS Group units at Baldwin, Havana and Hennepin) is subject to an annual 802 rate limit in 2017 and beyond that is the more stringent of 0.25 or a rate equivalent to 35 percent of the Base Rate of S02 emissions 0.19 To determine the current allowable emissions under the MPS, the heat ianit 'capacity'llofuu . .- the existing EGUs is multiplied by the allowable MPS annuai SOZ rate limit and divided by 2,000 pounds. Using this methodology, the MPS rate limit for the IPH MPS Group is equivaient to 45,210 tons per year and 24,716 tons per year for the DMG MPS Group. The annual allowable SO2 emissions for the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups would be 69,926 tons. In order to provide additional environmental benefits beyond the objectives of the MPS rule, the Merged MPS Group the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups) wouid need to be subject to an annual fleet-wide $02 emission cap below 69,926 tons. Dynegy proposes an annual $02 emission cap of 56,000; .- 2. Annual Under the existing MPS rule, different emission rate limits apply to the and DMG MPS Groups: Commented SH dominant: Can we provldea I I a expanses? of we i115. appease to use the HI capac. set the tennis: . iri1ite meme "shirts that uses. Hi FUSES-likes i?iappderi-?i?t i. Wit-441$ Busing'the meal is appropriate here Jo'tiienylse it are'ai'si?ciallvirifiatihs derto show greater thin" esposeatohn'ajg -- .- [Sameeomment'belowivhen pollutantscommented We havenoteip the-basis fertile proposed so: and caps. Recomrri providing justi?cation for the limit, even _if it's as much that-Dyin?gvpreposes a 25%Ir? uetion teammate I wide'aiargianarp. DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL BUSIN ESS INFORMATION Revised: 2f21f2017 The MPS Group annual rate limit in 20l 7 and beyond is 0.1 The DMG MPS Group annual rate limit in 2017 and beyond is the more stringent of 0.1 or a rate equivalent to 52 percent of the Base Annual Rate ofNOx 0. l0 lbs/Inmbtu). To determine the current allowable under the MPS, the heat input capacity of the existing EGUs is multiplied by the allowable MPS annual rate limit and divided by 2,000 pounds. Using this methodology, the MPS rate limit for the MPS Group is equivalent to 21,622 tons per year and 13,009 tons per year for the DMG MPS Group. The allowable NOX emissions for the merged and DMG MPS Groups would be 34,631 tons. In order to provide additional environmental bene?ts beyond the objectives of the MPS rule, the Merged Group the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups) would need to be subject to an annual ?eet-wide emission cap below 34,631 tons. Dynegy proposes an annual emission cap of 25,000 tons. 3. Ozone Season Under the existing MP3 rule, different emission rate limits apply to the [Pl-l MPS Group and the DMG MPS Group: 0 The MPS Group ozone season rate limit in 2017 and beyond is 0.1 The DMG MPS Group ozone season rate Eimit in 201? and beyond is the more stringent of 0.1 or a rate equivalent to 80 percent of the Base Seasonal Rate of 0.10 To determine the current allowabie under the MP8, the heat input capacity of the existing EGUs is multiplied by the aliowable MP8 seasonal rate limit and divided by 2,000 pounds. Using this methodology, the MPS rate limit for the IPl-l MPS Group is equivalent to 10,81 1 tons per ozone season and 6,504 tons per ozone season for the DMG MPS Group. The aliowable emissions for the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups would be l7,315 tons over the period Aprii 1 to September 30 each year. In order to provide additional environmental bene?ts beyond the objectives of the MPS rule, the Merged MPS Group the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups) would be subject to a seasonal fleet-wide emission cap below 12,315 tons. Dynegy proposes a seasonal NOX emission cap of 11,500 tons. B. Demonstration that the proposed mass-based caps are more stringent than the mass emissions allowed by the PS rate limits. DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION Revised: 2f21l2017 The proposed annual and seasonal mass caps, when compared to the ailowabie mass emissions under the MPS, are more protective of the environment and pubiic health. This is because the proposed mass-based caps are tower than the mass emissions allowed under the current MPS rule, as shown below. The baseline year for the MPS was the average annual actual emissions from 2003 to 2005. The average annual 2003 to 2005 actual tons of $02 emitted from the original IPH and DMG MPS Groups was 226,245 tonsr?yr (combined totai). The objective, and requirement, of the original MPS rule was a 65% reduction from this amount. In calendar year 201? and beyond, the MPS ruie allows 69,926 tons of $02 annually from the and DMG Groups (combined total). The proposed mass-based cap for $02 is 56,000 tons per year, resulting in a decrease in the amount of $02 allowed of 25,026 tons per year. The 56,000 tons cap would also represent a reduction in S02 emissions from the 2003 to 2005 baseline, which is greater than the 65% reduction identi?ed in the MP8. The average annual 2003 to 2005 actual tons of emitted from the original and DMG MPS Groups was 56,826 tonsiyr (combined total). The objective, and requirement, of the originat MPS rule was a 48% reduction from this amount. In calendar year 201 and beyond the MPS rule allows 34,631 tons ofNOx annually from the and DMG Groups (combined total). The proposed mass-based cap for NO): is 22,469 tons per year, resulting in a decrease in the amount of allowed of 12,162 tons per year. The 25,000 tons cap would also represent a 56% reduction in emissions from the 2003 to 2005 baseline, which is greater than the 48% reduction identi?ed in the MP8. The average ozone season emissions from 2003 to 2005 from the original IPH and DMG MPS Groups were 15,761 tons per season (combined totai). The objective, and requirement, of the original MPS rule was a 20% reduction from this amount. In the 201? ozone season and subsequent ozone seasons, the MPS rule allows 19,023 tons of from the IPH and DMG Groups (combined total). The proposed mass-based cap for is 1 tons per ozone season, resuiting in a decrease in the amount ot?NOx ailowed of 7,023 tons per year. The 11,500 tons cap would also represent a 27% reduction in seasonai emissions from the 2003 to 2005 baseline, which is greater than the 20% reduction identi?ed in the MP8. The ozone season applicable to the MP8 is from the April 15? to September DRAFT - CONFSDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION Revised: 2i21l2017 Rea?iews We 10 Davis, Rory From: Becker, PJ Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 10:00 AM To: Bloomberg, David Davis, Rory Subject: FW: [External] Doc Attachments: Support forIMR and MP5 Revisions_ to IEPAmFebruary_21 2017 FINAL v2.docx; ATT00001.txt Here you State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidentiai, may be attorney-client privileged or attorney work product, may constitute inside information or internal deliberative staff communication, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawfui. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e?mail and destroy this communication and ali copies thereof, including ail attachments. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disciosure. --??-Original Message-??-? From: Eizinga, Sherrie Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:59 AM To: Armitage, Julie; Becker, Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: FW: {External} Doc Message-m- From: Jeffrey Ferry Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:55 AM To: Elzinga, Sherrie Cc: Jeff Ferry Subject: [External] Doc State of - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged or attorney work product, may constitute inside information or internal deliberative staff communication, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. if you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney?client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. DRAFT -- CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION Revised: 2/21/2017 Follow up information a The MP8 currently imposes limits on emission rates in lbs/mmbtu for and 802. These emission rate limits are federally enforceable as a result of inclusion in Illinois? Regional Haze SIP. approval of Illinois? Regional Haze SIP states that ?this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.? a The MP8 does not limit Heat Input (HI), maximum capacity or hours of operation. Emission rate limits, such as those in the MPS, do not limit mass emissions because they do not limit HI or operating hours and, therefore, allow for growth in generation. This is a primary reason power plant owners often prefer emission rate limits over mass emissions caps, such as in the MP8. 6 A mass cap associated with an emission rate limit can readily be calculated by multiplying the emission rate by the maximum I-II capacity of a unit. This calculation was performed in Dynegy?s proposal to demonstrate that the proposed mass caps were substantially lower than the existing allowable based on maximum HI. 9 Allowable emissions are de?ned as those allowed under a rule or other applicable requirement. Projected, estimated or expected emissions are those actual emissions forecasted to occur ?expected actual emissions?). 9 Illinois original regional haze submittal (June 2011) took the approach that the MPS . would satisfy the Clean Air Act?s Best Available Retro?t Technology (BART) obligations for the affected EGUs and that an analysis of emission reductions expected from the MPS conclusively demonstrated that Illinois? approach would yield much larger reductions of . and 802 than BART implementation on EGUs subject to BART. Illinois analysis identi?ed expected actual emissions by multiplying 2002 HI by the MPS emission rates. As discussed below, this was an overly conservative approach. Illinois February 2017 Five-Year Progress Report for the Illinois Regional Haze SIP takes the same approach, but refers to ?expected emissions? as ?projected emissions.? a USEPA approved Illinois? Regional Haze SIP based on analysis of expected emission reductions under the MPS. In particular, USEPA approved the Illinois SIP because it achieved signi?cantly greater reductions than through imposition of source-speci?c BART. The numbers in ?nal approval (which rely upon fewer reductions than estimated by Illinois EPA) are as follows: CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS Revised: 2/21/2017 Difference between 2002 Base Year Emissions (Cols. 2002 Base Year Emission Reductions under and Expected Emission Emissions the MPS Table 1 of Reductions (Cols. USEPA final ruie Expected Actual Emissions approving SIP NOX tons SOZ tons NOX tons 802 tons NOX tons S02 tons (Col. A) (Col. (Col. C) (Col. Dynegy 34,538 67,653 23,867 47,378 10,671 20,275 Ameren 45,141 170,108 24,074 111,997 21,067 58,111 Total 31,738 78,386 Expected Actual Emissions Numbers obtained from Illinois EPA ?5 Technical Support Document for Best Available Retro?t Technology Under the Regional Haze Rule (April 29, 2011), USEPA ?s proposed rule to approve Illinois original Regional Haze SIP (77 Fed. Reg. 3966 (Jan. 26, 2012)), USEPA ?s?nal rule approving Illinois? original Regional Haze SIP (77 Fed. Reg. 3 9943 (July 6, 2012)), and ?3 February I, 201 7 ire-?Y ear Pragress Report for the Illinois Regional Haze SIP. The above table provides the actual emission reductions relied upon by USEPA in its ?nal approval of Illinois? Regional Haze SIP. 9 Based upon discussions with IEPA, IEPA is concerned that USEPA would not accept expected actual emissions above those relied upon for SIP approval. Per the above table, USEPA approved Illinois? SIP based on expected actual emissions of 31,738 tons per year for and 78,386 tons per year for 802. Although allowable emissions are greater than expected actual emissions, Dynegy will agree to limit its proposed allowable mass emissions caps below these expected actual emissions levels to allow for a readily approvable SIP revision. 0 USEPA does not state in any of its Illinois? Regional Haze SIP approvals that a future SIP revision request must contain federally enforceable limits on mass emissions below the expected actual emission levels used in previous approvals. There is no statutory or regulatory prescribed methodology forcomplying with Regional Haze requirements through alternative limitations. Accordingly, USEPA originally approved the alternative emission rate approach on grounds that it provided more signi?cant emission reductions than BART. Dynegy?s proposed tonnage-based limits would do nothing to alter this approach. As a result, Dynegy?s proposal does not run afoul of any restrictions on revising aimed at ensuring reasonable further progress. Section 110(1) of the Clean Air Act does not prohibit USEPA approval of a SIP revision that alters an emissions limitation provided that the revised limit continues to demonstrate reasonable further progress. In fact, USEPA recently opined in approving a revision to the Arizona Regional Haze SIP that: DRAFT- CONFIDENTEAL BUSINESS INFORMATION Revised: 2/21/2017 The critical question under section 110(1) is not whether the SIP revision will cause an increase in actual emissions, it is whether that increase in actual emissions will interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or [reasonable further progress], or if the SIP revision interferes with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The fact that actual emissions will increase means that the analysis must include an evaluation of how that emission increase affects attainment and [reasonable further progress] and other applicable requirements of the CAA. See EPA Approval and Revision of Air Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans (Jan. 13, 2017). Here, Dynegy?s proposal will not even cause an increase in actual emissions. Thus, concern over the proposals conflict with Clean Air Act Section 110(1) restrictions is unfounded. In fact, USEPA approved the IPI-I variance as part of Illinois? Regional Haze SIP and, in doing so, recognized reduced expected emissions reductions at IPH from 131,367 tons (original SIP) to 119,833 tons (revised SIP to re?ect variance). Thus, so long as expected reductions remain signi?cantly greater than BART, greater progress to visibility protection occurs compared to BART and USEPA can approve a SIP revision. 0 At the recent meeting, Illinois EPA indicated that any revision to the Regional Haze SIP would not be approved unless the revision shows that annual SO2 and emissions are - limited to 44,920 and 22,469 tons, respectively. These numbers re?ect projected emissions based on 2002 actual HI multiplied by the MPS rates. . a The 44,920 tons per year ?projected? emissions of 802 should not be considered a cap that cannot be exceeded. This number is simply an estimate of future expected actual emissions. responsibility in approving a revision to the Regional Haze SIP is to ensure that reasonable further progress is maintained and that emissions do not impact a NAAQS or other Clean Air Act requirement. Simply lowering the allowable emissions under the MPS via establishment of the Dynegy proposed cap merely changes the methodology and standard by which to ensure compliance with the regional haze requirements. 9 Even after the MPS revision proposed by Dynegy, if necessary, Illinois EPA can readily show that ?projected? emissions will remain below 44,920 tons per year of 802 by changing the emission estimation method and by utilizing all applicable limits to and $02 emission from the EGUs. While Illinois EPA has historically relied solely on projected emission reductions under the MP8 to demonstrate reasonable progress in addressing regional haze, multiple options exist for demonstrating reasonable progress. For example, Illinois EPA can use CSAPR in combination with MATS, MPS, consent decree emission rate limits lbs/mmbtu) acid rain and other requirements. Since the allowable mass emissions would decrease under a newly established mass cap, it is reasonable to expect that any projection of actual emissions would also likely decrease. This is because affected sources are cognizant of a lower allowable emission limit and operate accordingly. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS ENFORMATION Revised: 2/21/2017 1. The Clean Air Act does not require that USEPA disapprove any revision to Illinois?s Regional Haze SIP unless it shows that annual SO2 and emissions are limited in a federally enforceable manner to less than 44,920 and 22,469 tons, respectively. approvals of Illinois? Regional Haze SIP did not approve or expressly identify either such cap.l USEPA did not require federally enforceable limits on mass emission levels in previous approvals of Illinois? Regional Haze SIP. Instead, USEPA relied upon ?expected? emissions reductions. Given that Illinois EPA under Dynegy?s proposal can continue to project emissions to show that regional haze requirements are met, and that the revised MPS would significantly reduce the allowable mass emissions of both SO2 and Dynegy?s proposal is consistent with Clean Air Act requirements. rulernaking notices regarding approval of Illinois? Regional Haze SIP demonstrate that USEPA relied upon and approved the emission rate limits of the MPS into the SIP. While USEPA estimated the associated mass expected emission reductions, these expected emission reductions are not federally enforceable, as USEPA identifies. Rather, the expected emission reductions were only estimated and provided in an illustrative manner of reductions to be ?expected? per the MPS emission rate limits, and not as independently enforceable limits. Notably, USEPA (and IEPA) used the term ?expected? emission reductions, not ?required? reductions. Regardless, Dynegy?s proposed mass caps are below the combined total emissions USEPA estimated in its approval of Illinois? Regional Haze SIP SO2: 56,000 tons vs. 78,386 tons; 25,000 tons vs. 31,738 tons). Moreover, the proposed mass caps provide a substantial cushion of compliance compared to implementation of BART on only the Illinois EGUs subject to BART DMG IPH presumptive BART tons/year SO2 reductions compared to baseline 85,812 v. tons/year SO2 reductions under Dynegy?s preposed cap compared to baseline a 181,761). In fact, Dynegy?s proposed caps provide more compliance margin relative to BART implementation than analysis in the original Regional Haze SIP tons/year SO2 reductions under Dynegy?s proposed cap 181,761 v. tonsfyear SO2 reductions under the existing SIP analysis 178,654 (in 2015)). . The current Regional Haze SIP does not restrict the amount of an acceptable mass cap under the MPS. Indeed, Illinois? Regional Haze SIP submittals have not relied upon any mass caps under the MPS, but instead have relied solely upon the MPS emission rate limits. ?Expected? emission reductions for the combined Dynegy DMG and IPH units 1 In its most recent approval of Illinois? Regional Haze SIP, USEPA identi?ed expected SO2 emissions from the IPH units that are substantially higher than the IPH portion of the 44,920 tons of projected emissions. 80 Fed. Reg. 21681, 21683-84 (April 20, 2015) (USEPA identified expected emissions of SO2 at 50,275 tons in 2017 under the former variance). CONFIDENTIAL ENFORMATION Revised: 321/2017 under the proposed mass caps are greater than the expected emission reductions estimated by both Illinois EPA and USEPA in the Regional Haze SIP submittals and approvals. Therefore, Dynegy?s proposal will continue to result in improved emission reductions consistent with reasonable further progress requirements. 4. Fuither, the 802 and caps identi?ed by Illinois EPA (44,920 and 22,469) appear to be calculated using 2002 heat inputs multiplied by the MPS allowable emission rate. This is only one of many ways to forecast expected actual emissions. Using this method and concluding that Dynegy cannot exceed those amounts in essence limits Dynegy to its 2002 heat inputs, which is contrary to the reason why Illinois power plant owners selected a rate based emission limit over a mass cap in the MPS rulemaking negotiations. Illinois power plants preferred emission rate limits tO allow for growth in energy demand, as emission rates allowed affected units to Operate both more often and at higher capacities as long as they complied with the emission rate. There was, and is, no limit in the current MP3 on mass emissions, other than that inherent in the rated/operational capacities of the units. I 5. Regarding Newton Unit 2, Dynegy has provided revised proposed mass caps with Newton Unit 2 removed. Dynegy will agree to remove Newton Unit 2 from the CAAPP permit. 6. Regarding continuance of an MP8 emission rate limit on ozone season emissions, Dynegy believes this is problematic for several reasons, including: a. There is no environmental or public protection reason to maintain emission rate limits during the ozone season. The proposed mass caps during the ozone season are, in fact, more protective in that they will lower the overall amount Of emissions allowed than currently allowed under the MPS. b. The MP8 ozone season emission rate limits are not more protective during ?pea hours because the MPS ozone season limit is averaged over the entire ozone season, Dynegy could Operate without SCR controls for an extended period during the ozone season and still comply with the MPS emission rate limit by increasing Operation of the at other times during the ozone season. c. Notably, the CSAPR uses mass caps during the ozone season. d. Ozone season reductions are not speci?cally regulated in the Regional Haze rule. Rather, annual emissions are the targeted emissions. review of Illinois?s Regional Haze SIP only considered annual NOX emissions, not seasonal emissions. c. It undermines the argument that mass caps are more useful and protective of the environment if Illinois EPA takes the position that they need keep any emission rate limits during the ozone season for environmental reasons. DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Revised: 2/21/2017 f. Any use of the MPS for other than what it was proposed or it has already been used for is inappropriate and beyond the intent of the original rule. The MPS was not meant to be the ?go to rule? for any reductions needed from Illinois coal??red power plants. Revised MPS Support This document supplements and revises previous portions of the original proposal in regards the Illinois Multi-Pollutant Standards (MPS) rule. The below revisions to the proposed mass?based caps re?ect the removal of Nevvton Unit 2. I. Maid?Pollutant Standards Proposed Revision and Support Speci?cally, as proposed, the remaining operating EGUs in the DMG MPS Group and Ameren MPS Group would be merged into a single MPS Group, comprised of Baldwin 1, 2 and 3, Havana 6, Hennepin and 2, Coffeen and 2, Duck Creek 1, Edwards 2 and 3, Joppa and Newton 1. For simplicity, the proposed newly merged MPS Group is referred to herein as the ?Merged MPS Group? or MMPS. A. Proposed mass?based caps. . Annual 802 Under the existing MPS rule, different emission rate limits apply to the IPH MPS Group the ?Ameren MPS Group? identi?ed in 35 IAC and the DMG MPS Group: 0 The IPH MPS Group units at Coffeen, Duck Creek, Newton, Edwards and Joppa) is subject to an annual SO2 rate limit in 2017 and beyond of 0.23 lbs/mmbtu. The DMG MPS Group units at Baldwin, Havana and Hennepin) is subject to an annual 802 rate limit in 2017 and beyond that is the more stringent of 0.25 lbs/mmbtu or a rate equivalent to 35 percent of the Base Rate of SO2 emissions 0.19 lbs/mmbtu). To determine the current allowable emissions under the MPS, the HI capacity of the existing EGUs is multiplied by the allowable MPS annual SO2 rate limit (lbs/mmbtu) and divided by 2,000 pounds. It is appropriate and necessary to use maximum HI capacity because there is no limit on HI and therefore allowable emissions must be calculated using the maximum H1 capacity and not actual or expected HI. This method of calculating the allowable emissions has been established over decades of environmental practice and outlined in numerous permitting regulations and guidelines PSD and NSR). This is similar to calculating the maximum allowable emissions for a unit that only has an emission limit in lbs/hr and no limit on hrs/yr. In order to calculate the allowable emissions, 8,760 hrs/hr are used and not the historic actual operating hrs/yr DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS ENFORMATION Revised: 2/21/2017 2,000 hrs/yr). Using this methodology, the MPS rate limit for the IPH MPS Group is equivalent to 45,210 tons per year and 24,716 tons per year for the DMG MPS Group. The annual allowable SO2 emissions for the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups would be 69,926 tons. In order to provide additional environmental benefits beyond the objectives of the MPS rule, the Merged MPS Group the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups) would need to be subject to an annual ?eet~wide SO2 emission cap below 69,926 tons. Dynegy proposes an annual 802 emission cap of 56,000. Note: The mass caps were carefully selected to be substantially below the allowable mass emissions and yet still provide operational ?exibility for Dynegy. Also, consideration was given to the potential use of such emission caps for Illinois Regional Haze SIP and other needs. 2. Annual NOX Under the existing MPS rule, different emission rate limits apply to the IPH and DMG MPS Groups: 0 The IPH MPS Group annual NOX rate limit in 2017 and beyond is 0.11 lbs/mmbtu. The DMG MPS Group annual NOX rate limit in 2017 and beyond is the more stringent of 0.11 lbs/mmbtu or a rate equivalent to 52 percent of the Base Annual Rate ofNOx 0.10 lbs/mmbtu). To determine the current allowable under the MPS, the heat input capacity of the existing EGUs is multiplied by the allowable MPS annual NOX rate limit (lbs/mmbtu) and divided by 2,000 pounds. Using this methodology, the MPS rate limit for the IPH MPS Group is equivalent to 21,622 tons per year and 13,009 tons per year for the DMG MPS Group. The allowable emissions for the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups would be 34,631 tons. In order to provide additional environmental bene?ts beyond the objectives of the MPS rule, the Merged MPS Group the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups) would need to be subject to an annual ?eet?wide NOX emission cap below 34,631 tons. Dynegy proposes an annual NOX emission cap of 25,000 tons. 3. Ozone Season Under the existing MPS rule, different emission rate limits apply to the IPH MPS Group and the DMG MPS Group: 0 The IPH MPS Group ozone season NOX rate limit in 2017 and beyond is 0.11 lbs/mmbtu. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION Revised: 2/21f2017 The DMG MPS Group ozone season rate limit in 2017 and beyond is the more stringent of 0.11 lbs/mmbtu or a rate equivalent to 80 percent of the Base Seasonal Rate ofNOx 0.10 lbs/mmbtu). To determine the current allowable under the MP8, the heat input capacity of the existing EGUs is multiplied by the allowable MPS seasonal rate limit (lbs/mmbtu) and divided by 2,000 pounds. Using this methodology, the MPS rate limit for the IPH MPS Group is equivalent to 10,811 tons per ozone season and 6,504 tons per ozone season for the DMG MPS Group. The allowable emissions for the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups would be 17,315 tons over the period April 1 to September 30 each year. In order to provide additional environmental bene?ts beyond the objectives of the MPS rule, the Merged MPS Group the merged IPH and DMG MPS Groups) would be subject to a seasonal ?eet?wide emission cap below 17,315 tons. Dynegy proposes a seasonal emission cap of 11,500 tons. B. Demonstration that the proposed mass-based caps are more stringent than the mass emissions allowed by the MPS rate limits. The proposed annual and seasonal mass caps, when compared to the allowable mass emissions under the MPS, are more protective of the environment and public health. This is because the proposed mass-based caps are lower than the mass emissions allowed under the current MPS rule, as shown below. The baseline year for the MPS was the average annual actual emissions from 2003 to 2005. The average annual 2003 to 2005 actual tons of SO2 emitted from the original . and DMG MPS Groups was 226,245 tons/yr (combined total). The objective, and requirement, of the original MPS rule was a 65% reduction from this amount. In calendar year 2017 and beyond, the MPS rule allows 69,926 tons of 802 annually from the IPH and DMG Groups (combined total). The proposed mass-based cap for SO2 is 56,000 tons per year, resulting in a decrease in the amount of SO2 allowed of 25,026 tons per year. The 56,000 tons cap would also represent a 75% reduction in SO2 emissions from the 2003 to 2005 baseline, which is greater than the 65% reduction identi?ed in the MP8. The average annual 2003 to 2005 actual tons of NOX emitted from the original IPH and DMG MPS Groups was 56,826 tons/yr (combined total). The objective, and requirement, of the original MPS rule was a 48% reduction from this amount. In calendar year 2017 and beyond the MPS rule allows 34,631 tons of annually from the IPH and DMG Groups (combined total). The proposed mass?based cap for is 22,469 tons per year, resulting in a decrease in the amount of allowed of 12,162 tons per year. The 25,000 tons cap would also represent a 56% reduction in NOX emissions from the'2003 to 2005 baseline, which is greater than the 48% reduction identified in the MPS. CONFIDENTIAL Revised: 2/21/2017 The average ozone season emissions from 2003 to 2005 from the original IPH and DMG MPS Groups were 15,761 tons per season (combined total). The objective, and requirement, of the original MPS rule was a 20% reduction from this amount. In the 2017 ozone season and subsequent ozone seasons, the MPS rule allows 19,023 tons of NOX from the IPH and DMG Groups (combined total). The proposed mass-based cap for NOX is 11,500 tons per ozone season, resulting in a decrease in the amount of allowed of 7,023 tons per year. The 11,500 tons cap would also represent a 27% reduction in seasonal NOX emissions from the 2003 to 2005 baseline, which is greater than the 20% reduction identi?ed in the MP8. The ozone season applicable to the MP8 is from the April l3t to September Roccafo rte, Gina From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 3:18 PM To: Roccat'orte, Gina Subject: FW: Dynegy "Support for Revising the IMR and You free in 5 minutes? if so, we?re meeting in Julie?s office. Thanks, Dana Message-?-?- From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 3:05 PM To: Roccatorte, Gina Subject: RE: Dynegy "Support for Revising the MR and Hi Gina. David said Julie might want to have a group meeting on this today. i?ii_let you know when I hear a time and will see if you?re free. Message??m From: Vetterhoffer, Dana Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 11:05 AM To: Roccaforte, Gina Subject: Dynegy ?Support for Revising the IMR and Hi Gina. As we discussed, attached is what Dynegy provided the Agency Thanks, Dana From: P532A2M631353@illinoisgov Sent: Monday, January 23,2017 10:16 AM To: Vetterhoffer, Dana Subject: Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Printer Please open the attached document. It was scanned and sent to you using a Xerox Multifunction Printer. Attachment File Type: pdf, Multi-Page Multifunction Printer Location: machine location not set Device Name: XRX9C934E5F7662 For more information on Xerox products and soiutions, please visit State of Illinois - NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged or attorney work product, may constitute inside information or internai deliberative staff communication, and is intended oniy for the use of the addressee. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, inciuding ali attachments. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney?client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS Revised; Leonel? Support for Revising the and NWS This document provides initial justi?cation for revising both the Illinois Mercury Rule (IMR) and the Illinois Mold-Pollutant Standards (MP8) role. Z. illinois h?iercurv Rule Proposed Revision and Support The proposed revision would allow electric generating unit (EGU) owners or operators to comply with the IMP. by complying with the federal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS, rule compliance with MATS woold be deemed compliance with the The justi?cation for adding this compliance alternative to the IMR is the fact that the federal MATS at inth'nLS 9f the, mercuryemission standards. For sources that choose to implement this option, the proposed alternative compliance method would eliminate any con?icting and/or duplicative technical requirements monitoring and testing) and administrative requirements recordkeeping and reporting) between the IMR and federal MATS rule without loss in the protection of the environment and public health. The following information is provided to demonstrate that the federal MATS role is more stringent than, or as shingent as, the and to justify a revision to the MIR that would allow affected sources to use compliance with the MATS as compliance with the IMR. It is recommended that the be revised to add a provision providing that compliance with the federal MATS rule shall be deemed compliance with all requirements of the IMR, including the IMR mercury emission standard, recordlceeping, reporting, monitoring and testing provisions. Justi?cation for this proposed rule revision includes: 1. No loss in the protection of the environment and public health. While the IMR has a lower numeric mercury limit 0.0080 than the federal MATS rule 0.01 or 0.013 the stringency cannot be directly compared because each rule employs different averaging periods. The IMR employs a rolling 12-month averaging period whereas the MATS rule employs a 90~day or 30-day averaging period. Because the IMR and the MATS employ different averaging periods, a conversion is required to compare the limits in the two rules. USEPA provides a basis for making this conversion. In the course of developing the WTS, USEPA conducted an analysis to ?evaluate the impact of avcraging time on variability and to predict the upper predictive limit (UPL) value for different averaging times for the MACT ?oor facilities? (Memorandum ?'om Stephen Boone, et al., RTI re: The impact of Emissions Averaging Time on the Stringency of an Emission Standard (Dec. 9, 2011), referenced at 77 Fed. Reg. at 9385 (Feb. 16, 2012)). On the basis of CEMS data from 23 EGUs, USEPA calculated the MACT floor emission limits for different averaging periods as follows: lw? CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Revised: 1/20/2017 2. Clearly delineates applicable requirements and compliance demonstrations and eliminates duplicative requirements. In 2008, after promulgation of the IMR, the federal rule CAMR, the Clean Air Mercury Rule) that established a regulatory need for Illinois inercury control requirements, and upon which portions of the IMF. were based, was vacated: Subsequently, a new federal rule MATS was promulgated and remains in effect. The vacatur of CAMR and promulgation of MATS have led to inconsistencies between the Illinois and federal mercury control requirements. For example, Appendix of the IMR utilizes mercury monitoring requirements that mirror monitoring provisions originally contained in the vacated CAMR, and identical requirements are not contained in the MATS. Many of these monitoring requirements and provisions were updated in the more recent MATS rule. Further, there are numerous inconsistencies between the IMR and MATS requirements on averaging times 12 month rolling versus 30 day), recordkeeping, reporting separate compliance reports and timing of report submittal required under each rule), monitoring separate data requirements under each rule) and testing. The proposed revision would completely remove these inconsistencies and duplicative requirements if the source chooses the MATS compliance option. Also, retaining the initial IMR requirements would allow sources the ability to choose to continue complying with the original IMR requirements. It is therefore recommended that the original IMR requirements be retained and that an option be added that allows sources to instead comply with the IMR by complying with the MATS requirements. This approach is preferred over the more dif?cult and burdensome task of changing all of the individual IMR requirements to make them consistent with the MATS requirements, which would be more administratively difficult for the agency and potentially disruptive for sources that wish to continue to comply with the original IMR requirements. 3. Consistent with the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act (IAPA) Provisions on Overlapping Regulations and Executive Order 2016?13. Section addresses overlapping state and federal regulations, providing that ?Any persons subject to a rule imposed by a State agency and to a similar rule imposed by the federal government may petition the agency administering the State rule for a declaratory ruling as to whether compliance with the federal rule will be accepted as compliance with the State rule." Further, Sections and (4) authorize State agencies to initiate rulernaking proceedings or issue a declaratory ruling to accept compliance with a federal rule as compliance with a State rule. Consistent with these provisions of the the IMF. and federal MATS rules are a clear example of overlapping regulations where compliance with the federal rule should be accepted as compliance with the State rule. Moreover, Executive Order 2016-13 (Oct. 17, 2016) establishes the Illinois Competitiveness Council and identi?es that ?many of the State?s agencies have outdated, redundant or inconsistent regulations, resulting in an inconsistent and unnecessary BUSENESS Revised: 1&0! 201'} regulatory framework across the State and public frustration". The Executive Order provides that ?a comprehensive review of existing administrative rules and internal agency policies is essential to determine their current necessity and relieve citizens, businesses and social service providers from the crush of unnecessary, outdated and inconsistent regulations" and that ?without compromising the health, safety or welfare of Illinois? citizens, this review should result in the elimination or simpli?cation of unnecessary or unduly burdensome and anti-competitive administrative rules and policies". The Executive Order requires that, by May 1, 2017, all agencies under the jurisdiction of the Governor ?conduct a comprehensive review of their administrative rules and policies? and directs such reviews to meet speci?ed guidelines, including the following, many of which support the proposed rule revision providing that compliance with the federal MATS shall be deemed compliance with the IMR: a Regulation is drafted in such a way as to be understood by the general public. Regulations should be clear, concise and drafted in readily understood language. Regulations should not create legal uncertainty. Regulation is consistent with other rules across Agencies. Agencies should coordinate to ensure rules are not con?icting or have duplicative requirements. a Regulation does not impose unduly burdensome requirements on business, whether through time or cost, or have a negative effect on the State?s overall job growth. in considering this criterion, the Agency should consider whether there are less burdensome alternatives to achieve the Regulation?s purpose. There is a clear need and statutory authority for the Regulation. Regulation should not exceed the Agency?s statutory authority and should be drafted so as to impose statutory requirements in the least restrictive way possible. In considering these criteria, the Agency should also consider whether the Regulation exceeds federal requirements or duplicates local regulations or procedures. ll. Multi~Pollutant Standards hroposed Revision and Support The MP8 became a regulatory requirement in 2007 as part of the IMR flexibility provisions. The MP8 requires that group~wide ozone season NO): and annual average 802. and N024 emission rate limits be met. The proposed revision would convert the MP3 rate limits to annual $02 and NOX tonnage caps and an ozone season tonnage cap and provide that MPS EGUS that are currently in two separate MP8 Groups, but winch have a common parent company owner, be combined into a single MP8 Group. The justi?cation for converting the MP8 302 and rate limits to mass-based caps includes the fact that the proposed mass~based caps are demonstrably more stringent than the allowable emissions under the current MP8 limits. Further, the placement of all MP3 EGUs under common parent company ownership into a single MP8 Group is consistent with the original CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Revised: 1,320,12917 intent of the MPS rule (including the Operational ?exibility provisions of the MP8), promotes streamlined understandable regulation and reduces administrative burdens. This proposal inchides: A. Support for revising the MPS, including: 1. EXplanation of why there is no loss in the protection of the environment and public health, 2. Additional bene?ts of revising the MP8, and 3. Rationale for combining MP8 BGUs under common ownership into a single MP8 Group. 13. Proposed mass emission caps for: 1. Annual 80?. 2. Annual NOX 3. Ozone Season C. A demonstration that the proposed mass emission caps are more stringent than the mass emissions allowed by the MPS rate limits. A. Support for revising the RES 1. No loss in the protection of the environment and public health. The preposed mass?based caps are more stringent than the mass emissions allowed under the current MPS limits, as demonstrated and explained in the following. The current MPS limits for annual SOZ, armual NOX and ozone season NQX employ a rate?based approach (lbs of pollutant per million btu of heat input), that are applicable to EGUs contained within the defined MP8 Groups. The rate-based limits do not contain any regulatory limits on the total amount, or mass, of pollutants that can be emitted either annually or seasonally. In other words, each MPS-affected unit could theoretically operate at capacity and the MPS Group could remain in compliance with its MP3 limits. Under the proposed rnasswbased approach, a mass-based cap on $02 and NOX emissions is established such that the combined emissions from all EGUs in an MP3 Group would not be allowed to exceed the de?ned mass-based cap. The preposed mass-based caps are more stringent than the current MP8 limits in that they lirnit mass emissions well below the mass emission levels currently allowed in the MP8. Further, compared to a rate-based approach, mass?based caps more clearly establish and de?ne the maximum emissions allowed, thereby facilitating compliance and veri?cation and enhancing protection of the environment and public health. As a result, the proposed revision is demonstrably more protective of the environment and public health. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS ENFORMATION Revised: 1/20/2017 2. Additional bene?ts of revising the MP3. The preposed revision identi?es the applicable emission limits in a more bene?cial form with regards to identifying allowable emissions and streamlines compliance demonstrations. For example, if a group of units is subject to a rate-based limit of 50 of pollutant X, it cannot readily be determined how much pollution may actually be emitted in any given timeframe unless the amount of heat input during the associated time period is also known. Conversely, if the same group of units is subject to a mass emission cap of 70,000 tons per year of pollutant X, it is readily understood that no more than 70,000 tons of pollutant are allowed to be emitted in any year. A mass?based compliance approach also allows compliance to be more readily veri?ed and determined since all of the MP8 have 802 and NOX continuous emission monitoring systems (GEMS) that directly measure and record their emissions. Under a rate-based approach several variables need to be gathered in order to calculate the actual emission rate. With mass-based caps, the annual and seasonal MPS compliance demonstrations would become less resource intensive for both the Illinois EPA and affected sources. Additionally, mass-based caps would assist the Illinois EPA in making demonstrations to USEPA in such matters as State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Mass-based cap demonstrations are more readily made, understandable and accepted since the maximum allowed air pollution is more easily de?ned than with a rate-based limit. 3. Appropriate to have a sinale MPS limit applicable to all MP8 units under a common owner: Combining all MP3 EGUS currently under common control but in different MP8 Groups into a new single MPS Group is consistent with the original intent of the MPS. While Dynegy?s ownership of the DMG MP8 Group has not changed since the original promulgation of the MPS in 2007, unforeseen and dramatic changes have occurred to Illinois? energy system and MP8 sources. Ownership of the MPS sources has signi?cantly changed such that the previous owner (Ameren) of the state?s largest ?eet of coal-?red units no longer owns any coal-?red units in Illinois. In addition, many of the previously-owned Ameren MPS units that were part of the ?Ameren MPS Group? have been permanently retired with the remaining operating units now owned and operated by IPH (a subsidiary or" li)ynegy).1 Several units in the DMG MPS Group also have been permanently retired. EGUs previously in the DMG MPS Group or the Arneren MPS Group that have been retired are: Vermilion and 2, Meredosia l, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Hotsonville 5 and 6, Edwards 1, and Wood River 4 and 5. Further, another large previous owner of coal-?red EGUs in Illinois (Midwest Generation) has either sold or permanently retired all of their units. Altogether, approximately 26 coal-?red units have retired in Illinois since promulgation of the MPS rule and these units no longer emit any air pollutants. I Since 200'}, Dynegy also has acquired the Kincaid Power Station, but the Kincaid Power Station is not subject to the MP5 rule. 6 Revised: #2032017 These changes, along with others, have resulted in a regulatory landscape that is inconsistent with the original MPS grouping rationale that resulted in different MPS limits for different MPS Groups. Further, such dramatic changes to?the Illinois energy landscape were not contemplated during the development of the MPS. A primary reason for the MP8 rule?s provisions on grouping of MP8 units was that a single ownerfoperator would be responsible for, and manage and report on, compliance of all their Illinois coal- ?red EGUs. Grouping all EGUs under common ownership or control together allowed for emissions averaging across the entire commonly owned ?eet, thereby providing ownersl?operators of the MP8 Group an important means of Operational ?exibility. However, as a result of the signi?cant changes in coal-?red EGU ownership in identi?ed above, the sole remaining owner of EGUs subject to the MPS Dynegy) now has MPS EGUs in two separate MPS Groups that are subject to different MP8 emission limits and cannot avail itself of the ?eet-wide operational ?exibility originally intended with the MP8. Under the proposed revision, consistent with the original grouping rationale, all MP3 units under the sole remaining owner of MP8 units would be included in a single MPS Group. Speci?cally, as proposed, the remaining operating EGUS in the DMG MP8 Group and Ameren MPS Group would be combined into a single MPS Group, comprised of Baldwin l, 2 and 3, Havana 6, Hennepin and 2, Coffeen 1 and 2, Duck Creek 1, Edwards 2 and 3, Joppaand Newton 1 and 2. For simplicity, the proposed newly combined MPS Group is referred to herein as'the ?Merged MPS Group" or MMPS. Combining all MP8 EGUs under common control into a new single group offers bene?ts. Since the existing MPS requires separate compliance demonstrations for each MP8 Group, revising the MP8 as proposed would result in only a single compliance demonstration for the new combined MPS Group, thereby streamlining and facilitating compliance veri?cation. MPS compliance demonstrations would become less resource intensive for both the Illinois EPA and affected sources. Further, a single MPS Group provides clarity in regards to the applicable emissions limits to the fleet of the MMPS owned coal-?red EGUS throughout Illinois. Although it is preferable to have all EGUs subject to the MPS under a single mass cap and in a single MPS Group, there is the potential that existing MPS affected EGUS are sold by the current owner of all such EGUs to a different company owner or operator). If this were to occur, the proposed MPS rule would require that the mass- based cap be adjusted for the remaining MMPS Group and that a corresponding mass cap be transferred to the new ownerr'Operator of the purchased EGUs. The amount of the adjustment and transferred mass-based cap would be equal and would be calculated by using the rated capacity of the EGUs. For enample, the adjusted mass cap for the MMPS Group would be determined by the product of the mass?based cap for all of MMPS EGUS multiplied by the ratio of the sum of the purchased EGUs rated capacities to the total combined rated capacities of all of the MMPS affected EGUs. This product adjustment amount) would then be subtracted from the mass cap applicable to the MMPS Group to arrive at the new?based mass cap, and the same product would equal the newly BUSINESS Revised: 1/20/2017 established mass-based cap applicable to the new owner or operator of the purchased units. 3. Proposed mass-based caps. id . Annual SOB Under the existing MPS rule, different emission rate limits apply to the IPH MP3 Group the ?Ameren MPS Group? identi?ed in 35 and the DMG MPS Group: The IPH MP8 Group units at Coffeen, Duck Creek, Newton, Edwards and Oppa) is subject to an annual SOZ rate limit in 2017 and beyond of 0.23 lbsimmbtu. The DMG MPS Group units at Baldwin, Havana and Hennepin) is subject to an annual 30?. rate limit in 2017 and beyond that is the more stringent of 0.25 or a rate equivalent to 35 percent of the Base Rate of 802 emissions 0.19 lbs/mmbtu). To determine the current allowable emissions under the MP3, the beat input capacity of the existing EGUs is multiplied by the allowable MP8 annual $02 rate limit (lbs/nunbtu) and divided by 2,000 pounds. Using this methodology, the MPS rate limit for the MP8 Group is equivalent to 50,474 tons per year and 23,020 tons per year for the DMG MPS Group. The annual allowable 802 emissions for the combined IPH and DMG MP8 Groups would be 73,494 ions. In order to provide additional environmental bene?ts beyond the objectives of the MP8 rule, the Merged MP8 Group the combined IPl-i and DMG MPS Groups) would be subject to an annual ?eet~wide $02 emission cap of 60,000 tons. Annual NOX Under the existing MPS rule, different emission rate limits apply to the IPH and DMG MPS Groups: . The MP8 Group annual rate limit in 2017 and beyond is 0.11 to The DMG MPS Group annual rate limit in 2017 and beyond is the more stringent of 0.1 or a rate equivalent to percent of the Base Annual Rate of NO): 0.10 lbs/mmbtu). To determine the current allowable under the MP3, the heat input capacity of the existing EGUs is multiplied by the allowable MP8 annual NOX rate limit (lbs/mmbtu) and divided by 2,000 pounds. Using this methodology, the MP3 rate limit for the IPH MPS Group is equivalent to 24,140 tons per year and 12,116 tons per year for the DMG MPS Group. The allowable NOX emissions for the combined IPH and DMG MP8 Groups would be 36,256 tons. CON Revised: 1(20/2017 Lt.) In order to provide additional environmental bene?ts beyond the objectives of the MP8 role, the Merged MP8 Group the combined IPl-l and DMG MP8 Groups) would be subject to an annual fleet-wide NOX emission cap of 26,000 tons. . Ozone Season Under the existing MPS rule, different emission rate limits apply to the IPH MPS Group and the DMG MPS GrOup: The IPH MP8 Group ozone season NOX rate limit in 2017 and beyond is 0.11 . The DMG MPS Group ozone season NOX rate limit in 2017 and beyond is the more stringent of 0.11 or a rate equivalent to 80 percent of the Base Seasonal Rate ofNOx 0.10 lbs/mmbtu). To determine the current allowable under the MPS, the heat input capacity of the existing EGUS is multiplied by the allowable MPS seasonal rate limit (lbsimmbtu) and divided by 2,000 pounds. Using this methodology, the MP8 rate limit for the MPS Group is equivalent to 12,070 tons per ozone season and 6,053 tons per ozone season for the DMG MPS Group. The allowable NOX emissions for the combined IPH and DMG MP3 Groups would be 18,128 tons over the period April 1 to September 30 each year. In order to provide additional environmental bene?ts beyond the objectives of the MP8 rule, the Merged MPS Group the combined IPH and DMG MPS Groups) would be subject to a seasonal ?eet-wide emission cap of 12,000 tons. Demonstration that the proposed mass~based caps are more stringent than the mass entissions allowed by the MP8 rate limits. The proposed annual and seasonal mass caps, when compared to the allowable mass emissions under the MPS, are more protective of the environment and public health. This is because the proposed maSSrbaSBCl caps are lower than the mass emissions allowed under the current MPS rule, as shown below. The baseline year for the MP8 was the average annual actual emissions from 2003 to 2005. The average annual 2003 to 2005 actual tons of $02 emitted from the original and DMG MPS Groups was 226,245 (combined total). The objective, and requirement, of the original MPS role was a 65% reduction from this amount. In calendar year 2017 and beyond, the MPS rule allows 77,067 tons of $02 annually from the PH and DMG Groups (combined total). The proposed mass-based cap for 802 is 60,000 tons per year, resulting in a decrease in the amount of 302 allowed of 17,067 tons per year. The 60,000 tons cap would also represent a 73% ton reduction in 802 emissions from the 2003 to 2005 baseline, which is greater than the 65% reduction identi?ed in the MP8. The average annual 2003 to 2005 actual tons of NOX emitted from the original IPH and DMG MP8 Groups was 56,826 (combined total). The objective, and requirement, CONFIDENTEAL BUSINESS ENFORMATION Revised: of the original MP8 rule was a 48% reduction from 'this amount. In calendar year 2017 and beyond the MP8 rule allows 38,046 tons ofNOx annually from the IPH and DMG Groups (combined total). The proposed mass-based cap for is 26,000 tons per year, resulting in a decrease in the amount of allowed of 12,046 tons per year. The 26,000 tons cap would also represent a 54% reduction in emissions from the 2003 to 2005 baseline, which is greater than the 48% reduction identi?ed in the M08. The average ozone season emissions from 2003 to 2.005 from the original and DMG MPS Groups were 15,761 tons per season (combined total). The objective, and requirement, of the original MP8 rule was a 20% reduction from this amount. In the 2017 ozone season and subsequent ozone seasons, the MPS rule allows l9,023 tons of N02: from the and DMG- Groups (combined total)._ The proposed mass?based cap for NOX is 12,000 tons per ozone season, resulting in a decrease in the amount of allowed of 7,023 tons per year. The 12,000 tons cap would also represent a 24% reduction in seasonal NOX emissions from the 2003 to 2005 baseline, which is greater than the 20% reduction identi?ed in the MPS. The ozone season applicable to the MP8 is from the April to September 10 Revised: 1/20/2017 HE. Additional Supoorting andior Relevant lnformaiion: Overlapping and redundant $02, NOX and mercury regulations applicable to coalu?a?ed power plants: Sulfur Dlosdde Regulations Plant Baldwin Havana Hennepln Colleen Duck Creek Edwards Jappe Kincaid Newton 502 Control gqulpment Low Sulfur Coal Unit of Rule Averaging?me Measurement Lbs. per million Btu Illinois MFS annual of heat input Acid Rain Annual Allowances (tons) CSAPR Annual Allowances {Ions} . Lbs. per million Btu Consent Decree 30-day Rolling of heat input Consent Decree Annual Tons New Source Performance Lbs. per million Btu SpahndeS $5995 of heat Input Memorandum of Agreement 1-hour Lbs. per Hour - ILSIP _1:h__our Lbs. per Hour Lbs. per million Btu ofheatlnput Nitrogen Oxlde Regulations Plant Baldwin Havana Hennepln Colleen Bud: Creek Edwards loops Klncald ?ewton Selective Catalytic Reduction Equlpment U3 Low N03: Burners Unit of Rule Averaging Time Measurement Lbs. per million Btu Illinois MP5. . .. Annual .. .. 9f Matinee: l. .. . .X Acid Rain Annual Allowances {tons} CSAPR Annual Allowgnce? {tons} I Lbs. per mltlion Btu Consent Decree 3&day Rolling of heat input consent DecreeAnnqel Tone New Source Performance Lbs. per million Btu Standards 3-Hou:s of heat Input IL SIP 1-hour Lbs. per Hour Lbs. per million Btu H.519 of heat input Mercury Regulations Plan: Baldwin Havana Hennepln Coffeen Duck Creek Edwards Joppa Klncaid Newton Carbon Injection System Refined Coal Unit of Rule Averaging Time Meesmement Illinois MPS 30-day 131353;:quan MATS SGday or wade? Log; 839 CONFEDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMRTEON Revised: women Am?icabic Mercury, and $02 802 Requirements Requirements weary Requirements Acid Rain CSAPR MPS Consent Decrees GA 35 Pan IQ Fennil Limits Acid Rain CSAPR MPS Consent Decrees MOA 35 LAC Pan Permit Limits 2L Mercm-y Ruic MATS Permit Limits Bxkidwin Havana CnEchn XXKX 351%3? Duck Creek 54 Jr: M333 Edwards 10mm a Kincaid KM Newton NXMX IRWMN WW 3343434 12 DRAFT BUS-IN ESS Revised": 1/20f2t317 l. Unnecessary and Redundant: Recent federal regulations to control 802, and mercury make the IMR and MP8 unnecessary and redundant. Mercury is regulated under the federal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS and both NOX and 802 are regulated under the federal Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). USEPA has deemed CSAPR equivalent to its Regional Haze Rule. No Regulatory Basis or Authority Remains for either the IMR or MP8: When CAMR (the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule) was vacated in 2008, a key basis for the was eliminated. The USEPA created MATS to replace MATS has similar mercury control requirements that are more stringent than (or, at least as stringth as) the IMR. Since USEPA has stated that implementation of CSAPR satis?es a state?s BART requirements and since Illinois EPA is implementing CSAPR identical to the federal CSAPR, Illinois EPA can use CSAPR in its Regional Haze SIP in lieu of the MPS. Also, for NOX and 802, the MPS was originally established solely to provide temporary relief for affected sources in regards to mercury control under the IMR, there was arguably. never true authority under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act Section 1003) the law that gives authority for Illinois EPA to establish rules) to establish the MP8. . No Demonstrated or Justi?ed Environmental or Bene?t: USEPA conducted broad outreach, including the performance of cost~hene?t analysis, regulatory impact analysis, and environmental and economic modeling, for the MATS and CSAPR rules to Show that the environment and public health are appropriately protected under the federal rules. The Illinois EPA provided no technical support for the MPS in its rulemaking. Given the protection demonstrated by the federal rules and that the MATS rule is more stringent than the MR, the IMR and MP8 are redundant of the federal rules. Competitive Disadvantage for Illinois Sources: Since neighboring states with coal units Missouri, Indiana, and Kentucky) do not have rules similar to the IMR and MP8, Illinois sources are more burdened with regulations than sources in other states. This leads to a competitive disadvantage for sources and inhibits their ability to appropriately sell their product, electricity. This disadvantage has, and may further, contributed to the shutdown of Illinois sources and an associated loss of Illinois jobs. Also, such a disadvantage may lead to increased air pollution in Illinois since, for example, less controlled sources such as those in Missouri may be dispatched before cleaner Illinois sources. Consistent with the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act on Overlapping Regulations and Governor Rauner?s Statements on ?Realilatory Burden?: The federal MATS and CSAPR are clearly similar to the state IMR and MP8 and repeal andfor revision of the state regulations would result in streamlined environmental requirements and more approPriate and effective evaluation and demonstration of compliance. Streamline and minimize overlapping and redundant requirements: Since promulgation of the IMR and MP8, and even prior to such time, there are numerous applicable requirements that coat-?red EGUs must comply with for mercury 13 BUSINESS ENFORMATION Revised: 1f20/201? and the MP3 regulated pollutants of and SOB, as identi?ed throughout this document. The IMR and MP8 are decade old rules that, at the time of promulgation, filled a gap in mercury, 80?. and N02: control requirements. That gap no longer exists, given the subsequent adoption of additional federal rules and other developments. Federal rules, by the nature of the rulemaking process, are more scienti?cally based, publicly vetted and supportable. Potential issues: Issue: Illinois EPA needs to retain the current version of the MP8 for its regional haze SIP. A: Illinois EPA could elect to use CSAPR BART in place of using the MP8, which USEPA has accepted. Doing so would alleviate the need to rely upon the MP8 at all. Also, the proposed limits are demonstrably more stringent than the original and current MPS limits; therefore, revising the Illinois SIP to re?ect the preposed changes should be accepted by USEPA. Further, if determined necessary, the Illinois EPA could also rely upon the emission reductions associated with the numerous shutdowns in coal-?red power plants, along with the MithS limits. Doing so would allow Illinois EPA to readily show that the reductions identi?ed in previous SIP submittals will continue to be met or exceeded. Illinois EPA should only identify and rely upon the level of emission reductions necessary to achieve SIP revision approval from USEPA in order to preserve other such reductions for potential future use. Issue: Illinois EPA will have to submit a 110(1) anti-backsliding demonstration to US EPA in order to revise or remove the MP8 from its SIP. A: Such a demonstration can be made based on: 1. The proposed limits are more stringent than the original and current MP8, audior 2. There have been numerous shutdowns of coal plants in Illinois such that the emission reductions expected under the original and current MPS (which did not account for any shutdowns) have been exceeded. Accounting for these shutdowns, along with the MMPS limits, will allow IEPA to readily Show that the reductions identi?ed and relied upon in previous SIP submittals will continue to he met or exceeded. Lgsge; Environmental (NGOs) will oppose this. A: There are strong, justi?able reasons to repeal and/or revise both rules; however, revising the rules is assumed preferable by the NGOs. Also, with the recent enactment of SB 2.814, the received a huge win that will have a tremendous negative impact on Illinois? coal-??red power plants. This proposed action would help to preserve thousands of jobs in Illinois related to coal-?red power plants. Dynegy strongly opposed SB 2814 based on the likelihood that it will ultimately cost Illinois thousands of coal plant jobs, if other actions, including this proposed action, are not taken. In essence, revising the IMR and MP8 are job preservation measures that both Illinois EPA and the Governor?s of?ce should strongly support. Issue: What are the overlapping requirements for mercury, NOX and 802?? A: See above charts and below. 14 DRAFT - CON FIDENTIAL BUSINESS Revised: 1/20/2017 NOX and 80?. now have overlapping requirements contained in: a MPS 35 IAC Part 225, Subpart Consent Decrees Acid Rain Program 80?. and NOX regulations under 35 IAC Part 214 and Part 217, respectively CSAPR NSPS Memorandum of Agreements MATS (limits 802 as a surrogate) Permit limits (construction and CAAPP) Mercury new has overlapping requirements contained in: 3 3 MR 35 IAC Part 225, Subpart MATS Permit limits (construotion and CAAPP) 15 3: CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS WFORMATION TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUBTITLE B: AIR POLLUTION CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SUBCHAPTER c: EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR STATIONARY Sec?on 225.100 225.120 225.130 225.140 SOURCES PART 225 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS Severability Abbreviations and Acronyms De?nitions Incorporations by Reference SUBPART B: CONTROL OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC Section 225.200 225.202 225.205 225.210 225.220 225.230 225.232 225.233 225.234 225.235 225.237 225.238 225.240 225.250 225.260 225.261 225.263 225.265 225.270 225.290 225.291 225.292 GENERATING UNITS Purpose Measurement Methods Applicability Compliance Requirements Clean Air Act Permit Program (CAAPP) Permit Requirements Emission Standards for EGUs at Existing Sources Averaging Demonstrations for Existing Sources Multi-Pollutant Standard (MPS) Temporary Technology-Based Standard for EGUS at Existing Sources Units Scheduled for Permanent Shut Down Emissioo Standards for New Sources with EGUS Temporary TechnOIOgy-Based Standard for New Sources with EGUs General Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Initial Certi?cation and Recerti?cation Procedures for Emissions Monitoring Out of Control Periods for Emission Monitors Additional Requirements to Provide Heat Input Data Monitoring of Gross Electrical Output Coal Analysis for Input Mercury Levels Noti?cations Recordkeeping and Reporting Combined Pollutant Standard: Purpose Applicability of the Combined Pollutant Standard CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 225.293 225.294 225.295 225.296 7 ix2.99 Combined Pollutant Standard: Notice of Intent Combined Pollutant Standard: Control Technology Requirements and Emissions Standards for Mercury Combined Pollutant Standard: Emissions Standards for and Combined Pollutant Standard: Control Technology Requirements for N03, 802, and PM Emissions Combined Pollutant Standard: Permanent Shut-Downs Combined Pollutant Standard: Requirements for and Allowances Combined Pollutant Standard: Clean Air Act Requirements NO PROPOSED CHANGES UP To THIS PAGE Section 225.210 Compliance Requirements 3) b) Permit Requirements. The owner or operator of each source with one or more EGUS subject to this Subpart at the source must apply for a. CAAPP permit that addresses the applicable requirements of this Subpart B. Monitoring and Testing Requirements. 1) Except as otherwise indicated in this Subpart, the owner or Operator of each source and each EGU at the source must comply with either the monitoring requirements of Sections 225.240 through 225.290 of this Subpart B, the periodic emissions testing requirements of Section 225.239 of this Subpart B, or an alternative emissions monitoring system, alternative reference method for measuring emissions, or other alternative to the emissions monitoring and measurement requirements of Sections 225.240 through 225.290, if such alternative is submitted to the Agency in writing and approved in writing by the Manager of the Bureau of Air?s Compliance Section. 2) Except as otherwise indicated in this Subpart, the compliance of each EGU with the mercury requirements of Sections 225.230 and 225.237 of this Subpart must be determined by the emissions measurements recorded and reported in accordance with either Sections 225.240 through 225.290 of this Subpart 13, Section 225.239 of this Subpart B, or an alternative emissions monitoring system, alternative reference method for measuring emissions, or other alternative to the emissions monitoring and measurement requirements of Sections 225.240 through 225.290, if such alternative is submitted to the Agency in writing and approved in writing by the Manager of the Bureau of Air?s Compliance Section. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION C) d) Mercury Emission Reduction Requirements The owner or Operator of any EGU subject to this Subpart must comply with applicable requirements for control of mercury emissions of Section 225.230 or Section 225.237 of this Subpart B. Recordkeep?iog and Reporting Requirements Unless otherwise provided, the owner 01* operator of a source with one or more EGUs at the source must keep on site at the source each of the documents listed in subsections through of this Section for a period of ?ve years from the date the document is created. This period may be extended, in writing by the Agency, for cause, at anytime prior to the end of five years. 1) All emissions monitoring information gathered in accordance with Sections 225.240 through 225.290 and all periodic emissions testing information gathered in accordance with Section 225.239. 2) Copies of all reports, compliance certi?cations, and other submissioos and all records made or required or documents necessary to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this Subpart B. 3) Cepies of all documents used to complete a permit application and any other submission under this Subpart B. Liability. 1) The owner or operator of each source with one or more EGUs must meet the requirements of this Subpart B. 2) Any provision of this Sobpart that applies to a source must also apply to the owner and operator of such source and to the owner or operator of each EGU at the source. .3) Any provision of this Subpart that applies to an EGU must also apply to the owner or operator of such EGU. Effect on Other Authorities. No provision of this Subpart may be construed as exempting or excluding the owner or operator of a source or EGU from compliance with any other provision of an approved State Implementation Plan, a permit, the Act, or the 9) Alternative Compliance Provision Notwithstandino any other provision of this Suhnart. the owner or operator may elect to comply with the applicable mercurv requirements of this thnart by complying. with the applicable Federal Mercury Standards pursuant to 40 CFR CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION Part 63. Subnart as oflulv l. 20l3 {and anv future amendments or editions). Compliance with the Federal Mercurv Standards shall be deemed compliance with the mercurv requirements of this Sobpart. if the owner or operator elects to utilize this alternative compliance provision then the followine shall be met: ll 8v no later than Februarv of each calendar vear the owner or operator shall submit to the Aacncv a noti?cation of the intent to utilize this alternative method of compliance. Bv no later than March 15?? of the followine calendar vear the owner or Operator shall submit a certi?cation of compliance with the Federal Mercer Standard. This alternative means of compliance is only available as lone as the Federal Mercurv Standards exist. (Source: Amended at 39 Ill. Reg. 16225, effective December 7, 2015) a) b) Section 225.22% Germ Air Act Fermit ?agrant Retro?t Requirements Application Requirements. 1) Each source with one or more EGUs subject to the requirements of this Subpart is required to submit a CAAPP permit application that addresses all applicable requirements of this Subpart B, applicable to each EGU at the source. For any BGU that commenced commercial operation: A) on or before December 31, 2008, the owner or operator of such must submit an initial pennit application or application for CAAPP permit modi?catioo that meets the requirements of this Section on or before December 31, 2008. B) after December 31, 2008, the owner or operator of any such EGU must submit an initial CAAPP permit application or application for CAAPP modi?cation that meets the requirements of this Section not later than 180 days before initial startup of the EGU, unless the construction permit issued for the EGU addresses the requirements of this Subpart B. Contents of Permit Applications. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION In addition to other information required for a complete application for CAAPP permit or CAAPP permit modi?cation, the application must include the following information: 1) 4) The CRIS (Office of Regulatory Information Systems) or facility code assigned to the source by the US. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, if applicable. identi?cation of each EGU at the source. The intended approach to the monitoring requirements of Sections 225.240 through 225.290 of this Subpart B, or, in the alternative, the applicant may include its intended approach to the testing requirement of Section 225.239 of this Subpart B. The intended approach to the mercury emission reduction requirements of Section 225.230 or 225.237 of this Subpart B, as applicable. c) Permit Contents. 1) Each CAAPP permit issued by the Agency for a source with one or more EGUS subject to the requirements of this Subpart must contain federally enforceable conditions addressing all applicable requirements of this Subpart B, which conditions must be a complete and segregable portion of the source?s entire CAAPP permit. In addition to conditions related to the applicable requirements of this Subpart 13, each such CAAPP permit must also contain the information speci?ed under subsection of this Section. (Source: Amended at 33 Ill. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009) Section 225.230 Emission Standards for EGUS at Existing sources a) Emission Standards. 1) Except as provided in Sections 225.230(b) and 225.232 through 225. 235, 225.239, and 225.291 through 225.299 of this Subpart B, beginning July 1, 2009, the owner or operator of a source with one or more EGUS subject to this Snbpart that commenced commercial operation on or before December 31, 2008, must comply with one of the following standards for each EGU on a rolling 12-month basis: CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 2) 3) An emission standard of 0.0080 lb mercury/GM gross electrical output; or B) A minimum 90?percent reduction of input mercury. For an EGU complying with subsection of this Section, the mercury emission rate during quality?assured monitor operating (QAMO) hours of the EGU for each 12-month rolling period, as monitored in accordance with this Subpart and calculated as follows, must not exceed the applicable emission standard: ER =13 E. +i0 ml i=1 Where: Mercury emissions rate of the EGU during QAMO hours for the particular 12-month rolling period, expressed in E, Mercury emissions of the EGU during QAMO hours, in lbs, in an individual month in the 12-month rolling period, as determined in accordance with the emissions-monitoring provisions of this Subpart B. 0g Gross electrical output of the EGU during QAMO hours, in in an individual month in the 12-month rolling period, as determined in accordance with Section 225.263 of this Subpart B. For an EGU complying with subsection of this Section, the actual control ef?ciency for mercury emissions achieved by the EGU for each 12-month rolling period, as monitored in accordance with this Suhpart and calculated as follows, must meet or exceed the applicable ef?ciency requirement: in} in} Where: CE Control ef?ciency for mercury emissions of the EGU during QAMO hours for the particular 12-month rolling period, expressed as a percent. Mercury emissions of the EGU, in during QAMO hours, in an individual month in the 12-month rolling period, as determined in accordance with the emissions monitoring provisions of this Subpart B. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION b) l; Amount of mercury in the fuel ?red in the ECU during QAMO hours, in lbs, in an individual month in the 12-month rolling period, as determined in accordance with Section 225.265 of this Subpart B. Ii is determined by multiplying the amount of mercury in the fuel ?red in the EGU in month i by the number of QAMO hours in that month, and dividing that product by the number of EGU operating hours in that month. Alternative Emission Standards for Single EGUs. 3) As an alternative to compliance with the emission standards in subsection of this Section, the owner or Operator of the BGU may comply with the emission standards of this Subpart by demonstrating that the emissions of mercury from the EGU are less than the allowable emissions of mercury from the EGU on a rolling 12-month basis. For the purpose of demonsoating compliance with the alternative emission standards of this subsection for each rolling 12-month period, the emissions of mercury from the EGU, as monitored in accordance with this Subpart B, must not exceed the allowable emissions of mercury from the EGU, as further provided by the following formulas: E12 gAlE i=l Where: Mercury emissions of the ECU during QAMO hours for the particular 12?month rolling period. A13 2 Allowable mercury emissions of the EGU during QAMO hours for the particular 12-month rolling period. Bi Mercury emissions of the EGU during QAMO hours in an individual month in the 12-month rolling period. Allowable mercury emissions of the EGU during QAMO hours in an individual month in the 12-month rolling period, based on either the input mercury to the unit (Agnpm i) or the electrical output from the EGU (Abmpur as selected by the owner or operator of the EGU for that given month. At is determined by multiplying the allowable mercury emissions based on CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION d) 3) either input mercury or electrical output in month i by the number of QAMO hours in that month, and dividing that product by the number of EGU operating hours in that month. Aanpmr Allowable mercury emissions of the EGU in an individual month based on the input mercury to the EGU, calculated as 10.0 percent (or 0.100) of the input mercury to the ECU. Amp?, i a Allowable mercury emissions of the EGU in a particular month based on the electn'cal output from the EGU, calculated as the product of the output based mercury limit, 0.0080 and the electrical output from the EGU, in If the owner or operator of an EGU does not conduct the necessary sampling, analysis, and recordkeeping, in accordance with Section 225.265 of this Subpart B, to determine the mercury input to the EGU, the allowable emissions of the EGU must be calculated based on the electrical output of the EGU. if two or more Hills are served by common stacks and the owner or operator conducts monitoring for mercury emissions in the common stacks, as provided for by Sections 1.14 through 1.18 of Appendix to this'Part, such that the mercury emissions of each EGU are not determined separately, compliance of the EGUs with the applicable emission standards of this Subpart must be determined as if the EGUs were a single EGU. Alternative Emission Standards for Multiple EGUs. 1) As an alternative to compliance with the emission standards of subsection of this Section, the owner or operator of a source with multiple EGUs may comply with the emission standards of this Subpart by demonstrating that the emissions of mercury from all EGUs at the source during QAMO hours are less than the allowable emissions of mercury ?om all EGUs at the source on a rolling 12-month basis. For the purposes of the alternative emission standard of subsection of this Section, for each rolling 12-month period, the emissions of mercury from all the EGUs at the source during QAMO hours, as monitored in accordance with this Subpart 13, must not exceed the sum of the allowable emissions of mercury from all the EGUs at the source, as further provided by the following formulas: CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION Eszis, int A, ft 151 Where: E5 Sum of the mercury emissions of the EGUs at the source daring QAMO hours. As Sum of the allowable mercury emissions of the EGUs at the source during QAMO hours. Mercury emissions of an individual EGU at the source during QAMO hours, as determined in accordance with subsection of this Section. Ai Allowable mercury emissions of an individual EGU at the source during QAMO hours, as determined in accordance with subsection of this Section. :1 Number of EGUs covered'by the demonstration. 3) If an owner or Operator of a source with two or more EGUs that is relying on this subsection to demonstrate'compliance fails to meet the requirements of this subsection in a given 12-month rolling period, all EGUs at such source covered by the compliance demonstration are considered out of compliance with the applicable emission standards of this Subpart for the entire last month of that period. Source: Amended at 33 Ill. Reg. 1042?, effective June 26, 2009) Section 225.232 Averaging Demonstrations for Existing Sources 3) 13) Through December 31, 2013, as an alternative to compliance with the emission standards of Section 225.230{a) of this Subpart B, the owner or operator of an EGU may comply with the emission standards of this Subpart by means of an Averaging Demonstration (Demonstration) that demonstrates that the emissions of mercury from the EGU and other EGUs at the source and other EGUs at other sources covered by the Demonstration are less than the allowable emissions of mercury from all EGUs covered by the Demonstration. on a rolling 12-month basis. The EGUs at each source covered by a Demonstration must also comply with one of the following emission standards on a source-wide basis for the period covered by the Demonstration: CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 6) d) s) h} 1) An emission standard of 0.82.0 lb gross electrical output; or 2) A minimum 75 percent reduction of input mercury. For the purpose of this Section, compliance must be demonstrated using the couations in Section or as applicable, addressing all EGUs at the sources covered by the Demonstration, rather than by using only the Hills atone source. Limitations on Demonstrations. l) The owners or operators of more than one existing source with EGUs can only participate in Demonstrations that include other existing sources that they own or operate. 2) Single Existing Source Demonstrations A) The owner or operator of only a single existing source with EGUs City, Water, Light Power, City of Spring?eld, ID Kincaid Generating Station, and Southern Illinois Power Cooperative/Marion Generating Station, ID 199856AAC) can only participate in Demonstrations with other such owners or operators of a single existing source of EGUs. B) Participation in Demonstrations under this Section by the owner or operator of only a single existing source with EGUs must be authorized through federally enforceable permit conditions for each such source participating in the Demonstration. A source may be included in only one Demonstration during each rolling 12- month period. The owner or operator of EGUs using Demonstrations to Show compliance with this Snbpatt must complete the determination of compliance for each 12?month rolling period no later than 60 days following the end of the period. If averaging is used to demonstrate compliance with this Sobpart B, the effect of a failure to demonstrate compliance will be that the compliance status of each source must be determined under Section 225.230 of this Subpart as if the sources were not covered by a Demonstration. For purposes of this Section, if the owner or operator of any source that participates in a Demonstration with an owner or operator of a source that does not maintain the required records, data, and reports for the EGUs at the source, or that does not submit copies of such records, data, or reports to the Agency upon CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION request, then the effect of this failure will be deemed to be a failure to demonstrate compliance and the compliance status of each source must be determined under Section 225.230 of this Subpart as if the sources were not covered by a Demonstration. (Source: Amended at 33 ill. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009) Section 225.233 Mold-Pollutant Standards (MP5) a) General. 1) As an alternative to compliance with the emissions standards of Section the owner of eligible EGUS may elect for those EGUs to demonstrate compliance pursuant to this Section, which establishes control requirements and standards for emissions of and $03, as well as for emissions of mercury. c) For the purpose of this Section, the following requirements apply: A) An eligible EGU is an EGU that is located in Illinois and which commenced commercial Operation on or before December 31, 2004; and B) anership of an eligible EGU is determined based on direct ownership, by the holding of a majority interest in a company that owns the EGU or EGUs, or by the common ownership of the company that owns the EGU, whether through a parent~subsidiary relationship, as a sister corporation, or as an af?liated corporation with the same parent corporation, provided that the owner has the right or authority to submit a CAAPP application on behalf of the EGU. 3) The owner of one or more EGUs electing to demonstrate compliance with this Sabpart pursuant to this Section must submit an application for a CAAPP permit modi?cation to the Agency, as provided in Section 225.220, that includes the infomaticn speci?ed in subsection of this Section and which clearly states the owner?s election to demonstrate compliance pursuant to this Section 2.25.233. A) The EGUs at the Coffeen. Duck Creek. Newton. Edwards. Jopoa. Baldwin. Havana and Henoeoin plants are VI I CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS Moises?subject to the standards and control requirements of this Section, except as provided in subsection These Sash EGUs must be referred to as the Mercado Mold-Pollutant Standard MMPS) Group. the foregoing, the owner may exclude from an MP8 Group any EGU scheduled for permanent shutdown that the owner so designates in its CAAPP application required to be submitted pursuant to subsection of this Section, with compliance for such units to be achieved by means of Section 225.235. C) In the event of the sale of BGUlsl from the Green to a different owner or operator. the allowable emissions for each emission limit for the MMPS Group shall be adiusted and the sold shall have an emission limit equal to this adjustment amount in tons oer year. The amount of the adiustment is the oroduct of the emission limit for the MMPS Group EGUs multiplied by the ratio of the sum of the purchased EGUS rated caoacities to the total combined rated capacities of the MMPS Group EGUs. This product (Le. adiostment amount) is subtracted from the allowable emission limit for the MMPS Group to obtain the new allowable emission limit for the MMPS Group. and the same amount is the allowable emission limit for the new MPS Group. which consists of the sold EGUs. An identical method shall be used to determine the adiustment amount and allowable emission limits for any similar sell of EGUs subiect to the MP8. 4) When an EGU is subject to the requirements of this Section, the requirements apply to all owners or operators of the EGU. b) Notice of Intent. The owner of one or more EGUs that intends to comply with this Subpart by means of this Section must notify the Agency of its intention byDecem?ber 31, 2007. The following information must accompany the noti?cation: l) The identi?cation of each EGU that will be complying with this Sobpart by means of the mold-pollutant standards contained in this Section, with evidence that the owner has identi?ed all EGUs that it owned in Illinois as of July 1, 2006 and which commenced commercial Operation on or before December 31, 2004; CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 3) 3) 4) 5) If an EGU identi?ed in subsection of this Section is also owned or operated by a person different than the owner submitting the notice of intent, a demonstration that the submitter has the right to commit the EGU or authorization from the responsible of?cial for the EGU accepting the application; The Base Emission Rates for the EGUs, with copies of supporting data and calculations; A summary of the current control devices installed and operating on each EGU and identi?cation of the additional control devices that will likely be needed for the each EGU to comply with emission control requirements of this Section, including identi?cation of each EGU in the MP8 group that will be addressed by subsection of this Section, with information showing that the eligibility criteria for this subsection are satis?ed; and Identi?cation of each EGU that is scheduled for permanent shut down, as provided by Section 225.55, which will not be part of the MPS Group and which will not be demonstrating compliance with this Subpart pursuant to this Section. Control Technology Requirements for Emissions of Mercury. 1} Requirements for EGUs in an MP8 Group. A) For each EGU in an MP3 Group other than an EGU that is addressed by subsection of this Section for the period beginning July 1, 2009 (or December 31, 2009 for an EGU for which an scrubber or fabric ?lter is being installed to be in operation by December 31, 2009), and ending on December 31, 2014 (or such earlier date that the EGU is subject to the mercury emission standard in subsection of this Section), the owner or operator of the EGU must install, to the extent not already installed, and properly operate and maintain one of the following emission control devices: i) A Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System, complying with the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section, except as may be otherwise provided by subsection of this Section, and followed by a Cold-Side Electrostatic Precipitator or Fabric Filter; or ii) If the boiler ?res bituminous coal, a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) System and an 302 Scrubber. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 8) An owner of an EGU in an MP8 Group has two options under this subsection For an MP8 Group that contains EGUs smaller than 90 gross MW in capacity, the owner may designate any such EGUs to be not subject to subsection of this Section. Or, for an MP8 Group that contains EGUs with gross MW capacity of less than 115 MW, the owner may designate any such EGUs to be not subject to subsection of this Section, provided that the aggregate gross MW capacity of the designated EGUs does not exceed 4% of the total gross MW capacity of the MP8 Group. For any EGU subject to one of these two Options, unless the EGU is subject to the emission standards in subsection of this Section, beginning on January 1, 2013, and continuing until such date that the owner or operator of-the EGU commits to comply with the mercury emission stande in subsection of this Section, the owner or Operator of the EGU must install and properly operate and maintain a Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System that complies with the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section, except as may be otherwise provided by subsection of this Section, and followed by either a Cold-Side Electrostatic Precipitator or Fabric Filter. The use of a preperly installed, operated, and maintained Halogenated Activated Carbon Injection System that meets the sorbent injection requirements of subsection of this Section is de?ned as the ?principal control technique.? 2) For each EGU for which injection of halogenated activated carbon is required by subsection of this Section, the owner or operator of the EGU must inject halogenated activated carbon in an optimum manner, which, except as provided in subsection of this Section, is de?ned as all of the followinginjection system designed for effective absorption of mercury, considering the con?guration of the EGU and its ductwork; The injection of halogenated activated carbon manufactured by Alstom, Norit, or Sorbent Technologies, Calgon Carbon?s FLUEPAC CF Plus, or Calgon Carlson's FLUEPAC MC Plus, or the injection of any other halogenated activated carbon or sorbent that the owner or operator of the EGU has demonstrated to have similar or better effectiveness for control of mercury emissions; and CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION The injection of sorbth at the following minimum rates, as applicable: C) D) ii} For an EGU ?ring subbitutninous coal, 5.0 per million actual cubic feet or, for any cyclone-fired EGU that will install a scrubber and baghouse by December 31, 2012, and which already meets an emission rate of 0.020 mercuryIGmi gross electrical output or at least 75 percent reduction of input mercury, 2.5 per million actual cubic feet; For an EGU firing bituminous coal, 10.0 per million actual cubic feet for any cyclone??red EGU that will install a scrubber and baghouse by December 31, 2012., and which already meets an emission rate of 0.020 lb mercuryi?GWh gross electrical output or at least 75 percent reduction of input mercury, 5.0 per million actual cubic feet; For an EGU ?ring a blend of subbituminous and bituminous coal, a rate that is the weighted average of the above rates, based on the blend of coal being ?red; or A rate or rates set lower by the Agency, in writing, than the rate speci?ed in any of subsections or of this Section on a unit- speci?c basis, provided that the owner or operator of the EGU has demonstrated that such rate or rates are needed so that carbon injection will not increase particulate matter emissions or opacity so as to threaten noncompliance with applicable requirements for particulate matter or opacity. For the purposes of subsection of this Section, the flue gas flow shall be the gas ?ow rate in the stack for all units except for those equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot- side electrostatic precipitator; for units equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot?side electrostatic precipitator, the flue gas flow rate shall be the gas ?ow rate at the inlet to the hot- side electrostatic precipitator, which shall be determined as the stack ?ow rate adjusted through the use of Charles? Law for the differences in gas temperatures in the stack and at the inlet to the electrostatic precipitator where gas flow rate in acf and gas temperature in Kelvin or Rankine 3) The owner or operator of an EGU that seeks to operate an EGU with an activated carbon injection rate or rates that are set on a unit-speci?c basis CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 4) pursuant to subsection of this Section must submit an application to the Agency proposing such rate or rates, and must meet the requirements of subsections and of this Section, subject to the limitations of subsections and of this Section: A) The application must be submitted as an application for a new or revised federally enforceable Operating pennit? for the EGU, and it must include a summary of relevant mercury emission data for the EGU, the unit-speci?c injection rate or rates that are proposed, and detailed information to support the proposed injection rate or rates; and This application must be submitted no later than the date that activated carbon must ?rst be injected. For example, the owner or Operator of an EGU that must inject activated carbon pursuant to subsection of this subsection must apply for unitepeci?c injection rate or rates by July 1, 2009. Thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU may supplement its application; and C) Any decision of the Agency denying a permit or granting a pemtit with conditions that set a lower injection rate or rates may be appealed to the Board pursuant to Section 39 of the Act; and D) The owner or operator of an EGU may operate at the injection rate or rates proposed in its application until a ?nal decision is made on the application, including a ?nal decision on any appeal to the Board. During any evaluation of the effectiveness of a listed sorbent, an alternative sorbent, or other technique to control mercury emissions, the owner or operator of an EGU need not comply with the requirements of subsection of this Section for any system needed to carry out the evaluation, as ?arther provided as follows: A) The owner or operator of the EGU must conduct the evaluation in accordance with a formal evaluation program submitted to the Agency at least 30 days prior to commencement of the evaluation; B) The duration and scope of the evaluation may not exceed the duration and scope reasonably needed to complete the desired evaluation of the alternative control technique, as initially addressed by the owner or operator in a support document submitted with the evaluation program; C) The owner or operator of the EGU must submit a report to the Agency no later than 30 days after the conclusion of the evaluation CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 5) D) that describes the evaluation conducted and which provides the results of the evaluation; and If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows less effective control of mercury emissions from the EGU than was achieved with the principal control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU must resume use of the principal control technique. If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows comparable effectiveness to the principal control technique, the owner or Operator of the EGU may either continue to use the alternative control technique in a manner that is at-least as effective as the principal control technique, or it may resume use of the principal control technique. If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows more effective control of mercury emissions than the control technique, the owner or operator of the EGU must continue to use the alternative control technique in a manner that is more effective than the principal control technique, so long as it continues to be subject to this subsection in addition to complying with the applicable recordkeeping and monitoring requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU that elects to comply with this Subpart by means of this Section must also comply with the following additional requirements: A) B) C) For the ?rst 36 months that injection of sorbent is required, it must maintain records of the usage of the fluegas flow rate from the EGU (and, if the unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator, ?ue gas temperature at the inlet of the hot-side electrostatic precipitator and in the stack), and the sorheot feed rate, in pounds per million actual cubic feet of ?ne, on a weekly average; After the ?rst 36 months that injection of sorbent is required, it must monitor activated sorbent feed rate to the EGU, gas ?ow rate in the stack, and, if the unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior to a hot?side electrostatic precipitator, ?ue gas temperature at the inlet of the hot-side electrostatic precipitator and in the stack. It must automatically record this data and the sorbent carbon feed rate, in pounds per million actual cubic feet of ?ue gas, on an hourly average; and ?If a blend of bituminous and subbiturninous coal is ?red in the EGU, it must keep records of the amount of each type of coal CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 6) 7) burned and the required injection rate for injection of activated carbon, on a weekly basis. Until June 30, 2012, as an alternative to the GEMS or excepted monitoring system (sorbth trap system) monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU may elect to comply with the emissions testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Section 311d (2), (110(2), and (4), and 030)- In addition to complying with the applicable reporting requirements in Sections 225.240 through 225.290, the owner or operator of an EGU that elects to comply with this Subpart by means of this Section must also submit quarterly reports for the recordlceeping and monitoring conducted pursuant to subsection of this Section. I d) Emission Standards for Mercury. 1) 3) For each EGU in an MP8 Group that is not addressed by subsection (0)0 of this Section, beginning Jammy l, 2015 (or such earlier date when the owner or operator of the EGU noti?es the Agency that it will comply with these standards) and continuing thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU must comply with one of the following standards on a rolling 12-month basis: A) An emission standard of 0.0080 lb gross electrical output; or B) A minimum 90;percent reduction of input mercury. For each EGU in an MP8 Group that has been addressed under subsection of this Section, beginning on the date when the owner or operator of the EGU noti?es the Agency that it will comply with these standards and continuing thereafter, the owner or operator of the EGU must comply with one of the following standards on a rolling 12-month basis: A) An emission standard of 0.0080 lb gross electrical output; or B) A minimum 90?percent reduction of input mercury. Compliance with the mercury emission standard or reduction requirement of this subsection must be calculated in accordance with Section 225.230(a) or or Section 225.232 until December 31, 2013. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 4) Until June 30, 2012, as an alternative to demonstrating compliance with the emissions standards in this subsection the owner or operator of an EGU may elect to comply with the emissions testing requirements in Secticm (C), (6), (11), and 0) Of this Subpart. 6) Emission Standards for and 303. 1) Emission Standards. A) Beginning in calendar year ZOllgwand continuing in each calendar vear thereafter, for the EGUS in mgeaela Group, the ow W?o?dae?Eglc?o?imtotal combined annual NOX emissions must not exceed 26.000 tonaeemel?y?wieh?ata?oa-eeall -2Beginning in ahe- vear 20112 Weed continuing in each thereafter, for the EGUs in gleeaeh MMPS Group, the total combined NO): emissions from Avril 1 to September 30 must not exceed 13.000 toesewaeeand?e?pem?oeo?f $03 Emission Standards. A) Beginning in calendar year 2012:? and continuing in calendar year thereafterQ-QM, for the EGUs in MMPS Group, the combined annual $02 emissions must not exceed 60.000 B) CGNFEDENTIAL BUSINESS WFOWTION 3) - -- - {awee?aa?rer?irl?Ha?m??a??SmWM?wa??g?iw~w*he?rmwma - - -. .. . .. . . 1) 3) Requirements for NO, and 803 Allowances. The owner or operator of EGUS in an MP8 Group must not sell or trade to . any person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person I allowances allocated to the EGUS in the MP8 Group for vintage years 2012 and beyond that would otherwise be available for sale, trade, or exchange as a result of actions taken to comply with the standards in subsection of this Section. Such allowances that are not retired for compliance must be surrendered to the Agency on an annual basis, beginning in calendar year 2013. This provision does not apply to the use, sale, exchange, gift, or trade of allowances among the EGUs in an MP3 Group. The owners or operators of EGUS in an MP8 Group must not sell or trade to any person or otherwise exchange with or give to any person allowances allocated to the EGUs in the MP8 Group for vintage years 2013- and beyond that would otherwise be available for sale or trade as a result of actions taken to comply with the standards in subsection of this Section. Such allowances that are not retired for compliance, or otherwise surrendered pursuant to a consent decree to which the State of Illinois is a party, must be surrendered to the Agency on an annual basis, beginning in calendar year 2014. This provision does not apply to the use, sale, exchange, gift, or trade of allowances among the EGUs in an MP8 Group. The provisions of this subsection do not restrict or inhibit the sale or trading of allowances that become available from one or more EGUs in a MP8 Group as a result of holding allowances that represent oven compliance with the N03 or standard in subsection of this Section, once such a standard becomes effective, whether such over-compliance results from control equipment, fuel changes, changes in the method of Operation, unit shut downs, or other reasons. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 4) For purposes of this subsection and allowances mean allowances necessary for compliance with Sections 225.310, 225.410, or 225.510, 40 CFR 72, or Subparts AA'and of40 CFR 96, or any future federal NO, or $03 emissions trading programs that modify or replace these programs. This Section does not prohibit the owner or Operator of 136113 in an MP8 Group from purchasing or otherwise obtaining allowances from other sources as allowed by law for purposes of complying with federal or state requirements, except as speci?cally set forth in this Section. 5) By March 1, 2010, and continuing each year thereafter, the owner or operator of EGUs in an MP8 Group must submit a report to the Agency that demonstrates compliance with the requirements of this subsection for the previous calendar year, and which includes identi?cation of any allowances that have been surrendered to the USEPA or to the Agency and any allowances that were sold, gifted, used, exchanged, or traded because they became available due to over-compliance. All allowances that are required to be surrendered must be surrendered by August 3 i unless USEPA has not yet deducted the allowances from the previous year. A ?nal report must be submitted to the Agency by August 31 of each year, verifying that the actions described in the initial report have taken place or, if such actions have not taken place, an explanation of all changes that have occurred and the reasons for such changes. If USEPA has not deducted the allowances born the previous year by August 31, the final report will be due, and all allowances required to be surrendered must be surrendered, within 30 days after such deduction occurs. g) Notwithstanding 35 Ill. Adm. Code until an EGU has complied with the applicable emission standards of subsections and of this Section for 12 months, the owner or operator of the EGU must obtain a construction permit for any new or modi?ed air pollution control equipment that it preposes to construct for control of emissions of mercury, NOX, or 303. (Source: Amended at 33 Ill. Reg. 10427, effective June 26, 2009) CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORNIATION NO PROPOSED CHANGES AFTER THIS PAGE