BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION, INC.

1

(HAVANA POWER STATION),

)

)

Petitioner,

1

)

V.

)

PCB 07-115

)

(Permit Appeal

-

Air)

)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

1

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Sally Carter

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Division of Legal Counsel

James R. Thompson Center

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Suite 1 1-500

1 02 1 North Grand Avenue, East

100 West Randolph

P.O. Box 19276

Chicago, Illinois 6060 1

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of

the Pollution Control Board

APPEAL OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR THE

INSTALLATION OF BAGHOUSE, SCRUBBER, SORBENT INJECTION SYSTEM,

AND BOOSTER FANS,

copies of which are herewith served upon you.

Dated: August 22, 2007

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, August 22, 2007

---

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP

Attorneys for Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.

Sheldon A. Zabel

Kathleen

C. Bassi

Stephen

J. Bonebrake

Andrew

N. Sawula

6600 Sears Tower

23 3 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

3 12-258-5567

FAX: 3 12-258-5600

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify that on this 22nd day of August, 2007, I have served

electronically the attached

APPEAL OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR THE

INSTALLATION OF BAGHOUSE, SCRUBBER, SORBENT INJECTION SYSTEM,

AND BOOSTER FANS,

upon the following persons:

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Sally Carter

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Division of Legal Counsel

James R. Thompson Center

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Suite 1 1-500

1 02 1 North Grand Avenue, East

100 West Randolph

P.O. Box 19276

Chicago, Illinois 6060 1

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

SCHIFF

HARDIN LLP

Attorneys for Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.

Sheldon A. Zabel

Kathleen C. Bassi

Stephen

J. Bonebrake

Andrew N. Sawula

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

3 12-258-5567

FAX: 3 12-258-5600

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION, INC.

1

(HAVANA POWER STATION),

1

)

Petitioner,

)

)

V.

)

PCB 07-115

)

(Permit Appeal

-

Air)

)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

1

Respondent.

1

APPEAL OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF

BAGHOUSE, SCRUBBER, SORBENT INJECTION SYSTEM, AND BOOSTER FANS

NOW COMES Petitioner, DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION, INC. (HAVANA

POWER STATION) ("Petitioner" or "Dynegy"), pursuant to Section 40(a)(l) of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act ("Act") (41 5 ILCS

5/40(a)(l)) and 35 111.Adm.Code

5

105.200

et

seq., and requests a hearing before the Board to contest the decisions contained in the

construction

issued to Petitioner on April 16,2007, pursuant to Section

39(a) of the Act

(4 1 5 ILCS

5/39(a)) and 3 5 111.Adm.Code

5

20 1.142 ("permit" or "construction permit") and

attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3 5

111.Adm.Code

5 5

105.2 10(a) and (b). Petitioner received the

construction permit on April 24,2007.

See Exhibit 1. On May 16,2007, Petitioner and the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Agency") timely submitted a Joint Request for

Ninety Day Extension of Appeal Period pursuant to Section

40(a)(l) of the Act (41 5 ILCS

5/40(a)(l)) and 35 111.Adm.Code

$5

105.204 and 105.208. The Board granted the 90-day

extension on June 7,2007. Since that time, Dynegy and the Illinois Environmental Protection

'

Application No. 070 1003 1.

---

Agency have engaged in discussions regarding Dynegy's concerns with the permit. Those

discussions are continuing. The Board's Order (June 7,2007) notes that the appeal period was

extended to August 27,2007. Pursuant to Sections

39(a) and 40(a)(l) of the Act, 35

111.Adm.Code

$5

105.206(a) 105.208(a), and the Board's Order (June 7,2007), this Petition is

timely filed with the Board.

In support of its Petition to appeal Conditions

1.2(b), 1.3(a), 1.3(b), 1.3(c) Note, 1.4(a),

1.4(a)

Note, 1.5, 1.6(a)(i), 1.6(a)(i) Note, 1.6(a)(ii), 1.6(a)(ii) Note, 1.6(a)(iii), 1.6(b)(i),

1.6(b)(ii), 1.6(b)(ii)

Note, 1,6(b)(iii), 1.6(c), 1,7(b)(ii)(B), 1.7(c), 1.7(e)(v), 1.7(e)(viii), 1,7(e)

Note, 1.8(a), 1.8(c), 1.8(c) Note, 1.9- 1, 1.9-2, 1.9-3, 1.1 0- 1, 1.10-2, and the paragraph following

Condition 1.1 1 of the construction permit issued April 16,2007, for the Havana Power Station,

Petitioner states as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

(35 111.Adm.Code

§

105.304(a))

1.

The Havana Power Station ("Havana" or the "Station"), Agency I.D. No.

125804AAB, is an electric generating station owned and operated by Dynegy Midwest

Generation, Inc. The Havana electrical generating units

("EGUs") went online between roughly

1949 and 1978. The Havana Power Station is located at 15260 North State Route 78, Havana,

Mason County, Illinois 62644. Mason County is attainment for all National Ambient Air

Quality Standards ("NAAQS"). The Station can generate approximately 745 gross megawatts of

electricity. Dynegy employs approximately 8 1 people at the Havana Station.

2.

Dynegy operates one boiler (Unit 6) at Havana that fires coal as its principal fuel.

In addition, the boiler fires distillate fuel oil as the startup fuel and for flame stabilization.

Certain alternative fuels, such as used oils generated on-site, may be utilized as well. Dynegy

also operates eight residual oil-fired boilers at Havana used to produce steam to generate

---

electricity. These eight boilers fire distillate fuel oil as startup fuel. Havana also operates a

natural gas-fired auxiliary boiler for generating steam for startup of the coal-fired boiler and for

heating purposes. Havana operates associated coal handling, coal processing, and ash handling

activities. Finally, there are a 1,000-gallon capacity gasoline tank and an 8,000-gallon diesel fuel

oil tank located at Havana, to provide fuel for Station vehicles.

3.

Havana is a major source subject to the Clean Air Act Permitting Program

("CAAPP") (41 5 ILCS 5139.5). The Agency issued a CAAPP permit to Dynegy for Havana on

September 29,2005. Subsequently, on November 2,2005, Dynegy timely appealed the CAAPP

permit for Havana at PCB 06-07 1. The Board accepted the appeal for hearing on November 17,

2005. On February 16,2006, the Board found that, pursuant to Section

10-65(b) of the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 10011

0-65(b)) ("APA") and the holding in Borg- Warner

Corp. v.

Mauzy, 427 N.E. 2d 4 15 (111.App.Ct. 198 1

),

the CAAPP permit is stayed, upon appeal,

as a matter of law. Order, Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (Havana Power Station)

v. Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 06-071 (February

16,2006), p. 2. Havana is subject to

the federal Acid Rain Program at Title

IV of the Clean Air Act and has been issued a Phase I1

Acid Rain Permit.

4.

Dynegy entered into a Consent Decree in the matter of the United States of

America, et al.

v.

Dynegy Midwest Generation, et al., Case No. 99-833-MJR in the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (the "Consent Decree"). Applicable provisions

in the Consent Decree must be reflected in permits issued to Dynegy. Dynegy's operation of the

Havana Power Station must comply with the provisions of the Consent Decree as well as with

applicable law and regulations.

---

5.

Relevant to this appeal, emissions of

SO2 from Unit 6 are currently controlled by

limiting the sulfur content of the fuel used for the boilers. PM emissions from Unit 6 are

currently controlled by an electrostatic precipitator ("ESP"). A chemical additive system is used

to enhance ESP performance.

6.

Consistent with the Joint Request for Ninety Day Extension of Appeal Period,

Dynegy and the Agency have been engaged in discussions regarding the language included in

various conditions in the permit. While Dynegy believes that there has been progress towards

addressing its concerns with the permit, those discussions were not completed prior to the

deadline for filing this appeal. The Act does not provide for further extension of the time for

appeal. Therefore, Dynegy has submitted this appeal, even though it expects to continue its

discussions with the Agency regarding this permit during the pendency of this appeal.

REQUEST FOR PARTIAL STAY

7.

Pursuant to Section 10-65(b) of the APA, 5 ILCS 100110-65, and the holding in

Borg- Warner Corp,

the conditions of the construction permit issued by the Agency to Havana

are not effective by operation of law until after a ruling by the Board on the permit appeal and, in

the event of a remand, until the Agency has issued the permit consistent with the Board's order.

See

Order,

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (Havana Power Station) v. Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency,

PCB 06-071 (February 26,2006) ("Order 2"). Historically, however, the

Board has granted partial stays in permit appeals where a petitioner has so requested.

CJ

Order

2 at p.

8, fn. 3;

Midwest Generation, LLC, Will County Generating Station v. Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency,

PCB 06-1 56 (July 20,2006) (granted stay of the effectiveness

of contested conditions of a construction permit);

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (Vermilion

Power Station), v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

PCB 06-1

94

(October 19,2006)

---

(granted stay "of the portions of the permit Dynegy contests"); Harfford Working Group v.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 05-74 (November 18,2004) (granted stay of the

effectiveness of Special Condition 2.0 of an air construction permit); Community

Landfill

Company and City of Morris v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 0 1-48 and 0 1 -49

(Consolidated) (October 19,2000) (granted stay of effectiveness of challenged conditions for

two permits of two parcels of the landfill); Allied Tube

&

Conduit Corp. v. Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 96- 108 (December 7, 1995) (granted stay of the

effectiveness of Conditions

4(a), 5(a), and 7(a) of an air permit).

8.

Dynegy will suffer irreparable harm and the environment will not receive the

benefit of the pollution control facilitated by the baghouse, scrubber, and activated carbon

injection ("ACI") systems if

Dynegy is not allowed to construct and operate these systems at the

Havana Power Station.

Dynegy is required by the Consent Decree to construct the baghouse and

scrubber for Unit 6.

Dynegy's request for stay of the contested language would provide the

necessary and appropriate authorizations to install and operate these systems in a manner to

protect the environment while allowing

Dynegy to exercise its right to an appeal under Section

40(a) of the Act.

9.

Dynegy requests in this instance that the Board exercise its inherent discretionary

authority to grant a partial stay of the construction permit, staying only those conditions or

portions of conditions indicated in Exhibit

2, i. e., Conditions 1.2(b), 1.3(a), 1.3(b), 1.3(c) Note,

1.4(a), 1.4(a) Note, 1.5, 1.6(a), 1.6(b) Note, 1.6(b)(iii), 1.6(c), 1.7(b)(ii)(B), 1.7(c), 1.7(e)(v),

1.7(e)(viii), 1.7(e)

Note, 1.8(a), 1.8(c), 1.8 Note, 1.9-1, 1.9-2, 1.9-3, 1.10-1, 1.10-2, and the

paragraph following Condition 1.1 1. In the alternative, if the Board believes that it must stay the

entirety of

an appealed condition rather than only the portions of the condition where so

---

indicated in Exhibit 2, Dynegy requests that the Board stay the entirety of each of the conditions

identified in Exhibit 2.

111. ISSUES ON APPEAL

(35 111.Adm.Code

§§

105.210(c))

10.

The issues raised in the conditions appealed herein fall into several categories.

One category addresses the manner in which the Agency has addressed the requirements of the

Consent Decree applicable to Dynegy. A second category of issues concerns the Agency's

treatment of the mercury rule adopted by the Board at

35 111.Adm.Code Part 225. Additionally,

the Agency has included unnecessary conditions and "notes" in the permit that should be deleted.

Dynegy also appeals provisions that were appealed in the CAAPP appeal, PCB 06-071, or are

otherwise CAAPP-related. Dynegy objects to certain testing, recordkeeping, and reporting

provisions in the permit and has other general objections.

A.

The Agency Has Inappropriately Referenced

and/or Interpreted the Consent

Decree

-

Conditions 1.2(b), 1.4(a), 1.6(a)(i) Note, 1.6(a)(ii) Note, 1.6(a)(iii), 1.6(b)(ii)

Note, 1.6(b)(iii), 1.9-2(a)(i), 1.9-Z(a)(ii), 1.9-2(b), 1.9-3(a), and 1.10-2(a).

1 1.

Applicable provisions in the Consent Decree must be reflected in permits issued

to Dynegy. The Agency has referred to or paraphrased various provisions of the Consent Decree

in the construction permit. Dynegy objects to the way in which the Agency has incorporated the

Consent Decree. This was also an issue raised in the appeal of the CAAPP permit issued for the

Havana Power Station, docketed at PCB

06-071. Additionally, some of the issues appealed in

PCB 06-071 relative to interpretations of the Consent Decree reappear in this permit and must be

appealed here to preserve Dynegy's rights to appeal the CAAPP permit.

12.

Specifically, Dynegy objects to the Agency providing interpretations of the

Consent Decree in either conditions or "notes" in any permit, including this construction permit.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") is currently the entity with whom

---

Dynegy interfaces regarding requirements in the Consent Decree. USEPA's interpretations of

provisions in the Consent Decree prevail subject to the dispute resolution provisions of the

Consent Decree, and the insertion of the Agency's interpretations adds confusion and

unnecessary complexity to interpreting the Consent Decree. Despite inclusion of language in

Condition

1.1 (d) to the effect that where this construction permit and the Consent Decree differ,

the Consent Decree prevails, the Agency's interpretations, nevertheless, present the potential for

inconsistent interpretations of Consent Decree provisions as the Consent Decree is implemented

through permits issued by the Agency. The dispute resolution provisions of the Consent Decree

do not apply to the Agency's interpretations. As a result, Dynegy could be subjected to at least

two and as many as five different governmental entities2 interpreting the Consent Decree.

13.

As referenced above, Condition 1.1 (d) states that if there are inconsistencies

between the construction permit and the Consent Decree, the Consent Decree will prevail.

Presumably, this statement would address

a situation where the Agency included, for example,

one emissions limitation in the permit and referenced a paragraph in the Consent Decree, but that

paragraph in the Consent Decree actually called for a different emissions limitation. Dynegy

agrees that in such a situation, the Consent Decree should prevail. However, the statement in the

permit does not address inconsistent interpretations of the Consent Decree or reduce

Dynegy's

exposure to enforcement of the construction permit's limitations independent of the language in

the Consent Decree. For these reasons, a number of the conditions in the construction permit are

appealed herein because of the way in which the Agency has referenced or paraphrased the

Consent Decree, and Dynegy requests that the Board order the Agency to merely reference the

USEPA, the Agency, the Illinois Attorney General as the Agency's representative in an enforcement

matter, the federal District Court where the Consent Decree was entered, and the Board who would adjudicate an

enforcement matter.

---

appropriate paragraph in the Consent Decree rather than add an explanation or description of the

provisions of the paragraph, which

@so

facto is the Agency's interpretation of the meaning of

referenced paragraph.

14.

Specifically, Conditions

1.2(b), 1.6(a)(i) Note, 1.6(a)(ii) Note, and 1.6(b)(ii) Note

are such interpretations. Their inclusion is arbitrary and capricious, and these conditions should

be deleted from the permit. Dynegy requests that the Board stay the effectiveness of these

conditions and Notes, as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency of this appeal.

15.

Condition

1.4(a) sets forth an SO2 emissions limitation of 0.100 1bImmBtu and

references the Consent Decree as the source for this limitation. However, the limitation is

incomplete. The Consent Decree requires that the

SO2 limitation be measured on a 30-day

rolling average basis. The Agency's decision to exclude the averaging time is arbitrary and

capricious, and Dynegy requests that the Board order the Agency to add the limitation to the

permit. Dynegy requests that the Board stay Condition

1.4(a), as set forth in Exhibit 2, during

the pendency of this appeal. The emissions limitation as stated in the Consent Decree would

apply

16.

Condition 1.6(a)(iii) requires that Dynegy "operate and maintain the

. . .

boiler

. . .

and associated PM control equipment in accordance with the PM control plan maintained by the

Permittee pursuant to Condition

1.9-2(b)(i)(A)." Condition 1.9-2(b)(i)(A) references Condition

1.6(a)(i), which is appealed herein and which also contains a Note, appealed herein as well, that

Dynegy believes is the source of a number of issues raised in this appeal. The Agency

apparently interprets the Consent Decree to require

a PM Control Plan, referred to in Condition

1.9-2(b)(i)(A) when referring back to Condition 1.6(a). Condition 1.9-3(a) requires

recordkeeping related to the

PM Control Plan. The Consent Decree does not, in fact, require

---

such a PM Control Plan. Further, there is no other applicable requirement that Dynegy develop a

PM Control Plan. Therefore, the requirement in Condition

1.6(a)(iii) that Dynegy operate the

boiler and PM control equipment pursuant to this PM Control Plan, the requirement in

Conditions

1.9-2(b) and 1.9-3(a) that it keep records related to the PM Control Plan and submit

them and correspondence with

USEPA regarding the PM Control Plan, and the related reporting

requirements of Condition

1.10-2(a) are beyond the scope of the Agency's authority to require,

are arbitrary and capricious, and should be deleted from the permit. Additionally, Condition

1.9-

2(a)(i)

relies upon Condition 1.6(a) as the authority for its incl~sion.~

Dynegy requests that the

Board order the Agency to delete Conditions

1.6(a)(iii), 1 -9-2(a)(i), 1 -9-2(b), 1.9-3(a), and 1.10-

2(a)

from the permit. Further, Dynegy requests that the Board stay the effectiveness of

Conditions

1.6(a)(iii), 1 -9-2(a)(i), 1.9-2(b) 1.9-3(a), and 1.10-2(a), as set forth in Exhibit 2,

during the pendency of this appeal.

17.

The Agency also apparently interprets the Consent Decree to require an

SO2

Control Plan. Again, there is no requirement in the Consent Decree or any other applicable

requirement for an

SO2 Control Plan. Condition 1.6(b)(iii) requires operation and maintenance

of the

SO2 control system pursuant to this SO2 Control Plan. This condition also references

Condition

1.9-2(b)(iii)(A), which does not exist in this permit. Condition 1.9-2(a)(ii)(A) refers

to Condition

1.6(b), which contains the requirement for the SO2 Control Plan and is appealed

herein. Conditions

1.6(b)(iii) and 1.9-2(a)(ii) exceed the scope of the Agency's authority to

require, are arbitrary and capricious, and should be deleted from the permit. Dynegy requests

that the Board stay the effectiveness of Conditions

1.6(b)(iii) and 1.9-2(a)(ii), as set forth in

Exhibit 2, during the pendency of this appeal.

Conditions that rely on conditions that are being appealed will also be appealed herein.

-9-

---

B.

The Agency Has Inappropriately Included Provisions Whose Only Purpose Is to

Implement the Mercury Rule

-

Z(a)(iii)(A),

and 1.9-3(b).

18.

On March 14,2006, the Agency submitted a proposed rulemaking to the Board,

"In the Matter

Of: Proposed New 35 111.Adm.Code 225 Control of Emissions from Large

Combustion Sources," docketed at R06-25 ("the mercury rule"). The Board adopted this rule on

December 21,2006. The mercury rule includes some provisions in Subpart A of Part 225 and all

of Subpart B of Part 225. The initial compliance date for the mercury rule is July 1,2009. 35

111.Adm.Code

5

225.230(a)(l). If a company decides to opt in to the Multi-Pollutant Standard

("MPS") provisions of Section 225.233, however, the initial compliance date for the mercury

emissions limitation is January 1,201 5. 35

111.Adm.Code

5

225.233(d)(l). A company is not

required to notify the Agency of its intention to opt in prior to December 3 1,2007. 35

11l.Adm.Code

5

225.233(b). If a company decides to opt in to the Multi-Pollutant Standard

("MPS") set forth in Section 225.233, it must install and operate ACI systems on its

EGUs by

July

1, 2009, or December

3

1,2009, as applicable. 35 111.Adm.Code

5

225.233(c)(l)(A).

Otherwise, the mercury rule does not require ACI systems. The mercury rule requires that

Dynegy submit applications to revise its CAAPP permits to implement the mercury rule by

December 3 1,2008. 3 5

111.Adm.Code

5

225.220(a)(2)(A).

19.

In the meantime, Dynegy must take the actions necessary for it to comply with the

emissions limitations by the applicable deadlines, including submittal of applications for

construction permits. The permit appealed here falls into this bin. It does not comprise a

notification to the Agency that Dynegy necessarily intends to opt in to the MPS, and it does not

trigger any of the requirements of the mercury rule or the MPS prior to the dates included in the

rules. Yet the Agency has imposed requirements in the construction permit that go far beyond

---

Dynegy's simple request to install and operate an ACI system. Some of these requirements

imply that the Agency intends to implement the mercury rule at the Havana Power Station

through this permit.

20.

Conditions1.3(a)(ii),1.8(a),1.8(c),1.9-1,1.9-2(a)(iii)(A),and1.9-3(b)donot

reflect any applicable requirements that come within the scope of what Dynegy has requested

with respect to this permit absent such a statement. Inclusion of these conditions is arbitrary and

capricious and exceeds the scope of the Agency's authority. These conditions should be deleted

from the permit.

21.

Specifically, Condition

1.3(a)(ii) requires compliance with the mercury emissions

limitations of Part 225; Condition

1.8(a) requires continuous monitoring equipment for the ACI

system; Condition 1

.8(c) requires compliance with "all applicable requirements of 3 5 IAC Part

225"; Condition 1.9-1 requires Dynegy to maintain records relative to the mercury content of the

coal supply; Condition

1.9-2(a)(iii)(A) requires records regarding mercury emissions; and

Condition

1.9-3(b) requires Dynegy to comply with "all applicable recordkeeping requirements

. . .

related to control of mercury emissions from the affected boiler." There are no applicable

requirements relevant to this permit that authorize the Agency to include these conditions in this

permit.

22.

A purpose of this permit is to authorize the construction and operation of the ACI

system and the related storage and handling system. While use of these systems will allow

Dynegy to reduce its mercury emissions, use of an ACI system is not required by the mercury

rule unless Dynegy chooses to opt in to the MPS. The applicability of the MPS is dependent

upon Dynegy formally notifying the Agency that it intends to comply with the mercury limits

pursuant to the MPS, which it has not done.

---

23.

The installation and operation of the ACI system does not, in and of itself, require

the imposition of mercury limitations. Therefore, the inclusion of mercury limitations in

Condition

1.3(a)(ii) is inappropriate and arbitrary and capricious and should be deleted from the

permit. Dynegy requests that Condition

1.3(a)(ii) be stayed, as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the

pendency of this appeal.

24.

Condition

1.8(a) requires continuous monitoring of the sorbent injection system,

"i.e., rate of injection of sorbent." First, if the Agency's intent is that Condition 1.8(a) requires

continuous monitoring of the rate of injection of sorbent, then rather than stating that in an

"i.

e."

phrase, the condition should just state that the Permittee must continuously monitor the injection

rate of sorbent. Dynegy believes, however, that the requirement should be qualified by the

phrase, "when sorbent is being injected." The word

continuous

means "marked by uninterrupted

extension in space, time, or sequence." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

(loth ed.)

Dynegy should not be required to monitor the injection rate of sorbent when it is not being

injected. Second and more importantly, sorbent injection is required only if Dynegy chooses to

opt in to the MPS. As discussed above, Dynegy has not yet formally notified the Agency of its

intentions regarding the MPS. Therefore, a requirement for continuous monitoring of the

injection rate of sorbent in this permit is premature absent a qualifying phrase in the condition

that ties the monitoring to the compliance requirements of the MPS should Dynegy choose to opt

in.

25.

For these reasons, Condition

1.8(a) is arbitrary and capricious and beyond the

scope of the Agency's authority to require. Dynegy requests that the Board order the Agency

either to delete the condition from the permit or to modify the condition to make it conform with

---

applicable requirements. Dynegy requests that the Board stay the effectiveness of Condition

1.8(a), as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency of this appeal.

26.

Likewise, Condition

1.8(c) is an expansion of the scope of a simple construction

permit authorizing the installation of an ACI system. From that request, the Agency leapt to

requiring that Dynegy comply with all applicable requirements of Part 225 related to monitoring

mercury. The construction and operation of an ACI system do not themselves subject a source to

the Part 225 mercury emissions monitoring requirements. Rather, that requirement is a function

of implementation of the mercury rule, which the Agency has not identified as a purpose of this

permit. Condition

1.8(c) is inappropriate and arbitrary and capricious and should be deleted

from the permit. Dynegy requests that the Board stay the effectiveness of Condition

1.8(c), as

set forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency of this appeal.

27.

Condition 1.9-1 exceeds the Agency's authority. Condition 1.9-1 requires the

Permittee to maintain records regarding the amounts of mercury in its coal supply. The broad,

general requirement stated in Condition 1.9- 1 for Dynegy to sample its coal supply for mercury

content and keep records thereof is inappropriate and arbitrary and capricious because measuring

mercury in the coal supply is required under the mercury rule only if the Permittee chooses to

demonstrate compliance pursuant to Section

225.230(a)(l)(B), the requirement for a 90%

reduction from input mercury. If the Permittee chooses to comply with Section

225.230(a)(l)(A), on the other hand, there is no requirement in the mercury rule that the

Permittee monitor the mercury content of its coal supply.

28.

Condition 1.9- 1 is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds the scope of the Agency's

authority as monitoring the coal supply has no relationship to constructing and installing an ACI

system, exceeds the scope of the Agency's authority under Section

225.230(a)(l), and should be

---

deleted from the permit. Dynegy requests that the Board stay the effectiveness of Condition 1.9-

1, as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency of this appeal.

29.

Condition

1.9-2(a)(iii)(A) requires Dynegy to maintain records regarding the

sorbent being used, the settings for sorbent injection rate, and each period of time when both the

boiler and sorbent injection were being used. Additionally, Condition

1.9-2(a)(iii)(A) requires

Dynegy to document implementation of operating procedures as required by Condition

1.6(c).

30.

As discussed above, the use of sorbent is required by the mercury rule only if

Dynegy opts in to the MPS, and notification of its intentions in that regard are not due until the

end of this year. To the extent that the MPS of the mercury rule is the applicable requirement

underlying this condition, the provisions of this condition are premature absent qualifying

language tying the requirements to the MPS. Dynegy understands and expects that the Agency

would require records and reporting of sorbent use as they relate to emissions of PM. However,

this condition is more specific than that by requiring the brand of sorbent used, which is a

fhnction of the MPS.

3 1.

Dynegy does not understand why the Agency requires such a level of detail as the

settings for the sorbent injection rate. The MPS requires a minimum sorbent injection rate.

Requiring Dynegy to report the settings on its ACI system associated with the sorbent injection

rate is micro-management. On the other hand, if Dynegy establishes the settings on its ACI

system as its means of identifying the sorbent injection rate,

i. e., the settings are a surrogate for

the rate, then recording and reporting the settings may be appropriate. However, the condition

does not provide for the development of such a surrogate; rather, it requires the settings. This

exceeds the scope of the Agency's authority and is arbitrary and capricious.

---

32.

Condition

1.9-2(a)(iii)(A) refers to Condition 1.6(c) regarding certain conditions

to be implemented regarding sorbent injection. However, Condition

1.6(c) addresses the testing

and the submittal of test plans and does not appear to correlate with Condition

1.9-2(a)(iii)(A).

33.

For these reasons, Condition

1.9-2(a)(iii)(A) is arbitrary and capricious and

beyond the scope of the Agency's authority to require. Dynegy requests that the Board order the

Agency to delete Condition

1.9-2(a)(iii)(A) from the permit. At the least, Dynegy requests that

the Board order the Agency to modify Condition

1.9-2(a)(iii)(A) in such a way as to limit its

applicability to Dynegy's participation in the MPS and to require recordkeeping of the sorbent

injection rate. Dynegy requests that the Board stay the effectiveness of Condition 1.9-

2(a)(iii)(A) during the pendency of this appeal.

34.

Condition

1.9-3(b)(i) requires maintenance of "all applicable recordkeeping

required by 35 IAC Part 225 related to control of mercury emissions.

. . ."

As discussed above,

construction and installation of an ACI system do not trigger a requirement to comply with the

mercury rule. Moreover, there is no qualification included in this condition that reflects the

compliance dates of the mercury rule. Rather, the recordkeeping requirements of Subpart

B are

required, according to this condition, immediately. Condition

1.9-3(b)(i) is arbitrary and

capricious and should be deleted from the permit. Dynegy requests that the Board stay

Condition

1.9-3(b)(i), as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency of this appeal.

35.

Condition

1.9-3(b)(ii) is particularly unacceptable. Here the Agency requires the

Permittee to "maintain records of emission data for mercury collected for the affected boilers"

"[dluring the period before the Permittee is required to conduct monitoring for mercury

emissions

. . .

pursuant to 35 IAC Part 225." Condition 1.9-3(b)(ii). (Emphasis added.) There is

-

no authority for the Agency to require such monitoring and recordkeeping. Requiring such

---

information through a permit is inappropriate. There is no provision in the Act or any of the

applicable regulations that authorizes the Agency to include conditions in permits merely to aid

the Agency in gathering data not otherwise required. Condition

1.9-3(b)(ii) is arbitrary and

capricious, not based upon any applicable requirements, and beyond the scope of the Agency's

authority to require. It should be deleted from the permit, and Dynegy requests that the Board

stay the effectiveness of Condition

1.9-3(b)(ii)

,

as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency of

this appeal.

C.

The Agency Has Included Unnecessary Conditions and Notes in the Permit

-

Conditions 1.3(a)(i), 1.3(b), 1.3(c) Note, 1.4(a) Note, 1.5,1.7(e) Note, 1.8(c) Note, 1.9-

1 Note,

Condition 1.1 1.

36.

Condition 1 .l(b)(i) states, in part, that "the terms and conditions of the existing

permits will continue to govern emissions and operation of the boiler except as specifically

indicated." The Agency then included conditions and "notes" throughout the permit either

repeating already-applicable provisions covered in other permits and not superseded by this

construction permit or reminding the reader that conditions in other permits are not affected by

this permit. A second set of "notes" and a paragraph towards the end of the permit make obvious

statements that do not add substance to the permit. This surplusage is arbitrary and capricious

and should be deleted from the permit.

37.

Specifically, Conditions

1.3(a)(i) and 1.3(b) address the applicability of New

Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") and 35

111.Adm.Code Chapter B, Chapter I, Subchapter

3, respectively, facts that are already addressed by the general statement of Condition 1.1

(b)(i).

Condition 1.7(e) Note addresses testing requirements in other permits. Condition 1.8(c) Note

addresses monitoring requirements in existing permits. Conditions 1.9-1 Note and

1.9-2(b) Note

address recordkeeping requirements in other permits. Condition 1.10-

1 (b) Note addresses

---

reporting requirements in other permits; however, Condition 1.10- 1 requires deviation reporting,

which Dynegy is appealing elsewhere in this Petition. Condition 1.10-2 Note addresses quarterly

reporting; however, again, Dynegy is appealing this condition generally elsewhere in this

Petition.

38.

Condition

1.3(c) Note states that the PM emission rate for the boiler under the

Consent Decree is more stringent than required by the NSPS or the state regulations. Condition

1.4(a) Note similarly addresses the SOz emission rate. Condition 1.5 describes the Compliance

Assurance Monitoring ("CAM") requirement of 40 CFR

9

64.5(a)(2) but does not require CAM,

nor do the activities covered by the construction permit trigger the applicability of CAM. The

condition appears to be included merely as informational or in error. The paragraph following

Condition 1.1 1, beginning, "Please note that this permit does not address requirements of the

Consent Decree for emissions of nitrogen oxides," is unnecessary and should be deleted from the

permit. The paragraph suggests that the Agency believes that all construction permits should

address every Consent Decree requirement applicable to a power station. Clearly this permit

does not address nitrogen oxides

("NOx"); NOx was not addressed in the application and there

are no

NOx control devices that are included within the scope of the permit.

39.

For the reasons set forth above, Dynegy requests that the Board order the Agency

to delete Conditions

1.3(a)(i), 1.3(b), 1.3(c) Note, 1.4(a) Note, 1.5, 1.7(e) Note, 1.8(c) Note, 1.9-

1 Note,

1.9-2(b) Note, 1.10- 1 (b) Note, 1.10-2 Note, and the paragraph following Condition 1.1 1

from the permit as unnecessary to the permit and that the Board stay the effectiveness of these

provisions, as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency of this appeal.

---

D.

The Agency Has Included Conditions That Either Were Appealed in PCB 06-071 or

Are CAAPP Requirements and Not Part 201 Requirements

-

1.7(b)(ii)(B), 1.7(e)(v), 1.7(e)(viii), and 1.10-1.

40.

Condition 1.7(b)(ii)(B) requires PM testing to include testing for condensables

pursuant to

USEPA Method 202, and Conditions 1.7(e)(v) and 1.7(e)(viii) require reporting a

number of other data during PM testing. Dynegy appealed these same requirements in its appeal

of the CAAPP permit issued to the Havana Power Station.

See Appeal of CAAPP Permit,

77

79-

84 and 119, respectively, PCB 06-071 (November 3,2005). The same reasons that Dynegy

believes that Method 202 testing is not applicable to the Havana Power Station in its CAAPP

Appeal apply to this construction permit. There is nothing in the provisions of 35

111.Adm.Code

Part 21 2 that would alter the applicability of Method 202 to Havana because of the construction

permit. Likewise, the same reasons that Dynegy objected to the inclusion of the requirement to

report other data during PM testing continue to apply. The Agency's inclusion of Conditions

1,7(b)(ii)(B), 1.7(e)(v), and 1.7(e)(viii) undermines Dynegy's right to a hearing on the merits of

this issue in PCB 06-071 and the Board's decision in Order 2 staying the effectiveness of the

CAAPP permit. For these reasons, inclusion of Conditions

1.7(b)(ii)(B), 1.7(e)(v), and

1.7(e)(viii) is beyond the scope of the Agency's authority to require and arbitrary and capricious.

Dynegy requests that the Board order the Agency to delete Conditions

1.7(b)(ii)(B), 1.7(e)(v)

and 1.7(e)(viii) from the construction permit and that it stay the effectiveness of Conditions

1.7(b)(ii)(B), 1.7(e)(v), and 1.7(e)(viii), as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency of this

appeal.

4 1.

Condition 1.10- 1 requires deviation reporting. Deviation reporting is a function

of CAAPP permitting.

See 41 5 ILCS 5/39.5(7)(f)(ii). It is not a requirement found in the

permitting requirements of Section 39 of the Act (41 5 ILCS 5/39) or the construction permitting

---

regulations of 35 111.Adm.Code Part 201, the provisions of the Act and regulations under which

this permit was issued. While the pertinent provisions of this construction permit will eventually

be rolled in to Havana's CAAPP permit, the construction permitting rules do not provide for

deviation reporting prior to inclusion of the pertinent provisions in the CAAPP permit. Although

this construction permit will, indeed, serve as an operating permit for the pollution control

systems authorized by the permit until such time as the pertinent provisions are transferred to the

CAAPP permit, this construction permit is not a CAAPP permit. It is not subject to any of the

CAAPP requirements for permitting. Dynegy acknowledges that some of the permitting

procedures applicable under Part 201 may be the same or similar to some of the CAAPP

permitting procedures. However, such similarities or overlaps do not imply that Part 201

permitting is the same as CAAPP permitting in terms of the types of requirements that can be

included in the Part 20 1 permits.

42.

The Agency has exceeded the scope of its authority under the Act and the

applicable regulations by requiring deviation reporting in this construction permit. For these

reasons, Dynegy requests that the Board order the Agency to delete Condition 1.10-1 from the

permit and that it stay the effectiveness of Condition 1.10-1, as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the

pendency of this appeal.

E.

The Agency Has Inappropriately Included Certain Testing Provisions

-

Conditions

1.7(c), 1.7(e)(v), and 1.7(e)(viii).

43.

In addition to the testing requirements of Conditions

1.7(b)(ii)(B), 1.7(e)(v), and

1.7(e)(viii) discussed above in Section D of this petition, the Agency has included other

objectionable testing provisions.

44.

Condition

1.7(c) requires the Permittee to "submit [a] test plan at least 60 days

prior to the actual date of testing." This in itself is not objectionable. Dynegy's issue with the

---

condition is that it does not recognize the provisions of 35 111.Adm.Code

9

283.220(d).

Specifically, Section 283.220(d) states as follows:

Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c) above, a test plan need not

be submitted under the following circumstances:

1)

Where the source intends to utilize a test plan previously

submitted to the Agency. However, the source must submit a

notice containing the following:

A)

The purpose of the test;

B)

Date the previously submitted test plan was submitted to

the Agency; and

C)

A statement that the source is relying on a previously

submitted test plan.

2)

Where the source intends to use a standard test method or

procedure. However, the source must submit a notice containing

the following:

A)

The purpose of the test; and

B)

The standard test method or procedure to be used.

35

111.Adm.Code

5

283.220(d). Rather, the Agency, through this condition, is requiring Dynegy

to submit a test plan every time that it tests contrary to the provisions of Section

283.220(d). No

other reference to Part 283 in the condition suggests an interpretation to the contrary.

45.

For these reasons, Dynegy requests that the Board order the Agency to amend the

requirements of Condition

1.7(c) to reflect the provisions of 3 5 111.Adm.Code

§

283.220(d) and

to stay Condition

1.7(c), as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency of this appeal.

46.

In addition to Dynegy's objection to the inclusion of Conditions 1.7(e)(v) and

1.7(e)(viii) as discussed above in Section D, Dynegy objects to the provisions of these conditions

specifically relative to this construction permit. Condition

1.7(e)(v) requires Dynegy to provide

various operating data during PM testing. Condition

1.7(e)(viii) requires that Dynegy provide

---

SOX, NOx, O2 or C02, and opacity data during PM testing. Operation of an electric generating

station depends upon many variables

-

ambient air temperature, cooling water supply

temperature, fuel supply, equipment variations, and so forth. Using operational and other

emissions data during PM testing as some type of monitoring device or parametric compliance

data, which appears to be the Agency's intent by including this provision in the permit, would be

inappropriate. For these reasons, Conditions

1.7(e)(v) and 1.7(e)(viii) is arbitrary and capricious

and should be deleted from the Permit. Dynegy requests that the Board stay the effectiveness of

Conditions

1.7(e)(v) and 1.7(e)(viii), as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency of this appeal.

F.

Dynegy Objects to Other Conditions of the Permit

-

Conditions 1.6(a)(i), 1.6(a)(ii),

1.6(b)(i), 1.6(b)(ii), 1.6(c),

and 1.9-2.

47.

A number of conditions in the permit are ambiguous or are not based upon the

application that Dynegy submitted for this permit. These conditions should be amended to

provide necessary clarity or should be deleted.

48.

Conditions

1.6(a)(i) and 1.6(a)(ii) require Dynegy to comply with the Consent

Decree regarding the ESP on Unit 6. Inclusion of provisions covering the ESP is inappropriate,

because the ESP is outside of the scope of the projects covered by this permit. Dynegy did not

include any changes to the ESP in its application. The Agency cannot use the addition of a PM

control device, the baghouse, or the addition of the ACI system to address requirements of the

Consent Decree applicable to the ESP. The Consent Decree required Dynegy to submit an

application to the Agency to amend its CAAPP permit to incorporate certain provisions of the

Consent Decree. Dynegy has complied with that requirement. That application, however,

cannot be used to insert Consent Decree requirements not related to the scope of Dynegy's

application for this construction permit into the construction permit. For these reasons, Dynegy

requests that the Board order the Agency to delete Conditions

1.6(a)(i) and 1.6(a)(ii) from this

---

permit and that the Board stay Conditions 1.6(a)(i) and 1.6(a)(ii), as set forth in Exhibit 2, during

the pendency of this appeal.

49.

Condition 1.6(b)(i) is written in the negative. It says that Dynegy cannot operate

Unit 6 "no later than December

3 1,201 2," unless Dynegy has complied with Paragraph 66 of the

Consent Decree. The condition is very awkward. Dynegy suggests that the condition be

rewritten as follows:

No later than December

3 1,201 2, the Permittee shall operate the affected

boiler and Unit 6 in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 66 of

the Decree.

Although Dynegy hereby appeals Condition

1.6(b)(i) and requests that the Board order the

Agency to amend the language as suggested above, Dynegy does not request that the Board stay

Condition

1.6(b)(i) during the pendency of this appeal.

50.

Condition

1.6(b)(ii) fails to include the date by which Dynegy must operate and

maintain the

SOz system in a certain manner, i. e., December 3 1,20 12. Although the condition

references the Consent Decree, the language of the condition makes it applicable immediately,

even though the provisions of the Consent Decree are different. Dynegy requests that the Board

order the Agency to insert the applicable date in this condition. Dynegy also requests that the

Board stay this condition, as set forth in Exhibit 2.

5

1.

Condition 1.6(c) prohibits Dynegy from including a bypass duct that would

enable Dynegy to bypass the

baghouse authorized by this permit. Dynegy's application to

construct the

baghouse at the Havana Power Station did not include a provision for there to be a

bypass duct in the

baghouse system. Dynegy understands that if it decides a bypass duct is

appropriate during construction or later, it will need to either seek an amendment to this

construction permit or obtain a new construction permit, respectively, at that time. There is no

---

basis for the Agency to include this prohibition in this permit. It is totally beyond the scope of

the application. For these reasons, Dynegy requests that the Board order the Agency to delete

Condition

1.6(c) from this permit and that the Board stay the effectiveness of Condition 1.6(c),

as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency of this appeal.

52.

Dynegy objects to the requirement that it maintain logs for the baghouse, scrubber

and sorbent injection system at Condition 1.9-2. Dynegy does not object to recordkeeping. It

objects to the requirement that it develop and maintain

"logs,"per se, and believes that the

recordkeeping systems that it has already developed and that can be readily adapted to include

these new pollution control systems meet the Agency's purposes and should suffice

(e.g.,

electronic recordkeeping). Therefore, Dynegy requests that the Board order the Agency to delete

references to logs in Condition 1.9-2 and that it stay the effectiveness of Condition 1.9-2, as set

forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Dynegy appeals Conditions

1.2(b),

1.3(a), 1.3(b), 1.3(c)

Note, 1.4(a), 1.4(a) Note, 1.5, 1.6(a)(i) Note, 1.6(a)(ii), 1.6(a)(ii) Note,

1.6(a)(iii), 1.6(b)(i), 1.6(b)(ii), 1.6(b)(ii) Note, 1.6(b)(iii), 1.6(c), 1.7(b)(ii)(B), 1.7(c), 1.7(e)(viii),

1.7(e)

Note, 1.8(a), 1.8(c), 1.8(c) Note, 1.9- 1, 1.9-2, 1.9-3, 1.10- 1, 1.10-2, and the paragraph

following Condition

1.1 1 of the construction permit issued April 16,2007, for the Havana Power

Station. Additionally, Dynegy requests that the Board stay all or the portions of the Conditions

appealed above except for Condition

1.6(b)(i), as set forth in Exhibit 2. Dynegy will extend its

current practices of recordkeeping and reporting to the new pollution control systems and will, of

---

course, comply with all requirements of the Consent Decree applicable to these new pollution

control systems during the pendency of this appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION,

INC.

(HAVANA POWER STATION)

by:

A

Dated: August 22,2007

SCHIFF

HARDIN, LLP

Sheldon A. Zabel

Kathleen C. Bassi

Stephen

J. Bonebrake

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

Fax: 3 12-258-2600

kbassi@,schif~ardin.com

---

EXHIBIT

1

LIINOIS ENVIICCINMENTAI- PROTECTION

AGENCY

217/782-2113

PERMITTEE

CONSTRUCTION

PERXIT

Bycegy

Hidwest Generation, Inc.

Attn: Rick Diericx

2828 Narzh Monroe Street

Decatur, Illinois 62526

Applicatian No.: 07010031

I.D.

No.:

125804ABB

Appficant's

Designation:

Date Received: January 17, 2007

-----

Subject: Baghouse, Scrubber and

Sorbent

Injection Systems for Unit 6

Date Issued:

April

16, 2007

Location: Havana Power Plant, 15260 N. State Route 78, Havana, Mason County

Permit is hereby granted to

the above-designaced Permittee to CONSTRUCT

equipment consisting of a bagtrouse,

scrubber,

and saxbent injection

systen?

for the Unit 6 3oiler and associated installation oE booster Eans, as

described in the above referenced application. This Permit is

subjecc

to

standard conditions attached hereto

and

the following special condition(s):

a. This Permit authorizes construction of a Saghause system

tSaghouses A and

31,

scrubber system (Scrubbers A an6

31,

and

sorbent injection system to supplemeat the existifig emission

control systems on

the existing

Unit

6

boiler {also knob- as

Boiler

9).

The new baghouse system, scrubber system, and sorbent

injection systern would further process the flue gas fron this

existing coal-fired boiler, which is equipped with a particulate

agglamerator, electrostatic precipitator (ESP), and selective

catalytic reduction

(SCR)

system. This permit also authorizes

installation of

hooster

fans on the boiler to compensate for the

additional

pressure

drop

from

these

new control systems.

b. i. This permit is issued based

or?

chis project being an

emissions control project,

whose purpose and

effecc

will be

to reduce emissions of sulfxr dioxide

{SO;),

par~iculate

matter

1PM),

and rnercur-y

fxum

the exiseiny boiler

and

whicE.1

will

not iccrease e~nissians of other

PSD

pollutants. As

such, the terrns and conditions

of

the existing permics will

continue to govern emissions and operation of the boiler

except

as specifically icdicated.

ii,

This permit is issued based on che

receiving,

storage and

har,cilir.g

or'

limesto~e

anci

halogenacec: act

ivazect

carbor for

c

l

new con~rol

systenls

qualifying as insignificant

activities,

with ar-~cal

exissions of

P:4 iin

the

absecce

of

controt

eqdipment

tka~ y~;oulcl be no

more than

0.t14

tons, so

thac

this

accivity need

not

be addressed by

this

pernit.

This

does

affect

tke

Perrittee's abirgation to comply wic?

---

a11

applicable v-equirernencs that apply

to

the receiving,

storage

and handling of these materials.

c. This permit does not authorize any

modifications to the

existing

boiler

or generating unit, which would increase their capacity or

poeential entissions.

ct.

This permit

does

not a£ fcct, requirerr.ents

for

the

affected boiler

established

by

the

Cor,sent

Decree in United States

of

America

and

the

Stale

of

Illinois, American

Bottom Conservancy,

Health

and

Environmental.

Justice-St

.

Louis,

Inc.

,

Illinois Stewardship

Alliance, and Prairie

Rivers

Network, v. Illinois Power

Company

and Dy11egy

Nidwest Generation Inc.,

Civil Action No. 99-833-MJR,

U.S. District Court, Souchern District of

Illinois

(Decree),

certain provisions of which are referenced by this permit.

In

addition, as the provisions of the Decree are referenced in

certain

conditions

of this

permit, in

rhe

event

of

inconsistency

berween a permit condition and the provision of the Decree

or i"

a provision

of

the Decree

is

revised, the actual provision

of

the

Decree shall govern.

1.2 Applicability Provisions

a. The "affected

boifer"

for the purpose

of

these unit-specific

conditions

is the existing Unit 6 boiler after the initial

startup

of the new emissions control sysLems, as described in

Cor~dition 1.1.

k.

?or purposes of certain conditions related

~o

rkc

Decree, the

affected boiler is

also part of a '3nit" as

defined

by Paragraph

50

of the Decree, which defines a "Vnit" LO mean

collectively,

cixe boiler that produce steam

for

the steam

turbine

(i

.e.,

the

afEected boiler), the

coal

pulverizer, starionary equipment that

feeds coal to

zhe

boiler, he steam turbine, the generator, the

equipment

cecessary

to operate the generator, steam turbine and

boiler, and all

anci1,lax-y

equipment, includleq pollu~ion control

equipzent.

1.3 Apnlicable

Ernissio~l

Sta~darcls

far

the

AfEected

Boiler

k.

A+

The

affected boiier

shall co:t-iply

wich

applicable emission

srandards under the federal New

So~rce

Perforrnarce

Srandards

(NSPS)

for Fossil Fuel Fired Steam

Generators,

40

CFR

60

Subpart

D,

as addressed in existing perrni

2s

for

the

affected

boiler.

ii.

The

affected boiler

shall

comply with applicable enission

stacdards

ancf

-requirerr.ents related to

mercury

exission

p~irsuant

to 35

IAC

Part 225, by the

applicable daces

specified

by

theses rules.

b.

The affected boiler shall comply with applicable enission

sr,anciarr':s

under

Tlcle

35, Subtitle B, Chapter

I, S~bchapter c

of

the Illi:~ois A&fii~istuative Code, as

addressed

in existing

permits

for the

affected

boiler.

---

Page 3

C.

The

P"3 emission rat.e ot the af feoted boiler shall not be yreatcr

than the limit specified in Paragraph 86 of the Decree,

i.e.,

0.030 lb/mmBtc. Zrnission eestiny co~:ducted to deternine

coxnpliax~ee with this limir shall

use

methods and procedur-es

as

specified i~ Paragraph 90 of the Decree

Mote: The PM emission rate

£or

the affected boiler pursuant to

the

Decree

is Tore stringent than the applicable MSPS and stafe

standards for PM.

1.4

Futare Applicable Emission Rate under the Consent Decree

a.

The

SO?

cxission

ra~e

of affected boiler shall be no greater than

the limit specified in Paragraph

66

of

the Decree,

i.e., 0.200

Ib/mmBtu,

by

the

date specified in Paragraph 66,

k

. e, ,

no later

than

gecernber

31,

2012.

Ernissior: tcsti~g conducted to determl.ne

compliance with this lirnic

shall

use methods and

procedures

as

specifred in

Paragraph

82 of

the

Decree.

Mote: The

SO2

emission rate for the affected boiler pursuant to

tke Decree, when

it

takes

effecc,

will be more stringent

than the

cur-rent: applicable federal NSPS standards of 1.2 'L'n/mmBtrr.

b.

The

PW

emissioc rate

of

the affected boiler

shall

be no greater

than ckze lirrlit specified in Paragraph

55

of

the

Decree, i

.

e

. ,

0.015 Ibl~rmBtr;, by the date specif iecl in Paragraph 66,

i.

e. ,

no

later

than

December 31, 2012. Emission

tcs~ing

coEdccted to

determine compliance with this limit

shall

use

mechods

and

procedures as

specified in

Paragraph

90 of

the

Decree.

1.5

Compliance

Assurance

1~1onicoring

(c.~I)

As provided by

40

C?R

64.5{a)

(21,

if the Permittee applies

for

a

sigxifieant modification of

the

CA%PP serrnir for the

source

to

include

the

nett co~trol systernls) for the affectelci boiler, the Pernittee shall

subxi:

a compliance assrrrance monitoring

(C.U:)

pf

an in accordarlce with

40 CFR Part

64,

Conpliance Assxrance Monitoorirry for- tile boiler, to the

extent that it would be a pollutant-specific emissions unit

for

which

the

proposed

pernit revision

is

applicable.

1.6

Work

kraccices

and Opera~i.anal Rcquirexne~rs for

PM

and

SOZ

Con~rol

Devices

a.

i.

The

Permittee shall operate

and

maintain each PM coritroi

cievice

on the affected boiler in accoxclamce witfi Paragraphs

83 art4 87 of tile Decree

:

Noce:

Paragraphs

83 and

87

of the

Decree

generally reql~ire

t3at

PM coritrol ctevices be opcracccl to zaxirnize.

71.3:

cinissior-:

reductions at

all

times when Unit is in operation to the

extent

reasonab1.y

practicable and specify certain minimun

operating

and

rnainterance practices

that

the Permittee

must

iny.plen?ent

far this

purpose.

ii.

The

Permittee shall operaLe and maintain the ESP an each

affected

boiler

in

~tccordarrce

:d+tittl Paragraph

04

of

"Le

Decree.

---

Page 4

Note:

Paragraph 84 of the Decree requires that the

Permittee

implement

the

practices reco.?ur,,ended by the PM

Emission Control Oprimization Studies performed In

accordance with Paragraph 84 of the Decree

or

other

alternative actions approved by

USEPA

in accordance with

Paragraph

84 of the Decree, unless the criterion in

Paragraph

87

of the

Decree that

lift this requirement have

been

satisfied.

iii. The Permitzee shall operate and maintain the affected

boiler and

Unit

6, and

associated

PM

control equipment ic

accordance wich the PM control plan maintained

by

the

Permittee pursuant to Condition 1.9-2

tb)

(i) {A)

.

h.

-.

i

Effective no lacer chan December 31, 2012, the Permittee

shall

noc

operate

~he

affectzd boiler and Unit 6 unless cke

requirements

of

Paragraph

66

of the

Decree with respect

La

addition of a fiue gas desulfurization system or an

equivalent

SOz

control technology to the affecged boiler

have been fulfilled.

ii.

The Permittee shall operate and maintain

the

adciitiona'r

SO2

control

system on the affected boiler, as addressed above,

in accorclance

wich

Paragraph 69 of the Decree.

hroce: Paragraph 69 of the Decree generally requires that

SO2

control system be operated to maximize SO,

crnissio~

reductions at

aZI

cirnes when Unit is in operation to the

extent

reasonably

pract~cabfe and specify certain ninimum

operacing

and maintenance pracrices

that

the Pernitcee

must

implement for this purpose.

iii. The Permittee shall operate ar-d

mainkair,

:he

additional

SOL

control system on the affected boiler in

accordance

wirh

the

SO: control

plan maintained by

the Permittee pursua~t to

Condition

1.9-2

(bl

(iii)

(A)

.

C. The ciuctvjork for

the

aEfected

boiler

shall

not

include

a "bypass

duct"

that

v~ould

enable

tne

flue gas

from

the affected hoiler

co

bypass the bayhouse

sysren.

Testing Requirements

a.

-.

Tke Perrnitcee shall have tescing con,d~tctect to measure

tkc

PM

emissiors

fro^

:he

affccccd

boiler

on

a periodic basis

consiste~t with

che

reqciremer~ts of

2aragzapils

89

anct

119

of the Decree *:ji~h respece to the timing

of

PM emission

teses.

ii. The

Pcrrnit~ee

shall

also

have testing

canducted

to

Kcassre

the

Ppl

emissions from the affected boiler

wichir~

90

clays

(or

sack lazer date

sez

by

the

Illinois

EPA) fo2loi~;~ny

a

xeqzles

t

by

the Illinois EPA for

sncl? rneas3re2e:zts.

---

Page

5

b.

i.

These measurements shall be performed in t3e maximum

operating range of

the

affected

boiler

and

otherwise

under

representative operating conditions.

ii. A.

Themeth~dsanc~proceduresusedformeasure~~ents

to

determine compliance with the applicable PM emission

standards and limitations

shall be in accordacce with

Paragraph 90

of

the Decree.

B. In conjunction with such measurenents, measurements

of

condensable

PM

shall also he conducted by

USEPA

Method 202 (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix

FI) ar

other

established test method approved by the Illinois EPA.

c. Except for

minor

deviations in test methods, as

defined

by

35

IAC

283.130,

PI4

emission testing shall be conducted in accordance

with a test plan prepared by the testing service or the Perrnictee

and submitted

to the

Illinois

EPA

for review prior

to

testing,

and

the

conditions, if any, imposed by the rllinois

EPA

as part

of irs review and approval of the test plan, pursuant to 35 IAC

283.220

and 283.230. The

Perrni~tee shall

subnrlit this

test plan

a:

least

60

days prior to

the

actual

dace

of

testing.

6.

The Permittee shall

notify

the flli~ois

Z3A

pr-or

to conducting

PY emission testing to enable the Illinois

EPA

to observe

testicy. Notificatlo~

for

the expected

test date

shall be

submitted a

mirlimurn

of

30

days prior to the expected dace

of

testing. Notification of

the

actual

dace and <?:.:p~ctf!cI

time

OF

testing

shall

be

s~brnlt:ed a rnini~urn

of

5 workizg days prior to

the actual

cest

date. The Illicois EPA

may

on a case-by case

basis accept shorter advance potice if it

v~sulcl

not interfere

wi~h the Illinois

EPA1s

ability

to

observe testing.

C.

The Permittee

shall

submit the Flnal

Report

(s)

for

this

YPI

enissiorl

LesLir,g to the Illinois

EPA wicliin

45 days

of

compLeeion

of resting, which report

ts)

shali include

the

following

information:

i. The

rartte

and identification of the affected

unltfs)

and

the

results of the

tests.

ii.

The name of

the

company that performed tflc tests.

iii. Tke r.arne of

any

relevant observers present

ixluding

the

testing company's representatives, any Illinois EPA or

USEPX

representatives,

and

the

re~resentatives of the

Perrrii

t t

ee .

it..

Besc:rtpc iori

ar'

Lest-.

mcsrhod

{s)

,

i:~c'iucIing

description

or'

sa~rpling

paints, sanpliny train, analysrs equip~ent,

anCi

test Decree, incl~ding a description of any minor

de~.3iazior,s 2x01::

the cest pla~, as proviclecl by 35

IAC

283.230(a) .

v.

Detailed

descripclo:~ of operating conditions during

test

ing

,

ir:cl~.rcling

:

---

Page 6

A. Operating information for the affected boiler,

i

.e.,

firing rate of each boiler (million Btu/hr)

and

composition of

fuel

as burned

(ash,

sulfur and heat:

content

1 .

B.

Combustion system information, i.e., settings for

distribution of

prirr.ary

and secondary combustion air,

settings for

0:

concentration in the boiler, and

levels of

CQ

in the flxe gas, if determiced by any

diaynoscic aeasuremenzs.

C. Control equipment information,

i.e., eguip13ent

condition and opera~iny parameters during tesciny,

including any use of

o he

flue

gas

conditlonicg

system.

D. Load

during testing (megawatt output).

vii.

Data and calczllations, including copies of

all

raw data

sheets and records of laboratory

analyses,

sample

calculazions, and

ciata

on equiprr,ent

calibration.

viii

.

The

SO;,

NO,,

O2

or

CO,,

tllourly

averages)

and opaci.

ty

data

(6-minute averages) measured during testing.

Mote: This

pewrnir:

does not affect the requirements for ernissior?

testing contained in the existing permits for the source.

a. The Permittee

shall install, operate, and maintain co~tinuous

monitoring equipment

for

operatkon of the sorbenr injectian

system, i.e.,

rate

of injectio:? of

sorbent.

b. The

2crrnittee

shall insiall,

operate and maintain concinuoy~s

x~onitoriny equipment

to rneasure

tke

followFng operating

paranecers of

the

bagho~se

syscern:

-.

1

The temperacure of the

flue

gas at the inlet of

the

system

(hourly average)

.

ii. The pressure drop across the system

(hourly

iiverrage).

c.

The

Perrr.k

teee

sha3.l

cocxply wi

eh

all applicable requirements of 35

IAC

Part 225 relaced to aonitoriny of mercury emissions from the

affectcd boiler.

Xote:

This permit does not

affec's the

requireme!?ts

for

mor~itclring

contained in tile existing permits for the

sourcx.

1.3-2

Recordkeeping 3eq~ire~cnr.s for the Coal Supply for the

Affected

sailer

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

IAC

-Part 225

re;ated

to

sa:npling

and analysis of

the

coal

supply

to

che

affected boiler for its mercury concent.

---

Page

7

The Permittee shall keep recosds of the mercury and heat concent

of the

coal

supply

to

the

affected boiler, with supporting data

for the associated sampling

ancf

analysis rr,ethodoloyy,

sa as

to

have representative data for the rcercury content of the coal

supply to the boiler co accompany mercury emission data collected

for the

boiler.

The analysis

of the

coal for mercury content

shall be conducted using appropriate ASTM Methods as specified in

35

IAC

Part 225.

Note: This

pernit

does not affect the recordkeeping requirements

contained in

the existing permits

for

the source.

1.9-2 Records far Control ~evices and Control

~yukpment

The Permittee shall mair~tairl

the

following records for the new

haghouse, scrubber, and

sorbent injection systems

o:l

the affected

boilers:

a.

i. Logs for the

Baghouse System

A.

M-

operating log or otkr records for

che

bagfiouse systerr,

that, at a rninirnum:

(1)

Identifies the trigger: for bay

cleaning, e.

y. ,

manual, timer, or pressure drop; (2)

Identifies each period when a Unit was in operation and

the

baghause

was not being operaced or was not operat:r!g

effectively;

(3)

Iclentifies each period

when

any baghouse

modulefs)

have been taken out of regular service, with

identification of the rnoduIe(s) and explanation; and

(L)

Specifically documents the implementation of the

operating

procedelres related to the

baghouse

that

are

required

to

be

or are otherwise implemented pursuant to

Condition

1.6(a).

B.

Maintecance and repair

log

or other records for rhe

baghouse system that, at a minimum:

(1)

List the

activities performed, with date and description, and

(2)

Specifically document

the

maintenance and

repair

activities

rela&ed

to the baghouse thar are required

to be or are othe~~~ise

performed pursuant to

Coxlition

1.6(a).

ii. Logs for the Scrubber System

A. An operacicy log or other records for the scrubber

system chat, at a minirnum

(1) rCierltify

each

perxod

of

Cine when tke affec:teci

Unit

was

ir,

oneration

arid

associated

scrubber

was not being operated

or

was

no:

operacFng effectively, and

(2)

specifically

cloc~ment

the implementation of the operating procedures

relaced to the scrubl~er that are required to be or

are otherwise implemented pursuant to Condition

1.6(b).

8.

Maintezance and repair

Log

or other records

for

Lhe

systen

that, at a rninimu~:

(If

list tke activities

performed,

vith

date and ciescrip~ion, and

(21

specif kcal ly Ciocume~?t the rrraintenance anci repair

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, August 22, 2007

---

iii.

Logs

activities related LO scrubber that are required to

be

ow

are otherwise performed

pursuant

to Conditior:

1.61b).

for

the

Sorbent

System

A.

An

operating log or other records for Ehe system that,

a;;,

a minimrrrn:

f

I]

identify the sorbent that is being

-.~sed,

the setting

(s)

for

sorbent

injection

ratle arrd each periotl

of time when an affected boiler was in operation and ~he

syscern

was also beicg operated,

acd

12)

specificaily

documents the implementation

of

the operating procedures

related to the sorbent injection that are required

ro

be

or are otherwise implernen~ed pursuant to Condition

1,Gfc).

.

B

.

Maintenance and repair

log

or other

records for the

system that, at a

minimum,

list

the

activiries

performed, with date and description.

b. PM Emission Control Planning

i.

The follot.riny records related to the proced~res and

practices for control of PM emissions from the affected

boilers

:

A. A record,

which shall

be

kept up

co

date, idencifving

the specific operazicy procectxres

ar~d mainr_ena~>ce

practices (including procedures and practices

specifically relaced to startups and

maifunction/breakdo~m incidentsf curren~iy being

in-rplcrnented

by

the Perrni~tee fox the aEEeuzec1 boiler

and

Unic

and associated

PK

con~rol

equLpment

to

satisfy Conditions

1.6(a).

These procedures and

practices

are

referred to

as

the "PM Control Plan" in

this permit.

5. Accompanying this record,

che

Permittee

stlall

mnintain a demonstration showing that the above

PC$

Control Plan fulfills the requirements of Conditions

1.6(a).

ii. Copies of the recurds required by Conditions

1.9-21b)

(i)

shall be submitted to the Illinois EPA upon request.

+

;;i

.

?:ccornpanying

che

records required by Conditior:~ 1.9-

2

(h)

(i

1

,

a file containing a copy of all correspondence and

otker written material exchanged with

USEPA

that addresses

the procecl~~res

anct

practices that must be irnplementeci

pursmnc

to Paragraphs

83,

84 and 87 of

rhe

Decree. This

file shall be retained for at

least

three

years

after the

permanent

sh~cclown

of the affected Unit.

c.

Specific

Records for

?.tie

Sorbent.

In jectian System

3url::g

zhtr

period before

~-ecord:u,eepi:711:

IS requirecl

for usage

of

sorbext

pur-suarrt

co

35

LAG

,;)arc

223,

the

usage of sorbent

(Ibs)

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, August 22, 2007

---

and average sorbent injection rate (lbs/operating

hour)

,

an a

monthly basis.

Note: This permit dues

not

affect the recorcikeeping requirements for

the existing control system(s) that are co~tained in the existing

pernits for the source.

1.9-3

Ocher

Recordkeeping Requirements

a. Summary Records Related to tile

Pi4

Control Plan

The Permittee shall maintain the following records for each

incident when

applicable actionfs) required pursuant to the PM

Control Plan were

not

taken for affected boiler or Unit:

F. The date of the incident.

ii.

k

description of the incident, isrcluding

the

required

action(s) that were nor taken; other actions or mitigation

measures that were taken, if any; and

khe

likely

consequences of the incidents as related co emissions.

iii.

The

time

at

and

means by which the incident was identified.

171.

The

lecgth

of

tune

after

ctle

incident

~cls

identified before

required actionfs) were taken

or

were

no

longer

required

and an explanation

why

this cine was

not

shorter, including

a

discussion of the

timing

of

any

niziigacior, measures that

were

taken for the incident.

v.

The estimated total

duracian

of

the incident, i.e., the

Local length of time chat rhe affected boiler ran wichout

the

required

action(s) being

taken.

vi.

X

discussion of the

probable

cause

of the incident and any

preventative measures

caken.

vii.

A discussioc whether any applicable

?PI ertission

standards

or limits, as addressed by Canditisn 1.3, 1.4 or

1.6, may

have

been violated, either during or as a result oi

tlie

incident,

wi

ci.2 sappor-tixly

ex~lanar ion.

b.

Records

Related to Mercury Emissions

i. The Perntic~ee shall comply

with

all

appltcable

recordkeeping requirements of 35

IAC

Part 225 related to

control of mercury emissions

fr-orn

the affected boiler.

-1.

7 7

9urixg the period before the

Psrlnittee

is reyuired to

conducr

rnonitori~y for

the

mercury ezisslons of the

afEected

'nuiiez- pursuant to

35 IAC Part

225,

che Per:nitzee

sfiall fisintain records of ernlssion

data

for

rnercury

collected

for

the affecced boiler 5y

zhe

Permittee,

ir:cll~diny

emiss~ons (re,icrograrns

per

cubic meter, po~ncis

per

hour, or

pounds

per

rr:illion 3tu)

and control

ef flcie_n,cy

for

differen= modes of operation of the boiler and

sorhenc

---

Page

10

injection system, with identification and description of

the

mode

of

operations.

2.10-1

Reporting

Keqirercents

-

Reporting of Deviations

a.

Prompt Reporting of ~eviations

For the affected boiler, the

Ferrniccee

shall

prorngtly

notify the

Illinois EPA

of

deviations from permit requiremen- as folLaws.

kt a minimum,

these

notifications shall include a descriptior~ of

such deviations, including whether they occurred during startup

or

malfunccion/br-eaL,do1~'9,

and

a

discussion

of

the possible cause

a£

such deviations,

any corrective

actions and any

preventative

measures

taken.

i.

Irrmediate

notification for a deviation from requiremenls

related to

PM

emissions if the deviation is accompanied by

the failure of three or more compartments

in

che haghouse

system.

+&.

i i

Notification with the

cluarterly

reports

requireci

by

Condition

1.10-2(a)

for deviations not addzessed

above,

including deviations from ocher applicable rcqulrements,

e.g., work practice requirements, required operating

procedures, required

~aintenance practices, axid

recordkeeping require~ents.

b. Periodic

Reporting of Deviatiorls

The

cl~arterly reports req~ired by Conclition

3..

10-2 (a) shall

il;cltide

tile

follawirlg informatior1 for the

a-ected

boiler

r.elated

co

devlat

ions from

perxi

t

requi

rrements

duri~g

the

cluarrer .

i.

A listing of ail icscances of deviations that have

beet

reported in writing to

che

Zl1inoi.s EPA as provided by

Coridition

1.10-1

(a)

(i)

,

including ictentification

af

each

s~cfx rrtr

i

t

ten

notif ic:at ion

or report.

For this purpose,

the

Permiccee need

cot

resubmit copies of these

previocs

notifications

or reports but

may elect to supp1emer.t such

ma~erial.

iF. Detailed information, as required by Condition 1.10--

l

(a)

(ii)

,

for

all

other deviations.

"jo~e:

This

permit

does not ar'fect

the

requirements for

reporting

of

deviations contained in the existing permits for the

sosrce.

1.10-2

Repor.-ting Requiremezts

-

Teriodic Reporting

a. The Perxittee shall submit quarterly

reporcs

to tke

T11,ino:s

SPA.

i.

These reports

shal;

include

a su.rcmary

of

irf

o.r~.at

ion

recordeci

ciuring

the quarter-

pursuant to Condbtior?~

1,9-3

(a

j

acd

tb).

---

Page 11

ii. These reports shall

i~lclude

the

information for

the

affected

boiler refated to deviations during the

quarter

specified

by

Co-aition

1.20-l(bf.

iii. These reports shall be submitted

within

45 days after the

end of each calendar

quarter.

Fur

example, the

quarterly

report for the first quarter,

i.e., January, February

and

March, shall be submitted by

Msy

15.

b

,

The Permittee shall comply with all applicable

reporting

requirements of 35

IAC

Part 225 related to control of mercury

emissions from the affected boiler.

Note: This permit does not

affect

t!>e

reqtlirements

for quarterly

reporting contained in

the

existing permits

for che

soiJrce.

1.11

Authorization

for

Operatior,

The Permittee

may

operate the affected boiler wi~h the new

keghouse,

scrubber,

and

sorbent injection

systems

under this constwuction

perxi:

u~til

such

time

as

final aczion is taken to address

these

systems

in

the CAAPP permit for the

source

provided

that

the

Fernittee

submits

ax

appropriate

asplicat

ior:

for

Ci*&P?

perni

t

,

which iccorgorates new

requiremen~s

established by

this

permit

wickin

one year (365 days) of

beginzing 0pexatior.s of

the tiffcctecl boiler with these

systec7.s.

Please

~otc

that

this permit does not address requirements of

the Co~sent

Decree

fcr

emissioi7s of nitrogen

oxizes

(NO,.).

This is becaxse

this peuxit

does ~ot address any changes to control

eqai2nent

for

NO,

ernissiorx.

If

you

have

acy

questions

concer;lir.g

this permit, please contact

Kunj Patel

o- Christopher

Ro~aine

at

2271782-2113.

Edvrin C. Bakotk;ski,

P.E.

Acting Na~ager, Perai:

Sect

ion

Division of Air Pollution Control

oc:

Region

2

---

STATE OF ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PRC;'rTECTlQN

AGENCY

DIVISICJN

OF A1F7

POLLUTION CONI'RQI-

P.

0.

BOX 19508

SPRINGFIECU,

ILL-INOIS

62794-9506

STANDARD CONDITHONS FOR CONSTRUCTgBNfDE\PELOPMENT PERMITS

ISSUED

BY

THE ILLENOXB ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

- - - . . - --

--

-- --

July

1,

1985

The Illinois Eaviranmerttal Brtltet:tion Act fI!linois

I3evised

Sta tubes, Chapter f ll.1/2, Stletion

1039)

authorizes the

Envlranmental Protection Agency to irnpcrse conditions on

permits

which It; igsues.

The follotving

ctrnditions

are npplicabic:

unless

~u~pt?r~ed~;?d

by

special

conditirrn(s),

1.

Uxrlerss this permit has been extended or it has been

voided by

a

newly issued

permit, this

permit

will expire one

year from the date of issuance, unless

s

continuous

provarn

of

canatructian

tar

dcvelaprne~lt orn

this project hns

started by ~tlch

time.

2.

The construction or

development

ctrvercd by this permit sltall be done in compliance

with

applicable provisions

of

the

Illinois Environmental Protection

Act and

RcguXations adapted by the Xlljlnoia PoXfutian Control Board.

3.

There

shiall

be no

deviations

frorzl the

appsovr%d p1ms

axtd

spccifications

urrfess

a

written request

fcjr

modification,

along

wil.h

piidtls and 9pe~ificatior-1~

88

reclaireci, shall

have

bcca eubmitted

to

the

Agency and a supplemental

writtcsa perrl-rit, issued.

4.

Thc

perinittee

hall

allow fin!:

tl~.~ly

authorized :ngi?nt af the Agoncy upon &be presentizeiorz of

credentials,

at

re~sonnbfc

kimcs:

a.

t.0

enter.

bhc

pt.rmi6tee7s property where actual or potential efflrrerrt,

olnisvion

ox

noise sources are located or

where any

tirtiviky

is LO he conducte~i purstaaxlt

to

this permit,

h,

tu frave

arcess

to

~~ld

to copy

iiRY

records rerqnlred to be kept rrnder

the

terms and conditions of this permit,

r:.

to ir~spcct, inc'fudjng during any hrrurs of o~errttiun

of

equipment

constructed

or operated

under

this

permit,

such equipment

and

any equipnzent requirecf trr

be

kapt, used, operated, calibrated

and

maintained under

this

permit.

rl

tt,

uLt

nil1 and remove sampied of urry diuchai-ge or etnissia~zs of ]i~ullutnnts, and

c.

to

cn!i.r

and tiiilize any photographic. recording, testing, n:onitoring or other equipment

fur

the purpose of

ftrc,cacrviftgt

testing. nzanitoring, or rerordirzg any activity, discharge,

om.

ernissiozr authorized by this permit.

5.

l'he iusuanmce of'

this

pt:mnit:

ii.

shulf not bc crsrisidercd as in any mranncr affecting the

title

of the premises txpan which the

perrnittcd

fttcilities are .to be fucatt?cI,

It.

clrlecg

rrttt relearn

the

j~craiittec f'rani any liabilii,y for

~BIJ~H~F?

tu

I)@P~~~JI

or pr~pwty r:iiexsed by or resulting from

thct

eon~truceioxz,

~n;iinton:iizce,

sr

operatitln

rjf

the prrzposod

facilities,

c

does [lot TC~CSSC

cile

~~wnlitlr?~

f'ro~n complsar~ce with

r~ther

r~pplic~lible

statutes and regulation8

of

the United

3

tate~,

uf the

S

[ate

of'

f

llinoli;, or with ay;>piicable local fawa, ordinances and regulations,

I

d.

dues nut.

t

alte irztu car?k:lds:ratic~n or attest

tw

the srrlxcturul stability of any unit8 or

parts

of

the

project,

and

---

c.

in no

manner

implies

or

sueaests that the

Agency (or ito

officer%,

agentr~

or

omployrtss) aaoulnsa any liability,

directly or indirectly, for any

io~s

dl-le to damage, instellation, maintenance,

sr

opt?sntion of the proposed

equipment or facility.

6. a,

Unless

a

joint constructionloperation

permit

has been

issfled,

a permit for operation

shall

be obtained from

the

Agency

before the

equipment covered

by

this permit

is

placed into aperation'

b.

For purposes

of

skakedown and

testing,

unless

trtherwiae specified by a special permit co~dition, the equip-

ment covered under thia permit

may

be

operated

for

a

period not

to

exceed

thirty

f30)

days.

7.

The

Agency

may

file

a

complaint with the Board for modification, suspension

o~

rwrtcntior!

of

a

permit:

a.

upon discovery that

the

permit application contained misrepresentations, rniainfurrnation or false statements

or that all ~elevant facts were not

dieclosed,

or

b.

upon finding that any standard

or

special

condit~ions have been violated, or

c.

upon any violations of the Environmental Protection

Act

or any

regulation effective

thereunder

as a

result of'

the

construction or development authorized by this permit.

---

DI

RECTORY

EWI

RORMEEITAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

BfREAU OF

AIR

For assistance

in preparing

a

permit

appl

i

cation

contact

the Permi

t

Sectior;,

Ill

inois

Environnental

Protection Agency

Division

of Air

Pollution

Control

Permit Section

1021 N.

Grand Ave

E,

P.Q. Box

19506

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9506

or a regional

office

of

the

Field Operations

Section.

The

regional

offices

and their

areas

of

responsibi?

i

ty

are

shown

on

the map. The

addresses and telephone

nunibcrs cf

the

regional

offices

are

as

follows:

Illinois EPA

kgion

I

Bureau

of

air, FOS

9511

West Harrison

Des

Plaines

,

Illinois.

60016

8471294-4000

Illinois EPA

Region

2

5415 North

Uni

vers

i

ty

Peoria,

Illinois

61614

309/693-5463

Illinois

EPA

Region

3

2009

Mall Street

.

Collinsville,

Illinois

62234

618/346-5120

---

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1021 NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST, P.0. BOX 19506, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-9506

-

(217) 782-2113

ROD R. BLAGO JEVICH,

GOVERNOR

DOUGLAS P. SCOTT, DIRECTOR

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT

PERMITTEE

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.

Attn: Rick Diericx

2828 North Monroe Street

Decatur, Illinois 62526

Application No.: 07010031

I. D. No.

:

125804AAB

Applicant's Designation:

Date Received: January 17, 2007

Subject: Baghouse, Scrubber and Sorbent Injection Systems for Unit 6

Date Issued: April

16, 2007

Location: Havana Power Plant, 15260 N. State Route

78, Havana, Mason County

Permit is hereby granted to the above-designated Permittee to CONSTRUCT

equipment consisting of a baghouse, scrubber, and sorbent injection system

for the Unit 6 Boiler and associated installation of booster fans, as

described in the above referenced application. This Permit is subject to

standard conditions attached hereto and the following special

condition(s)

:

1.1 Introduction

a. This Permit authorizes construction of a

baghouse system

(Baghouses

A and B), scrubber system (Scrubbers A and B), and

sorbent injection system to supplement the existing emission

control systems on the existing Unit 6 boiler (also known as

Boiler

9). The new baghouse system, scrubber system, and sorbent

injection system would further process the flue gas from this

existing coal-fired boiler, which is equipped with a particulate

agglomerator, electrostatic precipitator (ESP), and selective

catalytic reduction (SCR) system. This permit also authorizes

installation of booster fans on the boiler to compensate for the

additional pressure drop from these new control systems.

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

emissions control project, whose purpose and effect will be

to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide

(SO2), particulate

matter

(PM), and mercury from the existing boiler and which

will not increase emissions of other PSD pollutants. As

such, the terms and conditions of the existing permits will

continue to govern emissions and operation of the boiler

except as specifically indicated.

ii. This permit is issued based on the receiving, storage and

handling of limestone and halogenated activated carbon for

the new control systems qualifying as insignificant

---

Page 2

activities, with annual emissions of PM in the absence of

control equipment that would be no more than 0.44 tons, so

that this activity need not be addressed by this permit.

This does affect the

Permittee's obligation to comply with

all applicable requirements that apply to the receiving,

storage and handling of these materials.

C. This permit does not authorize any modifications to the existing

boiler or generating unit, which would increase their capacity or

potential emissions.

d. This permit does not affect requirements for the affected boiler

established by the Consent Decree in

United States of America and

the State of Illinois, American Bottom Conservancy, Health and

Environmental Justice-St. Louis, Inc., Illinois Stewardship

Alliance,

and

Prairie Rivers Network, v. Illinois Power Company

and

Dynegy Midwest Generation Inc.,

Civil Action No. 99-833-M,7R,

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois (Decree),

certain provisions of which are referenced by this permit. In

addition, as the provisions of the Decree are referenced in

certain conditions of this permit, in the event of inconsistency

between a permit condition and the provision of the Decree or if

a provision of the Decree is revised, the actual provision of the

Decree shall govern.

1.2 Applicability Provisions

a. The "affected boiler" for the purpose of these unit-specific

conditions is the existing Unit

6 boiler after the initial

startup of the new emissions control systems, as described in

Condition 1.1.

I

b. For purposes of

c:-.ri;:c;.:i..n

conditions related to the Decree, the

affected boiler is also part of a "Unit" as defined by Paragraph

1.3 Applicable Emission Standards for the Affected Boiler

ii.

---

Page 3

c. The PM emission rate of the affected boiler shall not be greater

than the limit specified in Paragraph 86 of the Decree,

i.e.,

0.030 lb/mmBtu. Emission testing conducted to determine

compliance with this limit shall use methods and procedures as

specified in Paragraph 90 of the Decree

1.4 Future Applicable Emission Rate under the Consent Decree

a. The

SO2 emission rate of affected boiler shall be no greater than

the limit specified in Paragraph 66 of the

Decree7~~~~

Ib/mFTtu,

by the date specified in Paragraph 66, i.e., no later

than December 31, 2012. Emission testing conducted to determine

compliance with this limit shall use methods and procedures as

specified in Paragraph 82 of the Decree.

b. The PM emission rate of the affected boiler shall be no greater

than the limit specified in Paragraph

85 of the Decree, i.e.,

0.015 lb/mmBtu, by the date specified in Paragraph 66, i.e., no

later than December

31, 2012. Emission testing conducted to

determine compliance with this limit shall use methods and

procedures as specified in Paragraph 90 of the Decree.

1.6 Work Practices and Operational Requirements for PM and

SO2 Control

Devices

---

Page 4

h

<,

T-)

,-,

.l-...,rl

.;

t.. 4..

,.,

r\

<.

&.,

.

1

.

I

,-\y, r,

...

Y + ..

r,

4

..h,.,

r'pn

<,.-,-

ii.

I

I,L

I, .-,

.[.. I! I.

.]..

C,

L.

\-

ir

u

L

.l LA

.I.

..[. \./

iLL\4\..LL\A

FFnvtnA

L'LJIILL

hnc

1

-v

Ail

4

n

cC\-.L

-,,T&~~,~T..

L.

W4

&<-LA

+h

D-S~~

ILL

1

&+?2F;3c.

b. i. Effective no later than December 31, 2012, the Permittee

shall not operate the affected boiler and Unit

6 unless the

requirements of Paragraph

66 of the Decree with respect to

addition of a flue gas desulfurization system or an

equivalent

SO2

control technology to the affected boiler

have been fulfilled.

ii. The Permittee shall operate and maintain the additional

SO2

control system on the affected boiler, as addressed above,

in accordance with Paragraph

69 of the Decree.

1.7 Testing Requirements

a.

i. The Permittee shall have testing conducted to measure the

PM emissions from the affected boiler on a periodic basis

consistent with the requirements of Paragraphs

89 and 119

of the Decree with respect to the timing of PM emission

tests.

---

Page 5

ii. The Permittee shall also have testing conducted to measure

the PM emissions from the affected boiler within 90 days

(or such later date set by the Illinois EPA) following a

request by the Illinois EPA for such measurements.

b.

i. These measurements shall be performed in the maximum

operating range of the affected boiler and otherwise under

representative operating conditions.

ii. A. The methods and procedures used for measurements to

determine compliance with the applicable PM emission

standards and limitations shall be in accordance with

Paragraph 90 of the Decree.

c. Except for minor deviations in test methods, as defined by 35 IAC

283.130, PM emission testing shall be conducted in accordance

with a test plan prepared by the testing service or the Permittee

and submitted to the Illinois EPA for review prior to testing,

and the conditions, if any, imposed by the Illinois EPA as part

of its review and approval of the test plan, pursuant to 35 IAC

283.220 and 283.230.

==:

Pzrmlttr-~~~

.Lx4b

L

r:k~ll s-&m:t

.

A

C.

tk

-k-wsi.

I4

CL.L

fi ->,?.

1

...,.,- .;

Am>.,..,,

,-,f'.

.l

L, U

\d

L.

,A

U

..:.. U

U

6

.. +..

r,

<- .+. .: "..

rv

-L.

LjJ.

L,bhJL..*.l..L

d. The Permittee shall notify the Illinois EPA prior to conducting

PM emission testing to enable the Illinois EPA to observe

testing. Notification for the expected test date shall be

submitted a minimum of 30 days prior to the expected date of

testing. Notification of the actual date and expected time of

testing shall be submitted a minimum of 5 working days prior to

the actual test date. The Illinois EPA may on a case-by case

basis accept shorter advance notice if it would not interfere

with the Illinois

EPA's ability to observe testing.

e. The Permittee shall submit the Final

Report(s) for this PM

emission testing to the Illinois EPA within

45 days of completion

of testing, which

report(s) shall include the following

information:

i. The name and identification of the affected unit(s) and the

results of the tests.

ii. The name of the company that performed the tests.

iii. The name of any relevant observers present including the

testing company's representatives, any Illinois EPA or

USEPA representatives, and the representatives of the

Permittee.

iv. Description of test

method(s), including description of

sampling points, sampling train, analysis equipment, and

test Decree, including a description of any minor

---

Page 6

deviations from the test plan, as provided by 35 IAC

283.230 (a)

.

vii. Data and calculations, including copies of all raw data

sheets and records of laboratory analyses, sample

calculations, and data on equipment calibration.

'

3

<

.

Note: This

peeeecs

zs;t

zffect

thc

re~i~irc~~~~nts

5s-

A

"~t'---m

L , ILIL-IL

--FF&+&W~

4

8

.. .

tk~

+~i~,tl-'+~;

r

.

a

.-

r A'-.-

~ZT &hi

.-, ~c;+L'LL

,..

7

Y, . . ,

1.8 Monitoring Requirements

The Permittee shall install, operate and maintain continuous

monitoring equipment to measure the following operating

parameters of the

baghouse system:

i. The temperature of the flue gas at the inlet of the system

(hourly average).

ii. The pressure drop across the system (hourly average).

---

Page 7

a.

tc:

thc

zffeetcc!

bell,;

f,,

It,

LL,,,,,,,

,,,,

tLL

+

7

,-,I

...r-

7

,.

r,ny*?.,7yTr

;-,An

-"

LL.

a,+,,.

. ..

mh.:- ,..?

..

,,,,

. .

1

.

+

..

r",.,,Rp

:

..?-+

.. .

-,(c~,,..,+

...

-.

. . ." ...

lh,.,

-I

L \-. .

.:. .I

1

.L.

d

f..,L, .>..

lil..,..

L

\.A\JL,d

,I

!.L,

L

LA

.!..

.A.

\d

L, L L .I !.'-

.L.

L.

L#

U

I

1.9-2 Records for Control Devices and Control Equipment

The Permittee shall maintain the following records for the new

baghouse, scrubber, and sorbent injection systems on the affected

boilers

:

a. i.

tkz

Baghouse System

A.

1

,., ,-, <-~

v

LVY

\>A

Arecords for the baghouse

,

system that, at a minimum: (1) Identifies the

trigger for bag cleaning,

e.g., manual, timer, or

pressure drop; (2) Identifies each period when a Unit

was in operation and the

baghouse was not being

operated or was not operating effectively;

(3)

Identifies each period when any baghouse module(s)

have been taken out of regular service, with

identification of the module (s) and explanation;

;::r&

A

\

c-7-,r.

,-?

7

-I=

7

,

3

.

.,.-

1

1 ,. 4,-,,-.

rw

n

2)

u

y

-I,LLJ~~.J

thX3

I

---A.-

.

7

V ,T.

r..

=c-J"kfz-

7-

.,J

t3

t~r~

'

v.,.

A

b,-,

-

.-

-IU

i

wpi&z-..&..-t>

B. Maintenance and repair log or other records for the

baghouse system that, at a minimum: (1) List the

activities performed, with date and description, and

(2) Specifically document the maintenance and repair

activities related to the

baghouse+zt

:=+W&F&,

ii. L~2~-~~...&h-Scrubber

System

A.

g

lag cr

stkcr

records for the scrubber

system that, at a minimum

.+-&+--identify each period of

time when the affected Unit was in operation and

associated scrubber was not being operated or was not

operating effectively,

2nd (2) Lei,,,

- - -

,

+

-*

-

.-7

2 1

&.y74Z3mfi-F&.

A\"

I

wI,+?+-:

.>LLl.-,.L\-I\JlL

-17

\.!A.

,-\f=

-I-?-,,-,

\.-A&\.,

L.,

,...

---

Page 8

Maintenance and repair log or other records for the

system that, at a

minimum---

list the activities

performed, with date and description,

snci

(2)

.-I

-?,Tm,?-.*t

tn

r-T-,7.A<

4-&

AULUlLL

LU LWL'ULL

-.

4*-.

iii. Logs f~r

thc

Sorbent Injection System

Maintenance and repair log or other records for the

system that, at a minimum, list the activities

performed, with date and description.

ii.

QY3i

-, ,. "

F

- ,.,.,

,.Y-.

".,.".

Y.C

'

Ldd

wL

.

ILi.-ILbL>

i~~t~-&~~~-ii~i<

,,+

3f=Yb-&+&(.bW-+..

. ..

'i '1 .:

r-.,-,.:

r,

T~R

,.,,

...

--r.rr,~.-,.t..

.I L.

..I. ..:..

.I..

2.

I.

,p*i 1.

;

.*.

L.

\

iii. ~-~LE-~~~~Gzz

.- ..

;-1,+.

1

. ,-

2

L.

..-> ,

I

$1

>. ,

(1

3

, :

I

d

-.

i

-

. .

---

Page 9

1.9-3 Other Recordkeeping Requirements

,

<

.

-9

7

tL

ii.

2Li

I\.

a

.

-r

A>

3e&$**)-+~a~~eT3+~T>r-%.~G-~-~*F-..*~~~--.eF

-

r

-. .

ffb;.+.&g*&..&..~>~

r<~.++.,y+.,

2

.. ..

t,

<>

e**..s*,.&e>Ft~:.

-

d'.

.....

.., .....

-- ..

.........

-

...

.

8

..

4..

,..,

r,

.: -2

r,T1.,..

.

<

4.

.-

.;

.

<.,

-4

iii.

Th.c L..i.x;::

L~.r;.Ld+w-;~.r!l:~

by

Y

.

1

..:..

\-,.I 1

8-

.l :

L,

..

L.1

2

,L.,

.l..

\A

L,.l I.

L>

.I..

'4

L

J.

.I

L. .l.

.i.

.!..

'6,

,.A 9

iv.

th

tLll

wL

n.F

t;mn

L.LLLLb

Le.L

-!Ftrir

LL,L

tl-,r.

LILL

d-LLLIuL.LLL

? .

ni-3

8

Ar,nt

T.7

rvLGO

LLAbLIL-ALL\..u

LJL.LLJL,.,

.<

.A.

I.;

\.A

-1..

I

I.\

b. Records Related to Mercury Emissions

---

Page 10

ii.

~~~~+~.+3~-~---~-&&&q-&~LL

. - . . .

r.

<.

3ew

,

-. *.

-&&~e

&L&.c..d

fcr

tkk:

-.

~ffcct~-&-

. -

by the: wttcc

I

ii.

ii.

1

A

L.sL-<A.LJ-~.~L~

J..JzL,.LLlil<A.L

. .

L'/LL

.-

,

<A

L.,

L

,--

6.t

-!-

L.

\..\A

A/

.\,:./.[

1L.A-

L..

.L

LJll

.L.

.

L

,/

"-\"i),

fer -71

d+<

-

-.l-dL

-Y.

<.

..,

A

,

-

LAW1

,

'

id.

<--

.. ,- .+.. -, 4.

.

.F.

-

.-. ,-,

.I..

+..

t.

,., -- ,, ,-",

., .: .%..

-2

I. l

U L. U

L.

.I..

--

b

'-

L

11 L

.l..

b \_4 LA.

.A.

.>..

7.

LA

thr.

LLLL.

L.C-Ab7

777

.

nt

L

ALL

-

.

,7

LLILLIIZIJ

rV.

:

tn

L'JL

Fc.,v

tP.n

C11b

?.,-..,,r,-.p,

LJ

\./ U & \-

L

.

1.10-2 Reporting Requirements

-

Periodic Reporting

---

Page 11

i.

and

(,%

ii.

4,-

tr,,,

:"F--,

li

IVI

F"'.

_

+I.-

I-

I

1

fir \cyl-I

?t,-\r4

t.~

A~TTT

74-7

nn"

~ 4 , ~ ~ :

%

0

n-

+-hr\

,

Authorization

for Operation

The Permittee may operate the affected boiler with the new baghouse,

scrubber, and sorbent injection systems under this construction permit

until such time as final action is taken to address these systems in

the CAAPP permit for the source provided that the Permittee submits an

appropriate application for CAAPP permit, which incorporates new

requirements established by this permit within one year

(365 days) of

beginning operations of the affected boiler with these systems.

If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Kunj Pate1

or Christopher Romaine at 217/782-2113.

Edwin C. Bakowski, P.E.

Acting Manager, Permit Section

Division of Air Pollution Control

cc: Region 2

---

STATE OF ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

P. 0. BOX 19506

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-9506

STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION/DEVELOPMENT PERMITS

BY THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

July 1, 1985

The Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter

1 1 1-1/2, Section 1039)

authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to impose conditions on permits which it issues.

The following conditions are applicable unless susperseded by special

condition(s).

1. Unless this permit has been extended or it has been voided by a newly issued permit, this permit will expire

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

project has started by such time.

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

provisions of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and Regulations adopted by the Illinois Pollution

Control Board.

3. There shall be no deviations from the approved plans and specifications unless a written request for

modification, along with plans and specifications as required, shall have been submitted to the Agency and a

supplemental written permit issued.

4. The permittee shall allow any duly authorized agent of the Agency upon the presentation of credentials, at

reasonable times:

a. to enter the permittee's property where actual or potential effluent, emission or noise sources are located

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

b. to have access to and to copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this

permit,

c. to inspect, including during any hours of operation of equipment constructed or operated under this

permit, such equipment and any equipment required to be kept, used, operated, calibrated and

maintained under this permit,

d. to obtain and remove samples of any discharge or emissions of pollutants, and

e. to enter and utilize any photographic, recording, testing, monitoring or other equipment for the purpose

of preserving, testing, monitoring, or recording any activity, discharge, or emission authorized by this

permit.

---

5. The issuance of this permit:

a. shall not be considered as in any manner affecting the title of the premises upon which the permitted

facilities are to be located,

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

from the construction, maintenance, or operation of the proposed facilities,

c. does not release the permittee from compliance with other applicable statutes and regulations of the

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

d. does not take into consideration or attest to the structural stability of any units or parts of the project, and

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

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

proposed equipment or facility.

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

from the Agency before the equipment covered by this permit is placed into operation.

b. For purposes of shakedown and testing, unless otherwise specified by a special permit condition, the

equipment covered under this permit may be operated for a period not to exceed thirty

(30) days.

7. The Agency may file a complaint with the Board for modification, suspension or revocation of a permit:

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

statements or that all relevant facts were not disclosed, or

b. upon finding that any standard or special conditions have been violated, or

c. upon any violations of the Environmental Protection Actor any regulation effective thereunder as a result

of the construction or development authorized by this permit.