BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION, INC.

(HENNEPIN POWER STATION),

Petitioner,

v.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PCB 07-123

(Permit Appeal- Air)

NOTICE OF FILING

To:

John

T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James

R. Thompson Center

Suite 11-500

100 West Randolph

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Persons on attached

SERVICE LIST

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, SORBENT INJECTION SYSTEM, AND INDUCED

DRAFT FANS, copies of which are herewith served upon you.

-~~

Kathleenm

Dated: October 4, 2007

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Kathleen C. Bassi

Stephen

J. Bonebrake

Andrew N. Sawula

Sheldon

A. Zabel

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

FAX: 312-258-5600

kbassi@schifthardin.com

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

DYNEGY

MIDWEST GENERATION, INC.

(HENNEPIN POWER STATION),

Petitioner,

v.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PCB 07-123

(Permit Appeal- Air)

APPEAL OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF

BAGHOUSE, SORBENT INJECTION SYSTEM, AND INDUCED DRAFT FANS

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

POWER STATION) ("Petitioner" or "Dynegy"), pursuant to Section 40(a)(

1) of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act ("Act") (415 ILCS 5/40(a)(1)) and 35 Ill.Adm.Code

§ 105.200

et

seq.,

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

construction permit

1

issued to Petitioner on May 29, 2007, pursuant to Section 39(a) of the Act

(415 ILCS 5/39(a)) and 35 Ill.Adm.Code § 201.142 ("permit" or "construction permit") and

attached hereto as Exhibit

1. 35 Ill.Adm.Code §§ 105.210(a) and (b). Petitioner received the

construction permit on June

1, 2007.

See

Exhibit 1. On June 5, 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)(1) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/40(a)(1)) and 35

Ill.Adm.Code

§§ 105.204 and 105.208. The Board granted the 90-day extension on June 21,

2007. Since at least May 2007, Dynegy and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency have

I

Application No. 07020036.

-1-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

engaged in discussions regarding Dynegy's concerns with the construction permit issued to

Dynegy for its Havana Power Station ("Havana"), which includes conditions similar to those

included in the Hennepin permit and, likewise, has been appealed at PCB 07-115. Agreements

regarding the Havana permit will likely apply, at least in part, to the Hennepin permit. Those

discussions are continuing. The Board's Order (June

21,2007) notes that the appeal period was

extended to October 4, 2007. Pursuant to Sections 39(a) and

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

Ill.Adm.Code §§ 105.206(a) 105.208(a), and the Board'sOrder (June 21, 2007), this Petition is

timely filed with the Board.

In support

of its Petition to appeal Conditions 1.1(a), 1.2(b), 1.3, 1.4(a)(ii), l.4(a) Notes,

1.5, 1.6 including Notes, 1.7(a)(i), 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(a)(ii), 1.9-3(a)(iii), 1.9-3(a)(iv), 1.9-3(a) Note, 1.9-4, 1.10-

1, and 1.10-2 of the construction permit issued May 29,2007, for the Hennepin Power Station,

Petitioner states as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

(35 IIl.Adm.Code § l05.304(a»

1.

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

155010AAA, is an electric generating station owned and operated by Dynegy. The Hennepin

electrical generating units ("EGUs") went online between 1953 and 1959. The Hennepin

Power Station can generate approximately 320 gross megawatts

of electricity. The Station is

located at 13498 East 800 Street, Hennepin, Bureau County, Illinois 61327. Bureau County is

attainment for all national ambient air quality standards. Dynegy employs approximately 57

people at the Hennepin Power Station.

2.

Dynegy operates two coal-fired boilers (Units 1 and 2) at Hennepin that have the

capability to fire at various modes that include the combination

of coal and/or natural gas as their

-2-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

principal fuels. In addition, the boilers fire natural gas as auxiliary fuel during startup and for

flame stabilization. Certain alternative fuels may be utilized as well. Dynegy also operates one

natural gas fired boiler at Hennepin used for building heating purposes and to produce steam for

auxiliary support. Hennepin also operates associated coal handling, coal processing, and ash

handling equipment and systems. Finally, there is a 1000-gallon capacity gasoline tank located

at Hennepin.

3.

Relevant to this appeal, emissions of particulate matter ("PM") from Units 1 and 2

are controlled by electrostatic precipitators ("ESPs") with flue gas conditioning systems.

4.

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

("CAAPP") (415 ILCS 5/39.5). The Agency issued a CAAPP permit to Dynegy for Hennepin

on September 29, 2005. Subsequently, on November

3, 2005, Dynegy timely appealed the

CAAPP permit for Hennepin at PCB 06-072. 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 100/10-65(b)) ("APA") and the holding in

Borg-

Warner Corp.

v.

Mauzy,

427 N.E. 2d 415 (Ill.App.Ct. 1981), the CAAPP permit is stayed, upon

appeal, as a matter

of law. Order,

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (Hennepin Power Station)

v.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

PCB 06-072 (February 16, 2006), p. 2. Hennepin is

subject to the federal Acid Rain Program at Title IV

of the Clean Air Act and has been issued a

Phase

II Acid Rain Permit.

5.

Dynegy entered into a Consent Decree in the matter of the

United States of

America, et al.

v.

Dynegy Midwest Generation, et aI.,

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

-3-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

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

applicable law and regulations.

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 issued to the Havana Power Station ("Havana"). The permit

issued to Havana contains language that is the same or very similar to the language contained in

the permit issued to Hennepin. Resolution

of issues relative to the Havana permit likely will

address most or all

of the issues raised here regarding the Hennepin permit. While Dynegy

believes that there has been progress towards addressing its concerns with the permits, 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 these

permits during the pendency

of this appeal.

REQUEST FOR PARTIAL STAY

7.

Pursuant to Section 10-65(b) of the APA, 5 ILCS 100/10-65, and the holding in

Borg-Warner Corp,

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

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'sorder.

See

Order,

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (Hennepin Power Station)

v.

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency,

PCB 06-072 (February 26, 2006) ("Order 2"). Historically, however, the

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

See, e.g.,

Order 2 at p. 8, fn. 3;

Midwest Generation, LLC, Will County Generating Station

v.

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency,

PCB 06-156 (July 20,2006) (granted stay of the effectiveness

-4-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

of contested conditions of a construction permit);

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (Vermilion

Power Station)

v.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

PCB 06-194 (October 19, 2006)

(granted stay

"of the portions of the permit Dynegy contests");

Hartford 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 ofMorris

v.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

PCB 01-48 and 01-49

(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 and activated carbon injection

("ACT") systems

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

Power Station. Dynegy has chosen to install the baghouses to comply with the PM emissions

limitation applicable to the Hennepin Power Station under the Consent Decree. While the

baghouses are not

per se

required by the Consent Decree, their installation is directly related to

compliance with terms

of the Consent Decree. Dynegy'srequest 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 1.1(a), 1.2(b), 1.3, 1.4(a) Notes, 1.5,

-5-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

1.6(a)(i), 1.6(a)(i) Note, 1.6(a)(ii), 1.6(a)(ii) Note, 1.6(a)(iv), 1.7(a)(i), 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, 1.9-4, 1.10-1, and

1.10-2. 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 except

for Conditions

1. 1(a) and 1.7(a)(i).

III. ISSUES ON APPEAL

(35 I1I.Adm.Code §§ l05.210(c»

1O.

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

ofthe mercury rule adopted by the Board at 35 Ill.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 06-072, 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)(ii), 1.4(a) Notes, 1.6(a)(i) Note, 1.6(a)(ii) Note,

1.6(a)(iii),1.6(a)(iv), 1.9-2(a)(i), 1.9-2(a)(ii), 1.9-2(b), 1.9-4(a),

and 1.10-2(a).

11.

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

Hennepin Power Station, docketed at PCB 06-072. Additionally, some

of the issues appealed in

-6-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

PCB 06-072 relative to interpretations of the Consent Decree reappear in this permit and must be

appealed here

to preserve Dynegy'srights 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 the entity with whom Dynegy

interfaces regarding requirements in the Consent Decree. USEP

A'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 entities

2

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

2

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.

-7-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

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

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

of the

provisions

of the paragraph, which

ipso facto

is the Agency'sinterpretation of the meaning of

referenced paragraph.

14.

Specifically, Conditions 1.2(b), 1.4(a) Notes, and 1.6(a)(i) 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 1.6(a)(iv) 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), 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 1.9-4(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)(iv) that Dynegy operate the

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

-8-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Conditions 1.9-2(b) and 1.9-4(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 inclusion.

3

Dynegy requests that

the Board order the Agency to delete Conditions 1.6(a)(iv), 1.9-2(a)(i), 1.9-2(b), 1.9-4(a), and

1.10-2(a) from the permit. Further, Dynegy requests that the Board stay the effectiveness

of

Conditions 1.6(a)(iv), 1.9-2(a)(i), 1.9-2(b) 1.9-4(a), and 1.10-2(a), as set forth in Exhibit 2,

during the pendency

of this appeal.

16.

Conditions 1.4(a)(ii) and 1.6(a)(iii) refer to an alternative PM emissions limitation

as provided in Paragraph

88 of the Consent Decree. However, on May 11,2006, the U.S.

Department

of Justice published notice in the

Federal Register

that Paragraph 88 was to be

deleted from the Consent Decree in an amendment.

See

Exhibits 3 and 4, provided for the

Board's convenience. Therefore, the alternative PM emissions limitations provided by

Paragraph

88 are no longer available to Dynegy for the Hennepin Power Station. Conditions

1.4(a)(ii) and 1.6(a)(iii) should be deleted from the permits, as set forth in Exhibit

2.

B.

The Agency Has Inappropriately Included Provisions Whose Only Purpose Is to

Implement the Mercury Rule - Conditions 1.3(a)(ii), 1.8(a), 1.8(c), 1.9-1,

1.9-2(a)(ii)(A), and 1.9-4(b).

17.

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

"In the Matter Of: Proposed New

35 Ill.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

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

-9-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

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

Ill.Adm.Code § 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 1,2015.

35 Ill.Adm.Code § 225.233(d)(l). A company is not

required to notify the Agency

of its intention to opt in prior to December 31, 2007. 35

Ill.Adm.Code § 225.233(b). Ifa company decides to opt in to the MPS set forth in Section

225.233, it must install and operate ACI systems on its EODs by July 1,2009, or December 31,

2009, as applicable.

35 Ill.Adm.Code § 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 31, 2008.

35 Ill.Adm.Code §

225 .220(a)(2)(A).

18.

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 Hennepin Power Station

through this permit.

19.

Conditions 1.3(a)(ii), 1.8(a), 1.8(c), 1.9-1, 1.9-2(a)(ii)(A), and 1.9-4(b) do not

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

-10-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

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

from the permit.

20.

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

of35 lAC 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)(ii)(A) requires records regarding mercury emissions; and

Condition

1.9-4(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.

21.

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.

22.

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 l.3(a)(ii) be stayed,

as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the

pendency

of this appeal.

-11-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

23.

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

"Le., 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.

24.

For these reasons, Condition I.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

I.8(a), as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency

of this appeal.

25.

Likewise, Condition 1.8(c) is an expansion

of the scope ofa 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

-12-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

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.

26.

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)(1)(B), the requirement for a 90%

reduction from input mercury.

If the Permittee chooses to comply with Section

225.230(a)(1)(A), on the other hand, there is no requirement in the mercury rule that the

Permittee monitor the mercury content

of its coal supply.

27.

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)(1), 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.

28.

Condition 1.9-2(a)(ii)(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)(ii)(A) requires

Dynegy to document implementation

of operating procedures as required by Condition 1.6(b).

-13-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

29.

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

function

of the MPS.

30.

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.

31.

Condition 1.9-2(a)(ii)(A) refers to Condition 1.6(b) regarding certain conditions

to be implemented regarding sorbent injection. However, Condition 1.6(b) is inapposite because

Condition 1.6(b) precludes bypass ducts and has no apparent correlation with Condition

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

32.

For these reasons, Condition 1.9-2(a)(ii)(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)(ii)(A) from the permit. At the least, Dynegy requests that

-14-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

the Board order the Agency to modify Condition 1.9-2(a)(ii)(A) in such a way as to limit its

applicability to Dynegy'sparticipation 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)(ii)(A) during the pendency

of this appeal.

33.

Condition

1.9-4(b)(i) requires maintenance of "all applicable recordkeeping

required by

35 lAC 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 Bare

required, according to this condition, immediately. Condition 1.9-4(b)(i) is arbitrary and

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

Condition 1.9-4(b)(i), as set forth in Exhibit

2, during the pendency of this appeal.

34.

Condition 1.9-4(b)(ii) is particularly unacceptable. Here the Agency requires the

Permittee to "maintain records

of emission data for mercury collected for the affected boilers"

"[d]uring the period before the Permittee is required to conduct monitoring for mercury

emissions

... pursuant to 35 lAC Part 225." Condition 1.9-4(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 1.9-4(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

-15-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

stay the effectiveness of Condition 1.9-4(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), 1.4(a) Note, 1.5, 1.7(e) Note, 1.8(c) Note, 1.9-1 Note,

1.9-2 Note, 1.9-3 Note, 1.10-1(b) Note,

and 1.10-2 Note.

35.

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

permits will continue to govern emissions and operation

of the boilers 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" make obvious statements that do not add substance to the

permit. This surplusage is arbitrary and capricious and should be deleted from the permit.

36.

Specifically, Conditions 1.3(a)(i) addresses the applicability

of 35 Ill.Adm.Code

Chapter B, Chapter

I, Subchapter 3, a fact that is already addressed by the general statement of

Condition 1.1 (b)(i). Condition 1.3(b) addresses the authorization to operate the boilers in

violation

of certain state emissions standards during startup, malfunction, or breakdown as

authorized in existing permits. Condition 1.4(a) Note announces that the PM limit under the

Consent Decree will be more stringent than the state standards. Condition 1.7(e) Note addresses

testing requirements in other permits and the Consent Decree. Condition 1.8(c) Note addresses

monitoring requirements in existing permits. Conditions 1.9-1 Note, 1.9-2 Note, and 1.9-3 Note

address recordkeeping requirements in other permits. Condition

1.1 0-1 (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

-16-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

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

Petition.

37.

Condition

1.5 describes the Compliance Assurance Monitoring ("CAM")

requirement

of 40 CFR § 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.

38.

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

to delete Conditions 1.3(a)(i), 1.3(b), 1.4(a) Note, 1.5, 1.7(e) Note, 1.8(c) Note, 1.9-1 Note, 1.9-2

Note, 1.9-3 Note,

1.1 0-1 (b) Note, and 1.10-2 Note 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 06-072 or

Are CAAPP Requirements and Not Part 201 Requirements - Conditions

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

and 1.10-1.

39.

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 Hennepin Power Station.

See

Appeal of CAAPP Permit,

~~

76-82 and 118, respectively, PCB 06-072 (November 3, 2005). The same reasons that Dynegy

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

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

of 35 Ill.Adm.Code

Part 212 that would alter the applicability

of Method 202 to Hennepin 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

-17-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Conditions 1.7(b)(ii)(B), 1.7(e)(v), and 1.7(e)(viii) undermines Dynegy'sright to a hearing on

the merits

of this issue in PCB 06-072 and the Board'sdecision 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'sauthority 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.

40.

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

ofCAAPP permitting.

See

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

permitting requirements

of Section 39 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/39) or the construction permitting

regulations

of 35 Ill.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 Hennepin'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

authorize~

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

201 permits.

-18-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

41.

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(b)(i), 1.7(c), 1.7(e)(v),

and 1.7(e)(viii).

42.

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.

43.

Condition 1.7(b)(i) requires that PM testing be performed "in the maximum

operating range

of the affected boiler...."

It

is not clear from the structure of the permit

whether the Agency intends that this condition apply to any testing that is required under the

Consent Decree, though the permit could be read to mean that the requirement applies to testing

required by the Consent Decree. However, the Consent Decree does not include such a

requirement. Because

of this inconsistency between the permit and the Consent Decree and

because

of the ambiguity created by the structure of the Conditions 1.7(a) and (b) in this regard

and because the Agency has the authority to include in any request for testing that it might make

pursuant to Condition 1.7(a)(ii) that the testing be performed at the maximum operating range

of

the boiler, Dynegy requests that the Board order the Agency to amend the condition by deleting

language

as set forth in Exhibit 2. Further, Dynegy requests that the Board stay Condition

1.7(b)(i),

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

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

-19-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

condition is that it does not recognize the provisions of 35 Ill.Adm.Code § 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:

I)

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 Ill.Adm.Code § 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 of35 Ill.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 I.7(e)(viii) requires that Dynegy provide

-20-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

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) are 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 1.1(a), 1.6(a)(i),

1.6(a)(ii), 1.6(b), 1.7(a)(i), 1.9-2, 1.9-3(a)(ii),

and 1.9-3(a)(iii).

47.

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

application that Dynegy submitted for this permit or contain minor typographical errors. These

conditions should be amended to provide necessary clarity or should be deleted.

48.

Condition

1. I(a) contains a typographical error. The word

replaces

in the last

sentence should be

replace.

This error has been corrected in Exhibit 2, and Dynegy requests that

the Board grant this correction in a partial stay

of the permit, as set forth in Exhibit 2, during the

pendency

of this appeal. However, if the Board determines that it is not appropriate for it to

grant a stay

of only portions of conditions in the permit and rather that it must stay the entirety of

a condition, Dynegy requests that the Board not stay Condition l.l(a).

49.

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

Decree regarding the ESPs on Units I and 2. Inclusion

of provisions covering the ESPs is

inappropriate, because the ESPs are outside

of the scope of the projects covered by this permit.

Dynegy did not include any changes to the ESPs in its application. The Agency cannot use the

-21-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

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 ESPs. 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'sapplication 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.

50.

Condition 1.6(b) 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 Hennepin 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(b) from this permit and that the Board stay the effectiveness

of Condition 1.6(b),

as set forth in Exhibit

2, during the pendency of this appeal.

51.

Condition 1.7(a)(i) contains a typographical error. The word

bass

should be

basis.

Because Dynegy cannot add letters or language to the permit in its request for a partial

stay

of the permit during the pendency of this appeal, Dynegy does not request that Condition

1.7(a)(i) be stayed.

-22-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

52.

Dynegy objects to the requirement that it maintain logs for the baghouse 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'spurposes 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.

53.

It appears that the inclusion of the comma following the word

control

in

Condition 1.9-3(a)(ii) is a typographical error and should be deleted.

It further appears that

Conditions 1.9-3(a)(ii) and (iii) are supposed to be read and applied together; that is, Condition

1.9-3(a)(ii) applies to performance evaluations while Condition 1.9-3(a)(iii) applies to other

periods when the continuous monitoring systems required by Condition 1.8 are inoperative.

However, the language

of these two subconditions is inconsistent. For example, Condition

1.9-3(a)(iii) identifies "routine quality assurance" "as addressed above," presumably in

Condition 1.9-3(a)(ii), but Condition 1.9-3(a)(ii) says nothing about routine quality assurance.

Moreover, Condition 1.9-3(a)(ii) refers to "quality assurance/control," but Condition 1.9-3(a)(iii)

refers only to "quality assurance." Dynegy believes it understands the intent of the condition,

but the language is ambiguous enough to potentially result in differences in interpretation.

Therefore, Dynegy requests that the Board order the Agency to clarify the language in these

Conditions. Dynegy further requests that the Board stay Conditions 1.9-3(a)(ii) and (iii),

as set

forth in Exhibit 2, during the pendency

of this appeal.

-23-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

WHEREFORE. for the reasons set forth above, Dynegy appeals Conditions 1.1 (a),

1.2(b), 1.3, 1.4(a)(ii), 1.4(a) Notes, 1.5, 1.6 including Notes, 1.7(a)(i), 1.7(b)(i), 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(a)(ii),

1.9-3(a)(iii), 1.9-3(a)(iv), 1.9-3(a) Note, 1.9-4, 1.10-1, and 1.10-2

of the construction permit

issued May 29, 2007, for the Hennepin Power Station. Additionally, Dynegy requests that the

Board stay all or the portions

of the Conditions appealed above except for Condition 1.7(a)(i),

and,

if the Board determines that it cannot grant a stay of only a portion of a condition but must

instead stay the entirety

of a condition, except for Condition 1.1 (a), 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 applicable regulatory requirements and all

requirements

of the Consent Decree applicable to these new pollution control systems, if any,

during the pendency

of this appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION, INC.

(HENNEPIN POWER STATION)

by:

----j~.

One of Its Attorneys

Dated: October 4, 2007

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

Kathleen

C. Bassi

Stephen

1.

Bonebrake

Sheldon

A. Zabel

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

Fax: 312-258-5600

kbassi@schiffhardin.com

-24-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

CH2\ 2087203.5

Exhibit List

Construction permit issued to Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. for the

Hennepin Power Station, Application No. 07020036

Redlined version

of construction permit identifying provisions that Dynegy

requests that the Board stay during the pendency

of this appeal

"Notice

of Lodging of Proposed Modification of the Consent Decree

Entered in;

[SIC]

United States et af.

v.

Illinois Power Company and

Dynegy Midwest Generation,"

71 Fed.Reg. 27516 (May 11,2006) (oval

marking pertinent information added)

Order,

United States et

af.

v.

Illinois Power Company and Dynegy Midwest

Generation,

Civil Action No. 99-833-MJR (August 9, 2006) (amendment

to the Consent Decree amending paragraph 86 and deleting paragraph

88

as they relate to the Hennepin Power Station)

-25-

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

f.

•

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1021

NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST,

P.O. Box 19506,

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

62794~9506

- ( 217) 782-2113

ROD

R.

BLAGOJEVICH, GOVERNOR

DOUGLAS

P. Scon,

DIRECTOR

I

EXHIBIT

-l-

217/782-2113

I.D. No.: 155010AAA

Date Received:

Februa~T

14, 2007

Injection Systems for Units 1 and 2

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT

PERMITTEE

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.

Attn: Rick Diericx

2828 North Monroe Street

Decatur, Illinois 62526

Application No.: 07020036

Applicant's Designation:

Subject: Baghouses and Sorbent

Date Issued: May 29, 2007

Location: Hennepin Power Station, 13498 East 800

RECEIVED

JUN 0 12007

OPERATIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL

COMPLIANCE

Street, Hennepin

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

equipment consisting of baghouses and sorbent injection systems for the unit

1 and 2 Boilers, 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 the construction of two baghouses and two

sorbent injection systems (one baghouse and sorbent injection

system for each of the two existing boilers), to supplement the

existing

emissio~

control system on each boiler. The new

baghouse systems and sorbent injection systems would further

process the flue gas from each of the two existing coal-fired

boilers, which are both equipped with electrostatic precipitators

(ESP). This permit also authorizes installation of new induced

draft fans on each boiler (one for Unit 1 and two for Unit 2) to

overcome the additional pressure drop from these new control

systems and associated ductwork, which fans will replaces the

existing induced draft fans on each boiler.

b.

i.

This permit is issued based on this project being an

emissions control project, whose purpose and effect will be

to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and mercury

from the existing boilers 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 boilers except as

specifically indicated.

ii.

This permit is issued based on the receiving, storage and

handling of sorbent for the new sorbent injection systems

qualifying as an insignificant activity, 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

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Permittee's obligation to comply with all applicable

requirements that apply to the receiving, storage and

handling of sorbent.

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

boilers or generating units, which would increase capacity or

potential emissions.

d.

This permit does not affect requirements for the affected boilers

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 pynegy Midwest Generation Inc.,

Civil Action No. 99-833-MJR,

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. An "affected boiler

u

for the purpose of these unit-specific

conditions is an existing coal-fired boiler at this source after

the initial startup of the new emission control systems, as

described in Condition 1.1.

b. For purposes of certain conditions related to the Decree, each

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

50 of the Decree, which defines a "Unit" to mean collectively,

the boiler that produce steam for the steam turbine (i.e., an

affected boiler), the coal pulverizer, stationary equipment that

feeds coal to the boiler, the steam turbine, the generator, the

equipment necessary to operate the generator, steam turbine and

boiler, and all ancillary equipment, including pollution control

equipment.

1.3

Applicable Emission Standards for the Affected Boilers

a.

i.

The affected boilers shall comply with applicable emission

standards under Title 35, Subtitle B, Chapter I, Subchapter

c of the Illinois Administrative Code, as addressed in

existing permits for the affected boilers.

ii.

The affected boilers shall comply with applicable emission

standards and requirements related to mercury emission

pursuant to 35 lAC Part 225, by the applicable dates

specified by theses rules.

b. This permit does not affect the authorizations in existing

operating permits for the affected boilers, pursuant to 35 lAC

201.149, 201.161 and 201.262, that allow the Permittee:

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 3

i.

To operate an affected boiler in violation of certain state

emission standards during startup of the boiler or the

terms and conditions that accompanied such authorization.

ii.

To continue to operate an affected boiler in violation of

certain state emission standards during malfunction or

breakdown of the boiler, including control devices and

ancillary systems, or the terms and conditions that

accompanied such authorization.

1.4

Future Applicable Emission Rate under the Consent Decree

a.

The PM emission rate of each affected boiler shall be no greater

than:

i.

The limit specified in Paragraph 86 of the Decree, i.e.,

0.030 lb/mmBtu, by no later than December 31, 2008; or

ii.

The limit set in accordance with Paragraph 88 of the Decree

by the applicable date set under Paragraph 88.

'Note: The PM emission rate for the affected boilers pursuant to the

Decree, when it takes effect, will be more stringent than the

applicable state emission standard(s) for PM. Emission testing

conducted to determine compliance with these limits shall use methods

and procedures as specified in Paragraph 90 of the Decree.

Paragraph 88_of the Decree provides'for a PM limit higher than 0.030

lb/mrnBtu to be set for a Unit pursuant to a Pollution Control Upgrade

Analysis that is prepared and completed by the Permittee and approved

by/USEPA and other parties to the Decree)

1.5

Compliance Assurance Monitoring for PM

As provided by 40 CFR 64.5(a) (2), if the Permittee applies for a

significant modification of the CAAPP Permit for the source to include

the new control systems for the affected boilers, the Permittee shall

submit a compliance assurance monitoring (CAM) plan in accordance with

40 CFR Part 64, Compliance Assurance Monitoring for the boilers, to

the extent that it would be a pollutant-specific emissions unit for

which the proposed permit revision is applicable.

1.6

Work Practices and Operational Requirements

a.

i.

The Permittee shall operate and maintain each PM control

device on each affected boiler in accordance with

Paragraphs 83 and 87 of the Decree:

Note: Paragraphs 83 and 87 of the Decree generally require

that PM control devices be operated to maximize PM emission

reductions at all times when Unit(s) are in operation to

the extent reasonably practicable and specify certain

minimum operating and maintenance practices that the

Permittee must implement for this purpose.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 4

ii.

The Permittee shall operate and maintain the ESP on each

affected boiler in accordance with Paragraph 84 of the

Decree.

Note: Paragraph 84 of the Decree requires that the

Permittee implement the practices recommended by the PM

Emission Control Optimization 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. If an affected boiler is subject to a limit for PM set

pursuant to Paragraph 88 of the Decree, as addressed in

Condition 1.4(a) (ii), the Permittee shall operate the

affected boiler and associated PM control equipment in

accordance with Paragraph 88(c) of the Decree.

iv.

The permittee shall operate and maintain each affected

boiler and unit, 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).

b.

The ductwork for the affected boilers shall not include "bypass

ducts" that would enable the flue gas from the boiler to bypass

the baghouse system.

1.7

Testing Requirements

a.

i.

The Permittee shall have testing conducted to measure PM

emissions from each affected boiler on a periodic bass

consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 89 and 119 of

the Decree with respect to the timing of PM emission tests.

ii.

The Permittee shall also have PM measurements conducted for

the PM emissions from the affected boiler(s) 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 PM 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 fot PM testing to

determine compliance with the applicable PM emission

standards and limitation shall be in accordance with

Paragraph 90 of the Decree.

B.

In conjunction with such measurements, measurements

of condensable PM shall also be conducted by USEPA

Method 202 (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M) or other

established test method approved by the Illinois EPA.

c.

Except for minor deviations

in

test methods, as defined by 35 lAC

283.130, PM emission testing shall be conducted in accordance

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

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

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 lAC

283.220 and 283.230. The Permittee shall submit this test plan

at least 60 days prior to the actual date of testing.

d.

The Permittee shall notify the Illinois EPA prior to conducting

PM emission tests 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 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 schedule, including a description of any minor

deviations from the test plan, as provided by 35 lAC

283.230(a) .

v.

Detailed description of operating conditions during

testing, including:

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) .

B.

Combustion system information, i.e., settings for

distribution of primary and secondary combustion

air,

settings for O

2

concentration in the

boiler,

and

levels of CO in the flue gas, if determined by any

diagnostic measurements.

C.

Control equipment information, i.e., equipment

condition and operating parameters during testing,

including any use of the flue gas conditioning

system.

D.

Load during testing (megawatt output) .

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 6

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

sheets and records of laboratory analyses, sample

calculations, and data on equipment calibration.

viii. The 802, NO

x

,

O2 or CO

2

,

(hourly averages) and opacity data

(6-minute averages) measured during testing.

Note: This permit does not affect the requirements for emission

testing contained in the existing permits for the source. It also

does not address requirements under the Decree that may be applicable

to PM emission tests.

1.8

Monitoring Requirements.

a.

The Permittee shall install, operate, and maintain continuous

monitoring equipment for operation of each sorbent injection

system, i.e., rate of injection of sorbent.

b.

The Permittee shall install, operate and maintain continuous

monitoring equipment to measure the following operating

parameters of each 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) .

c.

The Permittee shall comply with all applicable requirements of 35

lAC Part 225 related to monitoring of mercury emissions from the

affected boilers.

Note: This permit does not affect the requirements for monitoring

contained in the existing permits for the source.

1.9-1 Recordkeeping Requirements for the Coal Supply for the Affected Boilers

a.

The Permittee shall comply with all applicable requirements of 35

lAC Part 225 related to sampling and analysis of the coal supply

to the affected boilers for its mercury content.

b.

The Permittee shall keep

reco~ds

of the mercury and heat content

of the coal supply to the affected boilers, with supporting data

for the associated sampling and analysis methodology, so as to

have representative data for the mercury content of the coal

supply to the boilers to accompany mercury emission data

collected for the boilers.

The analysis of the coal for mercury

content shall be conducted using appropriate A8TM Methods as

specified in 35 lAC Part 225.

Note: This permit does not affect the recordkeeping requirements

contained in the existing permits for the source.

1.9-2 Records for Control Devices and Control Equipment

The Permittee shall maintain the following records for the new baghouse

system and sorbent injection system on the affected boilers:

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page?

a.

i.

Logs for the Baghollse Systems

A.

An operating log or other records for each baghouse

system that, at a minimum:

(1) Identifies the trigger

for bag cleaning, e.g., manual, timer, or pressure droPi

(2) Identifies each period when the 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; and (4) Specifically documents the

implementation of the operating procedures related to the

baghouse that are required to be or are otherwise

implemented pursuant to Condition 1.6(a).

B.

Maintenance and repair log or other records for each

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 that are required

to be or are otherwise performed pursuant to

Condition 1.6(a}.

ii.

Logs for the Sorbent Injection System

A.

An operating log or other records for each system that,

at a minimum: (1) identify the sorbent that is being

used, the setting(s) for sorbent injection rate and each

period of time when the affected boiler was

in

operation

and the system was also being operated, and (2)

specifically documents the implementation of the

operating procedure's related to the sorbent injection

that are required to be or are otherwise implemented

pursuant to Condition 1.6(b) ..

B.

Maintenance and repair log or other records for each

system that, at a minimum, list the activities

performed, with date and description.

b.

PM Emission Control Planning

i.

The following records related to the procedures and

practices for control of PM emissions from the affected

boilers:

A.

A record, which shall be kept up to date, identifying

the specific operating procedures and maintenance

practices (including procedures and practices

specifically related to startups and

malfunction/breakdown incidents) currently being

implemented by the Permittee for each affected boiler

and Unit and associated PM control equipment to

satisfy Condition 1.6(a). These procedures and

practices are referred to as the "PM Control Plan" in

this permit.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 8

B.

Accompanying this record, the Permittee shall

maintain a demonstration showing that the above PM

Control Plan fulfills the requirements of Condition

1.6(a}, as applicable.

ii.

Copies of the records required by Conditions 1.9-2(b) (i)

shall be submitted to the Illinois EPA upon request.

iii. Accompanying the records required by Conditions

°

1

.

9

-

2(b)

(i~,

a file containing a qopy of all correspondence and

other written material exchanged with USEPA that addresses

the procedures and practices that must be implemented

pursuant to Paragraphs 83, 84 and 87 of the Decree. This

file shall be retained for at least three years after the

permanent shutdown of both affected Units.

c.

Specific Records for the Sorbent Injection Systems

During the period before recordkeeping is required for usage of

sorbent pursuant to 35 lAC Part 225, the usage of sorbent (lbs)

and average sorbent injection rate of each system (lbs/operating

hour), on a monthly basis.

Note: This permit does not affect the recordkeeping requirements for

the existing control systems that are contained in the existing permits

for the source.

1.9-3

Records for Continuous Monitoring Systems

a. The Permittee shall maintain operating records for the continuous

monitoring systems required by Condition 1.B that, at a minimum,

include:

i.

Measured data.

ii.

Performance evaluations and other quality assurance/control.

activities, including calibration checks and maintenance

and adjustment performed.

iii. Periods other than performance of routine quality

assurance, calibration, and maintenance, as addressed

above, when the monitor was inoperative, with reason.

iv.

Quarterly reports submitted in accordance with Condition

1.1.10-2

(a) •

Note: This permit does not affect the recordkeepoing requirements for

the continuous opacity monitoring systems ono the affected boilers that

are contained in the existing permits for the source.

1.9-4 Other Recordkeeping Requirements

a.

Summary Records Related to the PM Control Plan

The Permittee shall maintain the following records for each

incident when applicable action(s) required pursuant to the PM

Control Plan were not taken for an affected boiler or Unit:

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 9

i.

The date of the incident.

ii.

A description of the incident, including the required

action(s) that were "not taken; other actions or mitigation

measures that were taken, if any; and the likely

consequences of the incident.s as related to emissions.

iii. The time at and means by which the incident was identified.

iv.

The length of time after the incident was identified before

required action(s) were taken or were no longer required

and an explanation why this time was not shorter, including

a discussion of the timing of any mitigation measures that

were taken for the incident.

v.

The estimated total duration of the incident, i.e., the

total length of time that the affected boiler ran without

the required action(s) being taken.

vi.

A discussion of the probable cause of the incident and any

preventative measures taken.

vii. A discussion whether any applicable PM emission standards or

limits, as listed in Conditions 1.3, 1.4 or 1.6, may have

been violated, either during or as a result of the incident,

with" supporting explanation.

b.

Records Related to Mercury Emissions

i.

The Permittee shall comply with all applicable

recordkeeping requirements of 35 IAC Part 225 related to

control of mercury emissions from the affected boilers.

ii.

During the period before the Permittee is required to

conduct monitoring for the mercury emissions of the

affected boilers pursuant to 35 lAC Part 225, the Permittee

shall maintain records of emission data for mercury

collected for the affected boilers by the Permittee,

including emissions (micrograms per cubic meter, pounds per

hour, or pounds per million Btu) and control efficiency for

different modes of operation of the boilers and sorbent

injection system, with identification and description of

the mode of operations.

1.10-1 Reporting Requirements -' Reporting of Deviations

a.

Prompt Reporting of Deviations

For the affected boilers, the Permittee shall promptly notify the

Illinois EPA of deviations from permit requirements as.follows.

At a minimum, these notifications shall include a description of

such deviations, including whether they occurred during startup

or malfunction/breakdown, and a discussion of the possible cause

of such deviations, any corrective actions and any preventative

measures taken.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 10

i.

Immediate notification for a deviation from requirements

related to PM emissions

if

the deviation is accompanied by

the failure of two or more compartments in the baghouse

system.

ii.

Notification with the quarterly reports required by

Condition 1.10-2(a) for deviations not addressed above,

including deviations from other applicable requirements,

e.g., work practice requirements, required operating

procedures, required maintenance practices, and

recordkeeping requirements.

b.

Periodic Reporting of Deviations

The quarterly reports required by Condition 1.10-2(a) shall

include the following information for the affected boilers

related to deviations from permit requirements during the

quarter.

i.

A listing of all instances of deviations that have been

reported in writing to the Illinois EPA as provided by

Condition 1.10-1(a) (i), including identification of each

such written notification or report. For this purpose, the

Permittee need not resubmit copies of these previous

notifications or reports but may elect to supplement such

material.

.

ii.

Detailed information, as required by Condition 1.10-

1(a) (ii), for all other deviations.

Note: This permit does not affect the requirements for reporting of

deviations contained in the existing permits for the source.

1.10-2 Reporting Requirements - Periodic Reporting

a. Quarterly Reports

The Permittee shall submit quarterly reports to the Illinois EPA.

i.

These reports shall include a summary of information

recorded during the quarter pursuant to Conditions 1.9-4(a)

and

(b).

ii.

These reports shall include the information for the

affected boilers related to deviations during the quarter

specified by Condition 1.10-1(b).

iii. These reports shall be submitted within 45 days after the

end of each calendar quarter. For example, the quarterly

report for the first quarter, i.e., January, February and

March, shall be submitted by May 15.

Note: This permit does not affect the requirements for quarterly

reporting contained in the existing permits for the source.

1.11

Authorization for Operation

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page

11

The Permittee may operate each affected boiler with the new baghouse

system and sorbent injection system 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 Patel

or Christopher Romaine at 217/782-2113.

Edwin C. Bakowski, P.E.

Acting Manager, Permit Section

Division of Air Pollution Control

ECB:CPR:KMP:

cc:

Region 2

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

.STATE OF ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

P. O. BOX 19506

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-9506

STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION/DEVELOPMENT PERMITS

ISSUED BY THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .AGENCY

July 1,

1~85

The Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 111.112, 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:

8. to enter the permittee'sproperty where actual or potential effluent, emission or noise sources are located 01'

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. rfhe issuance of this permit:

a.

b.

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

facilities are to be located,

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 lawa, ordinances and regulations,

Printed on Recycled Peper

090-005

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

Il 532-0226

APe 166 Rev. 5/99

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

e. in no manner implies or suggests that the Agency (or ita officers, agenta or employees) assumes any liability,

directly or indirectly, for any 1088 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 opel'stioll 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 Bpecif'ied by a special permit condition, the equip-

ment 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, misinformati.on or false statements

Dr that all relevant facts were not disclosed, or

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

c. upon any violations of the Environmental Protection Act 01' any regulation effective thereunder as a result of

the construction or development authorized by this permit.

,-----------_._--

------_._----------(

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

DIRECTORY

ENV.IHONNENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

" BUREAU OF'AIR

.... IIiLIiRr

62234

Illinois

EPA

Region 1

Bureau of air, FOS

9511 West Harrison

Des Plaines, Illinoi8-bOOI6

847/294-4000

Illinois

EPA

Region 2

5415 North University

Pel?ria, Illinois 61614-":

309/693-5463" .

Iilinois

EPA',

Region 3

2009 Mall Street,..

Collinsville, Illinois

618/346-5120

Illinois Environmental Protection

.Ag~ncy

Division of Air.Pollut10n.Control

Permit Section

1021 N.'Grand Ave 'K•.

P:"O~B~X'.,19S06,:,

.

.,'

.

. .

Sprin~fl~ld,

Illinois 62794-9506

For assistance in preparing a permit

application contact the Permit

Section.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1021 NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST, P.O. Box 19506, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-9506

-

(217) 782-2113

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, GOVERNOR

DOUGLAS P. Scon, DIRECTOR

217/782-2113

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT

PERMITTEE

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.

Attn: Rick Diericx

2828 North Monroe Street

Decatur, Illinois 62526

1.0. No.: 155010AAA

Date Received:

February 14, 2007

Injection Systems for Units 1 and 2

Application No.:

07020036

Applicant's Designation:

Subject:

Baghouses and Sorbent

Date Issued:

May 29, 2007

Location:

Hennepin Power Station, 13498 East 800 Street, Hennepin

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

equipment consisting of baghouses and sorbent injection systems for the Unit

1 and 2 Boilers, 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 the construction of two baghouses and two

sorbent injection systems (one baghouse and sorbent injection

system for each of the two existing boilers), to supplement the

existing emission control system on each boiler. The new

baghouse systems and sorbent injection systems would further

process the flue gas from each of the two existing coal-fired

boilers, which are both equipped with electrostatic precipitators

(ESP). This permit also authorizes installation of new induced

draft fans on each boiler (one for Unit 1 and two for Unit 2) to

overcome the additional pressure drop from these new control

systems and associated ductwork, which fans will replaces the

existing induced draft fans on each boiler.

b.

i.

This permit is issued based on this project being an

emissions control project, whose purpose and effect will be

to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and mercury

from the existing boilers 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 boilers except as

specifically indicated.

ii.

This permit is issued based on the receiving, storage and

handling of sorbent for the new sorbent injection systems

qualifying as an insignificant activity, with annual

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 2

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 sorbent.

c.

This permit does not authorize any modifications to the existing

boilers or generating units, which would increase capacity or

potential emissions.

d.

This permit does not affect requirements for the affected boilers

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-MJR,

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.

An "affected boiler" for the purpose of these unit-specific

conditions is an existing coal-fired boiler at this source after

the initial startup of the new emission control systems, as

described in Condition 1.1.

b.

For purposes of certain conditions related to the Decree, each

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

50

of the Decree,.....

wfi.:i:.eh

defineD a

"Un~

t" to mean coll:-E::-eH-v-c'-±-y,..

the boiler that produce steam for the steam turbine (i.c., an

affected boiler), the coal pulverizer, stationary equipment that

feeds .-eeal t.o the boil-er-,-the steam turbine, the qenerator, the

equipment necessary to operate the generator, steam turbine and

b-o-i-l-eI:",-a-FT8:- a2.1-......a-ncill ary equipment, including po

1

l-l:l:4:,..iBfT- contro.±

eq~~ipn.ent

.

1.3

Applicable Emission Standards for the Affected Boilers

a.

i.

The affected boilerD shall comply H::"th applicab2.e emission

standards under Title 35, Subtitle B, Chapter I, Subchapter

:::: of the Il::.. :i.no.::.. ::

l\dm.:i.n.:i..

strat::.vc Code, as addres::cd in

e:nist~

ng permits for the affected

boilers.

ii.

Th.e a:ffc::::ted bO.::.. lc;rs .3tal1 comp.::.. )'

,,".:~

.. t.h :::pp.L.:i.. cab.::.. c emi.JD:l.:)n

standards and requirements related to mercury emission

pttL'SC'::H:t to 35 lAC Part 225, by the applicabJ:...e.--Ei.at.ec

specified by theses rules.

b.

!f!.fH:-B--i-7e:Fffi-i.4::.-.

does not affect the authori zat ions in exi ctifif":t

operating parmits for the affected boilarD, pursuant to 35 lAC

201 . .1 49 , 2 01 . .1 61 and 2 0.1 . 2 6.= , t hat al

'

m J

t

haPa rm

~

t

tee:

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 3

i.

To operate an affected boiler in violation of certain state

emi s s i-en--&t-aftEia r d 0 du r i no gotart up () f tJ:.c be i :l-er---e-r---t-.fi0

terFcs and eCiod:i.t.:i.ons t.hat accompanied such i.1ut.hcr-::.::::at.::'on.

ii.

To continue to operate an 3ffcctcd

bo~ler

in violation of

certain state emission standards during malfunction or

breakdmm cf the boiler,

~ Lel~Jding

eontro 1 dcvicc3 and

an,c±±-:±:-ary--&y-s-t-em-s,-E7£--tfte-t0£-ffi sand

3+J-f+EH:-t-:i--eTT~t.,.

accompanied such authorization.

1.4

Future Applicable Emission Rate under the Consent Decree

a.

The PM emission rate of each affected boiler shall be no greater

than:

i.

The limit specified in Paragraph 86 of the Decree, i.e.,

0.030 1b/mmBtu, by no later than December 31, 2008y-er

ii.

Trw

lim~

t set in accor4afte-e 'vvit11 Paragraph 88 of the Decree

by the applicable date oct under Paragraph 88.

N-.:rl:.-E.""--!-.....-4.w0-..-flM-errri-s

i3 i

oft·-I~a-t-~:.......tfte-

a f f e 3

t-ed

b 0 i 1 c

r.:..s--f1+~

r s

ua

n

t

:t.o--...:E-h-e

Dc.crce, vq'h.en i tt:a]ces et fc;ct. ,',J.:i.ll be more st r::Lcqent. tLan tbe

applicable otate

emis~ion

otandard(s) for PH.

Emission testing

-S:LQ-f-rf.:i.ttE:;.t-{~j.-t-e--d.

c t

e:r.:.rfri.n.e

C omp1 i a no c e

'v J

i

t

11 the ::J elimit s

[3 hall

u-s-e--me-t..fTt:.~f3­

and procedures as specified in Paragraph 90 of the Decree.

PGragraph 8B of the De3ree provides for a

p~q

1

imit higher than Ch-G-3-G

Ib/mmBtu t.O be ;Jct. for

i.1.

Unit pursuant to a PolJution Csnt.rCiI 9pgradc

Analysis that is prepared and completed by the

Perm~ttee

aRd approved

ey--U8EP1\ and other partc:i.-e-s to the DC3r-ee+

1.5

Comp1.i.ance

l\ssaran-:~e

Nonitoring for PH

A-&--p-r-ETV·-i-fj.ed--by-4~-€i4

. 5

~

a) (2),

i f t. h e Perm

i

t t-ee---a.-pp±-i-es--f.e.:F-a

significant. modif.:-e::aLi..on of the CPu,\PP Permit for tLe soarce to include

thc ne\l cORtrol systems for the affected boilers, the Permittec shall

Dubm.:i.t :::: com.p:l.:iance a.3E3UranCe monitorinq

(C]\:~4)

pJ..anin accordc:nce T,J::.th

4ft

eFt<. PClrt 64, Compl

i

ance

!:"SS~lrance

Honitoring for the boi:ers, to the

-e*i::-ef!-t:---t-fta.t-it. '9JQuld be a pollutant rJpecific emissions un

i

t for wh-:L-E::"'fl

the proposed permit revisi.on is applicable.

1.6

Work Practices and Operational Requirements

a.

i.

The Permittee shall operate and maintain eac:L PH control

device on each affected boiler in accordance \"it.h

ParagrapLs 83 and 87 of tbe Decree:

Note:

Paragraphs 83 and 87 of the Dccree generally require

that

P~4

cont:co1. device::: be c)perated to

R~a}(:i.mize

rtq

c;rn::.3.J.:i.on

reductj ens

at

a:~.1

t.:.mes T,,'hen Or.it

is)

ere in operat.ion to

t-h€--·-E:~-t-ent-·Tf:...:>.-Q-&O-fTa:f:7±..T-t)-r-a-et..,..i-eab

1 c

~)-e-e±-fT

c e or t-a-±n

minimum operating and maintenance practices that the

Permittec must implement for this purposc.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 4

ii.

The Permittee shall operate and maintain the ESP en each

a-H--eet~-i-±-er

inac

c c

rdar~c

E...""----wi.Hl Pa r

a

(3"-r~

84

0 f -t-fre.

Decree.

Note:

Paragraph 84 of the Decree requires that the

Permit.tee impJ.ement the pract.::_ees recommended

by

t.he;

pg

Emission Control Optimi

7

ation Studies performed in

a'.3cordan.:::c 'vdth Paragraph

84

of the Decree or other

alternative actions approved by USEPA in accordance

~;ith

Paragraph

84

of the Decree, unless the

cr~ter~on ~n

Paragraph 87 of the Decree that lift this requirement have

been

oatisf~ed.

iii.

.f.!--a-n---a-f4'-e€-t-ee---B-e± 1 C I"

is

0

~s"-t---tt~-+iffi..i-~r

........

P.M--o-et.

pursuant to Paragraph 88 of the Decree, as addressed in

Condition 1.4(a; (iil, the Permittee 3hcll operate the

affected bO::.. le.r and a:.:;soc:iat:.ed

P~4

cont:::rol

cq-:.~.:iprnent

in

accordance 'dith Paragraph

88

(c) of

t:r~c

Decree.

iv.

Thc Permittee shall operate and maintain each affected

boiler aLd Unit, and a:30oeiated

a4

control equipment

~

n

ac.:::ordance 'vlith the PH contro

1

p:±-afi-rnclintained by the

Permittee pursuant to Condition 1. 9 2 (b) (i)

(I'd.

b.

ll'he

duet~v'Ork

for the affected boilers shall

n(~~-..!!.l:ryrf:7frS·f.3­

ducts"

t:r~at

",auld enable the fl:Je gas from thc boiler to bypa3s

the baghouse system.

1.7

Testing Requirements

a.

i.

The Permittee shall have testing conducted to measure PM

emissions from each affected boiler on a periodic bass

consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 89 and 119 of

the Decree with respect to the timing of PM emission tests.

ii.

The Permittee shall also have PM measurements conducted for

the PM emissions from the affected boiler(s) 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 PM measurements shall be performed in the maximum

operating range of the affected boiler and otherv:i3e under

representative operating conditions.

ii.

A.

The methods and procedures used for PM testing to

determine compliance with the applicable PM emission

standards and limitation shall be in accordance with

Paragraph 90 of the Decree.

B.

In conj Bnct 'ion 'dith sash me3suremcnts, meGSUrcmeLts

e4......-ee-rraefl-5+.A1-l-e........:p.£JJ.-s-f'i-fr±±---a-l D0 be cor:.

:.:i-ttet-ee.--i::ry-tJ&&P-A

Hethod

;2

02

(

1

10

erR

Part 51, Appendi.:H N) or other

established test method approved by the

Ill~nois EP~.

c.

Except for minor deviations in test methods, as defined by 35 lAC

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,

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 5

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

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

283.220 and 283.230. The Permittee shall submit this test plan

at least 60 days prior to the actual date of testing.

d.

The Permittee shall notify the Illinois EPA prior to conducting

PM emission tests 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 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 schedule, including a description of any minor

deviations from the test plan, as provided by 35 lAC

283.230(a) .

v.

Detailed description of operating conditions during

tC3ting,

~ncluding:

A.

Operating information for the affected boiler, l.e.,

firing rate of each boiler (million Btu/hr) and

e-efflf7E'fri-t-i-f)n 0

f f

u c 1 a s burned (a E3 h , E3 U 1ffi:r:---a-rn..'i he a

t

':::ontent) .

B.

Combust

~

on system infonnation, i. c., settiEgs for

distribution of primary and secondary combustion air,

settings for

O~ cGncen~ration

in the boiler, and

levels of CO in the flue gas, if determined by any

diagnostic measurements.

C.

Control equipment informaticn, i.e., equipment

condition and operating parametcrs during tcsting,

.i"frE-:L"J:.ti4± n g an}"

tte-e--6 f t

1':c flu e 9

:~:

s c G-R-El-i-tch:n+:1:-nfJ

syst:.cm.

D.

bf'~~~ga'Ylatt

outpttt+.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 6

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

sheets and records of laboratory analyses, sample

calculations, and data on equipment calibration.

viii. The SO.,cT-NG.",,...G;;:,; or

CO~.,

(hcurly averages) and opacity data

(6 minute averages) measured during testing.

Note: This permit docs not affect the requirements for emission testing

contained in the Cltisting permits for the source. It also does not

address requirements under the Decree that may be applicable to Pe1

emis::.>:-on tests.

1.8

Monitoring Requirements,

a.

!:p..

Ftc.::..-.I?-eT.Rtittce--s-R-all in.stall, operate, and mc:intain contir:"1±G-H5

monitoring equipment for operation of each Gorhent inject:-on

system, i.e., rate of injection of sorhent.

b.

The Permittee shall install, operate and maintain continuous

monitoring equipment to measure the following operating

parameters of each 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) .

c.

The Pc.:rm:i.. ttee shall somply 'dith all. app.licab.le

requ.:~

.. refflcnts of 35

lAC Part 225 related to monitoring of mercury emissions from the

a4fseted boilers.

2Jote: This permit does not affect the requirements for monitoring

cor:tained .. in

thc.~-s-t:-ing

permits for the

rJouree.

1.9-1 ResordlEeeping Requirements for the Coal Supply for the Affected Boilers

a.

!f.l-re........Pe.rrrrl-t:-t.,.e.e--f3hall comply ,,<'ith all Qf1f.71icabL.:. requ

i

r-emE.~*·--3-§.

lAC Part 225 related to sampling and analysis of the coal supply

to the affected boilers for its mercury content.

b.

Th.e

PC;:;~'Fflittee

sha:~

..

l.

keep reco::::-ds of the mercur'y and heat. content.

of the coal supply to the affected boilers, ?lith supporting data

for the associated sampling and analysis methodology, so as to

have representative data for the mercury content of the coal

5-Ut7p-l-y-.t.o the boiler::.> to accompc::ny mercury emirJsion data

collected for the boilers. The analysis of the coal for mercury

content shall be conducted using appropriate ASTM Methods as

specified in 35 TAG Part 225.

Note: This permit does not affect the recordkecping requirements

ee-n-t:ca-i-fl-e"'J:..--i-rr-t-f+C.~

':'1

ting permit.

':'1

for

the

oS 0

u r e

Q--;-

1.9-2 Records for Control Devices and Control Equipment

The Permittee shall maintain the following records for the new baghouse

system and sorbent injection system on the affected boilers:

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 7

a.

i.

Logs for the Baghouse Systems

A.

An operating log or other records for each 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 the

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 explanationT-afi6

(4) Specifically documents the implementutioR of the

operating proeedures relat.ed to the

baghou.:.~e

.....:EiTa-t.:---a-Fe

required to be or are otherh'ise imp2.emented

paL3~.lGnt

to Condition 1.6(a).

B.

Maintenance and repair log or other records for each

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 that are required

to be or arc othendse performed

purS~Elnt

to

Condition 1.6(a).

ii.

Logs for the Sorbent Injection System

A.

AR operating log or other records for each syst-em

that, at a minimum: (1) identify the sorhent that is

being used, the setting(s) for sorbent injection rate

and ea.ch period of t.ime 'vlh.en the affected. boiler vws

in operation and the 3ystem Has also being operated,

and

(2)

.specifically doellRlents the implementat-i-f-.:7Ft--E4

the operating procedures related to the sorbent

inj ection that are required to be or are otheniise

implemented pursua.nt to Condition

1.6(b) ..

B.

Maintenance and repair log or other records for each

system that, at a minimum, list the activities

performed, with date and description.

b.

P~(I

Emif3sion Control Planning

i.

The follml'lng records related to the procedures and

practices for cont.rol of PH emissions from the affeet-eEi:

boi2.ers:

A.

l\

record, ..,'hieh shall be kept up to date, identi fYHrg

the specific operating procedures and maintenance

practices (including procedures and practices

specifically relat.ed to startups and

mCtlfunction/breakdovm incidents) currently being

implemented by the Permittee for each affected beiler

and Unit and associated PM control equipment to

satisfy Condition 1.6(a). These procedures and

pract.:i..ccs are referred to ac; t.he

"P~4

Control PJ.or:" i.n

thi. 3

perm:.t.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 8

B.

Accompanying this record, the Permittee shall

ma-:i:rrt-a-:i-n-a-- d em

0

n

:..~

t r

at±eR-'3..fl0 r, "ing-t...fta.t:--4:cfTe--af7€.wt..........p.fvi

Control Plan fulfills the requirements of Condition

1.6(a), as applicable.

ii.

Cop::.es c:f the records req'-.Li.red

b~i

CondiLion:.:; 1. 9

~?

(h) (i)

sha'l be submitted to the Illinois EPA upon request.

iii. Accompanying the records required by Conditions 1.9

2(b) (i), a file containing a copy of all correspondence and

other 'drittcc. mat:.::r-i al exchanged '9i'itL USEPl'l: t.hat-:-addrcGse-s

the procedures and practices that ffWSt be implemented

pursuant to Paragraphs 83, 84 and 87 of the Decree.

This

file shall he retained for at least three years after the

permanent shutdmm of both affected

Units.

c.

Specif:i.. c Eeco::::.ds for the Borbent Inj eetion System:.:;

Our

~

ng the period before record:ceeping

~

s required for usage of

sorhent pursuant to 35 lAC Part 225, the usage of Gorhent (lbs)

and average sorbcnt injection rate of each system (lb%perating

fi.e.u:.r), on a month'y baDie.

Note: This permit docs not affect the record]cecping requirements for

the eEisting contro' systems that are contained in the eHisting permits

fo:r:.the

:::ouree.

1.9-3 Records for Continuous Monitoring Systems

a.

The Permittee shall maintain operating records for the continuous

monitoring systems required by Condition 1.8 that, at a minimum,

include:

i.

Measured data.

ii.

.fleI:..f-e-:FHta-r+ee evaluat::"ofls and other

quali~

assuranee/cont:.roJ., act.iv:i.. ticG, :i.nclud.:i.. ng cal:i.. hrat::.. on chc,cies

and maintenance and adjustment performed.

iii. Periods other than performance of routine quality

assurance,

calibrat~on,

and maintenance, as addressed

a h

0

ve

,

-wh-en-- the

rHO

nit

0

r r,

i

as in

0

pt"-rttt:: i ve , '9 i'

i

t41.-r-e+...l-S-&fh-.

iv.

Quarterly reports submitted in accordance r,iith Condition

hl-.±..O-:2:-.+a+....

Note: This permit does not affect the recordlceeping requirements for

t..fl-t.........

e·e·H·t.,.i-·Ft-tteU·fr-~i-t:-y--nk:rn±-t..,.e-r

i n g

.s ys

t errrs--err-t-h

e a

f f

c~~-oo

i

±c r

D

-t-R-i.:H:-

are

':;cnta::.ned in the eHisting permits for the

source.

1.9-4 Other Recordkeeping Requirements

a.

SUfn:ma

:r.y

Records Rc.l3ted to t.he PH Control Plan

The Permittee shall maintain the follo\Jing records for each

:inc::.. dc;r:t:.

l;;'h~:::n apF:~.::i.cahJ.c

aet.ion (-3) requirc,d purs'-.lant. to t.h.e 12£q

Centrol Plan 'dere not taken for an affected boiler or Unit:

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 9

i.

The date of the incident.

ii.

11 de::.wr

i

ption of the

~flcident,

includiEg the

requ~-rea

action(s) that Here not taken; other actions or mitigation

measures that h'ere taken, if any; and the lil:ely

conscqucnces of the incidents as related to cmissions.

iii.

The time at and means by h'hich the incident ',idS

identi:~

eel.

ivy

The lcngth of timc after the inci.dent ';Jas identified befo::::-e

required action (s)

~Jere

taken or Here no 2.ongcr required

and an c){plana.t:::.on '\1hy th.is t.::"mc; 'IJas not short.er, inc::uujinq

a discussion of the timing of any mitigation measures that

we-re-taken for the incident.

v.

The estimated total duration of the incident, i.e., the

total length of time that the affected boiler ran

w~thout

UCle rcq'-.li:r.ed action (s) beinq taken.

vi.

Z\

d~ CcuGs~on

of the probable causc of the

incider~t

and-any

preventati ve Fnea::ures

take,n.

vii.

1\

eli ::.>cl.:s::.> ion ',Jhether any

appl~cable

Pi'q

emirJsion st.a-fT6z.a.r.6.S

or limits, as listed in Conditions 1.3,

1.Q

or 1.6, may

have been

v~olated, e~ther

during or as a result of the

:inc

~ derTt,-w-i-~f'F":rrt::--i

ng c

=:p±af'ta4:;.-i.frf+.,

b.

R.ecords R.elated to

~qercury

Emissions

i.

r.!.'h.e Pc:rrnittee E3hal.1. cornp.ly 'vJitL all appJicablc

recordkecping requirements of 35 I!\C Part 225 related to

.ee-ntrol of mer3ury emi::.>sions from the

affcct{,.~.

ii.

Durj.ng the period before the Permittee is required to

eor:duct

mor~

i

toring for the mercury

cmi::.>sior~s--e-f-.....t,.f:te

affected boilers pursuant to 35 lAC Part 225, the Permittee

shall maintain records of emission data for mercury

C~).l::

.. e

eted

for the at f ::-,cted boi .ler:::; by the Fermi t.tcc ,

inc'.uding emissions (micrograms per cubic metcr, pounds per

.J::re..1:1r, or pound::.> per million- Btu) end ccntrc:rl-e-f..He-i-e.FtE:ry-...f-G-I'

different modes of operation of the boilers and sorbent

inj cction sY3ton, \Jith

~

dentification and deser:'ption of

the mode of operations.

1.10-1

Reporting Requirements

Reporting of

Dev~ations

a.

P::::-ompt Reporting of Deviations

For the affected boilers, the Permittee shall promptly notify the

+l+.i nois "8£11\ of dcv

i

atior:s from permit requ

i

rcments as fe-l-l:-QW-S--;-

At a minimum, these

notificat~ons

shall include a description of

f:'H±€fi--e.~-i-ofl::.>

,

inc

1

u din g ',Jhc the r

the y-

0 C

3U r r e

~-n-g-&t:-r.Tr-t-ttf7

or

R~a.J.func·~~ion/brea>:dmrn,

and a d.:i...::;cus.:ion of th.e pODsible cau:::;c

of such deviations, any corrective actions and any prevcntative

me-a-&ttl::es--..t-a-k-t':::f't-o

i.

Immediate notification for a deviation from rcquirements

.r-E;)..l.a-t:-ee..--t.:-o-._-PM--c'"ffi±.5

::.>

ion::.~

i

...f-...

t-fl.e-u-Eiev-i-a.Htrfi---:i:-.g.-.a-eef'.Jffif7aH.h'7El:--B-y

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 10

the faL>:1re of t'iW or more compartments in "t_he

bagho~':3e

&y-s4:-€ffto

ii.

~Jotific-::ttion

'ii'itrt the

q~Jarterly

reports required by

Condition 1.10 2(a) for deviations not addressed above,

including deviations from other applicable requirements,

e.g., 'dork practice requirements, required operating

ft"FB-et'"t+ttr-e-S-, required mai ntenancc pr-actices,

--aTt€l:

reco.cikeeping

requirement3.

b .

-P-er-i-e-d-i-f::---Rep 0 yo

t :.

n

9

0

f De v

~

at

i

0

frs

The quarterly reports required by Condition 1.10 2(a) shall

-in.::;2xde- the fol2-mving information for t.f'tC affe3ted

bo~

lers

related to devlati.ons from permit requirements during the

q~.1arter

.

i.

A listing of all instances of deviatiens that have been

reported ::.n "ritlng to the I11ino.:.s

EPT!

a3

provided by

Con d it

i ()

F: 1. 1 0 1 (..a) (i),

in.::;

±ttEJ:.i.f~-HJen-t-i.f-i-e-at:-±-o

n

0 f

c-a-efi

s\L>h

'vo'T::.

tten notif i.cat :i_oR or report.

For this

p~lrpC'se,

the

Permittee need not resubmit copies of these previous

notifications or reports but may sleet to supplemsnt such

material.

.

ii.

Detailed infoERation, as required

by

Condition

i..10-"} (a)

(ii),

for all other deviations.

Note: This permit does not affect the requirements for reporting

of deviations contained in the existing permits for the source.

1.10-2

a.

Reporting Requirements - Periodic Reporting

Quarterly Reports

i.

Th.ese repc)::::-t:'3 shall :i.nc.1Gde a sumrcary of ::.r:form-.::t.ioc

recorded during the quarter pursuant to Conditions 1.9 4(a)

-frfre----t-e-+-.

ii.

These reports shall include the information for the

-a-H-e-E..-~O

yoe2-ated t.o deviations during th-e-.....

f.fl:l:iH::.t-e-r-

specified by Condition 1.10 l(b).

iii.

lfhece report.s shall be submitt.ed Hith

~

n 4

§.--4ays--a-f.t.-f.:.."'"r--t--fte-

end of each c.alendar qac.rter.

For e1wmple, the quarter>!

report for the first quarter, i.e., January, February and

Harch, shaJ..:L be !:uhm:i.ttcd

by rqay

15.

Note: This permit does not. affect the requirements for quarterly

:ccIPo:::..t.:Lng CC3n.'::.a::. ned. .in

t:

Le

:,).t::..

.3t.in

q

perrn.:i.

t

s for the source.

1.11 Authorization for Operation

The Permittee may operate each affected boiler with the new baghouse

system and sorbent injection system under this construction permit

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

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Page 11

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 Patel

or Christopher Romaine at 217/782-2113.

Edwin

C.

Bakowski,

P.E.

Acting Manager, Permit Section

Division of Air Pollution Control

ECB:CPR:KMP:

CC:

Region 2

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

27516

Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 91/Thursday, May 11, 20G6/Notices

Cement Clinker from Japan)-briefing

and vote. (The Commission is currently

scheduled to transmit its determination

and Commissioners'opinions to the

Secretary of Commerce

on or before

May 31,2006.)

5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

In accordance

with Commission

policy, subject matter listed above, not

disposed of

at the scheduled meeting,

may be carried over to the agenda of the

following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: May

9, 2006.

Marilyn R. Abbotl.

SecretaI)'to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 06-4488 Filed 5-9-06; 3:01 pm]

BILLING CODe 702D-02-P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice

of Lodging of Proposed

Consent Decree under the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and

liability

Act

Notice is hereby given that on April

25,2006, a proposed Consent Decree

in

United States

v.

General Electric

Company,

Civil Action No. 03CV4668

(HAA), was lodged

with the United

States District Court for

the District of

New Jersey.

In

that action, the United

States seeks to recover from General

Electric Company ("General Electric")

response costs incurred

in connection

with the Grand Street Mercury

Superfund Site, located

in Hoboken,

New Jersey ("the Site").

pursuant to

section 107 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act ("CERCLA"J. 42 U.S.C.

9607. A

number of other lawsuits have

been filed and consolidated in

connection with the release of mercury

at the Site.

As part of the settlement, General

Electric

has placed $3 million into an

interest-bearing

CDurt registry account.

The consent decree provides

that the

United States will receive $2,805,000

plus interest accrued on that amount,

and that the State

of New Jersey will

receive $195.000 plus interest accrued

on that amount. General Electric further

agrees to file motiDns to withdraw its

opposition to a consent decree that the

United States and the State ofNew

Jersey lodged in 2003 with other parties

in Civil Action No. 96-3775 (HAA) and

consolidated cases, and its opposition to

aspects

of other private settlements.

General Electric further agrees to give

up its claims for costs that it incurred

in performing remediation at the Site

and to withdraw its Petition to EPA

under CERCLA section 106(b)(2), 42

U.S.c. 9606(b)(2), for reimbursement of

such costs. In exchange, the Plaintiffs

covenant not to sue General Electric for

their past costs at the Site

and provide

contribution protection for all response

costs and response actions at the Site.

The Department of Justice will receive

comments relating to this Consent

Decree for a period of thirty

(30) days

from

the date of this publication.

Comments should be addressed to the

Assistant Attorney General,

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington,

DC

20044-7611. Attention: Nancy

Flickinger, and should refer to

United

States

v.

General Electric Co.,

DOJ #90-

11-3-1769.

The Consent Decree may be examined

at the Office of the United States

Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

970 Broad Street, 7th Floor, Newark,

NJ

07102, and at U.S. EPA RegiDn II's

Office. 290 Broadway, New York,

NY

10007-1866. During the public

comment period,

the consent decree

may also be examined on the following

Department of Justice Web site,

http://

www.usdoj.govlenrd/open.htmJ.

A

co

of the consent decree may also be

obtained by mail from the Consent

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611,

U.S.

Department of Justice. Washington, DC

20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mail a

request to

TDnia Fleetwood

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov),

fax no.

(202) 514-0097, phone confirmation

number

(202) 514-1547.

In

requesting a

copy from the Consent Decree Library,

please enclose a check in the amount of

$11.00

(25 cents per page reproduction

cost) for a full copy of the consent

decree, payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Ronald Gluck,

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section. Environmental and Natural

Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 06-4372 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODe 4410-15-M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging

of Proposed

Modification

of the Consent Decree

Entered in;

United States et al.

v.

illinois Power Company and Dynegy

Midwest Generation

Notice is hereby given that on'March

20. 2006, the United States lodged a

Proposed Consent Decree Modification

in the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Illinois in the

matter captioned

United States et

01

v.

Illinois Power Company and Dynegy

Midwest Generation, Inc.,

(Civil Action

0")

j IJIJO &

No. 99-833-MJR). This proposed

Modifications was jDintly agreed by the

United States,

the State Df Illinois, the

four citizen groups

co-plaintiffs-the

American Bottom Conservancy, Health

and Environmental

Justice-St. Louse,

Inc., Illinois Stewardship Alliance,

and

the Prairie Rivers Network-and Dynegy

Midwest Generation.

The proposed modification affects

Section

VI of the Consent Decree.

PM

Emission Reductions

and Controls,

which establishes a variety of

requirements for Dynegy Midwest

Generation. Inc. ("DMG") concerning

particulate matter emissions at

identified units

in the DMG System.

Under the Consent Decree,

DMG is

required to operate certain electric

generating

units so as to achieve and

maintain an emissions rate of "not

greater than 0.030 Ib/mmBTU" or to

undertake

an alternative procedure

defined

in the Decree as a "PDllution

ControlE

u~eAnalysis."

CDns

eeree 'H86. AccordIng..J;o the

p

Dsed modification, the

deadlirr~Dr

ach of the two Hennepin Units set fot"th

in Paragraph 86 will be changed to

"\

December 31,2008, and the language in

Paragraph 86 following the table, as well ,

as Paragraph 88 in its entirety, will be

I

deleted. By this change, among other

J

things, rather than requiring the first

Hennepin

unit to meet the specified

mission rate

in 2006 and the second

epin

unit to meet that rate in

0,

the

~t

Decree will instea

quire

DMG to

en~

nnepin

units meet 0.030

Ibs/mmBTU

emissions

rate by December 31.2008.

The Department of Justice will receive

for a period

of thirty (30) days from the

date

of this publication comments

relating to

the above-described Proposed

Consent Decree Modification.

Comments

should be addressed to the

Assistant Attorney General,

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S.

Department

of Justice, Washington, DC

20044-7611, and should refer to

United

States

v.

Illinois Power Company and

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.,

D.J.

Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-06837.

During the public comment period.

the proposed modification to the

CDnsent Decree may also be examined

on

the following Department of Justice

Web site,

http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/

open.himl.

A copy of the proposed

modifications may also be obtained by

mail from

the Consent Decree Library,

P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of

Justice, Washington,

DC 20044-7611 or

by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia

Fleetwood

(tonia.f1eetwood@usdoj.gov),

fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone

confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 91/Thursday, May 11, 200B/Notices

27517

requesting a copy from the Consent

Decree Library, please enclose a check

in the amount of $1.50 (25 cents per

page reproduction cost) payable to the

U.S. Treasury.

Thomas A. Mariani, Jr.,

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environmental

and Natural

Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 06-4371 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 441D-15-M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice

of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant

to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability

Act

In accordance with Departmental

policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby

given that a proposed consent decree in

United States

v.

Jay James Jackson et al.,

Civil Action No. 8:0404cv64, was

lodged on April 27, 2006 with the

United States District Court for the

District of Nebraska. This consent

decree requires the defendants to

reimburse EPA $700,000 for past

response costs and to implement

institutional controls.

The Department of Justice will

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days

from

the date of this publication,

comments relating to the proposed

consent decree. Comments should be

addressed to the Assistant Attorney

General, Environmental and Natural

Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S.

Department of

States

v.

Jay James

Jackson

et al.,

DOJ Ref. 90-11-2-07430.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the office of the United

States Attorney, 1620 Dodge Street,

Suite 1400, Omaha, NE 68102-1506 and

at U.S. EPA Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street,

Kansas City,

KS 66101. During the

comment period, the consent decree

may be examined on the following

Department ofJustice Web site,

http://

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html.

Copies

of the consent decree also may be

obtained by mail from the Consent

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington, DC

20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a

request to Tonia Fleetwood

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov),

fax no.

(202)

514-0097, phone confirmation

number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a

copy,

please enclose a check in the

amount of $6.25 (without attachments)

or $8.75 (with attachments) for

United

States

v.

Jay James Jackson, et aI,

(25

cents per page reproduction cost)

payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Robert E. Maher, Jr.,

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental

Enforcement Section.

[FR Doc. 06-4375 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45am)

BILLING CODE 441D-15-M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice

of Lodging of Consent Decree

Under the Clean

Air Act Between the

United States, the State of North

Dakota, Minnkota Power Cooperative,

Inc., and Square Butte Electric

Cooperative

In accordance with 28 CFR 50.7,

notice is hereby given that on April 25,

2006, a

proposed consent decree

("Consent Decree") between the United

States, the State of North Dakota,

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.,

("Minnkota") and Square Butte Electric

Cooperative

("Square Butte") was

lodged with the United States District

Court for the District of North Dakota in

Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-034.

The Consent Decree would resolve the

civil claims asserted by the United

States against Minnkota and Square

Butte pursuant to sections 113(b) and

167 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.c.

7413(b) and 7477, for injunctive relief

and the assessment of civil penalties for

violations of the Prevention of

Significant Deterioration provisions of

the Act, 42 U.S.c. 7470-92, Title V of

the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661

et seq.,

and the

federally approved and enforceable

North Dakota State Implementation Plan

(the "SIP").

The United States and the State of

North Dakota also filed with the

Consent Decree a complaint which

alleges, among other things, that

Minnkota and Square Butte modified

and thereafter operated two coal-fired

electricity generating

units at the Milton

R.

Young electricity generating station

in Center, North Dakota, without first

obtaining a PSD permit authorizing the

construction and without installing the

best available technology to control

emissions of sulfur dioxide (S02),

nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate

matter (PM), as required by the Act,

applicable federal regulations, and the

SIP.

Under the terms of the proposed

Consent Decree, Minnkota and Square

Butte will install or upgrade pollution

controls for S02 NOx , and PM for the

two electricity generating units at the

Milton

R.

Young facility, at an estimated

cost of over $100 million. Minnkota and

Square Butte will also pay $850,000 in

civil penalties and undertake $5 million

in additional injunctive relief.

The Department of Justice will receive

for a

period of thirty (30) days from the

date of this publication comments

relating to the Consent Decree.

Comments should be addressed to the

Deputy Assistant Attorney General,

Environment and Natural Resources

Division,

P.G.

Box 7611, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington, DC

20044-7611, and should refer to

United

Sates

v.

Minnkota Power Cooperative,

Inc.,

DOJ Case Number 90-5-2-1-

07717.

The proposed Consent Decree may be

examined at the office of the United

States Attorney for the District of North

Dakota, 220 East Rosser Avenue, Suite

372, Bismark, ND 58501, and at U.S.

EPA Region VIII, 999

18th Street,

Denver, CO 80202.

During the public

comment period, the Consent Decree

may also be examined on the following

Department of Justice Web site,

http://

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html.

A copy

of the Consent Decree may also be

obtained by mail from the Consent

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington, DC

20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a

request to Tonia Fleetwood

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov),

fax no.

(202)

514-0097, phone confirmation

number (202) 514-1547. In requesting

a copy of the Consent Decree, please

reference

United States

v.

Minnkota

Power Cooperative, Inc.,

DOJ Case

Number 90-5-2-1-07717, and enclose a

check in the amount of $17.50 (25 cents

per page reproduction cost) payable to

the U.S. Treasury.

Thomas Mariani,

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environmental

and Natural

Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 06-4374 Filed 5-10-05; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 441D-15-M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice

of Lodging Proposed Consent

Decree

In accordance with Departmental

Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby

given that a proposed Consent Decree in

United States of America

v.

County of

Sacramento,

Case Number 2:06-CV-

00908 GEB-GGH, was lodged with the

United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California on April

26,2006.

This proposed Consent Decree

concerns a complaint filed by the

United States against the County of

Sacramento, pursuant to 33 U.S.C.

1311(a)

and 1344, to obtain injunctive

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

"

Case 3:99-cv-00833-MJR-CJP

Document 704

Filed

08/09/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EXHIBIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

'4-

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AMERICAN

)

BOTTOM CONSERVANCY, HEALTH AND

)

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

- ST. LOUIS,

)

INC., ILLINOIS

STEWARDSHIP ALLIANCE,

)

and PRAIRIE RIVERS

NETWORK

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors

)

)

v.

)

)

ILLINOIS

POWER COMPANY and

)

DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION, INC.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil Action No.

99-833-MJR

'ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the ''UnitedStates' Motion to Enter

Proposed Consent Decree Modifications" (Doc. 703) which includes the

parties' "Joint

Stipulation to Modify Consent Decree." Therein, the parties seek to

modify particular provisions

ofthe Consent Decree entered in this matter on May 27,2005 (Doc. 695).

With respect to Section

VI ofthe Consent Decree, concerning particulate matter ("PM")

emission reduction and control requirements, the United States lodged proposed modifications

with the Court on March 20, 2006 (Doc. 702), pending publication of a notice in the Federal

Register and an opportunity for public comment

on the proposed modifications. Thereafter, the

United States published such notice at

71 Fed. Reg. 27516 (May 11,2006), and represents that it

1

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Case 3:99-cv-00833-MJR-CJP

Document 704

Filed

08/09/2006

Page 2 of 4

received no public comments concerning the proposed modifications during the 30-day period

following publication

of the notice.

The proposed modifications to the

PM provisions are (1) to delete entirely the provisions

that provide Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.

("DMG") with the option to perform a Pollution

Control Equipment Upgrade Analysis

in lieu of meeting the default emissions rate of 0.030

Ibs/mmBTU for any

of the seven units named in the Decree; instead, each of these seven units

would be required to meet the rate

of 0.030 Ib/mmBTU by the dates specified, and (2) to set the

same December 31,2008 deadline for the two Hennepin units to be in compliance with the 0.030

Ibs/mmBTU emission limit under the Consent Decree instead

ofpermitting DMG to comply

with this emission rate at one Hennepin unit by December 31, 2006 and at the other Hennepin

unit

by December 31, 2010. The United States explains that this modification will result in

sooner overall PM emission reductions than would the original provisions ifDMG had exercised

its option under the Consent

Decree'soriginal terms to control the smaller Hennepin unit by the

earlier date and the larger unit by the later date.

With respect to the requirement in Appendix A to the Consent Decree concerning the

deadline for DMG to convey the Middle Fork/Vermi

li

on Property ("Property") to the State of

Illinois Department of Natural Resources ("IDNR"), the Court previously entered the parties'

joint request to extend this date to June 30, 2006. Doc. 699. The parties now seek a

modification to Appendix A to provide for an additional extension until September 30, 2006 due

to numerous difficulties

DMG has encountered during the land survey process, including

easements and encroachments on the property.

Upon careful consideration

of the United States' Motion to Enter Proposed Consent

Decree Modifications, the Court is satisfied that the proposed modifications are justified and in

2

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Case 3:99-cv-00833-MJR-CJP

Document 704

Filed

08/09/2006

Page 3 of 4

the public interest. All parties support entry of these modifications, and no public comments

were submitted in opposition. Therefore, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED that, pursuant to the parties' Joint Stipulation to Modify Consent Decree, the

Consent Decree entered in this matter on May 27, 2005, is amended as provided below:

1.

Paragraph 86 of the Consent Decree is modified as follows:

"86.

At each unit listed below, no later than the dates specified, and continuing

thereafter, DMG shall operate ESPs or alternative PM control equipment at the following

Units to achieve and maintain a

PM emissions rate ofnot greater than 0.030 Ib/mmBTU:

Unit

Date

Havana Unit 6

December 31, 2005

1

st Wood River Unit

December 31, 2005

(i.e., either

of Wood River

Units 4 or 5)

2

nd

Wood River Unit (i.e., the

December

31,2007

remaining Wood River Unit)

1

st Hennepin Unit (Le., either

Deceulber 31, 2006

of Hennepin Units 1 or 2)

December 31. 2008

2

nd

Hennepin Unit (Le., the

Deceluber 31, 2010

remaining Hennepin Unit)

December

31.2008

1st Vermilion Unit (Le., either

December 31, 20 I0

of Vermilion Units 1 or 2)

2

nd

Vermilion Unit (Le., the

December 31, 2010

remaining Vermilion Unit)

[Remainder

ofParagraph deleted.]"

2.

Paragraph 88 is deleted in its entirety, and replaced with a paragraph placeholder,

as follows:

"88.

[Omitted.]"

3

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

Case 3:99-cv-00833-MJR-CJP

Document 704

Filed

08/09/2006

Page 4 of 4

3.

Appendix A, Subsection IT, Paragraph C, is modified as follows:

Performance - Upon approval

ofplan by the Plaintiffs, DMG shall complete the

mitigation project according to the approved plan and schedule, and convey such

Property no later than Jtmc 30, 2006 September

3D.

2006.

4.

All provisions ofthe Consent Decree unaffected by the foregoing modifications

shall operate in conjunction with these new provisions in the same manner and to the same

extent

as.

did the substituted language in the original Consent Decree; and

5.

Except as specifically provided in this Order, all other terms and conditions ofthe

Consent Decree will remain unchanged and in full effect.

DONE and ORDERED this

~daY

of

II-

Wi LuI

r

.

2006.

4

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify that on this 4

th

day of October, 2007, I have served

electronically the attached

APPEAL OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR THE

INSTALLATION OF BAGHOUSE, SORBENT INJECTION SYSTEM, AND INDUCED

DRAFT FANS,

upon the following persons:

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

Suite 11-500

100 West Randolph

Chicago, Illinois 60601

and by first class mail, postage affixed, upon the persons listed in the attached

SERVICE LIST.

-~~

Kathleen~i

Kathleen C. Bassi

Stephen J. Bonebrake

Andrew N. Sawula

Sheldon A. Zabel

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

FAX: 312-258-5600

kbassi@schiffbardin.com

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007

---

SERVICE LIST

(PCB 07-123)

Mr. Bradley P. Halloran

Sally Carter

Hearing Officer

Division

of Legal Counsel

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

James

R. Thompson Center

1021 North Grand Avenue, East

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

P.O. Box 19276

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

hallorab@ipcb.state.il.us

sally.carter@illinois.gov

CH2\ 1879594.2

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, October 4, 2007