BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

{O9-

/0

AMENDMENTS

TO 35

ILL.

ADM.

CODE

225:

CONTROL OF

EMISSIONS

)

(Rulemaking

FROM

LARGE COMBUSTION

SOURCES

)

‘-

oric

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

OF

REGULATORY

SUBMJi

r(JIjuLIpn

OF

Control

ILLINOIS

Board

1.

Notice

of

Filing

2.

Appearances

of Charles

E. Matoesian,

Assistant

Counsel,

Dana

Vetterhoffer,

Assistant

Counsel,

and

John

J.

Kim,

Managing Attorney

for the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

3.

Proposal

of

Regulations

by

Director

Douglas

P. Scott

4.

Agency

Analysis

of

Economic

and

Budgetary

Effects

5.

Motion

for Waiver

of

Requirements

6.

Statement

of

Reasons

7.

Proposed

Amendments

to

35

111.

Adm.

Code

225

8.

Technical

Support

Document

for

Rule

Revisions

to Part

225:

Illinois

Rule

for

Reducing

Mercury

Emissions

from

Coal-Fired

Electric

Generating

Units,

AQPSTR 08-01,

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

September

2008.

9.

Documents

Relied

Upon:

State

ofNew

Jersey,

et al.

v.

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

517

F.3d

574

(D.C.

Cir.

2008).

Standards

of

Performance for New

Stationary

Sources

National Emission

Standards

for

Hazardous Air Pollutants

Addition

of Method

29 to

Appendix

A

of

Part

60

and

Amendments

to

Method

lOlA

of

Appendix

B of

Part

61,

61

Federal

Register

18260

(April

25,

1996).

Accuracy

Test

Audits

of

Mercury

Monitoring

Systems

Installed

on

Combustion

Flue

Gas

Streams

and

Several

Amendments

to

Related

Mercury

Monitoring

Provisions,

72 Federal

Register

51494

(September

7,

2007).

---

10.

Incorporations

by

Reference:

ASTM

D4840-99, Standard

Guide

for Sampling

Chain-of-Custody

Procedures

(Reapproved

2004).

ASTM

D691

1-03,

Standard

Guide

for

Packaging

and

Shipping

Environmental

Samples

for

Laboratory

Analysis.

ASTM

D7036-04,

Standard

Practice

for Competence of Air

Emission

Testing

Bodies.

11.

Certificate

of Service

12.

Disk

in Microsoft

WORD

containing

Agency’s

Analysis

of Economic

and

Budgetary

Effects

(ECONOMICBUDGET-225

.doc)

and

Proposed

Amendments

to Part

225

(RULE-225.doc)

---

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

AMENDMENTS

TO

35 ILL.

ADM.

CODE

225: CONTROL

OF

EMISSIONS

FROM

LARGE

COMBUSTION

SOURCES

TO:

Dorothy

Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

James

R.

Thompson

Center

100 West

Randolph,

Suite 11-500

Chicago,

Illinois

60601-3218

LEAKS

OFFICE

R09-

U32UO8

STATE

OF

ILL(N0j

)

(Rulemaking

—

Allution

Control

5

8

oard

Matthew

Dunn, Chief

Division

of

Environmental

Enforcement

Office

of

the Attorney

General

l88West

Randolph

St.,

20

th

Floor

Chicago,

IL 60601

)

NOTICE

Virginia

Yang

Deputy

Legal

Counsel

Illinois

Department

ofNatural

Resources

One

Natural

Resources

Way

Springfield,

IL

62702

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE

that I have

today

filed

with the Office

of the

Pollution

Control

Board the

REGULATORY

PROPOSAL

entitled

“AMENDMENTS

TO 35

ILL. ADM.

CODE

225: CONTROL

OF

EMISSIONS

FROM LARGE

COMBUSTION

SOURCES,”

MOTION

FOR

WAIVER

OF

REQUIREMENTS

and

APPEARANCES

of the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

a

copy

of

which

is herewith

served upon

you.

DATED:

October

2,

2008

1021 North

Grand

Avenue

East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

217.782.5544

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

By:

Jr

)

Charles

E.

Matoesian

Assistant

Counsel

Division

of

Legal

Counsel

THIS

FILING

IS

SUBMITTED

ON RECYCLED

PAPER

217.782.9143

(TDD)

---

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOAR

9

cD

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

03

‘008

AMENDMENTS

TO

35 ILL.

ADM.

R09-

j

U

ftc’

CODE

225: CONTROL

OF

EMISSIONS

)

(Rulemaking

— Air)

1troI

Board

FROM

LARGE

COMBUSTION

SOURCES

)

APPEARANCE

The

undersigned

hereby

enters

his

appearance

as

an attorney

on

behalf

of the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency.

Respectfully

submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVllONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

By:

Charles E.

Matoesian

Assistant

Counsel

Division

of

Legal

Counsel

DATED:

October

2,.2OO8

1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

217/782-5544

---

OFFICE

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

OCT

1)3

2OO

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

OJlUtiOn

STATE

OF

Control

ILJJNO,

So$

RO9-J

AMENDMENTS

TO

35 ILL.

ADM.

)

CODE

225:

CONTROL

OF

EMISSIONS

)

(Rulemaking

-

Air)

FROM

LARGE

COMBUSTION

SOURCES

)

APPEARANCE

The

undersigned

hereby

enters

her appearance

as an attorney

on behalf

of the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency.

Respectfully

submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

Dana

Vetterhoffer

/1/

Assistant

Counsel

Division

of

Legal

Counsel

DATED:

October

2,

2008

1021

North Grand

Avenue

East

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

217/782-5544

---

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOADT<F

Ci

Q3rjg

IN

AMENDMENTS

THE

MATTER

TOOF:

35 ILL. ADM.

)))

Control

ILLINOIS

Board

CODE

225: CONTROL OF EMISSIONS

)

(Rulemaking

- Air)

FROM

LARGE COMBUSTION

SOURCES

)

APPEARANCE

The

undersigned hereby enters his appearance as an attorney

on behalf of the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency.

Respectfully

submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

EKim

Managing Attorney

Air Regulatory Unit

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED:

October 2,

2008

1021 North

Grand

Avenue East

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

217/782-5544

---

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

AMENDMENTS

TO 35

ILL.

ADM.

CODE

225:

CONTROL

OF

EMISSIONS

FROM

LARGE

COMBUSTION

SOURCES

c.

llvE

CL<

OFFICE

OCT

113

20O

)

R09-

)

)

(Rulemaking

— Air)

)

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

REGULATIONS

AGENCY

PROPOSAL

OF

DATED:October

2,

2008

1021

North

Grand

Ave.

East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

217/782-3397

Respectfully

submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOAT

OF

ILLINOIS

Poiiu

Control

Board

)

The

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

moyes

that

the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

adopt

the attached

regulations.

By:

---

.3

CURKIS

OpFl

Agency

Analysis

of Economic

and

Budgetary

Effects

of

Proposed

Rulemaking

Agency:

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

°0IIUtio

%OlS

Part/Title:

Revisions

to

Part

225:

CONTORL

OF

EMISSIONS

FROM

LARGE

COMBUSTION

SOIJRCES

Illinois

Register

Citation:

Please attempt

to

provide

as

dollar-specific

responses

as possible

and feel

free to

add any

relevant

explanation.

Anticipated

effect

on State

expenditures

and revenues.

(a)

Current

cost

to

the agency

for

this program/activity.

Q_.

(b)

.

If this

rulemaking

will

result

in an

increase

or decrease

in

cost,

specify the

fiscal

year

in which

this

change

will first

occur

and the

dollar

amount

of the effect.

Revisions

to

Part

225

should

result

in

no

additional

cost

to the

State

of

Illinois

beyond

the

anticipated

costs

estimated

for

the original

Part 225

rulemaking.

(c)

Indicate

the

funding

source,

including

Fund

and appropriation

lines,

for

this

program/activity.

No

funding

necessary.

(d)

If an

increase

or decrease

in the

costs

of another

State

agency

is

anticipated,

specify

the

fiscal

year

in which

this

change

will

first

occur

and the

estimated

dollar

amount

of

the effect.

N/A

(e)

Will this

rulemaking

have

any

effect

on

State revenues

or expenditures

not

already

indicated

above?

N/A

2.

Economic

effect

on persons

affected

by

the

rulemaking:

(a)

Indicate

the economic

effect

and

specify

the persons

affected:

Positive

—

Negative

No

effect

_X_

Persons

affected:

Utility

sector;

consumers

Dollar

amount

per

person:

$0.00

per

person

annually

Total

statewide

cost:

$0

(b)

If

an economic

effect

is predicted,

please

briefly

describe

how

the effect

will

occur.

---

The

aim of

the

proposed

amendments

is to

incorporate previously-

referenced

federal

regulations

into

the

rule,

as

well as

allowing

additional

options

for

industry.

As

such,

there

will

be no

additional

costs.

(c)

Will

the

rulemaking

have

an indirect

effect that

may result

in

increased

administrative

costs?

Will

there

be

any change

in

requirements

such

as

filing,

documentation,

reporting

or

completion

of

forms?

No such

administrative

changes

or

additional costs are

anticipated.

---

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

IN

THE MATTER

OF

)

)

R09-

/1)

AMENDMENTS

TO 35 ILL.

ADM.

)

CODE

225:

CONTROL

OF

EMISSIONS

)

(Rulemaking

- Air)

FROM

LARGE

COMBUSTION

SOURCES

)

MOTION

FOR

WAIVER

OF

REQUIREMENTS

NOW

COMES

Proponent,

the

ILLiNOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

(“Illinois

EPA”),

by

its

attorney,

Charles

E. Matoesian,

and

pursuant

to

35

Ill. Adm.

Code

and

101.500,

102.110,

102.402,

moves

that the

Illinois Pollution

Control

Board

(“Board”)

waive

certain

requirements,

namely

that Illinois

EPA

submit

the

original and

nine copies

of the

regulatory

proposal

including

the incorporations

by reference

and all

documents

relied upon.

In

support of

its

Motion,

Illinois

EPA states

as

follows:

1.

Section

102.200 of

the

Board’s

procedural

rules

requires

that the original

and

nine

copies

of

each

regulatory

proposal

be filed

with the Clerk.

This entire

regulatory

proposal

will

likely

consist of

over

500

pages.

Given the

length of the

proposal

and the resources

required

to

provide

nine

copies,

Illinois

EPA

requests that

it be allowed

to file

the original

and four

complete

copies,

but

for

the

standards

incorporated

by

reference.

2.

Section 27

(a)

of the

Environmental

Protection

Act (“Act”)

requires

Illinois

EPA

to

provide

information

supporting

the

proposal.

415 ILCS

5/27 (a). In

doing

so, the

Illinois

EPA

has

provided

documents

which were

directly

relied

upon while

drafting the

regulatory

proposal.

The

documents

relied

upon

are as follows:

State

of

New

Jersey,

et al. v.

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

517

F.3d 574

(D.C.

Cir.

2008).

Standards

of

Performance

for

New

Stationary

Sources

National

Emission

Standards

for Hazardous

Air Pollutants

Addition

of

Method

29 to Appendix

A

of

Part

60 and Amendments

to Method

lOlA of

Appendix

B of

Part 61, 61

Federal

---

Register

18260

(April

25,

1996).

Accuracy

Test

Audits of

Mercury

Monitoring

Systems

Installed

on

Combustion

Flue

Gas

Streams

and

Several

Amendments

to

Related

Mercury

Monitoring

Provisions,

72

Federal Register

51494 (September

7,

2007).

Illinois

EPA

requests

that

the

Board

waive

the

normal

copy

requirements

and

allow

Illinois

EPA

to

file

an

original

and

four

copies

of

the

documents.

3.

Section

5-75(a)

of

the

Illinois

Administrative

Procedure

Act

(“JAPA”)

provides

in

relevant

part

that

an

agency

may

incorporate

by

reference

the

regulations,

standards

and

guidelines

of

an

agency

of

the

United

States

or

a nationally

recognized

organization

or

association

without

publishing

the

incorporated

material

in

full.

5

ILCS

100/5-75(a).

Further,

Section

5-75(b)

of

the

IAPA

provides

in

relevant

part

that

the

agency

adopting

a

rule

or

regulation

under

the

IAPA

shall

maintain

a

copy

of

the

referenced

rule,

regulation,

standard

or

guideline

in

at

least

one

of

its

principal

offices and

shall

make

it

available

to the

public

upon

request.

5 ILCS

100/5-75(b).

Tn

developing

this

proposed

rulemaking,

Illinois

EPA

has

incorporated

by

reference

certain

documents

as

follows:

ASTM

D4840-99,

Standard

Guide

for

Sampling

Chain-of-Custody

Procedures

(Reapproved

2004).

-

ASTM

D69

11-03,

Standard

Guide

for

Packaging

and

Shipping

Environmental

Samples

for

Laboratory

Analysis.

ASTM

D7036-04,

Standard

Practice

for

Competence

of

Air

Emission

Testing

Bodies.

Illinois

EPA

requests

that

the

Board

waive

the

normal

copy

requirements

of

Section 102.200

of

the

Board’s

procedural

rules

and

allow

Illinois

EPA

to

file

only

the

original

of the

American

Society

for

Testing

and

Materials

(“ASTM”)

Standards

that

are

incorporated

by

reference

under

the

proposed

rulemaking.

The

ASTM

standards

are

copyright

protected.

The

illinois

EPA

currently

possesses

a number

of

the

standards

including

two

of

those

incorporated

by

reference

within

this

proposal.

However,

the

third

standard

incorporated

by

reference

must

be

downloaded

2

---

at a cost.

Furthermore, the Illinois

EPA

is

subject to additional

fees in order to provide

the

Board

with a copy.

Accordingly, the Illinois EPA

has incurred costs,

and to keep these

costs

at a

minimum, the Illinois EPA

requests that

the Board waive

the

requirement

stated above. Attached

with

the ASTM

standards being filed is a copy

of

the License Agreement utilized by

ASTM.

The Illinois EPA

directs the Board’s attention

to

that document so that the Board

may

conform

its handling of the

standards consistent with that Agreement.

WHEREFORE, for

the reasons

set forth above, Illinois

EPA requests that the Board

waive the copy

requirement and allow Illinois EPA to provide the

Board with an original and

four

complete copies of

the proposal, but for the documents

incorporated

by

reference of

which

only the original

will be filed.

Further,

Illinois EPA

requests that the Board

allow

Illinois EPA

to file an

original and

four copies of the documents relied upon as listed

above. Finally,

the

Illinois EPA

requests

that the Board allow the Illinois EPA to

file only the original of the

proposed

incorporations

by

reference as listed above.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

I

By:

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant

Counsel

Division

of Legal

Counsel

DATED:

October

2,

2008

1021 N.

Grand

Ave.,

East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

217.782.5544

217.782.9143

(TDD)

3

---

B.

-‘

STATE

OFi

IN.THEMATTEROF:

).

0

‘

IlUtIo

OntrolB

PROPOSED

S:

STO:

•:.

(RuIemakingAi:.:::

35

ThL.:ADM.

CODE 225

)

CONTROLOEEMISSiONS’FROW

LARGE

COMBUSTION

SOURCES

)

STATEMENT

OF REASONS

I. INTRODUCTION

The

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency (“Illinois

EPA”)

submits

this

Statement

of

Reasons to

the Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

(“Board”)

pursuant

to Section

27

of the

Environmental

Protection

Act (“Act”)

(415

ILCS 5/27)

and 35 Iii.

Adm.

Code

102.302

in

support

of proposed

amendments

to

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

Part

225,

Control

of

Emissions

from

Large Combustion

Sources.

These

amendments

are proposed

to

compensate

for the

United States

Court

of Appeals

for

the District

of Columbia’s

vacatur

of the

Federal

Clean

Air Mercury

Rule

(“CAMR”)

on

March 13,

2008

(New Jersey

v. Environmental

PótectionAgency,

517

E.3d 574

(D.C.

Cir.

2008))’:

Due

to

this

event, the

Illinois

EPAis

proposing

amendments

to Part

225 to recreate

certain

monitoring

provisions

of the

Federal

rule

found

primarily

at 40

CFR

Part 75,

and

add

them

to the

Illinois

Mercury

Rule.

The

current

proposal

also

gives

greater flexibility

to sources

in

monitoring

mercury

emissions

than

provided

under

the

existing

rule.

The

substance

of Part

225

is

unchanged,

as

those

regulations

will

continue to

address the

control

of

mercury

emissions

from coal-fired

electric

generating

units

(“EGUs”)

beginning

in

July

2009.

The

USEPA is

considering

filing

a

petition

for

a

writ

of certiorari

to

the

United States

Supreme

Court.

USEPA

has until

October

17, 2008

to do so.

---

Theuteniprcpsa

testimony

from:.

Jim

Ross,

Manager

of

the

Division

of Air

Pollution

Control,

Bureau

of

Air;

V

Environmental

Protection

Specialist

IV,

Bureau

of

Air;

Chi-i

Romaine,

Construction

Permit

Unit

Manager,

Bureau

of

Air and;

Rory

Davis,

Environmental Protection

Engineer,

Bureau

of

Afr.

On

March

14, 2006,

the

Illinois

EPA

filed

its

original

proposed

rulemaking,

“In

the.

Matter

of: Proposed

New 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

225

Control

of

Emissions

From Large

Combustion

Sources

(Mercury).”

This

was

accepted

by

the

Board

as R06-25.

Subsequently,

a

second

docket

was opened

by

the Board

at

R06-25PC

to handle

the

large

number

of

comments

received

about

the

rulemaking.

The

Illinois

EPA’s

proposal

sought

to address

the

serious

deficiencies

present

in

the

Federal

CAMR,

specifically,

the unnecessary

delay

in achieving

mercury

emission

reductions,

the

inherent

concerns

associated

with

a

cap and

trade

programto

control

a

persistent,

bioaccumulative toxin,

the inadequate

reductions

contained

in

the

CAMR,

and

the

legal

basis

upon

which

the

CAMR

was

adopted.

(See R06-25

generally).

Extensive

hearings

were

held

on

the

matter,

with

the

first

set

of

hearings

held

in

Springfield

from

June

12

to

June

23, 2006.

The second

set of hearings

were

held

in Chicago

from August

14

to

August

23,

2006.

On

December

21, 2006,

the Board

issued

an

order adopting

the

proposal.

The

regulations

were

subsequently

published

in the

Illinois

Register

on

January

5, 2007

(Vol.

31,

Issue

1, page

129). With

the

vacatur

of the

CAMR,

the

Illinois

rule

must

be amended

2

---

b

.

II

STATEMENT

OF FACTS

A.

Mery.in

the Enjonme

;.*..:.

.

. .

Although

the

current rulemaking

addresses concerns

over the D.C.

Circuit’s vacatur

of

the CAMR,

a

brief summary

of the facts

leading

up to the

filing

of

R06-25 is

in order.

Mercury

is a naturally occurring

trace element found

in the

environment.

SëeR062S FOssiL

Fuel-Fired Power

Plants: Report

to the House and Senate

Environment

and Energy

Comm ittees,

IEPAfBOA/04-020,

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency,

September

2004,

at

3 (“Section

9.10

Report”). It is also

a pollutant that is

released to the environment

by

human

(anthropogenic)

activities,

including

coal-fired

power plants.

Id. Although mercury

is

not a criteria

pollutant for which the

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

(“USEPA”)

has

established

a National

Ambient Air Quality

Standard (“NAAQS”),

it is

a

hazardous air

pollutant (“HAP”)

and

has

adverse

health impacts. See,

Technical Support

DOcument

for

Reducing

Mërcuy

Emissionsfrom C’Oal-Fired

Electric

Generating

Units,

AQPSTR

06-02,

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency,

March 14, 2006

(“TSD

for

R06-

25”).

Emissions

of mercury

occur

in three

distinct

forms: ionic,

elemental, and

particulate.

Ionic

and

particulate

forms of

mercury compounds

have the greatest impact

on near-field

deposition.

See

R06,

25, 70

Fed. Reg. 28619

(May

18, 2005).

Once

in

water, some

mercury

is

transformed

into

methylmercury

through biological

processes.

Id. at

28640.

Methylmercury,

a highly

toxic

form of mercury,

is

the mercury

compound

of concern

for the

health effects

of

mercury.

Id.

Once

mercury has been transformed

into methylmercury,

it

3

---

c.

(i.e., a

‘ccumuitiñgiri

the

fish tissue

as predatory

fih consume

other

species in

the

food

chain).

Id.

When.hnmansconsurnefishcontaining.methylrnerc.ury,theingested:methylmercury:

is

almost completely

absorbed into

the blood

and distributed throughout

the tissues

of the

body. Id. In pregnant

women,

methylmercury

can

be passed on to

the

developing

fetus,

and

at

sufficient

exposure

may leadto

a number

ofheurolOgfcal effects.

Id. Thus, chikfren

who

are exposed

to even

low concentrations

of

methylmercury

prenatally

may be at

increased

risk

of poor performance

on

neurobehavioral

tests,

such as those

measuring

attention,

fine

motor

function,

language

skills,

visual-spatial

abilities,

and

verbal

memory. Id. Mercury

contamination

of

Illinois

waters has

resulted in

fish

consumption

advisories

being

issued

for

every

body of

water

in the State. See

R06-25,..Section

9.10 Report

at 4.

B.

Mercury

under

the Clean Air

Act

Mercury

is listed

as a HAP under

Section 112(b)

of the Clean

Air Act

(“CAA”).

42

US.C.

§7412b).

Section 112 requires

USEPA

to establish

Maximum Achièvablô

COntrol

Technology

(“MACT”) standards,

which

are

applicable

to

both new and existing

sources,

for

various categories

of sources.

The

stringent

system

of

emissions

controls

encompassed

under

the

MACT

provisions

is intended

to

ensure

control

technology

is

used to

minimize

emissions of RAPs

from

significant

sources

of HAPs.

Under Section 1 12(n)(1)(A)

of the

CAA, USEPA was

directed

to

conduct

a

study

of

electric utility

boilers

to assess

the hazards to

public health from

their emissions

of HAPs.

42

U.S.C.

§

7412(n)(1)(A).

USEPA submitted

such study

to Congress

in 1998. See

R06-25,

4

---

On

December

20,2000,

.USEPA

issued

a

finding.under

Section

1 12(n)(1)(A)

of

the.

CAA.that.it. was appropriate

and:nec.essary

toregu1atecoaian&oil-fired’utiityboilersunder”.

Section

112

(“Regulatory

Finding”).

2

SeeRO6-25,

65

Fed.

Reg.

79825

(May

18,

2005).

USEPA

concluded

that

this

affirmative

determination

under

Section

1 12(n)(1)(A)

of the

CAA

constituted

a decision

to

list coal

and

Oil-fired

utility

units

on the

Section

112(c)

source

category

list.

Id.

at

79830.

Relying

on Section

1

12(e)(4)

of

the

CAA,

the USEPA

explained

in its

December

2000

Regulatory

Finding

tharneither

its

finding

under

Section

1 12(n)(1)(A)

of

the CAA,

nor the

associated

listing,,

were

subject

to

judicial

review

at that

time.

Id. at

79831.

C.

The

Clean

Air

Mercury

Rule

On

January

30, 2004,

USEPA

publisheda

notice

of proposed

rulemaking

entitled

“Proposed

National

Emission

Standards

for

Hazardous

Air

Pollutants;

and, in

the

Alternative,

Pmposed

Standards

of

Performance

for New

and Existing

Stationary

Sources:

Electric

Utility

Steam

Generating

Units.”

See

R06-25,

69’

Fed.

Reg.

4652.

Shortly

thereafter,

on March

16,

2004,

USEPA

published

a

supplemental

notice

of proposed

rulemaking

entitled

“Supplemental

Notice

of

Proposed

National

Emission

Standards

for

Hazardous

Air

Pollutants;

and,

in the

Alternative,

Proposed

Standards

of

Performance

for New

and

Existing

Stationary

Sources:

Electric

Utility

Steam

Generating

Units.”

See

R06-25,

69

Fed.

Reg.

12398.

In

that

notice,

USEPA

proposed

certain

additional

regulatory

text,

which largely

governed

the

proposed

Section

111 standards

of performance

for

mercury

and

included

a

cap

2

As

discussed

infra,

on March

29,

2005,

USEPA

revised

this

December

2000

Regulatory

Finding

and

concluded

that it

is neither

appropriate

nor

necessary

to

regulate

coal

and oil-fired

EGUs under

Section

112

of

the CAA.

See

R06-25,

70 Fed.

Reg. 15994.

5

---

Sip1nentJ.N3tice4

:

iliiñoiE?subiriittedcóimntoppccsing

lieseruiemakiiigs

On March

29, 2005,

USEPA

promulgated

a final rule

entitled

“Revision

of

December

2000

Regulatory

Finding

ori:the

Emissions:of

Hazardou&Air

Pollutants

FromElectric.Utility

S

team

Generating

Units

and

the

Removal

of Coal-

and Oil-Fired

Electric

Utility

Steam

Generating

Units

From

the Section

112(c)

List” (“Delisting

Action”).

See

R06-25,

70 Fed.

Reg.

15994:

Ih

thi finarrule,

USEPArevied

the

December

2000

appropriate

and

necessary

finding and

concluded,

that

it is

neither

appropriate

nor

necessary

to regulate

coal

and

oil-

fired utility

units

under

Section

112

of

the

CAA.

This was

followed

by promulgation

of

CAMR

on May 18,

2005. See

R 06-25,

70

Fed. Reg.

28606.

CAMR

included

standards

of performance

for

mercury for

new

and

existing

coal-fired

electric

utility

steam

generating

units. Id.

CAMR

utilized

a

market

based

cap

and trade

approach

under

Section

111

of

the CAA to

reduce emissions

of mercury

from

these units.

42 U.S.C.

§

7411.

Unfortunately,

for mercury,

a cap

and

trade

program

can

also

result

in the

perpetuation

of “hot

spots.”

Acommon

use

of

the term “hot

spots”

is to

define

areas

that show

up

on mercury

deposition

maps

with higher

mercury

concentrations.

The

term is also

used

to

define

areas

in a

cap and trade

program

where

reductions

are less

likely

to occur due

to

allowances

being

purchased

or use

of banked

allowances

in order

to

avoid

mercury

reductions

and

installation

of

mercury

controls.

In these

areas,

the reduction

program

has

less

direct

benefits

for

people living

in the surrounding

area.

D.

Deficiencies

in CAMR

The

Illinois

EPA determined

at the

time

that R06-25

was

filed,

and still

believes,

that

CAMR

would

not

result

in

sufficient reductions

of

mercury

in a timely

manner,

and

that

6

---

JiCMR,’

USEPA

established

an

annual

budget

for

mercury

emissions

from

coal-fired

electrical

generating•unitsfor’each

statefbr2Ol

Oand:thereafter..’

:SeeRO6-25,

70,Feth

Reg28649-5O:

Each

state’s

plan

under

CAMR

had

to

contain

appropriate

control

requirements

and

compliance

procedures

to

assure

compliance

with

the

state’s

annual

mercury

budget

by

the

specified

dates.

fd;

However,

“States

remain[edj

authorized

to

require

emissions

reductions

beyond

those required

by

the

State

Budget,”

and

nothing

in

the

CAMR

precluded

“the States

from

requiring such

stricter

controls

and

still

being

eligible

to

participate”

in

the

mercury

trading

program.

Id.

at

28632.

First,

the

decision

to

regulate

mercury

emissions

from

coal-fired

utility

boilers

under

Section

111

of

the

CAA,

rather

than

Section

112,

was

legally

deficient.

All

HAPs

are

regulated under

Section

112.

42

U.S.C.

§

7412.

Regulation

under

Section

111(d)

was

inconsistent

with the

structure

of

the

CAA.

USEPA

constructed

an

elaborate

interpretation

that

allowed

it

to

promulgate

a

trading

program

under

Sections

11

1(d)

and

112(n);

however,

neither

section

provides

specific

authority

for

promulgating

a

trading

program.

Sections

111

(b)(1

)(B) and

(d)

and

Section

112(d)

require

USEPA

to

promulgate

either

a

performance

standard

or

an

emission

standard.

A

performance

standard,

as

defined

by

Section

11

1(a)(1)

of

the

CAA,

means

an

emissions

standard

that

reflects

the

best

system

of

reduction;

An

emissions

standard

under

Section

1

12(d)(2)

is

required

to

reflect

the

maximum

degree

of

reduction that

is

achievable

(MACT).

A

trading

program

does

not,

by

its

very

structure,

require

a

source

to

achieve

any

particular

level

of

emissions

reduction.

7

---

Scti

a

process

also

contains

provisions

for

the

review

of

emission

standards

to allow

for

periodic

Although

more

than

40%

Of

all anthropogenic

mercury

emissions

in the

United

States

come

from

coal-fired

power

plants,

the

CAMR

removed

such

sources

from

the

continued

oversight.

provided

by Section

112 oftheCAA.

See,

TSD

for

R06-25,

Figure

2.2, at

30: Ih

place

of

a

MACT

standard,

CAMR

created

a

new

structure

to

control

mercury

emissions

from

coal-

fired

power

plants

under

Section

111

of

the

CAA,

the

New

Source

Performance

Standards

(“NSPS”).

USEPA

began

by

establishing

a

performance

standard

for

new

coal-fired

utility

boilers

and

then

found itself

required

under

Section

111 to

establish

such

a

standard

for

existing

coal-fired

utility

boilers.

The

centerpiece

of

this

scheme

for

existing

units

was

a

cap

and

trade

program.

As their

name

implies,

cap

and trade

programs

set

a “cap”

or

ceiling

on

emissiOns

of

a

pollutant.

The

cap

is translated

intO

allOwances

that

represent

given

quantities

of the

pollutant:

Under

CAMR,

one

allowance

equaled

one

ounce

of

mercury.

The

allowances

in

an

amount

equal

to the

cap

were

distributed

to

affected

sources.

Following

the

end

of

each year

or

other

applicable

compliance

period,

sources

must hold

and

turn

in

allowances

to

cover

their actual

emissions.

Prior

to

this

periodic

reconciliation,

sources

and

other

parties

are

authorized

to

enter

into

transactions,

and

to transfer

their

allowances

from

the accounts

for

one source

or

party

to the

account

of another.

Under

this arrangement, all

sources

are

not

actually

required

to

reduce

emissions.

Rather,

a

cap

and

trade program

achieves

an overall

reduction

in

emissions.

Emission

8

---

r

rn

. f.

Such

sources..can. then

sell

these surplus allowanes

to other.

sources that need

additional

the

emissions of

the pollutant

will

occur.

Unfortunately,

for mercury, a cap and trade program

can also result

in

the

perpetuation

of

“hot spots.”

Thë±e’ are’ severaf uses

of th

term “hot spots” in the literature

addressing

mercury emissions

with

no

known

established

definition. A common use of

the

term “hot spots” is to

define areas that show up on mercury

deposition

maps

with higher

mercury

concentrations.

The term

is also

used to

define areas in a cap and trade program

where

reductions are less

likely to occur due to allowances being purchased or use of banked

allowances in

order to

avoid mercury reductions and installation of mercury

controls.

In

these areas,

the reduction

program .has less direct benefits for people living in

the

surrounding

area. This

scenario has not been a great

problem for cap

and trade programs

in

the

pastbecause of

the pollutants

at issue

and

the environmental problem thatwas being

addressed,

such as

the Acid Rain Program. However, hot spots

are

a concern for emissions

of

mercury and

its

effects.

A

second

concern with CAMR

was

that

the actual program was

phased

in

slowly.

Specifically,

CAMR

did not actually

require any mercury specific action for coal-fired

power

plants until

2018. At

that

date, the cap for

mercury emissions

from the power plants was

expected

to

be 69%

below the 1999

baseline year. See R06-25, 70 Fed.

Reg. at 28619.

9)

---

A.

f

mercury

emission

standards.

for càal-fired

power

plants in

Illinois.

E.

R06-25:

The IllinoisMèrcury

Rule..;

.

The

Illinois

Mercury

proposal

required

Illinois

coal-fired

EGUs

that serve

a generator

greater

than

25 megawatts

producing

electricity

for sale

to

begin

to

utilize

control

technology

for

mercury

as

necessary

to

achieve

the

numerical

standards

set

by

the

proposed

rule

beginning

July

1, 2009.

To

achieve

this

goal

while

preserving

flexibility,

the regulations

provided

new

and existing

sources

with two

alternative

mercury

emission

standards

to

demonstrate

compliance.

The

first

alternative

allowed

a source

to comply

with

a mercury

emission

standard

of 0.0080

lb

mercury/GWh

gross electrical

output

for

each

EGU.

In

the

alternative,

sources

could

control

emissions

by a

minimum

of 90%

from

input mercury

levels.

These

standards

were

designed

to

provide

similar

levels

of

mercury

emission

reductions,

considering

particular

circumstances

of the

different

plants

and

units.

These

standards

applied

on a rolling

12-month

basis,

with

each month

ending

a

12-

month

period

that

included

the

previous

eleven

months.

Sources

could

choose

which

of

the

two standards

they

wished

to

meet

and could

freely

switch

between

standards

from

month

to

month,

as

would

most likely

occur

in conjunction

with

a change

in

the

coal

supply

to

the

boiler.

As to

monitoring, CAMR

mandated

that

each

state

plan

require

EGUs

to comply

with

the monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

provisions

of Part

75

of the

Code

of

Federal

Regulations

with

regard

to monitoring

emissions

of mercury

to the

atmosphere.

See R06-25,

70

Fed.

Reg.

28649.

Accordingly,

affected

sources

had to

comply

with

the monitoring,

10

---

r

.

IlL

PURPOSE

AND

EFFECT

OF

THE

PROPOSAL

A.

Vacaturof

.CAMR..

On February

8, 2008,

the

United

States

Court

of

Appeals

for the

District

of Columbia

vacated

CAMR.

New

Jersey

v.

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

517

F.3d 574,

578-581

(D.C

ir.

2008

The

court agreed

with

the

petitioners

thatbecause

“coal-fired

EGUs

are

listed

sources

under

section

112,

regulation

of existing

coal-fired

EGUs’

mercury

emissions

under

section

111

is

prohibited.”

New Jersey,

517 F.3d

at

578.

The

court further

held

that,

“once

the

Administrator

determined

in

2000 that

EGUs

should

be

regulated

under

Section

112

and

listed

them

under

section

11 2(c)(1),

EPA

had no

authority

to delist

them

without

taking

the steps

required

under

section

11 2(c)(9).”

Id.

at 581.

Thus,

a trading

program

under

Section

111

was not

allowed

under

the

Clean

Air

Act.

Although

the court’s

decision

vacated

the

portions

of

40

CFR Part

75

enacted

as

part

of CAMR,

including

those

provisions

that

authorize

the

continuous

emissions

monitoring

of

mercury,

the

court’s

vacatur

had nothing

to

do

with

the

technical

or

economic

reasonableness

of

CAMR’s

monitoring

provisions.

It was

merely

USEPA’s

approach

to

regulating

mercury,

a

known

HAP,

outside

the

Section

112

process

to which

the

court

objected.

However,

the

decision,

whether

intending

to

or not,

removed

the entire

monitoring

scheme

relied

on

by

USEPA

to

monitor

mercury

emissions.

Part

75

required

the

utilization

of continuous

monitoring

of

mercury

emissions

(“CEMS”),

for

states

to

gather

mercury

emissions

and

compliance

information,

regardless

of

whether

the

States

adopted

the

other

provisions

of

the.

Federal

CAMR.

The

court’s

action

11

---

I

s

the

nionitoriiig’ofrñercury

‘

emissions.

It is Illinois’

position that

USEPA will eventually

have

to recreate federal

monitoring

pro.visionsbecauseofthemandate

tocontrol

mercury

under

CAA Section 112;

however,

until

that occurs,

it

is

necessary

for Illinois’ rules to reference

its own monitoring

provisions.

B.

Tèchnicaifeasibility

and

economic

reasonableness

The

cost and

feasibility of

Part 75 monitoring

systems

were

considered

by the

Board

in the initial Part 225

rulemaking

for mercury

çmissions from coal-fired

EGUs. During

those

proceedings,

the Board concluded

that mercury,

monitoring

technology, is technologically

feasible

and currently available.

See

R06-25, Board Order

ofNov. 2, 2006,

Second Notice

Opinion and Order,

pA.l. The economic

impact

to..sources

was also

considered by the

Board

in the

same

opinion and order

and was found

to be reasonable

when weighed against

the

benefits

of the mercury

emission

reductions.

Id.

at 78;

C.

Proposed

Amendments

The

focus of theproposed

amendments, therefore,

is

on the methods allowed

to

measure mercury

emissions for

the demonstration

of compliance

with the emissions

and

control

requirements.

The

proposal

does notinclude

any

revisions

to

the emission

and

control standards

themselves.

Mercury

monitoring via a

GEMS will

continue

to be

an

option

for measuring

mercury emissions.

Rather,

in addition

to CEMS, the

Illinois

EPA

has proposed

an additional

monitoring

option,

namely the Periodic

Emissions

Testing

Alternative

Requirements

(“PETAR”).

TSD

at 11.

Because

the

cap and trade program

no longer exists,

there

is no requirement to

use

12

---

c

•

in Part 75, the

Agency

• believed

flexibility

in monitoring

was, called for.

The PETAR

adds emissions testing

as an

alternative

monitoring

method

to provide sources

witha greater degree

of flexibility

and

possibly lower

cost in mercury

monitoring

until

USEPA repromulgates

the

40 CFR Part

75

mercury

monitoring

provisions.

Id.

at 11.

Affected

sources may

determine

which

method

of

emissions determination

will

best

address their

particular situations.

Units complying

with

the

Multi-Pollutant

Standard

(“MPS”) or the

Combined-Pollutant

Standard

(“CPS”) can

choose

to

comply

with

the

proposed Part 225

Appendix

B

monitoring

requirements,

or

with

semi-annual

emissions testing

requirements

proposed

at Section 225.23 9(d)(2).

Id. at 14.

Units complying

with the MPS

and CPS

are

not required by

Part 225 to meet

mercury

emission

standards, but are required

to operate

according

to prescribed protocols

including

the

specified injection

of halogenated activated

carbon

sorbent.

Id. at 14.

It is the

Illinois

EPA’s position

that semi-annual stack

testing

is adequate

to

ensure

and verify that

mercury

control

equipment

is operating

properly, as well

as to estimate

mass

mercury

emissions

from

EGUs

that are opting to comply

with the

MPS and CPS. Id.

Further

proposed amendments

to

the rule include

the addition of

an approved

sorbent.

Calgon Carbon has

demonstrated

to the

Illinois

EPA

that one of

their

sorbents

contains

a

similar or

better

level

of control

in

comparison to

the approved

sorbents. TSD at

4.

As

a

result,

it is proposed that

Calgon Carbon’s

FLUEPAC MC

Plus

be

included

as an

approved

sorbent

for

mercury

control. In addition,

the Agency

has modified

the reporting

and

recordkeeping requirements

of Part 225,

Subpart

B, to

reflect

the additional

needs

of

periodic

emissions

testing.

13

---

(ie..,.

c

iñd

tnStandardj

with

thprovrsions:reconstituted

ithiirPart225SbpartB

Beyond

moving’

th

CPS, this

amendment

removes

references

in Seëtion

225.233

and

Section

25.298

‘to

the

Clean

Air

Interstate

Rule

(“CAIR”)

tradingprogram

due

to

its

recent

vacatur

on July

11,

2008.

Instead,

more

general

language

is

proposed

relating

to trading

program

restrictions

for

sources

participating

in the

MPS

or

CPS.

TSD

at 2.

Additionally,

the

Illinois

EPA

proposes

deleting

references

to

a

bias

adjustment

factor

(“BAF”).

The

BAF

was

intended

to ensure

CEMS

did

not record

mercury

readings

lower

than

emissions

measured

by

a

Reference

Method.

Id.

at

15.

However,

in the

absence

of

a

trading

program

and

federal

monitoring

regulations

along

with

state

emissions

caps, a

BAF

is.

unnecessary

and

could

in some

cases

result

in a source

incorrectly

appearing

to

be

out of

compliance

with the

Illinois

Mercury

Rule.

Id.

In light

of

these considerations,

the

Illinois

EPA

has

not

included

the

BAF

in

its amendments to

Part

225

Appendix

B.

Finally,

the

Illinois

EPA

proposes

deleting

references

to missing

data

substitution

procedures.

Missing

data

procedures

are used

when

monitors

are

offline

to

produce

a

conservative

estimate

of

mercury

emissions

during

that

period.

IdL

at

16.

In

the

absence

of

the CAMR

trading

program

and

the mercury

emissions

cap

for

the State,

missing

data

substitution

procedures

are

unnecessary

and,

as

such,

Illinois

EPA

has

not

included

the

missing

data

procedures

in its

amendments to Part

225

Appendix

B. To

replace

the missing

data

procedure,

in

response

to

stakeholder

comments,

the

Agency

is

proposing

to require

that

CEMS

be

online

for at

least

75%

of

the time.

Id.

at

17.

This

level

of

availability

has

been

found

to be

achievable

by

US

EPA

and is

comparable

to

the level

of

monitor

availability

for

mercury

monitoring

of

new sources

required

by 40

CFR 60.49Da(p)(4)(i).

Id.

at 16-17.

This

14

---

r

rnonitcsr’Jd:

at

17:

IV.

GEOGRAPHIC

REGIONS

AND

SOURCES

AFFECTED

The

geographic

region subject

to•.the

proposedregulations

for

EGUs

is the

entire

State

of

Illinois.

The

proposed

regulations

are

generally

expected

to

affect

all

existing

EGUs

and

any

new

EGUs

that

serve

a generator

greater

than

25

megawatts

producing

electricity

for

sale.

V.

TECHNICAL

FEASIBILITY

AND

ECONOMIC

REASONABLENESS

The

technology

for

controlling

mercury

emissions

from

coal-fired

EGUs

is

readily

available.

The

Illinois

EPA’s

analysis,

explained

in

detail

in Sections

2

through

6of

the

Technical

Support

Document and

supporting

documentation,

demonstrates

the

technical

feasibility

and

economic

reasonableness

of

this

proposed

rulemaking.

VI.

COMMUNICATION

WITH

INTERESTED

PARTIES

Illinois

EPA

engaged

in

extensive

outreach

on

this

proposal.

In

July

2008,

the

Illinois

EPA

met

with

representatives

of

the

affected

sources

and

public

interest

groups.

Illinois

EPA

also

distributed

working

drafts

of

the

proposed

rule

to interested

parties.

In

addition,

this

draft,

as

well

as

pertinent

documents,

were

made

available

and

remain

available

on

the

Illinois

EPA’s

website.

Illinois

EPA

also

stated

its

willingness

to meet

individually

with

any

interested

party.

Illinois

EPA has

received comments

on

its

draft,

and

this

proposal

incorporates

many

of

the

concerns and

suggestions

put

forth

in

these

comments.

Such

comments

can

generally

be

categorized

into

the

following areas:

feasibility

of

monitoring

compliance,

insuring

flexibility,

and

cost

effectiveness.

15

---

Tan

opportumtytYrev?ewtheproposaiandd1scussany’issueswitlr11hnois

EPA:

•

VIL THE

ILLINOIS EPA’S

PROPOSAL

The

following

is a Section-by-Section

summary

of

the

Illinois

EPA’s proposal.

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 225

Subpart A: General

Provisions

Section 225.120

Abbreviations

and

Acronyms

This

Section adds

additional abbreviations

and

acronyms

used in

Part 225,

as

well

as

abbreviations

and acronyms

used in the new

Appendix

B to

Part 225.

Section

225.130

Definitions

This Section

amends the definition

of

“designated

representative”

and

adds

definitions for

terms

used

in the

new Appendix

B to Part 225.

Section

225.140

Incorporations

by

Reference

This

Section

sets

forth

the documents

that are

incorporated

by

reference in this Part.

In

this Section,

the

Agency

proposes to

remove various Sections

of 40 CFR 60

and 40

CFR

75 that

were vacated

by

the Court

and to add

specific Sections

of

40CFR 75

that

were

unaffected

by

the

vacatur. The

Agency proposes

to add several additional

ASTM

standards

as well

and

incorporate

definitions

from

40

CFR 72.2.

Subpart B:

Control

of

Mercury

Emissions

from

Coal-Fired

Electric

Generating

Units

Section

225.202

Measurement

Methods

This

Section

sets forth

the

measurement

methods

for

mercury under

Part

225.

The

Agency

proposes

replacing

references to

the vacated

40 CFR

75 with

references

to

the

newly

16

---

created.:App:eiidis

submitahërnativemonitoringplai-i

to

th&gencyforappro’vai.

The Agency added

a citation

to

Appendix A

of 40

CFR

60 regarding

emissions testing.

Section 225.210

Compliance Requirements

This

Section specifies

the

compliance

requirements

for

EGUs subject

to Subpart

B.

This Section creates

an alternative

monitoring

schcme

and

method

of determining

compliance based

on periodic

emissions

testing

and provides a

mechanism

for sources

to

submit

a’ternative

monitoring

plans

to the

Agency for approval.

This

Section

also requires

recordkeeping

and reporting

of

periodic

emissions testing information.

Section 225.220

Clean Air

Act Permit

Program

(CAAPP)

Permit Requirements

The

only proposed change

made

to

this

Section is to require

that CAAPP

permit

applicants

describe

their

intended approach to

the

emissions

testing

requirements

if

utilizing

Section 225.239.

CAMR had required

amendments to the

CAAPP, but

with

the vacatur

those

are no

longer

necessary.

Section

225.230

Emission Standards

for

EGUs

at Existing

Sources

The

amendments

to

this

Section

establish

as exceptions

to the

general mercury

emission standard

under

Section 225 .230(a)(

1) the alternatives

provided

in Sections

225.230(b)

and

(d),

and 225 .232 through

225.234,

and

adds

additional

alternatives

pursuant

to

Sections 225

.239, and 225.291

through 225.299

of Subpart

B. Also,

the Agency

proposes

replacing references

to

40 CFR 75 with

references

to the

newly

created

Appendix B

to

Part

225 in the

subsection regarding

EGUs

that are served

by

a common

stack.

Section 225.233

Multi-Pollutant

Standards

(MPS)

17

---

•

..

aid

• approve&sorbents

forth

This Section

further

provides that,

as an alternative to the

GEMS monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting

requirementsin

Sections 225.240

through 225.290,

the

owner or operator of an

EGU may

elect

to

comply with

the applicable emissions

testing,. monitoring,

recordkeeping,

and

reporting

requirements

in Section 225.239. This

Section also provides that, as an

alternative

to demonstrating compliance with

the emissions standards

in

this Subsection (d), the

owner

or operator

of an EGU may

elect

to comply with the applicable.emissions testing

requirements in Section 225.23 9. Finally, the Agency

replaced

references

to the CAR

trading

program

with references

to any trading

program

due to the

recent

.vacatur

of

CAIR.

Section

225.234

Temporary Technology-Based

Standard for EGUs at Existing

Sources

This

Section requires

that,

as

an alternative to

the CEMS monitoring,

recordkeeping,

and reporting

requirements in

Sections

225.240

through 225.290,

the

owner or operator

of an

EGU may

elect to comply with

the

applicable

emissions

testing,

monitoring,

recordkeeping,

and reporting

requirements in Section 225.239.

Section

225.235

Units

Scheduled for Permanent

Shut Down

The

Agency proposes that an EGU

that

has completed

the requirements

of subsection

(a) of this

Section,

or is

scheduled for permanent

shut

down

pursuant

to Section 225

.294(b),

be exempt from

the monitoring

and testing requirements

in Sections

225.239 and

225.240.

Section 225.237

Emission

Standards

for New Sources

with EGUs

The

amendments to this Section

establish as

exceptions

to the general mercury

emission standard

under Section 225 .237(a)(1) the

alternatives provided in Sections

225.23

8

18

---

and

2Z’:239’

in

Sdtiô22.5;237(b)’

to

reflct

the’

vacatur

of

4QC6O4’5ä’

Section

225.238

Temporary

Technology-Based

Standard

for

New

Sources

with

EGUs

This Section

requires

that,

as

an

alternative

to

the

CEMS monitoring,

recordkeeping,

and

reporting

requirements

in

Sections

225.240

through

225.290, the

owner

or

operator

of an

EGU

using

the

TTBS

may

elect

to

comply with

the

emissions

testing,

monitoring,

recordkeeping,

and

reporting

requirements

in

Section

225.239.

The

Agency

also

added

0

Calgon

Carbon’s FLUEPAC

MC

Plus

sorbent

to

the

approved

list

of sorbents

for

mercury

control.

Section

225.239

Periodic

Emissions

Testing

Alternative

Requirements

In

general,

this

Section

creates

a

new

alternative

emissions

testing

requirement

to

CEMS

based,

on

quarterly

emissions

testing,

which

may

be

used

until

June

30,

2012.

Sources

are

required

to

perform

quarterly

emissions

testing,

except those

in the

MPS

or

CPS,

which

must

perform

semi-annual

emissions

testing.

ThisSection

also

establishes

recordkeeping

and

reporting

requirements

and

emission

standards

for

sources

electing

to

demonstrate

compliance

by

use

of

emissions

testing.

Existing

units

must

begin

demonstrating

compliance

in

the

calendar

quarter

starting

on

July

1,

2009,

whereas

new

units

must

demonstrate

compliance

within

the

first

2,160

hours after

the

commencement

of commercial

operations.

The

owner

or

operator

of

an

EGU

that

commences

commercial

operation

after

June

30,

2009,

must also

conduct an

initial

performance

test

within

the

first

2,160

hours

after

the

commencement

of

commercial

operations.

If

an

owner

or

operator

of

an

EGU

demonstrating

compliance

pursuant

to Section

225.230

or 225

.237

discontinues

use

of

CEMS

before

collecting

a

full

12

months

of

CEMS data

and

elects

to

demonstrate

compliance

pursuant

to

19

---

for

suchperiod.

Emissions

tests

which

demonstrate

compliance

must

be

performed

at least

45 days

apart.

However,

if

an

emissions

testfails

to demonstrate

compliance

or

the

emissions

test

is

being

performed

subsequent

to

a significant

change

in

the

operations

of an

EGU

under

subsection

(h)(2)

of this

Section,

the

owner

or operator

of an

EGU

may

perform

additional

emissions

test(s)

using

the

same

test protocol

previously

submitted

in

the

same

period,

with

less than

45

days

in

between

emissions

tests.

Emissions

tests

must

consist

of a minimum

of

three

and a

maximum

of nine

emissions

test

runs,

lasting

at

least

one

hour

each, and

averaged

to determine

compliance.

All

test runs

performed

must

be reported.

If the

EGU shares

a

common

stack

with one

or

more

other

EGUs,

the

owner

or

operator

of

the

EGU

must

conduct

emissions

testing

in the duct

to

the

common

stack from

each

unit,

unless

the owner

or

operator

of the

EGU

considers

the

combined

emissions

measured

at

the

common

stack

as the

mass

emissions

of

mercury

for the

EGUs

for

recordkeeping

and

compliance

purposes.

If

an owner

or

operator

of

an EGU

demonstrating

compliance

pursuant

to

this

Section

later

elects

to demonstrate

compliance

pursuant

to the

CEMS

monitoring

provisions

in

Section

225.240

of this

Subpart,

the owner

or

operator

must

comply

with

the emissions

monitoring

deadlines

in subsection

225.240(b)(4).

Owners

and

operators

are

required

to conduct

a compliance

test

in

accordance

with

Method

29,

30A,

or 30B

of 40 CFR

60,

Appendix

A. Mercury

emissions

or

control

efficiency

must

be

measured

while

the

affected

unit

is

operating

at

or above

90% of

peak

load.

20

---

For. U

(b)(2)(B of this

Sectibh,thowneror’operator

must perform

coal

samplings

in accordance

with

Section 225.265

at

least

once during

each day

of

emissions

testing

and monthly

coal

sampling

at all other times.

For

units

complying

with

the

output-based

emission

standard

of

subsection

(b)(1 )(A) or

(b)(2)(A)

of

this Section,

the owner or

operator

must monitor

gross

electrical

output for the

duration

of

the testing.

The

owner

or operator of an EGU

may

use an

alternative

emissions

testing method

if such alternative

is

submitted to the Agency

in writing

and

approved

in writing by the Manager

of the Bureau

of Air’s

Compliance Section.

The

owner

or operator of an

EGU must submit

a testing protocol

to the Agency

at

least

45 days prior to a

scheduled

emissions test,

except as provided in

Section

225.239(h)(2)

or (h)(3).

Notification of a

scheduled emissions

test must be submitted

to the Agency

in

writing, directed

to

the Manager

of the Bureau of Air’s

Compliance Section,

at least

30

days

prior

to the expected

date

of

the

emissions

test.

Notification of the

actual date and

expected

time

of testing

must be

submitted

in

writing,

directed to

the

Manager of the Bureau

of Air’s

Compliance Section,

at least five working

days prior to the

actual

date of

the test.

If

an

emissions

test

performed under the

requirements of this Section

fails to

demonstrate

compliance

with

the limits

of subsection (b)

of this

Section, the owner

or operator of

an

EGU

may

perform

a

new emissions

test using the same

test protocol

previously submitted

in the

same period.

The

owner or operator

of

an EGU that has elected

to

demonstrate

compliance

by

use

of the

emission

standards

of subsection

(b) of this Section

must

submit

a Continuous

Parameter

Monitoring Plan

to

the

Agency at least

45 days

prior

to a scheduled

emissions

test.

The

Continuous

Parameter

Monitoring Plan

must detail how

the

EGU

will

continue

to

21

---

o

will ensure compliance with

th’approprite mercury

‘lirniL

Each

quarterly

emissions

test

shall determine

compliance

with Subpart B for

that

quarter. If emissions. testingc.onducted.

pursuant.to

this

Section

fails to demonstrate

compliance, the owner or

operator of the

EGU will be deemed to have been out of

compliance with

this Subpart beginning

on the day after the most recent emissions test that

demonstrated compliance or the

last day of certified

CEMS data

demonstrating

compliance

on

a rolling

12-month

basis, and the EGU will remain

out of

compliance

until a subsequent

‘emissions

test successfully demonstrates

compliance

with

the limits of this Sectiori.

EGUs must

continue to

operate commensurate with the Continuous Parameter

Monitoring

Plan until the

next compliance

demonstration. If the owner or operator

makes a significant

change

to the operations of

an EGU subject to this

Section,

such

as

changing

from

bituminous to

subbituminous

coal, the owner or operator must

submit

a

testing

protocol

to

the Agency

with a new Continuous

Parameter Monitoring Plan and

perform an

emissions

test

within seven operating days of the significant change. If a

blend

of coal is fired in the

EGU,

the owner or

operator of the

EGU must

ensure

that the EGU continues

to

operate

using the

same blend

that was used

during the most recent successful emissions

test. If the blend

of

coal

changes, the owner or operator of the EGU must re-test

in accordance with

subsections

(d), (e),

(0’

and

(g)

of Section 225.239 within 30 days of the

change in coal blend:

The

owner or operator

of an

EGU and its designated

representative must

comply

with

all

applicable recordkeeping and reporting

requirements

in this

Section, including

records

to

substantiate that

the EGU is

operating in

compliance with

the

parameters listed in the

Continuous

Parameter Monitoring Plan.

22

---

EGUsusing.act

sorbent,

sob

t•1

feedtae•

ifrpoiinds’per

million actual

cubic

.feet of

exhaust

gas

at the injection,

point,

on

a

weekly.

average.

In

addition,

if

a.blend

.of coal.is fired.in’

the EGU,the

‘owner..

or

operator..of

the.. EGU

must keep

records

of the amount

of each type

of

coal burned

and .the required injection

rate for

injection

of activated carbon,

on a weekly

basis.

The owner or operator

of an EGU

must retain

all records

required

by

this Section

at

the source

unless

otherwise

provided in

the

CAAPP permit

issued for the-source

and

must

make

a copy of

any

record available to the

Agency upoivrequest,

monitor and

report

the

heat

input rate at the EGU

level,

and

perform and

report coal

sampling

in

accordance

with

subsection

225 .239(e)(3).

An owner or operator

of an

EGU shall submit to the

Agency

a

Final

Source Test

• Report for each

periodic emissions

test within 45

days after the test

is

completed.

The

Final

Source

Test Report will be

directed

to the

Manager of the Bureau

of Air’s

Compliance

Section and include

at a minimum a summary

of results,

a description of test

method(s),

including

a

description

of sampling points,

sampling

train, analysis

equipment, and test

schedule,

and a

detailed

description

of test conditions,

including

process

information,

control

equipment

information, a discussion

of any preparatory

actions

taken,

and data

and

calculations.

The

owner

or operator

of

a source

with one

or more

EGUs

demonstrating

compliance

with Subpart B in

accordance

with this

Section must submit

to the Agency

a Quarterly

Certification of

Compliance within

45 days following

the end

of the calendar

quarter

covered

by

this

certification. Quarterly

certifications

of

compliance

must indicate

whether

compliance

23

---

e

theEGU’

fàiidtócompI

during

the

quarter

cóveredbythe

certification,

th&

owneror

operator

must

provide

the

reasons

the

EGU

or

EGUs

failed to

comply

and

a

full

description

of

the

noncompliance;

In

addition,

foreachEGU,

the

owneror

operator

must provide

the

following:

a

list

of

all

emissions

tests

performed

within

the

calendar

quarter,

any

deviations

or

exceptions

each

month,

and

all

Quarterly

Certifications

of

Compliance

required

to

be

submitted

must

include

a

certification

by

a

responsible

official.

Finally,

for

each

EGU, the

owner

or

operator

must

promptly

notify the

Agency

of

deviations

from

requirements

of

this

Subpart

B.

At

a

minimum,

these

notifications

must

include

a

description

of

such

deviations

within

30

days

after

discovery

of

the

deviations,

and

a

discussion

of

the

possible

cause

of

such

deviations,

any

corrective

actions,

and

any

preventative

measures

taken.

Section

225.240

General

Monitoring

and

Reporting

Requirements

This

Section

replaces

citations

to

vacated

sections

of

40

CFR

75

with

equivalent

citations

to

the

newly

created

Appendix

B

to

Part

225

and

changes

the

emissions

monitoring

deadline

to

July

1,

2009.

Also,

owners

or

operators

of

EGUs

that

originally

elected

to

demonstrate

compliance

pursuant

to

the

emissions

testing

requirements

in

Section

225.39

must record,

report,

and

quality-assure

date

from

the

CEMS

by

the

first

day

of

the

calendar

quarter

following

the

last

emissions

test

demonstrating

compliance

with

Section

225.239.

This

Section

replaces

citations

to

vacated

portions

of

40

CFR

75

regarding

reporting

data

with

citations

to

the

newly

created

alternative

reporting

data

requirements

in

Section

225.239.

It

also

provides

that

the

Agency

will

approve

alternatives

instead

of

the

USEPA.

24

---

Sèct1öaiZ25.25O

Initial

torin

This

Section

replaces

citations

to vacated

sections

of

40

CFR

75

with

equivalent

citations

.to:thenewiy

that

the

Agency:will

approvealternatives:insteadof

theUSEPA.-

This

Sectionremoves

references

to

missing

data

substitution

procedures

relating

to

CEMS.

Section

225.260

Out

of

Control

Periods

for

Emissions

Monitors

This

Section replaces

citations

to

vacated

sections

of 40

CFR

75

with

equivalent

citations

to

the

newly

created

Appendix

B

to

Part

225.

It also

removes references

to

missing

data

substitution

procedures

relating

to

CEMS

and

establishes

minimum

monitor

data

availability

requirements.

Section

225.261

Additional

Requirements

to Provide Heat

Input Data

This

Section

replaces

citations

to

vacated

sçctions

of

40 CFR

75

with

equivalent

citations

to

the

newly

created

Appendix

B

to

Part

225.

Section

225.265

Coal

Analysis for

Input Mercury

Levels

The

Agency corrected

an

error

present

in

the

original

rulemaking.

The

language

in

Section 225.265(a)

mistakenly

referenced

Section

225.23

0(a)(2)

instead

of 225

.230(a)(1

)(B).

Also, in Section 225.265(a),

the

Agency proposes

requiring

sources

complying

via

Section

225.233,

225.239,

or

225.291

through 225.299

to

perform

coal

sampling

in

accordance

with

this

Section.

The

Agency

proposes requiring

that

EGUs

complying

by

means

of Section

225.233

or

Sections 225.291

through

225.299

perform

coal

sampling

at

least

once

per

month,

EGUs complying

by

means

of

Section 225.239

perform

coal

sampling according

to the

schedule provided

in

Section

225.239(e)(3),

and

all

other

EGUs

subject

to

this

requirement

perform coal

sampling on

a daily

basis.

25

---

Section225.2!70

Nifk•atiôi

of40

CFR’75withequivaIeñt’

citations

to

the

newly

createdAppendix

B

to

Part

225.

Section

225.290

Recordkeepingand

Reporting

This

Section

replaces

citations

to

vacated

sections

of

40 CFR

75

with

equivalent

citations

to

the

newly

created

Appendix

B

to Part

225.

This

Section

adds

as

part

of the

quarterly

reports

recertification

testing

that

has

been

performed for CEMS.

It

also

removes

references

to missing

data

substitution

procedures

for CEMS.

Finally,

the

Agency

corrected

two

errors

present

in

the

original

rulemaking.

The

language

in

Section

225.290(a)(2)(A)

mistakenly

referenced

Section

225

.230(a)(2)

instead

of

225.23

0(a)(

1

)(B).

Section

225

.290(a)(2)(B)

mistakenly

referenced

Section

225 .230(a)(1)

instead

of

225.23

0(a)(

1

)(A).

Section

225.291

Combined

Pollutant

Standard:

Purpose

This

Section

replaces

citations

to

Subpart

F of Part

225

with

equivalent

citations

to

Sections

225.291

through

225.299,

including

internal

cross-citations.

Sectkrn 225.292

Applicability

of

the Combined

Pollutant

Standard

This

Section

replaces

citations

to

Subpart

F

of

Part

225

with

equivalent

citations

to

Sections 225.291

through

225.299,

including

internal

cross-citations.

Section

225.293

Combined

Pollutant

Standard:

Notice

of

Intent

This

Section

replaces

citations

to Subpart

F of

Part

225 with

equivalent

citations

to

Sections

225.291

through

225.299,

including

internal

cross-citations.

Section

225.294

Combined

Pollutant

Standard:

Control

Technology

Requirements

and

Emissions

Standards

for

Mercury

This

Section

replaces

citations

to Subpart

F

of Part

225

with equivalent

citations

to

Sections 225.291

through

225.299,

including

internal

cross-citations.

This

Section

adds

the

26

---

optionforsources:

ha1ogPated

V

activated

carbon.

Finally,

this section

creates

a new

subsection

(1)

which

provides

that,

as an

alternative

to:

the

CEMS.monitoring,

recordkeeping,..

and

reporting

requirements

in

Sections

225.240

through

225.290,

the

owner

or operator

of an EGU

may

elect

to comply

with

the

applicable

emissions

testing,

monitoring,

recordkeeping,

and

reporting

requirements

in

Section

225.239.

Section

225.295

Combined

Pollutant

Standard:

Emissions

Standards

for

NO

and

This

Section

replaces

citations

to

Subpart

F

of Part

225

with

equivalent

citations

to

Sections

225.291

through

225.299,

including

internal

cross-citations.

Section

225.295

Treatment

of

Mercury

Allowances

Repealed.

As

CAMR

is

vacated,

the

trading

program

authorized

by CAMR

has

ceased

to

exist

as

well.

Accordingly,

there

was

no

need

for this

section.

Section

225.296

Combined

Pollutant

Standard:

Control

Technology

Requirements

fOr

and PM

Emissions

This

Section

replaces

citations

to

Subpart

F of

Part

225 with

equivalent

citations

to

Sections

225.291

through

225.299,

including

internal

cross-citations.

Section

225.297

V

Combined

Pollutant

Standard:

Permanent

Shut-Downs

This

Section

replaces

citations

to

Subpart

F

of

Part 225

with equivalent

citations

to

Sections

225.291

through

225.299,

including

internal

cross-citations.

Section

225.298

Combined

Pollutant

Standard:

Requirements

for

NO

and

SO

2

Allowances

This

Section

replaces

citations

to Subpart

F of Part

225

with

equivalent

citations

to

Sections

225.291

through

225.299,

including

internal

cross-citations.

The

Agency

also

27

---

rdue’’

‘:,..:

Section 225.299

Combined

Pollutant

Standard:

Clean

Air

Act

Requirements

This.

Section:replac.es;citations’toSubpart”F.ofPart225:with

equivalent citatidns

to

Sections

225.291 through

225.299,

including

internal

cross-citations.

SUBPART

F: COMBINED

POLLUTANT

STANDARDS

Subpart

F, comprising SectiOns

225:600;

605, 610,’

615;

620,625,

630, 635,

and

640,

were repealed

and reconstituted

as Sections

225:291,

292,

293, 294,

295,

296, 297,

298,

and

299,

respectively.

225.APPENDIX

A Specified

EGUs for Purposes

of

Subpart

F

(Midwest

Generation’s

CoalFired

Boilers as

of July

1,

2006)

This

Appendix replaces

citations

to Subpart

F of

Part

225 with equivalent

citations

to

Sections

225.291 through

225.299, including

internal cross-citations.

225.APPENDIX

B Continuous

Emission

Monitoring

Systems

for Mercury

The newly

created

Appendix

B

recreates

necessary

sections

of 40 CFR

75 as

part

of

35

Ill. Adm. Code

Part

225.

In addition,

the

Agency

revised

Appendices A,

B,

F,

and

K to

Part 75,

converting

them to Exhibits to Appendix

B

of

Part 225.

The

Agency also

converted

the citation

style

from

the federal citation

system to

the

Illinois-specific

system.

In other

words,

when

creating

subsections,

the federal system

is

organized

as

(a)(1)(ii)(B),

whereas

Illinois

uses

(a)(1)(B)(ii).

The

conversion

between

the two

rules

is as follows:

40 CFR

75:

New

Appendix B:

75.2

1.1

Applicability

75.10

1.2

General

Operating

Requirements

75.15

1.3

Special

provisions

for

measuring

mercury

mass

28

---

emissions::usingthè..exceptd

sorbenrtranonitøring;:

methodoiogy.’

75.20

1.4

.Tnitialcertifièation

nd

recertification,

procedures

75.21’

1.5..

Quality

assurancan&quaiity.controL;requ.irement&:

75.22.

1.6

Referencetest. methods’.

75.24

1.7

Out-of-control

periods

and system

bias testing

75.32

1.8

Detennination

of

monitor

data

availability

75.39

1.9

Determination

of

sorbent

trap

monitoring

systems

data

availability

75.53

1.10

Monitoring

plan

75.57

1.11

General

recordkeeping

provisions

75.58

1.12

General

recordkeeping

provisions

for

specific

situations

75.59

1.13

Certification,

quality

assurance,

and quality

control

record

provisions

75.80

.

1.14.

General

provisions

75.81.

1.15

Monitoring

of mercury

mass

emissions

and

heat input

at

the

unit

level’

75.82

1.16

Monitoring

of mercury

mass

emissions

and

heat input

-

at

common

and

multiple

stacks

75.83

1.17

Calculation

ofmercury

mass

emissions

and

heat

input

rate

75.84

1.18

Recordkeeping

and

reporting

Appendix

A

Exhibit

A

Specifications

and

test

procedures

Appendix

B

Exhibit

B

Quality

assurance

and

quality

control

procedures

Appendix

F

Exhibit

C

Conversion

procedures

Appendix

K

Exhibit

D

Quality

Assurance

and

operating

procedures

for

29

---

The

Age

ren&

necessary

to monitor

mercury,

removed

references

to missing

data

substitution

procedures

and.bias:adjustment

factors,.

replacedreferences

tothe,Adrninistrator

of theUSEPA:with:•..

references

to

the

Agency,

and

changed

cross

references

to

vacated

portions

of

CAMR.

In

Section

75.2,

the Agency

deleted

su1sections

(a),

(b),

(c)

and

revised

subsection

(d).

In Section

75.10,

the

Agency.

deleted

subsections

(a) and

(d)(2)

and

revised

the

remaining

subsections

as described

above.

In Section

75.15,

the

Agency

deleted

subsection

(h)(2)

and

revised

the

remaining

subsections

as

described

above.

In Section

75.20,

the Agency

deleted

references

to deadlines

specified

in 40

CFR

75.4

and

references

to the

Acid

Rain Program.

In

subsection

(a)(5)(i),

the Agency

replaced

references

to

missing

data

substitution

with references

to Section

225.239.

fri subsection

(b)(3)(A),

the

Agency

replaced

references

to

missing

data

substitution

with

requirements

regarding

the

estimation

of

mercury

emissions.

Finally,

the

Agency

deleted

subsections

(a)(4)(iv),

(c)(3),

(c)(8),

(c)(10)(ii), (d)(2)(iv),

(g),

and (h),

and

revised

the remaining

subsections

as

described

above.

In Section

75.21,

the Agency

deleted

subsections

(a)(4)

through

(a)(1

0),

(b), (d),

and

(e), and

revised

the

remaining

subsections

as

described

above.

In Section

75.22,

the

Agency

deleted

subsections

(a)(5), (a)(6),

(b)(2),

(b)(3),

and

(c)(2).

In

Section

75.24,

the

Agency

delcted

subsections

(c)(.1)

and (e).

30

---

In

Sectibii’

75

32

th

of

Equation

8

to

calculate

percent

monitor

.data

availability,

and

revised

the remaining

subsections.

as: described

above..

• In

Section

75.39,

the Agency

changed

the title

of the

Section.

In subsection

(a), the

Agency

replaced

references

to

maximum

potential

mercury

concentration with references

to

quarterly

emissions

testing

under Section

225.239.

The

Agency

also

deleted

subsections

(c),

(e), and

(f),

and revised

the

remaining

subsections

as described

above.

In

Section

75.53,

the

Agency

deleted

subsections

(a)(1),

(c),

(d),

(e),

(f)(l)

through

(0(3),

(0(5),

(0(6),

(g)(1)(i)(G),

(g)(l)(viii)(B)

through

(E),

and

(h),

and revised

the

remaining

subsections

as described

above.

The

Agency

also

deleted

references

to

dual

range

mercury

monitors

and peaking

units.

•

In Section

75.57,

the Agency

deleted

subsections

(c),

(d),

(e),

(0

(i)(1)(iv),

(i)(5)(iii),

and

(,j)(l)(iv),

and revised

the

remaining

subsections

as

described

above.

Also,

in

subsection

(a),

the Agency

deleted

the

second

sentence

regarding

units

utilizing

a

common

stack.

Finally,

the

Agency

added

a

new subsection

(b)(4)

regarding

recording

steam

load

information.

In

Section

75.58,

the

Agency

deleted

subsections

(a),

(b)(l),

(b)(2),

(b)(3)(iii),

(b)(3)(iv),

(c),

(d),

and

(e),

and

revised

the

remaining

subsections

as

described

above.

hi Section

75.59,

the

Agency

deleted

(a)(5)(iii)(G),

(a)(5)(v),

(a)(7)(iv)(V)

and

(W),

(a)(12)(iii),

(a)(13),

(b),

and (d).

In

Section

75.80,

the

Agency

deleted

subsections

(a)(2),

(d),

and

(0,

and revised

the

remaining

subsections

as

described

above.

31

---

Ih

Section’75 81 th

gir 7584.

the Agencymade’ node1etions. or

revision

t’o’fr’

‘*

mercury.

conc.entration monitoring system.

Similar to Part’ 75, theAgencyrevisedAppendi&s

A, B, F,

and

K to

Part 75 and

converted them to Exhibits A,

B,

C,

and D to Appendix B

of

Part 225,

respectively.

The

Agency

removed

references to,

and sections regarding, pollutants that are not

necessary

to

monitor mercury, removed references

to missing data substitution

procedures

and bias

adjustment

factors, replaced references

to the Administrator of the USEPA

with references

to

the Agency, and changed cross references to vacated portions of CAMR. Many

of the

section

numbers did not

change

from

those

in the

original

Appendices

to Part

75. For those that

did,

the conversion

between the two rules

is as

follows:

Appendix A to

40 CFR 75

Exhibit A of Appendix

B to

Part 225

1.1.2

Deleted

2.1.1

Deleted

2.1.1.1

Deleted

2.1.1.2

Deleted

2.1.1.3

Deleted

2.1.1.4

Deleted

2.1.1.5

Deleted

2.1.2

Deleted

2.1.2.1

Deleted

2.1.2.2

Deleted

2.1.2.3

Deleted

32

---

2JZ2:4..:

:.•

Dited’.’

2.l’.25’

.

Dieted*

2.L3

2:1.1

2.1.11.

Deleted.

2.1.3.2

Deleted

2.1.3.3

Deleted

2.1.4

2.1.2’

2.1.4.1

.

2.1.2.1

2.1.4.2

2.1.2.2

2.1.4.3

2.1.2.3

2.1.5

Deleted

2.1.6

Deleted

2.1.7’

2.1.3

2.1.7.1

2.1.3.1

2.1.7.2

2:1.3.2

2.1.7.3

-

2.1.3.3

2.1.7.4

2.1.3.4

3.3.1

Deleted

3.3.2

Deleted

3.3.3

3.3.1

3.3.4

3.3.2

3.3.5

Deleted

3.3.6

3.3.3

33

---

3i.7

DIevd

3.18•••..

3.3.4

14.1

Deleted

3.4.2

3.4.1

3.4.3

3.4.2

6.5.3

Deleted

6.5.4

6.5.3

6.5.5

65.4

6.5.6

6.5.5

6.5.6.1

6.5.5.1

6.5.6.2

6.5.5.2

6.5.6.3

6.5.5.3

6.5.7

6.5.6

6.5.8

6.5.7

6.5.9

6.5.8

6.5.10

6.5.9

7.4

Deleted

7.4.1

Deleted

7.4.2

Deleted

7.4.3

Deleted

7.5

Deleted

7.6

7.4

7.6.1

7.4.1

34

---

7:6:2

7:6.3.

7.6.4

7.6.5.

7.7

7.8

Appendix

B

to

40 CFR 75

1.3

1.4.

1.5

1.5.1

1.5.2

1.5.3

1.5.4

1.5.5

1.5.6

2.3.4

Appendix

F

to 40 CFR 75

2

3

4

5

5.1

5.2

7.4I..

7.4.3;’

7.4.4

Deleted -.

7.5

7.6

Exhibit

B of

Appendix B to Part 225

Deleted

Deleted

1.3

1.3.1

1.3.2

1.3.3

1.3.4

1.3.5

1.3.6

Deleted

Exhibit

C

of Appendix

B to Part 225

Deleted

Deleted

Deleted

2

2.1

2.2

35

---

5.2J:

2.2.1,:.

.

5.2.2

2.2.2”

5.2.3:

.

2.2.3f.:

5.2.4. .

2.2.4.

5.3

2.3

5.3.1

2.3.1

53.2

2.3.2

5.4

Deleted

5.5,

Deleted

5.6

.

2.4

5.6.1

2.4.1’

5.6.2

2.4.2

5.7

2.5

5.8

Deleted.

6

.

3

7

Deleted

8

Deleted

9

4

9;1

4.1

9.1.1

4.1.1

9.1.2

4.1.2

9.1.3

4.1.3

9.2

4.2