cED
FEB
022009
IN
THE
MATTER
OF:
L1tt
OF
Control
ILLINOIS
Board
PROPOSED
NEW 35
ILL. ADM.
CODE
225,
CONTROL
OF EMISSIONS
FROM
LARGE
COMBUSTION
SOURCES
(MERCURY
MONITORING)
NOTICE
OF
FILING
To:
Those
Individuals
Listed on
Attached
Service List
Please take
notice
that on
February
2, 2009,
the
undersigned
caused to
be
filed
with
the
Clerk
of the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board the Testimony
of David
Nuckols
on behalf
of
Kincaid
Generation
LLC, copies
of which
are
herewith
David
L. Rieser
Brad
Daniels
McGuireWoods
LLP
77
West Wacker,
Suite
4100
Chicago,
IL
60601
Telephone:
312/849-8100
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
R09-010
(Rulemaking
— Air)
One
\7363650. I
CEVE
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
CLERKS
OFFICr
IN
THE
MATTER
OF:
)
No.
R09-O1O
FEB
022009
)
(Rulemaking
-AirTATE
OFILLIN
PROPOSED
NEW
35
ILL.
ADM.
CODE
225
)
llUtiOfl
Controj
CONTROL
OF
EMISSIONS
FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION
SOURCES
(MERCURY
)
MONITORING)
TESTIMONY
OF
DAVID
NUCKOLS
KINCAID
GENERATION
LLC
My
name
is
David
Nuckols
and
I
am
Manager
of Dominion’s
Emissions
Monitoring
Support
Group.
Dominion
is one
of the
nation’s
largest
producers
of
energy
with
a
portfolio
of
approximately
27,000
megawatts
of
generation.
Dominion
owns
and
operates
electric
generating
facilities
in eleven
states,
including
the
1250
megawatt
coal-fired
Kincaid
Generation
LLC
power
plant,
located
in
Kincaid,
Illinois.
Dominion
also
owns
a
50%
interest
in
the
1400-
megawatt
natural
gas-fired
Elwood
Energy,
LLC
combustion
turbine
plant,
located
in
Elwood,
Illinois. Dominion
has
also
announced
plans
to build
300
megawatts
of
wind
turbines
in
Central
Illinois.
The
project,
Prairie
Fork
Wind
Farm,
will
include 150
to
200
wind
turbines
in Christian
and
Montgomery
Counties.
My
group
provides
support
for
the
continuous
emissions
monitors
at
most
of
the
Dominion
power
plants,
including the
two
units
at
Kincaid.
We
also
provide
test
services
for
many
of
the
Dominion
sites
and
have
interim
accreditation
as
an
Air
Emissions
Testing
Body
(AETB)
by
the
Stack
Testers
Accreditation
Council
(STAC).
I received
my
B.S.
in
Engineering
from
Virginia
Tech
in
1975
and
am
licensed as
a Professional
Engineer in
the
State
of
Virginia.
During
my
33-
year
career
at
Dominion,
I
have
worked at
several
power plants
and
as
Staff
Engineer
for
the
engineering
groups
that
support
power
plant
operation and
construction.
I have
worked
in
the
area
of continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems
since
1992
and
have
served
in
my
current
role
since
2001.
Introduction
We
believe
IEPA
has
been
very
receptive
to
Dominion
concerns
regarding
the
proposed
monitoring
rules.
Dominion
provided
comment
on the
draft
proposal
last
July
as part
of
the
TEPA
stakeholder outreach
efforts.
Several
very
important
changes
were
made
to the
proposal
during
that
round
of
comment
including:
o The
removal
of
the
“data
substitution”
provisions based
on the
40
CFR
Part
75
rules,
which
were
developed
to
support
an
emissions
trading
program.
The
Illinois
mercury
rule
is
more
of a “command
and control”
regulation
with
a
“hard”
emissions
limit.
Therefore,
certain
aspects
of
40
CFR
Part
75
are
inappropriate
for
inclusion
in
the
Illinois
regulation,
including
the
missing
data
substitution
procedures
for
mercury
continuous
emissions monitors
(75.38)
and
for
sorbent
trap
monitoring
systems
(75.39).
JEPA
agreed
with
this proposed
change
and withdrew
these
provisions.
o The
removal
of the
bias
adjustment
factor,
also
based
on
USEPA’s
Part
75
rules.
In
our
July
comments,
Dominion
recommended
IEPA
withdraw
the bias
adjustment
factor
provided
for in
§2.3.4
of Appendix
D
of
40
CFR
Part
75.
USEPA’s
Part
75 rules
require
that
the monitor
values
be
adjusted
upward
when
the
readings
are
lower
than
the
reference
method
results.
However,
USEPA
does
not
allow
the
values
to
be adjusted
downward
when
the
readings
are
higher
than
the
reference
method
results.
USEPA
describes
its
unidirectional
of the
bias
test
as a
policy
decision,
consistent
with
an
emission
trading
program. Again,
IEPA
agreed
to
withdraw
the bias
adjustment
factor.
-2-
o A
decrease
in
the
data
availability
requirements
from
80%
to 75%.
Dominion,
and
others,
stated
that
it
would
be difficult to
achieve
an
80%
data
availability
given
the
current
state
of the
mercury
monitoring
technology.
JEPA
responded
by
lowering
the
data
availability
from
80%
to
75%.
While
this
is a
good
start,
as
I discuss
below,
we
reconunend
that
further
flexibility be added
to
this
requirement.
Dominion
supports
these
changes and
applauds
IEPA’s
cooperative,
practical
consideration
of
Dominion’s and
the other
affected
companies’
comments
during
the
stakeholder
process.
Nevertheless,
our experience
is
that it
will
be
extremely
difficult
to
operate
these
monitors
and to
keep
them
operating
for
sufficient
periods
of time
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
proposed
monitoring
provisions.
We
have
been
operating
these
monitors
at
a number
of
our facilities
for
over
a year
and
are well
qualified to testify
to
the
reliability
and
maintenance
issues
involved
in
the
day-to-day
operations
of these
systems.
Because
of the
problems
associated
with
the
current
state
of
this technology, Dominion
urges
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
to adopt
as
much
flexibility
as
possible
in
these
rules.
We
have
included
in this
testimony
several
suggestions
on
how
that
might
be accomplished.
I. Background
Dominion
Resources,
Inc.
owns
and
operates
electric
generating
facilities
in
eleven
states,
including
the
1250
megawatt coal-fired
Kincaid
Generation LLC
power
plant,
located
in
Kincaid,
Illinois.
The
company’s
assets
include
about
27,000
megawatts
of
power
generation,
6,000
miles
of electric
transmission,
14,000
miles
of
natural
gas
transmission
pipeline
and
the
nation’s
largest
natural
gas
storage system,
with
more
than
975
billion
cubic
feet
of storage
capacity.
-3-
The Kincaid
plant
has compiled
an
exemplary
environmental
compliance
record.
Since
Dominion
purchased
the plant
in 1998, the
plant has
received
no
environmental
violations
and
has
cut sulfur
dioxide and
nitrogen
oxide
emissions
drastically
from
pre-1998
levels.
Kincaid
was awarded
the
2007 Illinois
Association
of Water
Pollution
Control
Operators
(IAWPCO)
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
ofthe
Year award
in the Industrial
or
Class K
division.
This
honor
is
given, in
conjunction
with
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(IEPA),
at
the annual
IAWPCO
conference.
Kincaid
Station
was
nominated
for
the
award
by
the IEPA
as
one of four
finalists
out
of the
1,594
industrial
wastewater
treatment
facilities
in the
State
of
Illinois.
Kincaid
Station was
recognized
for excellence
in
operating
the
facility
resulting
in no
permit
excursions
in
2006.
In 2008,
Kincaid applied
for and received
a
permit
from
the
JEPA
to
construct
activated carbon
injection
(ACI)
equipment
for
mercury
emissions
control
at both
Kincaid
units.
That
construction
is progressing
and we expect
the ACI
installation
to
be complete
during
March,
2009, well
before the
July
1, 2009
deadline
for compliance
with
the
Illinois
mercury
rules.
II. Discussion
of Dominion
experience
with mercury
monitors
The available
suppliers
of
mercury CEMS
(continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems)
monitors
are
very
limited.
Currently,
only
two companies
provide
most of
the
mercury
CEMS
installed
at
utility
plants, Thermo
Fisher
Scientific
and
Tekran
Instrument
Corp.
After evaluating
both
systems,
including
temporary
installations
of
the
systems
at
Dominion
power
plants, we
have
chosen
the Tekran
system
for
all
of
our
continuous
monitoring
sites.
-4-
Dominion
has since
installed
12
mercury
CEMS
and
three
sorbent
trap
systems
in
response
to
state
requirements
or for
compliance
with
the
now vacated
Clean
Air
Mercury
Rule
(CAMR).
My group
provided
technical
oversight
and startup
support
for the
installation
projects.
We
also
participated
in
the
mercury
calibrator
study conducted
by
RMB
Consulting
for USEPA
and EPRI
(Electric
Power
Research
Institute)
with two
systems.
My
group
owns
and
operates
four
Reference
Method
30B
systems
and
has
conducted
mercury
testing
at
most
of Dominion’s
sites.
Although
we
have
been
generally
successful
in
installing
and
operating
the mercury
CEMS,
there
are
significant
issues
and
challenges
for
us
and
the utility
community
to
overcome.
Much
of the
hardware
used
for these
systems
is
new
and
unproven.
Many
of
the
components
are
modified
for conventional
CEMS,
but are
much
more
complex
and
operating
under
much
more
demanding
requirements. CEMS
for
S02, NOx
and
C02 are
comparatively
simple,
consisting
of
a
dilution
probe,
unheated
umbilical,
analyzer,
sample
controller,
and
calibration
gas
cylinders.
The
pollutants
are
relatively
high
level
in
parts
per
million
or
percent
of
volume
and
generally
non
reactive
with
many
materials.
Mercury
is
very
reactive
with
most
metals
typically
used
for
probes
and
filters,
so everything
in contact
with
the
sample
must be
glass
coated
or PFA
TEFLON.
Mercury
is
present
in
much
lower
concentrations
than
the
other regulated
gases
(1
ug/m
3
is
approximately
120 parts
per
trillion)
and
is
present
in two
forms,
elemental
(Hg°) and
oxidized
(Hg
generally
HgC1
2
).
If
the sample
is
not
kept
very hot
the
oxidized
Hg
will stick
to
the
transport
materials
and
not
make
it
to
the
analyzer.
Also,
all the
Hg
must
be converted
to
elemental
Hg
to
be
measured
by
the
Hg
analyzer.
Because
of the
reactive
nature
of Hg,
calibration
gas
cylinders
are
not
stable
and
very
expensive,
so
the system
must
generate
its
own
calibration
gases.
Inert
gases,
such
as
ultra-pure
Argon
or
nitrogen
and
de-ionized
water
are
-5-
needed to
carry
and
wash
the
sample.
These
issues
make
the
Hg
CEMS
a
complex
system
of
many
components
that
must
work
precisely
together
to obtain
accurate
measurements.
The
complexity
of
the
measurement
requirements
and
the
multitude
of
components
needed
to
make
it
all
work,
make
the
systems
fragile
and
difficult
to maintain.
The
following
is
a
list
of
some
of
the
significant
issues
we
have
encountered:
1)
Umbilical
Failures:
The
bundle of
tubes
and
wires
that
transport
the
mercury
sample
collected from
the
power
station
smoke
stack
to
the
mercury
analyzer
housed
on
the
ground is called
an
“umbilical”.
A heater
strip
runs
beside
the
tubes
to
keep
the
sample
inside the
tubes
hot,
and
the
whole
bundle
is
insulated.
Most
of
the
umbilicals
are
installed up
the
outside
of the
stack
in
cable
trays
and
are
200
feet
to
450
feet
in
length.
It
is
the
single-most
difficult
and
expensive
component
of the
mercury
CEMS
to
replace.
Five
of
the
thirteen
umbilicals
that
Dominion
has
placed
in
service
have
experienced
fatal
failures and
had
to
be
replaced.
Umbilicals
used
in
the
Tekran
systems
have
PFA
TEFLON
tubes
and
Tekran
originally
recommended
that
they
be
operated
at
180°C,
(356
°F)
which
is very
near
the
melting
point
of
PFA.
Due
to
the
number
of
failures,
however,
Tekran
has
withdrawn
this
recommendation
but
has
not
developed
an
alternative
operational
temperature.
Several
of
these
failures
occurred
after
nearly
a
year
of
operation.
They
are
engineered
and
manufactured
for
specific
site
specifications
and
delivery
is
typically
4 to
12
weeks.
Installation
requires
specialized
equipment
and
craft
to
remove
the
damaged
umbilicals
and
re-pull
and
hang
the
replacement.
Assuming
weather
is
not
an
issue,
this
typically
will
take
a
week
to
complete.
In
anticipation
of this
potentially
extended
downtime
for
umbilical
failure,
Dominion
has
installed a
“spare
-6-
backup”
umbilical
at
all
sites,
however
we
had
one
of
our
backup
umbilicals
also
fail
and
the
system
was
down
for
weeks.
2)
Umbilical
Temperature
Control:
In
addition to
the
umbilical
failures,
we
are
having
problems
with
temperature
control
along
the
length
of
the
umbilical.
We
installed
multiple
sensors in
the
length
of
the
umbilical
and
see
differences
of
as much
as
40°C
between
points. The
sample
temperature
has
to
be
maintained
high
enough
to
prevent loss
of oxidized
Hg
sample.
We
are
currently
working
with
the
vendors
to
resolve
this
issue.
3)
Probe
Heater
Failure: We
had
one
probe
heater
fail,
which
had
to
be
returned
to
the
manufacturer
for
repair. The
system
has
been
down
since
mid-December
2008
and
we
do
not
have
the
repaired parts
yet.
Another
probe
overheated
and
melted
the
filter
and
gaskets
resulting in
more
than
a
week
of
downtime.
4)
Oxidized
Mercury Calibrator:
Dominion
also
had
an
oxidized
mercury
calibrator
fail
at
one
of
our
sites
and
it
had
to be
returned to
the
manufacturer.
That
system
has
been
operating
without
conducting
system
integrity
tests
since
late
September
2008
and
the
calibrator had
to
be
sent
to
Canada
and
has
not
yet
been
returned.
5)
Sample
Pump
Failure:
Sample
pumps
were
not
recommended
as
spare
parts;
and
the
pump
took
a
week
to
be
shipped
from
Canada.
6)
System
Contamination:
Problems
with
the
argon
and
water
supply
caused
contamination.
It
took
almost
5
days
to
return
to
service.
7)
Failed
System
Integrity Tests:
The
System
Integrity
Test
was
the
most
failed
QA
test
for
the
units
that
conduct
them.
We
recorded
from
80
to
150
hours
downtime
per
system
in
-7-
2008
due to
failed integrity tests. The
technicians
manually
control the test
each week to
make sure they work properly and
to minimize
downtime.
There
are
very limited vendor resources to
support these
systems.
With
the
vacatur
of CAMR,
the
mercury
CEMS market is very
unclear and vendors do
not
appear
to
be
willing
to
invest in
sufficient qualified personnel. Additionally, they
have a captive
market, where
there
is
virtually
no competition or other source of
expertise. Most service must be
scheduled
weeks in
advance
and with the technicians traveling on Mondays and
Fridays,
they
provide only 3 days
of work per
week.
The
mercury CEMS are new and relatively
complex
systems,
primarily due to
the reactive nature
of mercury and the extremely low levels of
concentrations in utility
boiler exhaust gases.
It has
taken at least
a
year for competent, trained technicians
that work on
mercury CEMS
consistently
to be able to do non-routine diagnostics
on these systems. Most
technicians,
unless dedicated to
operating and maintaining these systems, will not be
able
to
perform
more than routine
maintenance,
and
will
require outside
expertise
to
diagnose and
repair
non-routine
problems.
III. Dominion urges the IPCB to incorporate as much
flexibility as
possible into the Illinois
mercury
monitoring rules.
Because of the experiences we have described above, we have
concerns
about
our ability to
maintain compliance with the current mercury
monitoring proposal. Our
experience indicates
that
failures with these systems
can
result in
weeks of downtime and
will result in our inability to
demonstrate compliance.
We offer the
following suggestions:
-8-
A. Data
availability
should
be based
on
a
12-month
period.
Section
225.260
specifies
that
monitor
availability
be
determined
on
a
calendar
quarter
basis
in accordance
with
Section
1.8
of
Appendix
B
following initial
certification
of the
required
C02,
02,
flow
monitor,
or
mercury
concentration
or moisture
monitoring
system(s)
at
a particular
unit
or stack
location.
We
do
not
believe
demonstration
of
compliance
with
a
12-month
rolling
average
emissions standard
should
be
based
on data
availability
calculated
over
only
one
fourth
of
the
compliance
period.
It
should
be based
on
the
availability
over
the
compliance
period.
The
acid
rain
monitoring program,
under
40 CFR
Part
75
and which
much
of
the
Illinois
proposed
mercury
monitoring
program
is based,
calculates
data
availability
for
missing
data
purposes
over
8760
operating
hours,
or
3
years.’
The
40
CFR
Part
60
rules
(relating
to
monitoring
requirements
for
new
or
modified
sources)
generally
require
75%
data
capture
over
the averaging period
for
long
term
rolling
averages,
(such
as
22
days
of
a
30
day
average).
We
believe
the
compliance determination
for
the monitoring
systems
should
be
based
on
the
same
period
as
the mercury
emissions
standard,
which
is a
12-
month
rolling
average.
2
We
also
recommend
that
special
consideration
should
be
offered
for
the
first
12 months
of
operation
which
is
likely
to be
the
most
difficult
period
to
achieve
reliable
operation. This
can
be accomplished
by
removing
any
specific
data
availability for the
first
12
months.
Until
a full
12 months
of data
is
collected,
the
number
40
CFR
Part
75.32,
“Determination of
monitor
data
availability for
standard
missing
data procedures”
2
Title
35,
Subtitle
B,
Chapter
I,
Subchapter
c,
Part
225
“Control
of
Emissions
from
Large
Combustion
Sources”,
Section
225.230,
“Emission
Standards
for
EGUs
at Existing
Sources.”
-9-
of
possible
hours
in
the
calculation
is
smaller,
giving
each
hour
of downtime
more
weight,
making
it
more
difficult to
meet
an
availability
requirement.
There
would
be
strong incentive
to achieve
high
availability,
since
these
hours
would
be
used
in
calculating
the
rolling
availability
following
the
first
12
months.
Dominion
believes
there
is
strong
justification
to
change
this
quarterly
data availability
calculation
and
recommends
the
Board
adopt
changes
to
the
rule
that
would
align
this
data
availability
calculation
with
the
mercury
emissions
limitation
averaging
scheme.
We
offer
the
following
wording
changes:
225.APPEND
IX
B
Continuous
Emission
Monitoring
Systems
for
Mercury
Section 1.8
Determination
of
monitor data
availability
a)
Following
initial
ccrtJication
and
up
to
the
first
12
months
of
operation
of
the
required
CU
2
,
02
,flow
monitoring
systems(s),
Hg
concentration,
or
moisture
monitoring
system(s)
at
a
particular
unit
or
stack
location
(i.E.,
the
date
and
time
at
which
quality-assured
data
begins to
be
recorded
by
the
CEMS(s)
at
that
location),
the
owner or
operator
must
begin
calculating
the
percent
monitor
data
availability
as
described
in
paragraph (a)(1)
ofthis
Section, by
means
of
the
automated
data
acquisition
and
handling
system,
and
the
percent
monitor
data
availability
for
each
monitored
parameter.
1)
Following
initial
certfi
cation, the
owner
or
operator
must
use
Equation
8
to
calculate,
hourly, percent
monitor
data
availability
for
each
calendar
quarter
12
month
period.
-10-
Total
unit
operating
hours
Percent
For
which
quality-assured
data
monitor
data
was
recorded
for
the
for
the
calendar
quarter
12-month
period
X
100
(Eq.
8)
availability
Total
unit
operating
hours
for
the
calendar
quarter
12-month
period
B.
The
final
percent
data
availability
standard
should
be
phased
in
to
75%.
Section
225.260
of
the
JEPA
mercury
rules
(“Out
of Control
Periods
and
Data
Availability for
Emission
Monitors”)
requires
“[c}ompliance
with
the
percent
reduction
standard in Section
225.230(a)(1)(B)
or
225.237(a)(1)(B)
or
the
emissions
concentration
standard in
Section
225.230(a)(1)(A)
or
225.237(a)(1)(A)
can
only
be
demonstrated
if
the
monitor
data
availability
is
equal
to
or greater
than
75
percent;
that
is,
quality
assured
data
must
be
recorded
by a
certified
primary
monitor,
a
certified
redundant
or
non-redundant
backup
monitor,
or reference method
for
that
unit
at
least
75
percent
of
the
time
the
unit
is
in
operation.”
3
As
we
have
stated
previously, we
recognize
this
represents a
favorable
change
from
the
IEPA
initial
draft
of these
rules.
However,
given
the
difficulty
Dominion has
encountered,
as described
here,
during
the
initial
phases
of implementation
of our
mercury
monitoring program,
we believe a phase-in
of
the
75%
data
availability
requirement
is
warranted. We
suggest
the
JEPA
program
begin
with
a
65%
data
availability
requirement
in
July
2010
rising
to
a
75%
standard in July
2011.
We
offer
the
following
wording changes:
Section 225.260
“Out
of
Control
Periods
and
Data
Availability
for
Emission
Monitors”
IBID,
Section
225.260(b)
—11—
b)..
“Compliance
with
the
percent
reduction
standard
in
Section
225.230(a)
(1) (B),
225.233(d) (1) (B)
or
(d)(2)(B),
225.237(a)
(1)
(B)
or
225.294(c)
(2),
or the
emissions
concentration
standard
in
Section
225.230(a)
(1)
(A)
or
225.237(a)
(1) (A)
can
only
be
demonstrated
fthe
monitor
data
availability
is equal
to
or greater
than
65
percent
following
the
first year
the
rule
is
effective
(July],
2010)
and
increasing
to
75 percent
the
next
year
starting
July],
201];
that
is, quality
assured
data
must
be recorded
by
a
certfiedpriinary
monitor,
a
cerqfied
redundant
or
non-redundant
backup
monitor,
or
reference
methodfor
that
unit
at
least
65
percent
for
the
first
year
(July],
2010
through
June
30,
20]])
and
75 percent
ofthe
time
the
unit is
in
operation
after
that
first
year.”
C. The
January
14,
2009
revision
to Appendix
B Section
1.7
added
weekly
system
integrity
tests
as
an “out-of-control
period”.
Exhibit
B of
Appendix
B
Section
2.6
also
specifies
failed
integrity
tests
as
an “out-of-control
period”.
These
tests
are
difficult
to
pass
and we
ask
the
Board
to
consider
less
stringent
criteria.
We
have
found
the
system
integrity
test
to
be very
difficult
to
meet
on a
weekly
basis
and
believe
it
will
create
significant
additional
out-of-control
periods
with
the
current
technology.
This
test
is different and much
more
difficult
than
the
linearity
because
it
requires
oxidized
Hg
standards.
Based
on
our experience, we
request
more
reasonable
criteria
than
the
10%
of the
reference
value
or
0.8
ug/m
3
absolute
difference
specified
in
the
Section
3.2(c)
of Exhibit A to
Appendix
B for
weekly
checks.
We
recommend
expanding
the
requirements to
allow
these
limits
to
be
considered
a
“maintenance
limit”
and having
the
out-of-control
limits
at twice
the linearity
standard
or 20%
and
1.6
ug/m
3
.
We
also
recommend
that additional
time
be
allowed
between
tests
before
the
system
is
-12-
considered
out-of—control.
The
weekly
criteria
are
specified
as
168
operating
hours,
which does
not
allow
for
flexibility
in running
the
tests.
We
typically
manually
initiate
the
test
to
make sure
the
system
operates
correctly
and
so
that
they
can
take
immediate
action
if
there
are
problems.
They
would
have
to
be
available
the
same
day
and
hour
each
week
to
keep
the
system
on
the
same
schedule.
This
request
is
similar to
having 26
hours
to
conduct
a daily
calibration.
We
suggest the
following
change
to
Section
2.6
of
Exhibit B
Appendix
B:
2.6
System
Integrity
Checks
for
Mercury
Monitors
For
each
mercury
concentration
monitoring
system
(except
for
a
mercury
monitor
that
does
not
have
a converter),
perform
a
single-point
system
integrity
check
weekly,
i.e.,
approximately
at
least
once
every 168
unit
or stack
operating
hours,
using
a
NIST
traceable
source of
oxidized
mercury.
Perform
this
check
using
a
mid-
or
high-level
gas
concentration,
as
defined
in
Section
5.2
of
Exhibit A
to
this
Appendix.
The
measurement
error
must
not
exceed
twice
the
performance
specIcations
in subsection
(3)
ofSection
3.2
of
Exhibit
A
to this
Appendix
must
be
met,
otherwise
the
monitoring
system
is
considered
out-of-control,
from
the
hour
of
the
failed
check
until
a subsequent
system
integrity check
is passed. If
a
required
system
integrity
check
is
not
performed
and
passed
within
4-68-216
unit
or
stack
operating
hours of
last
successful
check,
the
monitoring
system
will
also
be
considered
out
of
control,
beginning
with
the
469
th
217th
unit
or
stack
operating
hour
after
the
last
successful
check,
and
continuing
until
subsequent
system
integrity check
is
passed.
This
weekly
check
is
not
required
if
the
daily
-13-
calibration
assessments
in
Section
2.1.1
of
this
Exhibit
are
performed
using
a
NIST
traceable
source
of
oxidized
mercury.
D.
Much
of
the
JEPA
Quality
Assurance
Procedures
included
in
this
rulemaking
refer
to
monitors
for
SO
2
,
NON,
C0
2
,
and
flow.
These
should
be
removed.
Dominion
recommends
IEPA
remove all
quality
assurance
references to
monitoring
procedures
that
are
not
relevant to
mercury
monitors.
Duplication
of
these
requirements
will
cause
confusion and
errors
when
the
40 CFR
Part
75
or the
IEPA
rules
are
updated
and
any
requirement
is changed.
This
will
eliminate
major
portions
of
Exhibit
B,
Exhibit
C
and
Exhibit
D
of Appendix
B,
and
minimize
the
duplication of
QA
requirements already
specified
in Part
75
regulations.
We
will
provide
recommended
strikethrough
language
of
the
duplicated QA
text
if requested.
E.
The
USEPA
has
removed
the
requirements
for
accreditation
of
Air
Emissions
Testing
Bodies
(AETB)
conducting
relative
accuracy
testing
for
CEMS
and
sorbent
traps
from
the
40
CFR
Part
75
rules,
pending
litigation.
4
The
IEPA
rules
referring
to
AETB
should
also
be
removed.
Section
6.1.2
of Exhibit
A
to Appendix
B
of
the
JEPA
proposed
rules
set
out
requirements
for
AETB
conducting
QA
emissions
testing
on
mercury
CEMS.
USEPA has
withdrawn
this
portion
of the
40
CFR
Part
75
rules
while
the
agency
reviews
legal
issues
that
have
been
raised.
The
TEPA
rules
should
withdraw
73
Fed.
Reg.65554, November 4,
2008.
-14-
these
provisions
as
well. We
therefore
suggest
the
following
change
to
Section
6.1.2
of
Exhibit
A to
Appendix
B:
A..
.
(a)
On
and
aftcr
January],
2009,
any
Air
Emission
Testing
body
(AETB)
conducting
relative accuracy
test
audits
ofGEMS
and
sorbent
trap
monitoring
systems
under
Part
225,
Subpart
B,
must
conform to
the
requirements
ofASTMD7O36
04
(incorporated
by
reference
under
Section
225.1
1Q.
This
Section
is
not
applicable
to
to
daily
operation,
daily
calibration
error
checks,
daily
flow
interference
checks,
quarterly
linearity
checks
or
routine
maintenance
of
CEMS.
b)
The
AETB
must
provide
to
the
affected
source(s)
certcation
that
the
AETB operates
in
conformance
with,
and
that
data
submitted
to
the
Agency
has
been
collected
in
accordance
with, the
requirements
ofASTMD7O36
04
(incorporated
by
reference
under
Section
225.1 lOf
This
certification
may
be
provided
in
the
form of
A
certflcate
of
accreditation
of
relevant scope
issued
by
a
recognized,
national
accreditation
body;
or
A letter of
certcation
signed by
a
member
of
the
senior
management
staff
ofthe
AETB.
(c)
The
AETB must
either
provide
a
Qualified
individual
on
site
to
conduct
or
must
oversee
all
relative accuracy
testing
carried out
by
the
AETB as
required
in
ASTM
D7036 04
(incorporated by
reference
under
section
225.1
10,.
The
Qual/Ied
Individual
-15-
provide
the
affected sour
credentials
relevant to
tcstiiw
con.
F.
The
Quality Assurance
Procedures
for
sorbent
trap
monitors
contains
a
provision
to
multiply
the
results
from
one
sorbent
trap
when
one
of
the
two
traps
fails.
This
is
unnecessarily
stringent
and
should
be
removed.
Exhibit D
to
Appendix
B,
Section
8.0
“Quality
Assurance
and
Quality
Control”
provides
performance
criteria
for
validating
mercury
emissions
data
from
sorbent
trap
monitoring
systems.
For
situations
when
one
trap
fails,
data
from
the
other
trap
may
be
used
but
the
values
must
be
multiplied
by
a
factor of
1.111.
This
is
another
holdover
from
the
federal
mercury
monitoring
program,
designed
for
allowance
trading and
should
be
deleted
for
the
Illinois
rules.
5
We
offer
the
following
wording
to
effect these
changes:
“Exhibit
D to
appendix
B
— Quality
assurance
and
Operating
Procedures
for
Sorbent
Trap
monitoring
Systems
***
[FN**]
Note:
If
both
traps
fail
to meet
the
acceptance
criteria,
the
data
from
the
pair
of
traps
are
invalidated.
However,
f
only
one
of
the
paired
traps
fails
to meet
this
particular
acceptance
criterion and
the
other
sample
meets
all
of
the
applicable
QA
criteria,
the
results
40
CFR
Part
75.1
5(h)(2)
“Special
provisions
for
measuring
Hg
mass
emissions
using
the
excepted
sorbent
trap
monitoring methodology”
-16-
of
the
valid
trap
may
be
used
for
reporting
under
this
part,
provided
that
the
measured
Hg
concentration
is
multiplied
by
afactor of].
111....”
G.
Dominion
supports
the
inclusion
of
an
alternative
to
continuous
emissions
monitoring
for
compliance
demonstrations,
but
asks
the
Board
to
make the
alternative
a
permanent
option. The
JEPA
rules
include
at section
225
.239
periodic
emissions
testing
as
an
alternative
to the
continuous
emissions
monitoring
requirement.
We
are
supportive
of
such
an
alternative
but
urge the
JEPA
to
adopt
this
option
as
a
permanent
alternative
rather
than
making it
available
only
until
2012.
For
many
of
the
reasons
we
have
presented
here
provide
justification
to
make
this
alternative
permanent,
or
extended
to
2015
or
later.
We
also
suggest
IEPA
consider
how
an
affected
facility
could
“opt
in”
to
this
alternative
after
they
have
determined,
following
a
good
faith
effort,
that
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
option
simply
will
not
work
for
their
application.
These
changes
could
be
accomplished
by
the
following:
“Section
225.239
Periodic
Emissions
Testing
Alternative
Requirements
a)
‘“‘
3
The
alternative
method
of
compliance
provided
under
this
subsetion
may
only
be
used
until
June
30,
2012,
after
which
a
GEMS
(or
an
excepted
/sicj
monitoring
system
certified
in
accordance
with
Section
225.250
of
this
Subpart
B
must
be
used.”
Or,
f
the
alternative
is
extended
to
2015:
-17-
a)
** *
3. The alternative
method ofcompliance
provided
under
this
subsection
may
only
be
used until
June 30,
2012
2015,
after which
a
CEMS (or
an
excepted
[sic]
monitoring
system)
certf
led in
accordance with Section
225.250
of
this Subpart
B must be used.”
Conclusion
For the reasons
listed above Kincaid
requests
this
Board to
adopt
the
changes
we have
identified in
this testimony
so
that
affected
facilities
can proceed
expeditiously
with
plans for
compliance
with
the
IEPA
rules.
-18-
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
I,
David
L.
Rieser,
one
of
the
attorneys
for
Kincaid
Generation
LLC,
certify
that
I
served a
copy
of
Testimony
of
David
Nuckols
to
thOse
persons
listed on
the
attached
Notice
of
Filing
on
February
2,
2009
electronically
and
by
First
Class
Mail,
postage
prepaid.
ets
David
L.
Rieser
Brad
Daniels
McGuireWoods
LLP
77
West
Wacker,
Suite 4100
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
Telephone: 312/849-8100
\7363650.1
SERVICE
LIST
(R09-1O)
Timothy Fox
Hearing
Officer
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
100
West
Randolph,
Suite
11-500
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
foxt@ipcb.state.il.us
JohnJ.
Kim
Charles F.
Matoesian
Dana
Vetterhoffer
Division
of
Legal
Counsel
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1021
North
Grand
Avenue,
East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
john.i
.kim(i1linois.gov
charles.matoesian(i11inois
.gov
S. David
Farris,
Manager,
Environmental,
Health
and
Safety
City
of Springfield,
City
Water
Light
&
Power
dana.vetterhoffer(illinois.
gov
201
East
Lake
Shore
Drive
Springfield,
Illinois 62757
dfarris@cwlp.com
Kathleen
C.
Bassi
Stephen
J.
Bonebrake
Joshua
R.
More
SCHIFF
HARDIN,
LLP
6600
Sears
Tower
233
South
Wacker
Drive
Chicago,
IL
60606
kbassi(schifthardin.com
j
more(schifthardin.com
\73
63650.1