1643
1
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AUGUST 22, 2006
2
3 IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
4 PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225 ) R06-25
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM LARGE ) (Rulemaking-Air)
5 COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY)
)
6
7
Report of proceedings had at the hearing in
8 the above-entitled cause before HEARING OFFICER
9 MARIE E. TIPSORD, called by the Illinois Pollution
10 Control Board, pursuant to notice, taken before Martina
11 Manzo, Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public
12 within and for the County of Cook and State of
13 Illinois, at the James R. Thompson Center, 100 West
14 Randolph Street, Assembly Hall, Chicago, Illinois,
15 commencing at 1:00 p.m. on the 22nd day of August,
16 A.D., 2006.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1644
1 APPEARANCES:
2 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
3
Ms. Marie E. Tipsord, Hearing Officer
Mr. G. Tanner Girard, Acting Chairman
4
Mr. Nicholas J. Melas, Board Member
Mr. Timothy J. Fox, Board Member
5
Ms. Andrea S. Moore, Board Member
Mr. Anand Rao, Board Member
6
Mr. Thomas E. Johnson, Board Member
7 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
8
Mr. Charles E. Matoesian
Mr. John J. Kim
9
Mr. David E. Bloomberg
Mr. Christopher Romaine
10
Ms. Michelle Rousey
Mr. Kevin Mattison
11
Dr. Thomas C. Hornshaw
Mr. Jeffrey W. Sprague
12
SCHIFF, HARDIN, LLP
13
Mr. Stephen J. Bonebrake
14
Mr. Sheldon A. Zabel
Ms. Kathleen C. Bassi
15
Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
16
Suite 6600
Chicago, Illinois 60606
17
Phone: (312) 258-5646
18 ENVIRONMENT ILLINOIS
19
Mr. Keith I. Harley
205 West Monroe Street
20
Suite 400
Chicago, Illinois 60606
21
Phone: (312) 726-2938
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1645
1
MR. BONEBRAKE: Madam Hearing Officer,
2 before the break, we had skipped 21 subparts (e), (f),
3 (g), and (h), moved on to question 22, and we'd like
4 now to return to Question 21, subparts (e) through (h.)
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.
6
DR. CHARNLEY: 21 (e) and (f) have to do
7 with a study that I've already discussed as in response
8 to Question Number 17 earlier, and I would have no
9 different responses now than I did when it was
10 Question 17. So I would like to refer (e) and (f) to
11 my responses 17(a) and (b).
12
Question (g): Are you aware that
13 about 16 percent of women in the U.S. have hair levels
14 above the EPA reference dose?
15
And I'm going to quote from the
16 Centers for Disease Control, Morbidity and Mortality
17 Weekly.
18
MR. MATOESIAN: I'm sorry. Just one
19 thing. I think (e) and (f) are phrased somewhat
20 differently. Could you maybe just state for the record
21 your answers exactly to (e) and (f), please?
22
DR. CHARNLEY: All righty.
23
Are you aware --
24
MR. BONEBRAKE: Are we going to start --
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1646
1
DR. CHARNLEY: This is (e).
2
MR. BONEBRAKE: Thank you.
3
DR. CHARNLEY: Are you aware that in the
4 study of infant memory in Massachusetts, effects were
5 found in a population that was not chosen on the basis
6 of high fish consumption?
7
Response: That is what the authors
8 reported, yes.
9
(F): Are you aware that in the
10 Massachusetts Study, infants of mothers with hair
11 levels above the EPA reference dose, 1.2 parts per
12 million, performed more poorly than infants of mothers
13 with lower hair levels?
14
Response: Yes. The 14 women whose
15 hair mercury level exceeded EPA's reference dose had
16 children who performed somewhat more poorly than the
17 children of the women who had lower hair mercury. The
18 authors concluded that, quote, these findings based on
19 a relatively small group of women merit further
20 investigation and verification in other populations
21 consuming moderate amounts of seafood, end quote. In
22 other words, the authors concede that their results are
23 basically preliminary due to the small sample size.
24 Their results are not confirmed by the results in the
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1647
1 Seychelles which involve significantly higher
2 methylmercury exposure, 6.9 parts per million
3 hair-growth methylmercury on average, 779 infant-mother
4 pairs, and no effect on VRM scores.
5
MR. MATOESIAN: Thank you.
6
DR. CHARNLEY: Sure.
7
(G): Are you aware that about
8 16 percent of women in the U.S. have hair levels above
9 the EPA reference dose?
10
I'm quoting from the Centers for
11 Disease Control, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly, dated
12 March 2nd, 2001, which, to my knowledge, is the last
13 time the CDC analyzed mercury in hair in a
14 representative cross-section of U.S. women of
15 reproductive age. They report that the 90th -- this is
16 quote. The 90th percentile of hair mercury for women
17 was 1.4 parts per million -- Yeah, the 90th percentile.
18 Geometric mean values could not be calculated because
19 so many of the values were below the limit of
20 detection. So if the 90th percentile of hair mercury
21 is 1.4 parts per million, I'm not seeing how we get to
22 the 16 percent of women in the U.S. That is
23 inconsistent with what the Centers for Disease Control
24 has reported.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1648
1
In any case -- My response: In any
2 case, exceeding the EPA reference dose, as I've noted
3 in the answer to -- answers to quite a few of the
4 earlier questions, exceeding a reference dose is not an
5 indication of status of risk and does not suggest that
6 there is a risk to the women or the children of the
7 women whose hair happens to exceed a reference dose,
8 if, in fact, it does.
9
And I would remind you that the CDC
10 also reported that none of the women who had been
11 examined for blood mercury levels had levels that
12 approached the levels that are associated with toxicity
13 based on the Faroe Study.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: (H).
15
DR. CHARNLEY: (H): Are you aware of
16 any epidemiological studies in Japan exploring
17 potential neuropsychological consequences to the
18 offspring of maternal fish consumption for
19 methylmercury exposure in the general population? If
20 not, of what relevance are data from Japan?
21
I -- Without going to -- Without
22 doing literature searching right now, I can say that I
23 am aware that much of the information that we have
24 about the effects of methylmercury in offspring of
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1649
1 exposed women comes from Japan as a result of the
2 Minamata poisoning incident. Now, that, of course, is
3 a poisoning incident, which means that the exposure
4 level was much higher than we would expect in the
5 general population. But I think that there, of course,
6 would have been a gradation with some group of the
7 women in that area exposed to lower levels than others.
8 So without actually looking up the literature, I can't
9 respond to -- I can't cite specific studies, but I can
10 certainly say that there's information from Japan.
11
Of what relevance are the data from
12 Japan? I'm not sure of what relevance to what exactly.
13 But if the question is, of what relevance are data from
14 Japan to the United States' general population, I would
15 have to respond that they are about as relevant as data
16 from the Faroe Islands and the Seychelle Islands.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question 24.
18
DR. CHARNLEY: All right. You discussed
19 the evidence for cardiovascular effects related to fish
20 consumption and methylmercury exposure.
21
Response: Yes, because I found the
22 discussion of that subject in the TSD to be biased
23 towards identifying only negative impacts, ignoring the
24 large literature demonstrating the cardiovascular
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1650
1 benefits of fish consumption.
2
(A): Are you aware that the
3 Physicians' Study recently identified increased atrial
4 fibrillation related to increased fish consumption in
5 men?
6
Response: I am aware that the
7 Physicians' Health Study has failed to find
8 associations between fish or Omega-3 fatty acids and
9 changes in coronary heart disease risk in general. I
10 am also aware that studies other than the Physicians'
11 Study have failed to find an association between fish
12 consumption and increased atrial fibrillation
13 specifically.
14
For example, in the Rotterdam Study
15 of 5,184 subjects, intakes of long-chain fatty acids
16 and the consumption of fish were not associated with
17 the onset of atrial fibrillation. According to
18 Kris-Etherton, et al. -- that's K-R-I-S, dash,
19 E-T-H-E-R-T-O-N -- one explanation for the apparent
20 inconsistency among studies is that studies failing to
21 find an association between fish consumption and
22 beneficial coronary effects tend to have only small
23 fractions of their study populations, like three
24 percent, reporting little to no fish consumption. Only
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1651
1 studies including sizable non-fish-eating populations
2 have reported an inverse association between fish
3 consumption and coronary mortality. Other explanations
4 include the varying coronary heart disease risk status
5 of the populations studied and the types of fish
6 consumed.
7
Overall, however, the weight of the
8 scientific evidence clearly demonstrates beneficial
9 cardiac effects associated with fish consumption.
10
(B): Are you aware that in an
11 analysis of multiple clinical randomized control trials
12 with consumption of fish oil on cardiovascular health
13 that no beneficial effects were observed (Hooper,
14 et al., British Medical Journal, 2006, on-line)?
15
Response: Once again, IEPA
16 mischaracterizes the authors' conclusions. Hooper,
17 et al., did not conclude that no beneficial effects
18 were observed. They concluded that, quote, Long-chain
19 and shorter-chain Omega-3 fats do not have a clear
20 effect on total mortality, combined cardiovascular
21 events, or cancer, closed quote. In other words,
22 Hooper did not say that fish oil does not protect
23 against heart attacks or that it has no beneficial
24 effects. What it said -- What they said was that at
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1652
1 present, their analysis of the evidence found it
2 insufficiently strong to be sure that such an effect
3 exists.
4
An expert committee convened by the
5 International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and
6 Lipids to review Hooper, et al., disagreed with the
7 authors' conclusions. In its report, the expert
8 committee found that Hooper's results are consistent
9 with the Null Hypothesis primarily due to the inclusion
10 of a single study known as DART 2. That's capital D,
11 capital A, capital R, capital T, 2.
12
Apparently, the DART 2 Study was
13 well-designed but poorly conducted due to serious
14 under-funding. The expert committee's report provides
15 a detailed analysis of the problems with the DART 2
16 Study, problems with which the study authors themselves
17 agree. The expert committee also provides a detailed
18 analysis of the flaws in the Hooper Study. When DART 2
19 was excluded from the Hooper, et al., metanalysis, the
20 overall decrease in relative risk with Omega-3
21 consumption became similar to that reported in a
22 previous metanalysis by Bucher.
23
In other words, other metanalyses
24 have reported beneficial effects of fish oil with
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1653
1 regard to coronary heart disease; and when you
2 eliminate a single flawed study from the Hooper
3 analysis, it does, too.
4
In addition, according to a report
5 by Hibbeln -- that's H-I-B-B-E-L-N -- n-3 long-chain
6 fatty acids have been specifically recommended for the
7 secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and are
8 the focus of considerable attention for the prevention
9 and treatment of a variety of other disorders with an
10 inflammatory component, including Type 2 diabetes,
11 irritable bowel syndrome, macular degeneration,
12 rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, several cancers, and
13 psychiatric disorders.
14
The International Society for the
15 Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids has concluded that
16 there is a worldwide deficiency in Omega-3 fatty-acid
17 intake and makes specific dietary recommendations
18 regarding the minimum required to maintain cardiac
19 health.
20
MR. BONEBRAKE: Excuse me. I believe
21 you referred to Bucher Study. Could you spell that for
22 the court reporter?
23
DR. CHARNLEY: B-U-C-H-E-R.
24
(C): Are you aware that the amount
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1654
1 of Omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil capsules is greater
2 than that -- greater than what could reasonably be
3 consumed through fish consumption?
4
Response: Yes. Of course if the
5 beneficial effects have a threshold, excess fish-oil
6 intake would not be helpful.
7
(D): Isn't it true that the
8 randomized control trial design of these studies in
9 which people are assigned randomly to fish oil or
10 control eliminates problems associated with letting
11 people choose their own behavior (to eat fish or not)?
12
Response: Presumably. However,
13 Brouwer, B-R-O-U-W-E-R, concluded that evidence on this
14 subject from such trials is inconsistent, pointing out
15 that in two open-label trials in patients with a
16 previous myocardial infarction, intake of fish or fish
17 oil prevented fatal coronary heart disease while, in
18 contrast, a trial in patients with angina suggested a
19 higher risk of sudden cardiac death in patients taking
20 fish oil.
21
(E): Is it possible there are
22 other lifestyle choices by people who eat fish that may
23 be responsible for or contributing to the observed
24 correlation between fish consumption and cardiovascular
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1655
1 health, such as decreased meat consumption or increased
2 exercise?
3
Response: It's possible, but many
4 studies attempt to control for those differences.
5
For example, Mozaffarian,
6 M-O-Z-A-F-F-A-R-I-A-N, controlled for lifestyle choices
7 and still found a beneficial effect to fish in a cohort
8 of 5,096 men and women. As I have outlined above, the
9 weight of the scientific evidence clearly supports a
10 positive association between fish intake and
11 cardiovascular health.
12
(F): Are you aware that other
13 studies, in addition to the Finnish Study you
14 discussed, found an association between methylmercury
15 levels and increased risk for adverse cardiovascular
16 effects?
17
Response: Yes, and I am also aware
18 that the Finnish results were considered preliminary by
19 the American Heart Association which has concluded that
20 when consumed, according to the established FDA EPA
21 guidelines, the cardiovascular benefits of eating fish
22 far outweigh the risks for middle-aged and older men
23 and women after menopause.
24
And as I have stated in my
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1656
1 publications, although the evidence that mercury is
2 associated with coronary heart disease risk is
3 contradictory and there is insufficient evidence to
4 conclude that mercury is associated with risk, these
5 suggestive positive findings and the plausible
6 biological modes of action warrant additional research.
7
(G): Are you aware that there are
8 studies in which Omega-3 oils from plants rather than
9 fish have been found to reduce cardiovascular disease?
10
Response: I think that question
11 overstates the results of the very limited research in
12 this area. I am aware of the Lyons, L-Y-O-N-S, Heart
13 Study which found a dramatic drop in death rate in the
14 group treated with the so-called Mediterranean Diet
15 which is an-Alpha-linolenic-acid-rich diet due, in
16 part, to lots of fruits and vegetables. An
17 Alpha-linolenic acid is an Omega-3 fatty acid derived
18 from plants.
19
That study has not been replicated,
20 however. A few other very limited studies of the
21 effects of plant oils have been reviewed by the Agency
22 for Healthcare Research and Quality which concluded
23 that results are unclear.
24
The end.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1657
1
MR. MATOESIAN: I just have a
2 couple more, please.
3
On page 6 of your testimony --
4
MR. BONEBRAKE: You said page 6?
5
MR. MATOESIAN: Yeah, 6.
6
(Continuing.) -- of your testimony,
7 you mention a map generated by USEPA which you include
8 as Exhibit 2.
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Matoesian,
10 you need to speak up.
11
MR. MATOESIAN: A map generated by
12 USEPA which you include as Exhibit 2.
13
DR. CHARNLEY: Yes.
14
MR. MATOESIAN: Looking at that exhibit
15 now, which is attached to your testimony, this says
16 it's a USEPA map from 2005, deposition from U.S. power
17 plants in 2001. Then next to it, it shows the effects
18 after CAIR, CAMR, and other Clean Air Act programs
19 2020. And the 2020 map obviously shows a decrease in
20 deposition, but for Illinois and the upper Midwest and
21 the Great Lakes region in general, and particularly for
22 Illinois, it doesn't particularly show a large decline.
23 There is some decline, I see, in Chicago and maybe the
24 southeast border with Indiana. But do you agree that
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1658
1 it doesn't show a great decline for Illinois?
2
DR. CHARNLEY: Well, I think you have to
3 look at these maps in the context of the other two maps
4 which the TSD includes, and then it omits these maps.
5 And I should have included those other two maps, I
6 guess, in this exhibit, but I didn't. My recollection
7 is that what's interesting is that when you look at --
8 when you zero out the power-plant contribution of
9 mercury, that there's still substantial deposition from
10 power plants -- I mean, substantial deposition from all
11 other sources and that that doesn't change much when
12 you -- Well, that wouldn't change much one way or the
13 other. Not having -- Oh, wait. You have the color
14 version. Thank you. Let me look at it.
15
Yes, they look similar.
16
MR. MATOESIAN: But considering this map
17 is solely deposition from U.S. power plants, wouldn't
18 it suggest -- or wouldn't it be reasonable for states
19 such as Illinois or even Indiana to seek additional
20 reductions on their own, considering the benefits of
21 CAIR seemed to be based mainly on the East Coast and
22 Southeast region?
23
DR. CHARNLEY: Well, only if seeking
24 additional controls actually did lead to lower health
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1659
1 risks, and that's, as we've been discussing with a
2 number of the experts, a pretty big leap, as a general
3 matter. What I think is a good idea is as I've
4 discussed, is a reasoned restriction on mercury
5 emissions based on science and based on whether there
6 are going to be actual benefits.
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me. I
8 have to ask a follow-up to that statement.
9
Dr. Charnley, do you believe that
10 there are going to be health benefits based on
11 CAIR/CAMR?
12
DR. CHARNLEY: I think that there will
13 be -- I think that the levels of methylmercury in fish
14 will go down in some places as a result of CAIR/CAMR or
15 your rule -- proposed rule. I think that in other
16 places, the levels of methylmercury in fish probably
17 won't go down. And then whether there are health
18 benefits will depend on who eats those fish compared to
19 now. If there are people subsisting on
20 methylmercury-contaminated fish now and their exposures
21 are above -- are associated with potentially the -- the
22 potential for developmental neurotoxicity in their
23 children and the methylmercury levels go down in those
24 fish for those people, then yes. But as I said
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1660
1 earlier, I think generalizing that to all of Illinois
2 is probably inappropriate.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay. And
4 just to back up, you said CAIR/CAMR or our rule; is
5 that correct? Is that what you said at the very
6 beginning --
7
DR. CHARNLEY: I don't see a big
8 difference, basically, in the benefits between the two.
9 I mean, we've been talking about the four percent
10 additional drop in deposition, I think, is what we
11 talked about yesterday. And a four percent reduction
12 in deposition then has to be translated into an actual
13 reduction in methylmercury in fish. And then that has
14 to be translated to people actually catching and eating
15 those fish at a level that is associated with toxicity.
16 And because of the complexity of those relationships,
17 it's very difficult to predict where benefits might
18 occur or what extent those benefits might be, which is
19 why I think it's hard to distinguish between the
20 benefits of CAIR/CAMR and the Illinois proposed rule.
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: The Illinois
22 rule is an additional four percent over and above the
23 five percent that CAIR/CAMR would give. So in effect,
24 from the 2006 baseline -- and I believe I asked Mr. --
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1661
1 asked Krish this yesterday -- the -- in effect, then,
2 the difference in deposition will be nine percent --
3
DR. CHARNLEY: Okay.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: -- from 2006
5 to 2010 if the Illinois rule is adopted because there
6 would be five percent from CAIR/CAMR and then an
7 additional four percent. So we're actually talking
8 about, really -- I guess my thing is -- my concern here
9 is that you're talking about the four percent, but
10 really, you can't discount CAIR/CAMR because the way
11 that the modeling was done -- or at least my
12 understanding of what he did -- and I apologize if I'm
13 mischaracterizing his testimony -- was that it's five
14 percent and four percent. So that would be --
15
DR. CHARNLEY: I think that's right.
16
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: -- nine
17 percent from 2006 to --
18
DR. CHARNLEY: That's right.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: -- to 2010.
20
DR. CHARNLEY: And my point is that
21 distinguishing between the health benefits of five
22 percent reduced deposition and nine percent reduced
23 deposition -- distinguishing between those benefits,
24 should there be any, will be virtually impossible, I
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1662
1 think.
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: But you can
3 distinguish from zero to five percent?
4
DR. CHARNLEY: Not necessarily.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay. Thank
6 you. That's the point I was trying to get at. Thank
7 you.
8
Mr. Matoesian.
9
MR. MATOESIAN: I guess my concern is if
10 we know that we have statewide mercury consumption
11 warnings for fish and, according to the EPA's
12 estimation, the reduction of mercury in Illinois will
13 be fairly minimal as a result of CAIR/CAMR and other
14 Clean Air Act programs, again, since we know that
15 the -- as you say, the site-specific conditions for a
16 creation of methylmercury exist in Illinois, wouldn't
17 there be value in going from a public policy and
18 public-health standpoint of making that additional
19 reduction?
20
DR. CHARNLEY: Only if that additional
21 reduction translates into health benefits. I mean,
22 there's a cost, of course, in making a reduction; and
23 so if -- before you decide to do that, it would seem to
24 me you'd want to have a pretty clear idea about what
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1663
1 the benefits are that you anticipate as a result of
2 that cost.
3
MR. MATOESIAN: But the populations at
4 issue -- subsistence fishermen, pregnant women, and
5 children -- those would have, I guess, a much greater
6 stake in seeing those reductions occur --
7
DR. CHARNLEY: The --
8
MR. MATOESIAN: -- not just -- I'm
9 sorry. Let me strike that.
10
(Continuing.) -- not just any
11 amount but in the additional eight years -- eight to
12 ten years, I guess, really, that our rule comes into
13 compliance with earlier.
14
DR. CHARNLEY: Well, as I've said --
15
MR. BONEBRAKE: You're building an
16 eight-to-ten-year difference into your question, and I
17 don't know what the legal predicate is for that.
18
MR. MATOESIAN: Well, I'm just saying if
19 our compliance date is 2010 and CAIR -- the 70 percent
20 level in CAIR doesn't even take effect until 2018 -- or
21 I'm sorry, CAMR -- and I believe that in the CAMR, EPA
22 said that it wouldn't take full effect, actually, for
23 another eight to ten years, then isn't it -- it's not
24 just the extra reduction we're getting but the fact
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1664
1 that we are getting a whole reduction so much sooner,
2 that's causing the benefits -- I mean, part of the
3 benefit.
4
DR. CHARNLEY: Well, I can't comment on
5 when the reductions occur, where. What I can comment
6 on is that making the connection between reduced
7 emissions, reduced deposition, reduced methylmercury in
8 fish, and reduced health risks is a very complicated
9 one; and you cannot simply assume that if you do one,
10 you get the other. So I'm saying that understanding
11 the benefits, I should think, would be very important
12 from a public policy point of view.
13
MR. MATOESIAN: I understand. It's just
14 that if EPA has done the work of determining deposition
15 will still be there in 2020 and if we know that the --
16 that we have statewide mercury -- methylmercury
17 warnings for fish consumption already, then it seems
18 like we've got two of the pillars already achieved.
19 It's just a question, will people actually eat that
20 fish and would not subsistence -- for instance,
21 subsistence anglers be low on the economic status; in
22 other words, be of low income, typically?
23
DR. CHARNLEY: I've read some places
24 where that assumption is made and other places where
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1665
1 that -- the -- well, let's see -- that there's an
2 association between income and being a sports angler, I
3 guess. And I don't --
4
MR. MATOESIAN: But I mean
5 subsistence-type people who depend on fish, wild-caught
6 fish.
7
DR. CHARNLEY: Okay. I'd like to read
8 from my testimony.
9
MR. MATOESIAN: I'm sorry. Do you have
10 a page?
11
MR. BONEBRAKE: And I might just also
12 put on the record for clarification, I think
13 Mr. Matoesian's questions have been assuming that
14 Exhibit 2 is showing no decrease in mercury deposition
15 in Illinois based upon the color shadings, and I note
16 that both in 2001 and 2020 charts, as I read this, are
17 in scales of one to five micrograms per square meter.
18 So it may well be that within that range, there's a
19 reduction but it's not being reflected because of the
20 range shown on the map. So just a clarification on the
21 questions Mr. Matoesian is asking.
22
MR. MATOESIAN: Okay.
23
DR. CHARNLEY: I'm looking at the full
24 paragraph on page 8 which says that USEPA has concluded
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1666
1 that after CAIR and CAMR are implemented, the only
2 people who would remain potentially at risk from
3 utility-attributable fish methylmercury would be
4 99th percentile recreational fishers and mean Native
5 American subsistence fishers who consume solely
6 freshwater fish contaminated at the 99th percentile
7 level.
8
So EPA is concluding that after
9 CAIR and CAMR, that there is a very small likelihood
10 that there will be people still at risk from
11 utility-attributable emissions.
12
MR. MATOESIAN: But that small
13 percentage out of a population of 12 million, that one
14 percent, are those not the people who would deserve
15 greater protection from the State?
16
DR. CHARNLEY: Are there -- I don't
17 know. Are there Native Americans in Illinois?
18
MR. MATOESIAN: Well, I'm sure there
19 are. The state's named after a Native American.
20
DR. CHARNLEY: Good point.
21
MR. MATOESIAN: I know there are
22 subsistence fishermen.
23
DR. CHARNLEY: Are there any
24 reservations, or just people --
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1667
1
MR. MATOESIAN: I don't believe there
2 are actual reservations.
3
DR. CHARNLEY: Okay.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yet, yet. I
5 believe that they're trying --
6
MR. BONEBRAKE: Oh, you're saying "yet."
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yet.
8
MR. BONEBRAKE: I thought I was hearing
9 Russian, too.
10
MR. MATOESIAN: I mean, I'm just
11 concerned we're forgetting that small group who may be
12 most, from a public-policy standpoint -- I mean,
13 perhaps even --
14
DR. CHARNLEY: I have said in a few
15 places that just because only a few people will benefit
16 doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be protected.
17 But my concern is that Illinois has not characterized
18 well who those people are who are at risk and would,
19 therefore, benefit to the extent that you can
20 distinguish between the EPA rule and the proposed rule.
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Can I ask a
22 question?
23
So your concern here, really, is
24 the difference between CAMR and Illinois rule and that
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1668
1 you don't think that there's a health --
2
DR. CHARNLEY: The additional benefit.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: -- that
4 there's not an additional health benefit to justify
5 going beyond CAMR?
6
DR. CHARNLEY: It's not my place to make
7 a decision about what justifies something. But what
8 I'm trying to say is that I think that the incremental
9 health benefits of the Illinois rule will not be
10 distinguishable from CAIR/CAMR or are unlikely to be
11 distinguishable from CAIR/CAMR.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: What about
13 CAMR? Forget CAIR. What if CAIR wasn't implemented?
14
DR. CHARNLEY: I can't address that.
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.
16
MR. MATOESIAN: Now, I can't remember.
17 Earlier, did you say you thought there was a health
18 benefit from CAIR/CAMR, the federal CAIR/CAMR?
19
DR. CHARNLEY: I said that in some
20 places, there probably will be; and in some places,
21 there probably won't be. But because of the very
22 complex relationship between emissions, which is all
23 that CAIR/CAMR addresses, and deposition and
24 methylmercury formation and uptake and -- you know, and
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1669
1 so forth ...
2
MR. MATOESIAN: Well, assuming we have
3 that deposition in Illinois, again, because of the fish
4 advisories from testing, at the very least, then, in
5 those areas where you think there would be a health
6 benefit from CAIR -- or from CAIR/CAMR, we would be
7 achieving that ten years -- roughly ten years earlier
8 in CAIR/CAMR. I mean, that benefit at least will
9 occur.
10
MR. BONEBRAKE: Is your question
11 assuming that fish advisories in Illinois are a result
12 of electric-generating-unit emissions?
13
MR. MATOESIAN: I'm just saying if -- We
14 seem to show that there is a deposition of methyl- -- a
15 production of methylmercury, I should say, from the
16 sediment site-specific factors in Illinois. And,
17 again, I have this Exhibit 2 from the USEPA showing
18 that, yes, there is some deposition from U.S. power
19 plants in Illinois today and in 2020. I'm saying since
20 we seem to know that that's there, at the very least,
21 that health benefit in places where you think CAIR/CAMR
22 will occur would be happening in places in Illinois --
23
DR. CHARNLEY: But this actually doesn't
24 show that there's a benefit from reducing emissions
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1670
1 from Illinois power plants. This shows the -- what
2 happens if you implement CAIR/CAMR nationwide. So a
3 lot of what's there is probably coming from somewhere
4 else.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If I may,
6 Mr. Matoesian, let me take a shot at this.
7
Dr. Charnley, you have agreed that
8 under CAIR/CAMR, there will be some places where
9 deposition of mercury and methylmercury production will
10 decrease; is that correct?
11
DR. CHARNLEY: I think that that's
12 likely, but I think it's very difficult to predict
13 where.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: But it could
15 happen?
16
DR. CHARNLEY: Yes.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: So if it can
18 happen under CAIR/CAMR in Illinois where we are going
19 to be at 90 percent in 2009 instead of waiting till
20 2020 to be at 70 percent, the question I think he's
21 asking you is: Where you agree that the production of
22 methylmercury may decrease because of CAMR, that will
23 happen ten years sooner in Illinois; isn't that
24 correct?
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1671
1
DR. CHARNLEY: Say the last part of the
2 sentence again. It's --
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Where you have
4 agreed there will be a reduction in the production of
5 methylmercury due to the emissions standards in
6 CAIR/CAMR, if we implement a 90 percent reduction ten
7 years before CAIR/CAMR reaches its 70 percent reduction
8 in Illinois, won't Illinois have gotten that benefit,
9 in effect, earlier?
10
DR. CHARNLEY: Again, that's difficult
11 to predict because of the temporal issues. I mean,
12 it -- I don't know whether -- if you reduce power-plant
13 emissions today, that methylmercury will be down
14 tomorrow and people will be at less risk. I just think
15 it's really difficult to predict as far as the
16 additional benefit. That's all I'm saying.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Right. But
18 that's not what the question is. The question is not
19 about the additional --
20
MEMBER MOORE: It's the timing.
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: It's the
22 timing.
23
If you agree that under CAIR/CAMR,
24 there is going to be a health benefit somewhere,
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1672
1 sometime, somehow, if that health benefit were to occur
2 in Illinois by implementing the provisions ten years
3 earlier, don't we get that benefit ten years earlier?
4
DR. CHARNLEY: If there is a benefit.
5
MS. BASSI: May I ask a question of the
6 questioner?
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sure.
8
MS. BASSI: Does the MPS alter your line
9 of questions at all?
10
MR. MATOESIAN: To a degree, but I think
11 the general proposition would stay the same when you
12 look at the numbers in the MPS.
13
MS. BASSI: Yeah. But you no longer
14 have ten years; isn't that correct?
15
MR. MATOESIAN: For that small
16 percentage, it would only be a four-year -- I assume,
17 three to four years.
18
MR. ZABEL: I'm sorry. Two amendments
19 that the Agency supports is half the power plants in
20 the state. I don't know what you mean by a small
21 percentage, Mr. Matoesian.
22
MR. MATOESIAN: I believe there would
23 still be the 90 percent reduction in all but a small
24 percentage of power plants, if I understand that
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1673
1 correctly.
2
MS. BASSI: Okay. And is that because
3 of the requirement to put on ACI equipment at these
4 other places, at whoever opts in?
5
MR. KIM: I'm not sure if this is the
6 appropriate way to debate the legal interpretation of a
7 Multipollutant Standard.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I think the
9 Board will take notice of the fact that under the MPS,
10 it will not be 2010 or 2009 for 90 percent reduction
11 throughout all power plants in the state but, rather,
12 2015 if the MPS is adopted by the Board, as with any of
13 this rule. So I think we can take notice of that.
14
Mr. Matoesian.
15
MR. MATOESIAN: Just a couple more.
16
That potential benefit, timewise, I
17 believe on page 5 of your testimony, you quoted the --
18 The full paragraph begins on that page. You quoted the
19 Massachusetts Study as finding that reported decreases
20 in fish methylmercury occurred within, roughly, three
21 to four years after the mercury emissions decreased.
22
So in that case, could we not --
23 Well, for what it's worth. I know it's not directly
24 transferable -- but suggest that there would be,
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1674
1 timewise, decreases occurring earlier that would occur
2 even before the CAMR deadline of 2018 comes into
3 effect?
4
DR. CHARNLEY: Well, that's -- This is,
5 you know, as you've just pointed out, a study of
6 perhaps questionable relevance to your situation. So I
7 think extrapolating on that basis is not appropriate.
8
MR. MATOESIAN: Now, just -- Sorry.
9 Going back to Exhibit 2, which is solely deposition
10 from U.S. power plants, if I remember right, in CAMR,
11 there were only three states to the west of Illinois
12 that had particularly large mercury emissions, and that
13 was North Dakota, Missouri, and Texas. I believe
14 that's correct from page -- well, from CAMR. They have
15 the budgets listed, just working off that.
16
Now, in 2018 -- or 2020, Missouri
17 still has a significant emissions -- depositions from
18 U.S. power plants.
19
Considering the prevailing winds,
20 would that not suggest that a great deal of this
21 Illinois deposition is from Illinois power plants?
22
MR. BONEBRAKE: I'm --
23
DR. CHARNLEY: I'm not qualified to --
24
MR. BONEBRAKE: I'm going to go ahead
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1675
1 and object to that.
2
Are you asking her to make the
3 assumption that she agrees with what you think is the
4 interpretation of CAMR and where other heavy deposition
5 might be in the nation? I mean, you started that
6 question out with a series of assumptions about your
7 interpretation, and I wasn't clear at all where you
8 were going with your question.
9
MR. MATOESIAN: Well, I thought she said
10 a while ago that this shows deposition from all power
11 plants in the U.S., so it wouldn't necessarily be
12 Illinois power plants. And I was just suggesting that
13 based on where power plants are, according to the CAIR
14 and the wind patterns, wouldn't it suggest that the
15 Illinois power plants are contributing significant
16 amounts of the deposition in Illinois, as Illinois EPA,
17 I guess, suggests?
18
DR. CHARNLEY: I'm not qualified to
19 answer that. I don't -- I'm not a deposition expert,
20 as you know.
21
MR. MATOESIAN: Okay. That's fine. If
22 I could just have a moment.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Harley,
24 has some questions. So we'll go ahead to Mr. Harley.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1676
1
MR. MATOESIAN: Okay.
2
MR. HARLEY: Dr. Charnley, there's one
3 statement in your prefiled testimony that I don't want
4 to lose, and it's not something that you necessarily
5 elaborated on in response to the questions today. It's
6 the statement found in the first full paragraph on
7 page 6, the first sentence.
8
MR. BONEBRAKE: Hang on just a second,
9 please.
10
DR. CHARNLEY: Okey-doke.
11
MR. HARLEY: Could you read that first
12 sentence, please?
13
DR. CHARNLEY: The TSD makes a plausible
14 case for reducing power plant mercury emissions, as a
15 general matter. What it does not do is make a case for
16 reducing emissions faster or deeper than would occur if
17 federal regulations were implemented instead.
18
MR. HARLEY: As to that first statement,
19 the TSD makes a plausible case for reducing power plant
20 mercury emissions, as a general matter, what are the
21 aspects of the TSD that help make this plausible case,
22 as you describe it?
23
DR. CHARNLEY: Well, as I recall the
24 TSD, it talks about the nature of the toxicity of
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1677
1 methylmercury in fish and why it would be a good idea
2 to reduce that, as a general matter. It makes a case
3 for some portion of what's in -- of the methylmercury
4 in fish may be attributable to Illinois power plants
5 and then assumes that if you reduce one, that it will
6 lead to the other. And it's, as I've said, certainly
7 possible that in some places that will occur.
8
MR. HARLEY: Your next sentence that you
9 read suggests that you have real questions about how
10 fast reductions should occur, and you have questions
11 about the method through which reductions should occur;
12 is that correct?
13
DR. CHARNLEY: Yes. I mean, there are
14 feasibility issues, I gather, as well that are involved
15 in this.
16
MR. HARLEY: That's not -- That's based
17 on what you've heard as opposed to your own --
18
DR. CHARNLEY: Yes.
19
MR. HARLEY: -- analysis?
20
And it's your testimony that
21 CAMR/CAIR is a more appropriate approach in terms of
22 how fast and how to achieve the benefits from reducing
23 mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants?
24
DR. CHARNLEY: I think that 30 years of
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1678
1 experience in controlling and regulating air pollutants
2 in this country has shown that trading-based approaches
3 attain much deeper cuts in pollutants at much less
4 costs than do command-and-control-technology-based
5 approaches. That's --
6
MR. HARLEY: Is that the assumption that
7 underlies your testimony, that policy judgment that you
8 just described?
9
DR. CHARNLEY: That's not an assumption.
10 That's actually a fact.
11
MR. HARLEY: You believe that that's the
12 fact which then generates the conclusion that a federal
13 trading program is to be preferred to a state-specific
14 command-and-control program?
15
DR. CHARNLEY: I believe that a trading
16 program will be more effective and more efficient.
17
MR. HARLEY: What is the basis for your
18 conclusion that trading programs generally result in
19 more significant reductions than command-and-control
20 regulations?
21
DR. CHARNLEY: Well, based -- As far as
22 air pollution is concerned, based on 30 years of
23 experience in the United States, I can point to the
24 acid rain trading program as a particularly good
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1679
1 example.
2
MR. HARLEY: Have you ever done any
3 analysis which compares the results of the acid rain
4 trading program by comparison to a command-and-control
5 program like I found in New Source Performance
6 Standards promulgated by USEPA?
7
DR. CHARNLEY: I haven't done that
8 personally, but it's been done.
9
MR. HARLEY: Can you cite to any
10 specific study --
11
DR. CHARNLEY: I'd be happy to supply
12 that.
13
MR. HARLEY: I beg your pardon?
14
DR. CHARNLEY: I can supply that to you.
15 I can't quote it off the top of my head, but I can
16 certainly track it down.
17
MR. HARLEY: And so this factual reality
18 that you're describing, that trading programs are
19 preferred over command-and-control approaches to
20 pollution -- to control pollution, is -- what is behind
21 your preference of a federal program to the state
22 program?
23
DR. CHARNLEY: Yes. And Byron Swift --
24 Actually, the work of Byron Swift at the Environmental
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1680
1 Law Institute is one of the sources for my conclusion.
2
MR. HARLEY: Thank you for those
3 answers.
4
I'd like to, if I could, take one
5 more stab -- For purposes of clarifying the record, I
6 have a line of questioning that the hearing officer was
7 addressing.
8
If the reductions achieved by
9 CAMR/CAIR after 2018 are beneficial and could be
10 achieved in Illinois years earlier, isn't this a
11 reasonable approach for state regulators to take?
12
DR. CHARNLEY: If those benefits can be
13 achieved years earlier and you've determined that there
14 are benefits and that they justify the costs and that
15 they're -- it's feasible and -- I mean, there are a
16 whole lot of "if"s that underlie that.
17
MR. HARLEY: But if those things are
18 true, if this Board concludes that those things are
19 true, it would be a reasonable exercise of its
20 authority to make the choice to accelerate those
21 reductions for Illinois?
22
DR. CHARNLEY: Well, if everything falls
23 into place perfectly and one action actually does lead
24 to the reduction in risks, then sure. But that's,
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1681
1 again, based on many, many assumptions and, as you just
2 said, a hypothetical case. So ...
3
MR. HARLEY: Assumptions based on the
4 weight and value of testimony as they --
5
DR. CHARNLEY: I meant assumptions about
6 the extent to which reducing -- the nature and extent
7 to which reducing emissions leads to reduced
8 deposition, leads to reduced methylmercury, leads to
9 reduced health risks, and where.
10
MR. HARLEY: Thank you, Dr. Charnley.
11
DR. CHARNLEY: Mm-hmm.
12
MR. KIM: I just have one or two
13 questions.
14
Dr. Charnley, I believe you
15 testified that it was your opinion that there was a
16 slight -- I don't want to put words in your mouth.
17
Just for clarification, could you,
18 again, state what your opinion is as to the difference
19 in benefits that would be achieved between CAIR/CAMR
20 and the Illinois rule in terms of health benefits?
21
I believe you testified that there
22 was -- You made a -- sort of a qualitative analysis of
23 that, and I think you based it on a four percent figure
24 that we've been talking about today. Do you recall
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1682
1 that line of answers?
2
DR. CHARNLEY: Yeah. I think that what
3 I said was that because of the very complex nature of
4 these relationships, that it will be very difficult, if
5 not impossible, to distinguish between the benefits of
6 one compared to the other.
7
MR. KIM: And was that based in any way
8 upon this four percent figure that was testified to
9 by --
10
DR. CHARNLEY: That is an opinion I held
11 before. I heard four percent versus five percent, and
12 I have not changed my opinion based on that testimony.
13
MR. KIM: Okay. That's all I have.
14
MR. MATOESIAN: No more questions.
15
MR. BONEBRAKE: I do have a follow-up.
16
Dr. Charnley, on page 8 of your
17 report -- I believe you read this into the record
18 before, and I'm looking at the paragraph beginning
19 "obtaining specific data" -- there's a sentence that
20 reads: In its CAMR reconsideration decision, USEPA has
21 concluded that after CAIR and CAMR are implemented, the
22 only people who would remain potentially at risk from
23 utility-attributable fish methylmercury would be the
24 99th percentile recreational fishers and mean Native
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1683
1 American subsistence fishers who consume solely
2 freshwater fish contaminated at the 99th percentile
3 level.
4
After you read that, there was some
5 questions that I had at least interpreted to mean that
6 the comparison of the 99th percentile recreational
7 fishers at the 99th percentile contamination level
8 would represent one percent of the population.
9
Do you read that statement to mean
10 that there would be one percent of the population of
11 the United States that would fall within the risk
12 category described in that sentence?
13
DR. CHARNLEY: No, that's not what that
14 means.
15
MR. BONEBRAKE: It would be something
16 substantially less than one percent?
17
DR. CHARNLEY: Yes.
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you,
19 Dr. Charnley.
20
And we are ready for Mr. McRanie.
21
MEMBER JOHNSON: Prairie State
22 questions.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I apologize.
24
Prairie State Generating offered
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1684
1 questions, and I believe you've answered all of these.
2 If you want to take a look. If you want to add
3 anything additional.
4
DR. CHARNLEY: I think I've answered all
5 except 2, really.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.
7
DR. CHARNLEY: So if I could just do 2.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Absolutely.
9
DR. CHARNLEY: All righty.
10
Question: If Illinois EPA had
11 critically analyzed the methylmercury health effects
12 data, how would it have changed their analysis?
13
Answer: Of the dozens of
14 excruciatingly detailed questions involving the minutia
15 of scientific studies I've been answering today, this
16 is really the one that matters the most. A more
17 critical analysis would show that the extent to which
18 people are, quote/unquote, at risk from fish
19 methylmercury contamination depends very much on the
20 assumptions that are made about toxicity, exposure, and
21 risk and that those assumptions are driven by policy
22 choices, not science.
23
My testimony -- prefiled testimony
24 includes a table showing that using reference doses
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1685
1 that are different from USEPA's but that are used by
2 other organizations and in other countries or different
3 assumptions about fish consumption that are different
4 from USEPA's produces fish methylmercury concentration
5 limits -- acceptable limits that vary by ten times. I
6 show that reference doses determined by other
7 organizations are as much as ten times less stringent
8 or risky than EPA's. That means that you can use any
9 of the assumptions used to assess risk by other
10 organizations which are perfectly valid scientifically
11 but reflect different policy decisions or assumptions
12 and come up with a completely different answer in terms
13 of the extent of risk; potentially, from ten to maybe
14 as much as 100 times less risky than has been concluded
15 by the Illinois EPA.
16
For example, if the USEPA were to
17 make an adjustment for the difference between cord
18 blood and maternal blood methylmercury concentrations,
19 which they are apparently considering doing and which I
20 discussed in my answers to the earlier questions, the
21 methylmercury RFD would be twice as high or less
22 stringent than it is now. In that case, the CDC's data
23 on blood mercury levels could indicate that there are
24 no U.S. women with levels that exceed the RFD. If that
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1686
1 turns out to be the case, it would be a lot harder to
2 make claims about there being hundreds of thousands of
3 babies born in the U.S. each year supposedly,
4 quote/unquote, at risk. It could show that there
5 aren't so many fish contaminated above the
6 methylmercury criterion as we think there are now.
7
So my point is, a more critical
8 analysis of the methylmercury health effects data would
9 show how much different valid assumptions would change
10 conclusions about risk, virtually all of them in the
11 direction of potentially less risky than asserted by
12 the TSD.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything
14 further?
15
MR. MATOESIAN: No.
16
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you very
17 much, Dr. Charnley.
18
DR. CHARNLEY: Thank you.
19
MR. KIM: Can we take a short five- to
20 ten-minute break to reconfigure --
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Well,
22 actually, I believe Mr. McRanie was going to do a slide
23 presentation and a summary; and I thought that after
24 his presentation, we would do that, if that sounds
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1687
1 good.
2
MR. KIM: That's fine.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Did we lose
4 Mr. McRanie?
5
Perhaps we'll take a break right
6 now, then. Let's take a break.
7
MR. KIM: Thank you very much.
8
(A short break was had.)
9
(Witness sworn.)
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If there's no
11 objection, we'll mark the prefiled testimony as
12 Exhibit 132. Seeing none, it is Exhibit 132.
13
And then we'll enter as Exhibit 133
14 the slide presentation -- the PowerPoint presentation,
15 if there's no objection. Seeing none, the PowerPoint
16 presentation is Exhibit 133.
17
MR. McRANIE: Thank you very much. My
18 name is Richard McRanie. I am a principal at
19 RMB Consulting & Research in Raleigh, North Carolina.
20 We're a small consulting company that works primarily
21 in the industry. One of our specialties is
22 measurements, compliance measurements, and methodology
23 for measurements.
24
I want to spend just a second --
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1688
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. McRanie,
2 you need to face the court reporter.
3
MR. McRANIE: I want to spend half a
4 minute trying to get everyone calibrated to the
5 difference between -- the numbers we talk about in
6 regulations and the numbers we talk about when we make
7 measurements. I'm going to be talking about
8 measurement numbers and measurement numbers of mercury
9 that are made in terms of micrograms per cubic meter.
10
To try to make things a little bit
11 simpler for us -- And, of course, your rule is written
12 in pounds per gigawatt hour -- or proposed rule or in
13 terms of percent reduction.
14
There's a fairly simple conversion
15 that we use to try to make the numbers jibe, if you
16 will; and that is, that .008 pounds per gigawatt hour,
17 it's approximately equal to .8 micrograms per cubic
18 meter. You just move the decimal point a couple
19 places. That's not exact, but in terms of what we're
20 going to discuss today, I think it's more than
21 adequate. That assumes a unit heat rate of 10,000 BTU
22 per kW and a stack CO2 concentration of 11.3 percent.
23 Both of those are fairly reasonable numbers and
24 consistent with where units typically run.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1689
1
So .8 micrograms, please write that
2 down because you're going to hear it a lot as I go
3 through this discussion. That is the equivalent to
4 your .008 pounds per gigawatt hour.
5
Under the hard cap emissions
6 control program, you really have to take precision,
7 accuracy, and bias into account when you're looking to
8 establish such rules. For many, many years, we didn't
9 worry about it because we used something called a
10 reference method to actually set the standard. That's
11 the way, virtually, all of the NSPS standards are
12 approved. We're now in the stage of getting where we
13 keep pushing the levels down, and we're getting to the
14 point where we're can't hardly make the measurements
15 any longer. The precision and accuracy are starting to
16 impact in our ability to show compliance.
17
Measurements are where the rubber
18 meets the road. If you wanted to administer a cap --
19 hard cap program or a percent reduction program, you
20 have to be able to make the measurements precisely and
21 accurately. The reason for that is if you do not, you
22 will end up with false positives. People will be
23 considered to be out of compliance when they're really
24 not.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1690
1
Let's take a look at what is in the
2 rule relative to compliance, a true compliance
3 measurement determination. This rule suggests an
4 emission limit of .80 -- and that last zero is
5 important -- micrograms per cubic meter. What that
6 says is if I measure .804, I'm in compliance; and if I
7 measure .806, I'm out of compliance. It's just that
8 simple.
9
Now, we've got a problem. The
10 biggest problem we've got is that we cannot measure the
11 difference between .8 and .9, much less the difference
12 between .804 and .806. That measurement -- That
13 differential measurement is impossible to make. In one
14 case, it's in compliance; and in the other case, it's
15 not in compliance.
16
We've got a little problem with
17 mercury. Mercury doesn't act like SO2 and NOx and CO2,
18 things that we used to regulate in the past. Mercury
19 is hugely variable. Not only is it variable in the
20 mercury that comes in with the coal, it is hugely
21 variable with respect to everything that happens in the
22 power plant. Everything you do in the power plant
23 makes the mercury change. If you go below, the mercury
24 changes. If you go above, the mercury changes.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1691
1 Anything happens, any trouble, the mercury changes.
2 These are real data.
3
Most of you have probably seen the
4 real mercury data. I'm going to show you some real
5 mercury data today. These are real mercury data for
6 the Trimble County plant; three mercury CEMS -- the red
7 diamonds, the black squares, and blue triangles -- over
8 a period of, what do we got here, seven days.
9
Now, the first thing you notice is
10 those three analyzers don't sit on top of each other.
11 They're kind of random with respect to measurements.
12 The second thing you notice is they do seem to track in
13 relative terms, but they're tracking from two to 12
14 micrograms per cubic meter. That's a lot of variance
15 in comparison to what we normally see in things like
16 SO2 and NOx, a big variance. If I have to have a
17 control system to control that mercury, I've got to be
18 able to track that with the control system.
19
Continuous working measurements are
20 really hard to make. That's a given today. Someone
21 asked -- And we'll be answering questions later.
22 Someone asked whether EPA had appropriate information
23 when they wrote the 40 CFR Part 75 mercury monitoring.
24 The answer is, the EPA didn't have complete
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1692
1 information.
2
90 percent of the mercury monitors
3 that exist today did not exist when those regulations
4 were written a year ago. They weren't even in
5 existence. The low levels we're talking about with
6 respect to the proposed Illinois rule, .8 micrograms,
7 is equivalent to about a tenth of a part per billion if
8 we were looking at it on a volume-volume basis. That's
9 in contrast to SO2 and NOx numbers of several hundred
10 parts per million. So we're looking at a tenth of a
11 part per billion and our ability to make these
12 measurements.
13
At this point in time, the
14 precision and accuracy of mercury measurements with CEM
15 are totally unknown. We do not have a clue. I have
16 some guesses that I'm going to give you in just a
17 moment based on observations, but we don't have a clue
18 what the true number is.
19
Now, what we do know, the Part 75
20 rules contain an allowance in calibration and a
21 relative accuracy test audit allowance of plus or minus
22 one microgram per cubic meter. That allowance says
23 that I am acceptable, from a calibration standpoint or
24 from a relative accuracy test standpoint, if I agree
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1693
1 between the monitor and the reference method within
2 plus or minus one part per million.
3
How do you implement a
4 command-and-control program at .8 micrograms per cubic
5 meter when you have an allowance of one microgram per
6 cubic meter?
7
Where this comes from is from the
8 Ontario Hydro method which happens to be the roughest
9 test method for this program, the mercury program. The
10 Ontario Hydro test method, below three micrograms,
11 below three, has a precision of 34 percent or plus or
12 minus one microgram. By definition, that's the best
13 measurement I can make with that measurement.
14
Now, recent evidence suggests that
15 the precision and accuracy of these monitors is in the
16 range of about a half a microgram per cubic meter, and
17 that's empirical -- Well, that is not scientific
18 evidence. The reason it's not scientific evidence is
19 because we do not have a standard for mercury. There
20 is no recognized standard device to calibrate these
21 estimates. And until we have a standard device and we
22 have a method that will measure more precisely than we
23 have, then we have no way of running the test to
24 determine the precision and accuracy. So the only
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1694
1 thing that we can do is look at these data and try to
2 figure out where it is.
3
We have four analyzers on this
4 graph, four mercury analyzers. This was, up until
5 6/30, the absolute best week of operation we have had
6 at our test site, absolutely the best week of operation
7 we've had. And we were running fairly low. If you
8 see, we were down in the one-microgram range, and we
9 actually got all four analyzers running, which is
10 another small miracle.
11
What I've done is I've taken
12 this -- Now, these slides take every piece of data
13 coming off these monitors. This has not been edited,
14 corrected. Notice that you see right down to zero, or
15 zero checks. The numbers you see below the main trace
16 but above zero are below that period. The numbers you
17 see way up high, the spikes, those are calibrated
18 through all the QA/QC tests we were running. But I'd
19 like you to focus on the band of data, the real data.
20 I've taken that previous slide, and I've blown it up.
21 I've expanded it from zero to ten micrograms up to zero
22 to three where you can get a little bit better feel
23 after it's spread and scattered when you look at it.
24
If you look at this trace, every
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1695
1 one of these analyzers is working as damn good as we
2 can make it work on these days. You will see that the
3 width of those traces is about half a microgram. So
4 anything in there is good.
5
One analyzer, Mr. Black -- And I
6 like Mr. Black this week. He's reading low. Well,
7 here, he's running about .8. Up here, we're about 1.2,
8 1.1. That's where the plus or minus .5 comes from that
9 I quoted you a little earlier because every data point
10 there in that main trace is considered, by the rule, by
11 Part 75, to be a good number. They're all good
12 numbers.
13
I want to make a few other points.
14 Mercury CEMS equipment is more complex than SO2 and
15 NOx. This is laboratory equipment that's been put in a
16 case and called a mercury CEMS. They are hard to
17 operate. They are hard to maintain. They have lots of
18 downtime, lots of downtime, about 50 to 60. Some
19 weeks, we get up to 70 percent on one of the analyzers.
20 That's about our level of availability on these
21 monitors at this point in time.
22
Will they get better? Yes.
23 They've already gotten better. Six months ago, we were
24 at 30 percent availability, but we're getting to the
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1696
1 point now where we've knocked out all the obvious
2 problems. And things are getting tougher to go
3 forward.
4
One thing that escapes a lot of
5 people is that mercury monitors are in their infancy,
6 as I said earlier. The three out of four monitors we
7 have at our test site did not exist a year ago. Those
8 monitors didn't even exist. And so we're trying to
9 start up an infancy measurement program. With SO2 and
10 NOx, we had 30 years of experience, 30 years of
11 experience. Those SO2 and NOx monitors are now, what,
12 about 99.9 percent of the time -- they're very good.
13
Will these ever reach 99.9?
14 Probably not. They're just too complex. There's too
15 much junk in them. There's too much stuff. Barring
16 any fundamental change in technology, we're not going
17 to get to 99.9 with this equipment.
18
I've already mentioned that the
19 reliability is poor, failures -- This is the other
20 problem. It takes days to repair these things. Most
21 of these things have 100 tubing fittings in them. If
22 you get a leak, it could take you three or four days to
23 find it. This stuff is complex, and it's hard to run.
24 We need some major design changes, frankly. The
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1697
1 analyzers need to do a better job.
2
One problem we have that I touched
3 on just a moment ago but I'll mention again, we do not
4 have any fundamental standards for mercury analyzers.
5 We have calibrators, but none of those are traceable to
6 NIST, the National Institute of Science and Technology.
7 The protocol that they're considering implementing to
8 me has an awful lot of holes in it anyway. Therefore,
9 in the future, once we do get a protocol -- and this is
10 promising that we're going to have a protocol one of
11 these days -- we don't know how reliable that standard
12 is going to be. We don't know how precise it's going
13 to be, how accurate it's going to be, or what the
14 stability is going to be.
15
I know that everybody thinks that
16 long averaging times solve all the problems of
17 variability. That is only true if all you have is
18 random error and variability. Long averaging times
19 help, but they don't solve the problem, in particular
20 when you have what we call a log-normal tail. In every
21 emissions control file that we look at where there's a
22 control system present, we have a log-normal curve and
23 we have a log tail.
24
Use of missing data substitution,
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1698
1 which is a feature of the Illinois rule, is something
2 that's going to (inaudible), it's going to add to the
3 log-normal tail, and, in fact, if you have poor CEMS
4 reliability, compliance would be literally
5 mathematically impossible, mathematically impossible.
6
This is what a normal distribution
7 looks look. I've drawn it around .8 micrograms per
8 cubic meter, which is the magic number. If all we had
9 was random error, then I could control right at .8.
10 I've got some high numbers. I've got some low numbers.
11 But they're all on the same side of the mean point.
12
This is what we see when we look at
13 data from (inaudible). One of the reasons it is, is
14 because this long tail out here on the right is
15 generated by problems within the control device and
16 problems within the system.
17
Now, to compensate for those
18 problems that happen, to get to Point A, we've got to
19 operate somewhere above .6. To achieve 90 percent
20 removal, the source has to stop right at 92, 93,
21 94 percent.
22
Now, I said mercury was a different
23 animal. This is the mercury trace from, what, back in
24 February before the SCR was put in. You see we were
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1699
1 running at about three. This is a calibration
2 sequence. You get this big spike after you come out of
3 calibration. A lot of the analyzers just do that. We
4 haven't really quite figured out why they do that.
5
Now, look here. It went up to 30.
6 So we went from three micrograms to 30 micrograms.
7 Why? We have pulverized fire and a unit trip.
8
Now, if I'm a source and I'm
9 sitting over the mercury control device and I'm
10 controlling right on my .8 limit and I have that, I'm
11 dead meat for several days.
12
This is the same unit two days
13 later, and we don't know what caused this madness. But
14 you see we have this at 16, back down to two, back up
15 to 16, down to two, and then finally things settle
16 down. We don't have a clue what caused that one.
17
This is even more interesting.
18 Here we have a case where the unit came off-line.
19 We're running at about one and a half micrograms.
20 Again, we've got three analyzers running. You see
21 right here the unit came off-line down almost to zero.
22 We got this bump in the mercury, and then when we
23 finally put the coal-fire back in -- the important
24 thing to note here is that three perfectly fine
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1700
1 calibrated analyzers don't read the same thing -- one
2 peaked at about two and a half, the other one peaked at
3 about three and a half, and another one peaked a little
4 bit over four micrograms. And that's a fairly
5 significant difference.
6
I want to skip this one. We'll
7 come back to it later if we need it.
8
Final point, the first and very
9 important final point is, to my knowledge, a successful
10 nine-run-mercury-round relative accuracy test audit has
11 never been performed by anyone in this country or any
12 other country. EPA hasn't done one. We haven't been
13 able to do one. They just about cannot be done.
14
I want to make a point again that
15 the reference method has a precision of about plus or
16 minus one microgram, and, by definition, it's
17 impossible to make measurements more precise than the
18 reference method, by definition.
19
And we'll save this one for later
20 in case we need it, too.
21
That's it.
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let's take a
23 ten-minute break and come back with questions for
24 Mr. McRanie.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1701
1
(A short break was had.)
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Before we
3 start, I notice at least one new face at the EPA table.
4
Can we have you identify yourselves
5 for the record?
6
MR. MATTISON: Kevin Mattison with the
7 Illinois EPA, certified emissions specialist.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
9
MR. BLOOMBERG: David Bloomberg with the
10 Illinois EPA, compliance unit manager.
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
12
MS. ROUSEY: Michelle Rousey, Illinois
13 EPA, toxicity assessment unit.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
15
Mr. McRanie, before we start with
16 the questions from the EPA, I do have one point for the
17 record. The charts and materials that you included in
18 your overview that you did for us on PowerPoint --
19
MR. McRANIE: Yes, ma'am.
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: -- are those
21 included in your testimony or are these additional?
22
MR. McRANIE: Most of that is additional
23 information.
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1702
1
MR. KIM: And Madam Hearing Officer, I
2 understand that Exhibit 1- -- the slides to the -- that
3 accompanied the presentation that was provided by
4 Mr. McRanie are marked as Exhibit 133; is that correct?
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's
6 correct.
7
MR. KIM: And they have been admitted,
8 then, I assume.
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes.
10
MR. KIM: And I apologize. I did not
11 have an opportunity to look through them until I was,
12 frankly, watching the presentation, and I would have
13 voiced an objection as to the documentation within the
14 slide show that is not in, as you've noted, his
15 testimony. There are a number of graphs and charts
16 that predate the date for filing prefiled testimony.
17 So obviously to the extent that that information is new
18 to the Agency, we have not been able to have an
19 opportunity to review that fully and formulate the
20 types of questions that we otherwise would have.
21
So only as to those documents, I
22 would object -- I would have objected, I guess, had I
23 been quicker on the draw and ask that those documents
24 at the very least be stricken.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1703
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And, Mr. Kim,
2 you can certainly enter your objection, and we will
3 take that as an objection.
4
MR. KIM: Thank you.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Zabel.
6
MR. ZABEL: There's been a good deal of
7 information introduced into the record. In response to
8 questions, I think this was Mr. McRanie's attempt to
9 lay out some background and explanation for his
10 testimony that -- some of which was included in his
11 testimony and some of which is just really an
12 elaboration of his testimony.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And I think
14 that's true. I think that we've seen a lot of
15 information introduced at the hearing that might have
16 been available before the hearing. Given the tight
17 schedule and the attempts on all of your parts to get
18 as much information to the Board as possible, that's
19 not always been the case. So with that, I'm going to
20 allow the information in.
21
You obviously have the opportunity,
22 in any final comments, to respond to any of the
23 information that's new.
24
MR. KIM: And because some of the
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1704
1 information is outside of his testimony, before we get
2 to the -- before Mr. McRanie begins answering prefiled
3 questions, could we have an opportunity to just walk
4 through just a few of the slides here?
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sure.
6
MR. KIM: Okay. Should we go ahead and
7 proceed then.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Please, do.
9
MR. KIM: Sorry.
10
Mr. McRanie, I believe you
11 stated -- and I just want to make sure this is clear
12 for the record --
13
MR. ZABEL: Mr. Kim, so we'll all be on
14 the same -- The pages, I realize, aren't numbered, and
15 I apologize for that.
16
MR. KIM: That's okay.
17
MR. ZABEL: We numbered the cover page 1
18 so we're all counting the same way.
19
MR. KIM: And that's what I was going to
20 suggest.
21
Beginning -- If the cover page is
22 1, on what I believe would be page 5, which is, I
23 think, is the first chart that's stated one-hour
24 average mercury readings -- Do you see that?
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1705
1
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
2
MR. KIM: Okay. Could you, again -- I
3 know you did, but -- And I apologize. I didn't have it
4 written down, or I didn't write quick enough.
5
Could you identify the facility or
6 unit that this was -- from which these readings were
7 taken?
8
MR. McRANIE: I'll be glad to. All of
9 the data that I am presenting are from the Trimble
10 County plant Louisville Gas Electric, Trimble County,
11 Kentucky.
12
MR. KIM: Thank you.
13
On the next page, which I guess
14 would be page 6, you made a statement, as to your
15 second bullet point -- That bullet point reads: The
16 precision and accuracy of mercury emissions at this
17 level are unknown; and then you said, "We don't have a
18 clue as to the accuracy," something to that effect.
19
When you say "we," who are you
20 referring to as "we"?
21
MR. McRANIE: I guess I'm using the
22 collective "we," those of us that are trying to make
23 this technology work.
24
MR. KIM: Do you think that we -- the
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1706
1 royal we would include vendors as well?
2
MR. McRANIE: I don't know. I have not
3 queried the vendors. I have not seen any experiments
4 run that are designed to quantify the precision and
5 accuracy.
6
MR. KIM: And to the best of your
7 knowledge, because I'm assuming you work with vendors
8 or on a regular basis.
9
MR. McRANIE: Absolutely.
10
MR. KIM: Do you think it's safe to say
11 that a vendor, if asked, would likely not want to state
12 that he had no idea as to the precision or accuracy of
13 emissions that may be generated as a result of a
14 product that he's marketing?
15
MR. McRANIE: I expect any of the
16 vendors would debate that subject and would try to
17 quantify it in some manner.
18
MR. KIM: They would certainly try and
19 put their best foot forward, wouldn't they?
20
MR. McRANIE: Oh, absolutely.
21
MR. KIM: On that same page, the last
22 bullet point that begins "recent evidence suggests,"
23 what are you referring to when you made reference to
24 "recent evidence"?
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1707
1
MR. McRANIE: I'm actually referring to
2 two pages further, the second graph where I've expanded
3 the scale and tried to identify, just by eyeball, the
4 precision and accuracy that we could expect. And I've
5 lumped them together basically by looking at the width
6 of that combined trace that we're looking at there, and
7 I've eyeballed at around a half a microgram per cubic
8 meter.
9
MR. KIM: And, again, this is all
10 information taken from the Trimble County station; is
11 that correct?
12
MR. McRANIE: Absolutely.
13
MR. MATOESIAN: Just to be clear, so the
14 recent evidence is all from one facility?
15
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
16
MR. MATOESIAN: Okay.
17
MR. KIM: You also -- Okay. The first
18 page after those two graphs that begins with bullet
19 points -- And I apologize, Mr. Zabel. I've now lost
20 track of page numbers.
21
MR. ZABEL: I think that would be 9.
22
MR. KIM: Okay. And that begins -- That
23 has the heading of mercury-monitoring technology. Do
24 you see that page?
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1708
1
MR. McRANIE: Yes, I do.
2
MR. KIM: And you have listed five
3 bullet points; is that correct?
4
MR. McRANIE: That's correct.
5
MR. KIM: And I assume, in listing these
6 bullet points, you were attempting to identify certain
7 problems associated with mercury-monitoring technology;
8 is that correct?
9
MR. McRANIE: It terms of output
10 problems, yes, but they're actually -- I would better
11 characterize them as distinguishing features that are
12 different from SO2 and NOx.
13
MR. KIM: Okay. And certainly that's
14 probably better.
15
It's correct, then, that these
16 distinguishing features that you have listed would
17 apply equally to mercury-monitoring technology that
18 would be employed under the federal CAMR; is that
19 correct?
20
MR. McRANIE: That's absolutely correct.
21
MR. KIM: Now, you're going to have to
22 bear with me because I'm a little in the dark on some
23 things. So you're going to have to, frankly, dumb down
24 your testimony for me.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1709
1
On that page, the second-to-last
2 bullet point, no NIST elemental or oxidized mercury
3 standards, do you see that?
4
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
5
MR. KIM: Okay. Could you -- And I know
6 you touched on this during your presentation. Could
7 you either, I guess -- I apologize -- repeat or expand
8 on what you mean by that?
9
MR. McRANIE: Yes, and I will try to
10 keep it short because it is a long story.
11
The only mercury standards that
12 exist under NIST auspices -- and, of course, NIST
13 controls all of the standards in this country -- is a
14 mercury-in-water standard that is used for various
15 analytical purposes, probably fish-tissue analyses as
16 well as mercury-in-water analyses.
17
The calibration equipment for
18 mercury analyzers is quite different from the
19 calibration equipment for SO2 and NOx. SO2 and NOx, we
20 used compressed-gas cylinders that contain known
21 amounts of SO2 and NOx to calibrate those analyzers.
22 That does not work well for mercury. Mercury does not
23 like to be put in a compressed-gas cylinder. Even
24 worse, it doesn't like to come out of it once you put
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1710
1 it in.
2
So in general, what we use for
3 elemental mercury is a device called a head-space
4 calibrator, and I describe one of the head-space
5 calibrators. All of them are essentially the same type
6 of device. I've described one in some detail in my
7 testimony, my written testimony. And they use a pool
8 of mercury at a constant temperature, and you pass gas
9 through that -- over that pool of mercury. And because
10 the vapor pressure of the mercury, you can supposedly
11 extract known amounts.
12
Unfortunately, there's a big debate
13 about what temperature vapor pressure curve to use in
14 those devices. And so NIST has now decided that they
15 don't like any of the curves, and they're going to
16 individually calibrate master calibrators. And then
17 there's going to be a protocol to transfer that
18 calibration downstream to the production line. But
19 we -- we do not have that yet.
20
MR. KIM: Do you know if they have set
21 forth any kind of projected timetable for how they
22 intend to proceed along that line, that plan of action?
23
MR. McRANIE: Sometime before the rule
24 goes into effect.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1711
1
MR. KIM: And when you say "rule," do
2 you mean the federal CAMR?
3
MR. McRANIE: Federal rule, yes.
4
MR. KIM: Now, are you aware of any kind
5 of commercial ventures that have worked with USEPA or
6 NIST to try and come up with a commercially available
7 traceable standard?
8
MR. McRANIE: All of the vendors that
9 make analyzers also make a head-space calibrator, and
10 all of them are working on oxidized mercury
11 calibrators, which is an entirely different device.
12 But you have to have both under the Part 75 rule.
13
Traceability is going to depend on
14 NIST and what they do for a protocol. So there are a
15 lot of devices out there. It's just that you've got a
16 device and it's got a curve in it and it may or may not
17 be right and it may or may not be stable. That's the
18 state today. Hopefully, we'll be in better shape a
19 year from now.
20
MR. KIM: Okay. Thank you for that
21 explanation.
22
MR. McRANIE: Okay. I'm sorry. I got a
23 little ...
24
MR. KIM: Moving just a few slides
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1712
1 forward, then, I'm looking now at one of your charts
2 that's entitled "Log Normal Distribution."
3
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
4
MR. KIM: And I believe -- And, again,
5 please correct me if I'm wrong. I believe you stated
6 that that was something that was generated from data
7 from units with control devices?
8
MR. McRANIE: This particular curve is
9 one that I created, but when we look at emissions data
10 from units with control devices and, in fact, even
11 without control devices, emissions data is almost
12 always log-normally distributed.
13
MR. KIM: So this is basically something
14 of your own creation that is based upon historical
15 data; is that --
16
MR. McRANIE: Yes, experience.
17
MR. KIM: Okay. I'm going to now
18 flip -- I think it's two charts beyond that -- to a
19 table that's captioned "2/12/06" at the top.
20
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
21
MR. KIM: Do you see that?
22
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: For the
24 record, that's page 14.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1713
1
MR. KIM: Thank you. I should be
2 numbering as I go along, but I'm not.
3
Did you state that there was a
4 problem that was evidenced -- And, again, we're still
5 talking about Trimble County, correct?
6
MR. McRANIE: Yes, yes. All this is
7 Trimble.
8
MR. KIM: Did you state that there was a
9 problem that was observed for several days, but -- and
10 then this chart is intended to reflect a spike that
11 occurred over a few hours?
12
MR. McRANIE: This -- Can we back up one
13 chart?
14
MR. KIM: Please, do, yes.
15
MR. McRANIE: The first chart is one --
16 there's a day missing in between those two charts. One
17 is 2/10, and you'll notice that the next one is 2/12.
18
MR. KIM: Correct.
19
MR. McRANIE: The day that's missing is
20 uneventful, so it's just not there. The event that we
21 observed this excursion that occurred around 1912 to
22 1915 on the chart labeled "2/9/06" was a result -- we
23 can identify the cause of that excursion in mercury.
24 And the cause was a pulverize of fire followed by a
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1714
1 unit trip -- very rapidly followed by a unit trip,
2 within minutes. So that entire excursion was created
3 by that.
4
The second chart labeled "2/12/06,"
5 those two excursions that show up right at the first of
6 the day, we could never identify a cause of those
7 excursions. We have those frequently, every few days.
8
MR. KIM: Okay. So referring to the
9 gap -- the uneventful data that you referenced, is it
10 correct, then, that there could be at least one table
11 between these two that you provided that would reflect
12 data points that would be where?
13
MR. McRANIE: They would look more like
14 the first part of 2/9.
15
MR. KIM: Okay.
16
MR. McRANIE: If you recall, we start
17 off reading around two-and-a-half micrograms. Then we
18 have a zero check, a three level span check. Then we
19 have this weird excursion that we always get, and then
20 you can see -- But the base mercury concentration is
21 very flat, about two-and-a-half, three micrograms.
22 That day that's missing, that entire day looks that
23 way.
24
MR. KIM: Okay. I'm going to count
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1715
1 backwards now. The third-from-the-last page --
2
MR. McRANIE: Yes, the last chart.
3
MR. KIM: -- I know you said that this
4 is something that you were going to possibly get to,
5 but I'm now very much in the dark as to what this
6 particular chart shows or -- Again, this goes back to
7 sort of my objection, and I understand the ruling. But
8 as to what we are supposed to be making of this ...
9
MR. McRANIE: Are you talking about the
10 table with the dates May 1 through May 25th?
11
MR. KIM: Yes, correct.
12
MR. McRANIE: Okay, fine.
13
MS. BASSI: It's Slide 16.
14
MR. McRANIE: Yeah. This is a table of
15 zero and calibration error test results for one of the
16 analyzer systems for those dates at Trimble County.
17 One of the primary QA/QC features of the Part 75 rules
18 are that you perform a daily zero and calibration error
19 test on your analyzers. It doesn't matter what kind
20 they are.
21
This is the best analyzer and the
22 best month that we've had at Trimble County. You will
23 note the two that are notated in yellow are failures of
24 the span response. That was the only two failures we
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1716
1 had that particular month. I go into some more
2 detailed discussion in our -- in the written testimony.
3 In fact, I have a table there for all three of the
4 analyzers that we had in service when that report was
5 prepared.
6
The point that I was going to make
7 about -- with this particular chart, if the issue came
8 up, was that if you will look at the zero response, you
9 will notice numbers that vary from minus .1 to around
10 .3 micrograms, and that zero offset impacts the entire
11 range of the analyzer. So in the days when we're
12 showing .3 positive, every reading we take for that
13 entire day is, in essence, biased high by .3. And
14 that's about as good as we can do on a day-by-day basis
15 to make the adjustment to the analyzer. You just can't
16 hardly get it any closer than that.
17
And so --
18
MR. KIM: Can you identify which CEMS
19 analyzers were used for that presentation?
20
MR. McRANIE: I cannot identify the
21 specific analyzer that's on this chart. That's
22 proprietary information.
23
MR. KIM: Oh, okay. Is it a
24 commercially available --
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1717
1
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
2
MR. KIM: -- analyzer?
3
MR. McRANIE: It is being sold and is
4 commercially available.
5
MR. KIM: And I apologize. I'm going
6 to -- I skipped over some of my notes. I'm going to
7 backtrack with you a little bit.
8
And just for clarification, when
9 you say it's "proprietary," you mean you are just not
10 at liberty to identify your client or the piece of
11 equipment or --
12
MR. McRANIE: No. I can identify the
13 client. I can show information in -- In other words, I
14 can show you all four of the analyzer graphs together
15 on a page, but I'm not at liberty to identify a
16 specific analyzer for competitive and contractual
17 reasons.
18
MEMBER RAO: Just a point of
19 clarification, are all these four analyzers made by the
20 same equipment manufacturer?
21
MR. McRANIE: No. There are three
22 different manufacturers represented with four
23 analyzers. One manufacturer has two machines on-site.
24
MEMBER RAO: So you indicated that the
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1718
1 data here is from your best analyzer out of the four
2 that you have?
3
MR. McRANIE: This chart is the best
4 analyzer we've got out of the four during this month,
5 during this month.
6
MEMBER RAO: Have you done similar
7 analyses for the other analyzers --
8
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
9
MEMBER RAO: -- to see how they compare?
10
Can you tell us?
11
MR. McRANIE: I think I have included
12 three of these charts in my written testimony, and --
13 This is the best one. The worst one had about a
14 75 percent failure rate, and the one in the middle
15 was -- I forget -- 40 or 50 percent, something of that
16 nature. All three of those charts are in the written
17 testimony.
18
MR. KIM: I'm referring back to that
19 table with the May dates.
20
Is that a privately funded or a --
21 What -- I guess, what's the --
22
MR. McRANIE: Well, the project in
23 Trimble County is being funded by EPRI, the Electric
24 Power Resource Institute, under a tailored
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1719
1 collaboration project which is, in turn, being
2 supported by about 18 utility companies.
3
MR. KIM: Okay. Thank you very much.
4
MR. ZABEL: Just for the record, the
5 three charts that he referred are pages 32, 33, and 34.
6
MEMBER RAO: Thank you.
7
MR. KIM: And then when you were making
8 reference to the different analyzers, looking at your
9 two charts where you made reference to Mr. Black --
10
MR. McRANIE: Yeah.
11
MR. KIM: -- that's going back to the
12 different types of analyzers. Those are -- Each
13 different color data point represents a different
14 analyzer --
15
MR. McRANIE: A different analyzer
16 system, that's correct. All of these totally complete
17 systems. They're not just analyzers.
18
MR. KIM: These are all made by
19 different companies, then, or different systems or --
20
MR. McRANIE: There are three different
21 manufacturers with four systems. One vendor has two
22 systems there that have different probe designs.
23
MR. KIM: Okay.
24
MR. McRANIE: And if you'd see a period
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1720
1 of time when there's not four traces, that means that
2 whichever analyzer is not there was out of service on
3 that day.
4
MR. KIM: Okay. When you -- Page 4 now
5 of your slide show, mercury measurement issues, you
6 make reference to the -- under the first bullet point,
7 to the different -- what you describe as a difficulty
8 in measurement going down to .00 -- the difference
9 between .804 and .806 micrograms per cubic meter. Do
10 you see that?
11
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
12
MR. KIM: Okay. And I probably missed
13 this in your testimony.
14
Is that a measurement of detection
15 limit, or is that a different measurement?
16
MR. McRANIE: The proposed Illinois rule
17 has a limit that translates into .80 micrograms per
18 cubic meter. That second zero is significant because
19 it is included in the rule. Therefore, I have to be
20 able to measure one significant digit beyond that, and
21 I have to be able to resolve it accurately to be able
22 to round to the second.
23
MR. KIM: Now, is that, then -- So
24 obviously you're saying to meet that, you need to have
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1721
1 something that can measure down to .001 micrograms per
2 cubic meter; is that correct?
3
MR. McRANIE: That's absolutely correct.
4
MR. KIM: Is that something that's
5 described as a detection limit, or is that something
6 that's described as a different type of -- If you're
7 looking at a CEMS, C-E-M-S -- if you're looking at a
8 monitoring system, what specification would you look at
9 to find out if someone -- if that piece of equipment
10 could measure down to .001 micrograms per cubic meter?
11
MR. McRANIE: You cannot determine that
12 from any instrument specification. You have to
13 determine that from experience and from the actual
14 measurements being made. No mercury analyzer can even
15 get close. As I said earlier in my short presentation,
16 I -- it's virtually impossible for me to tell the
17 difference between .8 and .9, much less to get to three
18 significant figures.
19
MR. KIM: I've got a document -- Are you
20 familiar with Thermo Electron Corporation?
21
MR. McRANIE: Yes, I am.
22
MR. KIM: Okay. I'm going to pass
23 something out.
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I assume you
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1722
1 want this to be entered as an exhibit?
2
MR. KIM: Yes, please.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We will mark
4 this as Exhibit 134, if there's no objection.
5
MR. KIM: And I apologize. We don't
6 have color printers in the building. So this is a
7 black-and-white as opposed to a color picture.
8
MR. KIM: Would you look at page --
9 Well, first of all, what is Thermo Electron
10 Corporation?
11
MR. McRANIE: Thermo Electron
12 Corporation is an integrated instrumentation
13 manufacturer. They build instrumentation for a lot of
14 different industries' measurements, and they build
15 air-monitoring equipment, stack-monitoring equipment, a
16 variety of different analyzers for those purposes.
17
MR. KIM: So you're familiar with the
18 company on a professional basis? Have you ever dealt
19 with them --
20
MR. McRANIE: Oh, absolutely, yeah,
21 20 years.
22
MR. KIM: Okay. And what this is -- And
23 I apologize. You know what? As I think about it, I
24 didn't write down the website address. But I
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1723
1 downloaded this from their website. This is, as you
2 can probably confirm, a marketing brochure from one of
3 their pieces of equipment.
4
If you look at page 4 of that
5 brochure --
6
MR. ZABEL: Again, we're deprived of
7 page numbers. Your turn, Mr. Kim.
8
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
9
MR. KIM: In the middle column there,
10 the top paragraph that states "high sensitivity" --
11
MR. McRANIE: Mm-hmm.
12
MR. KIM: -- could you read that
13 paragraph into the record, please?
14
MR. McRANIE: Certainly.
15
This is from a Thermo Electron
16 brochure -- advertising brochure. The first paragraph
17 is titled "High Sensitivity:" Follows detection limits
18 down to one nanogram per cubic meter. Allow high
19 sample dilution 100 to one, reducing moisture heat and
20 interfering pollutants.
21
MR. KIM: Now, this is where you'll have
22 to sort of, perhaps, educate me again.
23
When I read that, my understanding
24 of that or my interpretation of that is that they
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1724
1 can -- their detection limit reads down to as low as
2 one nanogram per cubic meter. And my very quick and
3 rudimentary math shows that that is approximately --
4 Well, that is .001 micrograms per cubic meter.
5
So would this -- Based upon the
6 information they're presenting, would this piece of
7 equipment be able to make the detection that you're
8 describing here, between .804 and .806?
9
MR. McRANIE: No.
10
MR. KIM: And can you explain why?
11
MR. McRANIE: All right. Here's why.
12 The first thing that you have to do when he -- they
13 mention detection limit in this context, there are two
14 things that we need to know about detection limit.
15
Number one: I cannot measure
16 anything at the detection limit. There is a fairly
17 lengthy discussion on detection limit in my written
18 testimony. Detection limit means that I can only tell
19 that something is there. It's like being in a field on
20 a dark moonlit night with the fog rolled in and you see
21 something move in the distance. You can tell
22 something's there, but you can't tell whether it's a
23 man or a woman, how big it is, how much it weighs. But
24 you can feel it's there.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1725
1
The classical spectroscopy says
2 that I have to have a level at least 3.3 times the
3 detection limit to get to what's called the
4 quantification limit, okay; and that's where I can
5 possibly, possibly make some measurements. I have
6 enough signal over and above the background noise to
7 try to make a measurement, okay.
8
Now, besides that 3.3, you've got
9 to multiply by another hundred because they're taking
10 their detection limit after 100-to-one dilution ratio.
11
MR. KIM: Okay. Thank you. And I
12 recall that there was something in your testimony about
13 that, but I appreciate distinction.
14
If you look at that --
15
MR. McRANIE: And that's also measured
16 in a laboratory, by the way, not up on a smokestack.
17
MR. KIM: I'm not trying to make -- I'm
18 not asking to you make an apples-and-oranges
19 qualification, but now that you've clarified what the
20 detection limit is and the distinction, on page 23 of
21 your testimony --
22
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
23
MR. KIM: I'll give you a chance to get
24 to that.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1726
1
(Continuing.) -- in the second
2 paragraph on that page -- it's actually the first full
3 paragraph that begins "in its sales literature" --
4
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
5
MR. KIM: -- I'll just read it in.
6
Tekran -- which, I assume, is a
7 vendor; is that correct?
8
MR. McRANIE: That's correct.
9
MR. KIM: (Continuing.) -- quotes a
10 detection limit for the mercury analyzer of
11 0.05 micrograms per cubic meter; is that correct?
12
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
13
MR. KIM: So is it an apples-to-apples
14 comparison to say that if Tekran is comparing its data
15 that they've got at .05 micrograms per meter detection
16 limit and the brochure that I just provided you as a
17 one nanogram, which is a .001 microgram per cubic
18 meter, that the brochure that I gave you would be a
19 much more sensitive piece of equipment from a
20 detection-limit standpoint?
21
MR. McRANIE: No. I think that what
22 that means is that Tekran has included their
23 dilution-ratio effect in their detection-limit
24 statement.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1727
1
In other words, they've taken into
2 account their dilution ratio with talking about
3 their -- in talking about their detection limit.
4
You've got to be very, very careful
5 looking at detection-limit numbers. In particular,
6 with mercury and with the trapping analyzers, which
7 Tekran happens to be one -- there are others -- those
8 analyzers can actually be set up and are set up as
9 ambient monitors for detection limits done in the
10 picogram range. They can go very, very low.
11
MR. KIM: From your statement in the
12 testimony, the assumption that you just made is that
13 that's not clear from that statement in the testimony,
14 is it, the added qualifier that you just provided?
15
MR. McRANIE: Not fully, no.
16
MR. KIM: And then still on page -- I
17 believe it's page 4 of that brochure that I gave you,
18 and in that same bolded or shaded column, could you
19 read the second-to- -- third-to-last and second-to-last
20 paragraphs on that, the one that begins "easy to use"?
21
MR. McRANIE: Yeah. This is the
22 third-to-the-last paragraph in the center column,
23 page 4. It's headed "Easy to Use:" Fast intuitive
24 navigation, simple menu-driven programming, common
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1728
1 interface with all new Thermo I Series Analyzers.
2
The next paragraph is headed "Easy
3 to Maintain": Key components are readily accessible
4 for quick maintenance or change-out.
5
MR. KIM: Now, understanding that you
6 have a certain perspective in life and a vendor has a
7 certain perspective in life, just reading those
8 statements, those statements are at odds with your
9 bullet point on page 9 of your PowerPoint slide that --
10 in which you state mercury CEM equipment is very
11 complex and difficult to operate and maintain; is that
12 correct?
13
MR. McRANIE: That's correct.
14
MR. KIM: I don't think I have anything
15 else on your slides. Thank you for your indulgence.
16
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let's move to
17 the prefiled questions, then.
18
ACTING CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Can we go back
19 to the slide for a minute, then? Let's go to
20 Exhibit 134, the Thermo Electron Corporation brochure.
21
Now, going back to talking --
22 You're talking about detection limits of this machine,
23 .001 microgram per cubic meter, and you said we have to
24 multiply that by 3.3 to get to a measurement limit and
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1729
1 then multiply by 100 to account for the high-sample
2 dilution that they mention there.
3
Now, when I put those figures
4 together, I come up with -- You're saying that in the
5 real world in a lab, you would have a detection limit,
6 then, of .3 or .33 micrograms per meter?
7
MR. McRANIE: Approximately, yes, and
8 that's consistent with the observations that we've made
9 in the field. Somewhere around .2 to .3 is our -- is
10 our measurement quantification limit, not detection
11 limit but quantification limit, where we can actually
12 start making measurements.
13
ACTING CHAIRMAN GIRARD: So if you can
14 start making measurements at that level, what's the
15 problem with having a regulatory limit of .8 micrograms
16 per meter cubed? Is it just that the equipment is not
17 to the point where it's been tested enough to be
18 reliable?
19
MR. McRANIE: Not exactly. The
20 measurements -- Once you get to the measurement, the
21 quantification limit if you will, those measurements
22 probably have error bands of 2- or 300 percent. That's
23 just the way it is. There's so much noise still there,
24 you can make a measurement but not a good one.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1730
1
ACTING CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Do you expect
2 that noise level to be reduced through time as we build
3 more of these machines and take more measurements?
4
MR. McRANIE: Perhaps. We're doing
5 better than we were a year ago. I don't know how much
6 farther we're going to go. See, one of the problems is
7 getting the sample to the analyzer itself. I've got to
8 get it out of that stack. I've got to dilute it. I've
9 got to take all the HCL and sulfuric acid out of it and
10 transport it down to the analyzer and get there at a
11 tenth of a part per billion concentration without
12 contaminating it in any way, shape, or form. It's very
13 difficult. And I don't know -- I don't know what our
14 level of progress is going to be over the next year or
15 two.
16
Frankly, I think we need a
17 different technology. The machines we're working with
18 just are not up to these very, very low measurements.
19 The Part 75 rule contemplates the lowest measurement of
20 around 5 micrograms.
21
MEMBER JOHNSON: Mr. McRanie, in your
22 prefiled testimony, you said that you've been involved
23 in every major rule-making for the last -- air
24 emissions rule-making for the last 20 years.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1731
1
Have you ever been put in this
2 situation before?
3
MR. McRANIE: Not quite this pressing a
4 situation as far as trying to make low-level
5 measurements. The two part per million NOx
6 measurements we have to make on gas turbines is very,
7 very hard but not as hard as this.
8
MR. KIM: And I apologize. Some members
9 of our panel did have some additional questions on your
10 slide presentation.
11
ACTING CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Actually, could
12 I just ask sort of a summary question?
13
We have two utilities in the state
14 that have agreed to meet this .8 microgram per cubic
15 meter standard.
16
What would you advise them?
17
MR. ZABEL: I don't know that he's
18 totally familiar with the MPS. They've agreed to meet
19 it in 2013 -- or 2015. Excuse me.
20
ACTING CHAIRMAN GIRARD: How are they
21 going to measure it in 2015?
22
MR. ZABEL: They've got nine years to do
23 it, but I'll let him answer.
24
MR. McRANIE: They're basically putting
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1732
1 off the MPS -- I mean, putting off the compliance
2 measurement for six years. Instead of having to do it
3 in 2009, now they've got till 2015 before they have to
4 make those measurements. The compliance measurement in
5 the intervening years is just the pounds of carbon that
6 are being blown out.
7
ACTING CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Thank you.
8
Go ahead.
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Identify
10 yourself for the record.
11
MR. ROMAINE: Christopher Romaine for
12 the Agency.
13
In your presentation, you stated
14 that a unit must be operated at 92 to 93 percent
15 control proficiency to comply with the standard of
16 90 percent.
17
What is the basis for that
18 statement?
19
MR. McRANIE: Experience.
20
MR. ROMAINE: What particular
21 experience?
22
MR. McRANIE: Well, experience with lots
23 of units, with lots of scrubbers, many other control
24 devices, SCRs. You always have to control below the
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1733
1 control point or the emission limit to account for the
2 unexpected.
3
MR. ROMAINE: Which of those examples
4 that you named have limits that apply on an annual
5 basis?
6
MR. McRANIE: None.
7
MR. ROMAINE: So this is based on
8 experience with limitations that apply on a short-term
9 basis, typically a 30-day average?
10
MR. McRANIE: But with proven equipment
11 also. So if -- You can do the calculation however you
12 want to, but if a utility is sitting there operating at
13 90 percent reduction on the last two weeks of the month
14 and it loses its carbon blower, he's going to be out of
15 compliance.
16
MR. ROMAINE: But, again, you described
17 the last two days of the month, not addressing the
18 annual standard in this case.
19
MR. McRANIE: It's a 12-month rolling
20 average, I believe. It rolls every month.
21
MR. ROMAINE: You also stated in your
22 presentation that by definition, it is impossible to
23 make a measurement more precise than the reference
24 method.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1734
1
What definition are you referring
2 to?
3
MR. McRANIE: By definition, the
4 reference method is the gold standard, and its
5 precision and accuracy are immediately transferred to
6 whatever other measurement you're trying to make.
7
MR. ROMAINE: What is the regulatory
8 basis for that statement?
9
MR. McRANIE: It's not a regulatory
10 basis. It's just the way it is.
11
MR. ROMAINE: So it's your opinion?
12
MR. McRANIE: No. I believe if you will
13 take a look at the RATA test calculations, you will see
14 that there's a confidence coefficient number there
15 which transfers the total measurement variability
16 associated with either/or the analyzer running the test
17 or the reference method. All of that gets thrown into
18 a term called the relative accuracy.
19
MR. ROMAINE: So does that evaluation
20 address both potential variation in the reference
21 method accuracy and the continuous monitoring method
22 accuracy?
23
MR. McRANIE: It buries them all
24 together. That's right. You can't separate one from
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1735
1 the other.
2
MR. ROMAINE: Is it possible to modify
3 the accuracy of reference method testing by simple
4 techniques such as extending the duration of test runs?
5
MR. McRANIE: The accuracy?
6
MR. ROMAINE: Yes.
7
MR. McRANIE: The detection level. I'm
8 not sure about the accuracy. I don't think so. If
9 you're having problems with detection, you can extend
10 the run time.
11
MR. ROMAINE: Is it a routine practice,
12 when you're measuring low levels of emissions, to have
13 longer test runs than when you're having higher levels
14 of emissions?
15
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
16
MR. ROMAINE: Thank you very much.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are we ready
18 to go -- Mr. Harley.
19
MR. HARLEY: My name is Keith Harley.
20 I'm an attorney with a group called Environment
21 Illinois.
22
Did you have the opportunity,
23 following up on Board Member Johnson's question, to
24 develop public comments as part of the CAMR rule-making
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1736
1 process related to the monitoring issues in your
2 presentation today?
3
MR. McRANIE: I don't think I followed
4 that. I'm sorry.
5
MR. HARLEY: Did you develop public
6 comments as part of the CAMR rule-making process --
7
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
8
MR. HARLEY: -- related to the
9 monitoring issues that you described today?
10
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
11
MR. HARLEY: Did USEPA alter its final
12 CAMR regulations to address any of the concerns you
13 raised regarding monitoring?
14
MR. McRANIE: I believe there were some
15 modifications made, yes.
16
MR. HARLEY: Can you describe the
17 modifications the USEPA made in response to your
18 comments?
19
MR. McRANIE: I, frankly, do not
20 remember those in detail. There were quite a number of
21 comments. And some they implemented. Some they
22 didn't. I just don't remember the details.
23
MR. HARLEY: Did USEPA issue a response
24 of the summary when it issued its final CAMR
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1737
1 regulations?
2
MR. McRANIE: I believe there was a
3 response-to-comments document issued with the final
4 regulations.
5
MR. HARLEY: Were your comments
6 regarding your concerns about monitoring addressed in
7 that response of the summary?
8
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
9
MR. HARLEY: Can you describe how USEPA
10 responded to the concerns that you raised?
11
MR. ZABEL: I think he answered that.
12
But go ahead, Mr. McRanie.
13
MR. McRANIE: I believe I stated earlier
14 that EPA -- I may not have stated it earlier.
15
EPA was put in an unusual position
16 in having to write regulations around monitoring
17 equipment that no one knew anything about, and I think
18 they did a pretty good job all in all. We do believe
19 there will be some additional modifications to the
20 regulations to accommodate some of the peculiarities of
21 this type of equipment where it's different from SO2
22 and NOx. But, fundamentally, EPA did not do a bad job
23 in putting those Part 75 monitoring regulations
24 together.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1738
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
2 Mr. Harley. If I may, Exhibit 47 in this rule-making
3 is the response to significant public comments from the
4 USEPA I think you're referring to.
5
MR. HARLEY: Thank you, Madam Hearing
6 Officer.
7
In terms of the actual physical
8 monitoring devices that will need to be installed under
9 the Illinois rule, is there any difference between the
10 devices that need to be installed in the Illinois rule
11 and the devices that need to be installed in order to
12 comply with the CAMR monitoring requirements?
13
MR. McRANIE: Not as far as the
14 emissions -- the stack mercury emissions go. The
15 equipment is the same.
16
MR. HARLEY: And is it fair to say that
17 coal-fired power plants throughout the United States
18 will have to monitor mercury emissions understand CAMR,
19 not just plants here in Illinois?
20
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
21
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Then I think
23 we're ready to go to the prefiled questions.
24
MR. ZABEL: We'll start with the
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1739
1 Illinois EPA's, Madam Hearing Officer.
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes.
3
MR. McRANIE: Question Number 1: On
4 page 6 of your testimony in the section titled General
5 Discussion on the Portable" -- by the way, that should
6 be "probable" -- "Monitoring Issue," you state, quote,
7 It appears that the State of Illinois has proposed
8 these new mercury control regulations without seriously
9 considering any of the mercury emission measurement
10 issues, end quote. What is the basis for this
11 statement?
12
Answer: As stated in my testimony,
13 there is no mention of mercury measurement issues in
14 the technical support document prepared by the State.
15 In addition, the State did not produce any testimony
16 with significant discussion of mercury measurement
17 issues. Therefore, I concluded that these issues were
18 not given serious consideration.
19
MR. MATOESIAN: So you didn't actually
20 talk to anyone at Illinois EPA?
21
MR. McRANIE: No, I did not.
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
23 Number 2 -- Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Harley. I apologize.
24
MR. HARLEY: Isn't it true that
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1740
1 throughout the Illinois rule, there is explicit
2 reference to the Part 75 monitoring requirements that
3 are contained in the federal CAMR?
4
MR. McRANIE: That's correct.
5
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
7 Number 2.
8
MR. McRANIE: Question 2: In the next
9 paragraph, you state, quote, Unfortunately, virtually
10 all regulators assume that emissions measurements can
11 be made at whatever level might be desirable with no
12 accuracy, precision, or bias problem, closed quote.
13 What is the basis for this statement?
14
My basis for this statement is over
15 30 years of experience in dealing with regulatory
16 personnel on emission measurement issues. The
17 regulator's position is driven by the desire to never
18 have to deal with accuracy, precision, or bias in an
19 enforcement proceeding. Dealing with measurement
20 issues is a difficult undertaking in a
21 compliance-determination proceeding. Unfortunately, as
22 emissions are driven lower, measurement issues become
23 very important in the setting of emission limits and
24 the demonstration of compliance. They cannot be
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1741
1 ignored.
2
MR. MATOESIAN: Now, doesn't the
3 compliance time periods selected in both CAMR and the
4 Illinois proposed rule -- that is to say, compliance
5 determined on a calendar-year basis -- show
6 consideration of the issues proposed by the mercury
7 emissions?
8
MR. McRANIE: They're different. A
9 trading program like CAMR or Part 75, as I like to call
10 it, has a tremendous amount of flexibility, including
11 the trading, purchasing, buying, selling of allowances.
12 There are a lot of escape hatches and degrees of
13 freedom within that regulatory format which you're not
14 given in a hard cap regulatory format. Your only
15 choice is to over-control or be out of compliance.
16
So I don't think you can rationally
17 compare the two based on averaging time. That just
18 doesn't make any sense.
19
MR. MATOESIAN: So to be clear, this
20 statement was just -- it wasn't based on a particular
21 fact; it was -- the previous statement that the
22 question's about? It was your opinion?
23
MR. McRANIE: Sure.
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1742
1 Number 3.
2
MR. McRANIE: Question Number 3: Are
3 you claiming that USEPA did not have proper technical
4 knowledge to write the Part 75 mercury-monitoring
5 provisions?
6
Answer: I do not believe that the
7 word "proper" in the question is totally appropriate.
8 Better words would be "sufficient" or "complete." It
9 is now clear that no one had sufficient, much less
10 complete technical knowledge to write the Part 75
11 mercury-monitoring provisions. Frankly, I think that
12 EPA did a rather admirable job given the information
13 available at the time.
14
At the time the regulations were
15 written, there was almost no experience with mercury
16 continuous emissions monitoring on a 24-7 basis.
17 Virtually all of the continuous mercury measurements
18 had been made by research personnel with research grade
19 instrumentation. In fact, many of the mercury CEMS
20 being sold today did not even exist when the Part 75
21 regulations were written. There was zero experience
22 with relative accuracy Test Audits, calibration error
23 tests, integrity tests, oxidized mercury calibrations,
24 or any of the other operational and QA/QC criteria now
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1743
1 contained in Part 75. The capability and reliability
2 record of Hg CEMS is still being developed as we
3 discuss this today, and it is still not clear whether
4 all of the QA/QC criteria can be met.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question?
6
MR. MATOESIAN: Sorry. Now, if the
7 Illinois rule is disproved, won't all sources have to
8 use the same monitoring provisions under CAMR?
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I didn't get
10 all of the that question. I'm sorry.
11
MR. MATOESIAN: If the Illinois proposal
12 is not adopted by the Board, all affected sources would
13 still have to use the same monitoring provision under
14 CAMR, correct?
15
MR. McRANIE: That's what I would
16 assume, yes.
17
MR. MATOESIAN: And isn't it true that
18 similar arguments were made when USEPA adopted these
19 rules, and it was determined at that time that the
20 monitoring regulations were appropriate?
21
MR. McRANIE: I don't think I agree with
22 your assertion that the monitoring provisions were
23 appropriate. I think the decision was made by a lot of
24 people that we were going to have a mercury trading
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1744
1 program which was going to be something that was
2 desirable. We had to have a way to measure them, to
3 measure mercury, under that trading program. And the
4 decision was then made by EPA to pattern that after the
5 SO2 and NOx monitoring provisions. They're almost a
6 direct carbon copy, as you know, and that's all we knew
7 at the time. That's all EPA knew at the time.
8
MR. MATOESIAN: Okay.
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes,
10 Mr. Harley.
11
MR. HARLEY: Are you familiar with the
12 term "technology forcing"?
13
MR. McRANIE: Yes, I am.
14
MR. HARLEY: Could you, please, describe
15 what that term means?
16
MR. McRANIE: "Technology forcing" means
17 that -- in a regulatory perspective, that if a
18 regulation is passed for technology that might not be
19 ready, that industry will then figure out a way to make
20 it work.
21
MR. HARLEY: Is that a strategy that is,
22 from time to time, used by USEPA in its regulatory
23 approaches?
24
MR. McRANIE: I'm not familiar with all
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1745
1 of the regulatory approaches that EPA uses. I think
2 it's fair to say that some of the regulatory activities
3 turn out to be technology-forcing.
4
MR. HARLEY: If USEPA had decided, as
5 part of CAMR, to employ a technology-forcing strategy
6 for mercury monitoring, wouldn't you expect to see
7 90 percent more mercury monitors existing today than
8 existed at the time that the rule was passed?
9
MR. McRANIE: I don't know the answer to
10 that question.
11
MR. ZABEL: That's the answer.
12
MR. McRANIE: I'm sorry. I don't know
13 the answer to that question.
14
MR. HARLEY: What was the answer? I'm
15 sorry.
16
MR. McRANIE: I don't know the answer to
17 that question.
18
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
20 Number 4.
21
MR. McRANIE: Question 4: On page 7 of
22 your testimony, you claim that trading programs spread
23 out any possible monitoring bias. Isn't it true that a
24 trading program allows averaging across both time and
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1746
1 multiple units?
2
Answer: As I suggested earlier, a
3 trading program is quite different from a hard cap
4 emission program in many aspects. A mercury trading
5 program is not an averaging program. It is a
6 nationwide, market-driven, block summation approach.
7 It is not averaging. The multiple degrees of freedom
8 associated with a nationwide trading program cannot be
9 rationally compared to a hard cap emissions limit on a
10 unit-by-unit or system-by-system basis.
11
MR. BLOOMBERG: When you say -- I'm
12 sorry. David Bloomberg, Illinois EPA, bureau of air
13 compliance unit.
14
When you say a trading program is
15 not an averaging program, isn't it true that if you
16 emit 200 ounces too much and I emit 200 ounces less, I
17 can sell it to you?
18
MR. McRANIE: Yes, you can.
19
MR. BLOOMBERG: So then, on average,
20 we've met the necessary reduction?
21
MR. McRANIE: No. You sold allowances,
22 and I bought them.
23
MR. BLOOMBERG: And on average, the
24 amount of emissions is the same than if you had
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1747
1 reduced --
2
MR. McRANIE: But that's not the same as
3 averaging at one site.
4
MR. BLOOMBERG: No, it's not the same,
5 but isn't the effect?
6
MR. McRANIE: Of course the effect's not
7 the same.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
9 Number 5.
10
MR. BLOOMBERG: We have one more.
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.
12
MR. MATOESIAN: But, now, the Illinois
13 rule, isn't it true it allows averaging across both
14 time and multiple units that would be similar to a
15 trading program?
16
MR. McRANIE: I didn't follow the first
17 part of that.
18
MR. MATOESIAN: Isn't it true that the
19 proposed Illinois mercury rule allows averaging across
20 both time and multiple units that is similar to a
21 trading program?
22
MR. McRANIE: There -- I'll be very
23 frank with you. I did not study some of those
24 particular provisions of that rule. I was asked to
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1748
1 look at monitoring, period. There appear to be some
2 limited averaging within confined spaces, and it was,
3 frankly, a little confusing to me and so I didn't spend
4 a lot of time on it. So I can't comment on it very
5 well.
6
MR. MATOESIAN: Well, if a system, like,
7 all of the pieces are owned by one company --
8
MR. ZABEL: I'm sorry. I can't hear
9 you, Mr. Matoesian.
10
MR. MATOESIAN: Within a system, say --
11 that's the term we use -- all the units are owned by
12 one company, so multiple plants throughout the state
13 and so on, if those can average amongst themselves,
14 wouldn't that be somewhat similar to a trading program?
15
MR. McRANIE: The problem with that sort
16 of approach is that big units dominate that average
17 and, therefore, small units can't do anything to offset
18 the averaging process relative to a big unit. So you
19 either have to over-control like crazy on your big
20 units or -- and do nothing on the smaller units or you
21 have to control all your units the same. It just gets
22 totally unbalanced by large units.
23
MR. MATOESIAN: But wouldn't that be
24 similar to a trading program where the big units would
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1749
1 have most of the allowances; and if they don't control
2 properly, then you have to find --
3
MR. McRANIE: That's the way most people
4 operate them. They over-control the big units. Of
5 course.
6
MR. MATOESIAN: So it's kind of the
7 same?
8
MR. McRANIE: Yeah, in conceptual
9 thought maybe.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
11 Number 5.
12
MR. McRANIE: Question 5: Again, on
13 page 7 of your testimony, you state regulators have
14 developed the habit of adding significant figures to
15 emission limits in an attempt to tighten the limits.
16 What is the basis for this statement?
17
Answer: The addition of trailing
18 zeros and additional significant figures to any
19 emission limit serves to tighten the emission limit
20 because of significant figure and rounding practice
21 required. The form of the emission limit in the
22 proposed Illinois rule is a classic example. Why is
23 there a trailing zero?
24
Another example is a plus or minus
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1750
1 1.0 microgram calibration criteria contained in
2 Part 75. Both imply measurement accuracy that is
3 impossible, impossible. I have also seen numerous
4 permits that contain emission limits that contain
5 trailing zeros at levels that cannot be measured. A
6 notable example are on many gas turbines with 2.0 parts
7 per million NOx limits. This limit implies that I can
8 reliably quantify every individual NOx measurement to
9 an accuracy and precision of .01 parts per million,
10 which cannot be done. One can only quantify NOx to
11 about the nearest 0.5 parts per million, but since a
12 computer takes the data and performs the calculations,
13 we can display 15 to 30 digits if we so require. Any
14 extra digits beyond a whole part per million are not
15 real and are just artifacts of computerized data
16 collection and spreadsheet calculations.
17
MR. MATOESIAN: Now, from your statement
18 that regulators (inaudible) --
19
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I
20 couldn't hear you.
21
MR. MATOESIAN: -- that regulators
22 develop a habit of adding significant figures, did you
23 talk to anyone at Illinois EPA about that?
24
MR. McRANIE: No, I did not.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1751
1
MR. MATOESIAN: So is that, therefore,
2 your opinion?
3
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
4
MR. MATOESIAN: Okay. Thank you.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
6 Number 6.
7
MR. McRANIE: Question 6: On page 10 of
8 your testimony, you claim that there have been hardware
9 failures in mercury monitors. Isn't it true that if
10 such failures occur, they would occur whether sources
11 are subject to the proposed Illinois regulation or
12 CAMR?
13
The answer is yes.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
15 Number 7.
16
MR. McRANIE: 7: Also on page 10 of
17 your testimony, you state, quote, I am always amazed
18 that regulators sit down at their desks and write
19 mercury-monitoring regulations without ever having seen
20 a mercury CEMS or having any reasonable level of
21 knowledge about how they work, closed quote. Did you
22 actually talk to any Illinois EPA employee who
23 participated in the development of these regulations?
24
Answer: No.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1752
1
MR. MATOESIAN: This again, is just an
2 assumption, then?
3
MR. McRANIE: Yes, it is an assumption.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Harley.
5
MR. HARLEY: Since the Illinois
6 monitoring requirements are the same as the monitoring
7 requirements that are in Part 75, did you have an
8 opportunity to talk any USEPA employee about the
9 concerns that you have about the accuracy of
10 mercury-monitoring equipment?
11
MR. McRANIE: I am in routine and
12 regular conversation with EPA personnel associated with
13 mercury.
14
MR. HARLEY: On the issue of monitoring
15 equipment?
16
MR. McRANIE: Yes, absolutely.
17
MR. HARLEY: And how did they respond to
18 your concerns?
19
MR. McRANIE: I believe that they are
20 also concerned, perhaps not to the extent that I am.
21
MR. HARLEY: And why aren't they as
22 concerned as you are?
23
MR. McRANIE: I don't know.
24
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1753
1
MR. MATOESIAN: Can I ask, have they --
2 how have they responded on the record officially to
3 your concerns?
4
MR. McRANIE: EPA, I don't believe, has
5 responded on the record to anyone, including me. "On
6 the record" are the key words.
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
8 Number 8.
9
MR. McRANIE: Question Number 8: On
10 page 13 of your testimony, you claim that mercury CEMS
11 are difficult to work on. Even that statement is
12 presumed -- Excuse me. Even if that statement is
13 presumed to be correct, wouldn't that be the case
14 whether sources are subject to the proposed Illinois
15 regulation or CAMR?
16
The answer is yes.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
18 Number 9.
19
MR. McRANIE: Question Number 9: On
20 page 17 of your testimony, you state, I hope the issues
21 are resolved by the time mercury calibrations have to
22 be done under a regulatory program, closed quote.
23 Isn't it true that the supposed technical issues in
24 question are the same whether sources in Illinois would
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1754
1 be subjected to the proposed Illinois regulation or
2 CAMR?
3
The answer is yes, but they have a
4 decidedly different impact. Under CAMR, there are
5 multiple flexibilities and escape hatch in the form of
6 purchasing additional allowances. Under the Illinois
7 regulation, a determination of "out of compliance" is
8 out of compliance, no matter if the determination is
9 correct or incorrect.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Harley.
11
MR. HARLEY: You previously testified
12 that you were not familiar with the provisions of the
13 Illinois rule that allow for averaging among units; is
14 that correct?
15
MR. McRANIE: Not in detail, no.
16
MR. HARLEY: Are you familiar with the
17 provisions of the Illinois rule contained in the
18 provisions of the Temporary Technology Base standard?
19
MR. McRANIE: Not in detail, no.
20
MR. HARLEY: Is it possible that those
21 provisions of the Illinois law might provide the
22 flexibility that would avoid the compliance issues that
23 you're describing?
24
MR. McRANIE: I would have to study them
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1755
1 in more detail to respond to that question.
2
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
4 Number 10.
5
MR. McRANIE: Question 10: You describe
6 on page 22 of your testimony to an example of the need
7 to conduct a NOx CEMS relative accuracy test audit. If
8 USEPA already requires combustion turbines to control
9 NOx to levels that you argue are below the RATA --
10 that's R-A-T-A, all caps -- reference method accuracy
11 levels, do you agree that under the same principle,
12 RATA reference method accuracy shouldn't be an issue
13 for mercury either?
14
Answer: I believe my testimony has
15 been misinterpreted. I am not making the argument that
16 USEPA requires control of NOx below the reference
17 method accuracy or that low-level NOx RATAs are not an
18 issue. The two part per million limits discussed in my
19 testimony are a result of State permitting activities,
20 and RATA at this level are a serious issue. I also
21 note that this question implies that if it is done
22 incorrectly under the NOx rule, then doing it
23 incorrectly under the mercury rule should be okay.
24 Surely, this is not a serious suggestion.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1756
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
2 Number 11.
3
MR. McRANIE: Question 11: On page 25
4 of your testimony, you state, quote, We have not
5 detected any bias in the continuous mercury CEMS
6 measurements, closed quote. You then claim that,
7 quote, A small bias would be virtually impossible to
8 detect. In such a case where no bias has been
9 detected, would it be scientifically valid to assume
10 that a bias might be present or, in fact, wouldn't the
11 correct conclusion be to have simply said that no bias
12 has been detected?
13
Answer: No, that is not the
14 correct conclusion. The correct conclusion is that we
15 cannot make the mercury measurement with enough
16 accuracy and precision to detect a bias even if one is
17 there. The Part 75 regulations, by allowing a plus or
18 minus one microgram per cubic meter allowance on the
19 RATA or daily calibration error test, explicitly state
20 that a bias of plus or minus one microgram per cubic
21 meter cannot be detected.
22
One has to remember that the
23 reference method only has a precision of one microgram
24 when making measurements below three micrograms. It
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1757
1 should also be noted that virtually all of the mercury
2 measurements on the proposed Illinois rule will be well
3 below three micrograms per cubic meter.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
5 Number 12.
6
MR. McRANIE: Question 12: In the next
7 paragraph on page 25 of your testimony, you discuss
8 biases in SO2 monitoring. Isn't it correct that, in
9 fact, this has nothing to do with the proposed Illinois
10 mercury rule and you are only discussing it because, as
11 you admitted, there has been no bias detected in
12 mercury CEMS?
13
Answer: Actually, the referenced
14 discussion on page 25 was related to biases in stack
15 flow measurements which caused a related bias in SO2
16 tonnage emission calculations. Actual SO2 measurements
17 were not effected. This same flow bias, by the way,
18 can affect the calculation of mercury percent
19 reduction. However, the percent reduction calculation
20 is not shown in the proposed rule; therefore, cannot
21 determine how the State proposes to make that
22 calculation.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
24 Number 13.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1758
1
MR. McRANIE: Question 13: On page 29
2 of your testimony, you discuss some CEMS tests and
3 state by the 40 CFR Part 75 rules, the RATAs were
4 invalid. Isn't it true that these test results would
5 be the same whether the sources in Illinois are subject
6 to the proposed Illinois regulation of CAMR?
7
The answer is yes.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question 14.
9
MR. McRANIE: Question 14 --
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Hold on.
11
MR. MATOESIAN: One second.
12
(Brief pause.)
13
MR. MATOESIAN: Thank you.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
15 Number 14.
16
MR. HARLEY: Madam Hearing Officer, I
17 have question.
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Oh, I'm sorry,
19 Mr. Harley.
20
MR. HARLEY: Since this is the last
21 opportunity to ask this question to make it clear for
22 the record, you testified that the monitoring
23 requirements in the Illinois rule are the same as the
24 monitoring requirements that are in the USEPA CAMR
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1759
1 regulations; is that correct?
2
MR. McRANIE: To a great degree until
3 you get to percent reduction sides. If you're working
4 on just the emissions side, they're pretty much the
5 same.
6
MR. HARLEY: And you testified that as
7 part of the CAMR rule-making process, you were given an
8 opportunity -- or took an opportunity to express your
9 concerns about the monitoring provisions of the federal
10 rule?
11
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
12
MR. HARLEY: And those regulations were
13 finalized and contained monitoring requirements; is
14 that correct?
15
MR. McRANIE: That's correct.
16
MR. HARLEY: Isn't your testimony and
17 your presentation, in fact, much more about CAMR than
18 it is about anything in the monitoring requirements
19 that are contained in the Illinois rule?
20
MR. McRANIE: My discussion here today
21 has been about monitoring, period, mercury monitoring.
22
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
24 Number 14.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1760
1
MR. McRANIE: Question 14: On page 37
2 of your testimony, you wonder how Illinois proposes to
3 calculate input pounds of mercury. Can this
4 calculation be made given that on page 36 of your
5 testimony, you quote Section 22 -- 225.265(a)(4)
6 regarding the measurement of mercury content in coal as
7 being in pounds per trillion BTU and given that EGUs
8 know how many BTU they generate?
9
Answer: The point of my testimony
10 comment was that applicable equations for input pounds
11 of mercury were missing from the regulations, and the
12 chain of calculations to obtain the final percent
13 reduction values was unclear. If the calculation chain
14 is, as implied by this question, a propagation of error
15 analysis should be done.
16
MR. MATOESIAN: Couldn't just a
17 multiplication calculation arrive with a figure for
18 input of pounds per mercury?
19
MR. McRANIE: It very much depends.
20 There are a lot -- an awful lot of variables in that
21 equation when you're trying to do input/output-type
22 measurements. I really think that you should sit down
23 and do a propagation of error analysis on that
24 calculation because I think you will find the total
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1761
1 error associated with it to be astounding.
2
MR. MATOESIAN: All right. Thank you.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question 15.
4
MR. McRANIE: Question 15: On page 38
5 of your testimony, you state that a source of error is
6 typically ignored by regulatory personnel, and I expect
7 this is the case for the proposed Illinois rule. What
8 is the basis for this statement?
9
Answer: I see no evidence in the
10 technical support document or the regulation that any
11 source of measurement error has been investigated or
12 addressed in the proposed Illinois rule. The word
13 "error" is not contained in either document.
14
MR. MATOESIAN: Again, I would ask, did
15 you actually speak to anyone at the Illinois EPA about
16 this?
17
MR. McRANIE: No. But I could do a word
18 search on my computer, and the word "error" is not
19 contained in either document.
20
MR. MATOESIAN: Okay.
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question 16.
22
MR. McRANIE: Question 16: On page 39
23 of your testimony, you claim that a carbon injection
24 system will not stop excursions because of the time lag
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1762
1 in increasing the carbon feed rate. Isn't it true that
2 an averaging period over 12 months, as contained in the
3 proposed Illinois rule, will mitigate any short-term
4 potential issues like this due to the much longer-term
5 averaging time?
6
No, this is not the case. Any
7 excursions above the emission limit or percent removal
8 limit add to the long tail of the log-normal
9 distribution. See page 24 of my testimony. The
10 ability to recover from such excursions depends on the
11 ability of the control device to over-control above the
12 control point during other operational periods of time.
13 If the control device does not have the over-control
14 capability needed for recovery, then averaging time is
15 irrelevant. A longer averaging time only allows more
16 time for over-control. That's all it does for you.
17 That's why the source has to stay ahead of the curve
18 and routinely over-control so as to achieve a long-term
19 average of 90 percent.
20
MR. ROMAINE: I'd like to -- This is
21 Chris Romaine for the Agency.
22
I think we, in a previous exchange,
23 concluded that you didn't know the exact extent to
24 which over-control would be necessary with an annual
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1763
1 stint?
2
MR. McRANIE: No, I do not. It depends.
3
MR. ROMAINE: Okay. And the other
4 aspect of this I want to pursue is on Figure 12 on
5 page 24, this log-normal distribution of mercury
6 measurements, this table is displaying a variation of
7 performance of a unit for mercury machines?
8
MR. ZABEL: Could you read that back?
9
MR. McRANIE: Yeah, I didn't --
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Romaine,
11 you need to --
12
MR. ZABEL: Back off.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Now repeat
14 your question.
15
MR. ROMAINE: Figure 12 of your
16 testimony on page 24 displays a log-normal distribution
17 of mercury emissions from a unit. I want to confirm
18 that this display, the variation of mercury emissions
19 from a unit -- how it varies in performance for the
20 level of emissions or the control of mercury emissions.
21
MR. ZABEL: Do you understand?
22
MR. McRANIE: Not really.
23
MR. ZABEL: Do you want to read that
24 back, please?
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1764
1
(Record read as requested.)
2
MR. ZABEL: Do you understand the
3 question?
4
MR. McRANIE: I'm not sure. Can I sort
5 of take a stab at re-explaining what that figure is?
6
MR. ROMAINE: Yes, you can.
7
MR. McRANIE: As I stated earlier, that
8 is a made-up curve that I created which is generally
9 shaped like virtually all of the curves that we see on
10 units with control devices. And the reason why you
11 have that long tail out to the right, those high
12 emission numbers, a small percentage of the time, well,
13 they can be very high. If we look at the PowerPoint
14 presentation I did a little earlier today and you look
15 at the curve dated 2/9/06 in that presentation, what
16 you see is the type of long-tail excursion that shows
17 up on the log-normal curve. And in this case, it's
18 about ten to one. In other words, we have an emission
19 that goes from three to 30 micrograms.
20
Now, over some period of time,
21 somebody's -- that control device is going to have to
22 compensate for that, and that number -- I only went out
23 to four micrograms. If I would have extended this
24 chart out to 30, it would have been most interesting.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1765
1
MR. ROMAINE: So you're describing
2 performance of the control device?
3
MR. McRANIE: I'm describing the results
4 of having a control device.
5
MR. ROMAINE: Are the events that cause
6 high levels of emissions random?
7
MR. McRANIE: I'm not going to answer
8 that simply because of the fact that I haven't
9 tabulated -- I have an opinion, but I don't think I
10 should just throw that on the floor.
11
MR. ROMAINE: Well, are the events that
12 cause high levels of emissions random in the same sense
13 that you have random errors in measurements?
14
MR. McRANIE: No. Random errors and
15 random events are two entirely different things.
16 Random events --
17
MR. ROMAINE: I understand that.
18
So what is the relevance of
19 Figure 12 for discussion of continuous emission mercury
20 monitoring?
21
MR. McRANIE: Well, when you're already
22 pushed up against the 90 percent reduction level, which
23 is where that red line is, you can't go much lower. I
24 can't go beyond 100 percent reduction. So any hours
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1766
1 I've got above 90 percent have to be offset by hours
2 between 90 and 100.
3
MR. ROMAINE: Are you -- But, again, in
4 terms of your testimony on continuous emission
5 monitoring, are you familiar with how much better
6 mercury emission control technology can do than better
7 than 90 percent?
8
MR. McRANIE: I'm not an expert on
9 mercury control technology.
10
MS. BASSI: Can I ask a follow-up here?
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sure.
12
MS. BASSI: If it's difficult to measure
13 consistently and accurately and all that, 0.080
14 micrograms, which I believe you said is the limit, is
15 it even more difficult to measure whatever those
16 micrograms would turn out to be to get the more than
17 90 percent reduction needed to balance or to average
18 out those periods that are greater than where you
19 exceed the limit?
20
MR. McRANIE: The lower you go, the
21 harder the measurement is to make. That's just the
22 rule of the game.
23
MS. BASSI: Is that part of the
24 relevance of Figure 12?
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1767
1
MR. McRANIE: Well, no. I --
2 Everybody's struggling with Figure 12. Figure 12 is
3 just a demonstration of the fact that you have to --
4 because emissions look that way when you have control
5 devices -- Because control devices fail. People make
6 mistakes. You cannot -- You just cannot control at 90
7 and end up at 90. You've always got to be below it.
8 You've always got to provide that insurance policy and
9 that insurance margin. And that's all Figure 12 is
10 trying to show, is that you've got to control below
11 your emission limit. You have to.
12
MR. ROMAINE: Then this Figure 12 is
13 misplaced in your testimony as it's contained in the
14 section discussing random errors in continuous emission
15 monitoring?
16
MR. McRANIE: One could possibly make
17 that argument.
18
ACTING CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Could I ask a
19 question on this Figure 12?
20
You've given one example of the way
21 you could engineer a process to try to be in
22 compliance; and that is, if you run into this
23 log-normal distribution, you set your operation point
24 at a higher standard so that your averages still come
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1768
1 out at the compliance point.
2
But aren't there other mathematical
3 ways of dealing with a log-normal distribution?
4
MR. McRANIE: There are mathematical
5 ways of dealing with it, but I'm not sure how to deal
6 with it in real life when I've got a control device out
7 there that breaks down.
8
ACTING CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Couldn't you
9 write a regulation, for instance, that would discard a
10 certain number of outliers and would classify outliers
11 in a certain way that if you got a reading that was ten
12 times what you've been getting a certain percentage of
13 the time, you would throw that data point out?
14
MR. McRANIE: Absolutely.
15
ACTING CHAIRMAN GIRARD: So could the --
16 I mean, I don't know that we would do it, but could you
17 tweak the regulations in a way to come up with
18 definitions of outliers of that type so that you
19 wouldn't have to move your operational point so far to
20 the right on your Figure 12?
21
MR. McRANIE: The safest way to deal
22 with it and the way that it's been dealt with in
23 traditional rule-making is just to move the compliance
24 point up to provide more room. I mean, that's, in
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1769
1 essence, what was done in all the NSPS because you have
2 the measurement error buried in the regulation number.
3
ACTING CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Or the
4 corollary of that, what you're saying; if you think
5 90 percent is such a hard target to meet, we could also
6 move the compliant point to 88, 85, 70, and then --
7
MR. McRANIE: That's an approach, yes.
8 I have not made the argument that 90 is easy or hard to
9 make, by the way. I'm just talking about making
10 measurements. But one of the ways of doing it is
11 moving it, obviously.
12
ACTING CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Thank you.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. McRanie,
14 are you familiar with measurement for other media;
15 water, for example?
16
MR. McRANIE: I don't think I want to
17 claim that level of expertise any longer. I used to do
18 work in that area some, but it's been a few years.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
20 We're ready for Question 17.
21
MR. HARLEY: I have a question.
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Oh, sorry,
23 Mr. Harley.
24
MR. HARLEY: Are you familiar with
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1770
1 regulations on either the federal or the state level
2 which address issues of monitoring equipment
3 malfunction periods?
4
MR. McRANIE: Yes. The -- I keep
5 referring to NSPS. The old NSPS subpart (d),
6 subpart (d)(8), monitor malfunction was just basically
7 thrown away. If you collected 75 percent of your data,
8 they didn't care about the other 25 percent. And, in
9 fact, under the NSPS today, they specifically exclude
10 this exercise of data substitution, this practice under
11 the acid rain trading program.
12
If we were talking about SO2 and
13 NOx, it would certainly be hard to justify throwing a
14 lot of those data away nowadays because they're
15 99.9 percent reliable. But, yes, there is precedent
16 for just ignoring periods of time when the monitors;
17 broken.
18
MR. HARLEY: And are you familiar with
19 regulatory programs on the federal or state level in
20 which periods of equipment malfunction allow operators
21 to notify the State through incident reports and other
22 mechanisms that the monitoring equipment was not
23 operating properly and, therefore, the data was
24 unreliable?
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1771
1
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
2
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
4 Number --
5
MR. BLOOMBERG: Related to that and
6 related to some things that you had said about missing
7 data substitution, which seems to come in here, on page
8 35 and 36 of your testimony, you discuss why you
9 believe the use of missing data substitution is
10 incorrect because the proposed Illinois rule is not a
11 trading rule. Here we go with this again.
12
However, isn't it true that the
13 averaging provisions of the proposed Illinois rule are,
14 in fact, a form of trading -- similar to trading and,
15 as such, are different from the federal rules that you
16 cited that excluded the use of missing data
17 substitution?
18
MR. McRANIE: You can take that position
19 if you'd like. I don't like missing data substitution
20 under any circumstance simply because you're making up
21 high-bias data. The data are false. They're
22 incorrect. That's the end of the discussion as far as
23 I'm concerned.
24
MR. BLOOMBERG: But without the use of
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1772
1 missing data substitution, isn't it true that companies
2 could essentially -- you know, you talked about the
3 25 percent downtime -- they could have 25 percent
4 downtime or whatever percent downtime. If mercury
5 emissions start to rise, they wouldn't need to account
6 for the excess emissions and they'd avoid the intent of
7 this proposed rule.
8
MR. McRANIE: If one were inclined to
9 think along those lines, I guess you could make that
10 argument.
11
MR. BLOOMBERG: Thank you.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
13 Number 17.
14
MR. McRANIE: Question 17: In
15 Appendix 2 of your testimony, you used a CO2 value of
16 11.53 percent. Why did you choose that value, which
17 you admit in the calculation is being assumed?
18
Answer: I believe the value of CO2
19 I used was 11.3 percent, not 11.53. This is a
20 reasonable value for stack CO2 concentration and, of
21 course, ultimately makes the .008 pound per gigawatt
22 hour come out exactly 0.80 micrograms per cubic meter.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
24 Number 18.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1773
1
MR. BLOOMBERG: We have a follow-up.
2
MR. McRANIE: Question 18 --
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Wait. Hang
4 on.
5
MR. MATOESIAN: Now, based on your
6 calculations, a stack CO2 value of 15 percent would
7 produce a value of 1.07 micrograms per cubic meter.
8
Is this not within the
9 manufacturer's accuracy and precision you stated in
10 your testimony?
11
MR. McRANIE: I don't think I've ever
12 seen a coal-fired power plant with a stack CO2
13 concentration of 15 percent, is the first response to
14 that. I think you'd have to be burning almost -- I'm
15 not sure you could burn pure carbon and get 15.
16
And I didn't understand the intent
17 of the second part of that question.
18
MR. BLOOMBERG: Basically the point was
19 simply that your 11.3 percent -- and you're right that
20 was a typo. I apologize -- you know, had to justify in
21 your information and -- so just the small-percentage
22 difference would be the difference between meeting the
23 accuracy and precision and not meeting it. And so that
24 was the question, was -- That was the basis of
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1774
1 question.
2
MR. McRANIE: Okay.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are we ready
4 for Question 18, then?
5
MR. McRANIE: Question 18: Do CAMR and
6 Illinois' proposed rule allow for sorbent trap
7 monitoring as an alternative to CEMS?
8
The answer is yes.
9
MR. BLOOMBERG: So then did you leave
10 out this significant option from all of your testimony
11 because sorbent trap technology is capable of providing
12 accurate precise data sufficient to comply with the
13 standards stated in the proposed rule?
14
MR. McRANIE: We don't know what
15 precision and accuracy of sorbent -- We know less about
16 sorbent traps than we do about monitoring.
17
Now, since you've opened the
18 sorbent-trap door, I'd like to make a few comments in
19 response to that question, if you don't mind.
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go right
21 ahead, Mr. McRanie.
22
MR. McRANIE: Sorbent traps are nothing
23 but activated carbon in a tube. And then you suck flue
24 gas through the tube and reabsorb the actuated carbon,
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1775
1 and you measure the amount of flue gas you suck through
2 it. And, therefore, you can get a time average
3 concentration of mercury going up the stack.
4
It does not -- It has several
5 disadvantages. It does not give you real time numbers.
6 Therefore, if you have a control device, you don't know
7 what's going on. You don't know how to turn your knob
8 to adjust your carbon flow.
9
Another disadvantage is the
10 analysis -- conventional analysis takes a long time,
11 four or five weeks, before you have answers. We're
12 working on some enhanced analysis procedures that would
13 give us much more rapid turnaround. I actually think
14 where the method had promise is as a reference method.
15 Of course short-term measurements as opposed to
16 long-term measurements, most people that look at carbon
17 traps, or sorbent traps, think about running them five
18 to seven days and getting this long-term average and
19 then sending the trap off and getting it measured. I
20 like it much better as a replacement Ontario Hydro
21 where we can get faster turnaround on RATA tests and
22 certification tests. But we still do not know how they
23 perform. Those data are being looked at right now, but
24 I'm not in favor of them for CEMS replacement.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1776
1
MR. MATOESIAN: Just a quick question.
2
We have quite a bit of follow-up on
3 this. Should we begin it now, or did you want to wait
4 until the morning?
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Define "quite
6 a bit."
7
(Discussion off the record.)
8
MR. BLOOMBERG: Okay. According to your
9 testimony, you serve as a primary consultant for the
10 Electric Power Research Institute, or EPRI; is that
11 correct?
12
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
13
MR. BLOOMBERG: As a primary consultant
14 for EPRI, are you aware of the evaluation of mercury
15 monitors development program offered by EPRI on their
16 website?
17
MR. McRANIE: No.
18
MR. MATOESIAN: We'd like to introduce
19 an exhibit. This is a separate document.
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Matoesian,
21 you cannot be heard at all. You need to speak up.
22
MR. MATOESIAN: I'm sorry. We'd like to
23 introduce an exhibit now. This is some documents --
24 some screens from the EPRI website.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1777
1
MR. BLOOMBERG: It's printouts from the
2 EPRI website leading up to -- It shows the screens
3 getting you to the point of a document that I'll be
4 asking about in a couple minutes.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If there's no
6 objection, we'll mark this as Exhibit 135.
7
Seeing none, this is marked as
8 Exhibit 125.
9
MR. BLOOMBERG: 125?
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: 135.
11
MR. BLOOMBERG: Okay.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sorry. It is
13 late in the day.
14
MR. BLOOMBERG: I'll give you a minute
15 to skim over it.
16
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: It might be
17 more helpful if you let us know what kinds of questions
18 you'll be asking about it than just to look at it.
19
MR. BLOOMBERG: Are you familiar -- And
20 I probably know the answer to this already. But are
21 you familiar with the document that comes at the end of
22 these website screens titled -- it starts "77" and then
23 it's "Continuous Emissions Monitoring" -- just
24 "Continuous Emissions Monitoring" which is found on the
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1778
1 EPRI website? And it's this document here
2 (indicating).
3
MR. McRANIE: Program 77, yes.
4
MR. BLOOMBERG: Yes. Are you familiar
5 with this?
6
MR. McRANIE: Yes, I am.
7
MR. BLOOMBERG: Okay. Isn't it true
8 that this document says that participants can save up
9 to $80,000 per installation and reduce capital costs
10 for mercury monitoring by using sorbent traps such as
11 QuickSEM versus continuous mercury monitors?
12
MR. McRANIE: I don't find that
13 statement, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's not in
14 here.
15
MR. BLOOMBERG: It's in the second
16 paragraph.
17
MR. MATOESIAN: About midway through the
18 second paragraph on the first page.
19
MR. McRANIE: Okay. All right. I've
20 got you.
21
MR. BLOOMBERG: And isn't it also true
22 that this document indicates that the use of sorbent
23 trap systems for mercury monitoring is based on EPRI's
24 QuickSEM and that EPRI developed and demonstrated
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1779
1 QuickSEM?
2
MR. BONEBRAKE: Can you point us to a
3 particular provision or paragraph you're referring to?
4
MR. BLOOMBERG: Unfortunately -- The
5 reference to QuickSEM is mentioned throughout the
6 document. There's a historical perspective, and,
7 Mr. McRanie, you mentioned you were familiar with it.
8 So I --
9
MR. McRANIE: Yes. I mean, let's -- Can
10 we cut to the chase? EPRI has been a supporter of
11 sorbent-tube sampling for a long time. All of us that
12 are associated with this program are supporters for
13 carbon traps given their limitations.
14
MR. BLOOMBERG: Okay. And isn't one of
15 the 2007 deliverables listed in this document, which --
16 Let's try to find it for you. It's on page 2 near the
17 bottom. "In 2007," it starts. It's listed as, quote,
18 Commercially available, reliable, robust sorbent trap
19 mercury measuring system satisfies Appendix K criteria
20 with training services to allow operation by plant
21 instrument technicians.
22
MR. McRANIE: Yes. We have been pushing
23 EPRI for a long time to work with the vendors -- in
24 fact, we're also working with the vendors -- to develop
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1780
1 a robust sampling system. The sampling system that
2 came with the original QuickSEM was a piece of junk,
3 and we have been working to try to get something more
4 robust built.
5
MR. BLOOMBERG: Okay. So given --
6 Again, given your association with EPRI and the fact
7 that sorbent trap systems are allowed by the proposed
8 Illinois rule and the fact that EPRI promotes the use
9 of these, I guess, I'm still a little confused as to
10 why it wasn't mentioned even briefly in your testimony
11 to point out that this is, in fact, an allowable
12 alternative.
13
MR. McRANIE: I was asked to discuss
14 mercury CEMS.
15
MR. BLOOMBERG: So you were asked by
16 your client?
17
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
18
MR. BLOOMBERG: So really it's a matter
19 that your client didn't want this addressed?
20
MR. McRANIE: No one told me not to
21 address it. Let's be clear on that.
22
Based on my experience and my work
23 with the various utilities that we're involved with, I
24 don't find a lot of interest in the carbon trap as a
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1781
1 CEMS process. The few utilities that appear to be
2 interested in that are guys that have real low capacity
3 factors. They don't run very much. They don't want to
4 invest $600,000 on mercury CEM. They want something
5 cheap that they can run out and stick in the stack on
6 the few days, you know, they run it. It's just got too
7 many downsides; in particular, loss of samples. I
8 mean, if you lose a week's sample, you've got seven
9 days of missing data, you know, and that's just not a
10 desirable feature for larger utilities. And I just --
11 I don't consider it a serious competitor, frankly, for
12 continuous monitoring.
13
MR. BLOOMBERG: Okay. Regarding losing
14 a sample, it's true that if you're using a CEMS and
15 your computer goes down, you lose a week's worth of
16 data --
17
MR. McRANIE: Same difference,
18 absolutely.
19
MR. BLOOMBERG: But you said some
20 companies are interested in it.
21
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
22
MR. BLOOMBERG: So it is true that any
23 company that is interested could, in fact, make use of
24 this under the proposed Illinois rule and wouldn't have
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1782
1 to worry about any of the concerns that you raised for
2 CEMS?
3
MR. McRANIE: Other than the fact that
4 you don't have data to run your control equipment with.
5
MR. BLOOMBERG: Okay.
6
MR. ZABEL: Just to be clear, if I may
7 ask a follow-up question.
8
Mr. McRanie, you mentioned, I
9 believe, it takes several weeks to get the results on a
10 sorbent trap?
11
MR. McRANIE: It can, yes.
12
MR. ZABEL: And if you're running a
13 12-month rolling average, that could be a problem in
14 responding even on a non-real-time basis, couldn't it?
15
MR. McRANIE: Oh, yeah.
16
MR. ZABEL: Thank you.
17
MR. BLOOMBERG: We have a few more
18 follow-ups related to the EPRI document.
19
According to that document, again,
20 related to the 2007 statement on the bottom of page 2,
21 doesn't EPRI expect -- and this goes back to CEMS, away
22 from sorbent trap -- that in 2007 work will be
23 completed, quote, To ensure the commercially offered
24 continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) for
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1783
1 mercury are accurate and field-ready?
2
MR. McRANIE: Yeah, I think that's
3 probably a wonderful global objection. I don't think
4 it can be achieved.
5
MR. BLOOMBERG: But doesn't it say this
6 project is "expected"; not an objective, this project
7 is "expected"?
8
MR. McRANIE: Chuck's a little
9 aggressive.
10
MR. BLOOMBERG: So it's your opinion
11 that EPRI is wrong?
12
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
13
MR. BLOOMBERG: Okay. But EPRI
14 believes --
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: You've read it
16 three times. I think we all know exactly what it says.
17
MR. ZABEL: It says "expected." It
18 doesn't say "believes." Don't put words into the
19 document or the witness's mouth. Take it for what it
20 is. It says what it says.
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And as I said,
22 he's read it three times. I think we all know what it
23 says.
24
MR. BLOOMBERG: In your testimony, did
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1784
1 you state a belief that there are calibration issues
2 with mercury CEMS?
3
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
4
MR. BLOOMBERG: According to this
5 document, doesn't EPRI expect that in 2007, they will,
6 quote, Complete the development of QA/QC procedures for
7 Hg CEMS, end quote, and, quote, Obtain EPA approval of
8 these procedures?
9
MR. McRANIE: That's what it says, but
10 it's not going to happen.
11
MR. BLOOMBERG: Thank you for your
12 opinion.
13
Again, according to the previously
14 referenced document, doesn't the QA/QC objective
15 include work on, quote, National Institute of Standards
16 and Technology (NIST), traceable cylinders, and/or use
17 of on-site gas generators as calibration gases as well
18 as instrumental reference method for immediate readout
19 of RATA test results?
20
MR. McRANIE: All of the projects or
21 programs that you are describing from the EPRI
22 document, we are the project manager for, RMB
23 Consulting. And you can read what Chuck Dean wrote all
24 you want to. I'm telling you that they're not going to
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1785
1 happen.
2
MR. BLOOMBERG: Okay. Just to -- For
3 the record, given these 2007 expectations that are
4 published here, isn't it true that the proposed
5 Illinois rule will require compliance in monitoring
6 after 2007?
7
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
8
MR. BLOOMBERG: Okay. That's if for
9 that one.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: All right.
11 Are you ready for Question 19, then?
12
MR. MATOESIAN: Yes.
13
MR. McRANIE: Question 19: Your
14 testimony is based, in large part, on your experience
15 at the Trimble County plant. Is that plant equipped
16 with a wet FGD?
17
Yes, it is.
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question.
19
MR. MATOESIAN: I'm sorry. Could you
20 describe the type of stack conditions that exist?
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's the
22 next question.
23
MR McRANIE: That's the next question.
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Why don't we
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1786
1 ask Question Number 20.
2
MR. MATOESIAN: Oh, I'm sorry.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
4 Number 20.
5
MR. McRANIE: Question 20: Could you
6 describe the type of stack conditions that exist at
7 Trimble County?
8
The stack gas constituents are
9 typical for modern wet scrubber equipped units. The
10 flue gas is saturated with water at approximately
11 135 degrees Fahrenheit. There are some small entrained
12 water droplets in the stack gas. The particulate
13 concentration is very low, below .03 pounds per
14 million. The SO2 and NOx concentrations are also very
15 low, normally 50 to 100 parts per million for SO2 and a
16 150 to 200 parts per million for NOx.
17
MR. MATOESIAN: Do those have -- those
18 type of stacks have (inaudible)?
19
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I
20 couldn't hear you.
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We can't hear
22 you, Mr. Matoesian.
23
MR. McRANIE: I can't hear you.
24
MR. MATOESIAN: I'm sorry. I believe
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1787
1 you said they were wet stacks?
2
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
3
MR. MATOESIAN: Do those stacks -- wet
4 stacks not have any new challenges compared to dry
5 stacks?
6
MR. McRANIE: Wet stacks are harder to
7 monitor with continuous monitoring equipment of all
8 types, yes.
9
MR. MATOESIAN: And how many stacks in
10 Illinois are wet stacks?
11
MR. McRANIE: I don't have a clue.
12
MR. MATOESIAN: Okay.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
14 Number 21.
15
MR. McRANIE: Question 21: You focus
16 heavily on continuous analyzer methods. Are there
17 other methods for measurement of Hg from flue gas that
18 comply with the proposed Illinois rule and CAMR? If
19 so, what is your familiarity with these methods?
20
Yes. Carbon (sorbent) traps can be
21 used under 40 CFR Part 75, Appendix K, to make flue gas
22 mercury measurements. I am familiar with that
23 technology, and I believe we've discussed it.
24
MR. MATOESIAN: On page 22 of your
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1788
1 testimony, you state that a good example of this
2 problem is the need to conduct a NOx CEMs relative
3 accuracy test audit (RATA) on a gas-fired combined
4 cycle unit with emissions of two parts per million NOx.
5 This measurement cannot be done at all with the wet
6 chemistry EPA RM7 and is extraordinarily difficult to
7 make using the instrumental RM7E.
8
If EPA already requires combustion
9 turbines to control NOx to levels that you argue are
10 below the RATA reference method accuracy levels, do you
11 agree that under the same principle, RATA reference
12 method accuracy shouldn't be an issue for mercury
13 either?
14
MR. McRANIE: I've already answered that
15 question. It was in the prefiled questions, and it is
16 Question Number --
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: 10.
18
MR. McRANIE: -- 10.
19
MR. MATOESIAN: Thank you.
20
MR. KIM: I just have a few follow-up
21 I'm sorry. I will go as quickly as I can while
22 speaking slowly enough for the court reporter.
23
Mr. McRanie, first, I'm going to
24 apologize. I've been ducking in and out this
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1789
1 afternoon, so if my -- some of questions have been
2 asked and answered, then feel free to slap me on the
3 wrist.
4
I believe you did do some -- get
5 into some questions concerning Figure 12. Do you --
6
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
7
MR. KIM: -- recall that?
8
Do you have that handy, by any
9 chance?
10
MR. McRANIE: We can get it handy.
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: It's page 24,
12 isn't it? Yes, page 24.
13
MR. KIM: I have a few questions I just
14 wanted to ask you concerning that table -- or that
15 figure.
16
Do you believe that the high
17 emissions rate periods that are shown in figure 12 are
18 the result of control technology being turned off or
19 being out of operation?
20
MR. McRANIE: That -- I'll reiterate
21 that that is an example graph that I created. As a
22 general rule, when we're looking at SO2 or NOx, the
23 long tail to the right, the high values as you've
24 characterized them, are generally a function of the
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1790
1 control device malfunctioning in some way, not being
2 turned off but a pump breaking or a module going
3 haywire.
4
In the case of mercury, I think
5 they're going to be created by a combination of control
6 device as well as these excursions that I had in the
7 overhead presentation that I opened with, those very
8 large excursions that seem to come out of no where from
9 mercury.
10
MR. KIM: I'm thinking --
11
MR. McRANIE: Let me add one thing to
12 that. That tail will also contain all your substituted
13 data.
14
MR. KIM: And, again, that table,
15 though, was prepared -- was something that you prepared
16 based upon not so much empirical data but just --
17
MR. McRANIE: Experience of doing this
18 on dozens of units, and they all look about the same.
19
MR. KIM: Okay. And I don't recall --
20 I'm not aware if you got into any discussions
21 concerning commercial sorbent systems or what your
22 level of familiarity is, but let me ask you this: Are
23 you aware or are you not aware that commercial sorbent
24 systems have redundant sorbent feeder systems that are
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1791
1 intended to ensure high reliability and avoid high
2 emissions concentration periods?
3
MR. McRANIE: I'm aware that there are
4 redundant systems. That's about all I know about the
5 design of those things. Scrubbers, I should remind
6 you, have as many as 20 recycle pumps, and we still see
7 these kinds of excursions on scrubbers.
8
MR. KIM: Are you aware that other power
9 plant pollution control technologies that are for more
10 complex than sorbent ejection systems routinely achieve
11 high removal rates, in excess of 90 percent, on a
12 routine basis and that the removal rates are fairly
13 reliable?
14
MR. McRANIE: I don't think you can
15 compare removal rates between control technologies.
16
MR. KIM: On page 27 of your testimony,
17 I'm looking at paragraph -- the second paragraph that
18 begins "the Cape Fear unit."
19
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
20
MR. KIM: And specifically I'm looking
21 at the last sentence of that paragraph that begins "in
22 addition."
23
Could you read that sentence into
24 the record, please?
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1792
1
MR. McRANIE: Certainly.
2
In addition, the absence of a SO2
3 scrubber results -- it should be "in." The word is
4 "is" -- in higher mercury emissions and the combination
5 of higher mercury emissions and the dry stack makes
6 mercury monitoring much easier than on a wet stack with
7 low mercury emissions.
8
MR. KIM: Given that statement in
9 Illinois and given that in Illinois where most units
10 fire PRB coal, aren't dry stacks more prevalent?
11
MR. McRANIE: Today, possibly so.
12 What's going to be the situation after -- when the rule
13 kicks in?
14
MR. KIM: Do you have any reason to the
15 believe that the situation's going to change?
16
MR. McRANIE: I don't know what the
17 control technology plans are for the utilities in the
18 State of Illinois.
19
MR. KIM: To the best of your knowledge,
20 though, isn't it possible that Illinois will continue
21 to have mainly dry stacks?
22
MR. McRANIE: I don't know. If the
23 question is, is the monitoring easier on dry stacks,
24 the answer is yes.
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1793
1
MR. KIM: Okay. And then I just had a
2 couple questions -- I know you provided some testimony
3 to the data concerning the Trimble County program.
4
How long have you been involved in
5 that program, I guess, you and your company?
6
MR. McRANIE: We have been involved
7 in -- Well, let me back up and say that EPA had a
8 project at Trimble County which did not go very well.
9 We picked up that project after they stopped. We have
10 been involved in all of the EPA, slash, EPRI mercury
11 demonstration work from day one -- before day one.
12
MR. KIM: Do you have a time line for
13 when day one is?
14
MR. McRANIE: Two years ago,
15 approximately. I don't recall.
16
MR. KIM: Okay. Since that time, going
17 back, say, roughly two years ago, have you seen
18 progress -- significant progress in the advancement of
19 mercury monitors?
20
MR. McRANIE: There has been significant
21 progress on the reliability side.
22
MR. KIM: And it --
23
MR. McRANIE: I mean, we had -- we
24 couldn't make them run three days in a row a year ago,
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1794
1 and now we can get ten or 12, 15 days in a row.
2
MR. KIM: And you would agree, wouldn't
3 you, that given a -- if you have a situation where you
4 have a rule-driven environment which creates,
5 obviously, the bigger market and the bigger need for
6 these monitors, that you would expect such improvements
7 to continue, if nothing else, no less a pace than they
8 have in that two-year period?
9
MR. McRANIE: That's the whole purpose
10 of the Trimble County project, is to provide the
11 vendors with a development site and for us to provide
12 support for them to try new things to try to improve
13 their performance. It was pretty obvious early on that
14 that was going to have to be done; otherwise, we were
15 never going to get there.
16
MR. KIM: At the Trimble County site,
17 have there been any recent system calibrations that
18 were performed that were not provided or not discussed
19 in your written testimony?
20
MR. McRANIE: Oh, yeah.
21
MR. KIM: Have any of the systems
22 performed any better with a relative accuracy under
23 ten percent or even under five percent?
24
MR. McRANIE: There have been no
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1795
1 relative accuracy tests run at Trimble County since EPA
2 ran one about a year ago. That's about 100,000-dollar
3 test, and my focus -- our focus in the project has been
4 to get them to run reliably. And we were worried about
5 relative accuracy later.
6
MR. KIM: And just for the record --
7 Maybe you've already -- If you haven't already
8 explained what a relative accuracy test or program is,
9 could you explain that briefly?
10
MR. McRANIE: A relative accuracy test
11 is a test that has been used for many, many years under
12 EPA regulations to evaluate the performance of
13 continuous emissions monitoring systems. And
14 fundamentally, you have your system that is under test,
15 your permanently mounted system on the stack. You then
16 bring in a reference method, which is the EPA standard
17 reference method. That may be wet chemistry, or it may
18 be an instrumental type of method. And you run a
19 series of at least nine tests, comparing the analyzer
20 system under test with the reference method, and the
21 reference method test is considered to be the gold
22 standard. You take readings over various periods of
23 time, depending on the specific analyzer system. You
24 compare those readings up. You perform relative
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1796
1 standard deviation calculations, blah-blah-blah, go
2 through a standard set of calculations that are in EPA
3 regulations, and you come up with a calculation. And
4 as a general rule, a 20 percent relative accuracy is
5 considered acceptable.
6
MR. KIM: So given that and given the
7 involvement that you had with the Trimble County
8 program, do you think it's a fair statement to make
9 that in the time that you've been involved, you had
10 good progress and good results?
11
MR. McRANIE: We've had good results. I
12 don't believe we could pass a 20 percent relative
13 accuracy test. Only one analyzer has ever done that in
14 all of EPA's testing, and it barely made it. They had
15 to pass the alternative criteria, which was plus or
16 minus one microgram.
17
MR. KIM: Isn't it true, though, that
18 the current level of sophistication or product as far
19 as mercury monitors go at this point is closer to
20 meeting that test than what you would have found, say,
21 two years ago?
22
MR. McRANIE: Oh, sure, much closer than
23 two years ago.
24
MR. KIM: And, again, you would expect,
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1797
1 then, say, in another two years, advances would
2 continue on; is that right?
3
MR. McRANIE: We will make further
4 advances. The rate of progress is going to be much,
5 much slower.
6
MR. KIM: And that brings me to the last
7 series of questions I had.
8
You stated a couple times in your
9 testimony the difficulty in working on certain pieces
10 of CEMS -- mercury CEMS equipment and the complexity
11 and so forth. And I think at one point, you might have
12 been -- I think it's on page 17 -- you were comparing
13 that to conventional SO2 and NOx CEMS from a hardware
14 standpoint. Do you recall that?
15
MR. McRANIE: Yes.
16
MR. KIM: Well, do you think it's a fair
17 or a better comparison -- and I guess my concern is, we
18 don't want to go and compare apples and oranges
19 because, obviously, SO2 and NOx emission monitors are
20 intended to serve a different purpose -- if you
21 establish -- Say, for example, going back to the time
22 that you were involved in the Trimble County program,
23 the mercury monitors there compared to the ones that
24 you would find on the market now -- for example, the
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1798
1 brochure that I handed out -- do you think that using
2 that comparison, mercury monitor to mercury monitor,
3 that you're seeing advances in terms of better
4 reliability, better accuracy?
5
MR. McRANIE: We are definitely seeing
6 better reliability, but it hasn't been from fundamental
7 design improvements or changes. It's been tinkering
8 around the edges. These are big, bulky, expensive
9 systems. I mean, these things cost 600 grand apiece,
10 and the vendors are going to be hard-pressed to make
11 monumental design improvements in the next two to three
12 years. I think we can get the reliability up some
13 more. I'm not sure whether we're going to get any
14 better precision, maybe just slightly better precision.
15
MR. KIM: But certainly, as you stated,
16 that's an ongoing process, and that's the subject of
17 much of the focus of, I would assume as far as vendors,
18 manufactures --
19
MR. McRANIE: Oh, absolutely.
20
MR. KIM: I think that's all I've got
21 other than I noted that -- your statements concerning a
22 lot of parts to malfunction and a lot of pieces, and I
23 just keep thinking that, from my perspective, a toaster
24 has a lot of parts in it. That's all question I have
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1799
1 on this.
2
MR. McRANIE: Well, I would encourage
3 you to look at some of the pictures in my testimony of
4 the inside guts of those boxes.
5
MR. KIM: I saw those, and my impression
6 was it all looked like one big window-unit air
7 conditioner, so -- which also to me has a lot of parts
8 to malfunction.
9
We have no further questions.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: In that case,
11 Mr. McRanie, let's try and do the Prairie State
12 questions so we don't have to bring you back tomorrow.
13
MR. McRANIE: That's fine with me.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: These are from
15 Prairie State Generating.
16
MR. McRANIE: All righty.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
18 Number 1.
19
MR. McRANIE: Question Number 1: Are
20 data substitution provisions needed or useful for
21 command-and-control regulations like those proposed by
22 Illinois, or is data substitution needed primarily for
23 a trading program where every ounce of mercury has to
24 be tracked? If data substitution is not as important,
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1800
1 what would you suggest be done with bad monitoring
2 results?
3
Answer: Data substitution clearly
4 has no place in a command-and-control, hard cap, or
5 percent removal control program. The data are not
6 real. They are simply made up, and they are always
7 biased-high. As stated in my testimony, I also do not
8 believe that data substitution in the format used by
9 Part 75 has any place in a trading program because its
10 use inflates the true emissions. However, in the
11 specific case of the acid rain program, data
12 substitution has not been much of an issue. The reason
13 is the performance of the acid rain CEMS has been very
14 high, 95 to 99 percent. So there has been little use
15 of data substitution within the program.
16
For a command-and-control-type
17 program that utilizes control equipment, it is just not
18 necessary to obtain all of the mercury CEM data. Bad
19 data should just be discarded. All that needs to be
20 done is to collect control equipment operating
21 parameters to show that the control equipment remained
22 in operation. In fact, my reading of the new proposed
23 Ameren alternative indicates that monitoring of the
24 carbon feed is the only compliance-based mercury
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1801
1 monitoring that will be required by that alternative
2 prior to 2015.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
4 Number 2.
5
MR. BLOOMBERG: A follow-up on that.
6
You said that all you need to do is
7 show that your control is still operating even if you
8 lose the data.
9
But didn't your own charts show
10 that sometimes the controls are still operating but
11 there's a spike in emissions?
12
MR. McRANIE: Absolutely.
13
MR. BLOOMBERG: Okay. So then we should
14 just suggest that companies throw out that data and
15 don't accurately tell us -- tell the Agency what their
16 true emissions are?
17
MR. McRANIE: I'm saying that under a
18 command-and-control program, you do not need all of the
19 data.
20
MR. BLOOMBERG: So from your
21 perspective, the Illinois EPA doesn't need to know if
22 people were in compliance all the time?
23
MR. McRANIE: You were making the
24 argument earlier that a long-term average resolves all
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1802
1 those problems, weren't you?
2
MR. BLOOMBERG: Well, that's -- But if
3 you're saying throw out the data, then we don't know --
4 then isn't it true that we don't know what that
5 long-term average is?
6
MR. McRANIE: I would prefer, certainly,
7 to throw it out rather than to substitute high-biased
8 substitute data.
9
MR. BLOOMBERG: I think I can understand
10 that industry would prefer that whereas the Agency --
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Is there a
12 question there?
13
MR. ZABEL: No. I think he's
14 testifying, Madam Hearing Officer.
15
MR. BLOOMBERG: Isn't it true that
16 industry would prefer to avoid a compliance issue like
17 that?
18
MR. McRANIE: I don't know.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
20 Number 2.
21
MR. McRANIE: Question 2: In your view,
22 should the Illinois technical support document have
23 addressed monitoring issues? Why? How significant is
24 Illinois' omission?
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1803
1
Yes, I do believe the Illinois TSD
2 should have addressed mercury-monitoring issues.
3 Mercury monitoring is a very new and evolving
4 technology. Illinois clearly should have evaluated the
5 technology to determine if it could support reliable,
6 accurate, and precise measurements at the contemplated
7 compliance level. Consideration should have been given
8 to adjusting the compliance level, if necessary, to
9 accommodate the CEMS reliability and
10 level-of-measurement uncertainty.
11
Illinois' omission is significant
12 because selection of a compliance level, say .80
13 micrograms per cubic meter, without consideration of
14 measurement reliability, accuracy, and precision forces
15 the sources to absorb all of the unreliability,
16 inaccuracy, and imprecision of the measurement. The
17 end result is that the source will have to operate well
18 below the actual mercury compliance cap level to
19 achieve compliance.
20
MR. KIM: One quick follow-up.
21
What information should the
22 technical support document have contained that wouldn't
23 have been found within the confines of the federal CAMR
24 documents on the subject of mercury monitors?
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1804
1
MR. McRANIE: I expect that -- No. The
2 answer to that question is, I don't know.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Harley.
4
MR. HARLEY: A very quick follow-up.
5
Isn't it true that in order to
6 comply with the federal CAMR, Illinois must include the
7 mercury-monitoring requirements mandated in
8 40 CFR Part 75?
9
MR. McRANIE: For who to comply?
10
MR. HARLEY: Illinois.
11
MR. McRANIE: Oh, I don't know what the
12 requirements are for the state.
13
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
15 Number 3.
16
MR. McRANIE: Question 3: Has EPA ever
17 conducted CEM monitoring in a plant where mercury
18 emissions as low as those proposed by IEPA? If so,
19 what were the results of that testing?
20
Answer: To my knowledge, Trimble
21 County plant is the only site where EPA has conducted
22 mercury CEMS monitoring where the mercury concentration
23 approaches the emissions limit proposed by IEPA.
24 However, the mercury concentration at Trimble County is
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1805
1 not as low as contemplated by the Illinois EPA. The
2 mercury concentration at Trimble County with the SCR in
3 service varies from about .8 micrograms up to about two
4 micrograms per cubic meter. We do not know the results
5 of the EPA Trimble County project since no report on
6 that work has been prepared by EPA.
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
8 Number 4.
9
MR. McRANIE: Number 4: If, as your
10 testimony suggests, that the error band (tolerance) of
11 mercury CEMS is plus or minus one microgram per cubic
12 meter, isn't it true that a plant with zero actual
13 mercury emissions could still produce a
14 mercury-monitoring result that showed it was out of
15 compliance with Illinois' proposed standard of 0.8
16 micrograms per cubic meter?
17
Answer: Yes. If the mercury CEMS
18 zero-calibration adjustment was at the Part 75
19 allowable limit of plus one microgram per cubic meter,
20 the hypothetical situation posed by this question could
21 be true.
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: (A).
23
MR. McRANIE: (A): Is this a
24 measurement that is below the detection limit of the
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1806
1 method?
2
No. Based on recent observations
3 with very carefully calibrated systems, the detection
4 limit appears to be about 0.2 micrograms per cubic
5 meter. This means that the measurement limit --
6 quantification limit is about 0.7 micrograms per cubic
7 meter. The precision appears to be about 0.3 to 0.5.
8 Given the tightest number, that means that the true --
9 if the CEM read 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter, the
10 true value could be anywhere between 0.5 and 1.1
11 micrograms per cubic meter.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead to
13 Question B.
14
MR. McRANIE: (B): Are you aware of any
15 case where a regulatory agency has imposed a regulatory
16 limit below the level that can be accurately measured?
17
Answer: There are numerous permits
18 for gas turbines that have compliance limits of
19 2.0 parts per million, and this level is too low to
20 accurately measure. There is at least one permit that
21 has been issued for a coal-fired power plant at
22 0.182 pounds per million BTU SO2. While the absolute
23 level is not too low to be measured, approximately 75
24 to 80 parts per million, the number of significant
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1807
1 digits in this permit suggest a measurement precision
2 of 0.2 parts per million, and that is not possible.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
4 Number 5.
5
MR. ROMAINE: Do you know the origin of
6 that limit?
7
MR. McRANIE: Yes, I do.
8
MR. ROMAINE: And what is it?
9
MR. McRANIE: It's Prairie State.
10
MR. ROMAINE: Was that the limit that
11 they proposed?
12
MR. McRANIE: I don't know.
13
MR. ROMAINE: Could it have been the
14 limit they proposed?
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: He already
16 said he doesn't know, Mr. Romaine. Anything's
17 possible.
18
Question Number 5.
19
MR. McRANIE: Question 5: To provide a
20 reliability measurement of 0.8 micrograms per cubic
21 meter, what method detection limit would you like to
22 see? Is it likely, given the state of science today,
23 that mercury CEMS will have this low a detection limit
24 by 2009?
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1808
1
I don't like to talk about
2 detection limits because they are misleading. However,
3 to make reasonable measurements at the 0.8 micrograms
4 per cubic meter level, we will need to achieve a
5 detection limit, precision, and accuracy of at least
6 0.1 microgram. Really good measurements, really good
7 measurements will require precision and accuracy of at
8 least 0.05 micrograms per cubic meter. These levels of
9 precision and accuracy are, in my opinion, not likely
10 to be achieved by 2009.
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything else?
12
Mr. McRanie, thank you.
13
MR. ZABEL: I may have a follow-up
14 question, but I'll do it in writing so that we can get
15 out of here before they throw us out.
16
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. McRanie,
17 thank you very, very much.
18
We are recessed for today.
19
(The hearing in the above-entitled
20
cause was adjourned until
21
Wednesday, August 23, 2006, at
22
9:00 a.m.)
23
24
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292
1809
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
2 COUNTY OF COOK
)
3
Martina Manzo, being first duly sworn, on
4 oath says that she is a Certified Shorthand Reporter
5 doing business in the City of Chicago, County of Cook
6 and the State of Illinois;
7
That she reported in shorthand the
8 proceedings had at the foregoing hearing;
9
And that the foregoing is a true and correct
10 transcript of her shorthand notes so taken as aforesaid
11 and contains all the proceedings had at the said
12 hearing.
13
14
15
____________________________
MARTINA MANZO, CSR
16
17
CSR No. 084-004341
18
19
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
20 before me this 25th day of
August, A.D., 2006.
21
22 ____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
23
24
L.A. REPORTING & VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC.
(312) 419-9292