James T. Harrington
David L
. Rieser
Attorneys for Petitioners
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone
: 312/849-8100
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL . ADM. CODE 225
)
R06-25
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
(Rulemaking - Air)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
35 Ill . Adm. Code 225 .100, 200
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO: Those Individuals as Listed on attached Certificate of Service
Please take notice that on May 18, 2006, the undersigned caused to be filed with the Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board the attached
MOTION TO FILE INSTANTER AND PRE-FILED
QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES
as listed below, a copy of which is herewith served upon you
:
1 .
Gerald Keeler;
2 .
Richard E
. Ayres;
3 .
Sid Nelson, Jr . ; and
4.
IEPA Witnesses
.
Dated this 22nd day of May, 2006
.
Respectfully submitted,
B
RECEIVED
MAY 2 2 2006
Pollution
STATE OF
Control
ILLINOISBoard
AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY
AMERENENERG
S GENERATING COMPANY
ELEC
NE
041101
\\
ftb~
e of its°ttorneys
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, one of the attorneys for Petitioners, hereby
certify that I served a copy of the attached
MOTION TO FILE INSTANTER AND PRE-FILED QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES
as listed above upon
those listed below on May 22, 2006 via Federal Express .
To:
John J
. Kim, Managing Attorney
Charles E
. Matoesian, Assistant Counsel
Gina Roccaforte, Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Legal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Marie E . Tipsord, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Bill S . Forcade
Katherine Rahill
Jenner & Block LLP
One IBM Plaza
Chicago, IL 60611
Bruce Nilles
Sierra Club
214 N
. Henry Street, Suite 203
Madison, WI 53703
William A
. Murray
Special Assistant Corporation Counsel
Office of Public Utilities
800 East Monroe
Springfield, IL 62757
Faith E. Bagel
Howard A. Learner
Meleah Geertsma
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60601
S
. David Farris
Manager, Environmental, Health and Safety
Office of Public Utilities, City of Springfield
201 East Lake Shore Drive
Springfield, IL 62757
Ms. Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R
. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Mr. Keith Harley
Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc .
205 West Monroe, 4
th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Kathleen C. Bassi
Sheldon A . Zabel
Stephen J
. Bonebrake
Joshua R . More
Glenna L . Gilbert
Schiff Hardin LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Christopher W . Newcomb
Karaganis, White & Mage, Ltd.
414 North Orleans St
., Suite 810
Chicago, IL 60610
N
. LaDonna Driver
Katherine D . Hodge
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland Ave., P .O
. Box 5776
Springfield, IL 62705-5776
o the
etr
James T
. Harrington
David L . Rieser
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone :
312/849-8100
#3994225 (v .1).doc
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD RE CK,E~I
VIE
p
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
MAY 2 2 2006
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL . ADM . CODE 225
)
R06-25
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
(Rulemaking - Air~OllUtion
Control
Board
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
35111. Adm. Code 225 .100, 200
)
MOTION TO FILE INSTANTER
AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY, AMERENENERGY RESOURCES
GENERATING COMPANY, and ELECTRIC ENERGY, INC ("Petitioners) by and through their
attorneys, McGuireWoods, LLP, file this motion to request the Board to allow Petitioners to file the
attached Pre-Filed Questions instanter and in support states as follows :
1 .
By Hearing Officer Order dated May 4, 2006, Petitioners were to file their Pre-Filed
Questions for IEPA witnesses by Friday May 19, 2006 .
2.
On Thursday, May 18, 2006, the IEPA contacted Petitioners and others to advise that
the IEPA intended to submit revisions to the testimony of their principal witness, Dr . James Staudt, as to
the cost and availability to technology to control mercury emissions from coal fired power plants . The
IEPA indicated that his testimony as to cost and availability would change but were uncertain
as to how
or whether those changes would affect the testimony of other IEPA witnesses or the statements
made by
the IEPA in the Technical Support Document.
3 .
Petitioners joined in an Emergency Motion filed on May 18 to suspend the deadline for
filing all Pre-Filed Questions due to the uncertainty as to how Dr . Staudt's testimony would
be revised.
The Hearing Officer allowed the Agency to respond by 1 :00 on May 19 and indicated she would rule by
3:30 May 19
. Her order, placed on the Board's website after 3 :30 granted the motion as to questions
regarding Dr
. Staudt's testimony alone, but denied the motion as to all other witnesses .
4.
The principal counsel for Petitioners, James Harrington and David Rieser, were out of
the office May 19 to attend a firm meeting in West Virginia
. Due to the confusion regarding the issue
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
and the time late in the day that they became aware of the Hearing Officer's ruling they had insufficient
time to arrange for the questions to be filed .
5 .
The Board requires the pre-filing of both testimony and questions in regulatory
proceedings in order to allow participants to the proceedings to be prepared to have a useful discussion
of the factual and policy issues involved in the proceeding on the record before the Board
. Allowing
Petitioners to file these questions instanter, one business day after the due date, will not inhibit, but
instead, further that goal.
6.
The Board routinely grants motions to allow testimony and questions to be filed
instanter in regulatory proceedings, so long as the late filing does not prejudice the participants to the
proceeding. In this matter, neither the IEPA, nor any other participant will be prejudiced by the delay of
one business day in filing these pre-filed questions .
Wherefore, for the reasons stated in this motion, Petitioners respectfully request the
Board to allow Petitioners to file the attached Pre-Filed Questions instanter .
Respectfully submitted,
AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES GENERATING
COMP
ELECT
INC.
James T . Harrington
David L . Rieser
Attorneys for Petitioners
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone
: 312/849-8100
\3998427 .1
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVEDCLERK'S
OFFICE
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
MAY 2 2 2006
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL
. ADM. CODE 225
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
R06-25
Pollution
Control Board
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
(Rulemaking -
Air)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
35 Ill . Adm. Code 225 .100, 200
)
Questions for Gerald Keeler
1 .
According to your report and written testimony, the scope of your
presentation to the IPCB is to describe the sources of mercury deposition
to the Great lakes and to specifically discuss the importance of coal fired
utilities to the region .
a.
Is it correct that you were not asked to address the impact of
Illinois coal plants on mercury deposition within Illinois?
b .
Is it correct that you have not performed any source receptor
studies which determine the impact of Illinois coal plants on mercury
deposition in Illinois?
c.
Are you aware of whether any such studies have been performed?
d .
What is the basis for your statement at the end of your testimony
that, "Areas with elevated mercury deposition due to emissions related to
coal combustion have been identified . . .?"
e.
Are these areas in Illinois? How have they been identified?
f.
Did you participate in the drafting of the Technical Support
Document ("TSD") prepared by Illinois EPA for these proceedings?
2 .
On page 81 of the TSD, it states that, "Thus it can be expected that
significant mercury emissions reductions in Illinois will yield significant
reductions of mercury deposition in Illinois ."
a.
Did you author that statement?
b .
Do you make that statement in your Report which is Appendix B
to the TSD or in your testimony?
c.
Do you believe that there is a factual basis for that statement?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
3 .
Is it correct that the conclusions in your testimony regarding the sources of
mercury deposition were based on the work you did in Steubenville, Ohio?
a.
Has that work been published in any peer-reviewed journal?
b.
Is it possible that you will change any of your statements or
conclusions as a result of the peer review process?
c.
Is the underlying data available for review?
d.
Have you ever released, for public review, any description of the
methodology you used for source attribution?
4 .
Some portion of the Steubenville work was performed by Matthew S .
Landis with the USEPA Office of Research and Development .
a.
What portion of the work was performed by Mr . Landis?
b .
What were your respective roles in the Steubenville work?
c.
Has he published any of his findings regarding Steubenville in any
peer-reviewed journal?
d.
Are his data available for public review?
e.
To what extent did you rely on work performed by Mr . Landis?
5 .
In your testimony you reference a study you performed regarding
apportionment of mercury sources in Detroit .
a.
How do you define the terms `regional' and "local" for purposes
of this study?
b .
Did you identify the coal fired power plants that you considered to
be "local" for purposes of this study?
c.
Do you know what type of coal was utilized in these power plants
during the duration of your study?
d.
Do you know what type of emission controls these plants use?
e.
What other sources of mercury emissions did you identify as being
"local" with respect to the study site?
f.
What was your basis for determining that the RGM you identified
was the result of local emissions from coal fired power plants?
6 .
Is it correct that the Steubenville study is designed to be a four year study
and completed in 2006?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
a.
Is it accurate that the information you present in your testimony is
based on the first two years of the study, 2003 and 2004?
b.
Is the data from 2005 available for review?
7.
You indicate that you served on the Michigan Electric Utility Workgroup,
which studied ways to reduce emissions from coal fired power plants
.
a.
Did you participate in the drafting of the Final Report of that group
dated June 20, 2005?
b .
Did you participate in the drafting of the chapter on Mercury
Emissions and Deposition, which is Chapter 3 .3 on page 50 of the report?
c.
Do you agree with the statement on Page 50 that, "The concern
over mercury in the environment stems from its eventual deposition at the
earth's surface and subsequent conversion to methylated mercury?"
d .
Do you agree with the statement on Page 56 that, "oxidized
mercury or Hg° that is deposited on the surface of the Great Lakes would
not likely enter the reaction pathway that would lead to the production of
methylmercury in the lakes ; although, tributaries and surrounding
wetlands would support methylation activities?"
e.
Why does not the report discuss your work at Steubenville?
f.
Do you agree with the statement on page 58 that, " the results of
the Wisconsin Utility Case Study [performed by Vijayaraghaven et al]
indicated that on an annual basis, coal fired utility boilers in Wisconsin
contribute approximately 1-4% of the mercury being deposited via
precipitation near Wisconsin's MDN stations?
g.
Do you agree with the statement on pages 60-61 that "the local
impact (or a potential hot spot) is likely to be overestimated by" regional
3-D Eulerian models"?
h.
Would you agree that the USEPA CMAQ model and the TEAM
model are examples of 3-D Eulerian models?
8.
On page 81, the TSD states that you suggest that "the lifetime of elemental
mercury in the atmosphere is likely much stronger than previously
believed ."
a.
Is this an accurate statement of your testimony?
b .
What is the basis for this statement?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
9.
In your testimony you discuss the USEPA's CMAQ model to determine
the impact of domestic mercury sources on atmospheric mercury
deposition .
a.
Are you familiar with the TEAM model used to perform some of
the modeling referenced in the Michigan report?
b.
Do your comments regarding CMAQ also apply to TEAM?
c .
Are you aware of whether the TEAM results have been validated
against MDN data?
d.
Are the uncertainties you identify for the CMAQ model also
inherent in the type of source receptor study performed at Steubenville?
e.
Can the source receptor approach be used to predict the impact of
different regulatory approaches on mercury deposition?
f.
In using the source receptor approach do you typically attempt to
correlate your results with findings from available atmospheric deposition
modeling?
g.
What steps have you taken to evaluate the accuracy of the
Steubenville results?
h.
Are there any studies which evaluate the accuracy of source
receptor studies?
10.
In using the source receptor approach to determine the source of wet
deposition of mercury is it accurate that you determine the source of by
analyzing for other constituents associated with those sources?
a.
Does that analysis demonstrate the proximity of those sources?
b .
Does this analysis differentiate among different types of coal used?
11 .
In your testimony you state that coal combustion was clearly dominant in
terms of explaining the mercury deposition (-70%).
a.
What is the basis for this figure?
b .
What range of values is represented by this approximate value?
c.
What is the purpose of expressing this as an "approximate" value?
d .
What level of uncertainty do you place on this figure?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
12 .
You state that "a meteorological analysis corroborates that a substantial
amount of the mercury deposition found at the Steubenville site was due to
local and regional sources ."
a.
In this testimony, how do you define "local and regional sources?"
b .
Are the sources described in this statement limited to coal burning
sources?
c.
Is the deposition described here limited to wet deposition?
d.
What meteorological analysis was performed to demonstrate this
statement?
e.
Does this analysis differentiate between sources located at different
distances?
f.
Have you quantified the "substantial amount" as used in this
statement?
13.
Is it accurate that Steubenville was selected as a study area because of the
high density of coal fired utility boilers in the area?
a.
How many coal fired power generating units are located within 50
miles of Steubenville?
b.
What is the combined capacity in MW of these units?
c.
Are they fired with bituminous or sub-bituminous coal?
d .
Does the chemical profile of bituminous as opposed to sub-
bituminous affect the amount and type of mercury emitted by a coal
burning generating unit?
e.
Would you expect a different result at Steubenville if the
surrounding units burned sub-bituminous coal?
f
What other sources of air borne mercury are located within 50
miles of Steubenville?
g.
In what way, if any, are the conditions at Steubenville analogous to
conditions in Illinois?
h.
Is this high density of coal fired units reflected in the CMAQ
modeling performed by USEPA?
i.
Is it reflected in the TEAM modeling performed by AER?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
Dated this 22" d day of May, 2006 .
James T. Harrington
David L. Rieser
Attorneys for Petitioners
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone : 312/849-8100
#3989632 (v
.l).doc
J
.
What steps have you taken to compare the results of your
Steubenville work with the USEPA CMAQ modeling?
k.
What is the result of this comparison?
I.
What steps have you taken to compare the results of your
Steubenville work with the EPRI TEAM deposition modeling which was
included in the CAMR docket?
m.
What is the result of this comparison?
Respectfully submitted,
AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES GENERATING
COMPANY
ELECTRIC E
By.
OnesIN
10W1
;7'T""=9 ys7
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
Questions for Richard E . Awes
1
. You state that you were retained to consult with the IEPA regarding the
development of the mercury rule.
a.
In what ways did you participate in the development of the rule?
b.
What was the basis for your belief that 90% system wide control could be
achieved for Illinois power plants by 2009?
c.
Is your understanding of the technologies available to achieve 90% control
of Illinois systems different from that of Dr . Staudt's .
d.
Have you reviewed Dr
. Staudt's revised testimony?
e.
Do any of your conclusions change as a result of his revised testimony?
f.
Have you evaluated Illinois power plants to determine if it is technically
feasible and economically reasonable for them to achieve 90% control by 2009?
2 . In your testimony you state that the Illinois proposed standard can be met on a
"'fleet' basis after 2009 and on a plant basis at the beginning of 2013 ."
a.
How can the generating companies in Illinois meet the rule on a fleet
basis?
b.
Did you evaluate the 22 coal fired power plants in Illinois to determine
what level of controls would be required at each individual plant in order to
achieve a 90% system wide average?
c.
To your knowledge did anyone at the IEPA perform this analysis?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARDR
CLERK'S
E C E
OFFICE
I V E D
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
MAY 2 2 2006
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL . ADM . CODE 225
) R06-25
Pollution
STATE OF
Control
ILLINOISBoard
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
(Rulemaking - Air)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
35 111 . Adm. Code 225 .100, 200
)
3.
In your testimony you indicate that Illinois filed a petition with USEPA to
reconsider its decision not to issue a mercury MACT standard and joined in a
lawsuit to have the U.S . Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
void CAMR and require EPA to issue a MACT standard .
a.
Have you reviewed the comments filed by Illinois EPA with the USEPA
regarding CAMR and in support of a MACT standard?
b.
Do you agree that in those documents Illinois EPA stated that USEPA was
required to issue a mercury MACT standard requiring 80% reduction by 2010?
c.
Do you agree with the Illinois EPA position in these comments that the
statutory factors in the Clean Air Act require a MACT standard of 80% based on
the best performing 12% of the sources?
d.
Do you know whether any of the plants considered among the 12% best
performing sources burned subbituminous coal?
e.
What data is there to suggest that if the statutory analysis under the Clean
Air Act indicates that 12% of the best performing sources can achieve 80%
reductions by 2010 that Illinois power plants can achieve 90% reductions by
2009?
4. The STAPPA ALAPCO model base rule is apparently based upon the belief that
90% control is not achievable until 2012 . What is your basis for believing that
90% control is achievable in Illinois by 2009?
5 . Were you involved in the development of STAPPA ALAPCO's multi-pollutant
strategy?
a.
Could you describe this approach?
b.
What was the basis for this approach?
c.
Did you discuss a multi-pollutant approach with Illinois EPA?
d.
What was the basis for rejecting that approach?
6. Is it correct that you have written and spoken in support of emissions trading
programs?
a.
It is also correct that you have identified USEPA's Acid Rain program
from trading emissions credits for sulfur dioxide as an extremely successful
program?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
b .
Was the acid rain program successful in that it reduced emissions faster
and at less cost than predicted?
c.
Is it also correct that you have written in support of the Illinois ERMS
program for trading VOC emissions credit in non-attainment areas?
7. Why do you believe that these programs are successful?
8
. Your testimony indicates that the Illinois EPA opposed trading in its comments to
USEPA on CAMR. Would it be more accurate to say that Illinois EPA opposed
trading unless it provided a protective level to avoid hot spots?
9
. Is it accurate that the basis for rejecting the cap and trade approach to mercury
control is the presence of "hot spots?"
10. Is it accurate that your basis for rejecting the cap and trade approach to mercury
control is the possible presence of "hot spots?"
a.
How do you define "hot spots?"
b.
Is that definition included in the STAPPA-ALAPCO rule or preamble?
c.
Is that definition consistent with USEPA's definition?
11
. Do you believe that the atmospheric deposition modeling performed by USEPA
supports USEPA's position that the CAMR rule addresses "hot spots?"
12. What data, if any, supports your statement that there are hot spots in Illinois?
13 . If there were not "hot spots" in Illinois, would you support a cap and trade
program for control of mercury in Illinois?
14. You testified that despite the CAMR cap in Illinois, "Illinois EGUs could meet
some or all of their obligations by buying mercury allowances from outside the
state rather than by reducing emissions ." Given your experience with the Acid
Rain trading program and other emissions trading programs, how likely do you
think it is that Illinois EGUs will elect to meet all of their emission reductions
under CAMR through trading rather than by controls?
15 . In your testimony you describe findings "suggesting that the emissions from coal
fired power plants are limiting the personal and economic futures of a substantial
numbers [sic] of kids being born in Illinois . . . ." Is this statement based on Dr
.
Rice's testimony?
16
. Are there other reported findings of which you are aware regarding impacts to
Illinois children?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
17 . You testify that you believe that the Illinois EPA's mercury proposal will meet
the requirements of the USEPA's CAMR rule .
a.
What is the basis for this statement?
b .
Did you participate in any discussions regarding Illinois' ability to
demonstrate that it could achieve the CAMR budgets?
c.
How will Illinois document that its proposal will achieve the EGU
mercury budget for Illinois get in CAMR?
Dated this 22nd day of May, 2006 .
James T
. Harrington
David L. Rieser
Attorneys for Petitioners
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone : 312/849-8100
#3992327 (v .1) .doc
Respectfully submitted,
AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES GENERATING
COMPANY
LECTRIC
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
RECEIVEDCLERK'S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
MAY 2 2 2006
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
Pollution
STATE OF
ControlILLINOISBoard
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL . ADM. CODE 225
)
R06-25
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
(Rulemaking - Air)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
35 Ill. Adm . Code 225 .100, 200
)
AMEREN QUESTIONS FOR IEPA WITNESSES
Robert Kaleel, Christopher Romaine, Jim Ross, and Jeffrey W . Sprague
1 . For all witnesses, please describe your personal background in researching the
areas of the fate of mercury on the environment, and the health and environmental
impacts of mercury contamination .
2. Is it correct that Illinois EPA is relying upon the services of Dr. Gerald Keeler to
discuss mercury deposition and to provide technical information on these issues?
3. Is it not correct that neither you nor other Agency personnel have any personal
expertise in these areas of deposition?
4. With respect to health and environmental impacts as discussed in your testimony,
have you conducted any independent research in the areas concerning the
environmental and health impacts of mercury?
5 . Did you personally conduct a study of the literature concerning the health impact
of mercury? Is it not correct that you are relying upon Dr
. Deborah Rice, another
witness in this proceeding, to provide the basis for the Agency's proposal related
to health and environmental impacts of mercury contamination?
6. For each witness, what portions of the technical support document did you
personally participate in preparing?
7. With respect to Section 5 of the TSD, how did Illinois EPA come to the
conclusion that the reduction of mercury emissions proposed by the Rule will
result in significant reductions of mercury deposition and methyl-mercury levels
in waters and fish in Illinois?
8 . Did Illinois EPA come to an independent conclusion as to what the reduction in
the deposition of mercury will be if the Rule as proposed is fully implemented?
9. How did you come to that conclusion?
10. Are you aware of EPA and EPRI modeling studies that show that mercury from
coal fired power plants within the State probably contribute relatively little on
average of the total mercury deposited in the State?
11
. Are you aware of any studies demonstrating that mercury in the atmosphere or
deposited in the ground other than methyl-mercury in fish has a direct impact on
human health?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
12 . Do you agree that the only impact of mercury in the environment that has been
identified in the studies and literature is through the consumption of fish and other
marine life impacted by methyl-mercury?
13 .
Do you agree that the purpose of the Illinois Rule is to attempt to reduce the
methyl-mercury content in fish in Illinois?
14
. Has Illinois
EPA
or anyone else to your knowledge conducted any studies to
determine the direct impact of mercury emissions from Illinois coal fired
electrical generating units upon waters in the State of Illinois?
15 . If so, please describe that study and its conclusions .
16 . To your knowledge, has anyone done a measurement of the mercury deposition
within the State of Illinois and attempted to trace it to any particular source?
17
. If so, please describe that study and its conclusions .
18. Has Illinois EPA conducted any independent review or study of the availability of
mercury control technologies for EGUs other than that prepared by Dr . Staudt?
19. If so, please describe that study and its conclusions .
20 . Is it fair to say that Illinois EPA is relying upon Dr . Staudt's expertise as set forth
in his testimony and Chapter 8 of the technical support document to determine the
availability and costs of mercury control technology?
21 . Has Illinois EPA carried out any comparison between the Illinois EGUs and those
which were studied in the various studies referred to by Dr . Staudt in his
testimony and Chapter 8 of the technical support document?
22 . If so, please describe that study and its conclusions .
23 . What information did Illinois EPA
provide to Dr
. Staudt after he filed his original
testimony?
24 . Did Dr. Staudt ask the Illinois EPA for additional information after he filed his
original testimony? What did he ask for? Was it provided?
25 . What discussions did the Illinois
EPA
have with Dr
. Staudt after he filed his
testimony regarding revisions to his pre-filed testimony?
26 . As a result of Dr. Staudt's revised pre-filed testimony is the Illinois
EPA
modifying its TSD in any way?
27. As a result of Dr. Staudt's testimony has the Illinois EPA considered revising its
proposed rule in any way?
28. Has Illinois EPA carried out a review of the physical circumstances of each of the
EGUs in Illinois to determine the feasibility of installing halogenated powdered
activated carbon prior to the electrostatic precipitators on Illinois EGUs burning
subbituminous coal?
29. If so, please describe that study and its conclusions
.
30 .
Has Illinois carried out any independent studies to determine the impacts of sulfur
trioxide injection for gas conditioning upon the effectiveness of halogenated
powdered activated carbon injection prior to the ESPs?
31 . If so, please describe that study and its conclusions .
32. Has Illinois EPA
made any determination of the impacts of halogenated powdered
activated carbon injection prior to the
ESPs upon the performance of the
ESPs to
achieve particulate and opacity standards or upon the reliability of the
ESPs?
33 . If so, please describe that study and its conclusions .
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
34
. Has Illinois EPA made any independent determination whether the use of
halogenated powdered activated carbon injection prior to the ESPs would result in
a significant increase of particulate emissions potentially triggering the prevention
of significant deterioration or non-attainment New Source Review on the type and
size of ESPs in operation in Illinois?
35 . If so, please describe that study and its conclusions
.
36
. If injection of halogenated powdered activated carbon before the ESPs on Illinois
EGUs will not attain the standards set forth in the Illinois EPA proposed
regulation, would you agree as set forth in the technical support document that the
injection of halogenated powdered activated carbon after the ESPs and prior to a
newly installed baghouse is the only logical next step at this time to attempt to
achieve the Illinois standards?
37
. Has Illinois EPA made any determination as to the costs of installing such
technology other than as set forth in Dr . Staudt's testimony and Chapter 8 of the
technical support document?
38. If so, please describe that study and its conclusions .
39
. Has Illinois EPA made any independent determination of the availability of such
equipment for all of the EGUs in the State of Illinois burning subbituminous coal?
40
. If so, please describe that study and its conclusions .
41 . Has Illinois EPA made any determination of the availability of engineering staff
to design such systems for each of the EGUs in the State of Illinois?
42
. If so, please describe that study and its conclusions .
43. Has Illinois EPA made any independent determination of the availability of
skilled labor, such as electricians, steel workers, pipefitters, etc. to install such
systems on each EGU in the State of Illinois by the deadline specified by the
proposed regulation?
44. If so, please describe that study and its conclusions .
45. Is it not Illinois EPA's position and belief that the limitations specified in the
proposed Illinois regulation can be achieved by the injection of halogenated
powdered activated carbon prior to the ESPs?
46. If the operators of the Illinois EGUs install such technology and work to optimize
its application without sacrificing control of opacity and particulate emissions, but
are unable to achieve the standards in the Illinois proposal, what do you envision
the consequences to be?
47. As drafted, would not the continued operation be in violation of the regulation and
the Title V Permit that would be revised to incorporate the standards?
48. In that case, would Illinois EPA believe that these facilities should shut down?
49. Would Illinois EPA support variances and/or adjusted standards to allow
continued operation of these facilities either with or without the addition of
additional controls?
50. If the operators of the EGUs which installed a halogenated powdered activated
carbon injection before the ESPs in good faith and in reliance upon the Agency's
opinions as expressed in this proceeding are unable to achieve the standard set
forth in the Rule, would you agree that they should be allowed to continue
operating employing such controls?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
51
. As written, would not the requirements of the proposed regulation be written in
the Title V Permits for each of the EGUs?
52. In that case, would not the limits be enforceable by USEPA and by the citizens
independent of the Illinois EPAs decision in the matter?
53
. Has Illinois EPA considered adopting the proposed rule for Illinois and not
incorporating it into the federally enforceable Title V Permit Program or
otherwise making it federally enforceable?
54. If not, why not?
55
. As set forth as page 3 of Mr . Romaine's revised testimony, is it not correct that
"the earliest date that the first formal determination of compliance with these
standards can occur is July 1, 2010"?
56
. If at that time it is first determined that a facility is not in compliance, what
penalties would it be subject to?
57. If that is the first date a facility is determined not to be in compliance, would it be
considered that there are 365 days of violation?
58 . Would it be prudent for a company to rely upon questionable technology to meet
such limits in light of the consequences of the failure to achieve compliance?
59
. Is it correct that IEPA has made no independent determination of the availability
and accuracy of continuous emission monitors for measuring mercury and the flue
gas?
60. If not, what such study has been performed?
61 . Are you aware of the current studies being performed by USEPA and its
contractors to determine the accuracy and precision of continuous emission
monitors for mercury?
62
. Are you aware that no such monitors have been approved?
63
. Are you aware that such monitors that have been tested tend to have high levels of
variability and a wide range of potential bias?
64. How would the availability of accurate and reliable emission monitors impact the
administration of the proposed Illinois Rule?
65. If such monitors vary by as much as 20%, would that not make it virtually
impossible to determine compliance with the Illinois Rule?
66
. What studies has Illinois EPA done to determine reliable methods for sampling
coal being fed to the boilers on the EGUs?
67. Has IEPA determined what the cost of such measures would be?
68. Would not the Illinois Rule depend heavily on the reliability of such sampling and
analysis methods?
69. Please describe what other Illinois rulemakings are expected to impose
requirements on EGUs in Illinois?
70. At a minimum, will not all Illinois EGUs be affected by the Clean Air Interstate
Rule or CAIR?
71 . Although Illinois has not yet proposed its CAIR Rule to the Board, did not the
drafts that were shared with industry provide for set asides of 30% from what
would have been the federally allowable allocations rather than a 5% set aside
that might be allowed under the federal rule?
72. Would this not effectively impose more stringent emission standards on each
Illinois EGU than would be required by the federal rule?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
73
. When finally adopted, would this rule not require significant additional controls
on Illinois facilities or purchases of significant allocations from outside the State?
74
. Is not Illinois under an obligation to adopt an attainment plan for fine particulate
(PM2.5) for the Chicago and St
. Louis metropolitan areas?
75 . Will not that plan likely require significant additional reductions of nitrogen
oxides and sulfur dioxides on all coal fired power plants in the State of Illinois
beyond those required by CAIR?
76
. Has not Illinois indicated an intent to apply such limits statewide as part of its
attainment strategy, at least with respect to the so-called NOx RACT
Rulemakings?
77
. Will not those attainment strategies require emission reductions in the State of
Illinois that cannot be met by purchasing allocations from outside the State?
78. When would you expect those limitations designed to achieve attainment with the
PM2
.5 air quality standards to be required?
79. Is there not a significant overlap between technologies which might achieve
compliance with new nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide regulations and those
which may be required for mercury control?
80. Is it not logical that these various requirements be harmonized both in terms of
emission limitations and scheduling?
81 . Has Illinois EPA taken any consideration of the total economic impact of these
multi-pollutant controls on Illinois power plants?
82
. Were not the federal CAMR regulations based on a desire to harmonize the
controls of SO2 and NOx with those for mercury?
83. For example, are there not significant mercury reduction benefits in the
installation of wet flue gas desulfurization preceded by selective catalytic
reduction on mercury for facilities burning bituminous coal, such as produced in
Illinois?
84. If a facility installs halogenated powdered activated carbon injection with a
baghouse for mercury control to comply with Illinois EPA's mercury proposal,
would that not be inconsistent with burning Illinois bituminous coal in the future
because the facilities would use dry scrubbing with the baghouse to achieve SO 2
reductions?
85 . If, as the companies have suggested, the Illinois mercury proposal would require
installation of baghouses on virtually all of the facilities presently burning
subbituminous coal, would that not effectively discourage any use of Illinois coal
in the future by making the investments substantially obsolete if a facility was to
switch to Illinois coal?
86. If multi-plant averaging is allowed, why not allow averaging between companies?
87. With respect to the averaging demonstration as discussed at pages 7 and 8 of Mr
.
Romaine's testimony, has Illinois EPA made any internal estimates of which
facilities would comply for the 75% minimum reduction by plant or which units,
if any, would not have to install controls?
88. Since, at best, technology proposed by Illinois EPA witnesses will barely exceed a
90% removal rate as described in the various studies for subbituminous coals,
which units would be available, if any, to avoid installing controls during Phase I
of the rule since there would not be excess reductions from other units?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
89
. Is it Illinois EPA's intention or contemplation that its Illinois mercury rule would
require or encourage switching to Illinois coal at any facilities in Illinois?
90
. To the extent that Illinois appears to base its proposal in part on encouraging the
use of Illinois coal and the potential availability of coal benefits from the use of
wet flue gas desulfurization and selective catalytic reduction on bituminous fired
power plants, has it made any study of the availability of Illinois coal and
transportation networks to deliver that coal to Illinois power plants particularly
within the time required by these rules? If so, please describe .
91 . During the public meetings on the proposed Illinois mercury rule, Illinois EPA
discussed a "technology out" which would have provided a significant extension
of time to come into compliance with the requirements of the Illinois rule if a
facility installed the halogenated powdered activated carbon injection prior to the
ESPs and was unable to achieve 90% reduction by the spring of 2009, is that not
correct?
92 . Is Illinois EPA still willing to consider such a proposal?
93
. Would Illinois EPA agree to a proposal that facilities willing to commit to more
elaborate controls such as halogenated powdered activated carbon injection after
the ESPs with baghouses could have a later compliance date?
94
. Would Illinois EPA consider later compliance dates if such controls were to be
phased in across a company-wide or multi-company-wide system?
95. Since Illinois EPA is convinced that injection of halogenated powdered activated
carbon prior to the baghouses would achieve a 90% limit, would it agree to a
proposal requiring such installation in Illinois companies allowing them to operate
or optimize such a system subject to whatever limitations it achieves?
Dated this 22nd
day of May, 2006 .
James T. Harrington
David L. Rieser
Attorneys for Petitioners
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone : 312/849-8100
#3989096 (v.1) .doc
Respectfully submitted,
AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES GENERATING
COMPANY
ENER
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
R E R E II
OFFICE
V E
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
MAY 2 2 2006
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
R06-25
PollutionSTATE
OF
Control
IL
Boardoar
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
(Rulemaking-Air)
B
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
35 111 . Adm. Code 225
.100, 200
)
Questions for Sid Nelson, Jr
..
1 .
Please describe your personal involvement in the development of the mercury
control technologies, particularly the sorbents discussed in your paper .
2.
What is your personal involvement in the development engineering
construction and installation with the pollution control equipment in coal fired
power plants?
3 .
Have you reviewed the technical support document provided by IEPA in this
proceeding?
4.
Do you agree with the conclusions in Chapter 8 of the technical support
document therein, particularly
as to what technology is required in various
facilities?
5 .
Page 3 of your testimony refers to the St . Clair Power Plant of Detroit Edison.
6.
Were you personally involved in that study?
7.
Do you know what size the ESP is at that facility?
8 .
Were all the fields being utilized for particulate collection during the test of
Sorbent Technologies sorbent?
9.
Does the SCA you report correspond to all of the fields that were installed,
whether they were used or not?
10.
Do you know the halogen content of the coal blend that was used at that
facility?
11 .
What time of year was that study run at that facility?
12.
Do you know whether any flue gas conditioning, such as SO3 injection, was
used prior to the ESP at that facility?
13 .
Do you know the source of the subbituminous coal used at that facility?
14.
Do you know what mines that subbituminous coal was from?
15 .
Do you know how the size of the ESP at that facility compares to the size
ESPs in the State of Illinois?
16.
Your testimony refers to the Great River Energy Stanton Station . Were you
personally involved in the study of that facility?
17.
Do you know what size the ESP is in that facility?
18.
Do you know the halogen content of the subbituminous coal blend that was
used at that facility?
19 .
What time of year was that study run at that facility?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
20.
Do you know whether any flue gas conditioning, such as SO3 injection, was
used prior to the ESP at that facility?
21 .
Do you know the source of the subbituminous coal used at that facility?
22.
Do you know what mines that subbituminous coal was from?
23 .
Do you know how the size of the ESP at that facility compares to the size
ESPs in the State of Illinois?
24.
Page 3 of your testimony references experiments at the Meramec Station of
Ameren
. Do you know what type of coal was being burned during that
experiment?
25.
How would that affect the removal that was achieved?
26.
Do you know the size of the ESPs that was on the units being tested?
27.
Do you know how the size of that ESP compares to the size of the ESPs in
Illinois?
28.
Are you aware there are also experiments that were run at the Labadie Station
of Ameren in Missouri where halogenated activated carbon was injected on a
subbituminous coal fired electrical generating unit
.
29.
Are you aware that the facility operates with SO3 injection prior to the
electrostatic precipitator?
30.
Are you also aware that the average removals achieved with that injection was
in the 50% range?
31 .
Are you aware that without the SO3 injection the facility could not meet its
emission limits for opacity and particulate?
32
.
Are you aware that a test to determine removal without SO3 injection had to
be discontinued because of opacity issues?
33 .
Is not that facility, the one most analogous to the Ameren facilities in the State
of Illinois .
34.
Would your Company be willing to enter into a guarantee that if sorbent
injection utilizing your Company's sorbents was installed on the EGU's in
Illinois, and it failed to achieve 90% reduction in accordance with the Illinois
rule, that your Company would pay for any necessary retrofits and any fines
or penalties that were imposed for failure to achieve that limit?
35 .
Assuming that appropriately 3 .3-3 .5 lbs. per million cubic feet of gas would
be the normal sorbent injection rate, what would you expect the cost to be for
all facilities across the State of Illinois on an annual basis?
36.
Has your estimate of the price for bromine-activated sorbents changed since
2003?
37
.
What is the size of the ESPs at Yates?
38.
Have you ever referred to any one of these as "tiny" ESPs?
39 .
What is the size of the ESP at Lausche?
40.
Have you ever referred to this as a modestly-sized ESP?
41 .
Was there any indication of higher opacity in the stack during the
demonstration trial of Sorbent Technologies product at the Monroe
Generating Station?
42.
What limited the mass injection rate of sorbent at Monroe?
43 .
How do the average and largest -sized ESPs in Illinois compare to the SCA
values that you have called "tiny" and "modestly sized"?
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
44.
Are there any limits imposed on your guarantee for process performance, in
terms of liquidated damages, compensation for higher than projected auxiliary
power, or additional sorbent above and beyond what is projected?
45.
Will Sorbent Technologies provide for the additional sorbent above and
beyond what is projected in the guarantee, at no additional cost to the owner,
for as long as the plant operates with your technology?
46.
If the sorbent injection rate went to as high as 8 lbs
. per million cubic feet of
gas
. What would you expect that cost to be?
47.
Is your Company prepared to give a ten year price guarantee with an inflation
adjustment on supply of halogenated activated carbon?
48.
If all the facilities in Illinois and surrounding states went to halogenated
activated carbon injection, would your Company and competitors be able to
supply that with current capacity?
49.
You stated that Buck achieved about 70% mercury removal . At what load
point was that achieved?
50
.
What was the average mercury removal over the load range?
51 .
Is it correct that, to date, no hot side ESP equipped unit has been able to
demonstrate 90% mercury removal with sorbent injection over the full load
range?
52.
You state that you believe that Waukegan 7 and Will County 3 units equipped
with hot side ESPs will be able to achieve 90% Hg removal with H-Pac
sorbent. Is Sorbent Technologies willing to give guarantees to that effect with
appropriate liquidated damages?
Dated this 22" d day of May, 2006 .
James T. Harrington
David L. Rieser
Attorneys for Petitioners
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: 312/849-8100
\3993525 .1
Respectfully submitted,
AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY
AMERENENERGY RESOURCES GENERATING COMPANY
ELECTRIC ENERGY
B
This Filing Submitted on Recycled Paper
