BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS
COUNTY OF SANGAMON )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
SERVICE LIST 06-25

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

R06-25

PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225

)

(Rulemaking – Air)

CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM

)

LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY) )

NOTICE

TO:

Dorothy Gunn

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601-3218

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the

Illinois Pollution Control Board the MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL,

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER AMENDED TESTIMONY OF JAMES E.

STAUDT, Ph.D., and AMENDED TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. STAUDT, Ph.D., a copy of

which is herewith served upon you.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By: ______________________

Gina Roccaforte

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: May 23, 2006

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P. O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

217/782-5544

ON RECYCLED PAPER

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

R06-25

PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225

)

(Rulemaking – Air)

CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM

)

LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY) )

MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL

NOW COMES the Proponent, the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY (Illinois EPA), by its attorneys, and pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 101.500 and 102.402, moves that the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board)

amend proposed new Part 225 to add new Sections 225.234 and 225.238 to Subpart B. In

support of its Motion, the Illinois EPA states as follows:

On March 14, 2006, the Illinois EPA filed a proposal with the Board to add a new

Part 225, 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 225, entitled "Control of Emissions from Large

Combustion Sources" to control the emissions of mercury from coal-fired electric

generating units (EGUs) beginning in 2009. The Illinois EPA's proposal is intended to

meet certain obligations of the State of Illinois under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42

U.S.C. § 7401

et seq

.; specifically, to satisfy Illinois' obligation to submit a State plan to

address the requirements of the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR),

see

, 70

Fed. Reg.

28606 (May 18, 2005). Under CAMR, states are required to submit State plans to the

United States Environmental Protection Agency by no later than November 17, 2006.

at 28649; 40 CFR § 60.24(h)(2).

The Illinois EPA engaged in extensive outreach on this proposal. In January

2006, the Illinois EPA commenced regular meetings with representatives of the affected

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

sources and public interest groups and the Illinois EPA distributed working drafts of the

proposed rule to such parties.

During the formulation of the proposed rule, the Illinois EPA considered

including a Temporary Technology Based Standard (TTBS) to provide additional

regulatory flexibility for compliance with the proposed rule. This concept was presented

at several of the stakeholder meetings. A limited number of comments were received;

however, no stakeholders stated that they would utilize such a standard.

After the filing of the rulemaking proposal, a number of stakeholders requested

the provisions of the TTBS. In addition, further review by Illinois EPA staff and an

expert retained by the Illinois EPA identified additional circumstances related to practices

and configurations of sources in the State that warrant the inclusion of the TTBS.

Therefore, the Illinois EPA is now proposing to amend the rulemaking proposal as set

forth in this motion.

The TTBS, as proposed, addresses both new and existing sources with EGUs. In

order to provide additional, appropriate flexibility for compliance by both new and

existing sources with EGUs, separate provisions encompassing the TTBS are warranted.

Those EGUs that satisfy relevant eligibility requirements may demonstrate compliance

with control requirements for mercury emissions via the TTBS provisions for a specified

and limited time frame. Accordingly, the Illinois EPA recommends the acceptance by

the Board of the following amendment to proposed new Part 225 to add new Sections

225.234 and 225.238:

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

Section 225.234 Temporary Technology-Based Standard for EGUs at Existing Sources

General

At a source with EGUs that commenced commercial operation on

or before December 31, 2008, for an EGU that meets the eligibility

criteria in subsection (b) of this Section, as an alternative to

compliance with the mercury emission standards in Section

225.230 of this Subpart, the owner or operator of the EGU may

temporarily comply with the requirements of this Section, through

June 30, 2015, as further provided in subsections (c), (d), and (e) of

this Section.

An EGU that is complying with the emission control requirements

of this Subpart by operating under this Section may not be

included in a compliance demonstration involving other EGUs

during the period that it is operating under this Section.

The owner or operator of an EGU that is complying with this

Subpart by means of this Section is not excused from applicable

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Sections

225.240 through 225.290 of this Subpart.

Eligibility

To be eligible to operate an EGU under this Section, the following criteria

shall be met for the EGU:

The EGU is equipped and operated with the air pollution control

equipment or systems that include injection of halogenated

activated carbon and either (1) a cold-side electrostatic precipitator

or (2) a fabric filter.

The owner or operator of the EGU is injecting halogenated

activated carbon in an optimum manner for control of mercury

emissions, which shall include injection of Alstrom, Norit, Sorbent

Technologies, or other halogenated activated carbon that the owner

or operator of the EGU shows to have similar or better

effectiveness for control of mercury emissions, at least at the

following rates, unless other provisions for injection of

halogenated activated carbon are established in a federally

enforceable operating permit issued for the EGU, with an injection

system designed for effective absorption of mercury, considering

the configuration of the EGU and its ductwork. For this purpose,

flue gas flow rate shall be determined for the point of sorbent

injection, provided, however, that this flow rate may be assumed to

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

be identical to the stack flow rate if the gas temperatures at the

point of injection and the stack are normally within 100º F, or may

otherwise be calculated from the stack flow rate, corrected for the

difference in gas temperatures.

For an EGU firing subbituminous coal, 5.0 pounds per

million actual cubic feet.

For an EGU firing bituminous coal, 10.0 pounds per

million actual cubic feet.

For an EGU firing a blend of subbituminous and

bituminous coal, a rate that is the weighted average of the

above rates, based on the blend of coal being fired.

A rate or rates set on a unit-specific basis that are lower

than the rate specified above to the extent that the owner or

operator of the EGU demonstrates that such rate or rates are

needed so that carbon injection would not increase

particulate matter emissions or opacity so as to threaten

compliance with applicable regulatory requirements for

particulate matter or opacity.

The total capacity of the EGUs that operate under this Section does

not exceed the applicable value below:

For the owner or operator of more than one existing source

with EGUs, 25 percent of the total rated capacity, in MW,

of all the EGUs at such existing sources that it owns or

operates, other than any EGUs operating pursuant to

Section 225.235 of this Subpart.

For the owner or operator of only a single existing source

with EGUs (i.e., City, Water, Light & Power, City of

Springfield, ID 167120AAO; Electric Energy, Inc., ID

127855AAC; Kincaid Generating Station, ID 021814AAB;

and Southern Illinois Power Cooperative/Marion

Generating Station, ID 199856AAC), 25 percent of the

total rated capacity, in MW, of the all the EGUs at such

existing sources, other than any EGUs operating pursuant

to Section 225.235 of this Subpart.

Compliance Requirements

Emission Control Requirements

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

The owner or operator of an EGU that is operating pursuant to this

Section shall continue to maintain and operate the EGU to comply

with the criteria for eligibility for operation under this Section,

except during an evaluation of the current sorbent, alternative

sorbents or other techniques to control mercury emissions, as

provided by subsection (e) of this Section.

Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements

In addition to complying with all applicable reporting requirements

in Sections 225.240 through 225.290 of this Subpart, the owner or

operator of an EGU operating pursuant to this Section shall also:

Through December 31, 2012, maintain records of the usage

of activated carbon, the exhaust gas flow rate from the

EGU, and the activated carbon feed rate, in pounds per

million actual cubic feet of exhaust gas at the injection

point, on a weekly average.

Beginning January 1, 2013, monitor activated carbon feed

rate to the EGU, flue gas temperature at the point of sorbent

injection, and exhaust gas flow rate from the EGU,

automatically recording this data and the activated carbon

feed rate, in pounds per million actual cubic feet of exhaust

gas at the injection point, on an hourly average.

If a blend of bituminous and sub-bituminous coal is fired in

the EGU, records of the amount of each type or coal burned

and the required injection rate for injection of halogenated

activated carbon, on a weekly basis.

Notification and Reporting Requirements

In addition to complying with all applicable reporting requirements

in Sections 225.240 through 225.290 of this Subpart, the owner or

operator of an EGU operating pursuant to this Section shall also

submit the following notifications and reports to the Agency:

Written notification prior to the month in which any of the

following events will occur: the EGU will no longer be

eligible to operate under this Section due to a change in

operation; the type of coal fired in the EGU will change;

the mercury emission standard with which the owner or

operator is attempting to comply for the EGU will change;

or operation under this Section will be terminated.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

Quarterly reports for the recordkeeping and monitoring

conducted pursuant to subsection (c)(2) of this Section.

Annual reports detailing activities conducted for the EGU

to further improve control of mercury emissions, including

the measures taken during the past year and activities

planned for the current year.

Applications to Operate under the Technology-Based Standard

Application Deadlines

The owner or operator of an EGU that is seeking to operate

the EGU under this Section shall submit an application to

the Agency no later than three months prior to the date that

compliance with Section 225.230 of this Subpart would

otherwise have to be demonstrated. For example, the

owner or operator of an EGU that is applying to operate the

EGU pursuant to this Section on June 30, 2010, when

compliance with applicable mercury emission standards

must be first demonstrated, shall apply by March 31, 2010

to operate under this Section.

Unless the Agency finds that the EGU is not eligible to

operate under this Section or that the application for

operation under this Section does not meet the requirements

of subsection (d)(2) of this Section, the owner or operator

of the EGU is authorized to operate the EGU under this

Section beginning 60 days after receipt of the application

by the Agency.

The owner or operator of an EGU operating pursuant to this

Section must reapply to operate pursuant to this Section:

If it operated pursuant to this Section during the

period of June 2010 through December 2012 and it

seeks to operate pursuant to this Section during the

period from January 2013 through June 2015.

ii)

If it is planning a physical change to or a change in

the method of operation of the EGU, control

equipment or practices for injection of activated

carbon that is expected to reduce the level of control

of mercury emissions.

Contents of Application

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

An application to operate pursuant to this Section shall be

submitted as an application for a new or revised federally

enforceable operating permit for the EGU and include the

following:

A formal request to operate pursuant to this Section

showing that the EGU is eligible to operate pursuant to this

Section and describing the reason for the request, the

measures that have been taken for control of mercury

emissions, and factors preventing more effective control of

mercury emissions from the EGU.

The applicable mercury emission standard in Section

225.230(a) with which the owner or operator of the EGU is

attempting to comply and a summary of relevant mercury

emission data for the EGU.

If a unit-specific rate or rates for carbon injection are

proposed pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this Section,

detailed information to support the proposed injection rates.

An action plan describing the measures that will be taken

while operating under this Section to improve control of

mercury emissions. This plan shall address measures such

as evaluation of alternative forms or sources of activated

carbon, changes to the injection system, changes to

operation of the unit that affect the effectiveness of

mercury absorption and collection, changes to the

particulate matter control device to improve performance

and changes to other emission control devices. For each

measure contained in the plan, the plan shall provide a

detailed description of the specific actions that are planned,

the reason that the measure is being pursued and the range

of improvement in control of mercury that is expected, and

the factors that affect the timing for carrying out the

measure, with the current schedule for the measure.

Evaluation of Alternative Control Techniques for Mercury Emissions

During an evaluation of the effectiveness of the current sorbent,

alternative sorbent, or other technique to control mercury

emissions, the owner or operator of an EGU operating under this

Section need not comply with the eligibility criteria for operation

under this Section as needed to carry out an evaluation of the

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

practicality and effectiveness of such technique, as further

provided below:

The owner or operator of the EGU shall conduct the

evaluation in accordance with a formal evaluation program

submitted to the Illinois EPA at least 30 days in advance.

The duration and scope of the evaluation shall not exceed

the duration and scope reasonably needed to complete the

desired evaluation of the alternative control technique, as

initially addressed by the owner or owner in a support

document submitted with the evaluation program.

Notwithstanding 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.146(hhh), the

owner or operator of the EGU shall obtain a construction

permit for any new or modified air pollution control

equipment to be constructed as part of the evaluation of the

alternative control technique.

The owner or operator of the EGU shall submit a report to

the Illinois EPA no later than 90 days after the conclusion

of the evaluation describing the evaluation that was

conducted and providing the results of the evaluation.

If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows less

effective control of mercury emissions from the EGU than

achieved with the prior control technique, the owner or operator of

the EGU shall resume use of the prior control technique. If the

evaluation of the alternative control technique shows comparable

effectiveness, the owner or operator of the EGU may either

continue to use the alternative control technique in an optimum

manner or resume use of the prior control technique. If the

evaluation of the alternative control technique shows more

effective control of mercury emissions, the owner or operator of

the EGU shall continue to use the alternative control technique in

an optimum manner, if it continues to operate under this Section.

Section 225.238 Temporary Technology-Based Standard for New Sources with EGUs

General

At a source with EGUs that previously had not had any EGUs that

commenced commercial operation before January 1, 2009, for an

EGU that meets the eligibility criteria in subsection (b) of this

Section, as an alternative to compliance with the mercury emission

standards in Section 225.237of this Subpart, the owner or operator

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

of the EGU may temporarily comply with the requirements of this

Section, through December 31, 2018, as further provided in

subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this Section.

An EGU that is complying with the emission control requirements

of this Subpart by operating under this Section may not be

included in a compliance demonstration involving other EGUs at

the source during the period that such standard is in effect.

The owner or operator of an EGU that is complying with this

Subpart by means of this Section is not excused from applicable

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Sections

225.240 through 225.290 of this Subpart.

Eligibility

To be eligible to operate an EGU under this Section, the following criteria

shall be met for the EGU:

The EGU is subject to Best Available Control Technology (BACT)

for emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate

matter and is equipped and operated with the air pollution control

equipment or systems specified below, as applicable to the category

of EGU:

For coal-fired boilers, injection of halogenated activated

carbon.

For an EGU firing fuel gas produced by coal gasification,

processing of the raw fuel gas prior to combustion for

removal of mercury with system a using activated carbon.

For an EGU for which injection of halogenated activated carbon is

required by subsection (b)(1) of this Section, the owner or operator

of the EGU is injecting halogenated activated carbon in an

optimum manner for control of mercury emissions, which shall

include injection of Alstrom, Norit, Sorbent Technologies, or other

halogenated activated carbon that the owner or operator of the

EGU shows to have similar or better effectiveness for control of

mercury emissions, at least at the following rates, unless other

provisions for injection of halogenated activated carbon are

established in a federally enforceable operating permit issued for

the EGU, with an injection system designed for effective

absorption of mercury. For this purpose, flue gas flow rate shall be

determined for the point of sorbent injection, provided, however,

that this flow rate may be assumed to be identical to the stack flow

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

rate if the gas temperatures at the point of injection and the stack

are normally within 100º F, or may otherwise be calculated from

the stack flow rate, corrected for the difference in gas

temperatures.

For an EGU firing subbituminous coal, 5.0 pounds per

million actual cubic feet.

For an EGU firing bituminous coal, 10.0 pounds per

million actual cubic feet.

For an EGU firing a blend of subbituminous and

bituminous coal, a rate that is the weighted average of the

above rates, based on the blend of coal being fired.

Compliance Requirements

Emission Control Requirements

The owner or operator of an EGU that is operating pursuant to this

Section shall continue to maintain and operate the EGU to comply

with the criteria for eligibility for operation under this Section,

except during an evaluation of the current sorbent, alternative

sorbents or other techniques to control mercury emissions, as

provided by subsection (e) of this Section.

Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements

In addition to complying with all applicable reporting requirements

in Sections 225.240 through 225.290 of this Subpart, the owner or

operator of a new EGU operating pursuant to this Section shall

also:

Monitor activated carbon feed rate to the EGU, flue gas

temperature at the point of sorbent injection, and exhaust

gas flow rate from the EGU, automatically recording this

data and the activated carbon feed rate, in pounds per

million actual cubic feet of exhaust gas at the injection

point, on an hourly average.

If a blend of bituminous and sub-bituminous coal is fired in

the EGU, records of the amount of each type or coal burned

and the required injection rate for injection of halogenated

activated carbon, on a weekly basis.

Notification and Reporting Requirements

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

In addition to complying with all applicable reporting requirements

in Sections 225.240 through 225.290 of this Subpart, the owner or

operator of an EGU operating pursuant to this Section shall also

submit the following notifications and reports to the Agency:

Written notification prior to the month in which any of the

following events will occur: the EGU will no longer be

eligible to operate under this Section due to a change in

operation; the type of coal fired in the EGU will change;

the mercury emission standard with which the owner or

operator is attempting to comply for the EGU will change;

or operation under this Section will be terminated.

Quarterly reports for the recordkeeping and monitoring

conducted pursuant to subsection (c)(2) of this Section.

Annual reports detailing activities conducted for the EGU

to further improve control of mercury emissions, including

the measures taken during the past year and activities

planned for the current year.

Applications to Operate under the Technology-Based Standard

Application Deadlines

The owner or operator of an EGU that is seeking to operate

the EGU under this Section shall submit an application to

the Agency no later than three months prior to the date that

compliance with Section 225.237 of this Subpart would

otherwise have to be demonstrated.

Unless the Agency finds that the EGU is not eligible to

operate under this Section or that the application for

operation under this Section does not meet the requirements

of subsection (d)(2) of this Section, the owner or operator

of the EGU is authorized to operate the EGU under this

Section beginning 60 days after receipt of the application

by the Agency.

The owner or operator of an EGU operating pursuant to this

Section must reapply to operate pursuant to this Section if it

is planning a physical change to or a change in the method

of operation of the EGU, control equipment or practices for

injection of activated carbon that is expected to reduce the

level of control of mercury emissions.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

Contents of Application

An application to operate pursuant to this Section shall be

submitted as an application for a new or revised federally

enforceable operating permit for the new EGU and include the

following:

A formal request to operate pursuant to this Section

showing that the EGU is eligible to operate pursuant to this

Section and describing the reason for the request, the

measures that have been taken for control of mercury

emissions, and factors preventing more effective control of

mercury emissions from the EGU.

The applicable mercury emission standard in Section

225.237 with which the owner or operator of the EGU is

attempting to comply and a summary of relevant mercury

emission data for the EGU.

If a unit-specific rate or rates for carbon injection are

proposed pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this Section,

detailed information to support the proposed injection rates.

An action plan describing the measures that will be taken

while operating under this Section to improve control of

mercury emissions. This plan shall address measures such

as evaluation of alternative forms or sources of activated

carbon, changes to the injection system, changes to

operation of the unit that affect the effectiveness of

mercury absorption and collection, and changes to other

emission control devices. For each measure contained in

the plan, the plan shall provide a detailed description of the

specific actions that are planned, the reason that the

measure is being pursued and the range of improvement in

control of mercury that is expected, and the factors that

affect the timing for carrying out the measure, with the

current schedule for the measure.

Evaluation of Alternative Control Techniques for Mercury Emissions

During an evaluation of the effectiveness of the current sorbent,

alternative sorbent, or other technique to control mercury

emissions, the owner or operator of an EGU operating under this

Section need not comply with the eligibility criteria for operation

under this Section as needed to carry out an evaluation of the

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

practicality and effectiveness of such technique, as further

provided below:

The owner or operator of the EGU shall conduct the

evaluation in accordance with a formal evaluation program

submitted to the Illinois EPA at least 30 days in advance.

The duration and scope of the evaluation shall not exceed

the duration and scope reasonably needed to complete the

desired evaluation of the alternative control technique, as

initially addressed by the owner or owner in a support

document submitted with the evaluation program.

Notwithstanding 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.146(hhh), the

owner or operator of the EGU shall obtain a construction

permit for any new or modified air pollution control

equipment to be constructed as part of the evaluation of the

alternative control technique.

The owner or operator of the EGU shall submit a report to

the Illinois EPA no later than 90 days after the conclusion

of the evaluation describing the evaluation that was

conducted and providing the results of the evaluation.

If the evaluation of the alternative control technique shows less

effective control of mercury emissions from the EGU than

achieved with the prior control technique, the owner or operator of

the EGU shall resume use of the prior control technique. If the

evaluation of the alternative control technique shows comparable

effectiveness, the owner or operator of the EGU may either

continue to use the alternative control technique in an optimum

manner or resume use of the prior control technique. If the

evaluation of the alternative control technique shows more

effective control of mercury emissions, the owner or operator of

the EGU shall continue to use the alternative control technique in

an optimum manner, if it continues to operate under this Section.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the Illinois EPA moves that the

Board amend proposed new Part 225 to add new Sections 225.234 and 225.238 to

Subpart B as set forth herein.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By:

__________________

Charles E. Matoesian

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

__________________

Gina Roccaforte

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: May 23, 2006

1021 N. Grand Ave., East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217/782-5544

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

R06-25

PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225

)

(Rulemaking – Air)

CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM

)

LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY) )

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER AMENDED TESTIMONY OF

JAMES E. STAUDT, Ph.D.

NOW COMES the Proponent, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Illinois EPA), by its attorneys, and pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500 and 102.402,

hereby requests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board) grant the Illinois EPA

leave to file instanter the Amended Testimony of James E. Statudt, Ph.D. In support of

this motion, the Illinois EPA states as follows:

On May 19, 2006, following consideration of an emergency motion filed

by the Participants to this rulemaking proceeding, the Board’s assigned Hearing Officer

entered a scheduling order. The order included,

inter alia

, the acknowledgement that the

Illinois EPA would be submitting amended pre-filed testimony of Dr. James Staudt on

May 19, 2006, and that the Participants would in turn be required to submit pre-filed

questions on May 19, 2006 as well.

Since the filing of Dr. Staudt’s amended testimony on May 19

, further

circumstances have transpired that require the further amendment of his testimony. For

reasons fully addressed in the Illinois EPA’s Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal,

filed contemporaneously on this date, Dr. Staudt’s testimony needs to be amended again

to explain and reflect the additional provisions sought for inclusion in the rulemaking

proposal.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

Although the Illinois EPA regrets the timing of this latest request, the

amended pre-filed testimony of Dr. Staudt that is the subject of this motion is being

offered only two business days following the filing of the previous testimony. Further,

this amended testimony is necessary to accompany the language that is the subject of the

Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, the Illinois EPA hereby respectfully

requests that the Board grant the Illinois EPA leave to file instanter the amended

testimony of Dr. Staudt.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

____________________________

John J. Kim

Managing Attorney

Air Regulatory Unit

Division of Legal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217/782-5544

217/782-9143 (TDD)

Dated: May 23, 2006

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

R06-25

PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225

)

(Rulemaking – Air)

CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM

)

LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY) )

AMENDED TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. STAUDT, Ph.D.

I, James E. Staudt, have been retained by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IL EPA)

as an expert in this electric power plant mercury emissions rule development.

I expect to testify at the hearing on the current state-of-the-art of mercury emissions control

technology for coal-fired power plants and the potential use of these control technologies by

Illinois coal-fired power plants to comply with the rule that has been proposed by IL EPA.

BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS

I am currently the President of Andover Technology Partners (“ATP”). As President of ATP, I

have advised power plants, equipment suppliers and government agencies on ways to comply

with emissions regulations in cost-effective ways. For nearly twenty years, I have worked in the

field of air pollution control technology, including mercury emissions control. For the past nine

years (since 1997) I have been a consultant with my own business – Andover Technology

Partners. My primary area of business as a consultant is associated with my expertise relating to

the performance and cost of air pollution control technologies on power plants. Clients have

included the US EPA, power plant owners, technology suppliers, and others. I have published

several papers and reports, including papers in peer-reviewed journals and reports issued by the

US EPA, on mercury control technology and the cost of controlling mercury on power plants.

Several of these papers have been coauthored with staff of the US EPA. For most of the period

from 1988 to 1997 I was employed by companies that supplied air pollution control technology

(Research Cottrell and Fuel Tech) or power plant and refinery gas analyzers (Spectrum

Diagnostix, a subsidiary of Physical Sciences that was acquired by Western Research). As an

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

employee of these companies over this period I sold, designed, and commissioned air pollution

control technology at numerous power plants and industrial facilities.

I received my M.S. (1986) and Ph.D. (1987) in Mechanical Engineering from the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology. I received my B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the U.S. Naval

Academy in 1979. From 1979 to 1984 I served as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy in

the Engineering Department of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

II.

SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY

At the Hearing I expect to testify on how mercury emissions from coal power plants can be

controlled and what those controls are expected to cost Illinois power plants that will be required

to comply with the proposed mercury control rule should it be finalized. By reference, my

testimony includes Section 8 of the Technical Support Document (TSD): Technological

Feasibility of Controlling Mercury Emissions from Coal-fired Power Plants in Illinois.

Mercury Emissions From Coal Fired Power Plants

The mercury emissions from a coal-fired power plant are the result of the mercury content in the

coal that is burned and the extent that processes in the boiler prevent the mercury from being

released with the exhaust gases of the power plant. Mercury may be removed from the coal prior

to combustion of the coal. This may be achieved by coal cleaning or by some other treatment of

the coal. Or, mercury may be removed from the boiler flue gases by Air Pollution Control

(APC) equipment. Sometimes the APC equipment that removes the mercury is equipment that is

installed primarily to remove other pollutants, such as Particle Matter (PM) or acid gases in a

Flue Gas Desulfurization system (FGD, also called SO

scrubbers). Mercury removal in this

manner is called co-benefit mercury removal. Mercury may also be removed by air pollution

control systems that are specifically designed to remove mercury from the flue gases.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

Mercury Removal from Coal

Run of mine (ROM) bituminous coal is frequently cleaned for the following purposes:

•

Removal of impurities to improve the heating value of the coal

•

Reduction of transportation costs for coal to the power plant and ash from the power

plant

•

Maintenance of ash content in coal supply within contract requirements

•

Removal of sulfur, mainly as pyrites, lowering SO

emissions when the coal is burned.

However, cleaning ROM coal will provide the added benefit of removing mercury from the coal.

This is because mercury in the coal is preferentially associated with pyrites and other non-

combustible materials that are removed in coal washing. Mercury removal from the coal before

combustion through washing will contribute to lower mercury emissions from the plant.

Mercury Behavior In the Furnace and Cobenefit Capture

Mercury that is present in trace amounts in the coal is released from the coal during combustion.

At furnace conditions, the released mercury is present in a gaseous state in the elemental form

that is denoted as Hg

. As the combustion exhaust gases cool in the boiler, chemistry shifts to

favor an oxidized, or ionic, form of mercury, denoted as Hg

. Some of the Hg

is adsorbed

onto particles to form Hg

The Hg

is readily captured in PM emission control devices that all

IL coal power plants are equipped with – ESPs or fabric filters. Hg

is water soluble and can be

captured by FGD systems if they are installed. However, not all of the Hg

becomes Hg

or Hg

due to limitations on the chemistry that result from several factors, such as concentration of

chlorine (the most common form of Hg

is HgCl

), flue gas temperature, and other factors. As a

result of this, the level of cobenefit mercury capture in the PM emission control devices or SO

scrubbers may vary based upon the type of equipment, the constituents in the coal, and other

factors. NOx controls, such as Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and combustion staging, can

enhance the capture that is achieved in PM or SO

controls. Results of measurements of co-

benefit mercury removal rates taken in response to the U.S. EPA’s Information Collection

Request (ICR) as part of the development of the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule and subsequent

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

test programs since the ICR program provided data that indicates that the following cobenefit

removal rates may be expected:

•

For pulverized-coal boilers firing bituminous coal and equipped with SCR, and ESP, and

wet FGD, co-benefit mercury capture is expected to be about 90%.

•

For pulverized-coal boilers firing bituminous coal and equipped with an ESP, co-benefit

mercury capture is expected to be in the range of about 30%-50%.

•

For boilers firing bituminous coal in a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) arrangement with

a fabric filter, co-benefit mercury capture over 90% is expected to be achieved.

•

For pulverized-coal boilers firing subbituminous coal and equipped with only an ESP,

low co-benefit mercury capture is expected.

•

For pulverized-coal boilers firing any kind of coal and equipped with only a hot-side

ESP, co-benefit mercury capture is expected to be low.

Cobenefit controls may be optimized through a variety of techniques that are described in more

detail in the TSD. Depending upon the fuel being fired and the boiler’s configuration,

optimization methods can significantly improve cobenefit mercury removal.

Mercury-Specific Controls, Especially Sorbent Injection

The previous section addressed the important factors impacting mercury capture by co-benefit

from NOx, PM or SO

control technologies. As discussed, boilers that fire subbituminous coal –

which there currently are many of in Illinois – are not likely to achieve high levels of mercury

removal from co-benefits alone. Some of the bituminous coal fired boilers may not achieve

adequately low mercury emissions by co-benefits alone. Therefore, these plants may need

additional controls to achieve the levels of mercury removal that are being required in the

proposed rule.

Although many mercury control methods are under development, sorbent injection is clearly the

most developed. It is the only approach that has been tested on several coal-fired boilers firing a

wide range of fuels. Power companies have entered contracts for commercial systems, some

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

with statutory requirements to achieve 90% or more mercury removal. Moreover, injection of

sorbent, particularly Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC), has been used for mercury control on

hundreds of municipal waste combustors in the United States and in Europe for several years.

The equipment is fairly simple, relatively easy to install, relatively inexpensive in capital cost,

and it is well understood. The sorbent, PAC, is widely available from several suppliers.

There are three ways that the sorbent can be admitted to the gas stream:

•

Normal sorbent injection – upstream of the existing ESP or fabric filter and the most

inexpensive approach. Typical capital cost is around $2/KW

•

TOXECON – An acronym for TOXic Emission CONtrol device. This entails retrofitting

a fabric filter downstream of the existing ESP and injecting the sorbent into the gas

stream between the ESP and the fabric filter with the fabric filter capturing the sorbent.

This approach has been shown to work very effectively to provide over 90% removal for

any fuel. It also keeps captured fly ash segregated from captured sorbent, an advantage

for plants that market their fly ash. However, this is a more costly approach, with higher

capital cost than normal sorbent injection.

•

TOXECON-II. This is a newer approach that entails injecting the sorbent between fields

of the ESP. Upstream ESP fields capture most of the fly ash and downstream ESP fields

capture the sorbent and a small amount of fly ash. This approach can have advantages

for power plants that sell their fly ash.

Sorbent injection technology for mercury control from coal-fired boilers has been a very active

area of research because the low capital cost of the technology and ease of retrofit make it an

attractive retrofit control method. The TSD lists over three dozen full scale field trials on

operating electric utility boilers that I am aware of – all but a few having been completed. These

tests have been on a wide range of coals and boiler configurations. Some tests have lasted only a

few days, some for over 30 days of continuous operation and at least one for over a year.

Virtually all of this testing has been in the last five years and most in the last 2-3 years. So, the

technology has advanced rapidly over the last few years and experience from just a few years

ago may be obsolete. This is especially true when considering the new sorbents that have been

developed specifically for use on coal-fired boilers.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

Although untreated PAC, as is used in municipal waste incinerators, has been tested and shown

to be effective in some coal-fired boiler applications, experience has shown that for most coal-

fired boiler applications PAC sorbents that are treated with halogens on the surface of the PAC

are much more effective. Unlike untreated PACs, which have a wide range of industrial

applications, halogenated PAC sorbents were specifically formulated to address the mercury

capture needs of coal-fired boilers. As a result, halogenated PAC sorbents are the current state-

of-the-art for most applications and few users would consider untreated PAC for high removal

rates except possibly where a fabric filter was installed.

Controlling Mercury from IL Units

It is my opinion that the coal-fired units in the state of Illinois are capable of meeting the

requirements of the proposed mercury control rule at a cost close to that described in the TSD.

Because of the different coal types and boiler configurations, not all units will use the same

approach. There is a risk that a small number of coal-fired units in Illinois may need a

Temporary Technology Based Standard (TTBS) until they bring their emissions reductions in

compliance with the emission reduction requirements of the rule. However, this would result in

a very small increase in the overall cost of the program over what is described in the TSD.

Most of the boilers in IL fire subbituminous coal. For subbituminous coals, such as Powder

River Basin (PRB) coals that are used widely in Illinois, halogenated PAC has been shown to be

very effective at several full-scale coal-fired boiler installations providing 90% or more removal.

At several sites injection of the halogenated PAC has shown that it provides over 90% mercury

removal at treatment rates of about 3 pounds of sorbent per million actual cubic feet of flue gas

(lb/MMacf) when injected upstream of a cold-side ESP. This testing includes at least two 30-day

continuous trials where 93% or more mercury removal was achieved over the period. This

treatment rate for 90% or more removal is equivalent to about 200 pounds per hour of sorbent on

a 300 MW plant at full load, or about $180/hour in sorbent cost with sorbent priced at about

$0.90/lb. When injected upstream of a fabric filter, as will be possible on a few Dynegy units

that, under consent decree, are required to retrofit fabric filters, the sorbent requirements are far

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

less and the mercury removal is even higher. For subbituminous coal, the results of the field

trials with halogenated PAC sorbent at various sites have been remarkably consistent from site to

site. The consistency of these results from site to site suggests high confidence in the

performance on other units firing similar fuels, such as many of the PRB fired units in Illinois.

There is a risk, however, that on some subbituminous-fired units the design of the existing

particulate control device may limit the injection rate of sorbent due to PM control issues or the

use of SO

flue gas conditioning may limit sorbent effectiveness – thereby limiting mercury

emissions reduction. But, this risk is likely to be small due to the very low halogenated sorbent

injection rates that have been shown to be necessary on PRB fuel fired boilers and because there

are alternative flue gas conditioning methods that may be used. Therefore, I would expect few,

if any units would use a TTBS until they could comply with the reduction requirements of the

rule.

For those bituminous coal units that are equipped with SCR and FGD, they are likely already

achieving close to 90% removal or the output based limit of 0.008 lb/GWhr. Those that are not

already at these levels of control are close enough that they can achieve the remainder through an

optimization method, such as scrubber optimization, or a scrubber chemical additive, which will

be a modest cost. Or, these units may use sorbent injection to achieve the very modest

incremental reduction needed. Most of the pulverized coal capacity firing bituminous coal that is

not equipped with SCR and FGD are firing low to medium sulfur coal. Dynegy’s Vermillion

plant will be equipped with a fabric filter in the future. With the fabric filter I expect Vermillion

will have very high cobenefit mercury removal – close to 90% - and can readily achieve over

90% removal with sorbent injection. There is also a bituminous unit at Marion that uses CFB

technology and a fabric filter. Most likely, this unit already achieves over 90% mercury

removal. But, it could easily add sorbent injection to achieve over 90% removal if necessary.

A small fraction of the unscrubbed bituminous capacity fires some high-sulfur coal. But, some

of these units (Hutsonville) are reported to be shifting to low-sulfur western coal as they deplete

their high-sulfur coal inventories. Full-scale tests have shown that halogenated sorbents can

achieve high removal rates on low to medium sulfur bituminous coal, albeit at somewhat higher

injection concentrations than for PRB fuels. Combined with some cobenefit removal, 90%

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

mercury removal with halogenated sorbent injection in the range of 6-7 lb/MMacf has been

shown on low-medium sulfur bituminous units. For the unscrubbed high-sulfur coal capacity,

less mercury removal is likely. However, the unscrubbed high-sulfur units are Meredosia boilers

1-4 and are small, low capacity-factor units that are co-located on a site with a much larger unit

that fires low-sulfur western coal. I expect that the much larger Merodosia #5 is capable of over

90% removal with halogenated activated carbon. It is possible that Meredosia boilers 1-5 may

be able to average under the provisions of the IL rule to achieve the facility-wide target emission

reduction. Alternatively, it may be possible for the smaller Meredosia boilers 1-4 to shift to the

same low-sulfur coal that is burned in #5, which I expect would address the concern. Or, these

units might reduce mercury with sorbent injection and use a TTBS until they can bring their

emissions within the control requirements of the rule.

There are two units in Illinois – Waukegan 7 and Will County 3 - that are equipped with hot-side

ESPs and have not announced plans to install fabric filters. Using a TOXECON system, these

units can readily achieve 90% or more mercury removal. TOXECON has been assumed for

these units in the cost estimate of the TSD. Although TOXECON is more costly than a normal

sorbent injection system, a TOXECON system offers advantages with regard to PM emissions

control, lower sorbent usage, and also segregates the fly ash from the collected sorbent.

Cost of the IL Rule Compared to US EPA’s CAMR

US EPA’s CAMR rule sets a 2010 allowance cap that requires IL plants to remove about 70% of

the mercury in the coal or purchase the equivalent number of mercury allowances. A stricter cap

is required in 2018. Because a mercury allowance market does not exist yet and prices are very

uncertain, relying on allowances for compliance with CAMR in 2010 is very risky. Moreover,

subbituminous units are among the least expensive units to control with sorbent injection. As a

result, I expect that most or all of the subbituminous units in IL will install sorbent injection

systems regardless of an IL mercury rule. Therefore, the cost of the IL rule over that of CAMR

during the period from 2010 to 2018 may be estimated as only the incremental cost from 70%

control to 90% control and is mainly the cost of additional sorbent. When comparing the cost of

complying with the proposed IL rule with the cost of complying with CAMR, I determined that

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

the state-wide incremental cost of the IL rule over CAMR was roughly $32-$37 million per year

spread across all of the Illinois units for the period 2010-2018. In the event that some units

comply through a TTBS until they can achieve the required mercury emission reductions, the

cost difference will be only slightly higher. There is, however, a small risk that some units will

be unable to comply with the rule as anticipated in the TSD due to the limitation on the allowable

MW that may use a TTBS. In this case, these units will require more costly controls. However,

I believe that the limitation on the amount of generating capacity that may use a TTBS is likely

to be sufficient to address the small number of units that may require extra time to comply.

Therefore, more costly controls are likely to be avoided.

In 2018 the CAMR allowance cap is such that it will require about 90% or more mercury

removal from the coal or purchase of an equivalent number of allowances. Therefore, in 2018

and thereafter the IL rule incurs little or no additional cost of compliance over CAMR.

Costs are Likely to Be Less in the Future

The state-of-the-art of mercury sorbent technology is improving. As discussed in the TSD, there

are several emerging sorbent technologies that may improve mercury capture performance

beyond what is possible with the currently available halogenated PACs and will thereby reduce

the cost of control while improving mercury capture efficiency. New activated carbon sorbent

formulations that are designed to address higher sulfur applications will be tested this year.

Mineral-based sorbents are also under development and these sorbents are designed to address

concerns about the impact of sorbent on marketable coal combustion products. These new

sorbents are designed to work with the same PAC injection systems that utilities would install for

compliance with the IL rule. So, investments in hardware will not be wasted if utilities switch to

newer, improved sorbents that will likely be available in the future. Therefore, it is likely that in

2009 and beyond the mercury removal technology performance will be greater than it is now and

the cost will be less than what I have estimated with today’s state-of-the-art.

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

COUNTY OF SANGAMON

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached

MOTION TO AMEND RULEMAKING PROPOSAL, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

INSTANTER AMENDED TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. STAUDT, Ph.D., and

AMENDED TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. STAUDT, Ph.D. upon the following person:

Dorothy Gunn

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601-3218

and mailing it by first-class mail from Springfield, Illinois, with sufficient postage affixed

to the following persons:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

__________________________

Gina Roccaforte

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

Dated: May 23, 2006

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006

SERVICE LIST 06-25

Marie Tipsord

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601-3218

James T. Harrington

David L. Rieser

McGuire Woods LLP

77 West Wacker, Suite 4100

Chicago, IL 60601

Bill S. Forcade

Jenner & Block LLP

One IBM Plaza

Chicago, IL 60611

William A. Murray

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel

Office of Public Utilities

800 East Monroe

Springfield, IL 62757

S. David Farris

Environmental, Health and Safety

Manager

Office of Public Utilities

City of Springfield

201 East Lake Shore Drive

Springfield, IL 62757

Faith E. Bugel

Howard A. Lerner

Meleah Geertsma

Environmental Law and Policy Center

35 East Wacker Drive

Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601

Keith I. Harley

Chicago Legal Clinic

205 West Monroe Street, 4th Floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Christopher W. Newcomb

Karaganis, White & Magel, Ltd.

414 North Orleans Street

Suite 810

Chicago, IL 60610

Katherine D. Hodge

N. LaDonna Driver

Hodge Dwyer Zeman

3150 Roland Avenue

Post Office Box 5776

Springfield, IL 62705-5776

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

Bruce Nilles

Attorney

Sierra Club

214 N. Henry Street, Suite 203

Madison, WI 53703

Katherine M. Rahill

Jenner & Block LLP

One IBM Plaza

Chicago, IL 60611

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, MAY 23, 2006