Microsoft Word - R06-25 081606 morning hearing transcript

504

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 16th, 2006

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM.

) R06-25

CODE 225 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS )

(Rulemaking-Air)

)

FROM LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES )

(MERCURY),

)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held

in the above-entitled cause before Hearing

Officer Marie E. Tipsord, called by the

Illinois Pollution Control Board, pursuant

to notice, taken before Cheryl L.

Sandecki, CSR, RPR, a notary public within

and for the County of Lake and State of

Illinois, at the James R. Thompson Center,

100 West Randolph, Assembly Hall, Chicago,

Illinois, on the 16th day of August, A.D.,

2006, commencing at 9:00 a.m.

505

A P P E A R A N C E S:

SCHIFF, HARDIN, LLP,

6600 Sears Tower

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 258-5646

BY: MS. KATHLEEN C. BASSI

MR. STEPHEN J. BONEBRAKE

MR. SHELDON A. ZABEL

Appeared on behalf of the Dynegy

and Midwest Generation;

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

BY: MR. JOHN J. KIM

MR. CHARLES E. MATOESIAN

- AND -

AYRES LAW GROUP

1615 L Street, N.W.

Suite 1350

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 452-9200

BY: MR. RICHARD E. AYRES

Appeared on behalf of the IEPA;

506

A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued)

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROGRAM,

CHICAGO LEGAL CLINIC

205 West Monroe Street

Fourth Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 726-2938

BY: MR. KEITH I. HARLEY

SORBENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

1664 East Highland Road

Twinsburg, Ohio 44087

(330) 425-2354

BY: MR. SID NELSON JR.

McGUIRE, WOODS

77 West Wacker Drive

Suite 4100

Chicago, Illinois 60601-1815

(312) 849-8100

BY: JEREMY R. HOJNICKI

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD:

Ms. Marie Tipsord, Hearing Officer

Ms. Andrea S. Moore, Board Member

Mr. G. Tanner Girard, Acting Chairman

Mr. Anand Rao, Senior Environmental

Scientist

Mr. Nicholas J. Melas, Board Member

Mr. Thomas Fox, Board Member

Mr. Thomas Johnson, Board Member

507

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Good

morning. My name is Marie Tipsord. And

seeing that it is the usual suspects

today, I am not going to go through the

whole spiel today.

This is our third day in our second

set of hearings. We currently have before

us testifying J.E. Cichanowicz.

The remaining witnesses in the order

of appearance are Ishwar Prasad Murarka,

William DePriest, James Marchetti, Krish

Vijayaraghavan, Gail Charnley, Peter

Chapman, Richard McRanie, C.J. Saladino

and Andy Yaros.

With that, I would remind you,

Mr. Cichanowicz, you are under oath and

you will proceed. I believe we are on

question 14.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Thank you. On

page 4 you state "further, table 5-1 and

section 5.6 summarizes the significant ESP

modifications, in some cases complete ESP

replacements, implemented to six of the

most frequently cited demonstrations."

508

Question A, have you made a

comprehensive evaluation of the ESP

activities of all of the test programs

cited in the Illinois EPA TSD? No.

B, if not, why? Lack of time and

access to information on the sites.

C, what is unique about these six

facilities? These facilities are among

the most frequently cited, at least

according to my observation, or represent

early applications and should be as they

have provided encouraging results.

Question 15, you further state on

page 4, the fourth paragraph, that there

are a confluence of events that must occur

for IEPA regulation to be attainable. If

ACI within small ESPs in Illinois were

able to sustain carbon injection and

provide mercury removal on a long-term

basis sufficient to meet the requirements,

why would the other things have to happen

as well? If this were true, wouldn't the

other issues be limited to the two

hot-side units and, therefore, be much

509

less of a concern?

If small ESPs in Illinois are able

to sustain carbon injection and provide

mercury removal on a long-term basis. And

if is the key word, the importance of the

other issues will be significantly

diminished.

16, you further state on page 4 that

your expected costs are $1.77 billion. Is

it true that most of the differences in

your expected costs versus Illinois'

estimated costs is attributable to

differences in opinion regarding the

performance and reliability of sorbent

injection to provide mercury reductions

when injected upstream of an ESP?

Yes, in that a greater number of

TOXECON applications are required.

MR. AYRES: Mr. Cichanowicz, welcome

back, I guess.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Good morning.

Nice to see you again, Mr. Ayers.

MR. AYERS: Good morning. I want to

follow up on that question with a couple

510

of additional ones. In light of the large

difference in cost to the 1.77 and the

figure cited by witnesses for the State,

wouldn't it be a good idea to perform

tests of sorbent injection on the power

plants of interest in order to determine

whether fabric filters will be needed?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, I am not

sure what you mean. But we have -- we

have stated that basically the more number

of demonstration-type tests that are

available, the more data we have and the

more confidence with which we can make

such judgments.

MR. AYRES: Well, in particular in

Illinois, we are talking about a very

large difference in the estimated cost.

Wouldn't it be useful to have some test

done in the plants in Illinois that you

are concerned about?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. AYERS: Do you know if there are

any power plants in Illinois that you have

testified on behalf of that have conducted

511

such tests?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I believe there is

work going on at Will County either in

progress or being planned.

MR. AYRES: Could you provide the

data from those tests to the Board?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I don't have

access to that data. Let me make it clear

that the data that I have used is that

which is available basically in the public

domain pretty much as released by the

Department of Energy through its website

or as we have used in conferences. And we

will follow up that in detail in a few

more minutes.

But the point is that I have pretty

much used the data that was available

either going to a conference or public.

My last discussions with the people

involved with Will County were such that,

you know, they weren't in a position to

release any data because everything --

there was a lot of preliminary work going

on. But it was just that, preliminary.

512

MR. AYRES: Would the Board like to

ask for that data from the company?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And which

company?

MR. ZABEL: Will County belongs to

Midwest Gen. I have to see if there is

even any data available. To my knowledge,

the tests are just starting.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Will you

check with that, please? Mr. Nelson,

before we move on, are you able to hear

Mr. Cichanowicz out there okay? Because

sometimes I am losing a little bit.

Mr. Nelson, please identify yourself

for the court reporter.

MR. NELSON: I am Sid Nelson with a

company called Sorbent Technologies. Will

County is planned for the spring. The

Crawford Station is the one that is

ongoing right now. It is the Crawford

data which you will want to see.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Is that a

question?

MR. NELSON: I am sorry, the

513

question is I am not -- are you aware of

the Crawford trial that is ongoing?

MR. ZABEL: We will stipulate to

Mr. Nelson's answer to his own question.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.

Thank you.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I want to thank

Mr. Nelson for correcting me. Crawford

was what I meant to say, and it came out

Will County. That is going to happen a

lot.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you

very much. I believe we are ready to

continue.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: 17, on page 4 of

your testimony, you refer to figure 5-2 of

your testimony as evidence that ESP size

has an impact on mercury capture from ACI.

Please provide for each of the data points

on 5-2 the following: A, name of

facility; B, sorbent type, open

parenthesis, Darco-LH, B-PAC, Darco-HG,

HOK, et cetera, close parenthesis; sorbent

injection rate in pounds per million ACF

514

associated with that test point displayed;

D, intrinsic mercury removal versus

mercury removal with the sorbent; e, fuel

type, PRB, bituminous, Lignite, if a

blend, indicate percentages; F, sulfur

content of the fuel in pounds per million

BTU, open parenthesis, SO3, if measured,

close parenthesis; G, carbon content of

the fly ash; H, ESP temperature; I, air

preheater type, open parenthesis,

lungstrom or tubular. And at this point

we would like to introduce that table.

MR. ZABEL: Could I have

Mr. Cichanowicz describe briefly what this

table is and then -- well, mark it as an

exhibit first.

MR. AYRES: Prior to that

Madam Chairman, this question has been out

there now for sometime. We asked for the

data so that we have time to see what it

said. Now, we are receiving it when we

don't have time to review it. So I think

that at a minimum we have to be able to

come back at this point later on after we

515

can see what they told us.

MR. ZABEL: That has been the

pattern of the hearings throughout this

proceeding. In June I believe the Agency

was copying things during breaks and

giving them to us. I don't recall the

question asked for it in advance. And we

only had a week to prepare answers, in any

event, to the questions, which was much

less time than the agency had for the June

hearings.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I will state for

the record since I received the questions

Monday night, I have done virtually

nothing from Tuesday morning through

Sunday night at 7:30 preparing and I am

happy to do so. But I put every effort I

could into getting the table out as

quickly as I could. And the exhibit is my

best effort as it stands.

I am happy to follow up, if need be.

But this is as it stands at this point.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And I will

allow follow up after you have had a

516

chance to review it.

We have not marked it as an exhibit.

The discussion is over "Figure 5-2, Update

Specifics and Source of Data." We will

mark this as Exhibit 85. Hearing no

objection, seeing none, it is Exhibit 85.

MR. ZABEL: Can you just briefly

describe, Mr. Cichanowicz, what the

exhibit is as it responds to question 17?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: The exhibit is a

detailed delineation of the data that

characterizes each point. I fulfilled all

but a couple or three of the items to

provide more detail on the source of the

data.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let me

note for the record we will let you look

at this perhaps after breaking at lunch

and we can come back to that.

MR. ZABEL: I suspect we will not be

done with Mr. Cichanowicz by lunch.

MR. AYRES: And we are not done with

that table either.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We will go

517

back to that after lunch. But in the

meantime, let's go ahead with question 18.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Question 18, so

that it is easy to follow, please provide

the figure with an assigned number for

each data point. Please also provide a

table containing this information for each

data point.

MR. ZABEL: We thought it might be

easier as Mr. Cichanowicz describes what

he did in response to this question to be

able to look at it on a large blow-up.

But we have given -- I would like marked

as exhibits the smaller version of that.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excellent.

So we will mark "Original Figure 5-2" at

the bottom, it is ESP SCA ft2/kacfm. And

we will mark this as Exhibit 86 if there

is no objection? Seeing none, it is

Exhibit 86. And I will note for the

record that this Exhibit 86 is identical

to an oversized chart that Mr. Cichanowicz

is using. And, therefore, we will not

mark the oversized exhibit.

518

MR. ZABEL: That was our hope. We

didn't think you wanted to put that into

your record.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I would like the

opportunity -- I would like the

opportunity to explain figure 5-2. First,

the question, why did I do this. I was

with most of you in Springfield, and you

were -- you endured a lot of data, very

well presented by Dr. Staudt. But still,

after a week or two of a lot of data, I

would imagine that -- I tried to take a

page from the book a picture is worth a

thousand words where I tried to take some

of the key data points and depict them in

a chart or a graph in somewhat of an

anecdotal relationship, just to get a

different view, say a 30,000-foot view of

the data.

Whenever you do that, you gain some

perspective from 30,000 feet, but you lose

some resolution. I think we will be

talking a little bit about how we lost

some resolution, but I think there is a

519

value to doing this.

Second of all is that I didn't

invent this depiction here now just for

mercury. In my decades of experience, it

is quite common to plot the result of a

field test as a function of something

about the power plant that is related to

its size. In the late '70s when low NOx

burners were first evolving, we used to

plot the NOx emissions as a function of

something called the boiler heat release

rate. It was an imperfect comparison.

But as we were getting our arms around the

technology, it was good to see how the

units performed as you changed the area

available for heat release. That was very

helpful in getting people started with low

NOx burners.

Fifteen years ago, I published a

couple papers with regard to selective

catalytic reduction NOx control where we

plotted the performance against something

called space velocity, which is the volume

of catalyst normalized by the flow rate.

520

The details aren't important, but the

issue is. Again with full-scale

commercial equipment, this can be a very

insightful tool. It doesn't tell you

everything, but it gives you an idea about

the performance of equipment as the size

of the thing that you are looking at

changes. When I say size of the thing, I

mean relative to the size of the gas

volume being treated.

So I didn't just invent this now.

This is in my book, having done this for a

while, a fairly common technique to try to

just get your arms around the data and

sort of get a global overview of what it

looks like.

So what the chart shows is on the

vertical axis the mercury removal

efficiency. And there is a lot of

definitions of this and you have to be

careful. But I tried my best to make them

all comparable. The horizontal axis is

the term called ESP specific collecting

area. It is the relative size of the ESP

521

to refresh your memory. It is the amount

of plate area that you pay for that will

collect particles per gas flow that goes

through it. It's not the only thing we

worry about with ESPs. But it is an

important key design.

What I did was I took the data

available as of the second or third week

of June -- I forgot where the end point

was -- and essentially took that and

plotted it as the best I could. I tried

to pick comparable conditions. In most

cases I picked the maximum mercury removal

that I could find and I plotted that as a

function of the SCA for the different test

programs that are available.

What it shows is on -- and I made it

very clear a couple of times in my

testimony that this is not an

apples-and-apples comparison. With

full-scale power plants you can't do that.

There is always other things changing.

Again, this is not an

apples-to-apples comparison. There are

522

always other things changing, so you have

to be careful. And some data points will

have a less weight of evidence I believe

is the word we use than others. And we

can, essentially, assign a less weight of

evidence. But we have to look at them

first.

So what I have done here is plot the

data. And what you are seeing is a

flashing line for a number of data points

that are around 90 percent removal from

some of the larger ESPs.

The blue circles that are indicated,

if you can see those, those were my

understanding of what was a 30-day

demonstration or performance test. I

tried to delineate those. The other

points are, essentially, the maximum or

near maximum removals for short-term tests

whose duration might have been just a

couple or three hours.

So what you see is a locus of points

that are around 90 percent, some of them

certainly above it for large size

523

precipitators. As you move to the left,

essentially, you see the points are at

lower mercury removal and they all have

numbers assigned to them.

And you have to look at each one of

these points. And, indeed, they are all

different. For example, I think point

No. 12 is something called a TOXECON

application, which is not really the same

as a small ESP. And to some degree you

would expect mercury removal to lower and

it's lower a lignite fuel. But the point

is it is a starting point for the

discussion of the performance of the

system.

So this is, essentially, the first

depiction that I have put together to give

an idea about how the data lays out. And

when I looked at this, what struck me was,

number one, a lot of the 90 percent and

95 percent removals, again under the

limitation that they are short-term and

30 days, a lot of them are for large

electrostatic precipitators. And there

524

are certainly no points in that area for

the smaller ones that we think would be

more characteristic of the existing units

at Illinois.

I'm not saying those points won't be

there in a year. But at this point they

are not there now. So this is the first

look at this.

MR. ZABEL: Do you want the next

one?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Ayres?

MR. AYERS: I am sorry, are you

finished with that chart?

MR. ZABEL: Yes, we are going to

another one.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Do you

have some specific questions?

MR. AYRES: Yes, I do have a

follow-up question on that.

Mr. Cichanowicz, would you say that most

of the plants to the right of your 400

line there are burning power river basin

or other low sulfur coal?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: No. Most of them

525

are burning a low sulfur coal or a

lignite. There is one or two power river

basin points on there. And I actually --

MR. AYRES: But they are burning low

sulfur coals on the whole?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: For example --

MR. AYRES: I mean the ones to the

right-hand side, the ones with the high

removals?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: The ones with the

high removals I think are mostly PRB

coals. We can go over each point. And

that's -- that's why.

MR. AYRES: We want -- I think we

want to come back to it, but I want to

make one point here. Are the ones to the

left of that line mostly bituminous coals,

the ones that are showing lower

reductions?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: It's a mixture.

There is one, maybe two PRB coals on here

now. And the rest are a mixture.

MR. AYRES: So for the most part,

the ones to the left of the line are

526

higher sulfur bituminous; the ones to the

right are lower sulfur coals, not

necessarily PRB, but lower sulfur?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Repeat that,

please.

MR. AYRES: So it would be generally

accurate to say that the units that are to

the left of your 400 line are mostly units

that are burning bituminous -- higher

sulfur bituminous coal and the ones to the

right of your 400 line are mostly units

that are burning lower sulfur and/or power

river, which is low sulfur?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Generally, that is

a correct statement. Yes.

MR. AYRES: So is it possible then

that the differences that seek to be

applied here could simply be an artifact

of the fact that engineers design ESPs for

low sulfur coals to be considerably larger

than they do for higher sulfur coals?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: That is a

possibility, yes.

MR. AYERS: Okay. Thank you.

527

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Nelson,

do you have a question?

MR. NELSON: Sid Nelson again. I am

more concerned with the top and bottom.

Of those that are above 90 percent or

above, say, 87 percent, No. 3, Meramac;

No. 10, Dave Johnson; No. 11, St. Clair;

No. 13, Stanton 1, all those that are

90 percent or above, those are all PRB

coals, are they not?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. NELSON: And the ones below the

90 percent, those are the ones that

Illinois has very little bituminous coals,

right? Those are the bituminous coal

plants or lignite, a lot of these are

lignite?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Correct.

MR. NELSON: And in Illinois, is

there any lignite burning in Illinois?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Not that I know

of.

MR. NELSON: With respect to the

majority of the plants in Illinois, those

528

are the ones above 90 percent?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Generally, the

removals that are at 90 percent and above

are PRB coals. And that is the

predominant fuel fired in Illinois.

MR. NELSON: There is one you don't

have a big circle on here called Stanton

1. You have I guess an X there that says

high baseline. Is that X -- was there a

high baseline at Stanton 1?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: No. Mr. Nelson,

would you let me finish? I am saying I am

going to answer your questions if I can

get through another series of exhibits.

And I would be happy to -- a lot of your

questions will be answered in the next

chart.

MR. NELSON: Okay. Thank you.

MR. AYRES: Madam chairman, I have

one more question.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead,

Mr. Ayers.

MR. AYRES: Mr. Cichanowicz, the

X axis of this table is plotted in log

529

scale. The 400 looks like it is way over

towards a 1,000.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: That is correct.

And I am sorry I was remiss in not

pointing that out in the beginning.

MR. AYRES: And if you plotted it in

a normal scale, non-log scale, wouldn't

that move many of the points on the

left-hand side of 400 quite a bit to the

left?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: No. The numbers

are the numbers, Mr. Ayers. They aren't

going to change.

MR. AYRES: But the position would

change, the representation would change

and it might give quite a different

impression.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Actually, I had it

both ways. And in my opinion it didn't

give an impression.

I used this because the logarithm

method is to -- Dr. Staudt did a good job

explaining this in Springfield. But

engineers, you know, we are basically

530

lazy. And when we have a bunch of data

that we don't know what to do with it, if

you can crush it into a straight line, it

is a lot easier to think about.

Mr. Nelson uses logarithmic plots in

comparing his sorbent to other sorbents.

And I think it is a fairly common

technique. I used it here to compress the

data a little bit.

MR. AYRES: I thought you were going

to say you had log paper that day. I have

heard that from engineers.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: In today's world

with Excel spreadsheets, that should not

be an acceptable answer.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I have

been handed figure 5-2 with changes. And

again Mr. Cichanowicz will be using an

oversized exhibit for purposes of the

hearing. But it is identical to what I

have been handed. And, therefore, we

won't admit the oversized exhibit into the

record. If there is no objection --

MR. ZABEL: Do you want to do this

531

one?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: We don't need to

do the second one.

MR. ZABEL: You can discard the one

I handed out. To expedite, we will go to

the next one.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We can

keep it as an exhibit. Do you want to

withdraw it completely?

MR. ZABEL: Yes. You are not going

to refer to it, are you, Ed?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: No.

MR. ZABEL: Let's not even mark it

as an exhibit.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I have

been handed figure 5-2 and additional

data. It is again identical to the

oversize exhibit which Mr. Cichanowicz

will be using for purposes of the hearing,

so we won't admit the oversized exhibit.

And if there is no objection, I will mark

this as Exhibit 87. Seeing none, it is

Exhibit 87.

MR. ZABEL: Thank you, Madam Hearing

532

Officer. Mr. Cichanowicz, would you

describe what this is?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: This chart is a

little bit different -- the first one was

exactly as my testimony and it is still a

valid point. There's a couple of

differences. And I am sorry to confuse

you.

But, basically, the first thing is I

took off a couple data points because upon

questioning from IEPA, I did understand I

misread one slide for Monroe. So I took

that data point off and I replaced it with

another one. But it is right here. We

can discuss it here. I was trying to work

through it step by step.

The second thing I did was I went

back and I looked again and put every

possible piece of data that I could get

from a demonstration test that had been

cleared by the Department of Energy.

Now, at this point, before I go into

this, I would like to divert a little bit.

There was a question asked in Springfield

533

by Dr. Girard about the references. And

the more I thought about it, the more

significant it became. And as I have

chased down a lot of detail in the last

couple of months, I did want to bring it

up. And that has to do with references in

reporting.

The world of mercury removal right

now is chaotic. And I mean that in a good

sense. There's a lot of stuff going on.

There is at least count six or seven

conferences a year that are either devoted

to mercury or have had major sessions at

them. You can make a career out of going

to them, some people do. And there is, I

don't want to say, a breakdown. But the

reporting can be somewhat dysfunctional in

that you find a lot of early data gets

introduced into the conferences. And then

it takes a long time for the detailed

reports to be issued by the Department of

Energy after they have been thoroughly

thought through and all the -- all the

elements of the data can be put together.

534

And so there is somewhat of a

disconnect between some of the data that

you see in the conferences and the

quarterly reports. If nothing else, it

takes a lot more time for them to come

out.

So what I did in this particular

handout was I referenced all the reports

that have been published and that have

been approved by the Department of Energy.

And there was one or two where I simply

couldn't just find the reports. I'm not

saying they weren't out, but I just

couldn't find them.

Well, having had a chance to look

again and see, you know, since I prepared

this first version in the middle of June,

a number of additional data points have

been out. And this answers one of

Mr. Nelson's questions I think.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,

Mr. Cichanowicz. Just for clarification,

the key on what is Exhibit 86 is also the

key for Exhibit 87, I am assuming? For

535

example, you have entry of carbon sorbent

is the sort

of --

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, I took those

off just to clean it up. Because there is

two sets of data points. The purply

looking boxes are the original data. The

dark boxes are the new ones that have been

added.

And as you can see, there is --

there are some additions. Most

significantly at the top and above

90 percent is a word -- this is a

particular sorbent from Alstom. And this

is not on the website as of the middle of

June, but it is there now. So it is

90 percent.

And No. 15 is Yates No. 6, which was

not available to me at the time or I

wasn't aware that they had done that test

under those conditions.

And then the only other changes we

are addressing are IEPA's question on

Monroe. But I included a 30-day test from

536

Monroe, which is point No. 17.

And also it is less relevant. But I

want to say just because I want to have

everything on the chart. Point 18 is the

Conesville, which actually is much less

than 50 percent, but it is not really all

that relevant as it is in the high sulfur

bituminous coal. But I wanted to have

everything on the chart.

MR. ZABEL: I believe it is 16.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I don't

see an 18.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: 16, thank you.

MR. AYRES: May I interrupt, I'm

sorry?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes.

MR. AYRES: Do we have or do you

have a chart similar to the one you gave

us earlier for this earlier exhibit which

indicates the names and the information

for each of those plants as well so we can

see what's in this table?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: It's coming next.

Keep reading. It is in the chart. They

537

are numbered sequentially. What I did was

I tried to keep the same number for the

same unit. So Meramac is unit two. I am

not sure why it was unit two, but it was.

So I retained that number. And you will

see the long-term testing for Meramac on

that page.

MR. AYRES: So there are a couple of

new ones, but they are 15 and 16? Or are

there additional new ones, new units, not

tests?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Point 16 is new,

yes.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: So for

point of clarification, the numbers on the

figure 5-2, which are Exhibits 86 and 87,

correspond to the numbers in Exhibit 85,

correct?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Correct. Thank

you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I just

wanted to clear that up for the record.

Thank you.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: So again I think

538

the conclusion -- or again I look at this

and I say, you know, we are evolving.

There is a lot of demonstration work going

on. But I look at the point of 300 SCA,

which according to the information I have

from the energy information agency and any

updates that I have done, 80 percent of

the existing ESPs in Illinois are of a

size such that they are less than 300 SCA.

And there is not at this point a locus of

data points, and particularly of interest

of PRB whole that are at the 90 percent or

above the 90 percent line. There might be

in the future, but at this point there is

not.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.

Mr. Nelson?

MR. NELSON: Again, Sid Nelson. Are

you aware of the early data on the

Crawford Station here in Chicago?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Okay. I would

like to revoke my discussion where I

referenced Dr. Girard and my comment to

Dr. Girard. There seems to be different

539

levels of -- I don't know what the word is

-- criteria in lending data out. And I'm

finding that informal reports from field

tests related to the results in a

technical paper related to what comes out

in a quarterly report, sometimes it is not

always the same. Maybe the numbers are

the same, but it turns out there is

qualifications.

So having that as a background, my

answer to you is I am not aware of the

data because I would rather have people

think about it and make sure they

understand the implications before, you

know, we jump to any conclusions.

MR. NELSON: Okay. Are you aware of

the early data that DOE has approved for

release of the Crawford Station?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I am not aware of

early data that DOE has approved for

release.

MR. NELSON: What is the SCA of the

Crawford of the ESPs here in Chicago?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I might have that

540

on a chart that is coming up in a little

while. But I can't pull it off the top of

my head.

MR. NELSON: Do you think it might

be an SCA of 118 square feet per 1,000

ACF?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: We will find that

in a few minutes, Mr. Nelson.

MR. NELSON: If it was 118, would

that make it the smallest or along with

Fisk at 115, one of the two smallest ESPs

in Illinois?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Or perhaps the

United States of America, yes.

MR. NELSON: Where would 118 be on

your graph there?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Pretty close to

the number 100 that is all the way over

the right.

MR. NELSON: All the way to the

right.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: All the way to the

left.

MR. NELSON: For my questioning I

541

would like to enter as an exhibit for the

Board the early data from Crawford at 118,

if I may. I will ask you questions on

this and you can respond later.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Do you

have a couple more copies? Make sure they

get one too.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I do want to make

note that I am used to having the DOE

reports released with the project manager.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If there

is no objection, we will mark this for

purposes of the record Exhibit 88. It is

"Mercury Removal at Midwest Generation's

Crawford Unit 7 in Chicago." Seeing none,

it is Exhibit 88.

MR. NELSON: Now, I realize you are

going to have to look through this. But

to quickly walk you through, could you

describe how short-term parametric tests

are conducted in these DOE trials?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: You are asking me

to describe what?

MR. NELSON: How a short-term

542

parametric test -- these DOE tests usually

-- do they usually have a baseline period

first where they simply are not injecting

sorbent but they look at the background

mercury performance of the unit?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes. In any field

test program, no matter what you measure,

you need to make sure you characterize the

baseline first.

MR. NELSON: Before they do a

long-term continuous 30-day test, is it

usually the procedure in these DOE tests

that they do for a couple weeks parametric

tests where they test a couple different

sorbents at a couple different injection

rates, for example, to determine what

injection rate sorbent to use in the

continuous 30-day tests?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: 30-day tests are

usually preceded by a sorbent parametric

test, that's correct.

MR. NELSON: In looking at the first

page here where it looks like this is time

and hours on the X axis and then the

543

mercury level from the continuous emission

monitors or the method 322 analyses on the

Y axis -- I realize you haven't seen this

before. But if -- could you walk the

Board through what I describe might

explain if these are the two CEMS plots.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: For

purposes of the record that is CEMS,

correct?

MR. NELSON: Yes, CEMS.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And it

stands for?

MR. NELSON: Continuous emission

module, mercury continuous emission

module.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes,

Mr. Bonebrake?

MR. BONEBRAKE: Madam Hearing

Officer, there hasn't been any foundation

laid for this document. And it would

perhaps at least be helpful for Mr. Nelson

to describe what this document purports to

be, where it came from, what the source of

the information is.

544

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I am going

to have you sworn in to do that.

(Witness duly sworn.)

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Then if

you could explain what this document is

and where you received it from.

MR. NELSON: These are plots of data

from the people running the mercury CEMS

at the Crawford Station. This is the one

with the very small ESP here in Chicago.

There was four days of parametric

testing prior to the beginning of the

30-day run, which will begin tomorrow at

the station, a continuous run.

And what this is is different

injection rates. For example, this first

day on August 5th, you can see that this

-- from 12:00 o'clock to 2:00 o'clock,

nothing had been injected up until this

point. And then the sorbent was turned on

at one pound per million ACF, which is a

very low level.

Now, the sorbent being used at

Crawford is called C-PAC. It is not the

545

standard bromine sorbent. This is a

concrete friendly bromine sorbent.

Similar to the fact that it has the added

advantage that the expectation is that

this fly ash will continue to be sold for

concrete use.

And as you can see, when the sorbent

was first turned on at that low level of

one pound, the mercury level immediately

dropped. Now, the difference between the

blue line and the pink line before that is

the difference in the outlet -- well, the

blue line is a continuous emission monitor

measuring mercury right before the

injection point. And then the pink is

after the ESP on the outlet.

So the plant already gets some

native removal on its own because of the

unburnt fly ash. If you calculate the

mercury based on the coal inlet and assume

a hundred percent of it goes through the

vapor phase by mass balance, that top blue

line is around 14 micrograms or 14,000

nanograms is basically output. All the

546

mercury went up the stack. That's the

concentration that you would expect.

The drop at one pound there -- and

it continues to drop for a while -- is the

difference that the sorbent has made. And

then when it is increased to, for example,

three pounds per million ACF, you see it

drops further because the more sorbent you

inject, the more mercury removal you get.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,

Mr. Nelson, is this information -- I see

at the top here it says preliminary

concrete friendly C-PAC data from DOE. Is

this the information you were referring to

earlier that has been approved for release

from the Department of Energy?

MR. NELSON: No. That is the

project number, the contract number for

DOE. This is just the early parametric

data. And I don't want to go into it in

too much detail. But the Board can look

at it.

There were only four days of data.

A good one --

547

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,

Mr. Nelson. I would prefer that you not

explain in detail what this is because you

are here to ask questions, not testify.

MR. NELSON: Sure.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I believe

the question was where did it come from.

Your answer was people performing the

test. Could you tell us who that is?

MR. NELSON: The people doing the

analysis -- the actual measurements is

Western Kentucky University. The analysis

of putting this graph together is myself

in taking their data and putting it in a

form to be presented here.

MR. ZABEL: I think you asked the

question, Madam Hearing Officer, has this

been released for public use by the

Department of Energy, Mr. Nelson?

MR. NELSON: Yes. I got their

approval to release the data that you see

here.

MR. ZABEL: You got personal

approval. Has it been released for public

548

dissemination other than to you?

MR. NELSON: It has been released

for public for this hearing, yes.

MR. ZABEL: Are you aware that

Midwest Generation has never seen this

data and it's their plant?

MR. NELSON: Midwest Generation has

seen this data, of course.

MR. ZABEL: I can call a Midwest

Generation witness to say they haven't

seen it, Mr. Nelson, if you want me to.

MR. NELSON: You can. I would be

surprised -- Ken Wanninger is the Midwest

Generation project manager, and he has

seen this data.

MR. ZABEL: Has he seen the data

points or this presentation ever?

MR. NELSON: He has seen this

presentation of it.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Just to clarify,

Mr. Nelson, you did talk to Lynn Brickett

about this?

MR. NELSON: Yes.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: And so she is

549

comfortable with you presenting this

today?

MR. NELSON: Yes. I don't want to

spend too much time on it. But this is

the first small ESP that has been tested.

I would like to -- if you look at the

third page, this is a different kind of

plot. There will be future questions

about opacity and issues of have we

increased particulate emissions with

adding this one or two percent of carbon

to the fly ash load. I know we will get

to this on Lee later.

But this is the early data from

Crawford, which has the small ESP. If I

may simply testify to what the axes are

and how to interpret the graph. On the --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Actually,

Mr. Nelson, I don't think I am comfortable

with that. I will tell you that you are

free to submit final comments on anything.

But I am not sure, given the obvious

concern with the counsel for Midwest

Generation, that we should have you

550

testifying -- I mean, obviously, we know

what the axes are and the document speaks

for itself. But if you have additional

questions?

MR. AYRES: This page 3 relates to

the opacity issue which comes up later in

our questioning as well. Wouldn't it be

more appropriate to talk about this in

that context?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We can

revisit that then. Mr. Bonebrake?

MR. BONEBRAKE: I would put an

objection on the record as well to

Mr. Nelson both testifying and asking

questions at the same time. At the very

least, that is creating a great deal of

confusion.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I

understand that. But I have to tell you

from personal experiences in a hearing, I

do my very, very best to make sure they

are questions and not testimony. But I

have been known to swear in most of the

audience. So I will do my very best. And

551

I appreciate your concern.

MR. AYRES: Can Mr. Nelson's

questions about this chart be answered?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes,

absolutely. I prefer he not continue to

explain what the material means but to ask

questions.

MR. NELSON: I will reserve my

questions on the opacity issue to when we

get to the opacity issue.

I will ask one more question,

though, on the second page of the bar

chart. Is it common to measure mercury in

multiple ways simultaneously so that you

make sure you get good numbers?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. NELSON: Are you familiar with

the method 324 appendix K, the method that

EPRI developed?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Generally.

MR. NELSON: Would you consider that

to be a good method of measuring mercury?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. NELSON: Is it proposed as an

552

acceptable method, in addition to CEMS in

the federal regulation?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I believe it is.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Ms. Bassi?

MS. BASSI: Can I ask a question of

the questioner?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Well,

considering that Mr. Bonebrake just asked

me not to let him testify --

MS. BASSI: I want to clarify his

question.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's

fine. Yes. I am teasing.

MS. BASSI: Did you say that this

method 324 is proposed somewhere; it is

not an adopted approved method?

MR. NELSON: No. Actually, a

version of 324 called appendix K, which is

slightly different, is an acceptable

method in the EPA utility mercury world.

My question to Mr. Cichanowicz, if

multiple method 324s show 90 percent

mercury removal from coal to stack, would

you say that there would be reasonable

553

legitimacy in those kind of numbers?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: There would be

reasonable legitimacy as to what they

address. That is the short-term data

without time to sort out balance and

planning max. But I don't doubt that

those, as long as the sampling had been

done properly, are reasonable.

MR. NELSON: Will you feel much more

comfortable with the data after there is a

30-day continuous test?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I would feel more

comfortable with the data after there is a

30-day continuous test. I will not feel

much more comfortable with a lot of this

data until there is tests approaching the

unit.

MR. NELSON: As long as this is on

the record, I have no further questions.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Great.

Mr. Harley, did you have something

additional?

MR. HARLEY: No.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: If there is any

554

doubt about what I said earlier about

mercury reporting being chaotic, I think

this shows it is. We are even preceding

the conferences now. I have forgotten

where I am.

MR. AYRES: You did say it was

rapidly evolving.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I didn't mean this

morning.

MR. AYRES: It is in real time now.

I think we were on question 19, unless you

were done.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I am done. What I

would like to do is look at something a

little bit different.

Again I plotted this out. And I

made it clear in my testimony this wasn't

a theory; it was just anecdotal. There

was perhaps something about large SCA ESPs

that make it amenable to high levels of

mercury removal. Perhaps maybe it didn't

go with the ESP SCA but something else

that went with it.

What I would like to do now is show

555

some images that might give us an idea of

how these different installations are.

MR. ZABEL: There is some overlap

with the questions, but this goes to the

SCA question. We thought it was

appropriate here. The answers to

questions overlap. Again we have smaller

versions for the record.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.

MR. ZABEL: I should point out there

was an issue raised concerning Homeland

Security regulations and certain kinds of

infrastructure facilities. These are all

taken from the publicly available

documents. Although Homeland Security

addresses even publicly available

documents, we don't think we are crossing

that line by introducing it.

Although, I have to say from a

lawyer's point of view, those regulations

are a little bit confusing.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I have

been handed an image that has at the top

right St. Clair 1 through 4 ORG, period,

556

SCA. And I will mark this as Exhibit 89,

if there is no objection. Seeing none, it

is Exhibit 89. And on the same vein this

is identical to the oversize one, we will

not admit the oversize into the record.

MR. ZABEL: Mr. Cichanowicz, can you

describe it?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, first, it is

almost scary what you can do at home with

a browser and a fast Internet connection.

What we have done is pulled down

some satellite images from Google of some

of these plants. And I am doing it just

again to give you a visual on the kinds of

things that we are talking about.

Mr. Ayers will probably ask me why

didn't I do all the units in Illinois.

The reality is I didn't think of this

until about a couple or three weeks ago.

And it took me that long to get this far.

If I thought about it two to three months

ago, you would have about a hundred images

on your desk. So it just didn't occur to

me a couple, three weeks ago.

557

What I am going to do is show a

number of images of some of the units that

have been rebuilt and then also images of

those many units in Illinois that have not

been rebuilt, one of them in Will County

and the unit that Mr. Nelson owns.

This is Detroit Edison St. Clair.

What you are looking at is a satellite

image looking down on the plant. To the

right is the lake. The red boxes are an

outline over the enlarged ESPs that were

retrofitted in the mid '80s.

MR. AYRES: Mr. Cichanowicz, can you

tell us which data point number St. Clair

is on your chart?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: It's listed as 11.

MR. AYRES: Thank you.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: So the red boxes

are the new outlines of the ESPs. And

their new SCAs are 700. And the yellow

boxes are the outlines of the old original

ESPs, and their SCAs are about 150.

Moving further to the left is a dark gray

rectangular box. You are looking down on

558

the top of the boiler building.

Gases leave the boiler in this

boiler building that I have just

identified and proceed to the right. They

used to go through -- the four units here,

they used to go through the little yellow

boxes and into the sack. If you look

closely, you can see some dark outlines of

what the sold stacks used to be directly

to the right of these yellow boxes. Those

stacks have been removed. The dark

outlines are just what's remaining.

The gas is -- with the yellow box

now gone, the gas goes to the red box.

And that is, essentially, the new ESP.

And I just want you to get an idea what

the new ESP size was compared to the old.

Because this was such a major

retrofit, the old stacks could not be

used. And if you look near the bottom,

just to the left of the legend down there,

you see a light stack with four orifices

coming out of the top. And the flue gas

proceeds from all of these units the left

559

to right into a common clean plenum and

proceeds down to the stack.

This modification from my

understanding was done to allow St. Clair

to fire PRB coal or a mixture of PRB coal.

And Bill Rogers, one of the leaders of the

environmental group, said they purposely

offered St. Clair for the demonstration

because they wanted it to succeed.

But I wanted to point out that this

is not a typical ESP installation. And

again this is Detroit Edison in St. Clair.

Now, I would like to show another

one.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I have

been handed Meramac 2. And if there is no

objection, we will admit this as

Exhibit 90. Mr. Nelson, do you have an

objection or a question?

MR. NELSON: Just a quick question.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay. Let

me finish with the exhibit and then you

can ask the question. Seeing no

objections, this one is marked as

560

Exhibit 90.

Mr. Nelson, go ahead and ask your

question.

MR. NELSON: Sid Nelson. Before we

move on to Meramac, at St. Clair during

the 30-day trial that got the 93 percent

mercury removal, how many of the six

fields of that 717 SCA were actually

injected?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: My understanding

is that one of the fields was

de-energized. And in reading the report

over the weekend, which I believe you

authored, the statement there was still

some particulate removal in the

de-energized field because the particles

retained a charge from the first field.

MR. NELSON: Did the report say that

actually two of the four fields were not

energized, the first and third, and though

the third was referenced because some

particles were energized in the second

field so that only two-thirds of that SCA

were effectively used?

561

MR. CICHANOWICZ: My recollection is

that it was one-third. But you authored

the report. So we can -- while I have St.

Clair back up, I do want to point out that

the sorbent was injected, according to my

understanding, at about the beginning of

this particular yellow box. And my whole

point on this is that in addition to just

a larger SCA, when people rebuild these

ESPs, you almost by definition have to

have some type of extended inlet ductwork.

It just goes with the territory. It is

sort of hard to build the enlarged box

without, in most cases, having some

additional ductwork to get it there. And

that will become evident too.

Next is Ameren, Meramac. In the

upper right-hand corner, the new SCA is

400. The original 150. If you look at

the red box, that is the outline a little

of the new ESP. As you move to the left,

you see the stack. And as you continue to

move to the left, you see the yellow box,

which is our best estimate after

562

discussions with Ameren about where the

original ESP was. And as you continue to

move to the left, you see the top of the

bar graphs.

The situation is the same. The flue

gas leaves the boiler house. It goes from

left to right. Initially, it went to the

yellow box for collection into these

series of stacks that are directly to the

right of the ESP. The new ESP was added

behind the stacks. And that, essentially,

required the inlet ductwork to go through

the remains or the new located old ESP all

the way out to the right and then it

dropped down and came back to the left of

the stacks.

So there was a very large extended

ductwork on here. I think the sorbent

injection was about in the middle of this

ductwork on the way because the gas was

proceeding to the left and right.

Again, I point this out as to

compare the new ESPs to the original ESPs

and the length of the ductwork that was

563

available prior to -- prior to moving to

the new ESP.

MR. AYRES: Looking at that -- just

a question of clarification. Looking at

the legend up to the right-hand side

there, is it correct to read that to say

the original SCA, the yellow outlined ESP,

was about 150 and the new one is 400 or

that the combination of the two, with the

addition of the new one, equals 400?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Meramac completely

removed the original SCA. Now, there is a

discrepancy -- I thought that was what you

were going to ask me. There is a

discrepancy in between the SCAs as

reported by the testing firm ADA and

Ameren. And these numbers I was given by

Mr. Steve Woodworth in Springfield. And

they are consistent with what's in the EIA

database. I don't know why the testing

firm used a different number.

MR. ZABEL: For the record

Mr. Woodworth I believe works for Ameren;

is that correct?

564

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: This says

Duke Power Allen 1. And if there is no

objection, this will be Exhibit 91.

Seeing none, it is Exhibit 91.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: This is Duke

Powers Allen Station Units 1 through 4.

Near the bottom of the chart are the four

stacks. Proceeding directly above them

are the rebuilt ESPs. And you can see all

the way to the left the red box is the

outline of the new ESP and the small

yellow box within it is the outline of the

old ESP.

In this case the owner chose not to

build behind the stack. And I don't know

why. They were able to fit a fairly large

ESP within the confines of the boiler

house building and the stack. And they

chose that as a method of upgrading the

ESPs. And this was done to enable them to

burn lower sulfur compliance coal.

The point is these ESPs were

operating and do not reflect the original

565

design of the Allen Station.

MR. AYRES: Do you recall,

Mr. Cichanowicz, what number on your -- on

this chart, Exhibit 87, this plant is

represented by?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I believe six. In

the chart that I gave out, the left-most

column should be the number in it that

corresponds.

MR. AYRES: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I must caution

you, this exhibit may make you dizzy.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: This is

Salem Harbor 1. And if there is no

objection, it will be Exhibit 92. Seeing

none, it is Exhibit 92.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: This might be the

power plant that is closest to

Dr. Staudt's house. In fact, there is a

boat in the water.

This is Salem Harbor, one of the

early demonstrations on low sulfur

bituminous coal. And again I point this

out just to give you an idea of the type

566

of modifications that equal the new to

upgraded ESP.

What we are seeing on the left is

the body of water. You can see the stack

horizontally across the top. Salem Harbor

has four units. The demonstration was

done on unit one, which is the top of the

building. You can see the ESPs with the

red boxes. The red box is the new ESP.

And if you -- it treats gas from one to

three units. And you can see the

ductwork. If you trace that back to the

yellow box, you can see where the old ESP

used to be and, essentially, the older

stacks. And the boiler house is directly

to the left of the yellow box.

Here gas leaves the boiler house,

used to go through the yellow box to the

stack. And now it diverts to almost a --

to the side of the plant where new ESPs

were installed. On the upper left-hand

corner, I am indicating that the new SCA

is about 474. The original runs about

150.

567

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I'm sorry,

Mr. Nelson?

MR. NELSON: Sid Nelson. At Salem

Harbor, did they get 90 percent mercury

removal without even injecting sorbent?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Salem Harbor is

somewhat of an aberration, in that they

did get very high removals. And one has

to wonder why the tests were done there.

I think it was just -- I don't know.

But Salem Harbor in a context of

everything else that we have been learning

I think has diminished significance. But

in my attempt to put every virtual data

point I could on a chart and my attempt to

connote to the Board the kinds of things

that people have done to upgrade ESPs, I

elected to keep Salem Harbor in the mix.

MR. NELSON: So it is relevant

because there may be Illinois plants get

very high removal as well.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: It is relevant

because these are the kinds of

modifications that people have made to

568

ESPs to improve ESP performance.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I have

Pleasant Prairie now before me. And if

there is no objection, I will mark this as

Exhibit No. 93. Seeing none, it is

Exhibit 93.

MR. AYRES: Sorry, but could you

tell us which data point represents

Pleasant Prairie.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Number 8.

MR. AYERS: Thank you.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Now, I show

Pleasant Prairie because there were no

modifications. It was the original

design. The unit was oversized because

they thought they were going to use a

hot-side ESP but changed their mind in the

mid '80s -- or early '80s.

But I want to point out a couple of

things. Number one, this plant being

located in a rural area is not nearly a

site constrained as some of the images we

are going to go to next. Even though it

has a large ESP, you can see the red boxes

569

in the middle. There is plenty of space

on the site.

This is a large plant, about 600

megawatts and in a rural area. You can

lay out plants differently than when you

are trying to do it in an urban area. I

have to confess, I also included this

because if you look above the yellow box,

there is a red crane. And the red crane

is there apparently because at the time

this image was taken, the owner was

retrofitting selective catalytic reduction

NOx control, which is --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Could you

point out the yellow box again?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I am sorry, did I

say yellow box? I should have said red

box. There is no yellow box because this

was an original design from scratch. I'm

sorry.

But the point is, directly above the

red box is a crane to install the

catalytic reduction NOx system. This was

apparently under construction at the time.

570

But I show this to contrast a series

we are going to go through next about

on-site constraints.

MR. AYRES: Madam Hearing Officer?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes.

MR. AYRES: I think we are prepared

to stipulate that when you change ESPs,

it's a big project. I'm not sure what the

relevance of these images are beyond that.

MR. ZABEL: The relevance goes to

the issue of site constraint, which is the

next thing he is going to address. And it

is the contrast with, for instance, the

one that you just saw, which was Pleasant

Prairie.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We will

give them a little more leeway.

MR. ZABEL: Besides which, you

wanted me to get to a hundred exhibits,

Mr. Ayres.

MR. AYRES: I like looking at these

pictures too; but I am not sure how it

really helps.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Waukegan.

571

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: This is

Waukegan 6, 7 and 8. If there is no

objection, we will mark this as

Exhibit 94. Seeing none, we will mark

this as Exhibit 94.

MR. HARLEY: Madam Hearing Officer,

a point of clarification on this exhibit

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,

Mr. Harley, please identify yourself for

the court reporter.

MR. HARLEY: Keith Harley, attorney

for Environment Illinois and Illinois

Public Industry Research Group. This

exhibit is Waukegan 6, 7 and 8. Could you

just clarify, is this the entire campus on

which the electric generating unit is

based or is this some portion of the

campus on which Waukegan 6, 7 and 8 are

operating?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I actually don't

know. I didn't pull the image down.

There could be other units to the left or

right. I don't know.

572

MR. HARLEY: There could be

additional land mass as well associated

with the total campus of the facility

besides what you depicted here?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: There could be.

MR. HARLEY: Thank you.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I will do a few

more images.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's

okay.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: This is Waukegan.

You can see it is Waukegan units 6, 7 and

8. You can see there is a waterway that

constrains the units.

Unit eight in the lower left-hand

corner, again you are looking down, the

yellow box is the ESP that looks like it

is 220 SCA. And that completely occupies

the space from the boiler out to the

stack. Unit 7 has an SCA of 386. And I

could only conclude that this unit had

already been upgraded because this is a

relatively large ESP for a unit of this

vintage. So you can see they filled out,

573

essentially, the land mass out to about

the stack.

And then units -- unit 6 here has

the best you can tell the usual feature of

having the ESP being located on the roof,

which will probably constrain any

particular modifications.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Nelson?

MR. NELSON: Question -- excuse me,

Sid Nelson. You say that having an ESP on

the roof is unusual. What is the basis --

given the many that are out there, what is

the basis for that conclusion?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: The many,

Mr. Nelson, I stopped counting the power

plants I visited at a hundred. And the

ones that have ESPs on the roof are a very

small fraction of that.

MR. NELSON: But they can be

constructed on a roof under site

constraint, can they not?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I am trying think

of the unit that -- yes, they can be and

they are. Vintage units have been -- the

574

only ones I have seen with ESPs on the

roof were built in the late '50s, early

'60s, mid of '60s.

MR. NELSON: Are you aware of any

ESPs that are built over highways, for

example?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I believe there is

one in your home state of Ohio.

MR. NELSON: And, finally, again,

what is the point of ESPs when we are

talking about mercury?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Because the point

of sorbent injection is to contact the

sorbent quickly, mix it well and provide

adequate residence time to pick up the

mercury removal that we think we need.

And I am trying to connote that there is

certainly some extreme differences in ESP

size and inlet ductwork that characterize

both the demonstration population as well

as the risk population in Illinois.

And it is very difficult to take

data from one set of conditions and apply

it to another. And, indeed, these small

575

ESPs with the site constrained layouts and

what I think are short inlet duct times

are the subject of this latter phase of

DOE funding that is actually demonstrated

in your technology.

MR. NELSON: Aren't all these

demonstrations concerned with injection

into ductwork in plenums? And if the vast

bulk of the particulate comes out in the

first field, who cares how big the ESP is?

Shouldn't you be showing photographs of

duct runs and plenums instead of these

boxes?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I believe I did in

the early photographs. I believe I

pointed you had the injection locations.

And, you know -- in -- Dr. Staudt about

three quarters of the way through his

testimony in Springfield cited Meramac and

having a long duct run. It is not a

secret.

So I am trying to contrast the

conditions for these things. Many are

demonstration units under the old ESPs

576

versus the new ones.

MR. MATOESIAN: What data point is

this?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: There is not a

data point. This is a mean for which

there is no data yet.

Because Mr. Nelson has joined us

today, we will put this in.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If there

is no objection, we will mark this as

Exhibit 95. It is Will County 1 through

4. Seeing none, we will mark this as

Exhibit 95. Mr. Harley?

MR. HARLEY: Madam Hearing Officer,

I would again ask is this, in fact, the

entire campus on which the Will County

facility is located or is this only a

portion of the campus on which the Will

County facility is located?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I don't know.

MR. AYRES: Did you say which data

point this was?

MR. HARLEY: Madam Hearing

Officer --

577

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Hold on.

Mr. Ayers has a question.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Again, this is a

unit that has yet to see sorbent. So it

is not a data point yet.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Now,

Mr. Harley?

MR. HARLEY: Madam Hearing Officer,

I would object in retrospect to the entry

of Exhibit 94 and 95 as depictions of Will

County 1 through 4 as well as depictions

of the Waukegan facilities. This expert

is testifying or is prepared to testify

that these are land constrained facilities

that may not have the same capacity as

similarly situated facilities elsewhere in

the country to do retrofits of

electrostatic precipitators.

But we don't know what the total

campus area is or what the actual layout

is of either of these facilities based on

these photographs.

Just for the record, your Honor, I

do object to the entry of these exhibits.

578

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I am going

to overrule your objection. Mr. Zabel,

you are welcome to respond.

MR. ZABEL: I have been told by

judges it is time to stop arguing when I

have been ruled in favor. I don't think I

need to, Madam Hearing Officer.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I am going

to overrule because I think you have

brought out by a lot of your questions

that these may not be the whole picture.

And I think that's sufficient for purposes

of the record.

MR. ZABEL: Then I will respond to

just one aspect. It is not merely land

constraint as the necessity of building

extensive ductwork to where you can put a

precipitator at a given site. There are

two issues, not just land constraint.

Mr. Harley has, I think, mischaracterized

the issue.

MR. HARLEY: Madam Hearing Officer,

in that case, then I would object to the

fact that there is nothing in these

579

photographs that have been presented that

provide an adequate level of detail so

that we know what existing ductwork is at

these facilities, the physical

characteristics of the ductwork,

opportunities to retrofit ductwork,

ductwork at these facilities by comparison

to the ones we have seen before. Again I

object.

MS. BASSI: Madam Hearing Officer?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Ms. Bassi,

I am not going to let you guys team up.

You can talk to Mr. Zabel and discuss it.

But he is responding to the objection. If

you have another point you want to make --

MS. BASSI: I have another point.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.

MS. BASSI: In the Board's record

there is that information in the control

configuration inspection report. And I

don't know what the exhibit number is.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That came

in as a post-hearing comment from the

Agency, I believe.

580

MS. BASSI: No. It was introduced

-- wasn't it introduced --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: It came in

as a post-hearing comment as part of the

confidential information. So it came in

the post-hearing comment and it is being

held confidential, parts of it, in the

clerk's office. Thank you, Mr. Bassi.

Given that, I am going to overrule

your objection. Mr. Harley, you are, of

course, free to raise this again or make

any additional comments. Thank you.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: The last one and

thank you for indulging me. This is Will

County. And again we see the four units.

At the bottom is water. Unit No. 4, again

the yellow boxes are the existing ESPs,

213 SCA. Above the box is the boiler

house. Below is the stack. Unit 3,

similarly, the yellow box has an SCA of

233. Above it is the boiler house and

below it is the stack. And you can see

there was limited space around this area.

Units 1 and 2 actually have

581

relatively large ESPs, 323 and 351, large

compared to units 3 and 4. And you can

see their location with the yellow box.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Ayers,

do you have a question?

MR. AYRES: Yes. Mr. Cichanowicz,

you have given us a number of exhibits

here, which I take from Mr. Zabel's

comments and not yours, are intended to

suggest that there are considerable

constraints on increasing the size of SCRs

at these pictured plants.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: SCAs you mean.

MR. AYRES: Yes, ESPs.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well. I think so.

But like anything else, you can -- I'm --

I asked the people at Detroit Edison what

they spent to upgrade St. Clair. And they

-- anybody who had been associated with

the project had retired or been laid off

and downsizing. And they didn't know.

They assured me it was a very high number.

They wouldn't give me a number.

My point is you can add an ESP if

582

you are indifferent to what the cost is.

You can always upgrade these facilities.

What Mr. Nelson was getting at was

some facilities in Ohio where they have

actually in a site constraint situation

with a major thoroughfare built ductwork

over the thoroughfare and, essentially,

have that built and the like on the other

side of the highway. That can be done.

MR. AYRES: In fact, isn't it pretty

commonly done when companies decide to

burn western coal as to when they have

previously burned eastern coal?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: In fact, that is

much of the motivation for the

modification I have shown. It can be

done.

But the point is you are making it a

different game then. It is not two or

three or $4 a kilowatt and it is probably

not even 35. It is probably a lot more.

MR. AYRES: Isn't it also true,

though, that if there is no need to

increase the SCA of the ESP in order to

583

control mercury, that these constraints

are really not an issue?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Unless the sorbent

reduces an opacity or particulate matter

in the removal, then you need to do

something. And there are some things you

can do without expanding SCA. But we

don't know to what extent they will --

they would work.

MR. AYRES: Well, we want to come

back to this issue later and sort of as it

flows in your testimony. So I will pass

on that at this point.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Dr. Girard?

MR. GIRARD: Mr. Cichanowicz, so

basically the issue here that you used all

these different exhibits to illustrate is

that site specific factors effect the cost

of mercury removal at each plant?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, sir. I

believe that's the case.

MR. GIRARD: Thank you.

MR. ZABEL: If I may follow up, the

early ones, Mr. Cichanowicz, were

584

indicative of the size of the

precipitators and some of the mercury

tests, were they not?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes. The

demonstration tests were conducted on the

ESPs that we described that were explained

as new SCA.

MR. AYRES: Point of clarification

to your earlier answer, your testimony

certainly related to a lot of site

specific factors. But again those are

relevant to the extent it is necessary to

make changes in existing ESPs in order to

achieve mercury limits, correct?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. AYERS: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Nelson?

MR. NELSON: If sorbent is injected

at five pounds per million ACF or three

pounds back at St. Clair and Meramac and

Stanton 1, how much increased material is

going to the ESP? How much more volume

material does the ESP have to collect

relative to the existing fly ash that

585

collects today day-to-day?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: What is the

relative amount of mass?

MR. NELSON: Yes. What is the

relative amount of mass that you are

adding to the load of existing ESP at an

injection rate of three to five pound per

million of cubic feet of gas?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, its a small

amount, but it is only half the issue.

MR. NELSON: Is the amount, in fact,

about one or two percent that you are

increasing the particulate load to the

ESP?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: It is a small

amount. But that is only half of the

issue.

MR. NELSON: So you are adding about

one to two percent on average per load.

If the ash content of the coal that they

burn day-to-day varies from six to seven

to eight to six to seven to eight percent

of the coal, the ash level in the coal, if

it varies, say, between six and eight over

586

the course of a day, how much difference

in particulate load and weight percent

does that -- does the particulate load

vary to the ESP?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, if your

point is that variations in ash content

are greater than sorbent, that's a true

statement. But that's only half the

story. The other half of the story --

MR. NELSON: Please answer my

question. If you --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me.

Time out.

MR. ZABEL: I am going to object

because he is testifying to facts in his

questions that are not of record.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: He did ask

a question and the question was answered.

And his answer was he has agreed with your

statement and has repeatedly stated it is

only half the problem.

Now, you can ask another question.

But please don't repeat the same question

because he has answered the question.

587

MR. NELSON: If the ash content in

the coal varies on a daily basis, say,

from six to eight percent, would the

amount of particulate going to the ESP

vary on the order of 15 percent plus or

minus over the course of the day?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Approximately,

yes.

MR. NELSON: And again the sorbent

at three to five pounds adds about one or

two percent of particulate load?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: He

answered that a couple times.

MR. ZABEL: May I follow up?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes.

MR. ZABEL: Describe the other half

of the issue.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Me?

MR. ZABEL: Yes, sir. I don't want

Mr. Nelson to do it. He is questioning

and not testifying.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: The other half of

the issue is the nature of carbon. Carbon

is in the particle size as you inject it

588

on the same order of fly ash, maybe a

little bigger, 20 microns, but close to 12

to 15.

But the key thing is -- well, there

are two key things. Number one, the

density is about one-fifth of ash. Number

two, its resistivity is a lot lower. And

the events that happen in an ESP are such

that the carbon can much easily penetrate

or escape the ESP than the ash.

I can go into a prolonged

description if you would like. But I

don't know if you would like me to.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.

I think you answered the question.

MR. ZABEL: I have a follow-up.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.

MR. ZABEL: In your experience,

Mr. Cichanowicz, dealing with testing of

mercury removal projects, have the

sources, the utilities been concerned with

the impact on opacity and particulate

emissions?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

589

MR. ZABEL: Has the Department of

Energy been concerned?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. ZABEL: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: You know

what, we are way past break. We will get

to Mr. Nelson after the break. But let's

take a short break, and we will come back

and we will get to your question.

(Short recess taken.)

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If we are

ready on the record, Mr. Nelson has some

questions.

MR. NELSON: Mr. Cichanowicz was

mentioning that he was concerned with

increased carbon in the ESP, correct?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. NELSON: And did you say that

carbon has a lower resistivity than

typical fly ash?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. NELSON: Some plants in Illinois

use flue gas emission, for example, SO3

injection. Is the purpose of this to

590

lower the resistivity of that fly ash so

that the ESP performs better?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: The purpose of the

flue gas as a precondition is to load the

fly ash so that the resistivity is on the

order of 10, 11 or so ohms. But carbon is

on the order of ten to nine. So a carbon

is a couple of orders of magnitude less

resistivity than ash either from a high

sulfur fuel or condition from SO3.

MR. NELSON: So on the filter cake

on the ESP plate, if you had lower than

two percent added carbon on the plate, for

example, would the average resistivity of

the fly ash on the plate be lower?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I don't know that

average resistivity is a relevant issue.

I think the resistivity of the carbon

particle is what the issue is.

MR. NELSON: But it does get mixed

in with the fly ash on the plate?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, it does.

MR. NELSON: And since a significant

amount of the emissions that block ESP is

591

due to re-entrainment and what happens on

that plate, would you agree that the

average resistivity on the plate is a

consideration in the performance of the

ESP?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: All other factors

being equal, perhaps.

MR. NELSON: In your written

testimony on page 39, for example, you

testified that the installation of

hundreds of low NOx burners to lower NOx

emissions had the unintended effect of

generating much higher unburned carbon,

didn't you?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Specifically, what

are you referring to?

MR. NELSON: Did the installation of

low NOx burners around the country to

lower NOx emissions, did that generate

additional unburned carbon going to all

these ESPs across the country?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, but on a much

larger particle size.

MR. NELSON: What is the particle

592

size of sorbent particles?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: 18 to 20.

MR. NELSON: 20 micros?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. NELSON: What's the average

particle size of a fly ash particle that

goes into these ESPs?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: A little less than

that.

MR. NELSON: Would it be about five

microns?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I don't think it

is that low. I think it was ten.

MR. NELSON: Do ESPs tend to work

better on larger particles or smaller

particles?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: They tend to work

better on larger particles.

MR. NELSON: So the larger carbon

particles.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: All things being

equal, you are changing things again.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,

Mr. Nelson you need to let him answer the

593

question. You can't talk over one

another. The court reporter can't get it.

Do you have anything, Mr. Cichanowicz, on

that question?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: No. We are mixing

apples and oranges. The issue with carbon

is that the particles are very low

resistivity. And when they finally find

their way to the plate because they are of

such low resistivity they are not held in

check as much of the electrostatic forces

as the particles with a high resistivity.

Therefore, they are subject to

re-entrainment both in the semi-state plus

also when the plates are wrapped. And

that is the concern why small -- that is

the concern why carbon particles with low

resistivity of, essentially, pure carbon

have a different -- can have a different

trajectory and different path to the ESP

than fly ash particle.

And I want this to be clear because

Mr. Nelson's questions are accurate, but

they are leading me in a path that is not

594

telling the whole story.

MR. NELSON: In your testimony you

mentioned significantly increased carbon

being generated by these low NOx burners

that would go to the ESPs; is that

correct?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Generally, low NOx

burners can produce ash with higher

carbon.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,

Mr. Nelson, I don't want to interrupt your

flow of questions. But I know notice that

you are asking questions of page 38 and 39

of your testimony. But some of the stuff

that we will get to with the questions

from the Agency -- just for purposes of

the record, I would like to keep this

information together. Could you hold off

on these questions?

MR. NELSON: Actually, we are

talking about carbon going to the ESPs.

The whole presentation on these ESP sizes

deals with particulate collection. And

this is the appropriate time, I believe,

595

to talk about that, correct?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: All right.

MR. AYERS: Let me finish. I have a

few more questions here. At the worst

plants where low NOx burners were

installed that generated all this

additional carbon, how much did the carbon

going to the ESPs increase?

MR. ZABEL: I am going to object. I

don't understand what the characterization

worst means. If you could explain the

question, Mr. Nelson.

MR. NELSON: Mr. Cichanowicz in his

written testimony said that when low NOx

burners were installed at literally

hundreds of plants in the United States to

lower NOx emissions, that they generated

significant unburned carbon adding to the

ESP carbon loads. Is that not correct?

Did the installation of low NOx

burners have the unintended effect of

increasing significantly the amount of

carbon going to these ESPs?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: No. You are

596

mischaracterizing my answers.

MR. NELSON: Do you disagree with

that statement that low NOx burners

significantly increased at many plants the

unburned carbon going to the ESPs? Do you

disagree with that?

MR. ZABEL: Again I am going to

object. He puts characterization of terms

in his questions that he doesn't define.

I don't know what significantly means in

that question.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Could you

specifically tell us what part of

Mr. Cichanowicz' testimony? I know you

said page 39, but I am not seeing it

there.

MR. NELSON: Mr. Cichanowicz'

testimony at numerous places mentions the

need for one-year long testing because of

unintended effects of various

technologies. I believe Mr. Cichanowicz

spent a good deal of his professional

career, a number of years, dealing with

low NOx burners.

597

On page 39 he mentions this as an

example of unintended effects of the

installation of a new air pollution

control technology.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,

I apologize for interrupting. But the

point of my question is that Mr. Zabel is

objecting to some of your

characterizations. But I felt the way you

were asking the question you felt you were

repeating what Mr. Cichanowicz said. So I

am trying to get a specific point that we

can say that the characterization that you

are offering is actually Mr. Cichanowicz'

characterization, not yours.

MR. NELSON: Okay. Very

specifically, Mr. Cichanowicz, did the

installation of low NOx burners replacing

the existing burners that happened at

many, many power plants in this industry

over the last 15 years, did it

significantly increase? And by

significantly, I mean go from unburned

carbon in the fly ash from a couple

598

percent to five or ten percent, did that

occur in the initial installations at many

of these plants of low NOx burners?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: My problem is with

your characterization of the word many.

Indeed, there were some units whose carbon

and ash as defined by loss of ignition

increased numbers that we used to think

were acceptable of, you know, three and

four and a percent to numbers that are

slightly higher.

But, Mr. Nelson, I believe you are

mischaracterizing my testimony and trying

to present the image that virtually every

low NOx burner installed was associated or

generated significantly higher carbon and

ash. Perhaps maybe 50 of it increased

from two or three percent to four or five

percent LOI. And there might be a

fraction of units now that are between

five and ten percent. We have some in

this case.

But I don't think that that's the

vast majority of population of boilers.

599

And your words are at least

mischaracterizing.

MR. NELSON: I will go with your

numbers. You just said 50 percent went

from two or three percent to four or five

percent, right? Can we have -- can we

read back his testimony there in the last

question?

(Record read as

requested.)

MR. NELSON: If half of the low NOx

burner installations went from two to

three to four or five and a fraction of

them went to five or ten, okay, that would

be an increase in percentage terms of at

least one to two percent for those that

you mentioned, correct, one to two percent

increase in absolute terms in carbon going

to the ESPs, correct?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: In residual carbon

generated in the flame entering the

convective pass and entering the ESP, yes.

MR. NELSON: Physically is there

really much of a difference between the

600

devolatilized unburned carbon generated by

these low NOx burners and the

devolatilized activated carbon?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: The carbon

particles generated in the flame are

larger. They have less specific surface

area per gram.

MR. NELSON: Is this why at a plant

like Salem Harbor that you showed

photographs of they can get 90 percent

mercury removal without any carbon

injection because they generate high fly

ash, high carbons in their fly ash?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I believe Salem

Harbor also fires a coal imported from

South America whose composition I cannot

recall right now. But there -- so it may

be somewhat of an outlier.

But again Salem Harbor has showed

the pictures of the installed ESPs.

MR. NELSON: What is the carbon

content of the Salem Harbor fly ash?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I can't remember

off the top of my head. But it is high.

601

MR. NELSON: Would it surprise you

if it was over ten percent, as high as 15

and 18 percent sometimes?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: It probably is.

MR. NELSON: Now if ACI -- okay.

Over the last decade then, there have been

hundreds of boilers that have installed

low NOx burners, correct?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. NELSON: So the industry has

already effectively had years, literally

years of trials looking at balance of

plant effects of increased carbon at

levels perhaps in some cases much, much

higher than we are talking with sorbent

injection, already has years of experience

with injecting this into their ESPs; is

that correct?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Experience with

residual carbon generated in the flame

leaving the furnace and entering the

convective pass and the ESP. I will say

it hundreds of times to make sure that the

differentiation is clear.

602

MR. NELSON: So if that is true,

where are you -- do you insist on a year

or many year-long experiments when there

are literally hundreds of plants that have

seen carbon increases into their ESP of

materials that similarly get out mercury

and are similar in physical

characteristics?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I don't agree they

are similar in physical characteristics.

I just said the surface area is less and

the particle size is larger.

MR. NELSON: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you,

Mr. Nelson.

MR. ZABEL: Just so the record is

clear, I believe Mr. Nelson characterized

it as carbon injected into the system.

The loss of ignition carbon is not

injected. It comes from the boiler, does

it not, Mr. Cichanowicz?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, it does.

MR. ZABEL: Those particles went

through the flame basically; is that

603

right?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, they have.

MR. ZABEL: I think we are on

question 19 -- 18, sorry.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I believe

we answered question 18. I think we are

on question 19.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: On page 7 of your

testimony in the second paragraph, you

state "that the average content of

Illinois basin coal fired can be

considered to be 5.43 pounds per trillion

BTU appears optimistic compared to

alternative sources." I note this is a

not a question but a statement.

Item 20, referring to figure 2-2 of

your testimony, please indicate what

Illinois mercury concentration corresponds

to the 50 percent cumulative level.

In looking at that figure it appears

to be approximately five pounds per

trillion BTU or a little less.

Question 21, referring to the

figure 2-4 of your testimony, please

604

indicate what Illinois mercury

concentration corresponds to the peak or

the mode of that distribution.

The answer is the same,

approximately five pounds per trillion BTU

or less.

Madam Chairman, this is a reason why

somebody should not submit 90-page

testimony, because you cannot proofread

every page you would like to.

The important point that I was

trying to make was regarding the role of

the coal cleaning.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I am

sorry, the role of?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Coal cleaning.

Coal cleaning is presently widely

practiced on Illinois basin coals and

delivers a significant amount of mercury

removal, either 47 percent or 37 percent

depending on the source of information.

It is possible that further mercury

reductions by coal cleaning can be

achieved in the reference that I cited by

605

Akers, which describes some means to do

so. However, there is a cost that must be

considered and weighed against other

options.

A significant component of this cost

will be the energy recovery penalty for

the amount of coal left at the mine that

does not survive the cleaning process. At

present this amounts to about ten percent.

But if this increases, the cost of

delivered Illinois coal will

proportionately increase.

Question 22 --

MR. AYRES: I take it,

Mr. Cichanowicz, that your testimony

stands with respect to your two figures,

the numbers that you cite or that are

apparent on those two figures, figure 2-2

and figure 2-4, essentially confirm the

5.3 pounds per BTU assumed by the Illinois

EPA; is that correct?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes. The data in

the charts came from the ICR I don't know

if it was part 3 that characterizes the

606

data. And what's accurate is the data in

the charts and not the statement.

MR. AYRES: So then would you change

your testimony about the 5.43 pounds being

optimistic?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, correct.

That's a mistake. The data described in

the charts is the accurate data.

MR. AYRES: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question

22 is actually not a question again. I

see it is just a statement.

MR. ZABEL: Do we need to read that?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: No. We

will go on to question No. 23.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Are you suggesting

that the averaging provides little benefit

to address variability and uncertainty, so

little that power plants have to emit only

about half of the mercury emissions they

are actually permitted to in order to have

assurance of compliance?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Just for

the record, I would note that the

607

averaging we are referring to is in the

statement on question 23.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Variability in

process operations and measurement is

considered in the design of any processed

equipment to meet a commercial guarantee.

For example, I am aware that in the design

of flue gas desulfurization equipment a

guarantee for 96 percent SO2 removal on a

30-day rolling average basis requires the

suppliers to design for 98 percent, half

of the targeted outlet value.

It is not unusual in my experience

for design margins to exceed projected or

guaranteed values by two to five percent.

Of course, these are target values which

may be attained only sporadically.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Ayers?

MR. AYRES: Since there appears to

be little benefit to the power plants in

the 12-month averaging according to your

testimony and there is an environmental

benefit to eliminating it, would you

suggest eliminating the averaging

608

provisions from the proposed rule?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: No. I don't

recall where I said there was no benefit

of 12-month averaging. I believe --

MR. AYRES: To me that appears to be

the burden of your testimony on this

point.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I am not sure how

you come to that conclusion.

MR. AYRES: I can't cite an exact

sentence either right now.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: All I am saying is

that the 12-month averaging may not

accurately capture the entire picture.

But again, I am -- this issue is really

addressed from the supplier's standpoint;

that is, you have to design something for

a few percentage points over what you

think it is going to be in order to be

able to assure that you can deliver the

number.

MR. AYRES: Well, there are two

kinds of variability in the question here.

I take it one is variability in the

609

performance of the control equipment and

the other would be variability in the coal

-- in the mercury content of coal.

And I think the statement on --

which is not a question -- statement

No. 22 quotes your testimony to say the

12-month rolling average will not

eliminate variations; is that correct? I

take that to mean that you don't believe

the averaging provision will do much to

protect against either of those kinds of

variability? Am I incorrect?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: No. The averaging

provision protects against that. All I am

saying is that there can be variations

that, essentially, the averaging provision

will not be able to correct for. The

averaging works as long as the events that

push you one way are about the same as the

events that push you the other way. We

see that all the time in emissions

averaging.

And all I am saying is that for

confidence in meeting this level, you are

610

going to want to be on the safe side and

make sure that you have the things pushing

you high. So you always can compensate

for short-comings.

For example, if you lose a sorbent

injection heater or something on that

order, even for short periods of time, at

these kinds of levels, you have to work

really hard to compensate for that. If

you have some aberration in the injection

of the sorbent equipment and for only a

couple of -- for a short period of time,

if you are completely out of service and

getting zero mercury removal, then you

have to work really hard for the rest of

that time because your only margin above

that is 90 to the 99 percent.

This is not new. This is not --

this is what we have gone through with SCR

for decades.

MR. AYRES: I understand that. But

you agree then that the rolling average

way of calculating compliance does add or

reduce the potential problems created by

611

these variabilities.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, I agree.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Nelson?

MR. NELSON: Sid Nelson, quick

question. Of the ten or so commercial

activated carbon injection utility systems

that have been ordered so far, are you

aware of any that don't have back-up

heaters?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: No, I am not aware

of any that don't have back-up heaters.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Ayers?

MR. AYRES: I will pass.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question

24. Mr. Zabel, question?

MR. ZABEL: No, I'm sorry.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: On page 11 of your

testimony, third paragraph, you state that

one standard deviation in coal mercury

concentration should be used to calculate

necessary removal rates. What is the

basis of using one standard deviation?

Please discuss, in detail, the statistical

theory for choosing this number.

612

I am not an expert in statistical

methods and not prepared to address in

detail the basis of selecting one standard

deviation to describe variance. Please

note that the passage is an example and

simply illustrates that limiting the

description of coal mercury content to the

mean value will not reflect the

variability in the coal supply. The

method that one chooses to address

variability in coal content is not

important; but the role of variability

should be considered.

Question 25, are you familiar with

linear regression statistical methods?

Only in a general sense to infer a

relationship or derive a correlation from

a data set.

MR. AYRES: We are probably on the

same level. Could I ask a couple

questions about the follow up on that?

Are you aware that it is possible, in

fact, a widely used statistical technique,

to use the correlation coefficient or the

613

R squared of a regression to determine

confidence intervals for a projection

based upon a regression?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. AYRES: You have seen

performance curves presented by Dr. Staudt

in his testimony earlier?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. AYRES: By Mr. Nelson and by

others in the industry --

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. AYERS: -- showing mercury

removal versus sorbent injection rate for

specific coal types?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, I have.

MR. AYRES: Is it fair to say that

most people in the industry represent the

data in this regression way?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Depending on what

you are trying to do with it, the answer

to the question is yes.

MR. AYRES: Why then in formulating

confidence levels, even for example, did

you not use this method?

614

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Because it was an

example. I was just trying to deliver the

message that variability needs to be

considered.

MR. AYRES: Finally, isn't it true

that a unit that was concerned about fuel

variability could eliminate that concern

simply by complying with the 90 percent

reduction requirement rather than trying

to meet an output standard?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes. That is

true. And a lot of further questions

address this. The 90 percent level is an

important option.

MR. AYRES: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question

26.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: On page 11 of your

testimony, third paragraph, you give an

example using a PRB coal of why more than

90 percent removal is required to achieve

the output-based standard reliably.

Question A, wouldn't a bituminous

coal user be more likely to use the

615

output-based standard than a PRB user due

to the lower average mercury content of

Illinois coal? Depending on the mercury

content, the answer is yes.

B, from figures 2-2 through 2-4 is

the standard deviation in the mercury

content of Illinois coal less than that of

PRB coal?

The standard deviation for Illinois

coal of 3.25 is slightly less than the

standard deviation of PRB coal of 3.6.

Question C, based on your theory,

would a lower average coal mercury content

and a lower standard deviation result in

lower necessary mercury control rate by

your method?

Well, first, it is not a theory. It

was just an example. But I do concur that

a lower average mercury content in a lower

standard deviation would necessitate a

lower mercury removal level.

Question 27, if only 90 percent

removal is necessary, why do you argue

that 93.7 percent is needed?

616

If the 90 percent maximum limit is

adopted, then I agree that the removal

will be capped at that value. The

important message is that a fixed cap or

max emission rate should always account

for variability in coal. Depending on the

coal mercury content, the fixed emission

rate may require slightly less than

90 percent mercury removal. But coal

variability for periods would elevate the

required removal to above 90 percent. A

mechanism should be in place to allow

invoking higher either the 90 percent cap

or the fixed rate over the 12-month

rolling average period.

Question 28, if the concentration of

the mercury in a plant's coal was high

enough that the 90 percent requirement was

easier to attain, wouldn't they just

comply with the removal standard instead

of the output-based standard? If so, why

then would they have to control greater

than 90 percent as you testify?

Again, I concur that providing a

617

maximum mercury removal option to a fixed

emissions limit is preferred to meeting an

invariant output standard. Again, the

message is that the rule should contain

the flexibility to invoke either target

over a 12-month rolling average period.

MR. AYRES: Mr. Cichanowicz, doesn't

the rule allow the use of either method

over the 12-month period? I believe it

can be adjusted. But again -- I am sorry,

answer my question.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I think so. But I

can't understand the rule the way a

regulator would that would interpret it.

And so I'm just -- I put these

uncertainties in to make sure that the

message is delivered.

But if that's the way it is written

and if that's the way it is interpreted,

that's fine. But I can't parse out the

language enough to know what people will

really do.

MR. AYRES: So if it is written that

way, as I think it is, then the concern

618

that you raised here about the output

standard really wouldn't be a concern?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: That is correct.

It still means that if you think you need

86 percent to get the fixed rate, you

know, if I am advising the designer, we go

for a higher number.

But there is no doubt you would

elect the 90 percent option whenever you

can. I am just not sure about the

flexibility over the 12-month period to go

in and out of that. And that was the

whole purpose of that -- of that passage.

MR. AYRES: I won't testify further

then.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Harley?

MR. HARLEY: Keith Harley. Could

you explain how your response to that

question is informed by the rules

provisions that allow for flexibility by

averaging among units?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I'm sorry,

Mr. Harley, I don't understand the

question. Could you help me a little bit?

619

MR. HARLEY: Are you familiar with

the provisions of the proposed rule that

allow for averaging among units?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. HARLEY: Does that provide an

additional level of flexibility that would

cause you to reconsider your answer?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: It provides both

an additional level of flexibility and an

additional risk because then you,

essentially, have to deal with units that

might be underperforming. So I don't

think it significantly affects my answer.

MR. HARLEY: Are you familiar with

the rules provision -- with the provisions

of the rule that provide flexibility

through the technology-based standard?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: That depends. I

have read the technology-based standards.

And I think the spirit of it is good.

Again, I can't parse out words.

That's not to say it is not written well.

It just says that I don't normally read

rules and try to figure out exactly what

620

they mean because I know there is a lot of

stuff that goes on that is not hit on

sometimes.

MR. HARLEY: Would that be fair to

characterize that as providing an

additional level of flexibility that might

change your answer as to whether or not

the rule allows adequate flexibility for

any operator?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I don't think my

answers change. Because as I read the

TTBS, it does appear to offer flexibility,

but it does appear to be limited. And I

just can't tell -- I just can't tell

sitting here whether it has adequate

flexibility or not. It may not.

MR. HARLEY: Because you don't

possess the requisite expertise that a

regulator, for example, would in

implementing that rule?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: The answer is I

can't follow the long convoluted

sentences.

MR. HARLEY: Thank you for that

621

answer. Are you familiar with the

recently proposed modification to the rule

called the multi-pollutant standard?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: No, I am not.

MR. AYERS: Let me ask one further

question along those lines.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sure.

MR. AYRES: Are you aware of the

provision of the Board's rules which

allows for variances for units that are in

-- that have problems meeting standards as

a general matter?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Could you repeat

the question? I'm not trying to be

difficult.

MR. AYRES: Are you aware of the

fact that the Board has in its general

rules or in the general rules of the

agency a provision for variances for units

that are unable to achieve standards?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I can't recall the

details right now of those provisions.

But my point -- my point is that we need

the flexibility as much as possible to

622

account for some of these variations. And

I don't --

MR. AYRES: The reason I ask is

because you mentioned the TTBS is limited

to being applicable to a certain number of

units or certain capacity.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: My understanding

is that it's limited to 25 percent of

capacity.

MR. AYRES: And the availability of

the variance is not so limited, is it?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I don't know. Is

that true?

MR. AYRES: That's my understanding.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I don't know. I

have spent my time on the technology,

Mr. Ayers, not the rules.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I think

the Board can stipulate that we know what

the variance provisions are.

MR. AYRES: So there are multiple

flexibility mechanisms that we have just

gone through that would help any of the

units that for some reason didn't choose

623

to achieve 90 percent and chose the output

standard and had the variability issues

that you were saying?

MR. ZABEL: I am going to object.

He said he doesn't know what the variance

provision is; therefore, he can't answer

whether it is flexible or not because he

doesn't know how it would apply,

obviously.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I think

that's a legitimate objection.

MR. AYRES: I will drop that from

the question and ask him with all the

other parts.

MR. ZABEL: Can you restate it or

should we read it back and have the court

reporter edit as she goes?

MR. AYRES: Why don't we drop it.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question

29.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: On page 12 of

your testimony you state "given the

evolutionary nature of mercury CEMS, there

is no documented reason to believe that

624

the sum of all errors, either

overreporting or underreporting mercury

content over a 12-month period will

equally compensate." Do you have any

evidence that 20 percent errors are

systematic and, therefore, would be

additive?

My understanding is that the limited

experience to date with mercury monitors

neither supports or refutes whether

systematic errors are additive or

canceling. The presumption that a

12-month rolling average negates concern

for errors presumes such errors are

canceling.

Question 30 --

MR. AYRES: Sorry.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Ayers?

MR. AYRES: So you are testifying

you have no basis on which to determine

that there is any systematic error in

these measurements in the current level of

understanding of CEMS?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: My understanding

625

of CEMS -- and again this comes from

Mr. Richard McRanie -- is that it's too

early to tell if there is -- if the errors

are systematic or if they are canceling.

And that's the purpose of the, if I can

call it, mercury analyzer shoot out at

Progress Energy Plant, is to look at all

those issues.

MR. AYRES: So couldn't you say

based on what you know now equally

truthfully or equally accurate that given

the evolutionary nature of CEMS, there is

no documented reason to believe that the

sum of all errors will not be equally --

will not equally compensate?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: That is in effect

what is assumed, I think, with the

12-month rolling average, that they will

be canceling.

MR. AYRES: But you seem to be

questioning that, whether that was

adequate. And I think if you are saying

that you -- there is no evidence on either

side here, then you -- you seem to be

626

looking at it in the most pessimistic

possible frame.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: All I am saying is

that my understanding of mercury CEMS is

limited. And I understand the jury is

still out on how these units are

performing in terms of accuracy and

precision and reliability.

MR. AYRES: But we have no reason to

believe at the moment that they are

biased.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: No reason that I

can give you. But it is beyond my skill

set.

MR. AYRES: Okay.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question

30.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: If real evidence

of systematic errors did exist in the coal

analysis as you describe on page 12, the

uncertainties in mercury measurement were

addressed in an early study by EPRI that

was conducted in concert with the ICR coal

measurement program. The results showed

627

that for the most widely used ASTM D3684

method, employing the oxygen bomb

approach, both a high and a low bias of

reported mercury content was witnessed

among participating laboratories.

Specifically, a high bias to actual

mercury content was noted for low ash

coals, while a low bias to actual mercury

content was noted for high ash coals,

reference to Goodman 2006. Another widely

used method, EPA 7476, exhibited a low

bias.

That was a statement. Question A,

could these uncertainties not be

compensated for and would not EPA and ASTM

recommend such compensation? If ASTM has

not recommended compensation, why not?

The answer, in concept, any bias

could be compensated for. However, this

requires first recognizing and

understanding the source of the error and

then developing some means to compensate

for the error. All of this needs to

happen while the mercury emission

628

techniques to determine -- while using the

mercury measurement techniques to

determine compliance. I am not aware of

the procedure in time required to develop

an adequate means to compensate bias in

this manner.

B, what does the citation to Goodman

2006 refer to? The statement cited in my

testimony and quoted as part of this

question is based on a telephone

conversation with Naomi Goodman of EPRI

regarding the results of an EPRI sponsored

study. This study, conducted in the late

1990s in preparation for the ICR program,

consisted of a round-robin evaluation in

which split samples were used in

comparative tests of coal mercury content

as measured by different laboratories.

MR. AYRES: Madam Hearing Officer?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Ayers?

MR. AYRES: Your source Goodman is a

personal communication?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: EPRI published a

report that they -- that was used in

629

helping utilities prepare for the ICR

program. In the mid '90s, a lot of work

was directed to trying to sort out and

improve mercury measurement programs

because of the upcoming effort.

That report I tried to get released

into this proceeding because usually EPRI

reports, once they are seven or eight

years old, you are in position to release

them from the funders. And I hoped to do

so by this time, but I had not yet

received that report.

And all I am referencing is the

conversation with the woman who was the

project manager, who basically told me

what the bottom line was.

MR. AYRES: So we don't have any

documentation of the statement in the

record?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: That is correct.

MR. AYRES: If she is the credible

person to make statements regarding these

tests -- and I think I heard her name

being Naomi, is that right, so I think I

630

am using the right gender here. If she

is, is it possible to -- for us to hear

from her rather than to have hearsay

testimony on this point?

MR. ZABEL: Experts rely on hearsay

all the time, Mr. Ayres. I don't think it

would be possible to bring an EPRI witness

in.

MR. AYERS: Why would that be?

MR. ZABEL: Timing, availability,

expense.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: The way I

structured this, I thought the report

would be available to use in these

proceedings. And it still might be.

Just to remind everybody, there are

certain reports that EPRI keeps. They

summarize the gist of it to meet the

requirement that it is publicly funded

from rate payers and information does need

to go into the public domain. But a lot

of the details they keep for the funders,

otherwise, there is no incentive to join

the organization.

631

But usually after this amount of

time, you are able to get the report

released. And I was working on trying to

do so and haven't given up yet.

And I do agree that having that

analysis is far better than hearing me say

what is in there.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I do

understand that you have a CD-rom, a disk,

of reference materials. So we can enter

it into an exhibit. Would you explain

what these are?

MS. BASSI: These are two disks that

are Mr. Cichanowicz' references except for

I think he said eight or ten historical

references that he hasn't been able to

pull together, and we can send them if you

want them. Here are five copies for the

Board. And here is a copy of each disk

for the Agency and for you and --

MR. ZABEL: Mr. Nelson, I don't

believe you have an appearance filed. I

don't think we have to give him one. If

you have an extra copy, please do. Do we

632

have an extra?

MS. BASSI: Yes.

MR. ZABEL: Give him one.

MR. AYERS: We are still on question

30, I believe.

MR. ZABEL: I think we were on 30-B,

yes.

MR. AYRES: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: All right.

This will be marked -- this is a two-disk

set. And we will mark this as Exhibit 96,

if there is no objection.

MS. BASSI: Pardon me, what was 95?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: 95 was

Will County 1 through 4.

MS. BASSI: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Seeing

none, this is Exhibit No. 96.

MR. AYRES: The final question on

30-B.

MR. RAO: Before you ask the next

question, Mr. Cichanowicz, you mentioned

this EPRI report that you had a

conversation with someone.

633

MR. CICHANOWICZ: The project

manager.

MR. RAO: Would it be possible for

you to provide a citation to the report if

you have one?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, I will

provide a citation to the report and I

hope to provide the report. I will at

least get a citation to you next week.

And I would like to get the report to you.

MR. RAO: Thank you.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Question 31 --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Harley?

MR. HARLEY: Before we go on to

question 31, the testimony that you have

provided in response to the questions

suggest that you have some questions of

your own about the reliability of mercury

monitoring equipment; is that correct?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, again not

being an expert, I can't talk of the

details. But having worked for 25 and

30 years with continuous emissions

monitoring systems, it is -- the new

634

babies on the block at least take awhile

to get sorted out. And I believe this

will be no different.

MR. HARLEY: But much of your

testimony this morning was based on

Exhibits 85, 86, 87 and the primary

materials that you used to characterize

that, which is based on monitoring data;

is that correct?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: It is based on

monitoring data during a short-term

performance test, which I think will be

different than monitoring data 12 months

out of the year.

MR. HARLEY: Thank you.

MR. AYRES: Shouldn't monitoring

data on a 12-month basis be more reliable

than short-term monitoring data?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: If the monitor is

working the same, yes. This is out of my

skill set. But all I know is that the

whole issue of maintenance of monitors is

something that needs to be considered.

And a lot of times when you are conducting

635

a test, you have people on-site or you are

in a building -- you are in a position to

be able to keep the monitors operating the

way you want.

And over a 12-month period -- over a

12-month period, basically, you may not be

able to make them work to the same degree.

MR. AYRES: So your testimony is not

that you have any reason to believe that

the monitoring will be inaccurate or any

data to believe that, except for a vague

feeling that monitoring takes time to

work. Is there anything different between

this situation, this monitoring situation,

and previous monitoring situations in

terms of, you know, the regulation comes,

people deploy the monitors, they learn how

to use them and we go forward?

MR. ZABEL: Is that a question,

Mr. Ayers?

MR. AYRES: That was a question.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: It is not a vague

theme. For example, one of my roles in

life other than working on mercury is on

636

SCR NOx reduction. I am the lead author

of an EPRI guideline which is an operation

and maintenance guideline for SCR process

equipment. A very major component of that

guideline is making the monitors work.

Because all you need to do is lose the

monitor for a short period of time and you

really don't know how much ammonia to

inject.

So here we are in 2005 and 2006 --

and I do agree that the NOx monitors are

working well. But to do so 24 by 7 is

another plane, another threshold, another

hurdle that is different that happens in

testing.

So I have it is stuck in my claw

that, yeah, monitors aren't easy to

operate and you do need to put a lot of

maintenance in them depending on the type

of monitor to make them work. And that

comes from my expertise in NOx.

In mercury, I don't see why it is

going to be very different. But this is

out of my skill set.

637

MR. AYRES: So we are -- so you

don't have -- you have no reason to assume

that there is any difference between this

situation and ones we have seen before

where monitoring has to be done. EPA

establishes standards and people monitor

to those standards. Is there something

peculiar about mercury that the Board

needs to take into account with respect to

this?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, if I try to

answer this question --

MR. AYRES: Or shall we talk to

Mr. McRanie?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Talk to

Mr. McRanie about it.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Harley?

MR. HARLEY: Are you familiar with

the provisions of the Illinois

Administrative Code that allow operators

flexibility during periods of malfunction

of equipment?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: No, sir, I'm not.

MR. HARLEY: Thank you.

638

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question

31.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Would you prefer

quarterly Ontario Hydro measurements

upstream and downstream of emissions

control devices as required in some states

or upstream and downstream CEMS as used in

numerous DOE programs to demonstrate

percent mercury capture?

I am not sure how quarterly

measurements would work on a 12 -- on a

rolling 12-month average. But I am not an

expert in measurement techniques. I wish

to defer this question to Mr. Richard

McRanie.

Question 32, on page 13 of your

testimony of you state that several 30-day

tests of ACI into an ESP and a one-year

long trial with ACI into a fabric filter

all exhibit variations in mercury outlet.

Specifically, data from 30-day trials at

Holcomb, Meramac and St. Clair suggests

that, depending on the unit, mercury

removal varied between approximately 85

639

and 97 plus percent. The average mercury

removal reported for these trials,

91 percent for St. Clair and 93 percent

for Holcomb and Meramac, suggest these

variations are not of consequence. That

was a statement.

Question A, do each of those boilers

primarily burn western coal? Yes.

Question B, what type of coal is

primarily burned in unscrubbed Illinois

plants? PRB, the same as the referenced

units.

Question C, doesn't this demonstrate

that 97 percent removal does occur for

short periods, thereby addressing your

concerns about variability?

This data shows 97 percent mercury

removal can be achieved for short periods.

But we don't know how representative are

these variations that are observed over a

30-day period during a demonstration test.

Specifically, we have no knowledge of the

relative occurrence of variations that

elevate mercury removal compared to those

640

that degrade mercury removal.

In order for this degree of

variability to authentically reflect that

incurred over 12 months, all operating

issues, plant upsets and equipment

reliability concerns witnessed over the

30-day period must be reflective of the

12-month term. For example, any

disruption of sorbent injection or bias

and distribution would promote variations

to compromise mercury removal, which may

or may not be compensated for by

elevations that compensate mercury

removal.

Question 33, you further state that

"perhaps more significant is the

variability in mercury control at Yates 1

where the injection of four pounds per

million ACF of conventional activated

carbon into a small ESP produced a total

mercury removal of 60 to 85 percent, the

result of inherent variations in boiler

operation, sorbent injection rate and

inherent mercury removal." This is a

641

statement.

Question A --

MR. AYERS: Mr. Cichanowicz, before

you go to A, can you explain what you mean

by inherent in that sentence?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Inherent mercury

removal?

MR. AYERS: Yes, for all of our

edification.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Inherent mercury

removal is the removal that you would get

without sorbent injection.

MR. AYRES: Thank you.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Question A, is not

Yates 1 a scrubbed unit using wet FGD

without SCR in firing bituminous coal?

Yes.

Question B, how many Illinois units

fit this description? None.

Question C, over what range did the

cobenefit ESP mercury removal vary?

Yates unit 1 cobenefit mercury

removal averages 34 percent with most

points between about 20 and 50 percent.

642

D, is it possible that poor sorbent

distribution may have contributed to the

poor performance at Plant Yates?

Poor sorbent distribution will

compromise the mercury removal of any

plant, and Yates is no exception to that

observation.

Question 34 --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Ayers?

MR. AYRES: Weren't sorbents from

different suppliers tested at Yates, each

one showing a different performance, some

better, some worse?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. AYRES: Wouldn't this also

account for the different ranges of

removal experience at Yates?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I believe my

statement was based on the 30-day test

with the one HOK.

MR. AYRES: I'm sorry?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I believe my

observation was based on one type of

sorbent, the German HOK.

643

MR. AYRES: If the fuel were changed

during the test period, would that make a

difference also potentially in the

performance?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, fuel changes

can affect the current mercury removal.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question

34.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Would it be

correct to state that the example in

section 2.5 of your testimony describes

your reasoning why over 90 percent

reduction is needed to achieve the

output-based emission rate?

Yes. But depending on the coal

content, as addressed previously, figure

MR. AYRES: Are you on 35? I think

that has been asked and answered.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: It has been asked

and answered. Thank you. There's a few

others in that league I think. I think

35 --

MR. AYRES: Among us we will

644

identify them all.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Then we

are ready for 36?

MR. AYRES: 36.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: In your testimony

in section 2.5 you include measurement

uncertainty as an additional reason to

over control. However, you previously

testified, page 2, "in this testimony I

will accept without verification or other

validation that such measurements can be

made to within a reasonable degree of

accuracy, precision and bias." Are these

statements inconsistent?

Answer, I believe these statements

are consistent. The message is that even

a total 20 percent relative accuracy

adequate to pass a RATA test still

requires some level of over control to

assure compliance.

Question 37 --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,

Mr. Ayers has a follow-up.

MR. AYRES: Mr. Cichanowicz, besides

645

the statement by Ms. Goodman, the phone

conversation, and your apparent assumption

that emissions measurement uncertainties

are systematic and uncorrected and not

random, what else is there -- or what is

your basis for adding 20 percent marginal

error?

MR. ZABEL: I am going to object. I

believe he has mischaracterized

Mr. Cichanowicz' testimony. But I will

allow Mr. Cichanowicz to go ahead and

answer.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, I didn't add

20 percent. I believe this passage from

2.5 is the same thing that we have been

talking about. I'm not talking about

another 20 percent.

What I did in section 2.5 was just

create a couple of examples just to show

that if you are going to deal with

measurement variability and coal

variability, what type of margins would be

required. And we got a little off track

because a lot of the numbers ended up

646

being above 90 percent. And I didn't

clearly enough state in the testimony that

I agree 90 percent was the threshold.

This is not in addition to anything else I

have stated before.

MR. AYRES: I just want to be clear

that your margin for measurement error is

based on those two factors, conversation

with Goodman and assumptions about

emission measurements are being

systematic?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yeah, I --

MR. AYRES: I understand what you

just said about this one 20 percent and

not two 20 percent.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, correct.

MR. AYRES: With regard to

addressing uncertainties, are you familiar

with weighted averaging methods for

control and forecasting?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Only in a general

sense.

MR. AYRES: Won't owners take steps

to address measurement uncertainty to the

647

extent it exists?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, they will to

the extent that they can.

MR. AYRES: And isn't it true that

process controllers, including those in

utility plants, routinely use these and

other methods to address these kinds of

measurement uncertainties and other

uncertainties in a facility?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: That is consistent

with my understanding, yes.

MR. AYRES: So there are techniques

for dealing with this kind of uncertainty?

Disciplines instead of techniques.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Those are true

statements. Yes, I agree.

MR. AYRES: Thank you. 37 I think

has been asked and answered too.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question

38.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: On page 16 of your

testimony, you describe a scenario where a

unit achieving under 90 percent removal

648

must be averaged in with other units to

achieve a 90 percent average causing the

others to have to achieve higher than

90 percent removal rates to compensate.

If compliance with the emissions

requirement is not possible, isn't it true

the owner would have the option to use the

TTBS of the proposed rule to take the

under-performing unit out of the average

until they can remedy the performance of

the under-performing unit?

Depending on the form of the TTBS

that is adopted and the provisions for

determining if a mercury control

technology is underperforming, it is

possible the TTBS can provide some relief

as described.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,

Mr. Ayers has a follow-up.

MR. AYRES: Mr. Cichanowicz, we

would like to show you a document that we

don't want to fall too far behind in

exhibits. We have a document called --

written by an organization called NESCAUM.

649

And the document is called "2004

Environmental Regulation and Technology

Innovation Controlling Mercury Emissions

from Coal-Fired Boilers." And we ask that

that be entered into record.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If there

is no objection, I will admit

"Environmental Regulation Technology

Innovation," September 2000 as Exhibit 97.

Seeing none, it is marked as Exhibit 97.

MR. AYRES: Mr. Cichanowicz, would

you look at page XVI of the preliminary

material summary?

MR. ZABEL: What page?

MR. AYRES: XVI, little X, little V,

little I. Do you see a sentence there

that starts "research and development of

efforts"? Would you read that?

MR. ZABEL: Before he does that,

Madam Hearing Officer, I am not going to

object to the questions as such, simply

state that the whole document -- we are

looking at the conclusions right now --

may have qualifiers or other explanation

650

in it that may not be brought out in the

course of the questioning. The document

will speak for itself in its entirety.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.

Thank you.

MR. ZABEL: I am sorry, Mr. Ayers.

Go ahead.

MR. AYRES: Do you see a sentence

there that begins "research and

development efforts"?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, I do.

MR. AYERS: Could you read that for

us?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: "Research and

development efforts are unlikely to be

sustained at a vigorous level in the

absence of regulatory or other drivers

capable of creating a viable market for

advanced control technologies."

MR. AYRES: Do you agree with that

statement?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: In a general sense

without reviewing the report. I don't

think there is any controversy if the

651

research basically follows the need.

MR. AYRES: So there wouldn't be an

incentive for a company to invest if it

didn't have a chance to make a return on

its investment on pollution control

equipment, correct?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Would you repeat

that, please?

MR. AYRES: I will try.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I am not trying to

be difficult.

MR. ZABEL: You might get the

microphone a little closer because it is a

little difficult to hear you sometimes.

MR. AYRES: The question I think was

would a company have any incentive to

invest in new pollution control technology

in the absence of demand created for it by

regulatory or other drivers?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I think in general

the incentive is in proportion to the

degree of regulation.

MR. AYERS: Are you aware that EPA's

estimates are that CAMR will not drive

652

major demand for mercury specific control

technology for ten years, possibly more,

because of the ability to make cobenefit

reductions achieved through CAMR?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I am not

aware that EPA has come to that

conclusion.

MR. AYERS: In light of the business

uncertainties over that ten-year period

and long wait for significant sales, do

you think there is a strong motivation for

private sector technology investment in

mercury controls over this period?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I feel like I am

saying the same thing. The incentive to

invest is in proportion to the regulatory

requirements. So what you cited to me was

EPA's opinion about what was going to

happen over the next ten years, then I

can't react to it because I haven't seen

what they have done.

But I am not disagreeing that to the

mere extent there are regulations, the

more investment people will make above and

653

beyond what many utilities do by funding

EPRI and by doing some work basically on

their own.

MR. AYRES: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question

39.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: In section 3.2 of

your testimony, and specifically figure

3.1, question A, what do the percentages

in the 1982 reliability survey represent?

The percentages in the FGD

reliability survey reflect the fraction of

time the FGD process was operable compared

to, e.g., normalized by the operating

hours of the generating unit over a year.

MR. AYRES: I'm sorry, now I am

having trouble hearing you.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Do you want me to

repeat that, Mr. Ayers?

MR. AYERS: Please.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: The percentages in

the FGD reliability survey reflect the

fraction of time the FGD process was

operable compared to the hours -- the

654

operating hours of the generating unit

over a year.

Question B --

MR. AYRES: I am sorry, I have one

follow-up on that.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.

MR. AYERS: Who performed that

study, was it EPRI or somebody else?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: No. It was a

company now gone called Petco

Environmental. And there was a person

there, Bernie Laskey, who in the late '70s

and early '80s did a lot of surveys. It

was an EPA-funded survey.

MR. AYERS: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: The FGD market --

this is question B of 39. The FGD

market appeared to be fairly slow prior to

the late 1970s. Was the pick up on

business in the late 1970s largely due to

New Source Performance Standard

requirements?

The revision to the SO2 New Source

Performance Standards in 1979 was likely a

655

key contributor to the expanding FGD

market.

Question C, does not this increase

in business also coincide with

improvements in removal efficiency?

Several factors may contribute to

the gradual increase in FGD removal

efficiency. These include an improved

understanding of FGD process chemistry

based on intensive research initiated in

the mid '70s by EPA, EPRI and the supplier

community. The ability to establish high

SO2 removal benchmarks within a 30-day

rolling average also was desirable to

compensate for periods of reduced

performance due to the scaling, deposition

and plugging that plagued early generation

reaction vessels.

MR. AYERS: Then you do agree that

your table is evidence supporting the

NESCAUM conclusion that regulatory drivers

produce rapid technological change?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Can you

define NESCAUM and give it to the court

656

reporter?

MR. AYERS: N-E-S-C-A-U-M.

MR. ZABEL: Excuse me, use of the

term rapid in your question is not in the

conclusion you had him read previously. I

think it's a mischaracterization,

Mr. Ayers.

MR. AYERS: I would be happy to have

you read out the conclusion.

MR. ZABEL: I ask you ask the

question directed at that statement,

rather than characterize it.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Is the question

directed to reliability or to removal

efficiency?

MR. AYERS: Removal efficiency in

particular.

MR. CICHANOWICZ: That was some of

it. But, you know, I was -- I joined

EPRI in 1978 and worked side by side with

the FGD process crew. And they did a lot

of the research that took the

understanding from, essentially, guessing

where the chemistry was going to be to

657

having it now in 2005 where it is about as

well controlled as any process you can

find.

A lot of that incentive was

because the loss of control of chemistry

created deposits in scaling that basically

shut down the units. So it was an

intense effort to figure out how to

prevent all the scaling and deposition

that would compromise the reliability of

the unit.

Further, because many units were on

a 30-day rolling average, it is the thing

about having five or seven days where you

are out of whack, you have to make up

and you have to drive hard. So the

incentive was to push to high SO2 so they

would have the ability to compensate for

these five or seven-day periods of

shortcoming.

So I think it is as -- at least as

much to make the systems work as it was

for NSPS. And I say that having spent 15

years of my life at EPRI and those first

658

early three or four, five years working

very close with the FGD engineers.

MR. AYERS: I had that kind of

experience with the NSPS well. And my

question would be isn't it true, despite

what you said about the chemistry, that

very few units installed at FGD before

1978 or '79, there are just very few

installations?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: I actually had

a number some place at one point in

time. Few as a percentage of the

inventory?

MR. AYERS: Yes. Below five

percent?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: On that order

maybe.

MR. AYERS: And then consequent to

the NSPS, every new unit -- almost every

new unit installed scrubbers; isn't that

correct?

MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.

MR. AYERS: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I have

659

about 12:25. And we are at question

No. 40. So that seems to be a good

breaking point for lunch. Let's come back

at 1:30, please, a little before.

(Whereupon the

proceedings in the

above-entitled cause

were adjourned until

August 17, 2006, at

9:00 a.m.)

660

STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS:

COUNTY OF LAKE )

I, Cheryl L. Sandecki, a Notary

Public within and for the County of Lake

and State of Illinois, and a Certified

Shorthand Reporter of the State of

Illinois, do hereby certify that I

reported in shorthand the proceedings had

at the taking of said hearing and that the

foregoing is a true, complete, and correct

transcript of my shorthand notes so taken

as aforesaid, and contains all the

proceedings given at said hearing.

__________________________________

Notary Public, Cook County, Illinois

C.S.R. License No. 084-03710