888
1
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
August 17th, 2006
3
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
4
)
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM.
) R06-25
5 CODE 225 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS )
(Rulemaking-Air)
)
6 FROM LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES )
(MERCURY),
)
7
8
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held in
9 the above-entitled cause before Hearing
10 Officer Marie E. Tipsord, called by the
11 Illinois Pollution Control Board, pursuant
12 to notice, taken before Cheryl L.
13 Sandecki, CSR, RPR, a notary public within
14 and for the County of Lake and State of
15 Illinois, at the James R. Thompson Center,
16 100 West Randolph, Assembly Hall, Chicago,
17 Illinois, on the 17th day of August, A.D.,
18 2006, commencing at 1:00 p.m.
19
20
21
22
23
24
889
1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2
SCHIFF, HARDIN, LLP
3 6600 Sears Tower
Chicago, Illinois 60606
4 (312) 258-5646
BY: MS. KATHLEEN C. BASSI
5
MR. STEPHEN J. BONEBRAKE
MR. SHELDON A. ZABEL
6
MR. JOSHUA R. MORE
7
Appeared on behalf of the Dynegy
and Midwest Generation;
8
9 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
1021 North Grand Avenue East
10 P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
11 (217) 782-5544
BY: MR. JOHN J. KIM
12
MR. CHARLES E. MATOESIAN
MS. GINA ROCCAFORTE
13
- AND -
14
AYRES LAW GROUP
15 1615 L Street, N.W.
Suite 1350
16 Washington, DC 20036
(202) 452-9200
17 BY: MR. RICHARD E. AYRES
18
Appeared on behalf of the IEPA;
19
20
21
22
23
24
890
1 A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued)
2 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROGRAM,
CHICAGO LEGAL CLINIC
3 205 West Monroe Street
Fourth Floor
4 Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 726-2938
5 BY: MR. KEITH I. HARLEY
6
SORBENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
7 1664 East Highland Road
Twinsburg, Ohio 44087
8 (330) 425-2354
BY: MR. SID NELSON JR.
9
10 McGUIRE, WOODS
77 West Wacker Drive
11 Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois 60601-1815
12 (312) 849-8100
BY: MR. JEREMY R. HOJNICKI
13
14
15 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD:
16 Ms. Marie Tipsord, Hearing Officer
Ms. Andrea S. Moore, Board Member
17 Mr. G. Tanner Girard, Acting Chairman
Mr. Anand Rao, Senior Environmental
18
Scientist
Mr. Nicholas J. Melas, Board Member
19 Mr. Thomas Fox, Board Member
Mr. Thomas Johnson, Board Member
20
21
22
23
24
891
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We are
2 ready. Question 79.
3
MR. AYERS: Madam Hearing Officer,
4 there is -- we are back to plant Yates.
5 And these questions -- next couple of
6 questions relate to carbon effects on ESP
7 at Yates, effects that are described and
8 the balance of the plant effects, other
9 than the ones that relates specifically to
10 mercury removal. So question 79 covers
11 that. And we will go on from there.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: All right.
13
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Question 79, with
14 regard to the report titled "Sorbent
15 Injection for Small ESP Mercury Control in
16 Low Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal flue
17 gas, Quarterly Technical Progress Report,
18 April 1 to June 30, 2005," question A, did
19 not inspections find that stand-off
20 insulators were damaged?
21
As stated in my testimony, stand-off
22 insulators were found to be damaged and
23 the same investigators could not determine
24 if the insulators were damaged by the
892
1 accumulated carbon or as found.
2
To repeat from page 3-8, "The
3 stand-off insulators at the bottom of the
4 high-voltage frame were fund damaged or
5 broken. It is unclear when this damage
6 occurred, open parenthesis, i.e., whether
7 the damage is related to activated carbon
8 injections, close parenthesis."
9
Question B, would damaged stand-off
10 insulators impact the performance of the
11 ESP?
12
It is very likely. The purpose of a
13 stand-off insulator is to secure the base
14 of the emitting electrode during operation
15 which is subject to nonuniform forces
16 induced by the electrostatic field and
17 drag from the flue gas flow. A damaged
18 stand-off insulator may allow arcing to
19 occur by allowing the ESP current to
20 intermittently short to ground.
21
The damaged stand-off insulator may
22 allow a higher arc rate which will be
23 interpreted by the power supply controls
24 as increased sparking, resulting in a
893
1 relaxation of power delivered to charge
2 and collect particles.
3
C, although visual inspection found
4 carbon on the insulators, are there any
5 other sources of carbon in the ESP than
6 the activated carbon?
7
The Yates units have applied low NOx
8 burners retrofit in the 1990s. The LNB
9 procurement was competitively bid and a
10 state-of-art LNB technology selected.
11 However, the best technology available at
12 the time does not provide complete
13 combustion and generates residual carbon
14 in ash.
15
It is possible the accumulation of
16 carbon from carbon in ash may provide
17 enough conductivity to induce arcing.
18 However, Yates staff report that arcing in
19 unit 1 ESPs had not been noted until the
20 activated carbon injection testing in the
21 spring of 2004.
22
Question 80, again, with regard to
23 the report titled "Sorbent Injection for
24 Small Esp Mercury Control in Low Sulfur
894
1 Eastern Bituminous Coal Flue Gas,
2 Quarterly Technical Progress Report,
3 April 1 to June 30, 2005," please refer to
4 the first paragraph on page 3-32. Doesn't
5 this state that ESP behaved erratically
6 prior to injection of any carbon during
7 the long-term test but leaves open the
8 question of whether short-term tests
9 affected the ESP insulators?
10
Yes. The key unknown is the status
11 of the stand-off insulators, were they
12 broken prior to short-term tests conducted
13 one year earlier in spring 2004 or did
14 they fail as a consequence of that
15 parametric test and were not detected
16 until one year later.
17
MR. AYERS: Could I ask a follow-up
18 question or two on this point? According
19 to the last sentence of the fourth
20 paragraph on that same page, 3-32, does it
21 not say that no visible signs of damage
22 were observed, no damage to stand-off
23 insulators like the ones found in the
24 October 2004 inspection were found?
895
1
MR. CICHANOWICZ: The last sentence
2 of page 3-32?
3
MR. AYERS: The last sentence of the
4 fourth paragraph.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: It is the
6 third full paragraph, I believe.
7
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I will read the
8 fourth if you want.
9
MR. AYERS: We will take the third.
10
MR. CICHANOWICZ: No visible signs
11 of damage were observed. No damage -- no
12 damage to the stand-off insulators like
13 the ones found in the October 2004
14 inspection were found.
15
MR. AYERS: Does this confirm that
16 activated carbon did not damage the
17 insulators during long-term testing?
18
MR. BONEBRAKE: Mr. Ayers, for
19 clarification, are you asking if that's
20 Mr. Cichanowicz' opinion or if that's what
21 this document says?
22
MR. AYERS: Both, I think.
23
MR. BONEBRAKE: Which question would
24 you like answered first?
896
1
MR. AYERS: What the document says.
2
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, that's what
3 the document says. But, you know, the
4 text I quoted came from other sections of
5 this document. So there actually might be
6 two conclusions in the document.
7
MR. AYERS: Weren't the short-term
8 tests at a different time, the ones that
9 you are referring to?
10
MR. CICHANOWICZ: The short-term
11 tests were in spring 2004.
12
MR. AYERS: And the long-term tests
13 were December?
14
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
15
MR. AYERS: So these were different
16 times. And as we discussed before the
17 break, there are other sources of carbon
18 in the Yates ESP besides any sorbent that
19 may be added, correct?
20
MR. CICHANOWICZ: That's correct.
21
MR. AYERS: And these sources exceed
22 the amount of the activated carbon in the
23 sorbent, that's correct too, isn't it.
24
MR. CICHANOWICZ: In terms of
897
1 magnitude of carbon, yes. But as I would
2 say again, the nature of the carbon
3 injected as a sorbent is different than
4 the nature of carbon that leaves the flame
5 and the furnace enters the convective
6 pass. It's a different animal.
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
8 Mr. Nelson, had a follow up.
9
MR. NELSON: Just quickly, do you
10 know how activated carbon is made?
11
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Only in general
12 terms.
13
MR. NELSON: What is the first step
14 in production of activated carbon? It is
15 basically a two-step process. What's the
16 first step?
17
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Buy some coal.
18
MR. NELSON: That's a multi-step
19 process. Is the first step carbonation
20 where they devolatize the coal very
21 similar to what happens in the convective
22 pass or the boiler with carbon?
23
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes. But the
24 temperatures at which that
898
1 devolatilization I believe is on the order
2 -- is a lot less than the temperatures in
3 the flame zone. Flame zone temperatures
4 are on the order of 3,000 degree
5 Fahrenheit. And from what I read, the
6 devolatilization step in carbon
7 manufacture is lower than that.
8
So, therefore -- I am quoting from
9 papers I have read. The chrystiological
10 -- and that's a word -- features of
11 activated carbon are different than carbon
12 generated in a flame.
13
MR. NELSON: The temperature may be
14 lower. But is the length of time spent in
15 the hot sun much, much, much longer?
16
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Gases in the flame
17 zone are on the order of in the lower
18 furnace a second, second and a half, two
19 seconds for some big furnaces. I don't
20 know what they are in many manufacturing
21 carbon.
22
MR. NELSON: Would it surprise you
23 if it was on the order of hours?
24
MR. ZABEL: Are you testifying or
899
1 asking a question?
2
MR. NELSON: I am asking a question,
3 would it surprise you that it was on the
4 order of hours?
5
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I don't know. I
6 am more concerned with the temperature
7 time history that the particle goes
8 through.
9
MR. NELSON: Are bulk carbon
10 materials devolatilized?
11
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, but at very
12 different temperatures.
13
MR. AYERS: Mr. Cichanowicz, if you
14 believe that the activated carbon
15 injection damaged the insulators during
16 the short-term tests, why would it not
17 damage the insulators during the long-term
18 tests or are you not saying you believe
19 that?
20
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I am saying that
21 when you read the quarterly report, you
22 know, what they were concluding was they
23 weren't sure if the damage was done before
24 or after the inspection.
900
1
MR. AYERS: There were two
2 inspections, weren't there?
3
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
4
MR. AYERS: There was one from the
5 first test and one from the second.
6
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
7
MR. AYERS: And the second long-term
8 test did not demonstrate damage to the
9 insulators?
10
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
11
MR. AYERS: So my question is why
12 would there be damage in the first
13 instance, the short term test, and not in
14 the long-term test, if, indeed, the
15 sorbent were responsible for the damage?
16
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I don't know. I
17 mean one has to inspect these. Ideally
18 you do it before and after a test. But
19 usually the host utility isn't as
20 compliant to bring the unit down to allow
21 you to. But that is part of the mysteries
22 that we are working on.
23
MR. AYERS: You do admit that fact
24 casts doubt on whether the sorbent was
901
1 responsible in any way for this phenomena?
2
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I won't use the
3 word cast doubt. I will say it is another
4 unknown that must be considered.
5
MR. AYERS: Thank you.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
7 81.
8
MR. CICHANOWICZ: On page 3-33 of
9 the report titled "Sorbent Injection for
10 Small ESP Mercury Control in Low Sulfur
11 Eastern Bituminous Coal Flue Gas,
12 Quarterly Technical Progress Report, April
13 1 to June 30, 2005," it states that "the
14 arc rate in the first, open parenthesis,
15 A, close parenthesis, field is
16 significantly higher than arcing in the B
17 field, which is higher than arcing in the
18 C field. Furthermore, arcing in the B and
19 C field does not occur unless there is
20 significant arcing in field A. While
21 arcing in the first field was as high as
22 35 arcs per minute, no sparking was
23 observed."
24
Is it not normal that the first
902
1 field has a higher arc rate than the
2 subsequent fields because it captures the
3 most material?
4
The first field can, indeed, exhibit
5 higher arcing as the induced voltage is
6 highest in the first field.
7
Question 82 --
8
MR. AYERS: I'm sorry, I do have
9 follow-ups on that. Mr. Cichanowicz, for
10 the benefit of the Board, could you
11 explain what arcing is in an ESP?
12
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, first, what
13 I would like to do is remind everybody
14 what an ESP is. Dr. Staudt did a great
15 job in Springfield and if I could have
16 90 seconds, Madam Chairman.
17
But, basically, an ESP, to remind us
18 all, it is a large box where you -- the
19 first thing you do like you do in many
20 environmental control equipment is to slow
21 down the gas velocity. You want to get
22 the gas velocity on the order of in new
23 precipitators, three or four V per second,
24 some of the other ones five or six V per
903
1 second. So you have this big chamber
2 where you are slowing down the gas
3 velocity.
4
The second thing you want to do is
5 charge the particles so they migrate to a
6 collection plate. The way you do that is
7 to have a number of electrodes hanging
8 that used to be large thick wires called
9 weighted wires, now they are more pipes
10 and tubes. They provide one part of the
11 charge and the collecting plate provides
12 the other part of the charge. The gases
13 flow between the pipes and the plates.
14 And as they are charged, they basically
15 pick up this charge and they migrate to
16 the plate.
17
If things are good, the ash stays on
18 the plate. I know we are in snow country
19 so I know this analogy will work. I am
20 sure you have spent February afternoons
21 watching accumulated snow on your
22 neighbors's house, once it warms up it,
23 just sort of fall off in one complete
24 sheath and fall to the ground. If there
904
1 is a wind, you will see wisps of that snow
2 get convected away in the wind. That
3 exactly happens when a plate is wrapped
4 with mechanical hammers that remove the
5 ash from the plate.
6
The good news is you drop the ash
7 into this hopper. The bad news is that
8 wispiness will take ash and pull it back
9 into the gas stream. That's what we have
10 called wrapping re-entrainment.
11
It is really important to maintain
12 good spacing between the emitting
13 electrode and the plate and also to have
14 the proper voltage. And modern ESPs have
15 computer-based controls that are always
16 tailoring the right amount of voltage.
17
When you have arcing, what happens
18 is these emitting electrodes that I will
19 describe, they have to be secured somehow.
20 If they just hang there, the electrostatic
21 forces move them. The drag from the gas
22 moves them. So they have to be secured.
23 So they have to be held solid and tight.
24 And the stand-off insulators do exactly
905
1 that, they allow the emitting electrodes
2 to stand off from the high voltage frame
3 so you have a security committing system.
4
What happens is some of these
5 electrodes -- and they are made out of
6 ideally a zero conductivity device because
7 you don't want electricity to flow. What
8 happens if they get carbon on them and it
9 gets baked on, then you have created a
10 short and the power you really wanted to
11 go into the emitting electrode takes a
12 shortcut. And that basically cuts the
13 power way back. And you are not
14 delivering the charging power into the
15 ESP.
16
So we have arcing, you are not
17 delivering the power that you want. And,
18 basically, you want very low arc rates, if
19 at all, to maintain the proper power.
20 Does that suffice?
21
MR. AYERS: Thank you. Now, let's
22 talk about the Yates arcing issue, if we
23 may. Can you look at page 3-33 of
24 Exhibit 71, the report on the Yates test
906
1 that we have been -- long-term test that
2 we have been talking about today?
3
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
4
MR. AYERS: And I would like you to
5 look at the bottom of the page, conclusion
6 No. 3, and read that first sentence.
7
MR. CICHANOWICZ: "The arc rate is
8 higher at high load versus low load."
9
MR. AYERS: So at the bottom of --
10 I'm sorry, please move to the last
11 sentence on that page.
12
MR. CICHANOWICZ: You are not going
13 to let me read the one in the middle?
14 "The increase in arcing at full load is
15 seen for both injection and baseline
16 cases."
17
MR. AYERS: Would this be the normal
18 expectation, the higher the load the more
19 arcing you'd see?
20
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I believe that's
21 true because you are delivering more
22 power.
23
MR. AYERS: And if you could look at
24 the top of the next page on 3-34. It
907
1 actually starts at the bottom -- it is the
2 beginning of the sentence on 3-33 that
3 carries over to 3-34.
4
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Pardon?
5
MR. AYERS: It is the sentence which
6 begins at the bottom -- it is the last
7 sentence on 3-33 and then carries over to
8 3-34.
9
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, the end of
10 my 3-33, I have the sentence I just read,
11 "the increase in arcing at full load is
12 seen for both injection and baseline
13 cases."
14
MR. AYERS: I am sorry, there is a
15 period there. I didn't see it. Then the
16 first one on the next page.
17
MR. CICHANOWICZ: "At low load the
18 magnitude of the arcing does not appear to
19 trend with the magnitude of the carbon
20 injection rate. For example, the arc rate
21 or injection rates between three and four
22 pounds per million ACF was 4.6 APM, while
23 the arc rate for injection rates greater
24 than 70 pounds MCAF was 5.2 APM. However,
908
1 at high load, there may be an increase in
2 arc rate with carbon injection rate, open
3 parenthesis, with data --" there is typos
4 there "-- with data either three to four
5 or four to five pounds per MCAF accepted,
6 close parenthesis."
7
MR. AYERS: So we can agree that
8 arcing is elevated at high loads. And in
9 this report arcing was not seen at low
10 loads? Even with carbon injection --
11 sorry, let me say the question again.
12
Would it be fair to say that arcing
13 is elevated according to this report at
14 high loads even without carbon injection,
15 even when no carbon is being injected?
16
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes. But we do
17 have a sentence that says "however, at
18 high load, there may be an increase in arc
19 rate with carbon injection rate."
20
MR. AYERS: And low loads with
21 carbon injection, the authors saw no
22 adverse effect, no arcing? Is that what
23 this says?
24
MR. CICHANOWICZ: At low loads
909
1 that's basically what this says, yes.
2
MR. AYERS: So these statements
3 appear to indicate that injection at the
4 rates that were used here, no real change
5 in arcing was observed?
6
MR. ZABEL: I think that question
7 was asked and answered. At high loads, it
8 was; and low loads, it wasn't. Is this a
9 different question, Mr. Ayers?
10
MR. CICHANOWICZ: The last sentence
11 of item four, I just read it.
12
MR. AYERS: So the statement
13 "however, at high load there may be an
14 increase in arc rate with carbon
15 injection, parenthesis, with data in 3-4
16 or 4-5 pounds per million ACF accepted,"
17 does that statement appear to indicate
18 that with injection in that range no
19 change was observed, but leaves open the
20 question whether in high carbon injection
21 rates, there is an increase in arcing?
22
MR. ZABEL: Again, are you asking
23 him to interpret it or are you asking what
24 it says?
910
1
MR. AYERS: I am asking what he
2 believes it says, yes.
3
MR. ZABEL: I think it speaks for
4 itself, Madam Hearing Officer.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I would be
6 interested in his opinion. And we
7 understand --
8
MR. ZABEL: If that's what he is
9 asking, fine. If he is asking what it
10 says, his ability to read has been
11 demonstrated.
12
MR. AYERS: I will ask whether he is
13 convinced and has an opinion on that
14 subject by virtue of that.
15
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, it says the
16 arc rate for injection rates greater than
17 seven pounds was 5.2. And then it gives
18 you what that number is.
19
The first sentence of item five says
20 "the ESP appears to have recovered from
21 carbon injection tests to nearly pre-test
22 arcing rates to low load." So that
23 suggests to me that when you stop
24 injecting carbon -- a recovery usually
911
1 means a good thing. And it is saying it
2 is getting better.
3
MR. AYERS: Or if you inject at a
4 low rate, you don't have the problem.
5
MR. ZABEL: He gave you his opinion.
6 You can give us yours, Mr. Ayers. You are
7 under oath.
8
MR. AYERS: Most of the unscrubbed
9 units in Illinois fire PRB coal, don't
10 they?
11
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
12
MR. AYERS: Wouldn't their sorbent
13 injection rate be in the range of three
14 and a half to five pounds per million ACF?
15
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Probably.
16
MR. BONEBRAKE: Just for
17 clarification, are you asking about some
18 future activity or are you asking about
19 current injection rates?
20
MR. AYERS: I think the witness has
21 testified and other witnesses have
22 testified that power river basin coal,
23 that rate of injection is what would be
24 expected at the order to achieve the goals
912
1 of this regulation.
2
MR. BONEBRAKE: So you are asking
3 then about future sorbent injection?
4
MR. AYERS: I suppose.
5
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I thought I
6 answered and said, yes, three to five
7 pounds per million ACF is on the order of
8 what is proposed.
9
MR. AYERS: So at the injection
10 rates expected at most Illinois plants,
11 the Yates results indicate that we should
12 not expect a problem with increased
13 arcing; isn't that correct?
14
MR. CICHANOWICZ: You know, the
15 precipitators are different. And I think
16 you are really stretching me to compare
17 Yates with the ESPs here.
18
What I will agree with is at lower
19 carbon injection rates, you are less prone
20 to get arcing. But I can't take that next
21 jump.
22
MR. AYERS: Okay. Thank you. I do
23 have some questions on sorbent
24 distribution, which is another area of
913
1 inquiry with respect to this plant. If
2 the carbon is reportedly distributed in
3 the gas stream, would that mean that there
4 were regions of very high concentration in
5 some parts and very low concentration in
6 other parts of the ESP?
7
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Perhaps, if that's
8 -- if your statement is correct and it
9 plays out under those conditions, yes.
10
MR. AYERS: Is it possible that the
11 high concentration areas might cause
12 problems for the ESP?
13
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Possibly.
14
MR. AYERS: And is it also possible
15 that very low concentration areas might
16 cause poor mercury removal performance?
17
MR. CICHANOWICZ: That's correct,
18 possibly.
19
MR. AYERS: Okay. Thank you.
20
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Question 82, on
21 page 2-16 of that same report, the fourth
22 paragraph says "the vortex-like flow at an
23 ESP inlet made isokinetic sampling
24 impossible. It was decided for the final
914
1 Ontario Hydro campaign that the ESP inlet
2 site be omitted in favor of the stack
3 location."
4
Question A, do you know if
5 vortex-like flow is desirable or helpful
6 in an ESP? Deviation from well-behaved
7 parallel flow is detrimental to ESP
8 performance.
9
Our text in the subject quarterly
10 report do not necessarily support the
11 proposition that the Yates unit 1 ESP was
12 deficient. First, as discussed in
13 testimony, Yates units 1 through 4 ESPs
14 were completely rebuilt with unit 1
15 overhauled in 1997. Presumably the ESP
16 supplier, who was BHA, provided
17 state-of-art equipment. If a vortex flow
18 exists, it a consequence of the BHA
19 modeling. However, the sentence
20 proceeding that quoted belies another
21 fact, the presence of a vortex could have
22 been a consequence of the single-point
23 sampling probe. Specifically, I quote, in
24 previous Ontario Hydro campaigns the
915
1 evaluation points were the ESP inlet and
2 ESP outlet. In these previous campaigns,
3 the reactivity of the fly ash captured on
4 the particulate filler with flue gas
5 mercury created a bias in the partitioning
6 of the mercury between the solid and
7 particulate phases.
8
The report makes no mention of
9 vortex-like flows in these previous
10 campaigns. And it is possible the
11 observed vortex was a consequence of the
12 location of the sampling probe and not a
13 design malady.
14
It gets back to the single-point
15 location where depending on where the
16 probe was, it could have been behind a
17 duct stiffener or something that could
18 have been responsible for the vortex.
19
MR. AYERS: Are you aware that the
20 Department of Energy is contracted with
21 Fluent to model the injection system at
22 plant Yates?
23
MR. CICHANOWICZ: That doesn't
24 surprise me.
916
1
MR. AYERS: Fluent is the name of
2 the company, F-L-U-E-N-T. And I don't
3 think it is an acronym.
4
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I did not know
5 that Fluent in particular did the CFD
6 modeling, no.
7
MR. AYERS: So you are not aware of
8 any of the results?
9
MR. CICHANOWICZ: No.
10
MR. AYERS: Could we call your
11 attention to a PowerPoint slide.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I have
13 been handed a PowerPoint entitled "ACI
14 Field Test Support at Yates Unit 1." If
15 there is no objection, we will mark this
16 as Exhibit 109.
17
MR. AYERS: Madam Chairman, this
18 exhibit is or was Exhibit 71 in the
19 previous hearing. So it is already in the
20 record in Exhibit 71.
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: For ease
22 of discussion, we will mark it as
23 Exhibit 109. Seeing none, it is
24 Exhibit 109.
917
1
MR. AYERS: Do you recognize this as
2 a computer flow modeling result,
3 Mr. Cichanowicz?
4
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, I do.
5
MR. AYERS: The left side of this
6 slide says "particle traces colored by
7 particle residence time" and shows the
8 inlet ductwork to the ESP. And those blue
9 stream lines show trajectories of injected
10 carbon particles, would you agree with
11 that?
12
MR. CICHANOWICZ: That appears to be
13 the case as you described it, yes.
14
MR. AYERS: The flow of gases going
15 from the bottom of this figure on the left
16 and then upward and heading out of the
17 page to the left-hand side, correct?
18
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
19
MR. AYERS: So on the left, red
20 means a high residence time and blue means
21 a low residence time, correct?
22
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Can you define
23 what those units are on the scale on the
24 left?
918
1
MR. AYERS: Those are seconds.
2
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Red is higher,
3 blue is lower.
4
MR. AYERS: Red is about ten seconds
5 of residence time, while green is about
6 four or five seconds?
7
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
8
MR. AYERS: The highest residence
9 time seems to be the corners of the flow
10 where you would expect to see
11 recirculation zones, correct?
12
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
13
MR. AYERS: And wouldn't a
14 recirculation zone produce a vortex-like
15 flow as is described as being the ESP on
16 page 2-16 of the report on Yates testing?
17
MR. CICHANOWICZ: It might. It
18 depends on the location of the probe. I
19 mean, the concern of determining things
20 like this, when we do this kind of
21 modeling for SCR, you tend to see
22 disruption in the corners. I don't know
23 that it is a ten second residence time.
24 You have to look at the length of the
919
1 ductwork and see where the alleged
2 indication of vortex flow was to be able
3 to tie it to one of these.
4
MR. AYERS: The red in the corners
5 doesn't indicate to you that is a
6 vortex-like flow?
7
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I said that. But
8 you asked me where it was downstream.
9
MR. AYERS: Okay. Now, looking at
10 the diagram on the right, this is also a
11 computer-generated view where you are
12 looking from the other direction, so to
13 speak, the air is coming in at the bottom
14 right and then coming out toward us as we
15 look at the picture, correct?
16
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
17
MR. ZABEL: Just for the record, I
18 am glad counsel and my witness agree.
19 There is no indication on this of flow
20 direction.
21
MR. AYERS: That's why we have
22 experts. The rectangular area shows at
23 the top of the right-hand figure. In that
24 rectangular area, do you see the
920
1 calculated concentration gradients at the
2 inlet ESP?
3
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I can't tell where
4 the inlet of the ESP is on this. But I
5 see concentration gradients. And I
6 believe that is the scale to the left of
7 that and those units are kilograms per
8 cubic meter.
9
I see concentration gradients. I
10 don't know how that compares to the inlet
11 of the ESP. It looks to me like it is the
12 exit flame behind the turns banks.
13
MR. AYERS: The six little blue
14 lines show where the injectors are if the
15 flue gas remained up and past that?
16
MR. ZABEL: Are you testifying
17 that's what they show because it's not
18 listed that way?
19
MR. AYERS: Question mark.
20
MR. ZABEL: It doesn't say what
21 those are. It's not listed on this
22 diagram.
23
MR. CICHANOWICZ: That would look
24 like they were injectors.
921
1
MR. AYERS: Blue appears to be very
2 close to zero concentration, does it not?
3
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
4
MR. AYERS: So doesn't that mean
5 that the areas that are blue have little
6 or no sorbent, the dark blue?
7
MR. BONEBRAKE: For clarification,
8 there are various shades of blue.
9
MR. AYERS: I used the word dark
10 blue. I will reask it.
11
Does it mean that the areas that
12 have the darker blue colors have little or
13 no sorbent?
14
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
15
MR. AYERS: And the lighter blue
16 areas and the few yellowish areas have
17 higher amounts of sorbent, correct?
18
MR. CICHANOWICZ: That appears to be
19 the case, as I look at this.
20
MR. AYERS: Now, if you look at this
21 figure, doesn't it appear that most of the
22 sorbents seems to go to the outside
23 corners of this duct? Places where you
24 see the green and the yellow appear to be
922
1 the outside of the duct, do they not?
2
MR. CICHANOWICZ: The dark blue
3 appears to be in the middle, yes.
4
MR. AYERS: So if a large part of
5 the flue gas was untreated, wouldn't that
6 mean the mercury reductions would be poor?
7
MR. CICHANOWICZ: All other things
8 being equal, that would restrict mercury
9 removal.
10
MR. AYERS: Could we talk some about
11 the Conesville report which I think -- you
12 mentioned Conesville this morning. You
13 have that with you. It's a reference I
14 think to your testimony.
15
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I have it on CD.
16 I can bring it up if you would like.
17
MR. AYERS: Maybe you can answer
18 questions without that.
19
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Pardon me, I might
20 actually have it. One moment.
21
(Short pause in
22
proceedings.)
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I have an
24 extra copy of the CD if you want.
923
1
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I think I have got
2 it, thanks.
3
MR. AYERS: I am asking you to look
4 if you have the report the paragraph on
5 page 15 that you cite in your testimony
6 that begins "ESP performance was effected
7 by some sorbents."
8
MR. ZABEL: It is going to take a
9 moment to get there.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: What page
11 of his testimony?
12
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I am not sure if
13 it is in my testimony because I didn't
14 access this report until after.
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I am
16 sorry. You said he referenced it in his
17 testimony.
18
MR. AYERS: Page 15 is the reference
19 to the testimony.
20
MR. ZABEL: Page 15 of his
21 testimony?
22
MR. CICHANOWICZ: It is not in
23 referenced in my testimony. I didn't have
24 this until it was filed.
924
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: It is not
2 in his written testimony.
3
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I am looking at
4 page 15 of the subject report.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And for
6 the record that report was in as part of
7 the CDs in Exhibit 96?
8
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Correct.
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: He is
10 there. Go ahead.
11
MR. AYERS: I was going to ask you
12 to read the paragraph on that page that
13 begins "ESP performance was effected by
14 some sorbents."
15
MR. CICHANOWICZ: "ESP performance
16 was effected by some sorbents in terms of
17 spark rates in power. Opacity spikes were
18 also noted during some tests, which may
19 have been attributable to sorbents or to
20 normal unit operational variations, both
21 Darco E-12 and Sorbet Technologies EXP-2
22 had an opacity impact that would require
23 further evaluation.
24
MR. AYERS: So the report that you
925
1 refer to indicates that there are normal
2 opacity excursions under normal operations
3 without sorbent, correct?
4
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, it says it
5 could have been attributable to normal
6 human operational variations.
7
MR. AYERS: And aren't Darco E-12
8 and Sorbent Technologies EXP-2
9 experimental sorbents?
10
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I believe so.
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
12 Mr. Ayers, just for point of
13 clarification, is that -- by experimental
14 sorbents, do you mean not commercially
15 available?
16
MR. AYERS: Yes.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We had
18 that discussion yesterday. I want to make
19 sure we are on the same page.
20
MR. AYERS: Above that on the same
21 page, does it not say, quote, because of
22 difficulties controlling the feed rate,
23 the actual injection concentrations,
24 although relatively constant for each
926
1 material, ranged from nine to 18 pounds
2 per MACF from sorbent to sorbent. The
3 problems with the feeder were resolved
4 during the second week of testing, close
5 quote.
6
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, that's what
7 the sentence says.
8
MR. AYERS: Could that feeder
9 problem have effected opacity?
10
MR. CICHANOWICZ: It could have
11 effected opacity, yes.
12
MR. AYERS: Do you expect any of the
13 PRB units in Illinois to have to inject
14 levels of nine to 18 pounds of sorbent?
15
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Not unless the
16 feeders get out of whack. And that's the
17 whole purpose of one-year demonstration.
18
MR. AYERS: So my question is how
19 relevant is this experience in the
20 Conesville Plant to the Illinois units
21 that would be subject to this rule?
22
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, I think it
23 shows that despite the best efforts of the
24 Sid Nelsons of the world and the people
927
1 that are designing these figures, things
2 happen. Okay. And this whole thing about
3 variation, there will be events that can
4 induce variability on the low side. And
5 if you can compensate -- we have them
6 right here -- actually, this might be on
7 the high side.
8
The point is these systems
9 inherently vary. That's the way a power
10 station works. And I think this is a good
11 example of the kind of variability where
12 you have a test curve out there dedicated
13 to make this work. You know, ADA are the
14 best people who are going to get doing
15 this along with Sorbent Tech. And things
16 still happen.
17
And I think it actually speaks well
18 to the fact that this is the kind of stuff
19 that happens day in and day out. And
20 longer term tests and demonstration will
21 prove this.
22
Having said that, yes, these are
23 higher mass injection rates than all
24 things being equal, we would have on ESPs
928
1 in Illinois. That is true.
2
MR. AYERS: Okay. Thank you. We
3 can go onto No. 83.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: He didn't
5 answer B. Is that asked and answered,
6 82-B?
7
MR. CICHANOWICZ: 82-B, don't ESP
8 suppliers attempt to straighten the flow
9 out with flow control devices in order to
10 improve performance?
11
Yes, recognize that these units are
12 completely rebuilt in 1999 with
13 state-of-art design techniques by BHA.
14
Question 83, on page 41 of your
15 testimony it discusses the results of
16 testing at Yates 6. Please provide the
17 source of your information.
18
The source of data for Yates 6 was
19 the technical paper entitled "Full Scale
20 Evaluation of Activated Carbon Injection,"
21 Dombrowski, K., et al., presented to the
22 Air Quality Control V Symposium,
23 Arlington, Virginia, September, 2005, and
24 discussions with the author Mark Berry.
929
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
2 84?
3
MR. CICHANOWICZ: On page 42 of your
4 testimony, you describe your version of a
5 conversation with Mr. Peter Hoeflich
6 regarding experience at a Progress Energy
7 Station. Who is Mr. Peter Hoeflich?
8
Mr. Peter Hoeflich is the project
9 manager of the Progress Energy Lee unit 1
10 demonstration tests for ACI.
11
Question 85 --
12
MR. AYERS: Mr. Cichanowicz,
13 Mr. Nelson testified under oath that this
14 data was provided to him by Progress
15 Energy. Do you have good reason to doubt
16 his testimony on it?
17
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I never said I
18 doubted his testimony. What I said was --
19 I will answer your question. I don't have
20 reasons to doubt his testimony.
21
MR. AYERS: If he is a credible
22 person to make statements regarding these
23 tests, is it possible for him to provide
24 testimony -- I'm sorry. Let me back up.
930
1
Is Mr. Hoeflich is a credible person
2 to makes statements regarding these tests,
3 is it possible for him to provide
4 testimony rather than having us rely on
5 hearsay?
6
MR. ZABEL: If I may respond, the
7 Board relies on hearsay all the time. The
8 hearsay rules are, if not applied in these
9 proceedings, they are certainly relaxed
10 throughout all the testimony of all the
11 parties. And it is not inappropriate in
12 any administrative proceeding for a
13 witness to pursue answers to questions and
14 obtain data by personal contact, by other
15 means.
16
And to answer your specific
17 question, Mr. Ayers, no, it isn't possible
18 to get Mr. Hoeflich in.
19
MR. AYERS: You would agree it would
20 be better evidence to have him here
21 testifying himself?
22
MR. ZABEL: It is always better
23 evidence, of course. That's what the
24 hearsay rule is about.
931
1
MR. KIM: Mr. Zabel is now
2 testifying.
3
MR. CICHANOWICZ: We have a highly
4 chaotic reporting protocol. The good
5 Mr. Nelson yesterday introduced data with
6 permission of DOE. I called the project
7 manager, Lynn Brickett, within several
8 hours and she, indeed, did say Mr. Nelson
9 had talked to her about doing that. But
10 she also cautioned me that it is
11 preliminary data.
12
The number of hours of data
13 accumulation that Mr. Nelson has is about
14 half of my time in this witness chair.
15 Okay. So I have the right to use the
16 contacts that I have to corporate in
17 ground truth what I have said. Nobody
18 should be upset about it. That's the
19 right I have as an expert in the and the
20 contact that I have to make sure that all
21 the facts line up.
22
I did the same in Springfield.
23 Again, Mr. Nelson walked in with a sheet
24 of paper. And he was under oath and he is
932
1 a truthful man. He did have the
2 permission of DOE. I called Lynn Brickett
3 again the week after that and she did say
4 he did submit the data and he did have
5 permission to release it.
6
I did call Mr. Peter Hoeflich. And
7 Mr. Hoeflich had seen that plot three or
8 four days prior to when I called him and
9 that was the week after the Springfield
10 meeting. So he hadn't seen it yet. That
11 might be his problem. Okay.
12
But the whole purpose of this was to
13 say do you agree with this general
14 information. And all he said was this
15 data that's presented is a subset of data
16 that was generated. I have not had a
17 chance to review it. And if you look at
18 the language in my testimony, it very
19 carefully says we need to treat this data
20 with caution as Mr. Nelson stated in
21 Springfield. It is very black and white.
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Nelson,
23 you have a follow-up?
24
MR. NELSON: Yes. If I may read two
933
1 sentences from your testimony. You state
2 specifically --
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Specify
4 where they are at and you need to speak
5 up.
6
MR. NELSON: Well, this is on
7 page 42 of your testimony, second
8 paragraph about halfway through the -- two
9 sentences or three sentences that begin
10 halfway through with "specifically after
11 completion," could you reread those
12 sentences?
13
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I'm sorry.
14
MR. NELSON: Page 42, second
15 paragraph, a little more than halfway down
16 where it says "specifically after
17 completion."
18
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Okay. Well, do
19 you mind if I read the sentence preceding?
20
MR. NELSON: You can if you wish.
21
MR. CICHANOWICZ: "Mr. Hoeflich
22 cited results from a perhaps imprecise but
23 insightful test in which the role of SO3
24 conditioning and B-Pac on ESP opacity was
934
1 incurred. Specifically, after completion
2 of the 30-day trial with B-Pac showing
3 83 percent mercury removal, unit 1 opacity
4 was noted to be 28 percent. Upon
5 terminating B-Pac injection, opacity
6 increased to 32 percent. Restoring
7 conventional SO3 conditioning reduced
8 capacity to 32 percent. In summary, these
9 tests suggest that B-Pac can marginally
10 improve opacity, but not to the extent
11 claimed by Exhibit 73."
12
MR. NELSON: My questions begin with
13 did you look at any data, any at all
14 before testifying under oath that Lee 1
15 opacity was 28 percent when the sorbent
16 was turned off and restoring to SO3
17 conditioning reduced opacity to three
18 percent and that B-Pac can marginally
19 improve opacity but not to the extent
20 claimed in Exhibit 73?
21
MR. BONEBRAKE: Just for
22 clarification, when you said did you look
23 at any data, does that mean did he hear
24 about any data or do you mean --
935
1
MR. NELSON: Did he actually observe
2 any opacity data?
3
MR. CICHANOWICZ: No.
4
MR. ZABEL: You mean take a visual
5 reading?
6
MR. NELSON: Exactly. Anything more
7 than hearsay, did he look at plots of
8 opacity?
9
MR. ZABEL: I think it speaks for
10 itself, but he can certainly answer. It
11 says where he got the data from.
12
MR. CICHANOWICZ: No, I did not.
13 The sentence speaks for itself.
14
MR. NELSON: Did you ask to see any
15 of the opacity data?
16
MR. CICHANOWICZ: No, I did not.
17 Mr. Hoeflich said he was reviewing it.
18 And as the project manager of the
19 demonstration, that is his responsibility.
20
MR. NELSON: Could you have asked to
21 examine the data?
22
MR. CICHANOWICZ: In concept I could
23 have.
24
MR. NELSON: I would like to present
936
1 as an exhibit opacity data from Lee.
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I have
3 been handed a packet here titled "Opacity
4 and Load at Lee Unit 1 during Baseline,
5 Long-Term Run and Ends." And I will mark
6 this as Exhibit 110, if there is no
7 objection.
8
MR. BONEBRAKE: Can we reserve
9 objections, Madam Hearing Officer, until
10 we hear a little more about this document?
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sure. But
12 for purposes of us talking about it, I am
13 going to mark it.
14
MR. ZABEL: It is marked as
15 Exhibit 110.
16
MR. KIM: Is that Exhibit 109 or
17 110?
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: 110.
19
MR. NELSON: For the Board can you
20 explain what the baseline period is in
21 these tests?
22
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Whose data is
23 this?
24
MR. ZABEL: I have no idea who this
937
1 is. Don't ask me.
2
MR. CICHANOWICZ: It's your data,
3 Sid. Why don't you explain what the
4 baseline is.
5
MR. NELSON: Do you know what a
6 baseline period --
7
MR. ZABEL: He has previously
8 testified --
9
MR. CICHANOWICZ: How many times are
10 we going to go through this?
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me.
12 Let's just take a deep breath.
13
MR. ZABEL: I think he testified on
14 prior graphs as to what a baseline is. It
15 is in the record, I believe. I think
16 Mr. Ayers asked the question on another
17 set of data.
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead
19 with your questions.
20
MR. NELSON: Let's look at the top
21 two charts, which are opacity charts at
22 Lee during the baseline period there in
23 January. Is opacity --
24
MR. ZABEL: Excuse me, Mr. Nelson
938
1 what year is that?
2
MR. NELSON: It's this year.
3
MR. ZABEL: It's this year. Are you
4 testifying that it's this year?
5
MR. NELSON: I will testify this is
6 this year. This is not our data. This is
7 data that comes from Progress Energy.
8
MR. ZABEL: Again, that is your
9 testimony, Mr. Nelson?
10
MR. NELSON: That is my testimony.
11
Is opacity very sensitive to load,
12 Mr. Cichanowicz, at many plants?
13
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
14
MR. NELSON: And you typically get
15 the highest opacity at the highest loads,
16 correct?
17
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
18
MR. NELSON: For example, here
19 during the baseline period, the load is in
20 pink and the opacity on the left-hand side
21 is in black. At periods of peak load of
22 this unit, which is pushing 80 megawatts,
23 what opacities do you see in the top two
24 graphs? What range?
939
1
MR. BONEBRAKE: Madam Hearing
2 Officer, I am going to renew my objection
3 I made yesterday, but particularly to
4 pertain to this document. Mr. Nelson
5 apparently is both testifying and asking
6 questions. I don't know whether to be
7 asking Mr. Nelson questions about what he
8 is saying or whether Mr. Cichanowicz is
9 supposed to be responding to what
10 Mr. Nelson is asking.
11
MR. NELSON: He is supposed to be
12 responding to what I am asking.
13
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, this isn't a
14 test. This is your data. Can you just
15 describe it? Well, then you are
16 testifying. I guess you can't do that.
17
MR. NELSON: Unfortunately, my hands
18 are tied.
19
You claim that the graph that was
20 presented earlier was in error. Okay.
21 That's in your testimony.
22
MR. CICHANOWICZ: No, no. Don't put
23 words in my mouth. I claim I talked to
24 the man who was in charge of the project.
940
1 And all he said was his opinion could be
2 different and that I should be -- we
3 should be cautious in how we treated the
4 data. Anything else is your
5 interpretation.
6
MR. ZABEL: It seems to me, Madam
7 Hearing Officer, he is an agency witness.
8 If they want to call him and put this in,
9 they should do that.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I'm sorry,
11 Mr. Zabel. I believe this is a direct
12 refuting of your testimony. I disagree
13 with -- I'm sorry Mr. Cichanowicz -- I
14 understand you were repeating what this
15 gentleman told you in your testimony. But
16 you have provided sworn testimony that the
17 opacity rates were this, this and this.
18 And this is Mr. Nelson specifically
19 offering what he at least believes, I
20 assume, to be a rebuttal to that.
21
And so he is asking now for the
22 opinion of the witness on what this means.
23
MR. ZABEL: The problem is, first,
24 that's not what Mr. Cichanowicz testified.
941
1 He testified what the gentleman who is the
2 project manager told him.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's
4 right. That's what I said.
5
MR. ZABEL: And that's all he
6 testified to. What we have is no
7 testimony as to how this data came about.
8 Mr. Nelson can draw a graph. I don't
9 believe he did. I think he took data.
10 But we have no more testimony about the
11 source of this than Mr. Cichanowicz'
12 testimony that he spoke to the project
13 manager.
14
MR. NELSON: Maybe I can make this
15 very quick.
16
MR. ZABEL: That would be helpful.
17
MR. NELSON: Mr. Cichanowicz, are
18 you willing to withdraw everything you
19 said on that page about the Lee data?
20
MR. CICHANOWICZ: No.
21
MR. NELSON: Then let's continue,
22 please.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I would
24 point out, Mr. Zabel, you specifically
942
1 asked and Mr. Nelson has been sworn in
2 where this came from and what it was, and
3 he answered those questions. So we know
4 that is data from Progress Energy that you
5 got directly from Progress Energy on the
6 opacity readings at this facility that the
7 statements from the project manager were
8 offered from, correct?
9
MR. NELSON: Yes.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I'm going
11 to allow some leeway to ask the questions.
12 What he is looking for is now an
13 interpretation from Mr. Cichanowicz of
14 this data. And I think that is a
15 legitimate -- whether they are actually
16 Mr. Cichanowicz' statements, he is the one
17 who put them in the statement in his
18 testimony. So I think it is fair to ask
19 for his interpretation of this data.
20
MR. ZABEL: I would only make the
21 observation that Mr. Nelson, as I said, is
22 an agency witness. This is January data.
23 He didn't include it in his testimony.
24 The agency should have included it.
943
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: But he did
2 include testimony at the Springfield
3 hearing about this which Mr. Cichanowicz
4 has taken issue with and now he is
5 rebutting that. So let's go forward.
6
MR. NELSON: There was one chart.
7 That was a summary of all this.
8
I will repeat the question. In the
9 baseline period of those two top graphs,
10 when the unit was at high load, what
11 opacities was the opacity monitor
12 indicating?
13
MR. BONEBRAKE: And just for
14 clarification, Mr. Nelson, you are asking
15 what your document tells him on that
16 issue?
17
MR. NELSON: Correct, what these
18 plots say.
19
MR. CICHANOWICZ: High load to
20 30 percent.
21
MR. NELSON: Or on the second graph
22 20 to 25 percent approximately at high
23 load?
24
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
944
1
MR. NELSON: So between 20 and
2 30 percent depending on the operation.
3
To make this a little quicker, let's
4 go to the second page on the top graph,
5 this is the -- for clarification, those
6 are dates, days along the bottom. This is
7 a composite of it looks like a month of
8 opacity in red again with the pink being
9 the low again showing how over time and
10 how it varies with the load.
11
Mr. Cichanowicz, if we look at the
12 red graph and look at when they are at
13 high load for those 30 days, approximately
14 what is the average opacity now with the
15 sorbent on, the B-Pac carbonated carbon
16 on, and the SO3 flue gas conditioning off.
17
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Am I looking at
18 the top graph or the lower one?
19
MR. NELSON: The top one is the
20 boiler load and the bottom one is the
21 opacity graph.
22
MR. CICHANOWICZ: And the question
23 is what's the opacity at high load?
24
MR. NELSON: Yes. An average
945
1 opacity at high load opacity over 30 days?
2
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, I am not --
3 I am saying the top graph is the 30 days
4 and the high load capacity is 21 percent.
5
MR. NELSON: About 21 percent,
6 that's what we calculated as well.
7
The low load opacity, when they were
8 at, essentially, half of 80 megawatts,
9 that's as low as they go?
10
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Six percent.
11
MR. NELSON: Six percent plus or
12 minus. That's about what we got.
13
Now, what Mr. Hoeflich told you over
14 the phone and what you have down had to do
15 with what happened at the end of the test
16 -- before I ask that, is 21 percent
17 significantly below that 20 to 30 that you
18 saw during the baseline period?
19
MR. CICHANOWICZ: It is at the low
20 end.
21
MR. NELSON: Yeah. It doesn't mean
22 since that was a month or two earlier,
23 okay, the coal may have been a little
24 different, the ESP may have been a little
946
1 different. So you can't directly compare
2 them, can you?
3
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Correct.
4
MR. NELSON: But at least it gives
5 you an idea. Mr. Hoeflich was talking at
6 the end of the test. And I want to show
7 you -- that's the fourth graph, the bottom
8 one that shows -- it doesn't actually show
9 -- when the sorbent was turned off, if you
10 look at the top graph at the end, where
11 that arrow is -- and I admit the
12 resolution is not good on this graph. But
13 actually it was 21 percent when the powder
14 activated carbon was turned off, which is
15 the long-term average of the high low
16 load. They were at high load when we
17 turned it off.
18
Then what happened was they quickly
19 -- they went to low load and opacity
20 dropped.
21
MR. ZABEL: This is clearly
22 testimony.
23
MR. NELSON: I am trying to explain.
24 Can you get to the fourth graph?
947
1
MR. ZABEL: Your explanation is
2 testimony, Mr. Nelson. That's the point
3 of my objection.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And we are
5 going to get to a question now.
6
MR. ZABEL: But it is premised on
7 his testimony.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I
9 understand that. And he has been sworn
10 in. I understand your objection, but --
11
MR. ZABEL: Do I get to
12 cross-examine him on his testimony?
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If you
14 want to. But, first, let's get to his
15 question.
16
MR. NELSON: Then looking at the
17 bottom graph, this is 30-second opacity
18 numbers. The PAC is off and the SO3 is
19 off. If you can start time wise, days,
20 kind of describe what happens to opacity.
21
MR. CICHANOWICZ: So you are saying
22 from left-to-right by looking --
23
MR. NELSON: April 7th.
24
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Sid, there is a
948
1 lot of things going on on this chart and
2 your eyes are better than mine.
3 April 7th --
4
MR. NELSON: What happens at load
5 when they go up to high load for the first
6 time after the sorbent has been turned
7 off?
8
MR. BONEBRAKE: Again, for
9 clarification, all you are doing is asking
10 Mr. Cichanowicz to comment on what's on
11 your document, Mr. Nelson?
12
MR. NELSON: Right, what's on my
13 document on this plot.
14
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I can make it easy
15 by reading the words, opacity streaks up
16 first time going to full load.
17
MR. NELSON: Right. And in fact, it
18 looks like it goes over 30 percent?
19
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
20
MR. NELSON: Yes, it does.
21 Actually, when it started streaking up --
22 just again I am testifying -- they got
23 very frightened and turned the SO3 back
24 on. The opacity peaked at about
949
1 30 percent and then they turned it on.
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Nelson,
3 you really need to get to a question now.
4
MR. NELSON: The question is what
5 happens when they turned the SO3 on?
6
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, I can't
7 tell. SO3 -- I will read the words, SO3
8 FGC brings it down again.
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay. All
10 we are doing now -- I really thought I was
11 trying to give you some leeway here. I
12 was trying to let you ask questions. All
13 you are having him do is read your
14 document, and that's in effect was he is
15 doing. And that's fine, except that it's
16 his turn to testify.
17
So I need you to ask him a question
18 that don't involve him reading your
19 document.
20
MR. ZABEL: I think Mr. Nelson is
21 trying to put in evidence indirectly.
22
MR. NELSON: What happens to the
23 boxes when the SO3 is turned on?
24
MR. CICHANOWICZ: They tend to drop
950
1 in magnitude. And I am reading words
2 here.
3
MR. NELSON: Just look at the boxes.
4 What was the -- for the next couple days,
5 when they were at high load with SO3 on
6 now, did they get down to three percent
7 opacity?
8
MR. CICHANOWICZ: About that.
9
MR. NELSON: No, at high load.
10
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Okay. At
11 17 percent.
12
MR. NELSON: Okay. So in other
13 words, it dropped. When they turn the
14 sorbent off, you testified it went up to
15 30. And when they turn the SO3 on, it
16 dropped down to about 17.
17
MR. ZABEL: Just for the record, he
18 didn't testify it went to 30 percent. He
19 read it off Mr. Nelson's chart. He is not
20 testifying what it did at all.
21
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I am not trying to
22 be difficult, Sid. But you have to
23 understand this is a beautiful graph. But
24 you really have to think about it and it
951
1 is just hard to look at.
2
MR. NELSON: It is. It would have
3 been best if we would have looked at the
4 data rather than relied on hearsay because
5 sometimes we get it wrong.
6
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, and my
7 comment is when are we going to be in
8 position when we can have data that, you
9 know, the host utility agrees with, that
10 it isn't presented in their absence.
11 That's the kind of solid information that
12 in an ideal world would be desirable to
13 base a rule on. And it just isn't
14 happening that way. I don't know why.
15 But all this is unnecessary if the data
16 can be fed in and thought through and
17 analyzed.
18
But as you can see, over the last
19 few days, it comes out in bits and pieces.
20 And the results sometimes depend on when
21 it comes out. We are making this a lot
22 harder than it has to be.
23
MR. NELSON: Can we turn to
24 Exhibit 88 from yesterday?
952
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Before we
2 do that, I am going to admit this as
3 Exhibit 110 for what it's worth.
4
MR. ZABEL: I object.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I
6 understand your objection. But I am going
7 to admit it over objection. I think the
8 Board can accept it for how it has been
9 offered.
10
MR. NELSON: Does everybody have
11 yesterday's Exhibit 88?
12
MR. ZABEL: What is 88?
13
MR. NELSON: It was Midwest
14 Generation's Crawford 7.
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: It is
16 "Mercury Removal at Midwest Generation's
17 Crawford No. 7."
18
MR. NELSON: Ed, if you can turn to
19 the third page here, you have had a day to
20 look this over, haven't you?
21
MR. ZABEL: Madam Hearing Officer --
22
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I have had a day.
23
MR. ZABEL: Before we go to that,
24 Madam Hearing Officer, there is something
953
1 relevant to that I would like to introduce
2 into the record. This is Mr. Nelson's
3 letter to the Department of Energy from
4 which he got this release. The data is
5 actually tabbed.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I have a
7 letter -- an E-mail, excuse me, from Lynn
8 Brickett to K. Wanniger at Midwest Gen.
9 And I will mark this as Exhibit 111, if
10 there is no objection. Seeing none, it is
11 Exhibit 11.
12
MR. ZABEL: You will note the date
13 on the caption is the 16th, which was
14 earlier this week. The only reason I
15 wanted to put this into the record, there
16 are two statements in here, which Mr. Kim
17 may wish to comment on. And then I would
18 be happy to let Mr. Nelson ask the witness
19 whatever he wants.
20
The first sentence is "attached are
21 some things that the State of Illinois is
22 anxious to show in their hearing next
23 week." And at the end of the next to last
24 paragraph, again it says can "Illinois
954
1 show these next week. They are
2 appropriately marked preliminary.
3 Thanks."
4
I have shown this letter previously
5 to Mr. Kim because we inquired whether
6 Mr. Nelson was representing the State of
7 Illinois in obtaining these.
8
MR. NELSON: Am I presenting this
9 data for the utilities?
10
MR. ZABEL: I'm sorry.
11
MR. NELSON: What is the point?
12
MR. ZABEL: We will see what Mr. Kim
13 says. I think it was misrepresented to
14 the Department of Energy. Mr. Cichanowicz
15 can comment on his discussion with Ms.
16 Brickett after this information came into
17 the record.
18
MR. KIM: And, I'm sorry, would you
19 like a response -- I understand
20 Mr. Zabel's statement. Would you like a
21 response? I guess I am directing this to
22 the hearing officer.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sure. If
24 you give us a response, we would love to
955
1 hear what you have a to say.
2
MR. KIM: That was not the answer I
3 was looking for. I believe it is safe to
4 say that we are -- the Illinois EPA has
5 been and continues to be very appreciative
6 of the voluntary efforts that Mr. Nelson
7 has provided us through the course of
8 these proceedings.
9
That being said, neither Mr. Nelson
10 nor any consultant retained by the State
11 of Illinois in this proceeding at the very
12 least in my opinion, I am pretty certain
13 about this, is authorized to make requests
14 on behalf of the State of Illinois. I am
15 loathed to make requests on behalf of the
16 State of Illinois.
17
So insofar as that first statement
18 has been highlighted by Mr. Zabel, I would
19 say that that may have been a stretch to
20 be kind.
21
MR. NELSON: Mr. Zabel, if this was
22 being presented by your side, if this data
23 was presented by your side, would you have
24 the same rights to have it presented and
956
1 to have it approved for release by DOE?
2
MR. ZABEL: I am not suggesting he
3 won't answer your question, Mr. Nelson. I
4 don't know what the point of your inquiry
5 is.
6
Furthermore, if I had a contract
7 with the party who was doing the testing,
8 I would have asked them in advance before
9 I presented the data. You do have a
10 contract with Midwest Gen, do you not?
11
MR. NELSON: I do. And do you have
12 the E-mail sent to Midwest Gen with this
13 data in it.
14
MR. ZABEL: That's five days, you
15 will note, after the letter you sent to
16 DOE saying you were asking for this on
17 behalf of the State of Illinois. It was
18 two days before you introduced it into
19 this hearing -- or one day actually.
20
MR. NELSON: When was the data
21 collected, Mr. Zabel?
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.
23 Gentlemen, you know --
24
MR. ZABEL: The data has its dates
957
1 on it. I don't need to respond to that.
2 It speaks for itself. I said I will let
3 the witness answer your questions on it.
4
I just wanted the record to show how
5 you came about it, Mr. Nelson. That's the
6 purpose of it. It has been done.
7
MR. NELSON: We came about it --
8 this opacity --
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay,
10 Gentlemen, that's it. We are not talking
11 about how it came about. We are going to
12 ask questions.
13
MR. NELSON: Let's get to the
14 question. This is similar data and you
15 have seen it now with load and opacity.
16 The week before we began injection with
17 the second smallest ESP in Illinois, at
18 full load, as they were at full load for a
19 number of hours, what does this data
20 indicate happens at opacity?
21
MR. CICHANOWICZ: What chart do you
22 want me to look at?
23
MR. NELSON: The very first one.
24 This is the third page of Exhibit 88, top
958
1 chart, one of the arrows.
2
MR. CICHANOWICZ: So red means load,
3 blue means opacity. And the question is
4 what happens at full load?
5
MR. NELSON: Yes.
6
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, it looks
7 like it vacillates between 25 and
8 30 percent.
9
MR. NELSON: Does it vacillate or
10 does it tend to go in one direction at a
11 time?
12
MR. CICHANOWICZ: It goes in one
13 direction.
14
MR. NELSON: About three to five
15 percent absolute?
16
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I'd say that was
17 right.
18
MR. NELSON: Now, the next week when
19 we began the C-PAC injection beginning on
20 8/5, for four days as are indicated there,
21 now what is the trend of time at high
22 load?
23
MR. CICHANOWICZ: It's around 20 and
24 in some cases 25 percent.
959
1
MR. NELSON: Not looking at the
2 absolute values, it is lower, but there
3 was a recalibration. But the trend, the
4 time, does it continue to go up the high
5 load or does it --
6
MR. ZABEL: I don't want to beat
7 this horse to death because I think it is
8 pretty wounded already. Mr. Nelson is
9 testifying what this data is. His company
10 is involved in the test, so he may well
11 know. But it is not the proper way to ask
12 a question of this witness about this
13 data.
14
MR. NELSON: I asked for a trend and
15 I didn't get an answer on the trend.
16
MR. ZABEL: You were testifying what
17 happened.
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me.
19 Dr. Girard?
20
MR. GIRARD: Can I ask a question,
21 Mr. Nelson? How does this data and your
22 interpretation of this data differ from
23 Mr. Cichanowicz' testimony?
24
MR. NELSON: Dramatically,
960
1 180 degrees. Mr. Cichanowicz in his
2 testimony testifies that there are going
3 to be opacity issues, that the particulate
4 that comes out of the smoke stack when you
5 add two percent carbon injected into the
6 ESP, that is going to cause particulate
7 issues. When, in fact, the data for
8 brominated carbon that I would like to go
9 over on the record on multiple plants
10 shows just the opposite. That brominated
11 carbon tends to have what they call
12 co-benefit effect of increasing the
13 performance of the ESP, not decreasing the
14 performance, but increasing the
15 performance so that there is actually less
16 particulate going on.
17
And this can be an important issue
18 because of NSR where you don't want to
19 solve one problem and create another
20 problem.
21
MR. GIRARD: So you think that the
22 exhibit you have given us, Exhibit 110,
23 has data which shows that?
24
MR. NELSON: 110, yes. They had
961
1 done what is called an SO3 flue gas
2 conditioning system, that they put on
3 their plant to help the ESP work. In 110
4 at Lee for the first time in years, when
5 we injected the sorbent and saw this
6 positive effect on the ESP, they were able
7 to turn that system off and operate
8 continuously for a month.
9
And then as soon as we turned the
10 sorbent off, the next time they went to
11 high load, they had to turn it back on
12 again because the particulate was going
13 high again.
14
MR. GIRARD: Thank you.
15 Mr. Cichanowicz, does anything that
16 Mr. Nelson said change anything in your
17 testimony?
18
MR. CICHANOWICZ: If there was
19 adequate data over a long -- over periods
20 of time over a time scale where we can be
21 comfortable with it, then it would change
22 my testimony. But it is like everything
23 else, there is a lot of short-term data
24 and it has to be fully vetted and
962
1 evaluated.
2
So I think in time perhaps I would
3 change my testimony. But it is hard for
4 me to respond to basically the results as
5 they come out in almost real time.
6
MR. GIRARD: And that basically is
7 one of the major themes of the testimony
8 of all of your people, basically, that we
9 need more time.
10
MR. CICHANOWICZ: More operating
11 time and to be able to evaluate data, but
12 certainly operating time.
13
MR. GIRARD: Thanks. Do we need to
14 beat this one any more? I think the
15 data --
16
MR. NELSON: The answer is no. I
17 think the points have been made.
18
MR. GIRARD: We got the data. We
19 know what the issues are. I think we need
20 another question.
21
MR. AYERS: Question 85. Question
22 85 I believe has been asked and answered.
23 But I would like to follow up with one
24 follow-up question, if I may. This
963
1 question is about the expressed concern
2 that sorbent injection could trigger NSR.
3
My question is this. In light of
4 the difference you expressed
5 Mr. Cichanowicz yesterday as far as
6 offering legal interpretation of the
7 proposed Illinois TTBS, would you like to
8 withdraw your testimony respecting the
9 interpretation of the, if anything, much
10 more complex federal NSR law?
11
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, I am not in
12 a legal position to render an opinion on
13 NSR. But all I can say is that the
14 variations for a number of reasons,
15 sorbent injection, coal variation, with
16 the loss of the pollution control
17 prevention, essentially -- that to me that
18 just opens the door. And I don't know
19 what is going to happen. I just pointed
20 out that variations in the past weren't
21 that big of a deal could now become a big
22 deal. And that's all I feel comfortable
23 saying. And the table that I have in my
24 testimony just gave some examples of that.
964
1 And that's all.
2
May I proceed to 86?
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes.
4
MR. CICHANOWICZ: On page 44 of your
5 testimony, you state "the willingness of
6 developers to offer such guarantees is a
7 sign of their confidence in success.
8 However, the terms and conditions of the
9 guarantees are limited. This section will
10 describe how, despite attempts by
11 suppliers to mitigate risk, the
12 uncertainties incurred by early adopters
13 of control technology are significant risk
14 in terms of uncompensated costs and
15 revenue."
16
Question A, are you aware of any air
17 pollution control supplier or any supplier
18 of any piece of power plant equipment that
19 is willing to take unlimited liabilities
20 as part of their guarantees? No.
21
B, if so, provide details and
22 supporting evidence. This question is not
23 applicable.
24
Question 87, on page 44 and 45 of
965
1 your testimony you use the term collateral
2 damage. Are you referring to what is
3 normally described as consequential
4 damages in contract language? Yes.
5
Question 88, on page 46, you state
6 regarding demonstration tests and
7 guarantees "the demonstration data
8 suggests that in excess of 90 percent
9 mercury removal can be achieved with three
10 pounds of sorbent per million ACF." This
11 is statement and not a question.
12
MR. AYERS: It is intended that 88
13 and 89 be read together.
14
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Question 89, if
15 meeting the targeted Hg removal requires
16 five pounds per million ACF instead of
17 three pounds per million ACF, the
18 additional cost for reagent at 80 percent
19 capacity factor is 1.342 million per year
20 at a delivered sorbent price of $0.85 per
21 pound. The supplier will provide this
22 additional sorbent at no cost but limited
23 to the contract value of 1.27 million.
24 Thus, after 25 months of providing
966
1 additional revenue, the owner must bear
2 all costs while future revenue to the
3 supplier increases by 66 percent.
4 Consequently, the supplier has little to
5 lose and significant upside market
6 potential with this guarantee.
7
Question A, are you suggesting the
8 supplier sees a benefit in missing a
9 guarantee?
10
No. Suppliers of control technology
11 reagent or sorbent must be aware of their
12 reputation and will not benefit from
13 missing a guarantee. However, their
14 losses in cases like this are modest and
15 short term.
16
Question B, in this case after the
17 25-month period where the extra sorbent is
18 provided for a fee, what is to prevent the
19 owner from shopping for other less
20 expensive or more effective sorbents?
21
Nothing. The operator can access
22 other sorbents.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Ayers?
24
MR. AYERS: Yes. On page 46 of your
967
1 testimony, it says, quote, guarantees in
2 environmental control technology provide
3 only partial compensation for
4 short-comings and are not significant
5 factors in the decision to adopt any
6 particular technology. May we quote you
7 on that, especially the second half of the
8 sentence?
9
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, what I mean
10 is at the end of the day, the owner knows
11 that they have to make -- they are
12 responsible for compliance. And they are
13 responsible to make the process work. And
14 they will do what they have to do to be in
15 compliance.
16
You know, for example, the
17 guarantees on catalyst for SCR, the
18 guarantees are basically offer replacement
19 catalysts if there is a failure. But if
20 you are in the middle of ozone season,
21 your costs -- if you do eventually agree
22 with the catalyst supplier that the
23 catalyst is defective and they offer you a
24 replacement catalyst, your bigger cost is
968
1 taking the plant down when you don't want
2 to and incurring those costs. The benefit
3 of the discounted catalyst is small.
4
So my point is that guarantees don't
5 always have a lot of weight in the
6 decisions on a control technology. And
7 that's basically what I mean.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
9 I have a follow up to that. Dianne
10 Trickner from Prairie State Generating
11 referred to guarantees in her testimony.
12 And one of the points she made in her
13 testimony was that they are having
14 problems getting guarantees for the
15 90 percent because a guarantee to them
16 would make them whole and that that would
17 be billions of dollars.
18
I am wondering if guarantees are
19 different for retrofits than they are for
20 a new facility.
21
MR. CICHANOWICZ: No, I don't think
22 so. I heard the end of her testimony.
23 And I think -- I didn't hear her whole
24 testimony, so I shouldn't comment on it.
969
1 But I don't know of -- I don't know of
2 anybody that would offer a guarantee that
3 would, quote, make them whole, that is to
4 cover completely the compensation.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.
6
MR. AYERS: A guarantee like that
7 would be like an auto company saying if
8 your car breaks down Chevrolet will pay
9 for your loss day at work, wouldn't they?
10
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes. And nobody
11 is saying that that should be done. But,
12 you know, the reason why I have this,
13 Mr. Ayers, is not to make your life
14 miserable.
15
MR. AYERS: But it might be an extra
16 benefit.
17
MR. CICHANOWICZ: People hire me and
18 Dr. Staudt to come in and provide some
19 expertise in procuring a control
20 technology. And to the extent that the
21 guarantee doesn't completely satisfy them,
22 what I do and I think what he does is help
23 them build in some back-up plan. And,
24 yeah, you can throw money at a particular
970
1 problem. You know, use space age -- space
2 technology, space-race technology of
3 triple component reliability, but you
4 can't afford that. So I help people think
5 through the extra back-up things they have
6 to do, not indefinitely, but with a price
7 tag. And they use that in the design and
8 adopting the technology. And that's all I
9 meant by that statement.
10
MR. AYERS: Pieces of equipment that
11 are involved in controlling pollution are
12 usually supplied by different companies,
13 aren't they?
14
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
15
MR. ZABEL: Different from what?
16
MR. AYERS: Different companies.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Supplies
18 different pieces.
19
MR. AYERS: From manufacturers. And
20 the performance of one can affect the
21 performance of one of the others, such as
22 the mercury controlled performance?
23
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
24
MR. AYERS: So it is not very likely
971
1 the supplier of one piece of equipment
2 will guarantee mercury removal to include
3 the mercury removal by other devices,
4 correct?
5
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Correct.
6
MR. AYERS: I realize you haven't
7 done this. But we had the testimony
8 earlier about this, isn't asking the
9 supplier of a pollution control device to
10 guarantee total mercury removal sort of
11 like asking Goodyear Tire Company to
12 guarantee your car's performance?
13
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, I never
14 thought of that before. But if what you
15 are saying is that if there is a single
16 source of responsibility, it is difficult
17 for an individual player in each one of
18 those cases to offer a guarantee.
19
Now, that concept is what EPC or
20 overall contractor will provide. But
21 that's not always provided in retrofit
22 cases.
23
MR. AYERS: I will close with this
24 question. The typical guarantees in the
972
1 pollution control field cover the
2 performance of the pollution control
3 device and not the consequential damages;
4 isn't that correct?
5
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I have never seen
6 consequential damages covered in a
7 pollution control context.
8
MR. AYERS: On page 48 of your
9 testimony, you describe some statements by
10 U.S. EPA and U.S. DOE.
11
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
12
MR. AYERS: As evidenced by this
13 rule and rules being adopted by other
14 states and a recent Congressional District
15 Service Report, does these states believe
16 that U.S. EPA is overly pessimistic?
17
MR. CICHANOWICZ: They might. I
18 just don't know.
19
MR. AYERS: Both the EPA and the DOE
20 quotes are conditioned that they do not
21 believe that the technology is ready for
22 all coals and boiler configurations. And
23 there is a wide range of coals and boiler
24 configurations in the U.S. Does Illinois
973
1 have every coal and boiler configuration?
2
MR. CICHANOWICZ: No.
3
MR. AYERS: Okay. That's the end of
4 my questions.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
6 No. 90.
7
MR. CICHANOWICZ: 90, on page 59 of
8 your testimony you state "the ability to
9 uniformly disperse sorbent throughout the
10 entirety of the flue gas cross-section,
11 necessary for high mercury removal, is
12 assumed to increase with the size of the
13 flue gas duct. This view is consistent
14 with a global review of the various ACI
15 demonstrations. Among the highest mercury
16 removal noted was at the smallest
17 generating sites, e.g., St. Clair,
18 Meramac, and among the lowest at the
19 largest generating sites, Pleasant Prairie
20 and Monroe.
21
"Although coal composition and SCA
22 likely also play a role, given the
23 information available to date, it is not
24 possible to exclude generating size. This
974
1 concern is bolstered by the release of
2 results from CFD of the modeling of the
3 reagent injection systems that report the
4 distribution of residence time in real
5 systems can only be half of that
6 calculated for plug flow conditions.
7
"Although the specific results for
8 Brayton Point did not compromise
9 performance, they do not allay concerns
10 that sorbent mixing and distribution
11 problems are independent of generating
12 size." This is a statement and not a
13 question.
14
Question A, wasn't the smallest test
15 site at the Lausche plant? How did the
16 performance at the Lausche plant compare
17 with that at St. Clair or Meramac?
18
Mercury removal noted at Lausche is
19 less than that of St. Clair or Meramac.
20
B, isn't Monroe a bituminous unit
21 which you'd expect to be more difficult in
22 St. Clair or Meramac?
23
Monroe fires a mixture of PRB and
24 bituminous coal in approximately a 60/40
975
1 fraction. Depending on the extent of the
2 blend and other factors, the Monroe fuel
3 use may present a more challenging
4 application than 100 percent PRB.
5
Question C, didn't Pleasant Prairie
6 use untreated sorbent, which we now know
7 to be unsuitable for PRB units, while
8 Meramac and St. Clair used halogenated
9 sorbent, which is the best sorbent at this
10 time for these units? Yes.
11
Now, let me state for the record
12 what I did with this. First of all, the
13 wording was a little bit odd in my
14 testimony. What I meant was that I
15 believe as we increase generating
16 capacity, that it will become more
17 difficult to get uniform dispersion. But
18 let me tell you how I use this. Okay.
19
In most cases, when I prepared the
20 control assumptions for the modeling, I
21 didn't penalize -- I didn't penalize the
22 high capacity units. What I did was
23 actually added a premium in mercury
24 removal to the lower capacity units. That
976
1 is, I assumed all things being equal, the
2 smaller units would get higher mercury
3 removal than they would have if I adopted
4 the assumption.
5
So what I am saying is my belief is,
6 essentially, translated into higher
7 mercury removal on lower units. I didn't
8 penalize big units. I enhanced the
9 removal on lower units.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
11 91.
12
MR. CICHANOWICZ: 91, didn't the
13 modeling at Monroe, Brayton Point and
14 other sites show that turbulence, which
15 controls mixing, is the most important
16 parameter?
17
Yes. However, the modeling results,
18 as I review them, maintain the various
19 injectors at constant flow rate. My
20 concern stems from the recognition that as
21 the generating unit size increases, the
22 number of individual injectors which
23 sorbent must be uniformly delivered and
24 disbursed increases. As the individual
977
1 number of injectors increase, it will
2 become increasingly difficult to maintain
3 uniform through-put to each.
4
Now, what does that mean, if I
5 might, I would like to present a little
6 story to the Board. If you bought a car
7 25 years ago, it probably had a device on
8 it that you can't find right now on cars.
9 And that's called a carburetor. What the
10 carburetors used to do is mix air and
11 fuel. And it would rely upon an intake
12 manifold to distribute the air and fuel to
13 the cylinders.
14
What was very exotic and rare at the
15 time was fuel injection. If you look on
16 the market now, I think they are all fuel
17 injected and there are no carburetors.
18 Why? The reason why is that even though
19 you had uniform mixing of air and fuel in
20 the carburetor, the job of having -- of
21 ensuring that each cylinder got
22 approximately the same air fuel ratio was
23 challenging. And what generated carbon
24 monoxide and hydrocarbon emission and
978
1 those sources early on was simply the fact
2 that one of those eight or six cylinders
3 was probably going to be out of whack. It
4 might be a little bit rich and generate
5 more CO and hydrocarbons.
6
Well, the solution to that was,
7 essentially, over a couple decades to move
8 the fuel injection where the fuel is
9 tailored exactly for each cylinder.
10
That analogy is the basis of my
11 concern with sorbent injection. We are
12 looking -- we have looked to see the
13 modeling runs. And again great work has
14 been done. And we might have six or eight
15 or ten injectors in a hundred megawatt
16 equivalent unit. But as you scale that up
17 to 3 and 4 and 500 megawatts, the unit can
18 have six or eight injectors or more, you
19 are going to have several times that.
20
My only concern is analogous to the
21 car, making sure each one of those lancets
22 sees about the same amount of sorbent
23 coming in. And we do that now quite
24 handily with selective catalytic reduction
979
1 NOx control. But we are mixing a gas in a
2 gas. And that opens up some things we can
3 do to effect that mixing. So we don't see
4 this problem with generating capacity with
5 SCR. Because when you are mixing a gas
6 and gas, there is other things you can do.
7
I am concerned about solids only
8 because we have kind of tried something
9 like this before. And in the mid '80s dry
10 sorbent injection was looked at as a low
11 cost SO2 option. One of the reasons why
12 it didn't play out was simply the
13 difficulty in getting solid particles
14 injected and distributed across large
15 ductworks.
16
What we have here is different.
17 What we have here is much more
18 controllable. But to me it is somewhere
19 in the middle between the very good
20 conditions we have with SCR and the
21 challenging conditions that we had with
22 dry sorbent injection.
23
So I am concerned about generating
24 size. But I think what it would translate
980
1 into is actually helping some of the
2 smaller units.
3
MR. AYERS: Can mixing the devices
4 add turbulence in mixing as they do when
5 they are in SCA ammonia injection systems?
6
MR. CICHANOWICZ: That is correct,
7 adding turbulence is a way of improving.
8
MR. AYERS: Do we have data on the
9 performance of mixing in the SCR context
10 and its relationship to size?
11
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, we do. And
12 as I stated, mixing is an invariant with
13 size with SCR.
14
MR. AYERS: It is invariant?
15
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Invariant. That
16 is I believe we can get the same degree of
17 mixing on a 900-megawatt power plant as a
18 100-megawatt power plant through the use
19 of static mixers. And some -- mainly
20 through the use of static mixers and well
21 controlled ammonia injection units. Again
22 we are mixing a gas in a gas.
23
MR. AYERS: Is it also possible -- I
24 think you said that -- to add more nozzles
981
1 for the injection?
2
MR. CICHANOWICZ: It is. But it is
3 another thing that has to be monitored and
4 maintained. Part of my business -- I am
5 sorry to talk about NOx again. But I help
6 utilities figure out what's the best time
7 to spend 40 or 50 grand to tune their
8 SCRs. And there is tests that you can do
9 and things you can sort that out. And you
10 can come in and increase injectors and
11 adjust them. And that is commonly done.
12 Yes.
13
But that is mixing a gas in a gas.
14 And I don't know if we are going to have
15 the latitude to be able to move sorbent
16 around all these lancets the same we would
17 have the latitude to move the ammonia
18 gases through the ammonia injection unit.
19
MR. AYERS: Why would that be?
20
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Because now we
21 have particles. And you need to monitor
22 the distribution of a carrier gas carrying
23 a solid particle. And that's different in
24 my opinion than simply a gas. Look at
982
1 coal pulverizers. And it is different
2 because coal particles are probably much
3 more erosive than sorbent. But there is
4 one challenge in the industry -- again
5 this analogy with the car -- getting
6 uniform air fuel ratio at each burner is
7 compromised by the ability to uniformly
8 distribute coal which -- pulverized coal,
9 which would be solid particles in a
10 carrier media, which to me could be
11 somewhat analogous to sorbent a carrier
12 media.
13
MR. AYERS: On page 59 of your
14 testimony you state that Monroe had
15 opacity problems.
16
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Can you point out
17 the sentence please, Mr. Ayers?
18
MR. AYERS: I don't have it here,
19 but I will have to look.
20
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I believe --
21
MR. AYERS: Mr. Kim has it here, I
22 think.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: It's the
24 fourth paragraph, midway down, "SCA Monroe
983
1 Station anecdotal evidence of opacity
2 problems were noted." It is under ESP
3 SCA, that paragraph, the underlined ESP
4 SCA?
5
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
6
MR. AYERS: My question about that
7 is what's the source of that statement.
8
MR. CICHANOWICZ: You don't want to
9 hear this.
10
MR. AYERS: I think I can probably
11 fill it in. But go ahead.
12
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Mr. Bill Rogers,
13 who I don't know his position at Detroit
14 Edison, basically told me he was never
15 fully convinced that Monroe was clean from
16 opacity. The reason why is the following.
17
Monroe is set up so there were two
18 units feeding one stack. The only opacity
19 monitor was in the stack. So you have two
20 units feeding one stack. One of those
21 units was tested, the other was not.
22 Better yet, only one quarter of one unit
23 was tested.
24
So what Mr. Bill Rogers insists is
984
1 that the opacity signal that was detected
2 in the stack was only one-eighth of what
3 was actually incurred. And he wasn't --
4 he thought the results were inconclusive,
5 that there was not an opacity issue. But,
6 of course, it is not in any of the
7 reports. It's just a concern on his part.
8
MR. GIRARD: Could I ask a question?
9 If he was just eyeballing this, how would
10 he come up with a one-eighth?
11
MR. CICHANOWICZ: The one-eighth is
12 the opacity monitor treats, you know, X --
13 X actual cubic feet of gas per minute.
14 But the gas that was in the ESP module
15 that was tested contributed one-eighth of
16 the gas to that stack.
17
So because it was only one of two
18 units and the one unit had four chambers
19 of the ESP and only one of those four was
20 tested with opacity and they saw what they
21 thought were some movement in opacity --
22 again I haven't reviewed the data. I
23 haven't seen it. But they were never
24 convinced that it was completely clean of
985
1 opacity. But the opacity monitors are not
2 set up to make a measurement.
3
MR. ZABEL: If I may, Mr. Chairman,
4 it was treating one quarter of one half of
5 the input to the stack in the CEM; is that
6 correct?
7
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Nelson?
9
MR. AYERS: May I go ahead and
10 follow up on that first?
11
MR. NELSON: At Monroe they tested
12 the plain carbon, did they not?
13
MR. CICHANOWICZ: They tested --
14
MR. NELSON: Not long-term run?
15
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I can't remember
16 if it was Darco Hg or Darco Hg-L. It was
17 plain carbon, correct.
18
MR. NELSON: The charge on a carbon
19 particle or any particle, is that
20 primarily a surface charge effect or a
21 bulk charge effect, solid charge effect,
22 do you know?
23
MR. CICHANOWICZ: That's beyond my
24 -- I don't know.
986
1
MR. NELSON: When a carbon is
2 brominated, does just its surface
3 primarily change?
4
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Are you releasing
5 your patent? I don't know, Sid.
6
MR. NELSON: Is it possible that the
7 electrostatic characteristics of
8 brominated carbon are very different than
9 the electrostatic characteristics of plain
10 carbons?
11
MR. CICHANOWICZ: That is possible,
12 yes.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Ayers?
14
MR. AYERS: I would like to show you
15 a report regarding the Monroe plant, if I
16 might. It is a quarterly technical report
17 for the quarter July 1, 2005, to
18 September 30th.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: This is
20 "Evaluation of Sorbent Injection for
21 Mercury Control." Principal author is
22 Sharon Sjostrom. I will mark this as
23 Exhibit 112 if there is no objection.
24 Seeing none, it is Exhibit 112.
987
1
MR. AYERS: If you could look at
2 page 11, Mr. Cichanowicz, and just read
3 the last sentence?
4
MR. CICHANOWICZ: "No balance of
5 plant problems such as increased opacity
6 or changes in the ESP operation were noted
7 at Monroe as a result of the activated
8 carbon injection.
9
MR. AYERS: So the people who
10 actually studied this, as opposed to the
11 executives of the company, did not believe
12 there was any problem from the injection,
13 is that what this means?
14
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, I don't
15 know. Because it is -- I don't know what
16 they are referencing here in terms of the
17 opacity. If it's the opacity in the
18 stack, then it is consistent with what I
19 was saying. Let's put it this way. If
20 you are only measuring one-eighth of the
21 impact, then perhaps there was an impact,
22 but it wasn't enough to translate into a
23 measurable change because it was diluted
24 by a factor of eight.
988
1
MR. AYERS: This may be a good point
2 to go back to the Brayton Point. We
3 reserved the opportunity to come back to
4 that this morning.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I didn't
6 hear all of that.
7
MR. AYERS: We reserved the right to
8 come back to Brayton Point this morning
9 because of the document that was disputed.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.
11
MR. AYERS: This I hope will be
12 shorter and simple. Dr. Cichanowicz, you
13 recall that the SCA of the first ESP at
14 Brayton Point is 156 and that of the
15 second unit is 403.
16
MR. CICHANOWICZ: That sounds about
17 right.
18
MR. BONEBRAKE: For clarification,
19 are we referring to a specific exhibit,
20 Mr. Ayres?
21
MR. AYERS: We are, but I can't tell
22 you the number without help, actually.
23
MR. KIM: 108.
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: "Results
989
1 of Activated Carbon Injection."
2
MR. AYERS: It was the one with the
3 diagram.
4
MR. ZABEL: There may have been
5 limited copies of that one.
6
MR. BONEBRAKE: That is where we had
7 the question regarding the inlet and
8 outlet locations?
9
MR. AYERS: Exactly.
10
MR. ZABEL: I have got it. 108, you
11 said?
12
MR. AYERS: Yes. You testified this
13 morning, didn't you, that Exhibit 108
14 demonstrated that, essentially, mercury is
15 removed -- essentially, no mercury is
16 removed in the second ESP when carbon is
17 not injected.
18
MR. ZABEL: I think that is a
19 mischaracterization. I think he testified
20 that's what the table shows. You asked
21 him if the table showed that. He said
22 yes.
23
MR. AYERS: I will accept that.
24
MR. ZABEL: Just to make it clear.
990
1
MR. AYERS: So you would agree then
2 that whatever mercury was removed through
3 the two ESPs, which are in series, as you
4 recall, when no particle was injected had
5 to be removed in the first ESP, correct?
6
MR. CICHANOWICZ: If I understand
7 everything correctly, I think that's a
8 fair deduction.
9
MR. AYERS: Would you agree also
10 that the first ESP, which had an SCA of
11 only 156, was responsible for removing
12 whatever mercury was removed under
13 baseline conditions when there was no
14 sorbent being objected?
15
MR. ZABEL: I will go back to my
16 statement this morning. He has not
17 studied this document. It says what it
18 says.
19
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I won't play games
20 with you. I am looking for a carbon in
21 the ash. And it is possible that with
22 high carbon in ash the contacting with
23 mercury happens before the ESP. That is,
24 as soon as the gases leave the air heater
991
1 and start cooling, if we are not adding
2 sorbent, the carbon in the ash will start
3 acting, maybe not as effectively as it
4 would if it was a sorbent, but it will
5 start acting to draw mercury.
6
So I would rather not say it is a
7 consequence of the ESP. But it is a
8 consequence of the entire residence time
9 in the air heater through the ESP. But I
10 don't have enough data to sort that out.
11
MR. AYERS: All ESPs have ducts
12 ahead of them. And so it would be in play
13 in any ESP, whether it is small or large,
14 right?
15
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, maybe or
16 maybe not. It depends on where the
17 sorbent injection location was. Here we
18 are talking about inherently generated
19 carbon. You know, I could say normally it
20 starts absorbing the mercury at the air
21 heater inlet. The temperatures don't
22 refer to that. But it could.
23
So pretty much as soon as you leave
24 the air heater, in concept, this could be
992
1 happening. But, you know, sorbent
2 injection, there is no guarantee you are
3 going to be able to install those lancets
4 right up close to the air heater exit.
5 Maybe you can. But there is no guarantee.
6
MR. AYERS: Well, let's look at, if
7 I may, figure 5-2, your Exhibit 87, the
8 one we talked a lot about this morning.
9 If the first Brayton Point ESP removed
10 90 percent of the mercury, as it appears
11 that document says, where would Brayton
12 Point be on that diagram on that figure?
13
MR. CICHANOWICZ: You mean if we
14 looked at the total, the first and second
15 ESP?
16
MR. AYERS: If we placed -- if we
17 placed Brayton Point on this, I think we
18 agree that no mercury was being removed in
19 the second ESP, haven't we?
20
MR. ZABEL: I don't think we have
21 agreed. He answered what the table in the
22 exhibit showed.
23
MR. AYERS: No, that's not correct,
24 Mr. Zabel. He testified after having seen
993
1 table that he agreed that none of the
2 mercury or essentially none was removed in
3 the second ESP, I believe.
4
MR. ZABEL: The record will speak
5 for itself, Mr. Ayres. Go ahead.
6
MR. AYERS: My point is this. If
7 the Brayton Point ESP removed -- the first
8 Brayton Point ESP, the small one, removes
9 90 percent of the mercury, where would
10 that point be placed on your figure 5-2?
11 It would be far to the left corner,
12 wouldn't it?
13
MR. CICHANOWICZ: If it is --
14
MR. AYERS: The upper left corner?
15
MR. CICHANOWICZ: If it is 156 SCA
16 ESP, it would be over to the left, yes.
17
MR. AYERS: So it would provide a
18 point that was quite out of line with the
19 hypothesis that you had advanced earlier
20 about this, wouldn't it?
21
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Again, we are
22 mixing. The carbon in the ash is there in
23 complete transit from the furnace or the
24 conductive pass. And, yes, at those
994
1 temperatures, you are not going to get a
2 lot of mercury removal, but the
3 temperature history I don't think -- I
4 don't know if it is going to be the same
5 with the carbon and everything generated
6 in the ash, as opposed to a sorbent
7 injection system.
8
This is the third time I have said
9 this. I can't be more clear about this.
10 To me it is a different temperature time
11 environment.
12
MR. AYERS: Could we try to wrap up
13 on table 5 or figure 5-2? I think it
14 would be a good time to because we have
15 spent a lot of time on that table or
16 figure. I think you agreed that the -- or
17 testified that figure 5-2 was the basis of
18 your suggestion that there might be a
19 relationship between ESP size and mercury
20 removal; is that correct?
21
MR. CICHANOWICZ: The depiction in
22 5.2, the graphic, yes, is part of the
23 submission.
24
MR. AYERS: And then this morning
995
1 when we looked at these, I looked more
2 closely at this figure. You would agree,
3 do you not, that the plants identified as
4 4, 8 and 12 would have moved up
5 substantial -- that is to the top of the
6 chart -- had those units tested
7 halogenated sorbents.
8
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I agree that
9 halogen -- the use of halogenated or
10 treated sorbents would increase the
11 removals. And again I feel we have talked
12 about this. I said it would make it a
13 contributing factor, but I don't know it
14 would go all the way to the top. It
15 certainly does with 4-C. But I do agree
16 that they would go all the way to the top.
17 I agree they would be a very important
18 factor.
19
MR. AYERS: They would go
20 considerably higher, though, wouldn't
21 they?
22
MR. CICHANOWICZ: They would be
23 higher, yes, and perhaps considerably.
24
MR. AYERS: And we agree, I think,
996
1 that high sulfur units were difficult to
2 control and not really relevant to
3 Illinois because there are hardly any to
4 be concerned with?
5
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
6
MR. AYERS: And you agree that
7 bituminous units were more difficult to
8 control than power river basin fired
9 units?
10
MR. ZABEL: Excuse me, are you
11 making a distinction between high sulfur
12 units, which was your prior question, and
13 bituminous units, which is this question?
14
MR. AYERS: I am.
15
MR. ZABEL: Could you explain the
16 difference so he knows what the question
17 means?
18
MR. AYERS: I think he knows that if
19 they are certainly bituminous coals, they
20 would not be considered high sulfur.
21
So my question is do you agree that
22 bituminous units were more difficult to
23 control than power river basin fired units
24 without respect to ESP size?
997
1
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes.
2
MR. AYERS: We also presented
3 evidence that the poor performance at
4 Yates, which is the one over here, No. 1,
5 may be accounted for by poor distribution
6 of sorbent flue gas which you previously
7 testified could potentially cause the poor
8 performance.
9
MR. BONEBRAKE: Madam Hearing
10 Officer, it seems like we are going over
11 and over questions that we addressed this
12 morning.
13
MR. AYERS: We are summarizing.
14
MR. BONEBRAKE: Perhaps we can get
15 to the point.
16
MR. AYERS: We will get right to the
17 point.
18
MR. ZABEL: I don't want to
19 interrupt, so we can get done with this.
20 But summarization is more appropriate for
21 the comments. If it is already in the
22 record, it is already asked. To
23 paraphrase the chairman, aren't we beating
24 the horse a little to death?
998
1
MR. AYERS: I need to give the horse
2 one more kick.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: You know,
4 I really -- I understand that you all
5 suffered through this in Springfield at
6 length. I also did this to them too. We
7 need to pick up the pace a little bit. I
8 don't want to keep you from asking
9 questions. But I do sort of agree that we
10 have now had six or seven, do you agree
11 you stated this. So could we, please, get
12 to the point?
13
MR. AYERS: These are the premise
14 for the question I will now state.
15
MR. ZABEL: Which makes it
16 repetitive, Madam Hearing Officer.
17
MR. AYERS: So in light of the
18 exploration of these issues that we have
19 done today, do you now agree that figure
20 2-5 does not support the hypothesis that
21 there is -- I'm sorry, 5-2 does not
22 support the hypothesis that there is a
23 relationship between ESP size and Hg
24 removal?
999
1
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I would say that
2 if you could explain away all these
3 differences as you -- as your words are,
4 then it would not support that. But I
5 don't know that we can explain away all
6 these differences.
7
And again what I said was that 5-2,
8 the value is not so much what it says, but
9 what it doesn't say. It doesn't show a
10 locus of points going around 90 percent
11 from right all the way to the level.
12
So I still think it is perhaps an
13 open question. But again, it is
14 conjecture. You know, perhaps I am doing
15 it. But with all due respect, Mr. Ayers,
16 you are to. You are wanting me to explain
17 away all these differences with
18 mechanistic factors that I certainly agree
19 with. But I can't quantify them.
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Nelson?
21
MR. NELSON: If Crawford at
22 119 square feet per thousand ACFM gets 85
23 to 90 percent mercury removal at low
24 injection rates, would you then probably
1000
1 conclude that SCA size has very little, if
2 nothing, to do with mercury removal?
3
MR. ZABEL: Could you read that
4 back? I couldn't hear what he said.
5
(Record read as
6
requested.)
7
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Depending on the
8 length of the test, if the plant people
9 and the testing people held hands and
10 agreed on what the data was and that there
11 was good, adequate measurements of
12 particulate matter using traverses not
13 capacities, I would agree with that and,
14 frankly, applaud you, Sid. But we are not
15 there yet.
16
MR. AYERS: Next question.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: It has
18 been two hours. I hope we are going to
19 finish, but it has been two hours. Let's
20 take a break.
21
(Short recess taken.)
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let's go
23 back on the record. I believe we are
24 ready for question 92.
1001
1
MR. CICHANOWICZ: On page 60 of your
2 testimony you state that "the data of
3 Durham, 2005, suggests a compromise in
4 mercury removal by 20 to 40 percent is
5 incurred for only 6 ppm SO3. Accordingly,
6 a 20 percent compromise is assumed
7 contingent upon a 50 percent increase in
8 AC injection rate." Are you assuming that
9 it is not possible to reposition SO3
10 injection system to be downstream of the
11 sorbent injection system?
12
Yes. The selection of a location
13 for flue gas condition by SO3 is
14 determined by, to a large extent, the same
15 factors desirable for good sorbent
16 injection, adequate space for access to
17 injectors, ability to distribute an array
18 of injectors across a duct section and
19 ability to control the rate of injection
20 equipment.
21
At some point, the FGC location was
22 selected to optimize the performance. The
23 opportunity for Hg sorbent to displace SO3
24 injection from desired location may
1002
1 compromise SO3 conditioning and thus
2 particulate removal.
3
Question A, are you assuming that
4 companies would not try alternative flue
5 gas conditioning methods?
6
It is possible that alternative
7 means to condition the fly ash to improve
8 electrical resistivity, such as using
9 additives to the coal, could be used to
10 replace the role of FGC by SO3. However,
11 the constituent of the additive, perhaps
12 alkali compounds such as sodium, could
13 interfere with the sorbent and treatment
14 agent.
15
Further, depending on the content of
16 the additive, boiler slagging or
17 deposition could be incurred. Although
18 these potential problems may, indeed, be
19 solvable, switching to an alternative FGC
20 method will require a second determination
21 or application project to be conducted in
22 parallel with the mercury installation
23 activities.
24
Without the time to singularly
1003
1 investigate the role of each of relocating
2 the FGC or trying an alternative FGC
3 method and also installing ACI, it will
4 not be possible to predict the final
5 outcome until it is done.
6
Question 93, on page 60 -- I believe
7 this has been asked and answered.
8
MR. AYERS: Yes.
9
MR. CICHANOWICZ: 94, on page of 66
10 your testimony, you state "the design
11 study conducted to support this project
12 shows the capital cost for three 90
13 megawatt units will be 34 million,
14 equivalent to $120 a kilowatt. The
15 capital cost can be scaled with a 0.33
16 power-law with values capped by those for
17 units beyond 600 megawatts."
18
Is it your testimony that a 90
19 megawatt unit would be equivalent to $120
20 a kilowatt or that a 270 megawatt unit
21 will be equivalent to $120 a kilowatt.
22
As the size of the filter treats 270
23 megawatts, the equivalent of $120 kilowatt
24 was assigned to the 270 megawatt
1004
1 generating capacity. The capital costs
2 for TOXECON used in the study were not
3 derived by this formula, but based on the
4 results of actual engineering studies
5 forwarded by Midwest Gen, Dynegy and
6 Ameren.
7
Question 95, in section A-7 of your
8 testimony, do you assume the FBC will have
9 to retrofit a fabric fit?
10
A, doesn't the sole FBC in Illinois
11 already have a fabric filter? Yes.
12
B, why would you add that cost?
13
The existing filter will collect fly
14 ash as well as entrained solids that can
15 carry over from the fluid bed that will
16 contain unreacted limestone and remove
17 chlorides. Unlike a dry FGD for which
18 moisture is injected, forcing the fabric
19 filter to operate at temperatures
20 significantly less than 200 degrees
21 Farenheit, the existing fabric filter from
22 an FBC unit is anticipated to operate at
23 temperatures more typical of a
24 conventional boiler outlet. A separate
1005
1 TOXECON-type application will allow the
2 use of treated sorbent without
3 interference.
4
Question 96, on page 84 you describe
5 data for COHPACs derived from full fabric
6 filter data and dry FGD data. Won't full
7 fabric filter data be high because of the
8 lower air to cloth ratio for a full fabric
9 filter?
10
The cost for retrofitting fabric
11 filters to many of the units cited is
12 driven not by the cost of the fabric
13 filter module, but the structural
14 modifications and ductwork to access the
15 flue gas to a location where the equipment
16 can be installed. The air cloth ratio for
17 these units was reported to range from
18 four to one to six to one.
19
Question 97, what pressure drop was
20 used for the COHPAC fabric filter? Six
21 inches water gauge.
22
Question 98, on pages 87 and 88 of
23 your testimony, you have estimates for
24 capital cost and fix operating cost.
1006
1 Please provide a table for the capital
2 cost estimates to show, A, erected
3 equipment cost estimated or quoted, what
4 type of equipment.
5
My answers to 98 are cost data was
6 derived from engineering studies conducted
7 by Sargent & Lundy engineers. I do not
8 have the additional details requested.
9 Specifics can be answered by Mr. William
10 DePriest in his testimony.
11
Question 99 provide a similar table
12 to show how fixed operating cost was
13 estimated. What activities does it
14 include?
15
The cost data was derived from
16 engineering studies conducted by Sargent &
17 Lundy engineers. Specifics can be
18 answered by Mr. William DePriest in his
19 testimony.
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I believe
21 that Prairie State Generating also has
22 some questions. Although they are not
23 here, we should go over them to make sure
24 they have been answered. And if not, if
1007
1 we can answer them. See if they have been
2 answered. If you believe they have been
3 answered, then we will go on.
4
MR. KIM: I am sorry, before we do
5 that, I had just two or three very short
6 questions. I was trying to find a good
7 place where they would lend themselves to
8 follow up and I don't think they did.
9
I just wanted to ask Mr. Cichanowicz
10 about the recent filing of the joint
11 statement and the content.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.
13
MR. KIM: Mr. Cichanowicz, I know
14 you have been very busy in preparing for
15 all this. But I was wondering if you had
16 an opportunity to review the
17 multi-pollutant standard language and the
18 MPS language that is found in the joint
19 statement that was presented and testified
20 to by Ameren earlier in this hearing.
21
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Regrettably,
22 Mr. Kim, I have not.
23
MR. KIM: So would it be safe to say
24 then that you have no opinion or position
1008
1 as to the impact or effect of that
2 language?
3
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, sir.
4
MR. KIM: Thank you. That's all I
5 have.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I believe
7 for clarification, I believe Mr. Harley
8 asked similar questions yesterday about
9 the MPS.
10
MR. HARLEY: Yes.
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: You don't
12 intend there to be a contradiction between
13 your answers to Mr. Harley and anything
14 you said to Mr. Kim? I don't think there
15 is.
16
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Exactly.
17
MR. KIM: I was out of the room at
18 the time, so I apologize if I was
19 repeating.
20
MR. HOJNICKI: Jeremy Hojnicki,
21 McGuire Woods. Will you please turn to
22 page 49 of your testimony? Will you
23 please read the third paragraph?
24
MR. CICHANOWICZ: "Most
1009
1 significantly, building an Hg compliance
2 strategy upon the process equipment slated
3 for CAIR implementation provides the most
4 cost effective reliable approach. The
5 equipment to be employed for CAIR, be it
6 dry or wet FGD, and possibly the retrofit
7 of a fabric filter, provides the residence
8 time, mixing environment and process
9 chemistry to transform elemental and
10 oxidized mercury into solid effluents that
11 may be proven to be benign to the
12 environment. Coupling mercury compliance
13 to SO2 and NOx reduction, in terms of both
14 equipment and scheduling, provides the
15 most cost effective and reliable
16 compliance path.
17
MR. HOJNICKI: My question is, is
18 this statement consistent with regulating
19 mercury in a multi-pollutant strategy
20 along with SO2 and NOx?
21
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I think generally
22 yes.
23
MR. HOJNICKI: Okay. Thank you.
24
MR. AYERS: Thank you,
1010
1 Mr. Cichanowicz. We appreciate your
2 testimony.
3
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Thank you.
4
MR. ZABEL: I looked at the Prairie
5 State questions and I think they have been
6 answered, quite frankly. There is one
7 exhibit we want to introduce.
8
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I guess the
9 discussions with ESP SCA and the like, I
10 wanted to make sure that the world
11 understood that I am not the only person
12 in the world that has expressed some
13 concern about small precipitators. And I
14 received last night by E-mail a position
15 paper prepared by the Electric Power
16 Research Institute that is willing to be
17 used analogously in other state
18 rulemakings summarizing at least their
19 position on this.
20
And the authors will include a
21 number of the people that authored some of
22 the papers that Mr. Ayers presented to me
23 and asked me if I knew them and, indeed, I
24 did. So as you probably noticed, it is
1011
1 like the same family that has been doing
2 this work for the last seven or ten years.
3
I have not had a chance to go
4 through this because I did download it at
5 11:00 o'clock last night. But I wanted to
6 introduce it into evidence. And I do want
7 to point out on page 4 --
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let's mark
9 this as -- I will mark this as
10 Exhibit 113. It is "Status of Mercury
11 Controls for Coal-Fired Power Plants, an
12 EPRI Assessment, August 2006," if there is
13 no objection.
14
MR. KIM: Not so much an objection.
15 But just a -- with the understanding that
16 the Illinois EPA and you also have not had
17 an opportunity review the contents of the
18 document. And, therefore, I suppose maybe
19 at some point perhaps with a comment we
20 may reserve the right to take issues or
21 address some of the comments contained
22 therein.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes,
24 absolutely.
1012
1
MR. AYERS: Could I ask one
2 question?
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let's mark
4 it as an exhibit. It is admitted as an
5 exhibit.
6
MR. AYERS: Just one question. Do
7 you know, Mr. Cichanowicz, who -- what
8 company or companies were the ones who
9 paid for this study or initiated the
10 study?
11
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I do not know who
12 funded the study. This probably came out
13 of the mercury group. And I don't know
14 off the top of my head who the funders
15 are.
16
MR. AYERS: Are they probably power
17 companies?
18
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Oh, yeah.
19
MR. KIM: Is this document -- you
20 said you downloaded it. Is this document
21 available to the general public on their
22 website?
23
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes. This was
24 actually sent to me by somebody. And this
1013
1 will be in the public domain because it is
2 used as one look at mercury control
3 technology.
4
MR. KIM: I haven't had a chance to
5 look at it. Are the authors identified or
6 do you know who the authors of the
7 document are?
8
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I can guess who
9 the authors are. But they aren't
10 identified.
11
MR. KIM: Would you want to hazard a
12 guess who they might be? Let me ask this.
13 When it is made available to the public,
14 would the authors be identified then, do
15 you know?
16
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I think it is
17 available to the public now. It was not
18 given to me under the table. It was just
19 bumped to me this is now out and
20 available.
21
MR. KIM: So do you know who they
22 might be?
23
MR. CICHANOWICZ: I would imagine it
24 is some of the names that are on the
1014
1 papers that were there, including
2 Dr. Girabell (phonetic) and Dr. Ramsey
3 Chan (phonetic) and there are probably
4 others as well.
5
Anyway, I wanted to point out on
6 page 4 the last subheading is "remaining
7 uncertainties." And the first one talks
8 about the ability to achieve high levels
9 of control at all sites consistently over
10 the long-term, i.e., more than one year.
11 And then it says "this is especially a
12 concern at sites with small ESPs --" and
13 their idea of small is less than 200 SCA.
14 And mine is probably close to 250. But we
15 are on the same page. "-- and/or high SO3
16 levels in flue gas. So there is the SO3
17 level again.
18
So I wanted the Board to have this
19 because it -- with all due respect,
20 Mr. Ayers, yesterday afternoon it sounded
21 like I was the only person in the world
22 that was concerned about small ESP. And
23 that just isn't true. I know you know
24 that. But I wanted to have that in
1015
1 evidence. And I know you thank me for
2 introducing this document.
3
MR. AYERS: I don't know if I would
4 go quite that far.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Well, the
6 Board thanks you. And the Board thanks
7 you for your patience and your testimony.
8 And we appreciate it very much.
9
MR. CICHANOWICZ: And I will come
10 back anytime.
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I believe
12 the next person on our list is Ishwar
13 Prasad Murarka.
14
MR. MORE: Dr. Ishwar Murarka's
15 testimony.
16
(Witness duly sworn.)
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If there
18 is no objection, we will mark the prefiled
19 testimony as Exhibit 114. Seeing none, we
20 will mark Mr. Murarka's testimony as
21 Exhibit 114.
22
Do you wish to give a brief summary
23 or go right to the questions?
24
MR. MURARKA: I will give a brief
1016
1 summary. My full name is Ishwar Prasad
2 Murarka, but you can all call me Ish,
3 which would be easier.
4
I have lots of academic background,
5 but I am not going to go ahead and recite
6 that right now.
7
Overall I have been working in the
8 field of coal ash management for about 25,
9 27 years. I am an environmental
10 consultant. And I have two areas of
11 specialty, one related to fossil fuel and
12 combustion rate, coal being one part of
13 the fossil fuels. And the other that I do
14 lots of work for is the remediation and
15 assessment of former manufactured gas
16 plant sites that have significant land and
17 water contamination issues.
18
I worked in different places as an
19 employee before I started my company
20 called Ish, Inc., in 1998. I moved from
21 California last year to Raleigh, North
22 Carolina, where I operate from now.
23
The technical expert testimony that
24 I have provided written is the effects
1017
1 activated carbon injection installed
2 upstream of the existing ESP or fabric
3 filler will have on the utilization of
4 coal ash produced in Illinois for the
5 following four points. Point one is use
6 of activated carbon injection, ACI, as
7 everybody has been calling, will increase
8 the loss on ignition content in fly ash
9 which is detrimental to its use of the fly
10 ash as a substitute for cement in
11 concrete.
12
Point two, use of ACI will darken
13 the color of the fly ash, which is again
14 detrimental to its use in creating for
15 aesthetic and other reasons.
16
Third, use of ACI will result in an
17 unacceptable foam index which is one of
18 the measures used in the concrete
19 industry, which is detrimental to its use
20 in the concrete.
21
And the last point, that reduction
22 in the utilization of fly ash in Illinois
23 for concrete as a substitute for cement
24 will result in increased disposal of fly
1018
1 ash on land.
2
So with those four focus points of
3 my testimony, I will begin reading the
4 question and answering them to the best of
5 my ability and knowledge.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you
7 very much.
8
MR. MURARKA: The first question is
9 from Prairie State Generating Company.
10 And the question is if a plant must
11 dispose of its ash because it is not
12 acceptable for making concrete, how much
13 would that add to the cost of operation of
14 the plant?
15
Response, since I am not familiar
16 with the operation of each of the Illinois
17 plants, I cannot say how much it will add
18 to the cost of operation at each plant.
19 However, I do agree with the projected
20 cost of $25 per ton for fly ash that is
21 not utilized as set forth in the TSD from
22 the state. If the plant is no longer able
23 to sell fly ash for the concrete
24 substitute, then that facility will likely
1019
1 incur an additional $25 per ton of fly ash
2 that is not utilized.
3
This cost estimate as TSD also
4 points out has two components. One is the
5 lost value from the sale and the other one
6 is the disposal and monitoring cost for
7 the disposal itself.
8
Number two, again question from
9 Prairie State, if mercury halogenated
10 activated carbon is deemed to be a
11 hazardous waste, how much would that add
12 to the cost of disposal?
13
Response, I really don't quite
14 understand the question completely.
15 However, if the use of activated carbon
16 does result in fly ash being deemed a
17 hazardous waste then additional cost
18 associated with hazardous waste disposal
19 would increase substantially.
20
Now, the questions from Illinois
21 Environmental Protection Agency. All
22 remaining questions are from the Agency,
23 so I won't repeat. I will go question
24 number.
1020
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
2
MR. MURARKA: 1-A, do you consider
3 yourself a national expert on the use of
4 fly ash in concrete?
5
Response, I am an expert, national,
6 local, in the management of coal
7 combustion bi-products from electric power
8 plants in the U.S., including the use of
9 fly ash for substitute in concrete and
10 mine filling application, in agricultural
11 uses and road base and sub-base uses.
12
1-B, question, have you ever worked
13 for a fly ash marketing company or a
14 concrete producer? The answer, no, sir.
15
1-C, please describe any specific
16 concrete training or contracts with fly
17 ash marketing companies or concrete
18 company clients that you have had.
19
Response, I read a lot of literature
20 on use of fly ash and have discussed the
21 subjects with various engineers and
22 university professors that I associate
23 with. However, I do not have and never
24 have had contacts with any fly ash
1021
1 marketing companies or concrete companies.
2
Question 2 --
3
MR. KIM: Excuse me.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
5 Mr. Kim has a follow-up.
6
MR. KIM: Dr. Murarka, by the way,
7 Raleigh, North Carolina, is where you are
8 from I believe now?
9
MR. MURARKA: Yes, sir.
10
MR. KIM: It is a beautiful part of
11 the country.
12
MR. MURARKA: Come and join us.
13
MR. KIM: Would you, just so it is
14 clear, state who it is on whose behalf you
15 are presenting testimony today?
16
MR. MURARKA: The four Illinois
17 utility companies. I believe if I
18 remember them all, it is Dynegy, Midwest
19 Electric -- Edison Electric, is that the
20 right name? And the fourth one is
21 Southern Illinois Cooperative.
22
MR. KIM: And are you also
23 presenting testimony on behalf of Midwest
24 Generation.
1022
1
MR. MURARKA: Midwest Generation, I
2 am sorry, that's the mix up.
3
MR. KIM: That's quite all right.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And what
5 about Dynegy -- I am sorry, Dominion?
6
MR. MURARKA: No.
7
MR. MORE: Yes. Is it correct that
8 you are presenting testimony on behalf of
9 Dynegy, Midwest Gen, Southern Illinois
10 Power Co-Op and Dominion.
11
MR. MURARKA: That's right. I
12 couldn't remember each of the company
13 names. Sorry.
14
MR. KIM: No problem. Thank you
15 very much.
16
MR. MURARKA: Continue?
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes.
18
MR. MURARKA: Number 2, please
19 provide a list of your publication or
20 conference presentations in the field of
21 the use of fly ash in concrete.
22
I am not a concrete/cement
23 researcher and have not published my own
24 research papers in the field.
1023
1
Question No. 3, are you or your firm
2 a member of the American Coal Ash
3 Association? Response, yes, sir.
4
4, what specific sources of actual
5 data or information did you rely on to
6 prepare your written testimony?
7
Response, please see those items
8 listed in my prefiled testimony. I also
9 interviewed a number of Illinois power
10 plant employees who are tasked with
11 managing fly ash utilization and reviewed
12 portions of fly ash sales contracts from
13 them.
14
MR. KIM: Excuse me, could you
15 identify which companies that you had
16 conversations with and specifically which
17 ones and also who were able to review
18 contracts of?
19
MR. MURARKA: I made notes on it.
20 It is Dynegy and Electric Energy folks.
21
MR. KIM: Thank you.
22
MR. MURARKA: Number 5, what
23 fraction of Ish, Inc., consulting revenues
24 over the last three years were paid by
1024
1 utilities or utility industry sources?
2
Over 90 percent of the Ish, Inc.,
3 consulting revenue is derived from
4 electric and as utilities. The majority
5 of the Ish, Inc., is derived from
6 investigation and remediation projects
7 involving former manufactured gas plant
8 sites. About 30 percent of the revenue is
9 derived from environmental consulting work
10 and research on coal combustion by-product
11 disposal and utilization projects.
12
Number 6, who are the three largest
13 fly ash marketing companies for Illinois
14 fly ash? I really don't know who they
15 are.
16
7, if the American Association of
17 State Highway and Transportation officials
18 standard for carbon in concrete is five
19 percent by weight and the ASTM standard is
20 six percent by weight, why is that the
21 Illinois power plants that have contracts
22 to sell fly ash as a substitute for cement
23 in concrete are required to meet a one
24 percent limit on LOI contents in fly ash
1025
1 sold?
2
That is the utility companies are
3 contracted. That's how it is. I have
4 also seen the documentation from WE Energy
5 now, which used to be called Wisconsin
6 Energy, that also indicates that a one
7 percent LOI limit for fly ash used in
8 concrete meets the specification and the
9 utilization needs.
10
Number 8, are highways and roads --
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
12 Mr. Nelson has a follow-up.
13
MR. NELSON: You said you have seen
14 contracts for Dynergy and then Electric --
15 EEI, which has one plant, Jaffa, correct?
16
MR. MURARKA: Yes, parts of those
17 contracts, not the whole contract.
18
MR. NELSON: So in other words, you
19 know nothing and seen nothing about all
20 the Midwest Generation plants or all the
21 Ameren plants?
22
MR. MURARKA: No, I have not.
23
MR. MORE: Is that with respect to
24 the contracts?
1026
1
MR. NELSON: With respect to the fly
2 ash contracts. Would it surprise you if
3 those -- all those contracts by those
4 marketers, who you don't even know who
5 markets, talk about -- do not have a one
6 percent LOI but, in fact, have a five
7 percent LOI in the state of Illinois,
8 would it surprise you if Headwaters, which
9 is the largest marketing -- flash marketer
10 in the United States --
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Wait a
12 minute, Mr. Nelson. You asked one
13 question now you are building. Let's go
14 one question at a time.
15
MR. MURARKA: I will answer that
16 question in two ways. What if, and then
17 everything is possible. What if this
18 happens, then would this happen. And if
19 you fill in if and what, it may be
20 possible, it may not be possible. And I
21 have to know all that to figure out my
22 answer.
23
But if, indeed, there are contracts
24 with different utilities at different LOI
1027
1 limits, that I do know is possible.
2
MR. NELSON: Doesn't your testimony
3 specifically say, quote, the Illinois
4 power plants that have contracts to sell
5 fly ash as a substitute for cement in
6 concrete are required to meet the one
7 percent limit on LOI content in fly ash
8 sold?
9
MR. BONEBRAKE: Mr. Nelson, what
10 page are you reading from?
11
MR. KIM: That's on page five of
12 Dr. Murarka's trial testimony.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And it is
14 quoted in question No. 7 from the EPA.
15
MR. KIM: On page five it is in the
16 full paragraph under the bold section
17 No. 1, and it is about half -- three
18 quarters of the way down.
19
MR. MURARKA: Yes.
20
MR. NELSON: But you say you don't
21 know what the limits are of the -- for the
22 Ameren plants and Midwest Generation
23 plants?
24
MR. MURARKA: I have not reviewed
1028
1 every one of the contracts to be able to
2 say they are all below one percent.
3
MR. NELSON: Isn't that what your
4 testimony says?
5
MR. MURARKA: My testimony does not
6 say that.
7
MR. NELSON: Could I have you read
8 that sentence one more time?
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's not
10 necessary. It is in the record. We read
11 it a couple of times, and he has answered
12 the question.
13
MR. KIM: If I can ask a follow-up,
14 perhaps I can clarify this. Dr. Murarka,
15 the sentence that Mr. Nelson is referring
16 to, you think perhaps it may be a more
17 accurate statement if that sentence were
18 to read Illinois power plants that have
19 contracts to sell fly ash that I have
20 reviewed as a substitute for cement in
21 concrete are required to meet a one
22 percent limit on LOI content in fly ash
23 sold?
24
MR. MURARKA: I will agree to that,
1029
1 yes.
2
MR. KIM: Thank you.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Nelson,
4 do you have any follow-up?
5
MR. NELSON: And you have not
6 reviewed the contracts for Ameren and --
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: He
8 answered that question.
9
MR. MURARKA: I answered that.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Three
11 times actually. Question No. 8.
12
MR. MURARKA: Thank you. Are
13 highways and roads the largest use of
14 concrete in Illinois? Consequently, is
15 the State of Illinois itself the largest
16 purchaser of concrete? Doesn't the State
17 of Illinois itself control any color
18 requirements for highway concrete?
19
I do not know, so I cannot answer
20 the question as to if the state highway is
21 the largest use for concrete ash.
22
Nine, how many of their Illinois ash
23 marketing contracts have you personally
24 examined over the last ten years?
1030
1
I recently reviewed portions of two
2 contracts and interviewed Illinois
3 utilities who are tasked with the
4 management of fly ash. And again this
5 could be I interview the utility that then
6 were asked to send me the portions of the
7 contract so I can read them.
8
MS. BASSI: Can I ask a clarifying
9 question, please? When you use the
10 pronoun their in question No. 9, how many
11 of their Illinois fly ash marketing
12 contracts, is that their IDOT or is it
13 some other?
14
MR. KIM: That was what I was going
15 to follow up on. And, Dr. Murarka,
16 perhaps we could have worded question
17 No. 9 a little better. But I think that
18 -- let me ask you this.
19
How many State of Illinois contracts
20 for fly ash have you personally examined
21 over the last ten years?
22
MR. MORE: Contracts with the State
23 of Illinois?
24
MR. MURARKA: None. That is a
1031
1 different question than was asked.
2
MR. KIM: Yes.
3
MR. MURARKA: 10, can high LOI fly
4 ash such as might be generated with ACI be
5 used beneficially flowable fill, raw feed
6 for clinker, structural fills,
7 embankments, road base, subbase, pavement,
8 soil modification, or stabilization,
9 mineral filler in asphalt, snow and ice
10 control, roofing granules, mining
11 applications, waste stabilization or
12 solidification, agriculture, aggregates
13 and other issues?
14
Some of the listed uses, yes. Some
15 of the listed uses there, no. However,
16 the markets for all these combined uses is
17 not large enough if the elimination or
18 complete reduction of utilization of fly
19 ash in concrete is to come about.
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
21 before you go on, I am going to ask the
22 obvious question. You said some yes, some
23 no. Could you tell us which ones it could
24 not be used for?
1032
1
MR. MURARKA: For example, I will
2 tell you that fly ash in snow and ice
3 control, I haven't seen it at any time
4 used. But maybe it is in Illinois used,
5 but I don't believe so. Roofing granules
6 is bottom ash, not fly ash. Mine
7 application in Illinois, people want to
8 use it, but I am not aware of having
9 successful applications. Waste
10 stabilization, solidification, very small
11 quantities. Agriculture, again, extremely
12 small quantities. Fly ash in aggregates
13 just asking for it. Soil modification and
14 stabilization, again stabilization is
15 possible in the waste stabilization sense,
16 but not in a soil stabilization sense.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
18 Mr. Harley?
19
MR. HARLEY: I am Keith Harley. I
20 am an attorney with the group called
21 Environment Illinois. The question I have
22 for you is the limits that you just
23 described on the use of fly ash, for
24 example, in snow and ice control and other
1033
1 applications, that is true whether or not
2 it is high LOI or low LOI; is that
3 correct?
4
MR. MURARKA: The fly ash is not
5 utilized because of its physical
6 properties for ice and snow control. It
7 doesn't matter what LOI is.
8
MR. HARLEY: Thank you very much for
9 clarifying that.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Kim?
11
MR. KIM: And I can't remember if
12 you answered this previously in one of the
13 earlier questions. But is your -- aside
14 from your review of the contracts that you
15 looked over as part of I assume your
16 preparation for the testimony, do you have
17 any first-hand knowledge in terms of
18 business experience or contracting with
19 any entities within the State of Illinois?
20
MR. MURARKA: Contracting for what?
21
MR. KIM: I guess let me ask you
22 this. Do you have any business -- have
23 you had any business practice with any
24 clients within the State of Illinois?
1034
1
MR. MURARKA: Yes, sir.
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I believe
3 we are on question No. 11.
4
MR. MURARKA: 11, you testify that
5 according to American Coal Association
6 40 percent of electric power plant fly ash
7 was beneficially utilized nationally in
8 2004, 28 million tons of which 14.1
9 million tons or one-half was used in
10 concrete. Similarly, you testified that
11 40 percent of Illinois fly ash was
12 beneficially utilized in 2004 according to
13 the TSD. If only half of beneficially
14 used fly ash is typically used for
15 concrete, how do you explain your
16 testimony that Illinois power plants
17 utilized approximately 40 percent of fly
18 ash produced in 2004 as a substitute for
19 cement in concrete?
20
Response, based on my interviews of
21 the Illinois utilities employees who are
22 tasked with managing fly ash utilization
23 and a review of the available data from
24 Illinois power plants, most of the fly ash
1035
1 is utilized as cement substitute in
2 concrete. And limited amounts are
3 utilized in raw feed for cement
4 manufacturing in Illinois.
5
Also, as set forth in the TSD, the
6 agency when calculating the cost
7 associated with the new rule assumes that
8 approximately 40 percent of the fly ash
9 produced in 2004 will no longer be
10 utilized.
11
Table 8.8 on page 161 of the TSD
12 sets forth a summary of the 2004 fly ash
13 utilization data for Illinois. According
14 to that table, 40 percent of fly ash was
15 sold. Table 8.9 on page 163 of the TSD,
16 then sets forth the cost of compliance
17 with the Illinois rule by multiplying $25
18 per ton by the amount of fly ash generated
19 that is not utilized, that according to
20 table 8.9 will most likely utilize sorbent
21 injection or ACI technology.
22
Table 8.7 on page 157 of the TSD
23 then sets forth a total ash disposal cost
24 based on table 8.9 and the assumption that
1036
1 all of the ash currently sold by those
2 units affected by the Illinois rule will
3 no longer be sold. This cost is based on
4 the assumption by the agency that the fly
5 ash will no longer be utilized for
6 substituting cement in concrete because
7 that is the only use that it has been
8 determined will be adversely affected by
9 the Illinois rule.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Harley?
11
MR. HARLEY: Dr. Murarka, I don't
12 want to belabor this or any point, but
13 this is the second time in your testimony
14 where you have referred to one basis of
15 your answer interviews with Illinois
16 attorneys.
17
MR. MURARKA: No. Utilities.
18
MR. HARLEY: Utilities, I am sorry,
19 I miss heard.
20
MR. MURARKA: English is still a
21 foreign language for me.
22
MR. HARLEY: No. It's the
23 microphone, it distorts.
24
MR. MURARKA: I am sorry if I said
1037
1 attorneys.
2
Number 12, according to
3 plant-specific data on fly ash sales in
4 this exhibit, what fraction of Illinois
5 fly ash that was sold for beneficial use
6 in 2003 and 2004?
7
I don't understand this question and
8 I am not sure what this exhibit is.
9
MR. KIM: I apologize once again.
10 The exhibit -- we meant to reference
11 Exhibit I believe it is 44 from the
12 Springfield hearing. And this was a
13 document that contained a plant-by-plant
14 breakdown of a number of different of
15 pieces of item including the amount of fly
16 ash generated and the amount of fly ash
17 sold on an annual basis. So having said
18 that -- well, why don't we just disregard
19 that question since you haven't had a
20 chance to look at the document.
21
MR. MURARKA: Thank you.
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.
23 Dr. Murarka, let's try shutting off the
24 microphone. I think your voice may carry
1038
1 loud. If you can't hear in the audience,
2 let me know, we can turn it back on. But
3 the microphone I think was distorting more
4 than it's helping.
5
MR. MURARKA: If only 30 percent to
6 35 percent of Illinois fly ash was
7 actually beneficially sold, not
8 40 percent, and if half of this could be
9 sold because added carbon -- could still
10 be sold because added carbon is
11 irrelevant, would your estimate of
12 deleterious impact decline further?
13
My answer to this hypothetical
14 question is yes. And estimates by the
15 agency will also decline too.
16
Number 14, didn't the TSD assume the
17 worst case in its economic cost modeling
18 anyway, that no fly ash with PAC would be
19 sold for concrete, so anything able to be
20 sold would just lessen the relatively low
21 total costs already calculated?
22
I really don't know what the TSD
23 assumed. However, the TSD states that $25
24 a ton differential, quote, is likely to
1039
1 overestimate the impact, unquote, and says
2 nothing about a worst case. Any fly ash
3 that would be sold will lessen the impact,
4 however. The remaining nonconcrete
5 utilization markets are not large enough
6 to offset the impacts, however, for the
7 total revenues that are generated on a per
8 ton basis.
9
Those markets are considerably lower
10 than those generated for the sale -- or
11 from the sale of fly ash as a substitute
12 for cement in concrete.
13
Number 15, prior to beginning your
14 company, you worked 25 years for the
15 Electric Power Research Institute, which
16 is funded by utility companies, correct?
17
I worked for the Electric Power
18 Research Institute from October 1979
19 through April 1998 as a research manager
20 for land and water quality studies. EPRI
21 is funded by utility companies and some
22 other sources such as Department of
23 Energy.
24
Number 16, please describe the
1040
1 purpose of Electric Power Research
2 Institute's TOXECON, TOXECON II and
3 TOXECON III technology.
4
Response, I do not know the purpose
5 of Electric Power Research Institute's
6 TOXECON, TOXECON II and TOXECON III
7 technologies.
8
Number 17, why did you leave mention
9 of these technologies out of your
10 testimony?
11
Response, as presented in my written
12 testimony, I presented my technical
13 material pertaining to the effects
14 activity carbon injection installed
15 upstream of the existing ESP or fabric
16 filter will have on the utilization of
17 coal ash produced in Illinois. I did not
18 consider what other technologies were
19 available to facilities in Illinois and,
20 therefore, did not discuss issues raised
21 by those technologies.
22
18, you testified that ozone
23 passivation (sic) technology to solve the
24 carbon/concrete issue is not commercially
1041
1 available yet. What have the results been
2 from EPRI's tests?
3
Response, I do not have access to
4 EPRI data and information since I am not
5 an EPRI member. So I cannot present any
6 EPRI test results.
7
19, are you familiar with data from
8 any company on the foam indexes of fly ash
9 containing cement-friendly activated
10 carbon? No, sir.
11
20 --
12
MS. ROCCAFORTE: I have a question.
13 Gina Roccaforte on behalf of Illinois EPA.
14 Do you know that Sorbent Technology and
15 Headwater Resources market a
16 concrete-friendly activated carbon?
17
MR. MURARKA: I have been told
18 that's the case.
19
MS. ROCCAFORTE: Thank you.
20
MR. MURARKA: Number 20, what
21 fraction of U.S. utility coal mercury is
22 already going into utility fly ash today?
23
I really don't understand this
24 question.
1042
1
Number 21, what percent of this is
2 liberated when fly ash is used in
3 clinker/cement manufacturing?
4
I do not have any data from
5 clinker/cement manufacturing facilities to
6 be able to answer this question.
7
22, if substantially all of the
8 mercury contained in fly ash is liberated
9 by the kilns of clinker/cement
10 manufacturing, do you think that it would
11 be a good idea today for Illinois or the
12 U.S. EPA to regulate or restrict mercury
13 containing fly ash going to this use?
14
Response, as indicated in my
15 response to question 21, I do not have any
16 data on mercury liberation by the kilns
17 manufacturing cement or clinker. So I do
18 not wish to speculate on a good or bad
19 idea.
20
However, if fly ash is not utilized
21 in cement manufacturing application, then
22 that fly ash volume will also need to be
23 disposed, resulting in additional land
24 disposal cost to the Illinois utilities or
1043
1 any utility for that matter.
2
Number 23, what evidence in your
3 submitted testimony did you rely on for
4 your overall conclusion that it is almost
5 a foregone conclusion that the proposed
6 rule will increase the potential for
7 environmental impacts from land disposal
8 operations?
9
Response, I want to first repeat my
10 conclusion as written in entirety and not
11 in the way the question is written. It is
12 almost a foregone conclusion that
13 activated carbon injection --
14
MR. KIM: Excuse me. Can you refer
15 to the page of your testimony just so we
16 are clear.
17
MR. MORE: It is page 8.
18
MR. MURARKA: "It is almost a
19 foregone conclusion that activated carbon
20 injection will reduce/eliminate the use of
21 fly ash as a substitute for cement in
22 concrete --" I probably should have put a
23 period right there and then started with a
24 new sentence. But continuing on,
1044
1 "-- increasing the economic burden the
2 proposed rule will place on Illinois power
3 plants and increase the potential for
4 environmental impacts from land disposal
5 operation."
6
Continuing the answer, my foregone
7 conclusion relates to
8 reduction/elimination of user fly ash
9 generated by the activated carbon
10 injection technology that will put
11 increased burden on Illinois power plants
12 -- economic burden on the power plants.
13
The decreased utilization of fly ash
14 will result in land disposal of the fly
15 ash that is not utilized resulting in a
16 potential for environmental impact.
17 Therefore, my conclusion, as stated in my
18 written testimony, did not claim that it
19 is almost a foregone conclusion that the
20 proposed rule will increase the potential
21 for environmental impacts from land
22 disposal operations.
23
24 --
24
MR. KIM: Excuse me. Dr. Murarka,
1045
1 isn't it correct that the -- any possible
2 increased economic burden that the
3 proposed rule would place on Illinois
4 power plants has already been reflected
5 and accounted for in the cost analysis
6 that was prepared by the Illinois EPA as
7 reflected in the technical support
8 documents?
9
MR. MURARKA: That's what the
10 overall conclusion from the previously
11 stated testimony tried to capture in just
12 a few sentences. So, yes, that's
13 reflected in that aspect.
14
MR. KIM: Thank you.
15
MR. HARLEY: Dr. Murarka, are you
16 familiar with the waste classification of
17 fly ash under the Illinois Environmental
18 Protection Act or the Illinois
19 Administrative Code?
20
MR. MURARKA: Yes, I am familiar
21 with that.
22
MR. HARLEY: Could you please
23 describe how fly ash is dealt with in
24 terms of its waste classification in
1046
1 Illinois.
2
MR. BONEBRAKE: I would like to put
3 a question on the record that the question
4 is asking for a legal conclusion. But you
5 can go ahead, Mr. Murarka.
6
MR. MURARKA: I don't recall. It
7 has been about a year or two since I read
8 that material. And I don't want to
9 misstate my memory.
10
MR. HARLEY: Are you familiar with
11 the provisions of the Resource
12 Conservation and Recovery Act as it
13 relates to the waste classification of fly
14 ash?
15
MR. MURARKA: Yes.
16
MR. HARLEY: Could you please
17 describe those?
18
MR. BONEBRAKE: Same objection. Go
19 ahead.
20
MR. MURARKA: Actually, in Resource
21 Conservation and Recovery Act, there was
22 an amendment that exempted fly ash, bottom
23 ash scrubber sledge and fossil fuel
24 combustion residuals until the United
1047
1 States Environmental Protection Agency
2 presented report to Congress and made
3 subsequent determination. The
4 determinations have been made. I don't
5 remember exactly the year now, it has been
6 four or five years at least. In two
7 different determinations and two different
8 reports of Congress that lead to the EPA
9 stating or deciding that the fossil fuel
10 combustion wastes are to be classified or
11 -- actually, it said do not need to have a
12 hazardous waste classification under that
13 rule.
14
And then there were additional
15 things that utilization of fossil fuel
16 combustion waste in mine application needs
17 more study and assessment and
18 determination further. And there were two
19 other conclusions that I don't remember
20 exactly how they go.
21
MR. HARLEY: Thank you, Doctor.
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question
23 24.
24
MR. MURARKA: Question 24, what
1048
1 sources of data did you rely on for your
2 overall conclusion that it is almost a
3 foregone conclusion that the proposed rule
4 will increase the potential for
5 environmental impact for the land disposal
6 operation? See my response to 23.
7
25, are you familiar with data
8 indicating that activated carbons in fly
9 ash continue to absorb --
10
MR. KIM: Excuse me, your answer to
11 No. 25 --
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: 24.
13
MR. MURARKA: It is the same as the
14 answer to 23.
15
MR. KIM: I am sorry, I thought I
16 heard you say 20 instead of 23.
17
MR. MURARKA: 25, are you familiar
18 with data indicating that activated carbon
19 in fly ash continue to absorb mercury from
20 ambient air when placed in landfills or
21 absorb mercury from water when ponded?
22
I have not seen any peer-reviewed
23 journal papers during the last at least
24 ten years with this type of information
1049
1 pertaining to field scale measurements.
2 And I emphasize the word field scale
3 measurements. So I am not familiar with
4 any factual details of this hypothesis, as
5 stated in this question.
6
Number 26, are you familiar with
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
8 Department of Energy or Electric Power
9 Research Institute data on the
10 leachability or revolatilization of
11 mercury from fly ash samples containing
12 plain or brominated carbons?
13
Yes, I am familiar with most of the
14 information on the leachability of fly ash
15 generated by powdered activated control
16 technology.
17
Number 27, what are the positions or
18 preliminary conclusions of the U.S. EPA,
19 DOE and EPRI concerning the expected
20 adverse environmental impacts from the
21 disposal of such PAC containing fly ash?
22
Response, a few preliminary
23 conclusions are available in papers
24 supporting the results of mercury studies
1050
1 funded by these organizations. Fly ash
2 produced by ACI do contain increased
3 amounts of mercury than those without ACI
4 use. Some of the fly ashes produced by
5 ACI contain increased amounts of arsenic
6 and selenium too. Leaching of the mercury
7 from these fly ashes does not raise
8 environmental concerns of any
9 significance. However arsenic and
10 selenium may be leached at levels of
11 potential environmental concerns.
12
Number 28, how do you square these
13 with your overall conclusion? Very well,
14 see my response to question 23 and 27.
15
MR. KIM: The only follow up I have,
16 I am going to take one last stab at
17 question number 20. I am going to try and
18 reword this, maybe it will -- you will be
19 able to understand it better.
20
Let's try the question this way.
21 What fraction of mercury in U.S. utility
22 coal is already going into utility fly ash
23 today? In other words -- you understand?
24
MR. MURARKA: I understand the
1051
1 question.
2
MR. KIM: Thank you.
3
MR. MURARKA: I can't tell you what
4 the percentage is or quantities are. I
5 used to know the numbers in fly ashes and
6 the ranges. I did not review that
7 information before coming to this hearing.
8
But the best memory, subject to
9 revisions, I think it is between
10 30 percent to upward of around of
11 60 percent of the mercury in coals ended
12 up in fly ash or bottom flash or scrubber
13 sledge or all of them combined. But that
14 range is a national average that if I
15 remember right would be the range.
16
MR. KIM: And I can't recall exactly
17 your specific answer to No. 21 related to
18 the clinker/cement manufacturing. Given
19 your answer now, would the previous answer
20 to 21 be any different?
21
MR. MURARKA: The answer I still
22 will provide you, I do not know what kind
23 of mercury control technologies those
24 companies have.
1052
1
MR. KIM: That's fine.
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything
3 further?
4
MR. MORE: I have a couple of
5 follow-up questions.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.
7
MR. MORE: Do you recall being asked
8 a couple of questions -- do you recall
9 being asked a couple questions about
10 whether or not sorbent technologies or
11 Headwaters is marketing a cement-friendly
12 sorbent?
13
MR. MURARKA: Yes, I remember those
14 questions being asked.
15
MR. MORE: Would you turn to page 6
16 of your testimony?
17
MR. MURARKA: Yes, sir.
18
MR. MORE: And the second to last
19 paragraph begins "the technical support
20 document." Do you see that paragraph?
21
MR. MURARKA: Yes, sir.
22
MR. MORE: Would you read it
23 yourself, please.
24
MR. MURARKA: Yes.
1053
1
MR. MORE: So is it correct that any
2 cement-friendly sorbents have not been
3 demonstrated at this time to be able to
4 achieve a 90 percent reduction in mercury
5 emissions and have not been demonstrated
6 to show that they do not adversely impact
7 the marketability of fly ash?
8
MR. MURARKA: Can I answer last half
9 of your question only?
10
MR. MORE: Sure.
11
MR. MURARKA: For fly ash
12 utilization of such fly ash generated by
13 the cement-friendly sorbents, I have not
14 seen information enough in the
15 peer-reviewed journal to be able to say
16 that that has been demonstrated and that
17 such a technology and effects on use of
18 those fly ashes for concrete will remain
19 as is.
20
MR. MORE: I would also like to
21 direct you to Mr. Nelson's testimony on
22 page five. I apologize I don't have
23 multiple copies with me. Would you take a
24 look the last paragraph that begins "my
1054
1 company has a new product called C-PAC?"
2 I would like you to read the second
3 sentence that begins "we are going to
4 demonstrate." Would you read that into
5 the record, please?
6
MR. MURARKA: "We are going to be
7 demonstrating this C-PAC product in just a
8 few months and at full scale in a DOE
9 program at the Crawford plant of Midwest
10 Generation in the Chicago area."
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
12 for the record that is Exhibit 43.
13
MR. MORE: Thank you. At this time
14 do you know whether or not the
15 demonstration that Mr. Nelson is
16 discussing here in his testimony, if that
17 has been completed?
18
MR. MURARKA: I don't know.
19
MR. MORE: Also on Exhibit 43, do
20 you agree with Mr. Nelson's conclusion,
21 the last sentence of the first paragraph,
22 that, quote, unfortunately with our
23 particular technology, activated carbon
24 injection, the slightest bit of plain
1055
1 activated carbon that gets into that fly
2 ash generally makes the fly ash unusable
3 for this reuse application?
4
MR. MURARKA: Yes.
5
MR. MORE: And do you understand
6 that Mr. Nelson when he is discussing
7 reuse application is referring to the use
8 of fly ash as a substitute for cement in
9 concrete?
10
MR. MURARKA: Yes, sir.
11
MR. MORE: I have no further
12 questions.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Nelson?
14
MR. NELSON: Are you aware of
15 exhibit -- were you here earlier today or
16 yesterday when Exhibit 88 was introduced.
17
MR. MURARKA: No, sir.
18
MR. NELSON: Are you familiar with
19 Exhibit 88?
20
MR. MURARKA: No, sir.
21
MR. NELSON: Are you familiar with
22 the initial results -- the initial
23 parametric results from the Crawford
24 demonstration?
1056
1
MR. MURARKA: No, sir.
2
MR. NELSON: Thank you.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything
4 further? Thank you very much for your
5 patience and thank you for being here
6 today.
7
MR. MURARKA: Thank you very much
8 too. I am glad I was on a different seat
9 than Ed was.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Please
11 swear in the next witness.
12
(Witness duly sworn.)
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And I have
14 been handed a copy of Mr. DePriest's
15 prefiled testimony, which I will mark as
16 Exhibit 115 if there is no objection.
17 Seeing none, it is Exhibit 115.
18
19
Did you want to give a short summary
20 before you started the questions?
21
MR. DePRIEST: I thought I would.
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.
23
MR. DePRIEST: I am not sure how
24 much people know me or the company I work
1057
1 for.
2
But my name is Bill DePriest. I am
3 a senior VP at Sargent & Lundy. And my
4 area of expertise is in the area of
5 environmental controls, and I direct our
6 environmental services group.
7
And we have -- just as a bit of an
8 introduction to our participation in the
9 state of Illinois, we have done work for a
10 number of utilities in the state. And I
11 just want to, you know, maybe as a
12 preamble caution, some of the questions
13 that have been asked of me are asking me
14 to reveal things that are proprietary
15 confidential information that we develop
16 specifically for the utilities in the
17 state of Illinois. And I am not going to
18 be able to share that specific information
19 with anyone here.
20
But I have developed -- my testimony
21 is developed more on a generic sense as to
22 how we see the industry. And we work not
23 only in the State of Illinois but across
24 the country. And we have been working
1058
1 with mercury controls and related
2 equipment related to pollution control
3 equipment on the back of power plants.
4 And that's, I think, the expertise that I
5 intend to bring to bear or have brought to
6 bear in my testimony.
7
So when we get into specific
8 questions about specific utilities and
9 specific power plants and the work we did
10 for them, that's kind of off bounds. But
11 it has been included as part of my overall
12 analysis of the issue at hand.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Can you
14 hear him okay?
15
MR. HARLEY: I can hear him, but I
16 have a bit of a concern about the way he
17 has phrased the characterization of what
18 he will and will not testify to.
19
Perhaps this is better for
20 Mr. Bonebrake, but will you be indicating
21 that you are claiming a confidentiality
22 exemption for certain portions of the
23 testimony?
24
MR. BONEBRAKE: Well, I guess my
1059
1 suggestion would be to wait and see where
2 and when the issue rises and then we can
3 address it. I don't know that we can and
4 should address it in the abstract.
5
MR. HARLEY: The reason I am saying
6 that is if this witness has not identified
7 and he is refusing to answer some portion
8 of a question on the basis of
9 confidentiality, we will not know that he
10 is generalizing according to the ground
11 rules that has self announced.
12
MR. BONEBRAKE: I guess what we can
13 do is if there is a particular --
14
MS. BASSI: Can I ask a question?
15 Mr. Harley, is your question will
16 Mr. DePriest indicate where he cannot
17 answer a question because of the
18 confidentiality provisions of his
19 contracts with companies?
20
MR. HARLEY: Yes.
21
MS. BASSI: Yes, he will do that.
22
MR. DePRIEST: Question No. 1, are
23 you familiar with the cost estimates
24 described in section B-5 of
1060
1 Mr. Cichanowicz' testimony regarding
2 activated carbon injection hardware?
3
Answer, I have seen Mr. Cichanowicz'
4 testimony and understand that it does
5 include cost estimates. But I am not
6 familiar with the details of those
7 estimates. So I simply reviewed -- I
8 looked at it, but I am not sure how he
9 developed those.
10
Question No. 2, did your company
11 produce these estimates?
12
Sargent & Lundy did not provide any
13 cost estimate information to
14 Mr. Cichanowicz. I understand that one or
15 more of the Illinois generating companies
16 may have provided him with studies that we
17 performed for them. But I am not aware of
18 how he used this information in his
19 testimony.
20
MR. KIM: Before we go further, just
21 for paper purposes, did we admit
22 Mr. DePriest's testimony?
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes, as
24 Exhibit 115.
1061
1
MR. KIM: Thank you. And I am
2 sorry, Mr. DePriest, did you finish
3 answering No. 3?
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: 2.
5
MR. KIM: I'm sorry.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
7 Mr. DePriest, I have a follow-up on that
8 because Mr. Cichanowicz indicated in a
9 couple of his final questions that he did,
10 in fact, use information from your
11 testimony in his testimony. Are you
12 saying you are not aware --
13
MR. DePRIEST: I am aware that -- I
14 understand that he did receive some of the
15 work that we did for utilities in the
16 state.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: But you
18 didn't provide it specifically to him?
19
MR. DePRIEST: I didn't give it to
20 him. He got it from the utilities, which
21 I guess is okay.
22
MS. BASSI: Just also to clarify, I
23 believe that he did not say it came from
24 Mr. DePriest's testimony. It came from
1062
1 Sargent & Lundy. And it got to -- if it
2 came from Sargent & Lundy, it came through
3 the individual companies, not directly
4 from Sargent & Lundy.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
6
MR. KIM: My understanding is there
7 were at least two questions -- I think
8 there were at the end of Mr. Cichanowicz'
9 testimony -- questions No. 98 and 99 that
10 I think he deferred them to Mr. DePriest
11 and indicated that you might be in a
12 better position to answer those questions.
13
MR. DePRIEST: I will give it a
14 shot.
15
MR. KIM: As long as we are on the
16 subject of Mr. Cichanowicz' testimony, I
17 don't know if you want to take a crack at
18 those now or if you'd rather --
19
MR. DePRIEST: I wasn't here for it;
20 but I would be willing to take a crack at
21 it.
22
MR. KIM: You can thank him. He is
23 right back there.
24
MR. DePRIEST: Thanks, Ed.
1063
1
MR. AYERS: I will read 98 for the
2 record. On pages 87 and 88 of your
3 testimony -- that being Ed's -- you have
4 estimates for capital cost and fixed
5 operating cost. Please provide a table of
6 the capital cost estimates to show how the
7 cost data was derived -- well, this is
8 answer, I guess -- to erected equipment
9 costs which -- was equipment is included,
10 assumptions regarding retrofit difficulty,
11 engineering and home office fees, et
12 cetera, et cetera. All that information
13 does exist in the work that we provided
14 and did perform for the utilities I
15 believe that are in question here. We did
16 provide that type of information.
17
MR. KIM: Has it been provided in
18 the course of your prefiled testimony or
19 Mr. Cichanowicz' prefiled testimony?
20
MR. DePRIEST: No. But if you look
21 in the testimony, the last third of it
22 deals with the subject of costs. The
23 costs that are in that particular section
24 of my testimony encompass in a general
1064
1 fashion the work that we did for the
2 utilities in the state of Illinois. But
3 they are not specific and shouldn't be
4 construed to be specific for any
5 particular unit. But they represent the
6 range of what we feel the costs would be
7 to apply I believe it is fabric filter
8 technology specifically to the plants in
9 the state of Illinois.
10
MR. KIM: Would it be safe to say
11 then that the answer to the extent it
12 exists to question No. 98 that was
13 presented to Mr. Cichanowicz would be
14 found in various places in the latter
15 portion of your prefiled testimony?
16
MR. DePRIEST: Yes.
17
MR. KIM: And to the best of your
18 knowledge, does that -- would the answer
19 to question 98 exist in any other form in
20 any document that has been presented to
21 the Board as part of these proceedings?
22
MR. DePRIEST: Not that I'm aware
23 of.
24
MR. KIM: And I assume your answer
1065
1 to question 99 to Mr. Cichanowicz'
2 questions would, essentially, be the same
3 as your answer to 98?
4
MR. DePRIEST: Yes, it would.
5
So question No. 3 in my question
6 says if yes to the answer to question
7 No. 2, please provide details of these
8 cost estimates in a table. I guess we
9 have kind of gone through that issue.
10 They exist in the work that we did for the
11 utilities in the state of Illinois. But I
12 did not include those in my testimony.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: The
14 question is asking you to provide it.
15
MR. DePRIEST: Yes. And I am not at
16 liberty unless they tell me I can do that,
17 to provide them to this Board.
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: So this
19 would be one of those instances where you
20 are not answering the question because of
21 proprietary...
22
MR. DePRIEST: That's right. And I
23 think we can understand why the utilities
24 in question, if you think of them, Ameren,
1066
1 Dynegy, Midwest Gen and others are all in
2 competition with each other in the state
3 of Illinois. So we work for all of them.
4 It is very important that we maintain that
5 China wall between all the work that we do
6 for the different utilities and not share
7 it back and forth. That kind of shares
8 competitive information.
9
MR. KIM: That raises a good
10 question when you make reference to the
11 different utilities. Could you state who
12 you are representing today in these
13 proceedings, who your clients are in terms
14 of your presentation of testimony today?
15
MR. DePRIEST: We are working for
16 Schiff, Hardin, who is working for the
17 utilities I mentioned, amongst others.
18
MR. KIM: So consistent with
19 Mr. Murarka's testimony, would it be
20 Dynegy, Midwest Generation, Southern
21 Illinois Power Co-Op and Dominion?
22
MR. BONEBRAKE: I think as of today
23 that would be correct, John.
24
MR. KIM: I appreciate the
1067
1 qualification.
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Harley?
3
MR. HARLEY: Are you familiar with
4 the process by which the Board can review
5 materials which are designated as being
6 confidential and trade secret documents?
7
MR. DePRIEST: Not enough to speak
8 to it, no.
9
MR. HARLEY: Are you familiar with
10 the process through which the board can
11 conduct an in camera review, that is the
12 Board can review the documents to inform
13 its decision without making them publicly
14 available in any manner?
15
MR. DePRIEST: I understand that
16 does exist, that capability to do that.
17
MR. HARLEY: In order to ensure the
18 Board is given a full and complete record
19 on which to base its decision, in light of
20 your testimony and your presentation as a
21 witness, are there any documents or
22 portions of documents that you would be
23 willing to provide to the Board if they
24 were afforded the protection of an in
1068
1 camera review not available to members of
2 the public?
3
MR. BONEBRAKE: This question in the
4 abstract I think is just about impossible
5 to answer.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I don't
7 think it is in the abstract. We just had
8 him tell us he is not going to give us
9 information for proprietary reasons.
10
MR. BONEBRAKE: Are you directing
11 your question specifically to this cost
12 item in No. 3? Is this where the question
13 is headed?
14
MR. HARLEY: This is the first time
15 that the witness has invoked his refusal
16 to provide information that he does have
17 on the basis of proprietary interests of
18 his company. So this is the first
19 opportunity I have to test this.
20
The reason for testing it is the
21 purpose of these proceedings is to provide
22 a full and complete opportunity for the
23 Board to develop a complete record. The
24 record will not be as complete as it can
1069
1 be because this witness is refusing to
2 provide information. I am testing the
3 limits of that refusal.
4
MS. BASSI: The refusal to provide
5 information is the information about
6 specific companies, not the information in
7 the aggregate. And the information in the
8 aggregate has been provided in his
9 testimony. And, you know, if -- that's
10 all I can say.
11
MR. KIM: I think -- and I don't
12 want to step on Mr. Harley's toes, but
13 consistent with the presentation of
14 information we made to the Board in our
15 post-hearing written comments following
16 the Springfield hearing, we presented
17 certain documentation that would be
18 provided for the Board to review only
19 without being made public and would not be
20 disseminated in any way on the Board's
21 website and what have you.
22
I assume what Mr. Harley is asking
23 and, certainly, I would join in this
24 request is that is it possible for the
1070
1 information that you have deemed -- and I
2 am not disputing the fact that it may very
3 well be proprietary. But is it possible
4 for that information to be presented to
5 the Board in camera for their review as
6 part of their consideration and review of
7 the rules?
8
MR. BONEBRAKE: Let me put two
9 things on the record and then maybe you
10 can respond to that, Mr. DePriest. First,
11 I think Ms. Bassi has already indicated
12 the aggregate cost data is already in the
13 testimony. So that piece of information,
14 which appears to be most relevant to the
15 Board's consideration, is part of the
16 public record.
17
And, second, you did mention the
18 fact that there was some materials that
19 were filed under seal or otherwise
20 confidential. But we have to recognize as
21 well that there have been some materials
22 in this proceeding that have not been
23 provided, including Dr. Keeler's report,
24 on the grounds of confidentiality or other
1071
1 restrictions.
2
So while I appreciate Mr. Kim's
3 suggestion of having submitted some
4 materials under confidential restrictions,
5 there are some of these precedents
6 proceeding already for some materials not
7 being provided into the record at this
8 juncture.
9
I don't know if you have anything
10 further that you wanted to add, Mr.
11 DePriest.
12
MR. DePRIEST: I am not a lawyer or
13 anything, so I am not sure I can answer
14 those types of questions anyway. But I
15 think what I attempted to do and I think I
16 have done in my testimony is the
17 information is in there, but you just
18 can't tell which specific plant it applies
19 to. So if you look at the cost data,
20 dollars per kilowatt, millions of dollars
21 to apply technology, operating cost,
22 capital cost, construction cost, the
23 information is all there. It is just that
24 I can't tell that that is the Vermillion
1072
1 Station or that's the Hennipen Station or
2 that's the Joliet Station.
3
That's not apparent. And I
4 attempted to put the information in there
5 without tying it to specific facilities?
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let me
7 comment generally. Okay. Here is my
8 feeling -- and this is my feeling about
9 Steubenville, which we are still hearing
10 about. And I understand that and I plan
11 to ask the Agency what progress we have on
12 Steubenville.
13
If the Board asks for information
14 that we do not receive, whether it is
15 received in camera or information is not
16 put in our record, we then cannot review
17 it. If the Board cannot review it, then
18 the information that is in the record may,
19 in fact, suffer because we can't review
20 all the information.
21
If you are willing to take the risk
22 that the Board not having the specific
23 information in camera is okay or if the
24 Agency can't provide for Steubenville and
1073
1 is willing to take the risk, those are the
2 risks that you are willing to take. Do
3 you understand what I am saying?
4
I understand what you are saying.
5 But I also have heard repeatedly from
6 witnesses at both sets of hearings that a
7 lot of cost involved in this mercury
8 control are very site specific and very
9 data -- very specific to each plant. And
10 I understand your testimony has been given
11 to us in the aggregate on the cost. And
12 that's wonderful. It's good information.
13
But if there is site specific data
14 out there that shows it is going to cost
15 one plant $2 billion to come in, you know,
16 I just -- I think -- I'm not asking for
17 that information at this point. But I am
18 just -- I just want to say generally that
19 that's my feeling.
20
This is an information gathering
21 process. And sometimes in an information
22 gathering process, the information that is
23 not provided is far more important than
24 the information that is.
1074
1
So with that caveat, I am willing to
2 at least at this point allow Mr. DePriest
3 to claim proprietary and not provide the
4 information. But I throw that caveat out
5 there.
6
MR. BONEBRAKE: We thank you for
7 your position.
8
MR. DePRIEST: Question No. 4, with
9 reference to your statement on pages 5 and
10 6 of your testimony, quote, however, it is
11 likely that enhance mercury control will
12 be needed to achieve overall control
13 efficiency in the range of 90 percent,
14 unquote, on what basis is that statement
15 made?
16
So I think you have to refer to that
17 particular paragraph. And my answer would
18 be mercury capture with an FGD system
19 alone will depend on the speciation of the
20 mercury in the coal and the flue gas and
21 will vary depending on the coal chemistry,
22 combustion technology and other variables.
23
For PRB coal, which is the primary
24 fuel for the Illinois units, a significant
1075
1 portion of the mercury in the flue gas is
2 expected to elemental. Industry testing
3 to date has not shown a reliable ability
4 to achieve mercury capture of 90 percent
5 for PRB coal with an FGD system alone.
6
Number 5, do you have any test
7 results for mercury removal on Illinois
8 units with SCR and FGD?
9
We are aware of some testing
10 performed on one of our client's -- by one
11 of our clients on a specific unit in the
12 state of Illinois. I think there is only
13 two or three combined SCR/FGD units in the
14 state of Illinois. But we are aware of
15 testing at one of them. However, we are
16 not at liberty to share that information
17 due -- again due to confidentiality that
18 we have in looking at that.
19
MR. KIM: Can you at least identify
20 the client or the facility, not getting
21 into the results?
22
MS. BASSI: Madam Hearing Officer,
23 on these things where these are related to
24 contracts that Sargent & Lundy has with
1076
1 individual companies, may I suggest that
2 we can take these questions back to these
3 companies and see what the companies are
4 willing to share in camera and not put
5 Mr. DePriest on the spot for being
6 potentially in breach of his contracts
7 with them?
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I don't
9 think any of us are asking him to breach
10 the contract. I think we are asking what
11 the limits of the contract are at this
12 point.
13
I would appreciate that. I think
14 this is one in particular that the
15 information might be very helpful to the
16 Board. But again, I think Mr. Kim's
17 question can you tell us which companies
18 are involved, if the answer is no, we will
19 go on from there. If you are
20 uncomfortable with it, then the answer is
21 not. If you are slightly uncomfortable --
22
MR. DePRIEST: I suspect it is okay.
23 Because I think they are going to publish
24 the information eventually when the
1077
1 testing is done. But they have not
2 specifically told us that we were allowed
3 to use that information outside of our
4 contract with them.
5
MR. KIM: I am not trying to have
6 you testify to anything that you feel
7 uncomfortable. If you can answer it for
8 whatever reason, that answer is fine with
9 us.
10
MR. GIRARD: Except I have a
11 question. Is your contract being paid for
12 with Department of Energy funds or some
13 other public funds? Why is it a secret
14 what company is doing the testing?
15
MR. DePRIEST: This particular
16 testing, as far as I know, is not being
17 done with government funds. It is being
18 done by the utility itself.
19
MR. KIM: It's all very intriguing.
20
MR. DePRIEST: When they publish the
21 paper, it won't be that exciting.
22
MS. MOORE: I am curious, how long
23 have you had the questions?
24
MR. DePRIEST: The questions I
1078
1 believe came in last Friday.
2
MS. BASSI: They came July 28th.
3
MS. MOORE: Did you not think to ask
4 any of your clients that you were going to
5 be on the spot here, would they mind if
6 you gave this information?
7
MR. BONEBRAKE: The questions didn't
8 come in until the 7th.
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes,
10 that's correct.
11
MS. BASSI: I am sorry.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: The
13 testimony came in about the week --
14
MR. BONEBRAKE: We had about a week
15 to try to work through the issues.
16
MR. DePRIEST: I didn't think on
17 this particular question. I guess I did
18 on the cost questions, and I was told that
19 that's proprietary information. I mean, I
20 think we can all understand why it would
21 be. They are in competition with the guy
22 down the road. If they can make something
23 happen at lower cost on their site, they
24 may have an advantage and they don't want
1079
1 to tell anybody about it.
2
And specifically with their fuel
3 purchases, if their technology allows them
4 to accommodate more fuels, they might have
5 that leverage in their fuel buying
6 practices. We don't want to take that
7 away from them.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Number 6.
9
MR. DePRIEST: Six, with reference
10 to your statement on page six of your
11 testimony, quote, this scenario should
12 provide some mercury reduction, but it
13 will be limited by the capability of the
14 existing ESP to capture the activated
15 carbon without exceeding the plant's
16 particulate emission limit or opacity
17 limit, end quote.
18
Have you calculated any increase in
19 particulate emissions for any Illinois
20 plants as a result of use of sorbent
21 injection for mercury control? If so,
22 please provide all calculations.
23
Answer, in general our analysis of
24 the capabilities of existing ESPs to
1080
1 accommodate ACI was performed on a
2 qualitative basis considering the existing
3 ESP size or I think as you have heard
4 earlier in testimony the SCA and current
5 emission rates and opacity levels.
6
More importantly, any particular
7 increase in the inlet loading of an ESP
8 will result in an increase in the outlet
9 loading, which will impact the emission
10 rate and potentially the opacity.
11 Specifically, the calculation work that we
12 have performed for Illinois plants would
13 again be governed by confidentiality
14 agreements with our plant owners.
15
Generally speaking, though -- I
16 don't want to make it sound like we
17 produced a whole bunch of calculations and
18 we are trying to hold them secret here.
19 Our work was basically done on a
20 qualitative basis. We looked at the
21 existing ESPs, their specific collection
22 areas that they had available in them,
23 their current operating particulate load
24 and opacity level. And we made a judgment
1081
1 based on our experience in the business as
2 to whether or not activated carbon
3 injection to the point necessary to
4 achieve 90 percent removal was achievable
5 with that precipitator.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Nelson?
7
MR. NELSON: What is the basis of
8 your statement there that any increase in
9 particulate into the ESP will result in
10 increases out of the ESP?
11
MR. DePRIEST: Well, generally
12 speaking, an ESP operates on a percent
13 reduction capability. So if you increase
14 the inlet loading and it continues to
15 operate on a percent reduction basis, the
16 outlet loading will inherently go up. It
17 does not necessarily mean that the opacity
18 will go up, but the outlet particulate
19 loading will typically go up. I won't say
20 it will go up in every case. But it will
21 typically go up.
22
MR. NELSON: Why would the
23 particulate go up and not the opacity?
24
MR. DePRIEST: The opacity and the
1082
1 particulate loading are really two
2 independent things. They are connected in
3 some ways. But the particulate loading,
4 as it effects the opacity -- the opacity
5 is a lot scattering type of detection
6 device and it is a function of the
7 particle size principally amongst some
8 other qualities of the particles. Not
9 necessary directly connected to an
10 increase in particulate loading means an
11 increase in opacity load.
12
MR. NELSON: Carbon has a lower
13 resistivity than fly ash, does it not?
14
MR. DePRIEST: Yes, it does.
15
MR. NELSON: So it could
16 differentially impact the resistivity of
17 the filter having on the plates, would it
18 not?
19
MR. DePRIEST: I guess there is some
20 information that might suggest that could
21 happen, yes.
22
MR. NELSON: Are you familiar at all
23 with data from the Stanton plant that
24 brominated carbon was injected into a
1083
1 cold-side ESP and the particulate emission
2 removals traverses actually show during
3 the long-term test went down compared to
4 baseline?
5
MR. DePRIEST: I'm not familiar with
6 that data, no.
7
MR. NELSON: Do you think there are
8 theoretical ways that that might be
9 possible?
10
MR. DePRIEST: Yes, I think there
11 has been some testing that has shown that
12 in some cases the activated carbon or a
13 carbon particle itself has changed the
14 resistivity the bulk ash and has had that
15 effect. I think there is as many if not
16 instances where it has been just the
17 opposite.
18
So to draw the strict conclusion
19 that it is going to operate one way or the
20 other the influence will be a specific way
21 would be difficult for us to make.
22
MR. NELSON: So it is really quite
23 uncertain right now to be able to offer
24 firm conclusions?
1084
1
MR. DePRIEST: I think you will see
2 that from my testimony, that there is not
3 a whole lot of information to bank a firm
4 conclusion on that basis, yes.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes,
6 Mr. Harley?
7
MR. HARLEY: To be clear, as to the
8 calculations which are requested in
9 question 6, you have been directed by your
10 clients, utility companies who are
11 participating in this process, not to
12 provide those calculations to the
13 Pollution Control Board; is that correct?
14
MR. DePRIEST: Not specific, I did
15 not ask them specifically that question,
16 no.
17
MR. HARLEY: So you have made a
18 choice not to provide those calculations?
19
MR. DePRIEST: Understanding my --
20 the contract that I have with them, yes.
21
MR. HARLEY: And so the calculations
22 of which your testimony is based are not
23 available as part of these proceedings?
24
MR. DePRIEST: I guess you could say
1085
1 that, yes.
2
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
3
MR. BONEBRAKE: Just for
4 clarification I think Mr. DePriest has
5 also testified that he primarily relied
6 upon qualitative analyses as opposed to
7 calculations. So to be fair to the
8 witness, he did provide that indication in
9 his testimony.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Kim?
11
MR. KIM: I was just trying to get
12 clear. You said -- I think you had been
13 using the plural tense. So have you --
14 the question asks have you calculated any
15 increase in particulate emissions for any
16 Illinois plants. Is it safe to say that
17 to the extent such qualitative analysis
18 has been done, it has been done for more
19 than one plant or is it just one plant?
20
MR. DePRIEST: The qualitative
21 analysis?
22
MR. KIM: Yes.
23
MR. DePRIEST: It was done for every
24 plant.
1086
1
MR. KIM: Okay. And consistent with
2 -- I think what you sort of answered as
3 part of your question No. 5, would any --
4 I understand the distinction in terms of
5 maybe not the part of calculations. But
6 would any of the results of your work
7 related to your answer to question No. 6
8 somehow down the road make the way into a
9 published study consistent with what you
10 stated as far as your answer to question
11 No. 5?
12
MR. DePRIEST: I really don't think
13 it is interesting enough to make it into a
14 book study, like a published paper of some
15 nature, probably not.
16
MR. KIM: The work you did was
17 intended specifically for the use of your
18 utility clients and to the best of your
19 knowledge was not intended to be part of
20 anything beyond that in terms of a
21 published document or published study?
22
MR. DePRIEST: Just internal work
23 that they need, yes, information they
24 needed to do some internal work.
1087
1
Question No. 7, with reference to
2 your statement on page 6 of your
3 testimony, quote, in the dry FGD control
4 scenario activated carbon would be
5 injected upstream of the FGD reaction
6 vessel and the baghouse. Injection of the
7 activated carbon prior to the FGD is
8 necessary to take advantage of any
9 halides, particularly chlorides, in the
10 flue gas as they enhance the ability of
11 the carbon to capture mercury.
12
Most halides are effectively
13 captured in the FGD system. And,
14 therefore, the activated carbon injection
15 needs to be prior to the FGD system, end
16 quote. Could not halogenated activated
17 carbon be injected after the FGD reactor
18 and prior to the fabric filter for high
19 mercury removal as was performed at
20 Sunflower Electric's Holcomb Station for
21 roughly 95 percent removal at only about
22 two pounds per million ACF?
23
And my answer is, I am not aware of
24 the testing of halogenated activated
1088
1 carbon after the FGD and before the fabric
2 filter at Holcomb. However, with the
3 recycle system of the FGD and considering
4 the halogenated activated carbon testing
5 done at Holcomb, I believe a 90 plus
6 percent mercury removal is achievable
7 there. The only remaining question is
8 whether it is sustainable on a continuous
9 basis. So if people understand that, I
10 will move on.
11
Question No. 8, with reference to
12 your statement on page 7 of your
13 testimony, quote, in the wet FGD control
14 scenario, an activated carbon injection
15 system with an associated baghouse could
16 be used to supplement the inherit mercury
17 capture capabilities of the wet FGD
18 absorber and would not be located upstream
19 -- and would be need to be located
20 upstream of wet FGD vessel. Mercury
21 absorbed onto the activated carbon would
22 be removed from the flue gas stream in the
23 baghouse prior to the wet FGD. Why would
24 a company install a fabric filler rather
1089
1 than inject the sorbent upstream of the
2 existing ESP?
3
And my answer is, a fabric filter
4 would be required wherever precipitator
5 size is too small for adequate mercury
6 capture and/or where there are concerns
7 about increases in particulate emissions
8 due to the addition of the carbon.
9
Number 9, with reference to your
10 paragraph on page 7, quote, although
11 activated carbon injection is the most
12 commercially developed mercury controlled
13 system, pollution control companies are
14 actively working on other techniques to
15 enhance mercury capture in FGD control
16 systems.
17
For example, the research is
18 underway to evaluate existing SCR
19 catalysts and develop new catalysts that
20 oxidize elemental mercury in the flue gas
21 stream. Oxidized forms of mercury are
22 effectively captured in FGD control
23 systems. Similarly, strategies to modify
24 the flue gas composition are being studied
1090
1 to increase mercury capture in FGD control
2 system. Flue gas modification strategies
3 include introducing halogens, primarily
4 chlorine or bromine into the combustion
5 progress to enhance mercury oxidation and
6 facilitate its capture in the FGD control
7 system.
8
And then the real question is, what
9 is the relevance of this paragraph?
10
And my answer is this paragraph was
11 intended to illustrate that implementation
12 of a mercury reduction program in concert
13 with the CAIR program for SO2 and NOx
14 reduction may allow other more effective
15 mercury control technologies to be
16 considered.
17
For example, mercury capture in an
18 FGD system occurs at a significantly lower
19 parasitic power requirement than similar
20 reduction in a mercury specific fabric
21 filter installation.
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Kim?
23
MR. KIM: But isn't it true that if
24 you are a technology supplier of control
1091
1 equipment, such suppliers are continually
2 trying to improve their product? It is
3 not a -- in other words, it is not a
4 static process; it is an on-going dynamic
5 process; is it not?
6
MR. DePRIEST: That's true.
7
MR. KIM: So in that sense you can
8 never really say if we wait for someone to
9 build the perfect car, we would still be
10 waiting and we wouldn't be buying any
11 cars. If someone said I am not going to
12 sell a car until it is perfect, no one is
13 going to be driving a car today.
14
So you are not suggesting that a
15 rule relating to the control of a
16 pollutant, for example, mercury, should be
17 held up until a supplier indicates I have
18 the perfect device, it can go on the
19 market, are you?
20
MR. DePRIEST: I am not making any
21 suggestion on how rulemaking might
22 proceed. I am simply saying that the CAIR
23 program has allowed for mercury
24 development to occur within the CAIR
1092
1 technologies such that we can leverage
2 that investment to do more than just
3 capture SO2 or NOx but also capture
4 mercury.
5
Whether or not that's appropriate
6 for the rulemaking process, I am not
7 making a judgment in that regard.
8
MR. KIM: As long as you bring up
9 the pollutants, NOx and SO2, are you
10 familiar with or have you had an
11 opportunity to read the multi-pollutant
12 standard or strategy that is contained
13 within the joint statement that was
14 submitted with Ameren and the Illinois
15 EPA earlier to the Board in this
16 proceeding?
17
MR. DePRIEST: Yes, I read it about
18 a week ago.
19
MR. KIM: And based upon your
20 reading, do you have any opinion as to the
21 effect or the viability of that provision
22 if it were included within the Board's
23 rule?
24
MR. BONEBRAKE: Just for
1093
1 clarification, I think you said viability.
2
MR. KIM: Let's limit it to effect.
3 The impact, the effect of the impact of
4 that rule.
5
MR. BONEBRAKE: On what, Mr. Kim?
6
MR. KIM: On utilities that would be
7 seeking to comply with the Illinois
8 mercury rule?
9
MR. DePRIEST: I am not sure exactly
10 what the question is. But I certainly
11 think that it goes -- it fits fairly well
12 with my opinion on integrating the CAIR
13 and CAMR program into the mercury program
14 in the state of Illinois and that there
15 are synergies to be exploited in that
16 regard that might turn out to be a
17 lower cost solution for mercury control
18 and ultimately achieve maybe the same
19 goals.
20
MR. KIM: So at least conceptually
21 is it safe to say that your opinion is
22 that a multi-pollutant approach could
23 possibly take advantage of, you know,
24 better overall concept in terms of
1094
1 regulation of the specified pollutants
2 within that strategy?
3
MR. DePRIEST: I think generally
4 speaking the answer would be yes to that.
5
MR. KIM: Thank you.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Ms. Bassi?
7
MS. BASSI: Just as a follow-up,
8 does the combination of CAIR and CAMR also
9 provide those same synergies and cost
10 benefits or cost effective benefits or
11 whatever you said?
12
MR. DePRIEST: Yes, I think that's
13 what I was answering. I think Mr. Kim was
14 saying -- wasn't he?
15
MS. BASSI: I believe he was
16 talking about the multi-pollutant
17 strategy that was proposed, which is not
18 exactly the same as the CAIR and CAMR
19 combination.
20
MR. DePRIEST: No. That's true.
21 But the multi-pollutant program that
22 Ameren is proposing would also make them
23 compliant with the CAIR program.
24
MR. KIM: Thank you.
1095
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: But I
2 don't think you answered Ms. Bassi's
3 question about CAIR and CAMR. The federal
4 CAIR and CAMR, would they not provide the
5 same synergy?
6
MR. DePRIEST: Yes, they would. I
7 think I am on question 10. With regard to
8 your paragraph on page 8 that begins,
9 quote, for units where dry FGD/fabric
10 filter is planned for CAIR compliance, A,
11 if 90 percent reduction is achievable with
12 halogenated activated carbon on the unit
13 injected upstream of the ESP, why wouldn't
14 the plant install halogenated activated
15 carbon upstream of the existing ESP to
16 meet the mercury requirements of the rule
17 and then add the dry FGD/fabric filter
18 later?
19
Answer, for many of these units
20 90 percent reduction may not be achievable
21 with capturing the existing ESP based on
22 ESP size and concerns about additional
23 particulate emissions. In addition, ACI
24 suppliers to date have been unwilling to
1096
1 unilaterally offer a guarantee of 90
2 percent removal in an ESP without addition
3 of a baghouse.
4
B, if that were done --
5
MR. RAO: I will follow up
6 Mr. DePriest. You mentioned just now that
7 the suppliers are not willing to provide
8 guarantees of 90 percent without the
9 additional control equipment.
10
MR. DePRIEST: Not unilaterally in
11 every case, in other words, right.
12
MR. RAO: But is it your position
13 that they do give guarantees, if all the
14 other additional control equipment are
15 also included in addition to what's
16 mentioned in the question about mercury
17 control?
18
MR. DePRIEST: Are you saying would
19 they be willing to offer a guarantee on
20 mercury capture to the level of 90 percent
21 if the precipitator was big enough to
22 accommodate that, yes, I think they would
23 be willing to do that. The question with
24 the guarantee is what's behind it. And a
1097
1 guarantee is a guarantee.
2
MR. RAO: A lot of the discussion
3 today is about suppliers not willing to
4 provide guarantees with 90 percent
5 reduction for mercury.
6
MR. DePRIEST: And I am saying if
7 the situation is correct and all the stars
8 are lined up, I think you are going to
9 find some that would be willing to do
10 that.
11
MR. RAO: So there are suppliers who
12 would do that.
13
MR. DePRIEST: And then you have to
14 ask yourself what's behind the guarantee
15 when you get it. It's like if it doesn't
16 work, do you get a sincere letter of
17 apology or is there something else
18 involved.
19
A guarantee is a guarantee. But
20 you have to evaluate what it means
21 financially to you to help you correct the
22 situation.
23
MR. RAO: I guess from the
24 discussion that we heard yesterday, I am
1098
1 talking about in your industry a typical
2 guarantee, when you get equipment for --
3 pollution control equipment, typically,
4 what kind of guarantee you get in that
5 sense would be able to obtain a guarantee
6 for 90 percent mercury reduction?
7
MR. DePRIEST: There is a
8 possibility you would. A typical
9 guarantee would have limitations certainly
10 on its limits of liability. And if you
11 think of, let's say, an activated carbon
12 injection system upstream of an existing
13 ESP, you might be talking somewhere
14 between one and $5 million to install that
15 equipment. And the limit on liability may
16 be -- I would be surprised if it was -- if
17 it was limited to anything in excess of
18 the value of the contract. And one to
19 $5 million is fairly meaningless in
20 considering the consequences of not being
21 able to run your plant because you can't
22 make mercury removal.
23
So even though a guarantee is kind
24 of an important thing, it is also very
1099
1 important that you think whatever you are
2 putting in there is going to work. And so
3 the two things have to come together. You
4 need to have a guarantee in order to make
5 sure you have the attention of the vendor
6 if things start going wrong. But in
7 reality you should never have entered into
8 a contract with the guy if you didn't
9 think the technology he was supplying was
10 going to work.
11
MR. RAO: Thank you.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: 10-B.
13
MR. DePRIEST: 10-B, if that were
14 done, wouldn't that avoid the costs
15 associated with the ductwork that you
16 referred to and only leave the possible
17 cost of relocating the activated carbon
18 injection port to the fabric filter which
19 would be much less expensive?
20
If a particular unit could achieve
21 90 percent reduction with ACI upstream of
22 a precipitator, which is a possibility,
23 the additional ductwork cost would be
24 avoided.
1100
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: C.
2
MR. DePRIEST: Regarding the same
3 paragraph, if the company compose install
4 the FGD/fabric filter earlier, wouldn't
5 that provide the benefit of earlier SO2
6 reduction as well, including SO2
7 allowances that might be sold or
8 banked?
9
Answer, if the company chose to
10 install the dry FGD/fabric filler earlier,
11 SO2 reductions would be achieved earlier.
12 However, this decision would need to
13 consider the value of this early SO2
14 reduction, considering the current SO2
15 allowance pricing, there is little
16 incentive in most cases to proceed with
17 SO2 reductions earlier than mandated by
18 CAIR.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: D.
20
MR. DePRIEST: Regarding the
21 paragraph on top of page nine, if the
22 company chose to install the dry
23 FGD/fabric filter earlier, wouldn't that
24 avoid additional outages related to
1101
1 installing the equipment separately?
2
Installation of the FGD/fabric
3 filter earlier would avoid the second
4 outage discussed in the testimony but
5 would result in the expenditure of
6 significant capital and O&M dollars
7 earlier than would otherwise be required
8 by CAIR and CAMR regulations with little,
9 if any, economic incompetent sensitive to
10 do so.
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.
12 Mr. DePriest, as much as I hate to do
13 this and as much as I hoped we'd get
14 through it today, it is already quarter
15 after 5:00.
16
MR. DePRIEST: I can talk faster.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Well,
18 unfortunately, it is quarter after 5:00
19 for our court reporter as well.
20
I think we are going to have to take
21 this up in the morning. Let's recess.
22 And we will start again tomorrow morning
23 at 9:00 and hopefully be done before
24 lunch.
1102
1
Thank you all very, very much.
2 Thank you for all working to try and get
3 it done, but I think it is unrealistic at
4 this point today.
5
(Whereupon the
6
proceedings in the
7
above-entitled cause
8
were adjourned until
9
August 18, 2006, at
10
9:00 a.m.)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1103
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS:
2 COUNTY OF LAKE )
3
I, Cheryl L. Sandecki, a Notary
4 Public within and for the County of Lake
5 and State of Illinois, and a Certified
6 Shorthand Reporter of the State of
7 Illinois, do hereby certify that I
8 reported in shorthand the proceedings had
9 at the taking of said hearing and that the
10 foregoing is a true, complete, and correct
11 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken
12 as aforesaid, and contains all the
13 proceedings given at said hearing.
14
15
__________________________________
16
Notary Public, Cook County, Illinois
C.S.R. License No. 084-03710
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24