IN THE MATTER 0F

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC REGULATION

APPLICABLE TO AMEREN ENERGY

GENERATING COMPANY, ELGIN, ILLINOIS,

AMENDING

35

ILL. ADM. CODE 901

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that today I have filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board the

Public Comment by Petitioner, Ameren Energy Generating

Company, and a Motion to Correct

Pre-Filed Testimony and Transcript in this Proceeding; a Motion to Clarify, Notice ofFiling, and

Certificate of Service on behalfofPetitioner, a copy ofwhich is

attached and hereby served upon

you.

Respectfully submitted,

Marili McFawn

Attorney for

Ameren Energy Generating Company

Date:

March

10, 2004

SchiffHardin LLP

6600 Sears Tower

Chicago, Illinois

60606

312-258-5519

•

RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLiNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

MAR ~1

•

STATEOFILLINOIS

Pollution Control Boar

)

)

)

)

R04-1

1

TO:

See attached list

NOTICE OF FILING

CH2\ 1092074.2

---

SERVICE

LIST

Ms. Dorothy Gunn

Clerk ofthe Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph

Sujte 11-500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

• Mr. John Knittle, Esq.

•

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021

North Grand Avenue East

Springfield,

Illinois 62794

Office of Legal Services

Illinois Department ofNatural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, Illinois 62702-127 1

Mr. Scott Phillips, Esq.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division ofLegal Counsel

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

CH2\ 1060953.1

Realen Homes

Attn.:

Al Erickson

1628 Colonial Parkway

Inverness, Illinois 60047

Mr. Joel Sternstein

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188

West Randolph St., 20t~~

Floor

Chicago, Illinois

60601

Village ofBartlett

Attn.:

Bryan Mraz, Attorney

228 South Main Street

Bartlett, Illinois 60103

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I,

the undersigned,

certify

that

I have served

the

documents

described in

the

attached

Notice ofFiling upon the Clerk ofthe Pollution Control Board and Hearing Officer John Knittle

by Federal

Express

and

those

on

the

Service List by

depositing

them

in

regular U.S.

mail

on

March

10,

2004.

•

________

•

Marili

McFawn

CH2\1060~57.1

•

.

.

---

•

•

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

MAR

112004

•

STATE OF

ILLIrg~

•

PollutIon Control Bo

INTHEMATTEROF:

ar

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC REGULATION

)

APPLICABLE TO AMEREN ENERGY

•

)

•

R04-1 I

GENERATING COMPANY,

ELGIN,

ILLINOIS,

)

AMENDING 35

ILL. ADM. CODE 901

)

PETITIONER’S

POST-HEARING PUBLIC COMMENTS

Now

comes

the Petitioner AmerenEnergy Generating Company,

by and through

its

attorneys,

Schiff Hardin

LLP, and hereby

provides the

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

(“Board”)

with

post-hearing

public

comments,

including

responses to

questions

by the

Board and

issues raised

by the

Illinois Attorney General’s

Office

through

the

course of

this proceeding.

I.

SUMMARY

OF RELIEF SOUGHT

As

explained

more

fully

in

the

Petition

and

at

the

January

22,

2003,

hearing

(“Hearing”), the Petitioner is seeking site-specific relief from the

Board’s

noise

limitations

found

at

35

III.

Adm.

Code

901

for

its

electric

generating

facility

in

Elgin,

Illinois,

commonIy~

known

as

the

Elgin

Energy

Center

(“EEC”).

Currently,

the

noise

levels

associated

with

EEC

are

in

compliance

with

the

Board’s

noise

limitations.

Petitioner

seeks site specific relief

from

the, Board’s

noise

limits for Class A receiving

lands

found

at 35

III.

Adm.

Code

901.102 because vacant

land proximate

to EEC has recently been

rezoned

and

may soon

be developed

residentially.

Petitioner seeks

site specific

relief

from the

Board’s

noise limits for Class B receiving

lands

at 35

III. Adm. Code 901.103 so

that

the

proposed

Class

A

and

Class

B

limits

conform.

Petitioner

has

studied

the

implications

of

the

upcoming

land

use

change,

and

concluded

that

the

EEC

will

probably

not

be

able

to

always

meet

the

generally

applicable

noise

limitations

that

heretofore

were

not applicable to

EEC.

Therefore, Petitioner

is

requesting

the

Board

•adopt as final

the site specific noise

limitations adopted by the

Board for

First Notice on

—1—

---

November 6,

2003,

and

published

in

the

Illinois

Register

on

November 21,

2003.

27

Illinois

Register 1739.

The site specific limits sought for Class A and Class B receiving

lands are:

Octave Band Center

Frequency (Hertz)

31.5

63

125

250

500

1K

2K

4K

8K

Allowable dB of Sound Emitted to

Receiving

Class A Land

•

•

80

74

69

64

58

58

58

50

40

•

Allowable dB of Sound Emitted to

Receiving

Class B Land

80

79

• 74

69

63

58

58

50

45

II.

WHAT

THE EVIDENCE HAS SHOWN

EEC, as an

electric generation plant,

is classified as an

industrial

land use

under

the

Board’s

noise

rules.

Located

in

an

industrial

park with

an entrance on Gifford

Road,

EEC

is

surrounded

by

other

industrial

concerns

including

a

manufacturing

plant,

a

quarry

and mining

operation,

two construction

companies,

a waste

disposal company,

as well

as

high

powered

transmission

lines and

the

E J

&

E

and

Metra

railroad

lines.

Residential

subdivisions

are

located

to

the

south,

separated

by

the

construction

companies,

the

manufacturing

company

and

West

Bartlett

Road.1

Immediately

west,

separated

by Gifford

Road

is the

currently vacant

property at

issue, a

portion of which

was

intended

to

be

developed

as

a

balefill

operation

by the

Solid

.

Waste

Agency of

Northern

Cook

County

(“SWANCC”)2,

but

recently

sold

to

Realen

Homes

(“Realen

Property”).

In

June,

2003,

the

Realen

Property

was

annexed

and

rezoned

as

residential by the Village of Bartlett.

The predominantly

industrial

character of the

area

is

illustrated

on the

two maps

attached to the Petition.

Exhibits I

and 2.

At hearing, Petitioner presented a slide show

of

photographs

of the

area

and

testimony

by

Richard

Smith,

Manager

of Generation

1

There

are

residential

subdivisions

located

east

of

the

Facility,

but

they

are

beyond the

high power transmission

lines and railroad tracks.

•

-

2

SWANCC fought for approximately 10 years to construct a balefill.

In 2000, the

Supreme

Court

‘s

decision

cleared

the

way

for SWANCC to

so

develop the

property.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern

Cook County v.

U.S.

Army

Corps of Engineers,

531

U.S.

159,

121

S.Ct. 675.

-2-

---

Services

at

Ameren.

Together that

evidence

better describes

and

demonstrates

the

industrial

character of the area

surrounding EEC.

The photographs

are of the

EEC and

the

other industrial

operations

that

are

just across the

Gifford

Road

from

the

Realen

Property, as well as the quarry

operation just to

its

north.

These

operations and other

nearby

industries

contribute

to

the

area’s

ambient

noise.

The

industrial

nature

also

generates

heavy

truck

traffic

and

other

vehicular

traffic

on

Gifford

and

West

Bartlett

Roads.

These

too

contributes

to

the

area’s

ambient

and

extraneous

noise.

See

Exhibits I

and 2;

Exhibit

22 and Tr~51-55.

The

Facility’s Power and Noise Abatement Equipment.

The

power generation

facility at EEC

is

often, described

as

a peaker facility.

EEC’s

location was

chosen

due to

the

industrial

nature,

as well as

its

proximity to the

nearby natural gas

pipeline, the high

power transmission corridor,

and the Commonwealth Edison substation.

Another factor

was

the

nearby

rail

lines.

Rail

access

was

critical

to

deliver the

generators

and

gas

turbine components due to their exorbitant weight.

Tr.

114.

The Facility consists of four

simple

cycle

Siemens

Westinghouse W5OID5A

combustion

turbines

which

combined

are

cable

of generating

up

to

540

megawatts

of

electricity.

Generally,

the

Facility

is

expected to

operate

during

time periods

when

demand

for electricity

is

the

highest.

A

condition

in

the

Facility’s

air permit

limits operation

to

16

percent of the

time,

annually.

Tr.122.

To

generate

the

electricity,

air,

taken

in

through

the

inlet

filter and

silencer,

is

compressed and

combined

with

natural gas.

The air-fuel

mixture

is combusted

and the

hot gasses

are expanded

through

a multi-stage turbine to produce shaft rotation/torque.

The

turbine

shaft

is

directly

connected

to

generator

that

is

used

to

generate

electric

power.

Exhaust gasses

exit the

system

through the exhaust silencers.

See

Exhibits 4

and

5, Attachments

C and

D of the Petition.

• The

Facility

is equipped with

several different kinds of noise abatement systems;

includingboth noise

enclosures and silencers.

See

Exhibit 5.

David

Parzych of Power

Acoustics,

Inc., the

noise

expert who

has advised

Petitioner during

the

conceptual and

design

phase of the

Facility, and more recently during this rulemaking,

testified that this

-3-

---

Facility

contains the

largest amount of sound abatement equipment

he

has ever seen

supplied by Siemens Westinghouse

for this type of gas turbine.

Tr.

60.

Mr. Parzych

is

well qualified

to assess

the quality of the equipment at this Facility

and at other power

plants.

He

has 21

years of experience

in

the

field of acoustics and

noise

control, with

the

last II

years focused

on

power generation

facilities

with

gas

turbines.

Tr.

56.

See

also Exhibit 12,

Parzych Resume.

To

begin, the

air

intake

is equipped with

inlet silencer baffles, that are combined

with

extensive duct

structural

stiffening

and

lagging

as secondary

noise

attenuation

to

further reduce sound radiating from

the air intake system.

Each

unit’s,silencer is

12 feet

long,

as

opposed to

the industry standard

of 8

feet,

and the

stiffening

and

lagging of a

quality

to

maximize

noise

reduction.3

Twelve

feet

is

the

maximum

length

offered

by

Siemens Westinghouse

or

its

competitor,

General

Electric, and typically

reduces sound

by

more

than

50

decibels,

which

corresponds

to

99.999

percent

efficiency

in

noise

redubtion.

Tr. 98-99.

The

ducting

at the

main

inlet consists of an

external

steel

wall that

is 3/16

inch

thick, followed with 4 inches of acoustical

insulation and

an internal steel

liner that faces

the air flowing

into the compressor.

To further

reduce the sound

radiated

by the

inlet

ducting,

a

layer

of

insulation

and

lightweight

gauge

steel

were

added

externally

to

encapsulate

the

main

ducting.

The

encapsulation

is

referred

to

as

the

“acoustical

lagging”.

Exhibit

9

at

6.

Generally,

parallel

baffle

silencers

within

steel

ducting,

like

those

used

in

the

inlet

system

of

the

gas

turbine,

are

limited

to

a

maximum

sound

attenuation

of 50-60

decibels.

This

is

due to

mechanical

vibration

that

is

propagated

along the ducting

and metal surfaces of the silencer itself.

According to Parzych, simply

lengthening

the

silencing would not necessarily improve or reduce noise associated

with

the

inlet.

Tr. 98-99.

As

for

the

exhaust

outlet,

each

unit

is

equipped

with

silencer

panels

designed

specifically

for

this

Facility to

attenuate

the

low

frequency

31.5

Hz

and

63

Hz

octave

~ Initially,

the,

individual

silencer

was

described

as

8

feet

long.

Upon

further

investigation,

it was determined that each

is actually

12 feet in

length.

Tr. 28.

-4-

---

bands

while

also

providing

substantial

mid

and

high

frequency

noise

reduction.

Silencing

the

exhaust

is

the

most

difficult

noise

source

in

gas

turbines

to

control

because of its

low frequency

components.

The exhaust silencer alone is approximately

50 feet

in total length,

that

is,

not

including the ducting.

The silencer panels

at each

unit

are extra thick and the special

horizontal section of silencer panels

is

approximately 35

feet

in

length,

significantly longer than

industry standards.

A 3 foot thick foundation was

used

to

accommodate the

massive,

horizontal

exhaust

silencer.

Downstream of

the

exhaust

silencer

is the traditional

50

foot high vertical

exhaust stack,

that provides

an

additional

15 feet of silencers.

Finally,

to

keep

sound from

radiating from

the

exhaust

duct

surfaces,

an

extra,

secondary

enclosure

system

was

provided,

which

is

acoustically

insulated

and constructed

with

1/4

inch

or more steel

plate.

Tr.

28-29;

This

exhaust system,

particularly

the

horizontal exhaust silencer,

is

considered state

of the

art by

industry professionals.

Tr.

57;

Tr.152-153.

The equipment cost for

the

exhaust

system, excluding

installation expenses, was $2,290,000.

Petition at

10.

The

noise

abatement

equipment

was

designed

specifically so

compliance

with

the

Board’s

noise

limitations would be

achieved

when

the

Facility.

When compared

to

the

standard

noise

abatement

equipment

sold

by

Siemens

Westinghouse

and

its

nearest

competitor,,

the

equipment

installed

at

EEC’s

exhaust

and

inlet

points

is

significanfly greater than the industry standard for peaker power plants,

and,

in the

case

of

the

exhaust

outlet,

the

silencer

is

mammoth.

The

next

most

competitive

type

of

equipment

consists

of

just

16

of feet

low

frequency

silencing

and

four

feet of

high

frequency

silencing,

for

a

total of only 20 feet

in

length.

So,

the

Facility’s silencer

is

30

feet longer than one of the

best offered by

a competitor.

Tr.

100;

189.

As for additional

noise

control,

Parzych testified that upgrading

the

exhaust silencers

to achieve further

noise

reduction

is

questionable.

First,

he testified that

making the

silencers

longer will

not

reduce

sound.

Second,

additional

exhaust

stack

silencing

would

increase

the

pressure

drop

of the

system

and

reduce

the

efficiency

and

power

output

of

the gas

turbines. And

finally,

another

complication

is that changing the

stack height or location

would

require

new

air

modeling

satisfactory

to

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency, as well as permission for the City of Elgin due to its height restrictions.

Tr.

100.

-5-

---

Other

prominent

sources

of

sound

include

the

air-cooled

generator,

the

heat

exchangers, and

transformers.

Each of these

sound sources

needs air flow

to provide

cooling,

and

therefore

cannot

be

completely

enclosed.

The

air flow to the

generator,

•

while

within

a

sound

enclosure,

cannot

have.

major

restrictions

without

seriously

affecting

its

ability to

generate electricity efficiently.

The heat exchangers, which are of

a

fin-fan

type;’

need

air

flow,

and

restricting

them

could

cause

the

equipment

they

support

to

overheat

and

ultimately

cause

the

Facility

to

fail.

The

transformers

have

similar issues.

Finally,

any additional

noise

control

of these components could

have

a

negative impact

on the operational efficiency of the Facility.

Exhibit

9 at 6.

In

2000,

Power

Acoustics,

Inc.

performed

the

preconstruction

noise

study

that

identified

the

equipment

necessary

to

achieve

compliance

with

the

Board’s

noise

regulations.

Exhibit

12;

“2000

PAl

Noise

Study.”

The

cost of these

noise

abatement

measures for all

four units was

approximately $11,650,000, andrepresents

incremental

costs because the

noise abatement equipment was

designed specifically for this Facility

to

ensure

compliance

when

the

Facility

became

fully

operational.

Tr.

30.

This

cost

figure

also

represents

approximately

five

percent

of

the

Facility’s

total

capital

requirements.

Tr.

131-132.

The

subsequent study conducted by Power Acoustics,

Inc.

in

2003,

demonstrates

that

the

Facility does

comply

with

the

Board’s

noise

emission

limitation at existing

residential areas.

Exhibit II.

The Noise

Studies

Conducted in

2003.

Three

noise

studies

were conducted

in

2003.

These

are

in

addition

to

the

2000

PAl

Noise

Study

that

identified

the

noise

abatement

equipment

necessary

to

achieve

compliance

with

the

Board’s

generally

applicable

noise

regulations.

Two

of

the

three

studies

were

performed

by

Power

Acoustics,

Inc.

PAl

took

field

sound

measurements

in

June

when

one

unit

was

operating

at

base

load,

and

then

analytically extrapolated

that information

to represent

four

units

ful!y

operational.

Exhibit

11:

Analysis

and

Results

of

Acoustical

measurements

Taken

Near

the

Ameren

Elgin,

Illinois

Power

Facility

During

the

Operation

of the

Unit

4

SW5OID5I

Gas

Turbine,

“2003

PAl

Noise

Study”.

In

July,

Power

Acoustics

performed

an

analysis

using

a

sound

radiation

model

to

extrapolate

the

four

unit

operation

at

various

spatial

points

on

the

Realen

Property.

(Exhibit

13:

•

-6-

---

Elgin Plant Estimates of Realen Property, July

11,

2003,

“Elgin Plant Estimates

Report.”

The

third

study,

field

sound

measurements

taken

by

Noise

Solutions

by

Greg

Zak

in

September 2003 was done to obtain additional field data to use with the 2003 PAl

Noise

Study data.

Exhibit

14:

Sound Assessment Report for Ameren Elgin Facility,

“2003 Zak

Noise Study.”

Petitioner used these three studies to confirm

that compliance would

not

be achieved

during

full

load operation

if the

Realen

Property

is

converted

to residential

use, and also to identify the extent of relief

necessary from the

Board’s regulations to be

able to routinely achieve compliance when

operating at full load.

The

2003

PAl

Noise

Study

consisted

of

two

components:

field

sound

measurements, and subsequently,

an

analytical extrapolation to simulate full

base

load

operation

of all

four

units at

EEC.

The field

sound

measurements consisted of taking

two

sets of field

measurements on June

17,

2003 to

establish

the background

ambient

sound

levels

and

operating

sound

levels

with

one

unit

operating at

base

load.

These

measurements were

taken at the same five critical

receptors as

used

in

the 2000

PAl

Noise Study,

and at five locations

on the

Realen Property.

They were taken

at night to

be

representative

of

the

quietest

community

conditions,

and

the

weather

conditions

were

nearly perfect for measuring sound with

moderate temperatures and humidity, and

no wind.

Exhibit

11.

-

The-second

component consisted of an analytical

extrapolation

using

the

sound

pressure

data

from

the

June

2003

field

measurements

and

standard

analytical

procedures

to

estimate the

sound

pressure

levels if all four units

are fully

operational.

See

Exhibit II.

The results

showed that the

Board’s regulations were

achieved

at the

five existing residential receptors,

but not at the

Realen Property.

Rather,

the operation

of all

the

units

is

estimated

to

cause

sound

pressure

levels

that

exceed

the

Board’s

Class A regulation

if the

Realen

Property

is developed for

residential use.

Exhibit

9

at

3.

The

Elgin

Plant

Estimates

Report

was

done

to

estimate

the

sound

pressure

levels over the entire Realen

Property.

Exhibit

13.

(The

June analysis

used

measured

sound

levels

of one

unit

at

specified

field

points.)

This

analysis

estimates

the

sound

-7-

---

pressure levels at a variety of spatial

positions on the

Realen Property, instead of the at

the

five

specific

field

points.

The

sound

power

level

generated

by

a

single

unit

was

estimated

from

the

June

2003

sound

pressure

level

measurements.

Sound

power

levels are

different

than

sound

pressure

levels

in

that they

are not

impacted

by sound

propagation

effects.

Sound

power

level

is

the

measure

of

sound

energy

that

is

available

to

be

radiated

by the

equipment.

Using this

sound

power level

information,

the

sound pressure

levels are estimated

at the various

locations at the

Realen

property

using

a

theoretical

sound

radiation

method.

The

highest

sound

pressure

levels

were

estimated to occur directly west of Unit 4 of the

Facility (identified as L-R2

in other noise

studies), while sound pressure levels decreased

as distance from

the

Facility increased

to the west, north or south.

Exhibit 9 at 3; and

Exhibit 13.

The

third

study

is

that

performed

by

Noise

Solutions

by Greg

Zak.

A second

series of field

sound

measurements

at the

LR-2

location

(that just across

from

Unit 4)

was

conducted’ on

September

2,

2003.

During

this

study,

all

four

units

were

fully

operational.

Ambient measurements

were

taken

between

9:00

pm

and

9:30

pm,

and

operational

sound

measurements

taken

when

all

four

units

were

fully

operational

beginning

at

10:00

pm.

Weather

conditions

were

clear

with

Vvarm

nighttime

temperature,

and wind from

the

east.

See

Exhibit

14.

The sound

levels measured

on

the

night of September 2,

2003

were

generally lower

than, or

very near

the numerical

lImits extrapolated and reported

in the 2003 PAl

Noise Study report.

(Exhibit 11.)

The general cost estimate for fully operating

the

Facility for purposes of studying

sound

pressure levels

consists of (1)

start

up costs that are approximately $7,500 for

each

machine,

and

(2)

operating

costs

at full

load

that are

approximately $8,000

per

hour.

Thus,

a

typical

two

hour

test for

all

four

units

running

simultaneously would

be

$90,000

to

$100,000.

This

estimate

does

not

include

the

additional

costs

to

compensate

others

for non-economic dispatch

of their

units which

is

necessary

if the

Commonwealth

Edison system

cannot

absorb this

much

energy at the

time of testing;

Incurring

costs for non-economic dispatch

is highly

likely because the testing must take

place

at

night

to

demonstrate

worst

case

conditions.

In

fact,

Petitioner

did

incur

the

additional

costs

because

there

was

a

non-economic

dispatch,

when

the

Facility

was

-8-

---

brought on line so that Power Acoustics and Zak could

conduct the field measurements

in

June

and

September,

2003.~ Tr.

136-1 38.

Finally,

this

cost

estimate

does

not

include the cost of retaining

and making

available the expert consultants to

conduct the

study

when the various necessary testing

conditions are all

aligned.

The

Attorney

General’s

witness,

Howard

Chinn,

recommended

that

Petitioner

conduct three additional sets of noise measurements with

all four units fully

operational,

when

ambient noise

is at its lowest level and under similar atmospheric conditions,

and

at different receptor

locations.

Tr.

87.

Scheduling three

more tests satisfying

each of

these

criteria

would

be

expensive

and

difficult,

if

not

impossible.

Parzych

had

addressed

this

issue

in

‘his

prefiled

testimony.

He

stated

that

several

months

of

continuous

operational data

would

be

required to

define the

Facility’s sound

spectrum,

but collecting that amount and

type of data

is not feasible because peaker plants do not

operate continuously or at fixed operating

levels, and the cost of operating, them for just

acoustical

testing

is

excessive.

Exhibit

9

at

7.

At

hearing,

Parzych

further

testified

about the

impediments

he

has encountered

when

attempting

to

conduct just one field

test,

such as weather

delays; the

inability to sell the amount of power generated

‘during

the

test

or

even

compensate

another

power

producer

for

a

non-economic

dispatch;

insufficient

testing

equipment

to

take

measurements

at

multiple

locations

over

a

•

reasonable

period

of

testing;

and

having’

all,

equipment

successfully

operate

ãoncurrently.

He also noted that it

is

highly probable that weather

conditiOns would not

be as favorable

as those

fortuitously occurring

during

the

two’ field tests

conducted by

Petitioner

in

2003.

Not

only

was

the

weather

on

those

two

occasions

favorable

for

conducting

the field

measurements,

the conditions

on

both

nights were

also favorable

for measuring sound

propagation in

a westerly direction.

Tr.

109-110.

Chinn

believed

that

additional

field

tests

are

necessary

because

the

database

provided by

the

Petitioner is

not

sufficient

fOr

decision-making.

In

support,

he cited

to

Petitioner’s

statement

in

its

Petition

that the

database

is

not statistically representative.

Tr.

93.

This

reference

is

incomplete.

Petitioner

stated:

“This

data

must

be

‘~

See

Motion

to Clarify Response.

-9-

---

conservatively

interpreted

because

two

sets of sound

pressure

level

data

cannot

be

considered

a

complete statistical

representation of sound from

the Facility.”

(Emphasis

added.)

Petitioner

went

on

to

explain

that

“ufortunately

conducting

more

actual

measurements with

the

Facility fully

operational

is

not feasible.

The variables

involved

are

far

too

numerous

to

run

a

sufficient

number

of tests

to create

such

an

extensive

data

base.”

Petition at 23.

At hearing, this truth

was further explained.

As addressed

above,

the

variables

and

costs

for

scheduling

and

conducting

these

tests

is

complicated,

and having

all

testing

conditions aligned highly

improbable.

Therefore, to

compile

a

statically

complete

data

base

that

would

not

have

to

be

conservatively

interpreted

would

most

likely

require

far

more than just

five actual

field

measurement

studies.

Analytical

procedures

are scientifically accepted for

predicting and substituting

actual data,

and the

information provided

by the

field

measurements collected

in

2000

and 2003

coupled with

the analytical

analyses performed

by Power Acoustics,

Inc.

are

sufficient to demonstrate that Board should grant the relief requested.

As for

the

items

listed

by Chinn

to

be included

in

the additional

tests,

Petitioner

did

conduct

testing

during

times

of

low

ambient

levels.

Petitioner

took

nighttime

measurements during warm weather for that very reason.

Taken together,

those

noise

studies

also

reliably

demonstrate

that the

Facility

will

not

be

able

to

always

meet the

Board’s

Class

A

noise

limits

once

the

Realen

Property

is

converted

to

residential.

Additional

field

measurements or

additional

receptor

locations

will

not

alter that fact.

The

need

for

the,

relief

requested

has

been

adequately

demonstrated.

And,

if

as

cautioned

by

Petitioner,

the

statistical

data

base

is

conservatively

interpreted,

these

noise

studies

adequately

demonstrate

the

requested

noise

limitations

are

those

necessary for compliance to be routinely

achieved

when

the

Facility

is fully

operational,

and

the

weather

conditions

and

ambient

noise

levels

are

favorable

to

sound

propagation

in

the

direction of the

Realen Property.

Tr.

61-62.

Technical Feasibility and Economic

Reasonableness ofAdditional Controls.

As

summarized above,

the

noise

abatement equipment designed

and

installed

at the time

of construction

is

well beyond

industry standards

and

noise

from

the

exhaust and inlet

outlets

has

been

reduced

to

the

maximum

extent

possible.

Despite

this,

Petitioner

-10-

---

investigated the

technical

feasibility and

economic

reasonableness of seven

additional

noise

abatement

measures.

Because

EEC

is

already

equipped

with

state

of

the

art

noise

abatement

equipment,

the

technical

feasibility

of

significantly

reducing

sound

through

the

additional

measures

is

questionable

at

best,

and

the

associated

cost

estimates

are

estimates

only.

Because

the

methods

for

further

reducing

noise

to

comply

with

the

Board’s

general

limits

are

experimental,

these

estimates

are

only

accurate within

minus

25 to

pIus 75

percent.

The cost estimates

were summarized

at

Attachment

E

to the

Petition.

Exhibit

6.

The

cost

estimate for

each

option

is

broken

down

into

material,

labor,

engineering,

project

management,

the

cost of

construction

interest (AFUCD),

overhead, and contingency costs.

However, these cost estimates do

not

include

the

cost

of

removing

existing

equipment,

building

new

foundations

if

necessary,

or the attendant cost of facility downtime during removal, reconstruction and

installation.

Exhibit 8; Tr. 32

At

hearing,

Petitioner

further

addressed

each

of

the

seven

additional

noise

abatements.

In

response to questions

by the

Board and

the Attorney

General’s office,

the

possibilities

of

constructing

a

berm

or

totally

enclosing

the

Facility

were

also

addressed

at

hearing.

The

first

measure

involves

installing

additional

silencers

to

further control

low frequency

noise.

This

measure

is

not technically

feasible because

the exhaust silencer equipment already in

place

is

providing

about the maximum

noise

attenuation

this

type of silencer system

can

achieve.

As

testified,

additional

silencers

would

not

reduce

noise

sufficiently

to

achieve

compliance

with

the

Board’s

noise

limitations because the exhaust silencer at each

of the four units already challenges

the

state

of the

art.

Nevertheless,

an

estimate

for

installing

additional

exhaust

silencers

was

provided.

The estimated

cost

is $6,000,000,

and

it does

not include

relocating

the

vertical stack that would

be

necessary because there

is

no

more

room

in

the

horizontal

stack to accommodate such additional silencers.

Tr. 32-33.

The second approach

investigated for further reducing

low frequency

noise

was

a

new,

redesigned

stack.

Since

no

such

stack

is

currently

available

in

the

United

States, or elsewhere to Petitioner’s knowledge, this approach would require entirely ‘new

research

and

design,

including

aerodynamic

modeling

to

assure

that

the

designed

—11—

---

model

would

achieve

the

reductions

beyond

that

already

provided

by

the

existing

equipment.

The estimated cost of this approach

is $18,000,000.

Exhibit 8; Tr. 33.

The

third

approach

investigated

to

further

reduce

low

frequency

noise

was

an

active noise

control system, although

no such system

has ever been used by the power

industry.

This

approach

would

be

completely

experimental

and

the

probability

of

success

very

low.

Therefore,

the

actual

cost

(assuming

such

a

system

could

be

engineered)

is likely to be much greater than the

estimate of $6,000,000.

Tr. 33-34.

As for adding controls at the

inlet, the following were

investigated: additional

inlet

silencers,

a

secondary

inlet

ducting

enclosure,

and

a

secondary

generator enclosure.

Additional

silencers

at

the

inlet to

reduce

high frequency

noise

are estimated

to

costs

$600,000.

The secondary enclosures for

the inlet ducting

and the generator are

each

estimated

at

$1,200,000.

Yet,

a

secondary

enclosure’ for

the

inlet ducting

would

not

ensure

compliance

with

the

Board’s

noise

emission

limitations.

As

for

a

secondary

enclosure

for

the

generator,

that would

be

unique

to

the

industry,

and at a

minimum

would

require extra

engineering to avoid

adverse operational impacts

upon the existing

generator enclosures.

Exhibit 8;

Tr. 34.

The seventh abatement measure

considered

was

a barrier wall.

Constructing

a

barrier

waD

is

the second

most costly

measu,re

at $3,600,000.

This estimate

is

based

upon cost factors of $35 per square foot,

and

a

waIl 35 feet tall and 250 feet long.

Such

a

wall would

have to

be high enough to block the sight line

and still would

not abate low

frequency

noise

or

noise

from

the

vertical

stacks.

Exhibit

8;

Tr.

36.

In

response

to

a

question

from

the

Attorney

General’s

Office

about

a

berm

instead

of

a

barrier wall,

Parzych testified that to be most effective such a

berm would have to be placed

close to

the equipment or the critical

receptors.

If close to the

Facility’s equipment,

he

advised

that

such

a

berm

would

have

to

be

50

or more

feet tall

to

effectively

block the

line

of

sight.

This means that such

a mound would have to be very huge.

Tr. 165-I 66.

-

The feasibility of enclosing the

entire facility

was

addressed at hearing.

No cost

estimates were

provided because this measure

is probably not technically possible, and

even

if it

is,

it would

not

be economically

reasonable.

These four gas turbine units are

-12-

---

designed

for outdoor

use;

they

cannot

necessarily

be

adapted

to

indoor use.

If they

could,

the entire

turbine

enclosure would

have

to

be

ducted to the outdoors, yet large

amounts of fresh air would

have to be introduced to insure that any gas leaks would

not

result

in

explosions.

Much

of

the

supporting

equipment

would

have

to

be

moved

outdoors

due to

air flow

and

heat

considerations with

certain

equipment moved

to the

roof,

and

any

remaining

in

the

building

would

also

require

large amounts of fresh

air.

Assuming

that the

Facility could

be so

redesigned

and

reengineered,

such

a

remedy

would be comparable to constructing

a new facility.

Tr.

103-106.

None of these measures

are warranted.

The

Board’s regulations do

not

require

that all

noise

be eliminated,

and

this Facility has already achieved

maximum reductions

by

being

equipped

with

noise

abatement

equipment

well

beyond

the

industry’s

standards.

For

this

very

reason,

the

likelihood

of

these

additional

,measures

successfully

further

reducing

sound

sufficiently

to

achieve

compliance

at

the

Realen

Property is very doubiful according to Petitioner’s

noise

experts.

At hearing,

Chinn

raised

the

issue of

a

building

without

a

roof (which

notably is

comparable

to

the

barrier and

berm

option

addressed

above.)

Chinn

testified

that a

building without

a roof exists

at

a

Hillside

landfill facility,that

has

an electric generating

plant.

Tr.

87-89.

Chinn did

not

know the

name of the

Hillside facility, the

operator,

or

whether it Was

equipped with

noise

control

equipment.

He also did not know what type

or size of electrical

generating equipment at the

facility or whether that equipment was

comparable to

the

EEC generation equipment.

Tr.

266-270.

Post

hearing, the

Office of

the Attorney

General

did

identify

the

Hillside facility,

but

the

only

relevant

information

provided

was

that

the

facility

does

not

have

a

roof,

and

noise

is

radiated

vertically.

Attorney General’s Response to Question

Raised at Hearing filed February

9, 2004.

No

information

is

provided

about

the

size

of the facility and

power generation

equipment,

noise

abatement

equipment,

or

whether

it

achieves

compliance

with

the

applicable

Board

regulations.

Thus,

there

is

no

evidence

that

this

landfill

facility

has

a

power

generation

plant that

is comparable

in

size, generation

power,

or noise

control

to

EEC,

-13-

---

or

that

may

somehow support

Chinn’s

suggestion

that

EEC

can

and

should

achieve

compliance by erecting

a barrier wall.5

At hearing,

Chinn

also

cited to

testimony

by Versar Consulting

Company

in

the

Board’s

proceeding,

R

01-10:

In

the

Matter of

Natural Gas-Fired,

Peak

Load

Electric

Power Generating Facilities.

He did not know the power plants that were

the foundation

for Versar’s testimony and had

not

looked

at the Versar report.

His purpose

in

citing to

Versar’s

testimony was

“to

indicate

that there

is

technology available

to mitigate

noise

from

peaker

plants.”

Tr.

260/278.

Petitioner

agrees

that

technology

is

available

to

mitigate

noise

from

peaker

power

plants.

As

well

evidenced

by

the

record

in

this

proceeding,

Petitioner

investigated

that

very

issue

in

2000,

and

then

designed

and

installed,

at

significant

expense,

the

best

noise

abatement

equipment

available

to

successfully

achieve

compliance with

the

Board’s

noise

regulations.

That

technology

still

represents

the

equipment

that

is

state

of

the

art,

i.e.,

well

beyond

industry

standards.

The

Noise

Emission

Limitations

Required

and

Their

Environmental

Impact.

Because

the monetary and

operational

cost associated

with

acoustically modifying

the

existing

EEC facility

is

prohibitive and its successful outcome very

unlikely,

Petitioner is

seeking

this

site

specific

relief.

To

determine

the

site

specific

sound

pressure

level

requirements,

a

combination

of

the

sound

pressure

level

data

collected

in

the

2003

Noise Studies

was

used.

(Exhibits

11

and

14,

respectively).

The

information supplied

by

Siemens-Westinghouse

that

defines

the

equipment

sound

power

levels

was

also

factored

in

by Power Acoustics

to analytically correct the

sound

measurements

to four

unit operation.

Exhibit

11

and

12.

~

As

suggested

by

the

Office

of

Attorney

General

in

its

Response

filed

on

February 9, 2004, counsel for Petitioner did contact persons

on the attached documents

and learned that the three gas turbines at the

Hillside facility have

a combined capability

to generate

16.5 megawatts of electricity versus the

540 megawatts combined capability

of EEC’s

three

turbines; that each

of the

Hillside turbines

and associated

equipment

is

approximately the

size of Chevrolet Suburban;

and that the height of the

walls enclosing

the

three turbines

is

approximately 12 feet.

Based

upon these facts,

the

Hillside facility

is

not comparable to

ECC and

is not

a

representative example

of soundproofing

with

a

barrier wall or for any other purpose.

-14-

---

The following table

provides of summary of the

data collected and

a

comparison

between the

noise

emissions ‘proposed

by Petitioner and the

Board’s daytime

Class A

and

Class

B

noise

emission

limitations,

as

well

as

the

noise

limitations

in

Cook

and

DuPage

counties.

Exhibit

17.

This

table

also

provides

a

comparison

of

the

sound

pressure

levels

‘contained

in

the

2003

PAl

Noise

Study

at

Rows

I

and

2,

and

the

measurements contained

in

the 2003 Zak Noise Study at Rows

3 through

6.

AMEREN ELGIN

UNITS

1,

2, 3 AND

4, LOCATED AT L-R2

ON GIFFORD

ROAD ACROSS FROM

UNIT 4

Data

Source

Description

Date

2003

31.5

Hz.

63

Hz.

125

Hz.

250

Hz.

500

Hz.

1K

Hz.

2K

I-IL

4K

Hz.

8K

Hz.

dB(A)

PAl’

Table 9, Extrapolated

Total

6-20

78.4

71.8

63.5

md

md

55.0

53.2

45.7

31.9

‘

PAl’

Table 6, Ambient

6-17

58.1

59.6

55.2

48.3

46.9

45.9

40.7

33.7

22.1

—-

ZAK2

Raw

10 minute

L,,,

at

447

MW

9-2

73.4

66.5

62.6

57.0

53.0

53.4

55.6

49.2

42.4

60.1

ZAK2

10 minute L~Ambient

9-2

59.2

59.6

54.8

49.7

49.2

44.6

44.4

48.7

42.3

53.7

ZAK’

Corrected

10 minute L~

at 447 MW

9-2

73.4

65.5

61.9

56.0

50.7

52.7

55.6

0

0

58.8

ZAK’

Corrected and

rounded

lOminuteL,,, at447

MW

9-2

73

66

62

56

51

53

56

0

0

59

II Daytime Class A

and

DuPageCo.

---

75

74

69

64

58

52

47

43

40

—-

II Nighttime Class A

and

DuPage Co.

‘

—

69

67

62

54

47

41

36

32

32

—-

Cook County Ml

to A

--

72

71

65

57

51

45

39

34

32

—-

901.102C-~A

---

75

74

69

64

58

52

47

43

40

61

901;103C-~B

—

80

79

•

74

69

63

57

52

48

45

—

Site Specific Rule

Requested

C

-~

A

---

80

74

69

64

58

58

58

50

40

—

Site Specific Rule

Requested

C

-~

B

—

80

79

74

69

63

58

58

50

45

—

Notes:

(1)

Power Acoustics,

Inc. Report of June,

2003

(2)

Noise Solutions

by Greg Zak

Report of September, 2003

BOLD:

Numerical levels requested that are higher than corresponding

limits at 35

Ill. Adm.

code

901 .102

and 901.103

Petitioner tried

to stay within

the

existing

Illinois

Board’s daytime

noise

standard

in

developing the

proposed site specific limits.

However, at the 31.5 Hz,

1000

Hz, 2000

Hz

and

4000

,

Hz

octave

bands,

the

daytime

standards

do

not

adequately

allow

for

compliance

if

the

Realen

Property

is

developed

residentially.

Therefore,

the

levels

requested by Petitioner represent the

maximum of either the

Illinois daytime standard or

the

average

of

the

measured/synthesized

values

plus

one

standard

deviation,

as

a

safety factor.

This standard

deviation

allows for

unknowns

caused

by

instrumentation

(measurement)

uncertainty,

weather

conditions

and

directivity

effects

associate

with

I

-15-

---

various pieces

of the

power plant equipment.

The standard

deviation

used

to

develop

the

proposed noise

limitations

is

3 to 5 decibels,

the

standard

included

in

many of the

existing national and international noise standards as the measurement uncertainty.

This comparison documents

a significant difference

in

decibel

levels at the 4000

Hz and at 8000 Hz octave

bands.

The difference

of 15 decibels

higher at 4000

Hz and

20

decibels

higher

at

8000

Hz

is

largely

due

to

excessive

insect

sounds

that

were

unavoidable

during

the ambient

measurement period.

When

Power Acoustics took

its

measurements

in

June,

2003,

this

property,

including

the

measurement location,

was

not

yet

bordered

by an

overgrowth of thick weeds and

brush

that are

conducive to the

harboring of a variety of insects.

This

overgrown

and

insect infested

area

was

to the

west of the microphone

during

the

September,

2003 ambient measurement

period and

would account for these high readings.

When the

ZAK corrected levels

in

Row

5 are

compared to the

levels obtained by

PAl,

the

operational

measurements

at

full

capacity

are

considerably

lower,

with

the

exception of 2000 Hz.

At that octave

band, the

PAl

projection

was

53.2 decibels, while

the

ZAK measurement was

55.6

decibels,

a

difference

of 2.4

decibels.

However,

the

PAl

data represents

a projection

from the actual measurement of one

unit running to the

theoretical

sound

levels

for

all

four

units.

Zak testified

that

a

2.4

decibel

difference

between extrapolated data and actual measurements falls well,within the many sources

of potential error

in

making

an extrapolation from

the

measurement of one

running unit

to the

actual

measurement of four

units,

each

with

its

own

subtle characteristics

even

though

each

consists of the

same

turbine

model

and

other

necessary

equipment and

noise abatement controls. Exhibit

10 at 5; Tr. 70.

Finally,

Zak

compared

Ameren’s

requested

site-specific

noise

emission

limitations for

the

Elgin

Facility with

a

portion of the

Board’s various

noise

regulations.

The comparison afforded

by the information compiled

in

the’ following

table (Exhibit

18-)

demonstrates

that

the

limitations

proposed

in

this

site

specific

rulemaking

are

not

significant.

-16-

---

A COMPARISON

OF

CURRENT NOISE

LIMITS

IN

ILLINOIS WITH

THE

THE AMEREN ELGIN FACILITY SITE-SPECIFIC

NOISE

EMISSION LIMITATIONS

OCTAVE

BAND

CENTER

FREQUENCY IN

HERTZ (HZ)

INDUSTRIAL NOISE

TO COMMERCIAL

RECEIVER LIMITS

Section

901.103

AMEREN ELGIN

FACILITY

SITE-

SPECIFIC NOISE

EMISSION

LIMITATIONS

COMMERCIAL

NOISE

TO COMMERCIAL

RECEIVER LIMITS

Section

901.103

INDUSTRIAL

NOISE

TO

RESIDENTIAL

RECEIVER LIMITS

Section

901.102a

31.5 HZ

80 dB

80 dB

79dB

75 dB

63HZ

79 dB

74 dB

78 dB

74 dB

125

HZ

74 dB

69 dB

72 dB

69 dB

250 HZ

69 dB

64 dB

64

dB

64 dB

500 HZ

63 dB

58 dB

58

dB

58

dB

1000 HZ

57 dB

58 dB

52

dB

52

dB

2000 HZ

52 dB

58 dB

46

dB

47 dB

4000 HZ

48 dB

50 dB

41

dB

43 dB

8000 HZ

45 dB

40 dB

39 dB

40 dB

APPROX. A-WT

66 dB (A)

64 dB (A)

62 dB (A)

61

dB (A)

Zak

explained

that

a

comparison

of the

values

in

this

table

demonstrates

the

following:

At the

31.5

Hz octave

band,

the

80

decibels

limitation requested

is

equal to

the

current limit for

“Industrial

Noise Commercial

Receiver Limits,” that is,

C to

B land use,

at Section 901.103 of the Board’s

rules.

At 63 Hz through

500 Hz octave

bands,

the limitations requested are equal to the

“Industrial

Noise

to

Residential

Receiver

Limits,”

that

is

C

to

A

land

use,

at

Section

901.102(a) of the Board’s rules,

and are considerably

below the

C to B land use

limits of

Section 901.103.

At the

1000 Hz level,

the

58 decibels

limitation

proposed

is

only I

decibel higher

than the 57 decibels allowed under the limits for C to B land use.

At 2000 Hz,

the

58 decibels limitation,

while

exceeding the

C to

B land

use by 6

decibels,

would

not

significantly

penetrate

a

house

of

modern

construction

when

the

windows

are

closed,

which

is

the

likely

situation

when

the

units

are

operating

during

periods of very hot or cold weather.

Exhibit 10 at 6.

At the 4000

Hz

level, the

50 decibels

limitation,

while exceeding the

C to

B land

use

by

2

decibels,

would

not

significantly

exceed

the

levels

frequently

generated

by

crickets, locusts,

and other insects.

Additionally, 4000 Hz is even

less able to penetrate

a

house with

closed windows than

is 2000 Hz.

Exhibit

10 at 6.

-17-

---

And,

at

the

8000

Hz

level,

the

proposed

40

decibels

limitation

is

equal

to

the

present

Section

901.102(a)

limit,

and

5

decibels

lower

than

C

to

B

land

use

limits.

Exhibit 10 at 6.

Site specific

noise

emission

limitations applicable to

receiving

Class B lands

are

also

requested

by Petitioner.

Six

of the

nine

numerical

levels are the

same

as those

currently found at Section 901.103 of the

Board’s Class

B receiving

lands.

However, at

the

remaining

three

octave

bands,

the

1000,

2000,

and

4000

Herz

octave

bands,

the

Board’s

noise

limits

are

more

stringent

than

those

requested

by Petitioner ‘as

its

site

specific

limits ‘for

Class A

receiving

lands.

Petitioner proposes that

the

Class

B

site

specific

noise

limits

adopted

at

those

octave

bands

be

the

same

numerical

value

as

those

proposed

for

Class

A

receiving

lands

Any

environmental

Impact

based

upon

those numerical changes would be of insignificant consequence. Exhibit 10 at 7.

Zak

provided

a

perspective

based

upon

his

expert

experience

about

the

significance of the

increased

noise

levels requested by Petitioner.

Zak is

an expert with

more

than

31

years of experience

in

the

noise

field,

having

been

involved

in

both

the

public

and private sectors with

noise

measurement,

noise

control

engineering,

and the

effects

of noise

on

people

and

communities.

He explained

that

the

character of the

sound

from

this

type

of

power

plant

is

often

described

as

similar

to

that

of

noise

generated’- by

airflow

from

ventilation

within

an

office

building.

This

type

of

noise,

whether

indoors or out of doors,

is often absorbed

into ambient

noise.

And, finally, Zak

explained

that

the

sound

emanating

from

this

Facility

has

been

reduced

with

noise

abatement

equipment,

and

cautioned

that

care

should

be

taken

not

to

compare

it

to

uncontrolled noise

sources.

Exhibit

10 at 6.

In response to this prefiled testimony, the

Board asked Zak to address further the

significance of

the

proposed

site

specific

noise

limits

on

people

and

the

community.

More specifically, the

Board asked Zak why the

proposed

limits at the

31.5 Hz,

1000

Hz;,

and

2000

Hz

octave

bands

are

“not, significant”.

Zak

explained

that

the

extraneous

noise

in

the

heavily industrialized area

around EEC dominates the

area at these octave

bands

to

the

extent

that

it

masks

sound

emissions

from

the

Facility

at

these

-18-

---

frequencies.

He

also

noted

that

ambient,

insect

noise

experienced

at

the

4000

Hz

octave

band

during

the

September

2

field

measurements,

overrode

sound

emissions

from

EEC.

Tr.

194-195.

Zak then explained that extraneous

noise,

i.e.,

noise

such as

aircraft flyovers and passbys

on the

road, are excluded

from

sound field measurements

because

it blocks out

the ambient and

sound from

the noise

source of concern.

Tr. 196

-197.

The extraneous

noise

so

dominates that it would

be

the

only value

registered,

whether

measuring

ambient

noise

or

sound

from

the

Facility.

Tr.

202.

Zak

also

explained that the Board’s

measurement protocol requires that the extraneous sound

be

excluded

from

measurements.

Tr.

203.

To

demonstrate

the

predominance

of

extraneous

noise

in

the

area,

Zak’

testified

that

he

had

to

frequently

pause

the

instrumentation due to the amount of extraneous noise

during the test for the entire time

he was

conducting the September field sound study.

Tr.

213-216.

The

Board

also

asked

Zak

whether

the

proposed

noise

limits for

Class A

and

Class

B

land

uses offer

p,rotection

against unreasonable

exposure that would

result in

annoyance,

speech

interference,

or

adverse

community

reaction.

In

response,

he

explained that the extraneous noise

generated

by the character of the

area, during

both

day

and

nighttime

hours,

has

a

greater

impact

than

the

noise

emitted

at

the

levels

proposed by

Petitioner.

Tr.

218 -220

Most

specifically,

Zak explained

that jet aircraft

noise

at

nighttime

and

vehicle

passbys

were

the

predominant

source

of

noise

when

compared to Petitioner’s noise.

Tr. 217.

The Board

next asked

that Zak further ‘explain

in general

the significance of the

decibel

increase

of

the

proposed

levels

and

the, current

regulatory

levels.

Zak

addressed that concern

in

the context of small and

large decibel

increases.

As for small

increases,

such as

a one decibel

increase, Zak explained that increment is so small that

it

is

not

discernable

by

the

human

ear.

As

for

larger

decibel

increases,

the

actual

character of the

neighborhood,

based upon the

extraneous and ambient

noise

sources,

determines

whether

the

decibel

level

increases

are

significant.

For

example,

if

the

ambient

is

high,

the

decibel

increase will

be insignificant;

if the

ambient

is

low,

the

size

of the decibel increase will

determine

its

significance. Tr. 228-231.

-19-

---

In

sum,

Zak

explained

that

significance

of the

difference

between

the

Board’s

noise

limits and the

site specific limits proposed

by Petitioner is dependent on the

noise

present

in

the

area

which

is

the

product

of the

extraneous

and

ambient

noise

in

the

area.

If either or both of those types

are

noise

sources are

prevalent,

the effect on the

community of the

noise

contributed

by

the

noise

source

of

interest

is

not

significant.

Petitioner

has demonstrated

that the

noise

contributed

by the

Facility is not significant

due to the

overriding

effect of the ambient

and

extraneous

noise already present

in

the

community due

in

large part to

its predominately industrial

nature.

III.

WHY RELIEF REQUESTED SHOULD

BE GRANTED

Richard

Smith

was

responsible

for

the

construction

and

commissioning

of the

EEC.

He

was

responsible

for

leading

the

development

of

the

EEC,

including

responsibility

for

the

construction

and

commissioning

of the

Facility.

As

he

testified

Petitioner

conducted

an

extensive

public

involvement

program

in

2000,

prior

to

purchasing the

site

in

2001.

This

program

included

Petitioner hiring

a

Chicago

public

relations firm

to

conduct

a

survey of the

local community.

That

survey

concluded ‘that

the public would

accept

a

new peaker

plant and

would

not

view the

project

negatively.

The

City

of

Elgin

strongly

embraced

Petitioner’s

desire

to

inform

the

public

of

its

intentions throughout the public involvement program.

Petitioner conducted three public

workshops, held meetings with

local business

owners, the

local chamber,

neighborhood

groups,

and

published

information

in

local

media,

including

newspapers

and

radio,

as

well

as

conducting

mass

mailings.

Petitioner also

participated

in

public

meetings

and

official

zoning hearings.

Elgin

approval

was

required

for

the

intended

use of the

land

use

for

power

generation.

Petitioner

participated

in

city

council

meetings,

obtained

approvals

by ordinance and for enterprise zone extensions.

Tr. 21-24.

Today,

the

EEC

still

has the

support

of the

local

governments.

The Village

of

Bartlett

and

the City of

Elgin

have

both submitted

lette,r to the

Board

in support of this

Petition.

Public

Comments #1

and #3.

Realen

Homes,

has also submitted

a letter

in

support

of the

relief

requested.

Public Comment

#2.

As

soon

as

Petitioner became

aware

of the

zoning

and

intended

land

use

change

for

the

Realen

Property,

it

hired

noise

professionals

to

conduct

field

sound

measurements

at

significant

expense

to

-20-

---

determine

if the

Board’s

noise

limitations

might

be

exceeded

after

the

upcoming

land

use change.

The

Facility

is

equipped

with

noise

abatement

equipment

that

is

specifically

designed

and engineered to abate

noise

to

levels that meet the now applicable

Board

noise limitation.

2003 PAl

Noise Study.

Those

limits were

achieved

as anticipated due

to the

extensive,

state

of the

art

equipment,

installed

at the time of construction

(2000

PAl

Noise Study).

However, the

sound

measurements taken

by Power Acoustics and

Noise

Solutions

in

2003

confirm that

the

Board’s

noise

regulations are

being

met,

but

also

demonstrate

that

compliance

would

not

be

achieved

if

the

Realen

Property

is

developed

residentially.

2003 Zak Noise Studies.

Petitioner then

reviewed

whether there

are technical

means

available for further

reducing noise

levels sufficiently to achieve compliance with

the Board’s

noise

levels at

the

Realen

Property

should

it

be

developed

residentially.

Petitioner

investigated

installing additional noise abatement equipment,

as well as constructing

a barrier wall or

building

to

enclose

the

entire

Facility.

Because the

Facility

is

already

equipped with

state

of the

art

noise,

abatement

equipment for

controlling

noise,

adding

more

noise

abatement equipment was

either not feasible because there was

no room to do so, and

if there was space to do

so,

little or no additional

noise

control would

be achieved.

For

the same reason,

any additional

control or replacement of existing equipment would be

experimental in

nature,

and therefore

probably not technically feasible,

or economically

unreasonable,

or

both.

As

for

a

barrier

wall,

there

is

no

assurance

that

it

would

effectively reduce noise to

levels that would achieve compliance.

Finding

no

technical

solution,

Petitioner

filed

this

Petition

which

garnered

the

support

of

the

property

owner

and

both

municipalities.

Using

the

noise

studies

conducted

in 2003

and

information

from

the

noise

study

conducted during

the

design

stage of the

Facility

in

2001,

Petitioner identified

the

extent

of the

relief

necessary to

achieve

compliance.

The

site

specific

relief

requested

was

developed

using

these

sound measurements

and

a set of synthesized

values plus a

standard deviation of 3 to

5 decibels.

To the extent possible,

the

Board’s

maximum

daytime standard

is proposed

-21-

---

at

most

octave

bands.

Petitioner’s

experts

also

explained

the

significance

of

the

increased

noise

levels

in

the

context

of

the

Board’s

and

other

governmental

noise

regulations for

both residential

and commercial

receiving

lands.

Finally, Petitioner has

demonstrated

that

impact

of the

requested

numerical

levels

on

the

community

is

not

significant due to the

types

and amount of extraneous and ambient

noise

present

in the

,area given

its

primarily industrial character.

Having

demonstrated

that the

requested

relief

is

necessary,

warranted

and

its

environmental

consequences

not

significant

primarily

due

to

noise

already

present

in

this

heavily

industrial

area,

Petitioner

requests that the

Board

adopt the

rule proposed

for

First Notice on

November 6,

2003

for Class A

and

Class

B receiving

lands

as the

final rule applicable to the

EC~CFacility.

Respectfully submitted,

~t~LL~

~J

Marili

McFawn

-

-

Dated:

March

10, 2004

Schiff Hardin LLP

6600 Sears Tower

Chicago,

Illinois

60606

CH2\

1088184.1

-22-

---

RECEIVEC

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

MAR

112004

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

IN THE MATTER OF:

POllution

Control Board

‘PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC REGULATION

)

APPLICABLE TO AMEREN ENERGY

)

R04-1

1

GENERATING

COMPANY, ELGIN, ILLINOIS,

)

AMENDING

35

ILL. ADM. CODE 901

)

MOTION TO CORRECT PREFILED

TESTIMONY AND HEARING TRANSCRIPT

Now comes Ameren Energy Generating Company (Petitioner) by and through its

attorney, and hereby requests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board allow Petitioner to correct

the Pre-Filed Testimony ofGregoryZak, Exhibit 10

and make the following typographical

corrections to the transcript ofthe January 22, 2004 hearing in this matter.

In support of its motion to correct Mr. Zak’s prefiled testimony, Exhibit 10 in this matter,

the correction requested was explained at hearing by Mr.

Zak.

Tr.

192, lines 8 through

18.

Therefore, this

correction is for clarification ofthe written prefiled testimony by Mr. Zak and is

already included in the transcribed record.

Therefore, no prejudice will result if the motion is

granted.

Specifically, the correction requested in Exhibit

10

is the relocation ofthe final sentence

on page 3:

“These extraneous noises are the type that mask and even drown out

the noise from

the Facility” to immediately following the fourth sentence ofthe first paragraph at page 4.

In

pertinent part, that paragraph will now read:

Extraneous sound is ofrelatively short duration and comes

and goes, such as vehicle

passbys, aircraft flyovers, train whistles, and so forth.

These extraneous noises are the

type that maskand even drown out the noisefrom the Facility.

The measurement

instrumentation is put in a “pause mode” to

avoid including

extraneous sound during

measurement.

‘

The typographical corrections requested by Petitioner in

the transcript of the January 22,

2004 are as follows:

1.

At page

25,

line

7, change “nose” to “noise”~

---

2.

At page 28, line

13, change

“1

1,$650,000”

to

“$11,650,000.”

3.

At page 32, line

2, change “no” to

“not”.

4.

At page 49, line

6, change “citings” to “sidings”.

5.

At page

105, line

19, begin a new paragraph with “The $25,000 cost..”

6.

At page

107, line

9, change “minute” to “minimum”.

7.

At page

149, line 4, change “livid” limited”.

8.

At page

151, line 21, change “Knox” to

NON”.

9.

At page

152, lines

7 and 9, change “Knox” to NOR”.

10.

At page

158, line

8, change “ducking” to “ducting”.

11. At page

162, line

13, change “Weigh System” to

“Weight Station”.

12. At page

164, line 23, “Weigh System” to “Weight Station”.

13. At page

188, delete “Question become.”

14. At page 255, change “staff’ which appears twice, to “stack”.

15.

At page 274, change “site” to “cite”.

This two part motion is respectfully submitted for the purposes ofclarifying the written

record in this matter.

Petitioner asks that the motion be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Marili McFawn

Attorney for Ameren Energy Generating Company

Dated:’ March 10, 2004

SchiffHardin

LLP

6600 Sears Tower

Chicago, Illinois

60606

312-258-5519

CH2\ 1092000.2

---

ED

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

MAR

112(104

IN THE MATTER OF:

‘

‘

St~-r~

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC REGULATION

)

oard

APPLICABLE TO AMEREN ENERGY

)

R04-1

1

GENERATING COMPANY, ELGIN, ILLINOIS,

)

AMENDING 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 901

)

MOTION TO CLARIFY ANSWER

Now comes Ameren Energy Generating Company (Petitioner), by and through its

attorneys, and herebyrequests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board) allow Petitioner

to clarify Mr. Richard Smith’s responses to questions from the Board concerning non-economic

dispatch costs associated

with the cost ofsound measurement activities.

In support thereof,

Petitioner offers:

1.

In response to a Board question, Mr. Richard Smith provided estimated costs for

running the units

at the Elgin Energy Center for the purposes ofconducting sound measurement.

Tr.

136-138.

2.

Mr. Smith testified that for the sound measurement activities by Noise Solutions by

Greg Zak on

September 2-3, 2003, the units

were scheduled for non-economic dispatch.

Tr.

137.

3.

In response to Mr. Anand Rao’s question to confirm whether Ameren did not incur all

the costs mentioned earlier,

i.e.,

non-economic impact, Mr., Smith answered “yes”.

Tr.

138.

4.

Mr.

Smith’s answers appear to conflict.

Therefore, Petitioner consulted its records

and determined that there was a non-economical dispatch on September 2-3, 2003 when all four

units were operated so that sound measurements could be

taken.

This type ofdispatch was

required because there was no

need for the power on the system.

5.

When verifying whether a non-economic dispatch occurred, Petitioner also verified

that a non-economic dispatch was also

required when the Facility was operated on, June

17, 2003

so Power Acoustics, Inc.

could perform sound measurement activities.

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant this motion so that the record in

this

proceeding is clear upon the question ofwhether Petitioner incurred the costs of a non-

economical

dispatch when the sotind measurement activities were conducted as part ofthe 2003

Noise Studies.’

---

Dated:

March

10, 2004

SchiffHardin LLP

CH2\ 1094280.1

Respectfully submitted,

Marili McFawn