BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
NOTICE
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
ups and shut-downs.
In the Agency’s response, please address the following:
USEPA’s NOx State Implementation Plan (SIP) call; and
existing
and proposed
peaker
plants
and combined
plants in
levels of noise, and nighttime noise standards applying all weekend.
Peakin2 Plants
(MGD)
Wastestreams Pollutants
of Concern
Water
Source
Combined Cycle County Permits Flows
(MCD)
Wastestreams Pollutants
of Concern
Water
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE MATTERQF:

NATURAL GAS-FIRED, PEAK-LOAD

ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING

FACILITIES (PEAKER PLANTS)

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

)

PCBNo.R01-10

)

NOTICE

Amy L. Jackson, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

600 South Second Street

Suite 402

Springfield, IL 62704

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

Control Board an AGENCY RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS, copies of which are herewith served upon

you.

Respectfully submitted,

AGENCY

Deputy Counsel

Division ofLegal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue, East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217/782-5544

217/782-9143 (TDD)

Dated: October4, 2000

This filing submitted on recycled paper.

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

NATURAL GAS-FIRED, PEAK-LOAD

)

PCB No;R01-10

ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING

)

FACILITIES (PEAKER PLANTS)

)

AGENCY RESPONSE

TO QUESTIONS FROM THE HEARING OFFICER ORDER

DATED

SEPTEMBER 25, 2000

NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency” or “Illinois

EPA”), by one of its attorneys, Scott 0. Phillips, Deputy Counsel, and, pursuant to the assigned

Hearing Officer’s order dated September

25,

2000, hereby responds to questions directed to the

Agency. The questions raised, and the Agency’s responses, are as follows:

Please

explain whether existing air pollution control laws and regulations, including

Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD), New Source Review (NSR), and New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS), address the following concerns raised at hearing with

respect to air emissions from existing and proposed peaker plants:

peaker plant

sitings

near residential areas or schools;

Siting is not addressed specifically by these rules. Rather, each ofthese rules was

developed to protect the environment in different ways.

The PSD rules are structured to protect ambient air quality in attainment areas from

significant deterioration in three ways. First, PSD minimizes impacts ofmajor projects by

subjecting them to best available control technology (BACT), as determined on a case-by-case

basis during issuance ofa construction permit. Second, as directly related to the air quality

impact of a major project, PSD requires an applicant for a construction permit for a major project

—1—

to conduct an air quality impact analysis. This analysis must show that a proposed project will

not cause or contribute significantly to a violation ofthe national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS). The NAAQS are ambient standards established by U.S. EPA and reviewed

periodically by U.S. EPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Therefore, when PSD applies, the air

quality should never degrade to a level where it violates the NAAQS as a result ofthe proposed

project. Third, the PSD rules establish air quality increments for particulate matter (PM), sulfur

dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) but measured as nitrogen oxides (NOx). Increments

are fixed levels of deterioration in air quality in an area from the levels that exist when the first

majorproject subject to PSD is applied for in the area. In areas where air quality is significantly

better than the NAAQS, the increments may be constraining, so that air quality levels can never

reach the NAAQS. The location ofa proposed source near residential areas or schools would not

be a specific factor in issuance ofthe PSD permit, as the PSD rules fully protect air quality

irrespective of the land uses currently in an area.

The nonattainment NSR rules apply to major projects for a pollutant for which an area is

designated nonattainment. First, nonattainment NSR requires emissions ofthe nonattainment

pollutant to be controlled to the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER). Second, nonattainment

NSR requires emission offsets for the nonattainment pollutant so that there is an actual reduction

in overall emissions ofthe nonattainment pollutant in the nonattainrnent area. Because ofthe

regional nature ofozone, offsets for ozone precursors may be provided from anywhere in the

nonattainment area. Nonattainment NSR would operate only to protect or improve air quality

locally if the particular nonattainment problem was local in nature. Because NOx is both an

-2-

ozone precursor and a criteria pollutant, NOx can be subject to both PSD and nonattainment

NSR. This is the case in the Metro-East area, which does not have a NOx waiver for NSR. In

this area, NOx maybe subject to PSD as related to the NO2 NAAQS and subject to

nonattainment NSR as an ozone precursor. Again, local siting issues are not considered.

The NSPS are federal emission standards that apply to various types of emission sources.

The purpose ofthe NSPS is to ensure that state-of-the-art equipment, as ofthe date of

promulgation of the NSPS, is being employed when new emission sources are being installed

regardless of the state or area where the source is proposed. As such, the NSPS do not consider

the location of a project, nor do they address in any way the air quality impact ofa source. They

are simply federal technology-based standards applicable to any source for which NSPS have

been developed by U.S. EPA. Other case-by-case technology-based standards,

i.e.,

BACT and

LAER, may be more stringent than the NSPS, particularly with the passage oftime, as BACT

and LAER require evaluation ofthe most current technologies. However, BACT and LAER are

required of majorprojects only when PSD and NSR, respectively, have been triggered because

ofapplicable emissions thresholds.

the clustering of peaker plants;

The air quality elements ofPSD address the clustering of peaker plants. In particular, a

major source proposing to develop at a site must consider the emissions and impacts of existing

sources already in the area and new sources also being developed in the area.

Nonattainment NSR and NSPS do not address clustering, as explained above.

peaker plants emitting

up to annual limits on pollutants during the ozone

season;

-3-

Applicability ofthe NSPS to most emission sources, including turbines, is based on

source size or capacj~ythr_esholds. The NSPS for turbines applies to turbines with a heat input of

about 10 mmbtu or more (about 1 MWe output).

The Clean Air Act based applicability of PSD and nonattainment NSR on potential

emissions expressed on an annual basis. Considering emissions on a seasonal basis is a

relatively new concept. In fact, since adoption ofthe 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, the

Illinois EPA bad to go to great lengths to convince U.S. EPA ofthe appropriateness ofcertain of

the Board’s rules that require only seasonal emissions limitations. Since that time, U.S. EPA has

proposed the NOx SIP call (63 Fed.Reg.

57355

(October 27, 1998)), which requires additional

reductions ofNOx only during the so-called control period (May I through September 30) which

is a portion of the ozone season applicable in Illinois (April 1 through October 31). Moreover, as

NOx emissions have other impacts, unrelated to ozone, that are not seasonal in nature

(e.g.,

creation ofacid rain, eutrophication), it is not inappropriate that applicability of PSD be based on

annual emissions.

Once applicable, both PSD and nonattainment NSR do contain elements that address the

seasonal character ofa source. PSD requires appropriate air quality analyses to address the

relevant NAAQS. Thus, air quality impacts of peakerplants for PM, SO2, carbon monoxide

(CO) and ozone (VOM)’ must be evaluated on a short-term basis considering maximum short-

term emission rates, not annual average emission rates. Similarly, emission offsets under

nonattainment NSR would, have to provide comparable benefit to the period ofinterest,

i.e.,

-4-

summertime offsets to accommodate emissions of peaker plants, which will predominantly occur

during the summertime. In addition, under nonattainment NSR, stringent emission control could

be required with LAER to address the actual timing ofemissions.

peaker plants emitting

greater amounts of pollutants during frequent

start-

ups and shut-downs.

The federal NSPS

require owners

or operators ofaffected sources to use good air

pollution practices in addition to establishing emission limits. Accordingly, while the NSPS

emission limit does not apply to an affected turbine during start-up and shut-down, the owner or

operator of a turbine subject to the NSPS must take reasonable measures to minimize emissions

during such periods. (See 40 CFR 60.8(c) and 60.11(d).)

PSD

and nonattainment NSR also address emissions during start-up and shut-down.

First, emissions during start-up and shut-down are considered as part ofthe total emissions ofa

peaker plant or other source for purposes ofapplicability. Second, PSD and nonattainment NSR

both can establish appropriate provisions to minimize emissions as part

ofa BACT or

LAER

determination. Third, the air quality analyses ofPSD must specifically address emissions during

start-up and shut-down as needed to protect air quality standards that apply on a short-term

hourly or daily average.

Please address whether any localized impacts

(e.g.,

potentially exposing local

residents to greater amounts ofair pollutants) present a health concern with respect to air

emissions from

existing

and proposed peaker plants sited or to be

sited

near residential

areas or schools.

In attainment areas for ozone, a proposed major source subject to PSD for emission of VOM must evaluate the

affect of its VOM emissions on continued compliance with the~zone-NAkQS,which applies on a daily basis.

-5-

The Agency has required the applicants for proposed peaker plants, whether major or not,

to address expected air quality impacts ofexpected emission sources. The required analyses are

conservative (i.e., vôuld tend to overstate expected impacts), and address impacts at locations

where peak impacts are expected to occur, even as close as the source’s fence lines. The

modeling has consistently demonstrated that the air quality impacts ofthe peakers are small, if

not insignificant, and will not cause or contribute to violations ofthe NAAQS.

permits

issued to peaker plants, please explain whether the Agency has limited,

other than

on an annual basis, the amount of pollutants that may be emitted, the number of

hours during which the plants may operate, and the amounts offuel that the plants may

consume

(e.g.,

daily,

weekly, monthly,

or seasonal

limits).

Please explain how theAgency

establishes permit

limits

on pollutant emission amounts, hours of operation, and fuel

consumption for peaker plants. In addition, please explain under what circumstances the

Agency would not impose a permit condition limiting the number ofhours duringwhich a

peaker plant may operate.

Construction permits issued to peaker plants routinely include (1) limitations on the

short-term (hourly) emission rates ofthe individual peaking turbines, and (2) restrictions on the

annual usage of fuel or operating hours of the turbines, in addition to (3) limitations on the

annual emissions of the plant. Annual limits are set on a rolling basis, so that compliance is

determined at least twelve times per year based on the sum of 12 consecutive months ofdata.

Separate weekly, monthly or seasonal limitations are not established.

The Agency has not imposed limitations on hours ofoperation on plants when the

applicant has proposed to accept restrictions on usage offuel. Because fuel usage can be directly

measured, the historical preference ofthe Agency in permitting has been to restrict fuel usage.

-6-

In considering how these limitations are developed, a brief review of the possible origin

oflimitations or restrictions imposed by permit conditions is in order. Certainly, permits may

contain limitations that result from evaluations or analyses prepared for the proposed project or

the particular circumstances ofthe project. Emission limitations and other requirements

determined to constitute BACT or LAER for a proposed turbine are one example of such

limitation. These “BACT/LAER limits” are established by the Agency pursuant to specific

regulatory provisions. Permits may also contain limitations or requirements that are established

under the Agency’s general authority to impose conditions in permits as necessary to protect air

quality and prevent air pollution. Permits may also contain provisions that merely restate

regulatory limits or standards. An example of a “restated limitation” is the restatement in

permits ofthe emission standard ofthe federal NSPS for gas turbines.

Equally important, construction permits also contain limitations that reiterate and hold an

applicant to significant representations made in its application. A common example ofsuch

“application-based limitations” are conditions restricting an emission unit to use ofthe fuels

described in its application. Application-based emission limitations are also routinely placed in

permits, holding an emission unit to the maximum levels of emissions that were represented in

the application.

In addition, permits may contain provisions that clarify, refine, revise, or otherwise

enhance applicable regulatory requirements, consistent with the Agency’s general authorities to

impose or allow such enhancements. Such “enhancing conditions” are routinely placed in non-

major permits as needed to fully address applicability of PSD or nonattainmentNSR. Conditions

limiting annual emissions of a proposed plant would be considered such an “enhancing

limitation” if an applicant did not specify requested levels ofannual emissions in its application.

Similarly, if an applicant did identify requested levels ofannual emissions for a proposed minor

plant but did not accompany them with an associated level of operation, in terms ofannual fuel

consumption or hours ofoperation, the Agency would impose a limitation on fuel consumption

orhours of operation in the issued permit.

The emission limitations and operating restrictions imposed by the Agency on peaker

plants are a mix of application-based limitations and enhancing limitations, as discussed above.

As part ofthe preparation ofa construction permit, the Agency must address applicability of

PSD and nonattainment NSR. For a proposed non-major source, this is done by establishing

limitations on various aspects or dimensions ofa proposed plant, i.e., short-term (hourly)

emission limitation of individual turbines, limitations on the annual emissions ofall turbines at a

plant, and restrictions on the hours ofoperation or fuel usage ofa facility. Ideally, all these

limitations are application-based limitations reflecting data explicitly provided in the application

by the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed facility will not exceed the applicability

thresholds for a major source. In any event, the applicant must provide the basic data for short-

term emissions for the particular model ofturbine that has been selected for a project. The short-

term limitationsApplicantsin

arethe alsopermitrequiredreflecttothisprovidedata

providedinformationin theonapplication.maximum2hours

o-f-operation-or

fuel usage ofthe proposed plant along with their calculation forthe permitted annual emissions

..g

ofpollutants being requested for a proposed plant, to show how the proposed plant will be non-

major. This requires that the applicant provide its projection forthe relationship between

emissions and hours of operation or fuel usage. If the Agency disagrees with the particular data

points selected by the applicant for this calculation ofannual~missions or believes that it

provides an insufficient safety margin for status as a non-major project, the Agency will adjust

the results downward to address these points.

The exact process differs from application to application for a number of reasons. First,

different models ofturbines do exhibit variations in emissions based on turbine load, ambient

temperature, and use ofinlet air cooling. Second, the individual plants vary in terms of the

number ofturbines selected by the developer. Third, the approach to calculating annual’

emissions differs between applications.3 Finally, the Agency’s review of applications

accommodates variability in the approach to emissions taken by the applicant. In this regard, the

Agency has not attempted to standardize the way in which applicants approach emissions, nor is

it appropriate to do so. The purpose of Agency review ofa construction permit application is to

determine whether the application submitted for a proposed source demonstrates that it is being

developed to comply with applicable regulatory requirements.

~ the short-term emission rates provided in the application were natator below applicable regulatory limits, i.e,

the NOx emission standard of the federal NSPS forgas turbines, 40 CFR 60 Subpart

GO,

the application would be

denied.

~ In general, it appears that the smaller the plant, the simpler the approach used by applicants when calculating

annual emissions. That is, a sithpler, more conservative approach can be used to show that the emissions of a

proposed facility will be below major source thresholds while still allowing for a level ofpotential operation that is

desired for the proposed plant. Applicants for larger plants must use more complexapproaches for the calculation

of annual emissions to achieve the potential level ofoperation desired bra plant.

-9-

Please explain whether the Agency limits

in air permits the types

of fuel that a

peaker plant may use. Please explain whether the emission limits

an air permit for a

peaker plant would vary depending upon the type of fuel used.

The Agency limits the types of fuels that a turbine may use to the fuels addressed by the

application (application-based limitations). In addition, if a particular turbine is being developed

with the capacity to bum both natural gas and oil, the Agency would establish separate short-

term emission limitations for the firing ofeach fuel (application-based limitations). Operating

restrictions would also be established for the firing ofeach fuel (application-based limitations or

enhancements). If use of oil was described as backup fuel in the application, these limitations,

which would be intended to assure that oil would not be used as the primary fuel.

Ifand when the turbine was built, the Permittee would have to demonstrate that the

turbine complies with both sets ofemission limits. On a continuing basis, it would have to

manage use offuel to comply with applicable operating restrictions.

Please explain what notification requirements apply to the Agency and the applicant

when an air permit application for a peaker plant

submitted. Likewise, please explain

the notification requirements when the Agency holds hearings on such permit applications.

In the Agency’s response to these questions, please address whether notice

provided to

residents, schools, and any aeronautical authorities, such as the Federal Aviation

Administration, the Illinois Department of

Transportation,

and local

airports.

Also, please

describe the distance from the proposed site within which one must be located to be entitled

to notice.

The procedures for public notice and comment for air permits are found at 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 252. These procedures apply to the proposed issuance ofconstruction permits for new

major sources under nonattainment NSR and PSD, and for new sources that will not be

considered major because net emissions over a contemporaneous -period are not significant or

-10-

because significant restrictions are placed on the source’s proposed operations. In the case of

proposed new peaker plants, the Director has decided that the Agency will provide public notice

for all plants, regar’ZfTë~’sso1~e. The same procedures apply formajor and non-major

applications.

Part

252

requires that a notice be placed in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in the area

where the source is located to notify the general public. In addition, the following entities must

be notified:

local government air pollution control offices within Illinois that are in the area

affected by the source;

chief executives of the county in which the source is to be located, including the

state’s attomey;

chief executive ofthe municipality in which the source is to be located, including the

mayor or president and clerk;

members ofthe General Assembly from the legislative district in which the source is

located;

any state whose air quality may be affected and which is contiguous to Illinois or

which is within

miles ofthe proposed source;

the permit applicant; and

persons on the public participation mailing list for the air pollution permit program.

Even though not required by rule, the Bureau of Air notifies other municipalities that are within a

3-mile radius ofthe proposed location.

Notices are not sent to individual property owners within a specified distance of a

proposed source. Any person or organization can request to be on the mailing list. Other state

—

agencies, such as IDNR, have requested to be on the mailing list. The notice forpublic comment

includes:

the name and address of the applicant;

the location ofthe proposed source, if different from the applicant’s address;

the activity or activities involved in the permit action;

for a proposed siguificant modification, a description ofthe change in the amount or

character of the emissions which may result from the modification;

the preliminary decision ofthe Agency to grant the permit;

for the issuance of a PSD permit, the degree of ambient air increment consumed by

the project;

for a case-by-case MACT determination pursuant to Section 112(g) and Section

112(j) of the CAA, a description ofthe emission limitation or work practice standard

in the draft permit that constitutes MACT;

the location ofthe documents available for public review;

a request for written comments on the Agency’s draft proposed permit;

the date by which comments must be postmarked, which provides at least 30 days for

public comment;

instructions on how to request a public bearing if a decision to hold a hearing has not

already been made pursuant to Section

252.205(a)

or (b); and

the name, address, and telephone number ofthe Agency contact person from whom

the public may obtain additional information.

Along with the notice, the Agency prepares and makes available to interestedparties the draft

permit and a project summary (fact sheet).

The public comment period is open for 30 days.

The procedures for public notice when a hearing is being held axe the same as above with

the following

the commentenhancements:period4~is open forat least

days prior to the hearing and at least 15 days

after the hearing;*

persons on the Agency’s hearing mailing list are added to the air pollution control

permit program mailing list;

the information is made available at a local repository, usually a local library; and

the public notice is published in a local paper once a week for three consecutive weeks.

• The hearing officer has the authority to shorten the 30 days of comment after the

hearing.

Please explain whether the Agency expects peaker plants to emit, during start-up

and shut-down, greater amounts of air pollutants than at other times ofoperation. Please

address whether Illinois air permits for peaker plants should include special provisions to

control air emissions during start-up and shut-down. In addition, please explain whether

the Agency expects peaker plants to emit greater amounts of

air

pollutants at lower load

levels. Please address whether Illinois air permits for peaker plants should include special

provisions to contrOl air emissions during lower load operations.

The Agency expects gas turbines to emit greater amounts ofpollutants during startup and

shutdown to the extent that emissions ofpollutants are related to combustion efficiency (CO and

VOM) or “active” control measures (NOx, when controlled by water injected or dry low-NOx

combustors or SCR). In particular, the combustion efficiency of a turbine will be at its lowest

when the fuel is first ignited and the combustion reaction is being established in the combustor.

Likewise, the techniques that are used to lower NOx emissions are not effectively applied until

flows and temperatures in the combustor or turbine exhaust reach certain minimum levels.

“The hearings themselves are held in accordance with

III. Adm. Code 166: Subpart A.

These effects are such that emissions certainly are higher when expressed as an emission

factor, (e.g., pounds of pollutant emitted per million Btu heat input to the turbine). However,

emissions may n6fi~higherwhen expressed in pounds per hour, as the lower load (heat input)

during startup and shutdown compensates for the higher emission factor. The extent ofthe

actual increases in emissions depends upon the performance of the particular model ofturbine.

The extent ofthe perceived increases also depends upon the precision ofthe emission data

submitted in a permit application. Ifthe application is conservatively developed with worst-case

emission rates, expressed in terms of pounds per hour, startup and shutdown emissions may not

be significantly different than emissions during normal operation. Ifthe emission data for

normal operation more exactly portrays the low levels of emissions occurring during normal

operation ofa particular turbine, the emissions during startup and shutdown are greater in

comparison. In this regard, the lower the emissions ofa turbine during normal operation, the

greater the emissions during startup and shutdown ofthe turbine appear.

For turbines, these higher levels ofemissions accompanying startup and shutdown occur

over relatively short periods oftime, i.e., 15 to 30 minutes, and do not appear to pose any

extraordinary concern for air quality impacts. Startup and shutdown emissions from turbines,

like higher emissions during startup and shutdown of many emission units, are simply another

aspect ofthe variation in emissions ofparticular emission units that must be appropriately

addressed during permitting.

The construction permits now being issued by the Agency do make clear that a peaker

plant must account for all its emissions, including emissions during startup and shutdown, when

-14-

demonstrating compliance with annual emission limits. Construction permits also have

provisions requiring peaker plants to implement measures to minimize emissions ofthe turbines

associated with starti.ip and shutdown. These provisions are general in nature and would be

subject to further refinement based on actual operating experience when operating permit

applications are processed. The permits do not have specific limitations on the amount of

emissions during startup and shutdown. Such provisions may be appropriate for cases where the

elevated emissions ofan emission unit during such periods would threaten air quality or when

startup procedures can vary greatly due to unique aspects ofindividual startups. These are not

the circumstances for peaker turbines, where startup is a rapid, automated process.

The Agency also expects gas turbinesto emit greater amounts ofCO and VOM during

low load operation as combustion efficiency ofturbines frequently goes down with low load

operation.5 Like startup and shutdown, these effects are such that emissions would be higher

when expressed as an emission factor. However, emissions may not be higher when expressed

in pounds per hour, as the reduction in load (heat input) compensates for the higher emission

factor. The extent ofthe actual increase again depends upon the performance ofthe particular

model ofturbine and how consistent its performance is over its normal load range. The extent of

the perceived increases also depends upon the precision ofthe emission data submitted in the

application. Ifan application is conservatively developed with worst-case hourly emission rates

and emission factors, turbine load may not be a consideration in setting appropriate short-term

emissions limits forthe turbine.

15-

Construction permits are developed with appropriate provisions to address variations in

turbine emissions with load. Emission testing is required over the normal operating range ofthe

turbine. Separate h~rt-téi~ihemisiion limits are set for reduced load operation if needed.

Finally, restrictions on operation at reduced load are set if needed to protect ambient air quality

(See also Question

15).

Please comment on whetherthe United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) should revoke the nitrogen oxides (NOx) waiver with respect to Illinois. In the

Agency’s response, please address the following:

The removal of the NOx waiver would have ramifications that are well beyond the scope

ofthis proceeding. Therefore, the NOx waiver should not be revoked based solely on pèaker

plants.

As stated in the Agency’s testimony, current modeling shows that emissions from

currently permitted and proposed peaker plants will not interfere with the area’s ability to attain

the ozone NAAQS. The decision on the NOx waiver should be made by U.S. EPA in the context

of its review ofthe attainment demonstration for the Chicago area.

To the extent that reducing emissions from peakers is deemed appropriate, these

reductions can be accomplished through the imposition of control measures that are more

appropriate to address this group of sources rather than by the revocation ofthe NOx waiver.

In the Agency’s response, please address the following:

~ Within the normal operating range ofa turbine, where NOx control measures are effective, NOx emissions are

generally consideredto be greatest at maximum load. As load on the turbine is reduced, NOx emissions also go

down.

-16-

the implications for NOx emitters, including existing and proposed peaker

plants, if USEPA revokes the NOx waiver;

If the Chicag2~Legal Clinic’s petition for revocation ofthe NOx waiver forNew Source

Review (NSR) were granted, it would have no effect on existing and currently permitted peakers

as there would be no retroactive effect. If NSR became effective prior to issuance ofan air

pollution construction permit, a proposed peakers with the potential to emit (PTE) of25 tons per

year (TPY) or more ofNOx would have to demonstrate that its NOx emissions would meet the

lowest achievable emission rate (LAER). Applicants would also need to demonstrate that its

potential NOx emissions would be offset by a 1.3:1 ratio ofemission reductions upon

commencing operation.

the

Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) findings on NOx and

USEPA’s NOx State Implementation Plan (SIP) call; and

The NOx waiver granted for the Lake Michigan area recognized that OTAG was

conducting an extensive evaluation of regional ozone transport and its causes and solutions.

Therefore, the waiver was granted on a contingent basis and would be re-examined in the context

ofthe attainment demonstrations submitted by the Lake Michigan states for the area. In general,

the findings ofOTAG addressed the impacts ofregional NOx emission reductions and did not

specifically address local impacts that may result in a NOx disbenefit.

The NOx SIP Call specifically provides that it does not impact any NOx waiver a state

may have been granted. Also, the NOx waiver does not bar a state from imposing control

measures on NOx sources as necessary for the state to demonstrate attainment with the 1-hour

ozone standard or to address ozone transport.

17-

any relationship

between the

NOx waiver and USEPA’s cap on NOx

emissions for Illinois under the SIP call, including any anticipated impact on the cap

USEPA revokes the NOx waiver.

The NOx waiver did not impact the setting ofthe State’s NOx emissions cap and, thus, if

U.S. EPA revokes the NOx waiver, it will not impact the cap: Further, the NOx waiver does not

bar a state from imposing control measures on NOx sources as necessary for the state to

demonstrate attainment with the 1-hour ozone standard. However, removal ofthe NOx waiver

may limit NOx emissions from new stationary sources.

The NOx SIP Call specifically provides that it does not impact any NOx waiver a state

may have been granted. The NOx emissions cap imposed upon the State under the NOx SIP

Call, subject to trading, will control growth ofNOx emissions.

In the

rulemaking pending

before the Board docketed

RO1-9, Proposed

New

Ill.Adm.Code 217.Subpart W, the NOx Trading Program for Electrical Generating

Units,

and Amendments to 35 Ill.Adm.Code 211 and 217, the Agency has proposed a NOx

emissions budget of30,701 tons per ozone season for electrical generating units (EGUs),

based upon USEPA’s NOx emissions cap for Illinois under the SIP call.

Please describe how the NOx budget would impact existing and proposed

peaker plants. In addition, please explain what this impact would be if all ofthose peaker

plants converted to combined cycle plants operating all year.

The NOx allowances available for distribution in Illinois will be based upon actual heat

input,

i.e.,

a plant’s historical operation. As the number of allowances for the state is capped at

30,701 tons per season, the Agency can allocate no more than that number. Therefore, more or

fewer peaker plants will not affect the number of allowances that the Agency will allocate. More

or fewer peaker plants may affect the number ofallowances allocated to any given plant,

however. Ifthe pool of allowances available for EGUs is over-subscribed, then the allowances

-18-

allocated to eligible EGUs will be pro-rated. As the rule requires each subject unit to surrender

an allowance for each ton ofNOx emitted during the control period (May 1 through September

30 ofeach year ofthe program), EGUs may have to purchase allowances in addition to those the

Agency allocates in order to meet the reconciliation requirem~nts.

Conversion ofa peaker plant to a combined cycle plant would have no effect on the

number ofallowances available for the Agency to allocate. However, because a combined cycle

plant is likely to operate more hours during a year than a peaker plant, its heat input would be

greater, thus making it eligible for a larger number ofallowances from the Agency’s allocation

pool. On the other hand, if a lower emission rate in lb NOx/mmBtu is established in the permit

allowing conversion to combined cycle operation, the plant would be entitled to fewer

allowances per unit ofoperation. Of course, if the pool is over-subscribed, allocations would be

pro-rated.

Would the Agency deny a construction permit to a peaker plant applicant

because the portion

ofthe NOx budget reserved for new sources has

been

purchased, or

would the applicant simply be left to purchase allowances on the market?

The Agency does not have the authority to deny a construction permit to a peaker plant

applicant simply because the NOx budget reserved for new sources is depleted. Even though the

Agency may not allocate sufficient allowances to new sources to cover their operations during, a

control period, the sources may go to the national market to obtain the necessary numberof

allowances. In fact, since the New Source Set-Aside (NSSA) may be over-subscribed, the

proposed rules provide that the Agency will pro-rate the number ofallowances available in the

NSSA to eligible new EGUs. In such circumstances, the Agency anticipates that new EGUs will

-19-

either manage their operations to match the number of allowances they were issued or that they

will go to the market to purchase any additional allowances to enable them to meet their

reconciliationrequii~rnents.

Please describe any anticipated impact on allowance allocations in Illinois if

USEPA revokes the NOx waiver.

Revocation ofthe NOx waiver would have no impact on the number of allowances

available for allocation in Illinois.

Please explain what would constitute the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)

for peaker plants and for combined cycle plants. In the

Agency’s response, please address

the control technology in Standard Power and Light’s draft permit application, including

its

technical feasibility and economic reasonableness. See Standard Power and Light

Exhibit 1.

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) is determined on a case-by-case basis for a

particular project. Nevertheless, because ofthe stringent nature ofLAER, which requires the

emissions rate to be set at the most stringent emission limit required of or achieved by another

similar source, it is easier to speculate on what would currently be considered LAER for different

types ofplants.

LAER for a peaker turbine would almost certainly require use ofadd-on control for

emissions ofNOx. This is based on available information, such as the California Air Resources

Board (CARB) Power Plant Guidance Document that indicates that add-on control systems are

being used on at least a handful ofpeaker turbines in California. The only exception that might

apply is to a “peaking” peaking turbine, perhaps a portable turbine that would only operate for

only a very limited period of time when all other peaking resources were being utilized. The

-20-

associated emission limit for NOx for normal operation ofthe turbine with the add-on control

device would be no greater than

ppm, based on the performance ofsuch systems reported by

CARB.

LAER for a combined-cycle turbine would certainly require use ofadd-on control for

NOx. Add-on control devices are routinely used on new combined cycle power plants

throughout the country. The associated emission limit for NOx for normal operation of the

turbine with the add-on control device would be no greater than

2.5

ppm, based on the

performance of such systems reported by CARB.

The Agency is not in a position to comment on the technical feasibility and economic

reasonableness of the SCONOX~control system now being proposed by Standard Energy

Ventures for its proposed plant in West Chicago. However, the proposed add-on control system

will likely be found to satisfy

BACT for

peaker turbines as required for the proposed plant, as it

would potentially be’ a major source for emissions ofNOx. The proposed system would also be

likely to be found to satisfy LAER at this time. Ifthe proposed plant is developed with

SCONOX’~,the feasibility of this type ofcontrol system will have been demonstrated in Illinois

for the turbines on which it has been installed. Standard Energy Venture’s initial application

proposed to install 32 “small” peaker turbines each with a capacity of25 MW, with a proposed

NOx emission limit set at

ppm as achieved with water injectedcombustors. The application

did not demonstrate that another selection ofturbines could not reasonably be made that would

result in lower emissions ofNOx overall. Accordingly, the Agency required some form ofadd-

-21-

on control, as would be provided by SCONOX or SCR, as appropriate for BACT if the plant

would be developed with the number and model of turbines originally proposed.

10.

Please explain whether any peaker plants currently

proposed in Illinois plan to use

combustion

modification techniques, such as the dry-low NOx burner system, to reduce

emissions. Please provide

any

information

that

the Agency may have

the capital cost of

adding

such a modification, including the capital cost

ofadding a dry-low NOx burner

system. Also, please provide any

information that the Agency may have on how much it

would cost a typical peaker

plant

to demonstrate Best Available

Control

Technology

(BACT).

As a general matter, all peaker turbines being proposed in Illinois should be considered to

use combustion modification techniques forNOx. However, the nature and effectiveness of

these techniques varies based on the particularmodel ofturbine selected for a plant. In general,

frame turbines can currently achieve levels ofNOx emission levels with dry low NOx

combustors that are lower than those achieved by aero-derivative turbines due to their

characteristics (larger size and lower working air pressures). Aero-derivative turbines currently

must be equipped with water injected combustors to equal the performance ofmany newframe

turbines (25 ppm NOx) and cannot approach the level of emissions achievable by the lowest

emitting frame turbines (9 to 12 ppm NOx).

The Agency does not have information on the capital costs that would be entailed if the

existing combustors or new turbines were replacedwith-newermodels ofcombustors that

achieve lower rates ofNOx emissions. Moreover, the ability to upgrade the combustors on a

particular turbine also depends on the model ofturbine involved. Ifthe manufacturer ofthe

turbine does not have better combustors developed for a particular model ofturbine, the upgrade

to better combustors would be a site-specific effort to design, manufacture, evaluate and possibly

rework such combustors. The effectiveness of these efforts may be constrained by the layout and

configuration ofthe combustors so that it would be unrealistic to expect any such retrofit

combustor design to ever be as effective as a new low-NOx combustor designed in conjunction

with the turbine itself. It is the Agency’s general understanding that the manufacturers of

turbines concentrate their efforts on developing better combustors for their new models of

turbines. The older a turbine is, the less likely that a low-NOx replacement combustor is already

available for a unit.

The Agency does not have specific information on what it would cost a typical peaker

plant to prepare a BACT demonstration. However, the Agency does not believe that this cost

itself should be considered significant, given the overall cost ofpeaker plants. The more

significant effect ofa BACT demonstration is additional time for and uncertainty in the outcome

ofthe Agency’s review ofa proposed plant. At a minimum, preparation and review ofa BACT

demonstration adds several months to the processing ofa construction permit application for a

proposed peaker plant.

11.

Robert J. Kaleel of the Agency stated that results ofphotochemical modeling

indicate that ozone increases in the range of one to four parts per billion (ppb) can be

expected when all peaker plants in Illinois operate simultaneously on high ozone days. See

Agency Group Exhibit 1. Please describe all ofthe parameters used in the Agency’s

modeling, including the ambient conditions, the inventory ofemission sources, and the

characteristics of those emission sources. In addition, please explain how requiring BACT

for

all

existing and proposed peaker plants would affect the modeled ozone results.

The Agency’s ozone modeling is based on the use of high ozone events or “episodes”

which occurred in the Lake Michigan region during 1991 and

1995.

The purpose ofthis

modeling, like other modeling conducted by the Agency, is to evaluate ambient concentration of

-23-

pollutants in the atmosphere. Meteorological and emissions data that represent those that

occurred during these specific periods are used in the modeling. The meteorological data for the

grid cells characteriies wind direction and speed, temperature, pressure, humidity, and

turbulence from the surface to several kilometers into the atmosphere for each time step

(typically 4 to 6 minutes). Cloud and precipitation fields are characterized from National

Weather Service observations. The model also contains a numerical chemical algorithm that

calculates all the chemical reactions expected from the interaction ofpollutants with the

meteorology.

The emissions inventory includes hourly emissions for volatile organic compounds

(VOC), oxides ofnitrogen (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) for each grid cell in the domain.

Emissions are included from anthropogenic (man-made) and biogenic (naturally occurring)

sources known to emit these compounds, including motor vehicles (both on-road and off-road),

industrial orpoint sources (smoke-stacks either low or elevated in height), area sources (fuel

combustion, commercial and consumer solvents, etc), and biogenic emissions (from plants, soil,

and other naturally occurring emission sources).

The Agency’s modeling ofthe peakers was based on LADCO’s future year, attainment

modeling. This modeling assumes both growth for each source category, and control based on

the NOx SIP Call and all other control measures anticipated by the attaimnent year, 2007. These

measures include Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance, Phase II— reformulated gasoline, Tier

2 automotive standards, low sulfur gasoline, standards on heavy-duty vehicles, and other

measures required by the Clean Air Act. Emissions were then included from all new peaker

-24

plants for which applications are active or permits have been issued as oflate July. Emissions

were also included for new combined cycle plants.

The Agency would expect the imposition ofa BACT requirement on existing and

proposed peaker plants to have, at most, a small effect on overall ozone air quality. Because

BACT is a case-by-case determination made during issuance ofa construction permit for a new

or modified emission unit, the Agency can only speculate on the extent to which a BACT

requirement for existing and proposed peaker plants would lower the NOx emissions of

individual plants, if at all. However, it should be remembered that some new peaker plants are

major sources and are already or will be subject to BACT pursuant to the federal PSD program.

Many other new peaker plants have installed the same models ofturbines or turbines achieving

similar NOx emission levels as have been formally been determined to constitute BACT for the

major sources. Existing peaker plants and new plants using existingturbines also would

probably be determined to have BACT as the turbines are operated infrequently and would be

particularly expensive to update with combustors emitting lower NOx.6 As a result, most peaker

plants would not be affected by a BACT requirement.

There are certainly some newly built peaker plants that could be affected by imposition of

a BACT requirement. However, the level ofNOx reduction that would be achieved by

imposition ofa BACT requirement on such plants would probably not be large. The available

reduction in NOx emissions at these potentially affected plants would be constrained by the

Cost-effectiveness is a consideration in a BACT determination.. The emission reduction accompanying further

control of a peaker turbine must generally be considered to be small because a peaker turbine is idle most of the

year, only operating during periods of peak demand or to supply power on an emergency basis. This is particularly

true for older units that are less efficient in converting fuel to electricity and thus the less desirable to operate.

-25-

turbines that are installed at these plants. In this regard, BACT would likely require optimum

use of installed NOx control measures and possibly derating ofthe turbines to lower NOx

emissions. It would be unusual that a requirement for BACT could justify installation of add-on

controls7 for these plants orreplacement ofthe existing combüstors before they would normally

be replaced.

Further modeling would be needed to quantitatively evaluate the effect on ozone air

quality ofthe NOx reductions accompanying imposition of a BACT requirement.

12.

Please describe all ofthe parameters used in the

dispersion

modeling that has been

conducted for peaker plants and submitted to the Agency. In the Agency’s response, please

address whether this modeling accounts for the temperature and speed ofthe air emissions.

Also, please explain whether the Agency has or will have actual monitoring data to verify

the results ofthe dispersion modeling.

The following parameters are considered in the dispersion modeling analyses for peaker

plants. For stacks, site—specific information about stack location, height, diameter, flow rate,

emission rate, and exit velocity is characterized. In addition, wake effects from nearby buildings

are included based on plot plans and elevation data. Aerodynamic downwash can have a

significant impact on the magnitude of pollutant concentrations at nearby locations. The

dispersion model incorporates

years (43,800 hours) ofmeteorological data in a comprehensive

attempt to capture all possible meteorological conditions that could occur. As a result, modeling

determines worst-case pollutant concentrations that may result from a proposed plant.

~ The nature of peaker turbines is such that NOx emissions are generallybest minimized through pollution control,

i.e., use of appropriate combustion modifications, rather than use of add-on control devices. In the regulatory

context of BACT, it would be hoped that arequirement that an existing peaker plant install add-on emissions control

for NOx would only occur in exceptional circumstances.

With regard to ambient monitoring data, the Agency has established a statewide network

to monitor ambient levels ofpollutants consistent with the forms ofthe standards for each of

those pollutants. Illinois’ ambient monitoring network exceeds the federal requirements for such

networks. Since Illinois has attained the NAAQS for all the criteria pollutants (except for ozone

and, technically, for PMIO), we have not employed site-specific monitors as part ofour

statewide network, with the exception ofcertain monitors for lead in southwestern Illinois.

However, actual monitoring data are used to determine the actual air quality experienced

in13.an areaWithandrespectare not

used

existing

to specifically

and proposed

verify

peaker

the results

plants

ofdispersion

and combined

modeling.

cycle

plants in

Illinois, please comment on the discussion of BACT, health

risk assessments,

and “other

permitting considerations” in the California Environmental Protection Agency Air

Resources Board “Guidance for Power Plant Siting and Best Available Control

Technology,” dated

July

22, 1999. See McCarthy Exhibit 2.

The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Guidance is ofparticular assistance to the

State of Illinois as it provides factual information ofNOx emission levels being demonstrated by

certain new power plants in California. It should be noted that the definition of“BACT” used in

this document is the defmition of”LAER” used by U.S. EPA and the state ofIllinois. The

guidance also confirms the appropriateness of the enhanced practices currently being used by the

Agency to review construction permit applications for proposed new turbine based power plants.

14.

PLease comment on the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness ofusing

the XONONTM emission control technology to reduce NOx emissions from existing and

proposed peaker plants and combined cycle plants.

‘Ambient monitoring was used to verif~’the accuracy ofthe photochemical model developed forthe Lake Michigan

region.

-27

XONON~catalytic combustion technology is a very promising combustion

modification technique forturbines. Unfortunately, the technology has not yet been developed

for the larger turbine~sbeing used in new power plants. Accordingly, while this technology is

certainly technically feasible in a general sense, it cannot be considered available for the projects

that are now being developed in Illinois.

15.

The Agency stated that it is, as a matter ofadministrative discretion, requiring

peaker plant applicants for air permits to conduct certain air modeling. Please explain

what actions the Agency has taken or might takewith respect to such an application based

on these modeling results.

The site-specific air quality analyses prepared forthe proposed peaker plants generally do

not result in the imposition ofadditional conditions in the construction permits issued for

proposed peaker plants. This is because the analyses generally show that the proposed plants

will not have impacts that threaten9 air quality and the proposed plants are held to the emission

levels represented by the applicants in their applications, irrespective ofthe specific preparation

ofthe air quality analyses.

If the air quality analysis demonstrated that a proposed plant could not be routinely

operated at the emission rates set forth in the application without threatening air quality, the

application would be denied.

If an air quality analysis identified a particular configuration ofturbine operation that

would threaten air quality, the permit would most likely contain a condition restricting that mode

For purposes of this discussion, a source is considered to threaten air quality if the result would threaten

continued attainment of the air quality standards. In many cases, the impact ofthe peakerplant is below USEPA’s

numerical “de minimis” impact levels. Ifthis is not the case for a pollutant, the modeled impacts ofthe proposed

source, the modeled impacts ofother significant existing and proposed sources in the vicinity ofthe proposed

-28-

of operation. An example of such a configuration might be low-load operation ofall turbines at

the maximum emission rates for low-load operation identified in the application. Rather than

restricting the partr~iarmode ofoperation outright, the more likely approach would be to limit

plant-wide emissions (emissions ofall turbines at a plant) to a level at which plant operation and

emissions would not threaten air quality.’0 The permit might also contain a requirement for

further evaluation if the plant ever actually operated in the particular configuration.

16.

Please clarify whether air emissions from all existing and proposed peaker plants

would impair the State’s

ability

to comply with applicable air quality standards.

The Agency is satisfied that the applicants have adequately demonstrated that the

proposed peaker plants will be only minor contributors to air quality levels for the criteria

pollutants (NO2, CO. SO2, particulates), and will not hinder the State’s efforts to maintain the

NAAQS for those pollutants. For ozone, the Agency is still working on the development ofan

attainment demonstration for the Lake Michigan region based on the NOx SIP Call. The peaker

plants will be considered in the Agency’s attainment plan, and modeling to date has shown that

the peakers clearly have a small, but noticeable effect on ozone concentrations. At present, the

Agency expects to be able to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard based on the

NOx SIP Call requirements, even considering the effects ofpeaker plants.

source, together with background levels ofair quality as determined from a representative ambient monitoring

station are compared to the applicable air quality standard and the PSD air quality increment.

Such a requirement is possible because peaker plants are developed with multiple turbines. Accordingly, changes

in demand for electric power can be addressed by putting turbines in or out ofservice. This allows turbines to

normally operate in theirupper load range, where they are most efficient and emissions performance is consistent.

-29.

17.

Please describe the air permitting requirements with which the Agency anticipates

an operating peaker plant would have to comply to convert to a combined cycle plant, both

in attainment and nonattainment areas for ozone.

The Agenc5’~iticipatèsthat the proposed conversion ofa peaker plant to a combined

cycle plant would be a modification that would triggerthe requirement to obtain a PSD permit.

This is because the potential increase in annual emissions ofNOx accompanying such a

conversion would most likely exceed 100 tons. This reflects our experience with the new plants

that are proposed to be developed from the beginning as combined cycle plants.” The only

exception would be if the conversion involves turbines located at the site ofa coal-fired power

plant and would be accompanied by a net reduction in emissions due to reduced emissions of the

coal-fired boiler (as could occur from shutdown, reduced utilization, or further emissions control

for the existing boiler).

The Agency cannot be so definite as to whether the proposed conversion of a peaker

plant to a combined cycle plant in an ozone nonattainment area would trigger the requirementto

obtain a nonattainment NSR permit forVOM emissions. This is because the potential annual

VOM emissions ofa combined cycle turbine, depending upon the particular model ofturbine,

may be below 25 tons. In this regard, even if the potential VOM emissions in the absence ofan

oxidation catalyst would be in excess of

tons, the applicant might voluntarily use a~oxidation

catalyst to maintain status as a non-major project for purposes of nonattainment NSR.

~‘

This conclusion reflects the Agency’s experience that combined cycle plants have at least300 MW of capacity

and the developers want the plants to be permitted for continuous operation. The actual levels of operation and

annual NOx emissions of peaker plants, which would be the starting point

for

determining the potential increase in

emissions accompanying proposed conversion from a peakingpla~-ttoa combined cycle plant, are small and would

not be large enough to accommodate operation ofa turbine as a combined cycle unit without a major increase in

NOx emissions.

Please comment on whether the Agency would expect a combined cycle plant

to be used to meet peak electricity demands.

All power 2lants are used to meet peak electricity demands. During periods of peak

electricity demand, base-load power plants and the cyclic power plants are in service, which

would also include combined cycle plants. During periods ofpeak power demand, these plants

are in service to the extent possible because they can generate power less expensively than

peaker plants. In addition, during periods ofpeak power demand, peaker power plants come into

service to provide the further power that the other categories ofplants do not have the capacity to

provide.

Please describe

how the Agency’s responses to questions 1 and 2 above would

differ for existing and proposed combined cycle plants.

The Agency has not considered the circumstances ofexisting peaker power plants,

defined as peaker plants in existence prior to 1990.

Please describe how the Agency’s responses to question 17(b) above would

differ if all

existing

and proposed peaker plants converted to combined cycle plants

operating all year.

Further modeling would be required to provide an answer to this question.

18.

Please provide an updated list

ofall

existing

(built and under construction) and

proposed (permitted and permit applications under review) combined cycle plants in

Illinois. Please include

the following information in the

listing:

permit number and

expiration date; company name; street address, including city/town and county; type of

plant

(Le.,

merchant plant;

utility

or private company); attainment or nonattainment area

for ozone; type offuel; turbine manufacturer and model number; number of turbines; type

ofturbines; total megawatts; NOx control technology; NOx emission rate (parts per million

(ppm) and pounds per million British Thermal Units

(lblmmbtu));

total permitted annual

NOx (tons/year) and any other time period-based emission limit;

limits

on hours of

operation and fuel consumption; and applicable air pollution control regulations.

-31-

The Agency will not be able to provide this level ofdetailed information by the filing

deadline for these q~stioj~s

and perhaps not by the hearing dates. Obtaining all ofthis

information will require a permit-by-permit review as well as conversions of some information

into the value requested by the Board. Please note that the Agency cannot tell whether a plant is

a merchant plant, utility, or private company; this information is beyond the scope of information

necessary for the Agency to evaluate the appropriateness ofissuing a permit. Therefore, the

Agency will not be ableto provide that information to the Board at this time.

19.

Please

explain whether the Agency has received any air permit applications to add

peaker units at any existing sources.

This information will be provided with # 18.

20.

Please provide an updated list of all existing (built and under construction) and

proposed (permitted and permit applications under review) peaker plants in Illinois.

Please include the following information in the listing: permit number and expiration date;

company name; street address, including city/town and county; typeof

plant

(Le.,

merchant plant; utility or private company); attainment or nonattainment area for ozone;

type of fuel; turbine manufacturer and model number; number ofturbines; type of

turbines; total megawatts;

NOx control technology; NOx emission rate (parts per million

(ppm) and pounds per million

British Thermal Units

(lb/mmbtu)); total permitted annual

NOx (tons/year) and any other time period-based emission limit; limits on hours of

operation and fuel consumption; and applicable air pollution control regulations.

The Agency will obtain this information at the same time that it gathers the information

to answer # 18 and will provide the response in the same timeframe. Again, please note that the

Agency cannot tell whether a plant is a merchant plant, a utility, or a private company.

21.

Please comment on concerns raised at hearing regarding the adequacy of the

Board’s existing numeric noise standards to address peaker plants, including the issues of

-32-

low frequency noise

(Le.,

vibrations), numeric noise standards based on area background

levels of noise, and nighttime noise standards applying all weekend.

The Agenc~’j~not aware of any concerns at this time regarding the noise emissions of

peakerplants that requires changes in the Board’s existing numeric noise standards. These

standards have proven to be adequate to address nearly all noise ~ourcesfor the last 27 years. In

addition, local units ofgovernment may impose more stringent noise requirements if they believe

such additional requirements are appropriate for their communities.

The issue oflow frequency noise, specifically infrasonics,

(i.e.,

vibrations) does not lend

itself to a numerical standard at this time. The problem is probably best addressed by measuring

the effect on nearby residences (shaking, rattling, secondary noise from dinnerware, bric-a-brac,

windows vibrating) and coupling these infrasonic and structural vibration measurements with the

testimony of the residents to establish unreasonable interference. The nuisance portion (Section

900.102) ofthe noise regulations can then be used to pursue relief.

Numeric noise standards are already based on area background levels ofnoise. Under the

Measurement Procedures in Section 900.103(b), Procedures Applicable only to 35 111. Adm.

Code 901 of the Board’s Noise Regulations, “All suchmeasurements and measurement

procedures shall correct or provide forthe correction ofsuch emissions for the presence of

ambient noise

. . .“

For the purposes of this discussion, background levels ofnoise and

ambient noise are synonymous.

Regarding nighttime noise standards applying all weekend, as noted above, we do not

currently knowof any reason to change the numeric noise standards. Local units ofgovernment

-33-

may impose more stringent weekend noise requirements if they believe such additional

requirements are appropriate for their communities.

22.

Other than staffing and resources issues, please describe any problems the Agency

would anticipate if demonstrating compliance with numeric noise standards was made a

part of the air permitting process.

The Illinois EPA currently has an internal mechanism for insuring a demonstration of

compliance with numeric noise standards. This procedure has been a part ofthe land permitting

process for several years when reviewing land permit applications for gas turbines used to

generate electricity from landfills.

Currently, the air construction permit application does not include noise pollution

information. Assuming adequate funding and personnel (neither of which exist today), if

information addressing noise pollution were submitted with air construction permit applications,

the Illinois EPA could coordinate the permit review process by routing the noise portion ofthe

air permit application to the appropriate personnel.

23.

For plants identified in response to questions 18 and 20 above,

please identify those

facilities which have received or applied with the Agency for National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) for State water permits. For these plants, please provide any

information that the Agency may have on the characteristics and volume ofwastewater

being or to be discharged and the type ofpermit

issued

or requested.

See Attached Table.

24.

Please explain

whether existing laws and regulations address the storage, handling,

and potential release ofhazardous chemicals (such as hydrogen) and back-up fuel at

existing and proposed peaker plants.

Existing laws and rules address the storage, handling and accidental release ofany fuel

oil or hazardous materials at peaker plants. The provisions for storage of fuel oil are well

-34-

developed, given the routine nature ofthese facilities, the large volumes in which oil may be

stored, the potential consequences from accidental releases, and the financial liability ofthe

owner of a tank fo~iich

release. In particular, secondary containment, i.e., dikes,~would be

required for bulk fuel oil storage at peaker plants, The storage and handling ofhazardous

materials at plants is addressed under the program for Prevention of Accidental Releases,

established by Section 112(r) ofthe Clean Air Act. This program requires sources with

significant quantities ofa hazardous

12 to evaluate the potential for accidental releases, to

undertake actions to minimize the potential for such releases, and, working with local emergency

response agencies, to prepare contingency plans for any such release.

For hydrogen under the Accidental Release Program, USEPA has defined 10,000 pounds asa significant

quantity.

-35-

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Sco~I~.Phillips

Deputy Counsel

Division ofLegal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue, East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217/782-5544

217/782-9143 (TDD)

Dated: October 4, 2000

Peakin2 Plants

Facility

County

Permits

Flows

(MGD)

Wastestreams

Pollutants

of Concern

Water

Source

Peoples Gas Light

& Coke

Elwood

Energy III, LLC

Will

1L00748 11

(Pending)

0.06 1 DAF

0.115 DMF

Evaporative Cooler

Blowdown

PH, Temp.

TDS

Well

Ameren Energy

Generating Co.

Gibson City

Ford

2000-EE-0680

0.042 DAF

Evaporative Cooler

Blowdown, Misc.

Equipment Drains,

Turbine Cleaning

Waters, and Sanitary

pH, Oil and

Grease, TDS

Muni-

Supply

and Well

Reliant Energy /

Shelby Energy

Center

Neoga

Shelby

2000-EB-5480

2000-EB-

5480-1

0.134 DAF

0.200 DMF

Cooling Tower

Blowdown, Filter

Backwash, Misc.

Plant Drains

TSS, TDS,

pH, Oil and

Grease

Surface

Water

Reliant Energy

Aurora

Dupage

2000-EN-l415

0.361 DAF

0.577 DMF

Cooling Tower

Blowdown,

Evaporative Cooler

Blowdown, Air

Compressor Cooling

Water, Misc. Plant

Drains, Gas

Compressor

Condensate,

Sanitary

TSS, TDS,

pH, Oil and

Grease

Well

Constellation

Power, Inc.

University Park

Energy, LLC

Will

2000-EE-0817

0.079 DAF

0.165 DMF

Evaporative Cooler

Blowdown, RO

Brine, Oil/Water

Separator Effluent,

Sanitary

TSS, TDS,

pH, Oil and

Grease

Muni

Supply

Illinois Power!

Dynegy

Tilton

EneEgy Center

Vermilion

1999-HB-2123

2000-EE-075 1

0.086 DAF

0.150 DMF

Cooling Tower

Blowdown,

Demineralizer

Regenerant, Filter

Backwash, Brine

pH, TSS,

TDS

Muni-

Supply

-37-

Waste, Chiller

Water, Sanitary

Dynegy / Rocky *

Road

Rocky

Road Power, LLC

Kane

F999-EP~373I

Minimal *

and

Intermittent

Turbine Washwater

and

Stormwater

TSS and Oil

and Grease

Not

Known

Facility

County

Permits

Flows

(MGD)

•

Wastestreams

Pollutants

of Concern

Water

Source

Ameren Energy

Generating Co.-

Pinckneyville

Perry

2000-EE-0708

0.0 17 DAF

Cooling Tower

Blowdown, Misc.

Equipment Drains,

Turbine Cleaning

Wastewater,

Sanitary

pH, Oil and

Grease, TDS

Well and /

or Muni-

Supply

Ameren Energy

Generating Co.

Kinmundy

Marion

NPDES and

State Permits

Pending

0.042 DAF

Turbine Cleaning

Wastewater, Oil /

Water Separator

Effluent,

Evaporative Cooler

Blowdown, Sanitary

TSS, Oil and

Grease, TDS

Muni-

Supply

Dynegy

Stallings

Granite City

Madison

IL0074837

0.025 DAF

0.062 DMF

Evaporative Cooler

Blowdown

Temperature,

Total

Residual

Chlorine,

TDS

Muni-

Supply

* This facility generates a very minimal amout of wastewater, which is collected and hauled to a

centralized waste treatment facility

NOTE: Facilities of this type may also use various chemical additives for biofouling and

corrosion

control, either on a continual or intermittent basis.

-38-

Combined Cycle

County

Permits

Flows

(MCD)

Wastestreams

Pollutants

of Concern

Water

Plants

Source

LS Power

Minooka

LSP Kendall

Energy, LLC

Kendall

1L0073806

1.50 DAF

2.37 DMF

Misc

Plant Drains,

Oil/Water Separator

Efifuent, RO Reject,

Demineralizer

Regenerant, Cooling

Tower Blowdown,

Evaporative Cooler

Blowdown,

Stormwater

pH, TSS, Oil

and Grease,

Chromium,

Zinc,

Copper, Iron,

Temperature,

Total

Residual

Chlorine

Illinois

River

LS Power / Lee

County

LSP

Nelson Generation

Lee

1L0074209

1.50 DAF

2.37 DMF

Misc Plant Drains,

Oil/Water Separator

Effluent, RO Reject,

Demineralizer

Regenerant, Cooling

Tower Blowdown,

Evaporative Cooler

Blowdown,

Stormwater

pH, TSS, Oil

and Grease,

Chromium,

Zinc,

Copper4 Iron,

Temperature,

Total

Residual

Chlorine

Rock

River

and/or

Private

Wells

Constellation

Power

Holland

Energy, LLC

Shelby

1L0074268

1.4 DMF

Cooling Tower

Blowdown,

Evaproative Cooler

Blowdown, Clarifier

Sludge Dewatering,

Plant Sumps and

Drains

TSS, Oil and

Grease,TDS,

Sulfates,

Temperature,

Total

Residual

Chlorine,

Zinc,

Phosphorus,

Chromium

Kaskaskia

River

Duke Energy

Kankakee, LLC

Kankakee State Permit

Pending

0.72 DAF

0.75 DMF

Cooling Tower

Blowdown, Filter

Backwash, RO

Reject, Misc.

Equipment Drains,

Sanitary

TSS, TDS,

Oil and

Grease,

Temp

Muni-

Supply

NOTE: Facilities of this type may also use various

corrosion control, either on a continual or intermittent basis.

chemical additives for biofouling and

-39-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned attorney at law, hereby certify that on October 4, 2000, I served true

and correct copies ofan AGENCY RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS, submitted on recycled paper,

by placing true and correct copies thereof in properly sealed and addressed envelopes and by

sending said sealed envelopes via overnight express delivery, upon the following named persons:

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Amy L. Jackson, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

600 South Second Street

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 402

Suite 11-500

Springfield, IL 62704

Chicago, IL 60601

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

j~eIO. Phillips

Deputy Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue, East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217/782-5544

217/782-9143 (TDD)

-40-