ORIGINAL
Page
1
1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
2
CLERK’s OFFICE
3
IN
THE
MATTER
OF:
)FEa-3
2004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
4
Poftution Control
Board
5
PROPOSED
SITE
SPECIFIC REGULATION
6
APPLICABLE
TO AMEREN ENERGY
)
R04-ll
7
GENERATING
COMPANY,
ELOIN,
ILLINOIS
S
AMENDING 35
ILL. ADMIN CODE
901
9
10
12.
12
The following
is a transcript
had in
13
the above-entitled
cause before HEARING OFFICER JOHN
14
KNITTLE,
taken stenographically
before TERRY
A.
15
STRONER,
CSR,
a notary public within and for the
16
County
of Will and State
of Illinois,
at 100 West
17
Randolph
Street,
Chicago,
Illinois,
on the 22nd day
15
of January,
A.D.,
2004,
scheduled
to commence
at
19
1:00 o’clock p.m.,
commencing
at
1:25 o’clock p.m.
20
21
22
23
24
Page 2
1
APPEARANCES:
2
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
2125 South First Street
3
Champaign,
Illinois 61820
(217)
278-3111
4
BY:
MR. JOHN KNITTLE,
HEARING OFFICER
5
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
6
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph Street
7
20th Floor
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
8
(312)
814-6986
BY:
MR. JOEL
J.
STERNSTEIN
9
Appeared on behalf
of the Attorney General,
10
SCHIFF HARDIN,
LLP.,
11
6600 Sears Tower
Chicago,
Illinois 60606
12
(312)
258-5519
BY:
MS. MARILI McFAWN and MR. JOSHUA
R. MORE
13
ALSO PRESENT:
14
Board Member Alisa Liu
15
Board Member Thomas
E. Johnson
16
Board Member Anand Rao
17
Board Member Andrea Moore
18
David Parzych
19
Gregory
Zak
20
Richard Smith
21
Howard Chinn
22
23
24
Page
3
1
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Hi, my
2
name
is John Knittle,
I am an attorney
3
assistant with the Illinois Pollution
4
Control Board.
In this matter I’m acting
5
as a hearing officer for the Illinois
6
Pollution Control Board
in the matter of
7
proposed specific regulation
applicable
8
to Ameren Energy Generating Company,
9
Elgin,
Illinois amending
35 Illinois
10
administrative
code 901.
Next to me on
11
my left
is Board Member Tom Johnson.
We
12
also have Anand Rao and Alisa Liu and
13
Lynn Delaney with the Illinois Pollution
14
Board present with us
today.
15
I have
a little background
on
16
the proposal.
I know we’re
all familiar
17
with that,
but
for the record,
I want to
18
just give
a little summary.
19
First
of all, Ameren owns a
20
power generating facility
in Elgin and
21
that consists
of four simple cycle
22
combustion turbines.
The facility
is
23
located
at 1559 Gifford Road,
that’s
24
Elgin,
in Cook County.
We had some
Page
4
1
confusion here
I1rn
going to want to
2
address.
Is any part of that facility in
3
Lake County?
4
MS. McFAWN:
Lake?
5
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
DuPage?
6
MS. McFAWN:
DuPage,
no.
7
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
It’s
8
all located in Cook County?
9
MS. McFAWN:
That’s right.
10
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
All
11
located in Cook County.
The facility
12
became operational
in November 2002.
13
It’s
a peaking facility intended to start
14
up rapidly to generate power when
15
critically needed.
16
The land immediately to the west
17
of the facility is vacant and until very
18
recently was located in unincorporated
19
Cook County and zoned industrial.
This
20
changed on June 3rd,
2003 when the
21
Village of Bartlett annexed and rezoned
22
this land for residential use at the
23
request of Realen Homes and they are a
24
residential development
corporation.
Page 5
1
Although Ameren feels the facility is in
2
compliance with the applicable
noise
3
regulations
found at 35 Illinois
4
administrative
code part 901,
it has
5
concluded that the facility will not be
6
able to meet the Class A noise limitation
7
at
901.102,
that will be applicable
if
8
the property
is used residentially.
9
Accordingly,
Ameren
is seeking
a
10
site-specific
rule that establishes
noise
11
emission limitations
for the facility
12
that are applicable
to Class A and Class
13
B receiving
lands.
14
This has been properly noticed
15
according
to Board regulations and this
16
hearing
is also noticed for the purpose
17
of an economic impact study hearing
18
pursuant to Section
27(b)
of the Act.
19
That section requires the Board to
20
request the Department
of Commerce and
21
Economic Opportunity,
formerly the
22
Department
of Commerce and Community
23
Affairs
to conduct
a study of the
24
economic impact
of the proposed rules.
Page 6
1
That
department has 30 to 40 days after
2
the study to produce the impact of the
3
proposed
rules.
The Board must make this
4
study or any explanation
for not doing
5
the study available
to the public
at
6
least
20 days before a public hearing on
7
the economic impact.
8
We,
the Board,
requested by a
9
letter dated November
19,
2003 that the
10
Department
of Commerce and Economic
11
Opportunity
to conduct an economic
impact
12
study.
No response was filed to that
13
letter.
Pursuant
to an earlier letter
14
that was dated April
17,
2003, DCEO
15
stated that they did not have the funds
16
to perform any ECIS studies and offered
17
the April
17,
2003 letter
as
it’s formal
18
response to all current and future Board
19
rulemakings.
Both this letter and the
20
Board’s
letter have been able
in the
21
Board’s offices
in this file for viewing
22
by the public from November 19th onward
23
so this hearing
is being held not only to
24
gather information,
but also to fulfill
Page 7
1
the requirements
of the ECIS hearing as
2
well.
So I’ve provided an explanation as
3
to why the Department
of Commerce and
4
Economic Opportunity
is not doing
a
5
hearing on this matter,
do we have any
6
comments on that or that explanation or
7
the requirements
of Section 27 (b)
.
I
8
don’t see anybody offering comments,
so
9
we’ll move on to the next step and
I
10
should note that we have sign-up sheets
11
for the notice and service list out front
12
there.
If there were any members
of the
13
public here present, we’d direct them
14
that they could sign up to be included on
15
the notice and service list.
The notice
16
list
is reserved
for those people only
17
wanting Board orders and opinions and
18
hearing officer orders.
The service list
19
gives you
a more complete idea of what’s
20
going on in this case and you receive
21
those
documents plus other
filings such
22
as public comments, but just for the
23
record there are no members
of the public
24
here present
today.
If,
in fact,
they
Page 8
1
were here,
again,
we would allow them to
2
sign up and present testimony.
They
3
would have to sign up making themselves
4
known
to us with their name and address
5
and time permitting,
after the parties’
6
testimony,
we would receive
the testimony
7
of those signed up,
of course there’s
8
nobody here,
so that’s really not
9
applicable,
but
if they were,
they would
10
be able to testify.
11
The public comment period will
12
be set after
the hearing and all those
13
that want to provide testimony and aren’t
14
able to here today will have that
--
take
15
advantage of
it as would
the parties
as
16
they
so desire.
17
This
hearing
is going to be
18
governed by Part 102 of the Board’s
19
rules.
All information relevant and not
20
repetitious
or privileged
will be
21
admitted
and
all
witnesses
will
be
sworn
22
and
subject
to
cross-examination.
Once
23
the
testimony
is
complete,
the
parties
24
will have the opportunity to provide any
Page 9
1
closing
statements
they
wish
to
make.
2
Anyone
may
ask
a
question
of
any
witness,
3
just make sure that we don’t
talk
over
4
each other for the court reporter’s
5
benefit.
So if anybody not talking
at
a
6
moment
has
something
to
say,
just
let
me
7
know
and
we’ll
get
to
you
in
a
minute.
B
We want to make sure we have
a clear
9
record and the court reporter can’t get
10
it down if everybody
is talking at the
11
same time.
12
Finally,
we
want
to
note
that
13
the questions asked by anyone with the
14
Board,
the tech unit or Board Member
15
Johnson
or
myself
are
intended
only
to
16
help
build
a
record
and
are
not
an
17
expression
of
any
preconceived
notions
18
that
we
may
have
relating
to
this
19
specific rule.
We are here just to make
20
as clear a record as possible.
21
So
that
all
being
said,
I
want
22
to again introduce Board Member Johnson
23
and ask him if he has any comments at
24
this time.
Page )0
1
MR. JOHNSON:
I
think I’ve
2
already introduced myself
to all of you.
3
I want to welcome you and assure you that
4
the Board recognizes the importance
of
5
this rulemaking and additionally,
assure
6
you we’ll give the matter
the attention
7
it deserves and attempt to issue
a
B
decision
in
a timely fashion,
so thanks
9
and
I think with that I’ll turn this over
10
to our hearing officer for introduction
11
of the parties.
12
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Thank
13
you Member Johnson.
Thank you,
Don
14
Brown.
15
MR. BROWN:
You’re welcome.
16
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Also
a
17
Board employee who has provided us with
18
some pleadings that we were missing
19
earlier.
20
If we could have the parties
21
introduce themselves,
starting with
22
Ameren.
23
MS. McFAWN:
I’d be happy
to.
24
If it’s all right with you,
I’ll just sit
Page
II
1
through the course of this proceeding.
2
Let me introduce myself,
I’m
3
Marili McFawn.
I’m with Schiff Hardin
4
and
I represent Ameren
today.
We’re
5
pleased to be here.
We are very thankful
6
that you have granted our motion for
7
expedited consideration and am most
B
pleased that this
is still proceeding
on
9
an expeditious
fashion.
10
With me today and to my right
is
11
Richard
Smith.
He’s the manager of
12
generation services for Ameren Energy
13
Generating
Company.
They are the owner
14
of the power plant that
is the subject of
15
this site specific rulemaking.
Also,
16
with me is
--
we have two consultants,
17
noise consultants,
Dave Parzych is seated
18
to the right
of Mr.
Smith and he
is the
19
president of Power Acoustics,
20
Incorporated and then next to him
is
21
Gregory Zak who is the owner of Noise
22
Solutions by Greg Zak.
I would mention
23
that many of you are familiar with
24
Mr.
Zak,
he has been
--
made many
Page fl
1
appearances before the Pollution Control
2
Board
I’m
sure his testimony today will
3
be of equal interest
as
in those
4
preceding
-
-
the preceding times he has
S
testified before you.
Also with me is
6
Joshua More.
He
is with Schiff Hardin
7
and is here to assist the witnesses as
8
well as myself,
so that’s who we are.
9
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Thank
10
you very much,
Ms.
McFawn.
11
The Attorney General’s office.
12
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Sure.
Thanks.
13
I’d just like to express our appreciation
14
to the Board, hearing officer, Board
15
Member Johnson and the technical until
16
for allowing us
to testify today.
17
My name is Joel Sternstein.
I’m
18
an assistant attorney general with the
19
state
of Illinois and
I will be
20
presenting our one and only witness,
21
Howard Chin,
who is
a professional
22
engineer with our office and has worked
23
in our office
for 31 years and is very
24
familiar with Illinois’ noise
laws and
Page 13
1
regulations.
2
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Thank
3
you, J4r.
Sternstein.
We can
begin with
4
the case in chief.
5
MS.
McFAWN:
Yes,
certainly.
6
Before we
--
initially I’d like to
7
introduce the exhibits into the record
8
and
--
but before
I do,
let me just
9
explain that
a number of those exhibits
10
are already
--
have already been
11
presented to the Board for their
12
consideration and to the Attorney
13
General’s Office and others on the
14
service list.
In fact, many of those
15
pleadings prompted questions and comments
16
by the Attorney General’s office and by
17
the Board’s technical unit,
which we are
18
here today to respond to and
hopefully
19
explain further our petition and answer
20
any further questions the Board may have.
21
I
would hope through the course
22
of this hearing,
if
it’s all right with
23
you,
John,
I’ll just run through and tell
24
you what we’re
--
where we’re going with
Page
14
1
this.
We will provide summarized
2
testimony as you requested and from there
3
we
--
that incorporates a slide show that
4
we have of the area where the power plant
S
is located and then we have some
6
additional testimony to answer the
7
questions posed by the Board’s technical
8
unit or the Board in general and also
9
some issues raised by the Attorney
10
General’s Office in its prefiled
1.
testimony.
So with that,
I would like to
12
introduce the exhibits at the outset so
13
we have them handy to use through the
14
course of the hearing.
Josh More will
15
assist me
in that.
We have a copy for
16
the Attorney General’s office as well as
17
the Board
--
we have two copies for the
18
Board,
one for the clerk’s office and one
19
for Board Member Johnson and your office
20
and
--
actually,
if you’d like,
we have a
21
fourth copy that we can provide to the
22
technical unit,
is that right?
23
MR.
MORE:
A
copy to the court
24
reporter
-
-
we need one for the court
Page
15
reporter.
MS.
McFAWN:
Josh just corrected
me.
I need a copy for the court
reporter.
MR.
MORE:
Actually,
no
can
do
two,
that’s
fine.
MS.
McFAWN:
MR.
MORE:
I
and one to the AG and
Are
you
sure?
can give them two
we
will
have
one.
That’s
fine.
MR.
MORE:
We’ll
be
fine.
MS.
McFAWN:
All
right.
that,
Josh,
if you want to
--
do
you
want
me to read the title or should you?
MR.
MORE:
It
doesn’t
matter,
whatever is easiest for you.
MS.
McFAWN:
Why don’t you go
ahead
and
read
the
title?
MR.
MORE:
Okay.
The first
exhibit will be the general existing land
use map,
attachment Al of
the petition.
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
objection from the Attorney General’s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-
-
we
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
So with
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Any
24
Office?
Page 16
1
MS. McFAWN:
Exhibit
No.
2
is
a
2
detailed existing land use map,
which
is
3
attachment A2 of the petition.
4
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
No objection
5
and if you want to just wait until
the
6
end?
7
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Do you
8
want to do
it that way?
9
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Yeah.
We can
10
just go through them all as Marili
is
11
passing them out and then if we have any
12
objections,
we1ll
let you know.
13
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Is
14
that all right?
15
MS.
McFAWN:
That’s
fine.
16
Exhibit No.
3
is a diagram of
17
Elgin facility
layout,
which was
18
attachment
B to our petition.
Exhibit
4
19
is a simple cycle combustion
turbine.
20
It’s
a diagram.
It was attachment
C to
21
our petition.
22
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
23
Ms. McFawn?
24
MS.
McFAWN:
Yes.
Page
17
1
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
May
I
2
interrupt you for a second?
3
MS.
McFAWN:
Certainly.
4
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
We
S
have coming to join us here, Andrea
6
Moore,
she’s a Board member with the
7
Pollution Control Board.
I
just want to
8
make sure it’s on the record that she’s
9
here.
You can proceed.
Sorry.
10
MS. McFAWN:
That’s fine.
11
Welcome,
Ms. Moore.
12
Exhibit
S
is
a diagram of Elgin
13
facility noise control devices.
Exhibit
14
6,
estimated costs
of noise abatement
15
treatments,
which was attachment
E of the
16
petition.
Exhibit
7,
the map of ambient
17
sound measurement
locations,
which was
18
attachment
F
of the petition.
Exhibit
8,
19
the prefiled testimony of Richard
C.
20
Smith.
Exhibit
9, David Parzych’s
2.
prefiled testimony.
Exhibit
10,
the
22
prefiled testimony of Greg Zak.
Exhibit
23
11,
the analysis and results of
24
acoustical measurements
taken near the
Page 18
1
Ameren Elgin facility on June
20,
2003.
2
Exhibit
12,
a report entitled acoustical
3
evaluation and ambient sound survey of
4
Ameren simple cycle power facility
5
proposed to be built
in Elgin,
Illinois.
6
That report
is dated November 30th,
2000.
7
Exhibit
13,
a report entitled Elgin plant
8
estimates of Realen property dated July
9
11th,
2003.
Exhibit
14,
a report
10
entitled Noise Solutions by Greg Zak.
11
I should correct that.
It’s a report
12
from our consultant,
Noise Solutions by
13
Greg Zak.
This would be
a report
for the
14
noise measurements taken September
of
15
2003.
Exhibit
15,
these
are
the
PAl,
16
Power Acoustics,
Incorporated sound power
17
and
sound
pressure
levels
tables,
the
18
Ameren Elgin units.
Exhibits
15,
16,
17,
19
18
and
19
will
be
provided
in
hard
copies
20
to you and we also have an electronic
21
copy
if,
in fact,
we use that today.
22
Exhibit
16
is the chart
of Ameren noise
23
limitations
that are proposed.
Exhibit
24
17 are the measured and extrapolated
Page
19
1
sound pressure levels for Ameren Elgin
2
Units
at the L-R location of Gifford Road
3
across from unit four of the Elgin
4
facility.
Exhibit
18
is
a comparison of
5
current noise limits with the Ameren
6
Elgin facility site specific noise
7
emission limitations and Exhibit
19 is
8
the business location map that we
9
prepared to go along with the slide show
10
presentation we intend to provide
you.
11
This
is for reference only.
It
is not to
12
scale.
It is simply to acclimate you to
13
the surroundings
of the businesses
14
surrounding the Ameren Elgin facility.
15
That concludes the exhibits that
16
were prepared to ask that the Board
17
accept
at this time.
18
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Thank
19
you,
Ms.
McFawn.
Mr.
Sternstein,
have
20
you had the opportunity to go over the
21
exhibits
that have been offered?
22
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Yes,
I did.
23
MS.
?4cFAWN:
I would note that
24
but for exhibit
-
Page 20
1
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
No objections.
2
I’m sorry.
3
MS. McFAWN:
That’s okay.
4
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
No objection
to
S
the exhibits.
6
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Did
7
you have something you wanted to note?
8
MS. McFAWN:
I was just going
to
9
note for Mr.
Sternstein’s
information
10
that only the Exhibit
19
is one that he
11
hasn’t seen before.
12
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
In
13
light of the fact that we have no
14
objections,
we’re going to admit all of
15
those exhibits.
16
MS. McFAWN:
Thank you.
Then
17
I’d like to begin with the testimony by
18
Richard Smith.
As
I explained before,
19
Member Moore,
Mr.
Smith
is the manager of
20
generation services at Ameren Energy
21
Generating
Company and directly
22
responsible
for the Ameren Elgin Energy
23
Center and we will be testifying
today
24
using
a summary of his testimony,
his
Page 21
1
prefiled testimony has already been
2
accepted into the record.
3
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Ms. McFawn,
4
before we get started,
can we have the
5
court reporter swear him in?
6
MS. McFAWN:
Certainly.
7
(whereupon,
Mr. Smith was sworn
in.)
8
MR. SMITH:
Good afternoon.
I
9
am Richard C.
Smith and am currently
10
manager of generation services at Ameren
11
Energy Generating Company.
I am pleased
12
to be here today, especially since
I have
13
been involved in the Elgin Energy Center
14
since the time we started development
15
efforts
in January of
2000.
I
am
16
currently responsible in my current
17
position for project management,
18
engineering, outage planning, safety,
19
training, laboratory services and
20
operations and maintenance of AEG’s
21
combustion turbine fleet
as well as two
22
of our cogeneration facilities.
Before
23
that,
I was responsible for leading the
24
development of
the Elgin Energy Center
Page 22
1
project and was responsible
for
2
construction and commissioning
of the
3
facility.
In my current position,
I do
4
have line responsibility for operations
5
and maintenance
of the facility.
6
Prior to purchasing
the site
in
7
2001 we conducted an extensive public
8
involvement
program.
Lou Williams
&
9
Associates,
a Chicago public relations
10
firm,
was retained to conduct
a survey
of
11
local community.
This survey concluded
12
the public would accept
a new peaker
13
plant
and would not view the project
14
negatively.
The city of Elgin strongly
15
embraced Ameren1s desire to inform the
16
public
of our intentions through the
17
public
involvement program.
We conducted
18
three public workshops and
I should
19
mention that other sites we’ve developed
20
in Illinois we’ve only held one workshop.
21
We conducted mass mailings,
we held
22
meetings with local business owners,
the
23
local chamber, neighborhood groups and we
24
published information
in local media,
Page 23
1
including newspapers and radio.
2
Our official ground breaking
3
ceremony was open to the public.
We also
4
informed public officials and elected
5
representatives of our intentions before
6
the fact.
We participated in public
7
meetings and official hearings related to
8
the Elgin zoning activities.
Board
9
approval
is required for the intended use
10
of our land use for power generation.
We
11
participated
in city council meetings
and
12
approvals by ordinance,
the Enterprise
13
Zone extensions and the IEPA construction
14
air permit.
All these proceedings were
15
conducted
in an open and up-front manner
16
and today Ameren enjoys
a reputation
as a
17
company with integrity.
Not only related
18
to Elgin,
but this reputation extends to
19
other communities
where we’ve developed
20
peakers such as Pickneyville,
Illinois;
21
Gibson City,
Illinois and Columbia,
22
Missouri.
23
So
we
are
here
today
because
we
24
found
ourselves
at
a
fork
in
the
road.
Page
24
1
We could have
laid low,
we could have
2
taken
a wait and see approach to see
if
3
we received any complaints and then deal
4
with the issues at that
time.
Instead,
S
we decided
to abide by the spirit of the
6
Board’s noise rules and seek relief from
7
the numerical limits being imposed by
8
unexpected residential development.
9
I’d like to refer you to
10
attachment Al of the petition for
11
reference.
Our site is located at the
12
southeast area within the Elgin city
13
limits depicted by the yellow area right
14
there where Josh
is pointed,
which
is an
15
existing
--
or was an existing industrial
16
park before we arrived there surrounded
17
by heavy industrial activities and
18
gravel mining activities and so forth and
19
we’ll talk more about that a little
20
later.
21
In my prefiled testimony,
I
22
explained how the equipment at the
23
facility works to produce power
as well
24
as how the noise abatement systems work.
Page 25
1
I also explained that when the facility
2
was originally designed and constructed,
3
it was done with the assistance
of
4
Mr. David Parzych of Power Acoustics
and
5
the manufacturer,
Siemens Westinghouse,
6
in an effort to comply with the Board’s
7
general nose emission rules that were
8
then applicable at the facility.
As
9
Power Acoustic’s recent noise measurement
10
this past summer demonstrated,
the
11
facility did meet
that goal.
The
12
facility meets the general noise emission
13
limitations at the existing residential
14
properties
at the time.
15
In this summary
I will explain
16
again briefly the noise abatement
17
equipment
at the facility and address the
18
technical feasibility and economic
19
reasonableness of each of
the various
20
additional noise abatement methods that
21
we did consider as part of the rulemaking
22
as possible approaches for further
23
reducing noise from the levels achieved
24
in the plant’s original design and
Page 26
1
construction.
2
I’d like to refer you now to
3
attachment C of the petition and we’d
4
just like to point out again the basic
S
flow path and where the sound emissions
6
are heard.
7
At the top of the diagram in the
8
center is
a device called the inlet
9
filter.
Ambient air is taken into the
10
turbine through the
inlet filter,
then
11
passes through the inlet silencer and
12
enters the inlet manifold, which then
13
proceeds
into
the
compressor
section.
14
From
there,
it
proceeds
to
the
combustor
15
section
and
natural
gas
is
burned
with
16
the
air,
which
then
expands
through
the
17
turbine
turning
a
shaft,
which
then
turns
18
the generator and the generator produces
19
electricity.
The
exhaust
gases
flow
to
20
the right
in the diagram through the
21
exhaust silencer and then through the
22
stack which included additional
silencing
23
equipment.
24
MS. McFAWN:
I would just
mention
for
the
record
that
that
attachment
C
has
been
accepted
in
the
record
as
Exhibit
4.
MR.
SMITH:
Thank
you.
Then
I’d
to
call
your
attention
to
attachment
the
petition.
MS.
McFAWN:
This
would
be
Exhibit
5
as
entered
into
the
record.
MR.
SMITH:
This
diagram
basically
shows
where
we
invested
money
and
resources
to
control
noise.
Again,
we
have
the
inlet
silencers,
we
have
the
outlet
silencers,
both
in
the
horizontal
exhaust
section
and
in
the
vertical
stack
as well as an additional
add-on noise
enclosure.
At the Elgin facility,
the air
intake
for
each
turbine
is
enclosed
and
the
intake
is
equipped
with
inlet
silencer
baffles.
This
is
combined
with
extensive duct structural
stiffening and
lagging
as
secondary
noise
attenuation
to
further
reduce
sound
radiating
from
the
air intake system.
Since submitting our
Page 27
like
Dof
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page
28
1
prefiled testimony in this matter, we
2
have done some additional
investigation
3
about the extent of noise control
4
provided as part of that inlet silencer.
s
we
found that the silencers are indeed
12
6
feet
long as opposed to eight
feet.
For
7
sites where noise abatement
is needed,
8
eight feet
is the industry standard for
9
inlet silencers.
We purchased and
10
installed the upgraded 12-foot version
11
and in so doing believe that we have
12
maximized
the sound abatement provided by
13
inlet silencers.
We also believe that
14
the lagging and duct structural
15
stiffening
is of
a quality
to maximize
16
noise reduction.
17
The facility’s exhaust outlet
is
18
equipped with state of the art noise
19
abatement equipment.
The silencer panels
20
were designed specifically for this
21
facility to attenuate the low frequency
22
of
31.5 Hertz and
63 Hertz octave bands
23
while also providing substantial mid and
24
high frequency noise attenuation.
The
Page 29
1
silencer panels are extra thick and
2
longer than those used at comparable
3
facilities.
In fact,
the specific
4
horizontal section of silencer panels is
S
approximately 35 feet
in length.
A three
6
foot thick foundation was used to
7
accommodate the massive exhaust silencer.
8
Downstream of the exhaust silencers are
9
traditional
50 foot high vertical exhaust
10
stacks.
The stacks were also used to
11
provide an additional
15
feet of
12
silencers.
Finally,
to keep sound from
13
radiating from the exhaust duct surfaces,
14
an extra secondary enclosure system was
15
provided,
which
is
acoustically
insulated
16
and constructed with one-quarter inch
17
thick
or more steel plate.
18
The
noise
abatement
equipment
19
described
above
and
others
described
in
20
my prefiled testimony were chosen and
21
installed
based
on
the
design
evaluation
22
performed by Power Acoustics,
23
Incorporated and Siemens Westinghouse
24
during
the
early
stages
of
the
project.
Page 30
1
Those evaluations and the study that
2
Power Acoustics conducted for Ameren this
3
summer demonstrate that the facility
4
complies with the Board’s noise emission
S
standards that are currently applicable
6
to the facility prior
to residential
7
construction.
The cost of the noise
8
abatement equipment for all four units,
a
9
good deal of which was specially designed
10
for the Elgin facility as opposed to just
11
buying standard equipment from the
12
manufacturer was estimated to be
13
approximately l1,$650,000.
14
Power Acoustics’
more recent
15
study done this past summer indicates
16
that the facility will not be able to
17
comply with the Board’s general noise
18
emission limitations
for noise from class
C,
19
industrial property to Class A,
20
residential property if the Realen
21
property is developed as residential.
22
This recent study was commissioned when
23
Ameren learned that the property
24
immediately west of the facility might
be
Page 31
1
used for residences.
As part of Ameren’s
2
site specific rulemaking petition,
we
3
investigated
the
technical
feasibility
4
and economic reasonableness
of additional
S
noise abatement measures,
seven
in all.
6
The cost estimates can be found
in
7
Exhibit E of the petition.
8
MS.
McFAWN:
And that has been
9
accepted into evidence as Exhibit
6 in
10
this proceeding.
11
MR.
SMITH:
We are projecting
12
Exhibit E for reference purposes in this
13
proceeding, but before we address
14
additional questions on specific
15
alternatives,
I would like to again
16
explain that the expected accuracies of
17
these cost estimates
is in the range
of
18
minus
25 percent to plus
75 percent.
19
In other words,
we would expect real
20
costs to be within the minus
25 to plus
21
75 percent range, around these numbers.
22
This is because the noise abatement
23
measures examined are unproven and would
24
require extensive research,
design or
Page32
1
redesigning.
Note,
also, please that
for
2
the most part,
these cost estimates do no
3
include the cost for removing existing
4
equipment, building new foundations
if
5
necessary or cost of downtime at the
6
facility during the removal,
7
reconstruction and installation.
8
Briefly,
I will address each of
9
the noise abatement methods that we
10
considered.
Mr.
Parzych will also
11
address these
issues today.
As for the
12
three methods for further abating low
13
frequency noise, we believe that the
14
state
of art noise abatement equipment
15
designed and installed is the optimum
16
noise reduction as technically possible
17
and the methods described are
18
experimental and are technically and
19
economically unreasonable.
20
Referring
to attachment
E,
we’ll
21
proceed more or less from left to right.
22
Installing additional exhaust silencers
23
was estimated
to cost about six million
24
dollar,
but the estimate did not include
Page 33
1
the cost of moving the existing stack.
2
This would have to be done because there
3
is no more room for
a silencer
in the
4
horizontal
section.
Also,
we have to
5
ensure that a relocated vertical stack
6
would not impact air emissions and the
7
modeling.
This would require re-modeling
8
and an air permit revision.
Additionally,
9
any deviation from the existing facility
10
like this one would require local
11
government approval,
specifically city
12
council approval.
13
A new,
redesigned stack would be
14
experimental.
We estimated this cost to
15
be
18 million dollars.
Further,
we do
16
not know if
this would be
a viable
17
technical option.
As
is the case with a
18
relocated vertical stack,
we would have
19
to ensure that
a new stack would also
20
satisfy air permit requirements.
Both
21
types of stacks would require and be
22
subject to the Village of Elgin’s
23
approval.
24
An active noise control system
Page 34
1
was estimated
to cost roughly six million
2
dollars,
but has never been used by the
3
power industry.
Therefore,
it is
4
completely
experimental
and
not
S
technically feasible.
Thus,
the
6
estimated cost
is a very rough cost.
The
7
cost would likely to be much greater if
8
pursued,
with no guarantee
of success.
9
As for adding controls at the
10
inlet,
we examined additional
inlet
11
silencers,
a secondary inlet ducting
12
enclosure and secondary generator
13
enclosure.
The secondary enclosures
for
14
the inlet ducting and the generator were
15
both estimated at 1.2 million dollars.
A
16
secondary enclosure for the inlet ducting
17
would not ensure compliance with the
18
Board’s noise emission limitations.
I
19
should mention that all enclosures
20
existing at the site today are functional
21
mechanical
systems providing specific
22
duties such as ventilation,
temperature
23
control and equipment protection.
As
for
24
the secondary enclosure for the
Page 35
1
generator,
such an approach would be
2
unique to the industry and at a minimum
3
would require extra
engineering to avoid
4
adverse operational impacts upon the
S
existing
generator
enclosures.
6
Lastly,
a barrier wall
is the
7
second most costly measure at 3.6
8
million.
Such a wall would have to be
9
high enough to block the sight line and
10
still would not abate low frequency noise
11
nor would it abate noise from the stacks.
12
While additional
inlet silencers
13
are estimated
to cost
$600,000,
we
14
already have
12 feet of silencers and
15
this would be the second column from the
16
right on the attachment.
Anymore than 12
17
feet would not bring significant
18
reductions
that will allow the facility
19
to meet the Board’s noise limits at the
20
1,000
to 8,000 Hertz octave bands.
21
Therefore,
this measure would have little
22
positive
affect
on
the
overall
sound
23
emissions from the facility.
24
Furthermore,
this type of abatement
Page 36
1
measure would degrade unit performance by
2
increased pressure drop through the
3
inlets and thereby negatively impacting
4
the economic value of our facility.
This
5
is intended in part to be the answer
--
6
or part of an answer to one of the
7
questions from the Board we received
8
prior to this hearing.
9
To conclude,
I would like to
10
share
the
slide show with you that
11
contains pictures of the area
in and
12
around the Elgin Energy Center.
We
13
believe that these photographs will
14
illustrate that this area
is heavily
15
industrial.
The background noise
16
described by our experts at present
17
levels are at least
as significant and
18
probably more so than that as associated
19
with the Elgin Energy Center.
20
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Can
I
21
interrupt?
22
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
23
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Ms.
McFawn,
24
these pictures that we’re going to be
Page 37
1
seeing here,
are they going to be part of
2
the CD that you’re going
to submit
as an
3
exhibit later on?
4
MS.
McFAWN:
Yes.
5
MR.
MORE:
Would
it be easier if
I
6
rotated the screen a little bit?
7
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
No,
no,
8
that’s
fine, but is there going
to be any way
9
we’re going to be able to identify pictures
10
he’s talking about at later point
in time
11
from the CD?
12
MS.
McFAWN:
We can provide you
--
13
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
In case
a
14
Board member wants
to relate
it back to the
15
transcript,
I want
to make sure they’re able
16
to do that.
17
MR.
MORE:
They should be in the
18
same order.
19
MS. McFAWN:
Yeah.
They should be
20
in the order
that Mr.
Smith will go through
21
them.
We can make an attempt to make
22
numerical notations as he goes through.
23
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
If you can
24
identify them as best as you’re able,
that
Okay
Page 38
will help later on when we go through the
record and make sure to identify the pictures
that he’s talking about
MS.
McFAWN:
MR.
SMITH:
Let’s proceed then to
the slide show and you may want to refer
to
attachment Al from the petition as we go
through the slides and the business location
map that was handed out earlier today.
MS. McFAWN:
That would be Exhibit
19.
Again,
I would just qualify this exhibit
that it’s really just to assist you in
following and get
a sense of direction where
these facilities
are from the Ameren Energy
Center.
We do not
--
I should mention,
too,
that this location map,
we do not have to put
up on the slide show
MR.
MORE:
That’s correct.
MS.
McFAWN:
So
if we can take
a
moment,
I could probably get some
--
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Let’s
go
off the record for a minute
(Whereupon,
a discussion
was had off the record.)
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 39
1
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
We’re
2
back on the record.
Ms. McFawn,
you have
3
something you want to note.
4
MS. McFAWN:
We have
--
on
5
Exhibit
19, w&ve
noticed an error that
6
we’d like to point out so that all of you
7
can
-
-
so correct your business location
8
map.
There was some last minute
9
corrections on some other items,
we
10
dropped the location of Gifford Road.
It
11
is between the Realen property and the
12
Elgin Energy Center.
13
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
14
There’s
a road running north/south there?
15
MS.
McFAWN:
That’s correct.
16
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
As
17
wide
--
you’d like
it depicted,
even
18
though it’s not to scale,
as wide as
the
19
other roads up there?
20
MS. McFAWN:
Yes. Actually,
it’s
21
more of
a main thoroughfare.
It’s
a two
22
lane and so is Gasket Road and Spaulding
23
is two lanes,
but kind of
a narrow one.
24
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Page40
1
Mr.
Sternstein,
do you have any objection
2
to that clarification?
3
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Not at all.
4
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
We’ll
5
admit
it and we’ll
accept the
6
clarification as well.
7
MS. McFAWN:
Thank you.
8
MR.
JOHNSON:
So the Ameren
9
property abuts that road as does the
10
Realen property?
11
MR.
SMITH:
That
is correct.
12
MS.
McFAWN:
If you’d like to
13
begin?
14
MR.
SMITH:
Sure.
I’d like to
15
change our reference document from
16
attachment Al to A2, which
is Exhibit
2
17
from today’s proceeding.
It shows
a
18
little bit more detail and is more
19
congruent with the business location map,
20
Exhibit
19
I think it was.
21
MS. McFAWN:
That’s
correct.
22
MR.
SMITH:
Slide No.
1
23
basically shows the entrance to the Elgin
24
Energy Center site from Gifford Road.
Page 41
1.
You can see the four units lined up.
The
2
Realen property would be to the back of
3
the photpgrapher and we are looking to
4
the east
in this photograph.
Unit one
S
would be the farther most unit.
Number
6
four would be the one nearest to the
7
photographer.
8
Slide
No.
2
is also a slide
of
9
the entrance to the Elgin Energy Center
10
site showing typical truck traffic that
11
we see there routinely.
12
Now I’d like to show
a few
13
slides
of the Elgin Energy Center.
14
Slide No.
3 would be an overview
15
of
the site showing just three
of
the
16
units looking to the Realen property.
17
You can see we have
a retention pond and
18
then Gifford Road runs north/south
as
19
being pointed out.
20
Slide
No.
4 would be looking to
21
the north over the facility and the main
22
unit
in view here would be unit number
23
one and then unit
two to the left and in
24
the distance you can see the Concrete
Page
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Pipe Company,
which we’ll
talk about
later,
to the right would be
a
landscaping materials company and the
Spaulding Road substation.
Spaulding
Road is visible in the slide.
It would
be on the side of the Concrete Pipe
Company.
Slide No.
S
is
a view northeast
of the peaker site.
You can see the
ComEd transmission line corridor as well
as the Spaulding Road substation and
again,
that would be unit number one to
the left and our service building
in the
center of
the building.
Slide No.
6
is
a view directly
east looking toward the railroad tracks,
the
CornEd
transmission
line
corridor
and
where
the
natural
gas
pipeline
was
built.
Now
I’d
like
to
show
a
few
pictures
of
the
U.S.
Can
facility.
This
is
a
top
down
view
of
the
U.S.
Can
facility,
which
is
in the distance.
The
property
with
activity
is
a
construction
company
between
us
and
U.S.
Can.
Page 43
1
Slide No.
8
is another view of
2
U.S.
Can.
3
Slide No.
9 is
a poster view of
4
some of the trucks that are stored on the
S
U.S.
Can property.
6
Slide No.
11
(sic)
would be
7
trucks near Gifford Road.
To the right
8
would be the Realen property,
to the left
9
would be U.S.
Can and you can see that
10
they enter and exit their parking lot
11
from Gifford Road.
12
Slide
--
this is No.
11,
13
correct?
Slide No.
11 is an additional
14
shot of the trucks next to Gifford Road.
15
Slide
12
is
a photograph
of the
16
loading dock arrangement
at U.S.
Can.
17
This
is Gifford Road in the foreground
18
and as you can see,
the semis use Gifford
19
Road to back in to their loading dock and
20
pull
out,
enter and exit,
from this
21
location.
22
Slide No.
13
is
a view of the
23
loading dock early in the morning and you
24
can see that we do have an active truck
Page 44
1
backing in or exiting at that time.
2
I’d like to show some
3
photographs of Martam Construction,
Inc.
4
at this time.
Slide No.
14 shows their
s
office building.
6
Slide No.
15
is the
Martam
7
Construction building showing the truck
8
entry or exit rather from their property
9
onto Gasket Drive and this
is a fairly
10
typical activity throughout
the day.
11
Gasket Drive empties onto Gifford Road.
12
Slide No.
16 is an aerial view
13
of the Martam facility from one of our
14
water towers at Elgin Energy Center.
15
Slide No.
17 is another view
16
from the Elgin Energy Center.
17
Please note the heavy equipment
18
operational which is ongoing and
19
routinely observed at Martam Construction
20
in this outdoor activity.
21
Slide No.
18
shows
the proximity
22
of Martam Construction
outdoor activity
23
to U.S. Can
in the background.
24
Slide
19
is basically the same
Page 45
1
information.
2
Slide
20,
again,
shows outdoor
3
activity routinely performed at Martam
4
Construction.
Again,
please note the
5
industrial equipment and semi-trucks and
6
trailers that enter and leave the site
7
routinely.
8
Slide
21 is just another view of
9
the same information.
10
I’d like now to show you the
11
EFI facility,
which
is to the east of our
12
peaker site.
This
is a repair and
13
maintenance
facility
for BFI truck
fleet.
14
You can see there
a retention pond in the
15
middle
of the photograph
and their
16
maintenance
facility to
the back.
On the
17
other side of the BFI property would be
18
the transmission lines, which you can see
19
the towers
in the photo,
the railroad
20
corridor and the gas pipeline corridor.
21
Slide
23
is
another
view
of
the
22
EFI property showing storage of their
23
trucks and their containers and behind
24
SF1 would be another construction company
Page 46
and please note the heavy industrial
nature of the equipment which they store
on their property and which they move in
and out of there on
a routine basis.
MR.
JOHNSON:
You’re showing us
the character
of the area when you guys
moved
in in 2001
This
is not an attempt
to establish the ambient noise that’s
coming from the surrounding property,
rather just to show us what the area
looked like when you moved
in?
The
zoning was consistent with the use
at
that point?
MR.
SMITH:
Our intention with
the slide show is to give you an
appreciation for the industrial activity
and the nature of the area when we
identified
it as
a good site and when we
achieved the proper zoning from Elgin.
MR. JOHNSON:
Thanks.
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Can
you back up one picture?
MS. MOORE:
Are those homes
overlooking the SF1 area there?
but
:i.
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 47
1
MR. SMITH:
That
is a
2
subdivision that’s more or less on the
3
hill on the other side of the railroad
4
tracks,
the transmission
lines.
There’s
S
a section of industrial activity onto
6
Spaulding,
it goes in that direction,
7
which we aren’t going to show you today
8
and that subdivision lies up on that
9
hillside.
10
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
That’s
11
east of
the facility?
12
MR.
SMITH:
It
would be to the
13
northeast.
14
MS.
McFAWN:
Mr.
Smith,
Member
15
Johnson
asked
you
if
we
were
trying
to
16
also
demonstrate
noise
in
the
area
and
17
I wondered
if you could address that?
18
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
We
are
showing
19
you recent photographs,
so this
is
20
typical
of what we saw when we developed
21
the
site,
but
it’s
also
typical
of
the
22
existing character and nature of the
23
activity
in the area today.
24
MS. McFAWN:
And that activity
Page 48
or
1
might
be
the
source
of
ambient
noise
2
background noise?
3
MR. SMITH:
That
is correct.
4
MR.
JOHNSON:
Thank
you.
5
MR.
SMITH:
This
is No.
24,
I
6
believe.
Josh,
is that correct?
7
MR.
MORE:
That
is correct.
8
MR.
SMITH:
This
is slide
No.
24
9
and it is showing that
a SF1 truck is
10
being
towed
to
their
maintenance
facility
11
and
this
is
Gifford
Road
and
in
the
12
background
would
be
the
Realen
property.
13
Slide
25
is just another view of
14
the same tow truck and SF1 truck going
15
down Gasket Drive.
16
Slide
26,
we’re going to show
17
you several slides that progressively
18
rotate
to the north,
which would be the
19
left.
This
is looking at SF1 and you can
20
see the
CornEd transmission
lines.
You
21
can see perhaps
the railroad car sitting
22
on the track,
the dark boxes there.
23
Slide
27 shows the SF1 building.
24
slide
28,
again,
shows the SF1
Page 49
1
property moving to the north.
2
We would like to now show
3
another photograph of transmission
lines
4
over the railroad tracks,
slide No.
29.
5
Slide No.
30
is a photograph of
6
the Commonwealth Edison Spaulding Road
7
substation,
which is where
we connect.
8
The gate seen in the slide does open on
9
to Spaulding Road.
10
We would now like to show you
11
G.E.
Capital Modular Space Division.
12
Slide
31
is looking directly
--
a bit to
13
the northeast.
G.E.
Capital
is on the
14
left.
Thirty-one A is the entrance
to
15
G.E.
Capital on Gifford Road.
16
Thirty-two,
you can see the
17
mobile trailers
stored at the site by
18
G.E.
Capital.
19
Thirty-three
is a similar site,
20
similar view.
21
Thirty-four
is,
again,
another
22
view of the same site.
23
Please note that you can see the
24
Concrete Specialty Products Company
Page 50
1
behind the G.E.
Capital
storage yard on
2
the other side of Spaulding Road.
3
Slide
35, you can see Bluff City
4
Minerals,
a quarry to the northwest
in
5
the background.
6
MS.
McFAWN:
Could you enlarge
7
that?
8
MR.
MORE:
Sure.
9
MR.
JOHNSON:
That’s on the west
10
side of Gifford Road directly north of
11
the Realen property?
12
MR.
SMITH:
That
is
correct.
13
This activity
--
this property
is
14
directly west on Gifford Road to the
15
north
of the Realen property,
that
is
16
correct.
17
We’d like to show additional
18
photos
of industrial establishments
on
19
Spaulding Road.
20
Slide 36 just merely says that
21
Gifford and Spaulding intersect and there
22
are a variety of smaller businesses
along
23
spaulding Road.
24
Slide
37
is
a landscape products
PageS!
1
processing facility.
Note,
that they
2
also use large rigs to haul materials
in
3
and out.
4
Thirty-eight
is,
again,
the
5
Commonwealth
Edison
Spaulding
Road
6
substation.
7
MS. McFAWN:
I
think that one
is
8
deleted
--
the second view of Spaulding
9
--
or the Commonwealth Spaulding Road
10
substation.
We’ll go right on to
11
Material Waste Handling Corporation.
12
MR.
SMITH:
Okay.
Slide
38 then
13
would be Material Waste Handling
14
Corporation and slide
40 would be the
15
same company,
which again shows
some of
16
their heavy equipment,
which
is
17
transported
in and out of Spaulding Road
18
and Gifford Road.
19
Slide
No.
40 would be Spaulding
20
Road crossing the railroad.
I
think
21
we’ve got
a problem here.
22
MR.
MORE:
We’re on
41.
23
MR.
SMITH:
This
is No.
41
--
24
we’re going to call
it
40,
I think,
for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
of
then
their
Page 52
the
record,
is
that
correct?
MS. McFAWN:
Yeah.
MR.
SMITH:
This would be No.
40
for the record.
This
is the EJ
& E line
in this photograph.
Note,
that there
is
a through line plus several citings which
are active and used today for storing
railroad
cars
and
engines
and
things
of
that nature.
Then
slide
41
is
a
--
this is
the Metra line which crosses Spaulding
Road,
again
in
the
same
vicinity.
Slide
42 would be Concrete
Specialty Corporation
at the corner
Spaulding Road and Gifford Road and
43 would be the building.
Forty-four,
this is one of
storage yards
at that site.
We’d like to show you Bluff City
Mining at this time.
Slide No.
45,
again,
Bluff City Mining
is across
Gifford Road north of Realen.
Slide No.
46 is
a closer view of
the same operation.
Page
53
1
Forty-seven,
again,
Bluff City
2
Mining and note that the entrance
is onto
3
Gifford Road.
4
Forty-eight
is a photograph
of
5
the scraper that they use to help keep
6
mud and dirt off
of Gifford Road,
which
7
is a problem during wet weather.
8
HEARING OFFICER JOHNSON:
Does
9
Spaulding Road divide Realen property and
10
Bluff City Mining?
11
MR.
SMITH:
Spaulding Road
12
terminates
at Gifford.
13
HEARING OFFICER JOHNSON:
Okay.
14
So it doesn’t
--
this
is accurate then on
15
Exhibit
19,
it doesn’t divide the two,
16
there’s no road going between Bluff City
17
and the Realen property?
18
MR. SMITH:
That
is correct.
19
There
is no road between those two
20
properties.
21
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Thank
22
you.
23
MR.
SMITH:
Bluff City
--
the
24
entrance
to Bluff City is right
at
Page
54
1
Spaulding Road so it’s close to the
2
property line, probably between Realen
3
and Bluff
City.
4
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Thank
5
you.
6
MR.
SMITH:
Slide No.
49 is
7
typical
traffic seen on Gifford Road.
8
Then slide
50 is
--
and the
9
remainder of these are basically
just
10
samples of the types
of truck traffic
11
that we
see
routinely on Gifford.
12
Gifford does serve
as
a link between
13
Route
20 and
West Bartlett Road
so
14
there’s
a
lot of traffic traversing
this
15
area.
16
MS.
McFAWN:
If you would look
17
at
a larger map,
also I’d also note that
18
the tollway,
1-90,
is north of Route
20,
19
so Gifford,
even though it’s
a small
20
road,
is a main thoroughfare
for trucks.
21
MR.
SMITH:
That concludes my
22
prepared remarks
for today.
23
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Thank
24
you,
sir.
Page 55
1
Ms. McFawn,
do you want to
2
present your other two witnesses and then
3
ask
questions?
4
MS.
McFAWN:
Yes,
please.
5
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
You
6
can
proceed
with
your
next
witnesses.
7
MS. McFAWN:
Our next witness
is
8
Dave Parzych.
9
Before
I go onto that,
though,
10
if
I could mention,
we are using
11
attachment
2, Exhibit
2, which is Exhibit
12
2
in the Board’s record today and that
13
would be
a useful map to also use when
14
you review the slide show.
It shows the
15
location.
16
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Exhibit
17
2?
18
MS. McFAWN:
Yes.
In
19
conjunction with the one that we gave
20
you,
the hard copy,
and the business
21
location maps.
22
(Whereupon,
Mr. Parzych was sworn
in.)
23
MS. McFAWN:
Just one final
24
note.
On attachment
two,
the Realen
Page 56
1
property was not identified per
se.
2
Instead
it shows up as white and that’s
3
because at the time Elgin drew this up on
4
us,
Elgin
--
the city of Elgin helped us
5
develop this map so
it wasn’t part
of the
6
type of map
it was
--
which was a land
7
use map or
a zoning map and this was
in
8
-
-
this was being contested
in
a judicial
9
forum and so it wasn’t
included
in.
10
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Okay.
11
Duly noted.
12
MS. McFAWN:
And,
Mr. Parzych,
13
you’ve been sworn
in.
If you’d like to
14
proceed now with the summary of your
15
testimony that you
--
there
is
a full
16
copy of his testimony,
which
is
--
his
17
prefiled testimony,
Exhibit
9,
in the
18
Board’s record and if you could proceed
19
with your summary.
20
MR.
PARZYCH:
Good afternoon.
21
I’m Dave Parzych of Power Acoustics,
Inc.
22
As
a principal and founder of Power
23
Acoustics,
Inc.,
my career
in acoustics
24
and noise control engineering spans more
Page
57
1
than 21 years.
Over the past
11 years,
2
my work has been focused on power
3
generation facilities with gas turbines
4
as my primary interest.
5
I have been involved with the
6
acoustics
of Ameren Elgin power
7
generation
facility from the time the
8
facility was in its conceptual
stages
S
through the present.
In the project’s
10
conceptual
stage,
Power Acoustics,
Inc.,
11
undertook the task of estimating the
12
impact of operating four simple cycle
13
Siemens Westinghouse
SO1D5A gas turbines
14
at the Ameren Elgin site.
A Power
15
Acoustics,
Inc.,
report:
Acoustical
16
evaluation
and
ambient
sound
survey
of
17
the
Ameren
simple
cycle
power
facility
18
proposed to be built
in Elgin,
Illinois
19
was generated in November 2000
20
summarizing the results
of the study.
21
The impact analysis showed the proposed
22
Ameren Elgin gas turbine facility
23
containing
state of the art noise control
24
features would achieve the Illinois state
Page 58
1
noise regulations
for the zoning and
2
property uses that existed at that time.
3
My most recent work relating
to
4
this facility started in June of
2003 and
5
continues through the development
of
a
6
new site specific noise emission
7
limitation
for the Ameren Elgin facility.
S
For
this
study,
I
measured
the
sound
with
9
the facility operational
to determine
if
10
the
facility
met
with
noise
requirements
11
at
the nearby residential
areas as
12
projected in the initial analysis
13
performed in the fall of 2000.
I also
14
measured the sound pressure levels
across
15
the street on the western side of Gifford
16
Road to determine
the impact of the
17
facility on the Realen property.
The
18
sound tests were accomplished with
a
19
single gas turbine unit
in operation,
20
that was the one closest
to Gifford Road.
21
Subsequently,
analytical
techniques
were
22
used to simulate the effects
of the three
23
other units.
The results
of the study
24
after correcting for four unit operation
Page 59
1
showed that the Illinois noise
2
regulations were achieved at the existing
3
residential
areas.
However,
at the
4
location
adjacent
to
the
Ameren
facility
5
on the west side of Gifford Road the
6
corrected results indicated that the
7
facility would likely be in excess
of the
S
Illinois
octave
band
noise
regulations
if
9
the property is used for residential
10
purposes.
11.
Ameren further asked if any
12
additional noise control could be added
13
to the facility to enable
it to achieve
14
the
residential
noise
levels.
I
15
concluded
that
generalizations
could
be
16
made for known noise controls such as
17
barrier walls and/or buildings
that could
18
further reduce the sound from the
19
facility.
The
monetary
cost
of
these
20
treatments,
however,
would likely be high
21
since the facility was initially designed
22
to be fully outdoor.
Also,
the
23
acoustical benefits of the treatments,
if
24
any,
could not be accurately estimated
Page
60
1
without performing
a detailed design
2
study
3
The SO1DSA gas turbines and
4
supporting equipment found at the Ameren
5
Elgin power facility contain the largest
6
amount of sound abatement
I have ever
7
seen supplied by Siemens Westinghouse for
8
simple cycle SO1DSA gas turbines.
Noise
9
enclosures and ventilation silencers are
10
used extensively to control the sound
11
radiated by the gas turbines and
12
supporting
power
generation
equipment.
13
The low frequency exhaust silencing
14
system
at
the
Ameren
Elgin
facility
is
15
state
of
the
art.
As
for
the
inlet
16
system,
substantial inlet silencing and
17
acoustical duct lagging were provided for
18
noise control.
The silencer consists of
19
parallel baffles specifically designed to
20
attenuate the high frequency compressor
21
noise.
22
Other prominent noise sources of
23
sound such as the air-cooled generator,
24
heat exchangers and transformers cannot
Page61
1
be
completely
enclosed
because
they
need
2
air flow for cooling.
Any additional
3
noise control of these components could
4
have
a negative impact on the operational
5
efficiency
of the facility.
6
Since the monetary and
7
operational cost associated with
8
acoustically modifying
the existing
9
Ameren Elgin facility was prohibitive and
10
its successful outcome questionable,
I
11
was asked to help determine obtainable
12
site specific sound pressure level
13
requirements.
This task is complicated
14
by the limited amount
of available
15
operational data and an endless
16
combination
of weather and operational
17
possibilities
that can exist.
I had
18
obtained sound pressure level data with a
19
single unit operating at base
load in
20
June 2003
that was analytically corrected
21
to four unit operation.
Greg Zak had
22
obtained sound pressure level data with
23
all four units
in base load operation on
24
September
2nd,
2003.
Both sets of data
Page 62
1
were taken under weather conditions
2
favorable to sound propagation in a
3
westerly direction.
4
To determine the site specific
S
sound pressure
level
requirements,
a
6
combination of the sound pressure level
7
data measured by Greg Zak and myself was
S
used.
Also factored in was information
9
supplied by Siemens Westinghouse that
10
defines the equipment sound power levels.
11
In
developing
the
proposed
site
specific
12
limits,
we
tried
to
stay
within
the
13
existing
Illinois
daytime
noise
standard.
14
However,
in
the
31
and
a
half
Hertz,
15
1,000,
2,000 and 4,000 Hertz octave
16
bands,
the
daytime
standards
did
not
17
adequately
allow
for
the
sound
produced
15
by these units.
The levels proposed
19
represent the maximum of either the
20
Illinois
daytime
standard
or
the
average
21
of the measured synthesized values, plus
22
one standard deviation and a safety
23
factor as we deem necessary.
That
24
concludes
my
summary.
Page 63
1
MS. McFAWN:
Thank you,
Mr.
Parzych.
2
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Thank
3
you.
Ms. McFawn,
do you want to present
4
your last witness?
S
MS.
McFAWN:
I would.
6
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Can
7
you swear him
in, please?
8
(Whereupon,
Mr.
Zak was sworn in.)
9
MR.
ZAK:
Good afternoon.
10
My name
is Greg Zak,
owner of Noise
11
Solutions by Greg Zak.
I
am here today
12
on behalf of the Petitioner, Ameren,
in
13
support
of its proposal for
a site
14
specific rule for the noise levels
15
applicable
to
its Elgin Energy Center.
16
With my testimony today,
I will
17
review some of my prefiled testimony by
18
addressing the sound measurements taken
19
by my firm on September 2nd,
2003 and
20
the information developed based upon
21
those measurements.
I will also address
22
the comparison of those measurements to
23
the measurements of Power Acoustics,
24
Incorporated,
PAl,
as well
as why the
Page
64
1
site
specific
limitations
proposed
by
2
Ameren will not have a significant impact
3
or be the cause
of noise complaints
in
4
the future should the Realen property be
5
developed residentially.
6
For more than 31 years,
I have
7
been an expert involved in both the
S
public and private sectors with noise
9
measurement,
noise
control
engineering
10
and the effects of noise on people and
11
communities.
As a recognized noise
12
expert during my tenure with the Illinois
13
EPA,
I was and still continue to be
14
involved
in enforcement and regulatory
15
hearings before
the Illinois Pollution
16
Control Board and various court hearings.
17
Most recently
I represented the Illinois
18
EPA as its noise expert when testifying
19
before
the IPCB’s hearings on August 23rd
20
and October
5th,
2000 in the matter of:
21.
Natural gas fired, peak-load power
22
generating facilities,
peaker plants,
23
PCE ROl-lO.
24
On the night
of September 2nd,
Page 65
1
2003 my firm conducted a sound
2
measurement test at the Elgin facility
3
while the facility was not operating and
4
while
it was fully operational,
that
is,
5
with all four units
at maximum load
6
capacity.
These measurements were taken
7
at the same approximate location as those
8
taken by PAl.
The ambient measurements
9
began around 9:00 p.m.
with only the
10
quietest ten minutes of data being used
11
to compile the ten minute
ambient and
12
ceased at 9:30 p.m. because the Ameren
13
facility was in start-up mode by that
14
time.
A primary source of ambient noise
15
was the U.S.
Can facility located south
16
of the Ameren facility with its idling
17
trucks, back-up beepers and intermittent
lB
shouting by workers.
A large amount of
19
other extraneous noise was not reflected
20
in the ambient measurements at all,
in
21
accordance with the IPCB measurement
22
procedures.
Extraneous sound
is of
23
relatively short duration and comes and
24
goes such as vehicles passbys,
aircraft
Page 66
1
flyovers,
train whistles and so
forth.
2
Extraneous
noise
is excluded from the
3
measurement because
it interferes with
4
the measuring instruments’
ability to
S
accurately record ambient noise
and the
6
noise source of interest.
Ambient noise,
7
unlike extraneous noise,
is measured to
S
be used to quantify the total background
9
noise measured and also isolate the
10
ambient
noise
from
the
subject
noise
11
source.
12
In
the
case
of
the
noise
in
the
13
area of
the Ameren facility,
a great deal
14
of
extraneous
noise
is
present
at
night
15
and the same conditions
would exist
16
during
the
day,
but
would
be
even
worse
17
due to much heavier traffic.
These types
18
of extraneous noise
are the type that
19
interrupt or drown out conversations
and
20
sleep
as opposed to the steady state
21
noise
of the Ameren facility,
which
22
albeit audible,
would have little impact
23
on conversation or sleep.
In fact,
as
24
explained
in more detail
later,
the high
Page 67
1
level of extraneous noise in the area of
2
the Ameren facility makes remote the
3
likelihood, of noise complaints from the
4
Realen residential development regarding
S
the Ameren facility.
6
The second portion of the
7
night’s measurements commenced at
10:00
B
p.m.
and ceased at 11:17 p.m.
During
9
this period,
the facility was fully
10
operational for 41 minutes of which
I
11
selected the ten minutes most
12
representative of the loudest sound
13
levels minus
the extraneous noise from
14
other sources.
Again,
the extraneous
15
noise included
a great deal
of road
16
traffic and airplane flyovers.
The time
17
span required to get ten minutes of data
18
without also including the extraneous
19
noise present was
17
minutes.
This
is
20
because the measurement instrumentation
21
had to be put in a pause mode over a
22
dozen times
to avoid contaminating and
23
overwhelming the Ameren data with the
24
noise from many passenger jets passing
Page 68
1
overhead and road traffic passing close
2
to the microphone.
Measurements were
3
difficult to obtain because it was
4
necessary to constantly dodge the
5
incoming barrage of extraneous noise
in
6
the area.
7
The results of these
B
measurements were also presented
in the
9
form
of
raw
data,
corrected
data
and
10
corrected and rounded data for ease of
11
comparison with the existing Board noise
12
emission limitations as well
as site
13
specific
levels
requested
by
Ameren.
I
14
then
compared
the
results
with
the
15
measurements
obtained
by
PAl
on
June
16
18th,
2003,
which were based upon
17
measurements taken when just one unit was
18
operating
at full load and an
19
extrapolation of that data performed by
20
PAl
to simulate four units at
full
21
operational
load.
I’ve
got
a
reference
22
to an exhibit number there.
I’m not sure
23
which exhibit that
is.
24
MS.
McFAWN:
That would be
Page 69
1
Exhibit
17
2
MR.
ZAK:
See
Exhibit
17,
3
please.
This comparison demonstrates
4
that
there
is
little
deviation
from
the
5
PAl
data except that measured at two
6
frequency levels
--
at two high frequency
7
octave bands where the decibel level at
8
the 4,000 Hertz and at 8,000 Hertz were
9
significantly different.
The differences
10
were 15 dB higher at 4,000 Hertz and 20
11
dE higher at 8,000 Hertz.
These
12
differences are largely due to excessive
13
insect sounds that were unavoidable
14
during my measurement period.
I would
15
note
that
the
insect
noise
was
a
constant
16
state noise
in the area and,
therefore,
17
is considered ambient.
The presence of
18
this type of ambient noise
is not noted
19
in the PAl report since most likely
20
because this condition did not yet exist.
21
Apparently, between June and September of
22
2003 thick weeds and brush had grown into
23
a heavily overgrowth that harbored a
24
variety of very loud insects.
When the
Page 70
1
ZAK
corrected levels are compared
to the
2
extrapolated levels obtained by
PAl,
the
3
operational measurements
at
full capacity
4
are considerably lower than the PAl
5
extrapolated,
fully operational
6
measurements
with
the
exception
of
2,000
7
Hertz.
Nevertheless,
the difference
at
B
that octave band was just 2.4 dE,
well
9
within the normal range
of potential
10
error when measurements taken with only
11
one unit operating are compared to the
12
actual measurements taken with all four
13
units operating,
given that each unit has
14
its own subtle characteristics.
15
Finally,
I compared Ameren’s
16
requested site specific noise emission
17
limitations with
a portion of the Board’s
18
current limits and conclude that the
19
noise limitation proposed in this
20
rulemaking
are not significant because of
21
the noise otherwise present in the
22
neighborhood
area.
The presence
of
23
extraneous noise
in this area
is so
24
pervasive that any attempt to measure
Page 71
1
ambient noise or noise
from the Elgin
2
Energy Center without subtracting out
3
extraneous noise would result
in
4
virtually identical measured noise
5
levels.
In other words,
the extraneous
6
noise, day and night, masks
the noise
7
generated by the Ameren Elgin facility.
8
These noise sources not only mask the
9
noise from the Ameren facility, but also
10
are the type that interrupt speech and
11
sleep and are therefore more
intrusive.
12
To conclude,
I reviewed other
13
state noise programs and found no noise
14
regulations
in 43 states and six states
15
that have very little noise regulation.
16
Peaker noise
is not regulated on the
17
federal level
or by the Region
5
states;
18
California,
Texas or New York.
Illinois’
19
regulations and stationary
(sic)
20
provisions
result
in
a very active noise
21
program,
albeit often citizen initiated.
22
The Board is very familiar with the many
23
noise complaints adjudicated by citizens
24
here
in Illinois.
That program has been
Page
72
1
used successfully
for over 30 years
to
2
provide a forum for controlling noise
in
3
the
state.
Although the Illinois EPA has
4
had limited resources
for this program,
5
the legal system is well used through
6
citizen enforcement before
the Board and
7
the Board’s regulations,
those generally
8
applicable and those adopted for specific
9
noise sources and types.
Those
10
regulations have
a positive effect even
11
outside the context
of enforcement
cases.
12
As Ameren has testified,
it constructed
13
the Elgin facility to comply with the
14
applicable
Board regulations.
The
15
possibility that
it may not be able to
16
comply
in the near future
is based upon
17
rezoning, which allows
for new land uses,
18
not noise complaints.
I would also add
19
that based upon my experience,
changes
in
20
local
zoning have oftentimes been
21
responsible for triggering noise
22
complaints before the Board and other
23
forums.
24
In
my 30-year career with the
Page
73
1
IEPA,
the Agency did not receive any
2
complaints regarding peaker noise.
3
curiously,
most stationary noise sources
4
are not controlled.
Peaker plants are
5
one of the very few industrial,
6
stationary sources of noise that are
7
equipped with noise control mechanisms
8
and that equipment
is very effective.
9
That could account for there being no
10
noise complaints received concerning
11
these types
of plants and in this case,
12
the Elgin facility was designed and
13
equipped with noise control mechanisms
14
which are state of
the art
for this
15
industry.
16
In conclusion,
the likelihood of
17
noise complaints concerning the Ameren
18
facility from the Realen property,
should
19
it be developed,
is remote.
The
20
character
of the area
is such that
21
ambient noise and noise generated by
22
Ameren are dominated by extraneous noise
23
sources that are more of the type of
24
noise that are the underlying cause
of
Page
74
1
noise complaints.
Reducing noise further
2
from the Ameren facility will not remove
3
or reduce the impact of the area’s
4
extraneous noise.
5
For these same reasons,
any
6
environmental
impact,
if the proposed
7
numerical limits for receiving Class B
8
lands are adopted as requested would be
9
insignificant.
These three new
10
limitations are proposed to make the
11
levels for class A and B receiving lands
12
consistent.
Furthermore,
the one to two
13
decibel difference between the current
14
Class B noise
limits at 1,000,
two and
15
4,000 Hertz octave bands will not be
16
significant.
17
I hope this summary has been
18
helpful and
I will try to answer any
19
questions you may have along with Rick
20
Smith and Dave Parzych.
Thank you very
21
much.
22
THE REPORTER:
Could
I have one
23
minute to change my paper?
24
(Whereupon,
after a short break
Page 75
1
the following proceedings were
2
had.)
3
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
We are
4
back on the record after
a short recess
5
and,
Mr.
Sternstein,
are you going to
6
offer your witness?
7
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Yes,
I
am.
8
Before
I do that,
though,
I’d just like
9
to ask the Board to admit
a couple of
10
exhibits.
The first one would be the
11
amended prefiled testimony of Howard
12
Chinn, which was submitted
to the Board
13
filed
on January
8th,
2004,
and
I
14
supplied copies of that to the persons on
15
the service list.
16
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Is
17
that going to be Attorney General’s
18
Office Exhibit A?
19
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
A.
20
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Any
2.
objection to that?
22
MS.
McFAWN:
No objection.
23
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
That
24
will be admitted.
Anything else?
Page
76
1
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
And
then prior
2
to the hearing,
Ms. McFawn had asked
3
about
a resume for Mr.
Chinn and so
4
Mr.
Chinn,
being
a good sport that he
is,
5
went ahead and threw
a resume together
6
basically focusing
--
since
a resume for
7
Mr. Chinn would probably go for several
8
hundred pages,
he basically just focused
9
in on his experience with the Illinois
10
noise
laws
and
regulations,
that’s
only
11
four pages,
so
I have copies here and I’d
12
be happy to admit that as Exhibit
B.
13
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Do we
14
have an objection
to that?
Have you
15
taken
a
look
at
that?
16
MS. McFAWN:
I
haven’t
looked
at
17
it.
I could take
a look at
it.
18
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Let
me pass
19
those around real quickly.
20
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Yeah,
21
give one to Ms. McFawn and one to us and
22
we’ll
see if she has an objection and
23
whether or not we should admit
that.
24
This would be AGO
B,
Mr.
Sternstein.
Page 77
1
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
That’s correct.
2
MS.
McFAWN:
We have no
3
objection to
it.
4
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
That
5
will be admitted as well.
Anything else?
6
MS.
McFAWN:
I would just
7
mention that in response
--
thank you,
8
Mr.
Chinn,
for doing
it,
it was brought
9
up during
a prehearing
conversation,
I
10
didn’t anticipate
it, but thank you and
11
when we return
to our presentation,
I
12
would like to admit the resumes that are
13
on file with the Board for our two
14
witnesses
as well.
15
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
You
16
can offer those now if you’d like?
17
MS. McFAWN:
Certainly.
18
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
19
Mr.
Sternstein,
any objection?
Have you
20
seen those?
21
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
No objection.
22
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
I’m
23
assuming we’re talking about
Mr.
Parzych
24
and Mr.
Zak,
right?
McFAWN:
That’s right.
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
admit those
then,
correct me
if
wrong,
as Exhibits
correct.
copy of
MS.
Why
Mr.
20
I have a
Zak’s here with me today that
we can actually label and mark.
will
HEARING
No.
20
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
McFAWN:
I
believe
bring an extra copy of Mr.
Parzych’s
just
--
the
Board has
it
on
file,
though and
I
will
submit
after
hearing
MR.
JOHNSON:
It
‘5
McFAWN:
That’s correct
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
part of prefiled test
MS.
McFAWN:
document to the compi
imony
or
--
It
d
le
is the back
reports by
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Sternstein,
any objection
to that
1
2
MS.
3
4
Page
78
5
Let ‘s
6
I’m
and
21
McFAWN:
7
Yes,
that
‘
5
8
don’t we
make
9
10
11
be
12
It
MS.
13
14
we’ll
I didn’t
15
so
16
17
the
18
MS.
19
in
this
20
21
Is
it
22
23
Mr.
it,
24
admitting
it
--
they’ve already filed
Page 79
1
but they don’t have
a copy here.
2
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
No objection.
3
I’ve seen
it.
4
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
We’ll
5
admit that as well and
if you could, when
6
you get
a chance,
just get us
a copy that
7
we can number as Exhibit
21.
8
MS.
McFAWN:
I’ll send it to
9
you.
10
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
That’s
11
fine.
Al
right.
Mr.
Sternstein?
12
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Yes.
I’d just
13
like to present
the Attorney General’s
14
only witness, Howard Chinn,
he’s
a
15
professional
engineer and to correct my
16
earlier statement,
I believe he’s
17
actually been with the Attorney General’s
18
office for almost
33 years.
Mr. Chin has
19
assured me that he will speak loud enough
20
for the court reporter to hear him,
but
21
if the court reporter
is having any
22
trouble, please
just interrupt him and
23
he’ll move up.
24
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Would
Page
80
1
you swear him in?
2
(Whereupon,
Mr.
Chinn was sworn
it.)
3
MR.
CHINN:
My name
is Howard 0.
4
Chinn.
I’m a licensed professional
S
engineer
in the state
of Illinois,
the
6
state of Wisconsin,
the state
of Michigan
7
and the state of Indiana and I’ve been
8
employed with the Attorney General’s
9
Office since April
1971,
so that’s almost
10
33
years.
11
The
prefiled
testimony
is
in
12
itself
a
summary
because
I
have
pretty
13
much
condensed
my
comments
down
to
this
14
testimony.
We’re
concerned
that
the
15
hearings for the site specific rulemaking
16
are premature
in that the people that
17
will be living
in that area in the future
18
will
not
have
an
opportunity
to
testify
19
on
their
behalf
so
we
think
that
the
20
present hearing is premature.
I’m going
21
to
skip
some
of
the
--
over some of the
22
legal items here
in three and four.
23
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Mr.
Chinn is
24
referring to pages three and four of his
Page
81
1
prefiled testimony.
According
to
2
Ameren’s proposal,
there are already
3
residences
in the area adjacent to
4
Ameren’s
facility that has been recently
5
reclassified
as
“A”
land use.
As
I
6
understand
it,
that Realen property has
7
already been zoned for residential and so
8
it is already
a Class
A land across
9
Gifford Road.
We believe that Ameren
10
should have no expectation that any
11
vacant undeveloped land in the area would
12
remain non-residential
forever unless
13
Ameren acquired
the land or parts thereof
14
for
a buffer
zone.
One of
--
Greg Zak
15
had testified at Board hearings for the
16
informational
peaker plant informational
17
hearing that he had outlined four
18
strategies
to control noise from peaker
19
plants and one of them is
a buffer
zone.
20
In
its proposal, Ameren claims that it
21
will continue
to operate the facility as
22
designed
to provide
the maximum noise
23
control that
is economically
reasonable
24
and technically
feasible.
However,
Page 82
1
Ameren has not provided us with any
2
credible engineering design data
or
3
realistic cost estimate to substantiate
4
the validity of this claim.
5
Ameren also claims that
the
6
exhaust silencing system installed when
7
the facility was built was state of the
8
art.
We have not been able to define
9
what that state of the art means and
10
further that
it affords maximum noise
11
control.
I think these terms are
12
ambiguous and vague.
We cannot quantify
13
or verify the validity of these
14
statements.
15
During the Board peaker plant
16
hearing,
Greg Zak testified,
I
quote,
17
first properly designed and installed
18
combustion air intake
silencers
reduce
19
intake noise by approximately
99.99
20
percent
to 99.99999 percent
in the
2.
average peaker plant.
I would like to
22
know how much the noise has been reduced
23
by the silencing equipment that has been
24
installed at the Ameren facility.
Page 83
1
Further,
Mr.
Zak testified that
2
hardened acoustic enclosure completely
3
containing the gas turbine similarly
4
controls noise radiated from the
5
turbine’s outer shell.
Third, properly
6
designed and installed combustion gas
7
exhaust silencers reduce exhaust noise by
8
approximately 99.9999
to 99.999999
9
percent.
Has this been done at the
10
Ameren facility?
What has been done and
11
what
is the percentage
of reduction
at
12
that facility.
That has never been
13
quantified or stated
in their proposal.
14
Ameren also discussed several
15
conceptual
technical alternatives
under
16
the heading,
technical infeasIbility and
17
economic unreasonableness
of further
18
reducing low frequency noise
at the
19
turbine’s
exhaust.
The
costs
estimate
20
they have provided,
we have not been able
21
to verify because
it does not contain any
22
specific data on how they arrived at
23
those cost estimates.
Ameren provided no
24
engineering
design data or technical
Page 84
1
specification of any kind for any of the
2
technical alternatives discussed,
opinion
3
expressed or conclusion reached in the
4
section of the proposal.
The discussions
S
on the experimental
active noise controls
6
are unspecific and do seem to apply to
7
the Ameren facility.
8
We recommend that Ameren should
9
proceed immediately with
a detailed noise
10
study that they mention in their
11
proposal.
This noise study
is a
12
prerequisite to the next
step of
13
determining what the engineering
14
feasibility evaluation and economic
15
analysis
of alternative control
16
technologies are.
That’s their own
17
proposal.
That’s their own plan to do
a
18
detailed
analysis measuring the noise
19
level
in the octave rank of each piece
of
20
equipment so they know what to control.
21
Right now we don’t know what
to control.
22
As Greg Zak has testified,
23
Ameren’s proposal indicated that many of
24
the area’s ambient noise sources
Page
85
1
contribute
to mid and high-frequency
2
noise such as airplane flyovers,
trains,
3
car and truck traffic.
Ameren claimed
4
that the people usually react by
5
physically closing out the noise source.
6
However,
they provided no references or
7
citations
for that position.
We think
8
there
is
a big difference
--
a
9
discernible difference between noise from
10
Ameren’s facility, which
is continuous
in
11
nature and character,
as opposed to the
12
transient noise emitted by airplane,
13
trains and automobiles.
14
Ameren further claims that the
15
noise
from the facility has little or no
16
impact on residence because the facility
17
generally operates during either hot or
18
cold weather.
So
it sounds like
it’s
19
going to be operating
a lot.
During hot
20
and cold weather, Ameren claims that most
21
people close their windows and doors
in
22
order to operate air conditioning or
23
operate heating units.
Again, Ameren
24
provides no facts,
no references or
Page 86
1
citation
in support of that assumption
2
and being involved with many nuisances
3
type enforcement
cases with the state,
4
and the Court and the Board has found
S
that
if people have to close their
6
windows and shut their doors
to escape
7
noise
it constitutes an unreasonable
8
interference with the enjoyment of life
9
and creates
a nuisance in violation
of
10
Section
24 of the act for noise
and air
1.
pollution
is under Section
9(a)
of the
12
Act.
13
Ameren claims
it
is going to
14
cost $1.2 million dollars to provide an
15
enclosure for the facility to control
16
mid-frequency noise
is unsubstantiated
17
again.
Ameren provided no cost breakdown
18
or an engineering basis for the cost
19
associated with such an enclosure.
20
Ameren’s other cost estimates for
21
controlling mid and high-frequency noise
22
are also unsubstantiated.
23
I,
myself, have visited a few
24
facilities
at the Hillside landfill where
Page 87
1
they have the electric generating plant
2
and they enclosed
it in a building and
3
you can barely hear the noise outside the
4
building, but inside you have to wear ear
5
plugs because the noise
is too loud.
6
What surprised me was that when
7
I walked into the building,
there was no
8
roof so the noise can --so that you can
9
have air exchange coming in there
and
10
there’s no obstructions,
but the noise
is
11
directed upward.
12
Ameren filed with their prefiled
13
testimony a copy of
the acoustical
14
evaluation and ambient sound survey dated
15
November 30th,
the year 2000 and a copy
16
of analysis and results
of acoustical
17
measurements taken near the Ameren Elgin,
18
Illinois power facility,
which was dated
19
June 20th,
2003.
The survey is
a
20
preconstruction report which indicated
21
that significant but achievable sound
22
treatments would be necessary to achieve
23
the acoustical requirements of the
24
facility.
Illinois noise regulations
Page 88
1
were found
to be achievable with four
2
unit operation.
The survey concluded
3
that it is unlikely that the simple noise
4
abatement fixes such as barrier walls
5
would completely
solve the problem.
6
It
is probable that a building would be
7
required over the gas turbines,
8
generators and inlet ducting to approach
9
the Illinois daytime noise regulations
10
and mitigate the mid-frequency
issue.
I
11
think that that concept
--
that
12
technology needs
to have
a detailed
13
engineering evaluation
to determine the
14
technical feasibility
of that concept.
15
Ameren also asserted that other
16
peaker plants should not be compared to
17
their facility unless the other plants
18
are equipped with identical manufacturer’s
19
equipment.
This is absurd and
20
technically illogical.
As an engineer,
21
we don’t compare another facility unless
22
it’s with the same identical equipment.
23
I think you need to look at other
24
equipment of different manufacturers
of
Page 89
1
different design to make that
2
determination whether this equipment here
3
will provide the noise level that will
4
meet the state
of Illinois regulations.
5
However,
Ameren presented no information
5
on their equipment selection process to
7
indicate that they had considered or
8
evaluated other peaker plants on the
9
market that had a lower noise emission
10
rating.
Even though they say that what
11
they have now are state of the art
12
maximum noise control,
there
is no way
13
that we can verify these statements.
14
During the Board’s informational
15
hearing on peaker plant,
the Illinois EPA
16
indicated that as of November
6 the year
17
2000 there
is
67 air permits
for existing
18
and proposed power plants using either
19
simple or combined cycle turbines
in
20
Illinois.
At that point and as up to
21
today,
none of
the owners of these
22
facilities had submitted
a petition for
23
relief from the Illinois noise regulation
24
and again,
to date,
it appears that no
Page 90
1
other peaker plants have submitted such
2
petitions.
Ameren has presented no
3
convincing or compelling information to
4
demonstrate there are extenuating
5
circumstances unique to their facility
6
that would warrant
a site specific
7
regulation
for its Elgin facility.
8
During the Illinois pollution
9
Control Board hearing on peaker plants,
10
there were witnesses representing the
11
county of DuPage,
Versar,
an
12
environmental consultant to review
13
environmental issues related to peaker
14
plants.
During the peaker plant hearings
15
before the Board, Versar indicated that
16
peaker plant noise may be a concern.
17
Versar provided information at the
18
hearing on six proposed peaker plants,
19
five
in Illinois and one in Maryland,
20
from four different developers and it’s
21
my understanding
that they were four
22
different manufacturers
of peaker plants,
23
further Versar indicated that the five
24
proposed peaker plants
in Illinois were
Page 91
expected to meet Illinois noise
regulations
Ameren contended that the peaker
plants are not regulated on the federal
level
is inaccurate.
The Federal Noise
Control Act of
1972,
as amended,
and it
was amended
in the 2002
the federal
statute references type of equipment
that
are significant sources of noise and
those equipment are such as motors,
turbines and generators
Ameren further contended that
Illinois
is probably the most active
state
in the union in terms
of noise
regulation
is also inaccurate.
The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
no longer has
a noise control program.
In the rulemaking
for the amendment
of
the
noise regulation,
they sent a letter
to the Board saying they no longer have
a
noise program and ask that their name be
taken off the regulations and prior to
that,
the only person that they have
working
at the Illinois EPA statewide
is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 92
1
Mr.
Greg Zak,
so how active of
a program
2
can the state have?
The only other state
3
agency that is in it from time to time is
4
the Attorney General’s Office,
but in the
5
early
‘70s or mid
‘70s,
Illinois did have
6
an active noise program.
They had a
7
substantial and significant source of
8
people who were qualified to take noise
9
measurement.
My recollection is that
in
10
this northern area there were
four
11
inspectors who were qualified to take
12
noise measurements.
Now there are none
13
and before Mr.
Zak retired, he was the
14
only one
in the state of Illinois,
so
I
15
would say that that statement
is
16
imprecise,
inaccurate and not true.
17
Ameren conducted noise
18
measurements as well as two noise
19
measurements,
Mr.
Zak did one of them.
20
Ameren correctly indicated and
I concur
21
that the two sets of sound pressure level
22
data cannot be considered
a complete
23
statistical representation of sound from
24
the facility.
However, Ameren
is
Page 93
1
incorrect
in their claim that conducting
2
more actual measurements while the
3
facility is fully operational is not
4
feasible,
that is un
--
I don’t
5
understand that at all.
The variables
6
are not,
as Ameren claims,
far too
7
numerous to run a sufficient number of
8
tests
to create an adequate database for
9
decision-making purposes.
I recommend
10
that Ameren take at least three
11
additional
sets of noise measurements
12
following the upcoming adoption of the
13
amendments
to the Board noise
14
regulations.
Ameren should take these
15
measurements
when all four units
at
the
16
facility are fully operational
and when
17
these units are in a start-up mode,
18
because
I have heard from people that
19
that
is when this noise
is at
its
20
maximum, when these plants are started
21
up.
Each of the sound measurements
22
should be taken under similar atmospheric
23
conditions, but at different receptor
24
locations.
The measurement
should be
Page 94
1
taken when the ambient noise level
is at
2
its lowest, not
at its highest.
The
3
atmospheric conditions should be fully
4
documented and include such information
5
as both cloud cover and precipitation.
6
The measurements should be compiled in
a
7
report and should include a scaled map
8
identifying all physical features and
9
topography.
That was not included
in the
10
prior noise measurement.
The detailed
11
noise study that Ameren described in the
12
proposal should be conducted
at the same
13
time,
if it is convenient
and
14
practicable.
15
Again,
during
the early Board
16
hearings,
informational
hearings on
17
peaker plants,
a consultant,
Mr.
Erjavec,
18
of Indeck indicated that Indeck’s peaker
19
plants were designed to meet the Board’s
20
nighttime numeric noise
standards at all
21
times because these plants may be called
22
upon to operate at any time and because
23
sound attenuation cannot be increased at
24
night.
He also added that Indeck’s
Page 95
1
peaker plants are meeting Illinois noise
2
standards via buffer zones or designed
3
noise silencing measures.
4
Indeck’s consultant indicated
in
S
the public hearing
in Docket ROt-b
that,
6
while
it
is true that
low frequency noise
7
is more difficult
to mitigate than high
8
frequency noise,
that doesn’t mean that
9
it can’t be controlled at all.
For
10
example,
a reasonably substantial
11
building envelope can contain much of the
12
equipment noise inside the building and
13
barriers that can provide
a noise
14
reduction of at least five dB at any
15
frequency provided they block the line of
16
sight between the noise source and the
17
receiver.
We recommend that Ameren
18
should conduct an evaluation
--
be able
19
to contain its noise emissions at all
20
levels with a building that would block
21
the line of sight.
Thus,
Ameren should
22
be able to contain its noise emission at
23
all levels with
a building that blocks
24
the line of sight between the facility
Page 96
1
and the proposed residences
that will be
2
built nearby across Gifford Road.
3
For all the reasons above and in
4
recognition
of the record developed by
5
the Board in Docket ROt-b
and in the
6
interest
of fulfilling the intent and
7
purpose of Title VI of the Act to
8
prevent noise which creates
a public
9
nuisance,
the Office
of
the Attorney
10
General respectfully requests the Board
11
that the Ameren proposal be denied.
12
Thank you.
13
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
14
Mr.
Sternstein,
do you have any further
15
witnesses?
16
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
No,
that’s
it.
17
We just have questions for Ameren,
but
18
we’ll hold off until
after the break.
19
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Let’s
20
take
a break and we’ll go off the record.
21
22
(Whereupon,
a after
a
23
short break
the
24
following
Page 97
1
proceedings were had.)
2
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
We’re
3
back on the record after
a short recess
4
and we’re proceeding
--
we’ve heard
all
S
the witnesses that we need to offer
at
6
this point
in tine,
is that correct,
7
Ms. McFawn?
8
MS. McFAWN:
We do have some
9
additional testimony.
It is to address
10
some of the concerns raised by Mr. Chinn
11
in his prefiled testimony and
I think
12
might also address some that
--
the
13
prefiled testimony that he read from
14
today and,
you know,
there’s some overlap
15
and then we have some questions for Mr.
16
Chinn.
17
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Before
18
we do your questions for Mr.
Chin,
we
19
could wrap up the Board’s questions for
20
you guys,
though,
right?
21
MS. McFAWN:
Right.
Can we go
22
to the additional
testimony,
though,
23
first and then we’ll
go to the questions
24
and answers?
Page 98
1
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Okay.
2
MS. McFAWN:
Is that good?
3
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Yeah.
4
I just don’t want
to run into
a time
5
frame where we don’t have an opportunity
6
to get all of our questions taken care
7
of.
8
MS. McFAWN:
Okay.
I’m looking
9
for my copy
10
MR.
PARZYCH:
Dave Parzych again
11
for Power Acoustics and we’re going to
12
just add some additional testimony
13
related to some of the silencing that is
14
on some of
the gas turbines in the Ameren
15
Elgin facility and first we’d like to
16
address the inlet silencing.
The Elgin
17
gas turbine inlet
is
12 feet
in length.
18
The inlet silencer
is the maximum length
19
offered by either Siemens Westinghouse
or
20
its competitor,
General
Electric.
The
21
standard silencer offered by both Siemens
22
westinghouse
and G.E.
is eight
feet in
23
length,
which
is industry standard for
24
gas turbines
of this size.
The
12 foot
Page
99
1
silencer is quite substantial in reducing
2
inlet noise and silencers typically
3
reduce sound from the gas turbine inlet
4
by more than 50
dE,
which corresponds
to
5
99.999
percent efficient
in reducing
6
noise.
7
There appears to be four
8
additional
feet of space between the
9
Ameren
inlet
filter
house
and
the
10
silencer
ducting
that
could
be
used
to
11
accommodate
more
silencing.
However,
the
12
addition of more silencing could
13
adversely impact the efficiency and power
14
output
of the gas turbine due to the
15
increased back pressure.
we
also
don’t
16
really believe that adding additional
17
silencing would necessarily
improve the
18
--
or reduce the noise from the inlet
19
beyond what
it currently is.
The
20
silencers have
a maximum ability
to
21
reduce noise that’s limited by vibration,
22
that
is
propagated
down
the
metal
in
the
23
ducting
and
that
typically
is
in
the
50
24
to
60
decibel
range
and
we
have
no
reason
Page 100
1
to believe that this silencer isn’t
2
producing that kind of reduction.
3
On the exhaust silencing end,
4
the Elgin gas turbine exhaust silencer is
S
approximately 50 feet
in total
length.
6
This
is the silencer portion itself,
not
7
just the ducting.
It’s
a mammoth exhaust
8
silencer in terms
of simple cycle gas
9
turbines.
For comparison,
a
10
substantially upgraded G.E.
exhaust
11
silencer
is
a
level
three
exhaust
12
silencer,
which is one of their highest
13
levels
of
exhaust
silencing
that
G.E.
14
provides,
it
consists
of
16
feet
of
low
15
frequency and four feet of high frequency
16
silencing,
so the total length
is 20
17
feet.
The
Ameren
silencer
is
30
feet
18
longer than one of the best silencers
19
offered by General Electric.
The
20
effectiveness of upgrading the Elgin
21
exhaust silencers beyond the current
22
state
is questionable.
Any additional
23
silencing would be experimental
since
it
24
is highly probable that the effectiveness
Page 101
1
of
the
silencer
is
the
maximum
obtainable
2
with
this
configuration.
In
high
noise
3
reduction silencers,
the maximum
4
attenuation occurs when the sound from
S
the noise source,
gas turbine exhaust in
6
this case,
is reduced below the sound
7
generated by the gas flowing past the
8
silencer’s perforated panels and internal
9
exhaust
ducting.
when
this
is
the
10
situation,
no additional reduction in
11
sound could be observed by making the
12
silencers
longer.
So simply adding more
13
silencing on it isn’t necessarily going
14
to make it any better.
15
Increasing the silencer size
16
also has other implications that would
17
need to be addressed,
additional exhaust
18
stack silencing would add to the pressure
19
drop of the system and reduce the
20
efficiency and power output of
the gas
21
turbines.
Additional silencing could
22
cause
the
stack
height
or
location
to
be
23
changed.
This would require new air
24
modeling and approval from Elgin on
Page 102
1
height restrictions.
2
In general,
it’s highly
3
improbable that the cost efficient
4
modification can be made to the exhaust
5
stack that would allow further noise
6
reduction and any modifications would be
7
purely experimental and without
8
guarantees of the outcome.
9
Generally, when you hit the
10
level of silencing that Ameren has in
11
these plants,
if you go to
a manufacturer
12
and say,
Mr. Manufacturer of gas turbine
13
silencers,
would you guarantee that
I
14
could achieve X number more dE reduction,
15
they’ll come back and say we’ll do our
16
best,
but we won’t guarantee
it.
17
The costs
of noise abatement
18
items.
The cost of noise abatement
items
19
are speculative since the exact noise
20
reduction and other engineering
21
requirements are not known at this time.
22
The cost estimates are based on the types
23
of modifications that have been seen
24
before on other facilities.
Certainly,
Page 103
1
the cost of the noise abatement could be
2
more or less than that offered by
3
Ameren’s testimony.
The cost estimates,
4
however,
do provide
a reasonable basis
S
for discussion at this time to define the
6
order
of magnitude we’re dealing with.
7
Basically,
the numbers provided by Ameren
8
--
we want
to show that
--
we’re not
9
talking about
$150 fix here and it’s not
10
$10,000 fixes, they’re hundreds and
11
millions of dollars worth of fixes.
12
It
is my opinion that Ameren may
13
be optimistic in some of the costs
since
14
estimates associated with the facility
15
downtime,
while any modifications would
16
be made,
and the cost of removing some
17
equipment have not been accounted for.
18
As far as placing the facility
19
within a building, placing the four gas
20
turbines within
a building does not
21
appear to be feasible without totally
22
redesigning and reengineering the
23
facility.
The gas turbine units were
24
designed for outdoor use and are
Page
104
1
significantly different than gas turbine
2
packages designed for indoor use.
When
3
gas turbine units are purchased
to be
4
placed within
a building,
consideration
5
is given up front to the air intake and
6
all the coolers and the cooling issues.
7
Equipment
that
would
require
the
8
modification to exist within a building
9
includes,
but
isn’t limited to,
the gas
10
turbine air intake system.
The inlet
11
filter house cannot exist within the
12
building and must be moved outside
in
13
someway.
This usually would be
14
accompanied by placing the inlet systems
15
over the top of the generator.
The inlet
16
filter house would then exist on top of
17
the building’s roof.
These outdoor units
18
have side
inlet systems and require
19
extensive
modification.
The
generator
20
enclosure must be ducted to the outdoors.
21
The ventilation of the generator must be
22
rerouted out of the building to allow
23
cooling air in and hot exhaust air out.
24
Any additional restriction to the air
Page 105
1
flow could cause less efficiency of the
2
generator and would likely reduce the
3
power output.
The gas turbine enclosure
4
must be ducted outdoors.
Substantial
S
amounts of fresh air are needed around
6
the gas turbines since any gas leaks can
7
be explosive
if gas builds up within
a
8
building.
Indoors gas turbine units must
9
have enclosures that have
fully ducted
10
outdoors.
All cooler units such as the
11
rotor air cooler and the
lube oil cooler
12
units would be required to be moved
13
outdoors since the heat
load they would
14
place on the building ventilation would
15
be large,
that would require piping
16
analysis and heat transfer analysis.
Any
17
reduction in heat transfer ability would
18
likely affect the efficiency of the
19
facility.
The $25,000 cost of performing
20
an additional
detailed noise study
21
assumes that gas turbine units
could be
22
run by Ameren at either
a profit or at
a
23
minimum at
a break even point.
The study
24
would require,
as a minimum, measurements
Page 106
1
to be made on a single unit.
The study
2
would be more accurate
if more units
3
could be tested to assure manufacturing
4
differences between units are properly
5
identified.
The
time
necessary
to
6
acquire test data
from
a single unit
is
7
about
12 hours.
8
When power
is not marketable,
9
the
cost
associated
with
running
these
10
units
is
astronomical.
The
cost
per
hour
11
for
fuel
is
typically
$7,500
to
$9,500
12
per
unit
depending
on
the
going
rate
of
13
natural
gas.
The
higher
rate
generally
14
prevails
during
the
winter
months.
Costs
15
associated with starting each gas turbine
16
could
run
several
thousand
dollars
per
17
unit.
18
Mr.
Chinn has requested that
19
three
sets
of
additional
test
data
be
20
obtained during periods
of minimum
21
ambient
noise.
Unfortunately,
minimum
22
ambient
occurs
late
at
night
or
in
the
23
early morning hours.
Times
of minimum
24
ambient
noise
also
coincides
with
minimum
Page 107
1
power
consumption.
This
almost
assures
2
that no market would exist and Ameren’s
3
Elgin power facility would be required to
4
run
these
special
tests
at
a
substantial
5
loss.
Operating four units concurrently
6
could
cost
Ameren
over
$100,000
for
a
7
special two-hour run.
Obtaining three
8
additional
groups
of
sound
data
from
the
9
facility
would
then
cost
a
minute
of
10
$300,000
plus
consultant’s
time
and
11
expense.
This
assumes
that
Ameren
would
12
be
allowed
to
put
more
than
400
megawatts
13
of
excess
power
into
the
power
grid.
14
This
additional
power
would
require
15
Atneren
to
find
a
base
load
facility
that
16
would
be
willing
to
cut
its
power
17
production
by
the
equivalent
amount
that
18
Ameren’s Elgin facility would produce.
19
Testing logistics is also a
20
problem.
It
is my experience that
21
obtaining sound data from a gas turbine
22
facility
is
not
always
as
straightforward
23
as
it may seem.
I recently had the
24
experience of trying to obtain sound test
Page 108
1
data at
a facility in Indiana.
The test
2
was expected to take eight hours, but
3
took from December 16th,
2003 to January
4
8th,
2004
to complete.
Weather,
such as
S
wind,
rain,
snow and frigid temperatures,
6
the
inability
to
sell
power,
the
7
availability of natural gas and
8
equipment
problems
all
contributed
to
the
9
lengthy delays.
When power could be
10
sold,
the weather wasn’t accommodating
11
and when the weather was accommodating,
12
the power couldn’t be sold so it went
on
13
for more than three weeks.
Finally,
I
14
believe the owner of the facility paid
15
another
power
facility
to
take
base
load
16
equipment
offline
and
allow
his
plant
to
17
be tested on a day where the weather,
gas
18
and gas turbine units
all cooperated.
19
Because
of
the
cost
associated
20
with running many
gas
turbine
units
21
concurrently,
analytical
adjustments
to
22
the
operation of a single unit operation
23
are
often
used
as
Power
Acoustics
did
in
24
our
June
2003
study.
While
it
is
Page
109
1
acknowledged
that
it would be preferable
2
to take data with the full facility
3
operating,
it
is not always financially
4
feasible.
Analytical
techniques used to
5
correct sound data for multiple units
--
6
multiple similar sound sources have been
7
used reliable
for many years by
8
acoustical engineers and consultants.
9
Also,
as described in the preceding
10
paragraph,
all conditions,
including
11
weather, must come together before the
12
noise test could be run successfully.
13
Once Ameren commits to providing power
14
for X amount of time on
a given day,
it
15
cannot un-commit just because the weather
16
isn’t cooperating for sound tests.
The
17
difficulty associated with obtaining
18
sound data on facilities that do not run
19
every day is tremendous.
Also,
it is
20
highly probable that scheduling
three
21
additional
test runs,
as requested
22
by Mr.
Chinn,
would not provide weather
23
conditions
as favorable to those that
24
fortuitously occurred during
the Power
Page 110
1
Acoustics and Noise Solutions by Greg Zak
2
testing performed last year.
For
3
instance,
if
the
wind
is
not
blowing
from
4
east or is not calm,
the sound data
S
obtained will not be representative of
6
the maximum sound
that could exist on the
7
Realen property.
Data other than calm
8
wind or wind from the east would result
9
in totally misleadingly and useless
10
information.
Therefore,
I believe three
11
additional
sets of data may or may not
12
provide anymore useful information
13
regarding the maximum sound from the
14
Ameren Elgin facility.
It would all
15
depend on how lucky we were and that
is
16
my additional
testimony.
17
MS. McFAWN:
Thank you,
Mr.
Parzych.
18
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Do you have any
19
additional,
additional testimony?
20
MS. McFAWN:
Not at this
time,
21
Mr.
Knittle, but we do have the questions
22
and answers that you’d like us to
23
provide.
24
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Why
Page 111
1
don’t we start with those?
2
MS. McFAWN:
As
I understand it,
3
these are the questions from the Board
4
and you were kind enough to direct
it to
5
each of our three witnesses.
We’ll begin
6
with the questions posed to Mr.
Smith.
7
I’ll read the question and Mr.
Smith will
8
read the answer.
9
THE REPORTER:
Could
I have a
10
copy of that?
11
MS. McFAWN:
You may.
12
THE REPORTER:
Thank you,
Ms. McFawn.
13
MS. McFAWN:
Mr.
Smith,
the
14
first question is at page one of the
15
Board’s questions to us.
The questions
16
asked at page one of
the Board’s
17
questions to us
is phrased as follows:
18
You state that Ameren considered the
19
possible noise effect on surrounding
20
community and engaged Power Acoustics,
21
Inc.,
to conduct a sound survey at
22
various locations, which included
23
existing residential
land use.
A,
please
24
comment on whether Ameren was aware of
Page 112
1
the possibility that the parcel
of land
2
immediately west of the facility would be
3
rezoned for residential use during the
4
planning or construction phases
of
the
5
facility.
6
MR.
SMITH:
We were not aware of
7
the possibility
of rezoning
for
8
residential
use.
The area has been very
9
industrial
in nature and the parcel
in
10
question was surrounded by mining and
11
industrial
activity.
Lacking any reason
12
to the contrary,
we judged the location
13
as long-term industrial
use.
14
MS. McFAWN:
At
“B”
the Board
15
asks,
if Ameren had known that the parcel
16
land would be rezoned as residential
17
prior
to
construction,
would
it
have
been
18
possible
to design the facility
to meet
19
the Board’s class land noise limitations
20
and
I presume that means class
--
BoardTs
21
Class A land noise limitations?
22
MR.
SMITH:
If we had known that
23
it may be likely
for
a residential
24
developer
to achieve proper zoning and
Page
113
1
build residences,
we likely would have
2
abandoned our efforts at this location.
3
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
May
I
4
interject.
I hope this
is what you’re
5
intending,
but
if anybody up here has
a
6
question based on the response,
I think
7
it would be helpful
just to get
it out as
8
you’re giving them instead of coming back
9
to it
later.
10
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
11
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Feel
12
free to jump
in.
13
MR. RAO:
Okay.
14
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
I
15
guess that goes for you over there,
too,
16
Mr.
Sternstein.
17
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Okay.
18
MR. JOHNSON:
Well,
then I’ve
19
got along that line in particular,
you
20
testified that you were in charge
of the
21
construction phase of this facility.
Did
22
that include the decision or at
least
23
input into the decision with respect
to
24
the location and siting decision?
Page 114
1
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
2
MR.
JOHNSON:
And
what
types
of
3
things
--
just generically,
what factors
4
does your company consider when making
S
those siting decisions?
6
MR.
SMITH:
This
is a natural
7
gas fueled plant so we needed
a gas
8
pipeline or natural gas source and we
9
were aware of the Horizon pipeline
10
planning to build
a line
in the
1.
transmission
corridor.
We needed to be
12
able to connect to the electricity grid
13
and
ergo
Spaulding
Road
substation
was
14
available
for
that
purpose
and
we
needed
15
to
have
compatible
land
uses
and
we
16
judged the site to have all of these
17
factors;
industrial
nature, having
the
18
utilities available.
We had rail access,
19
which
was
also
a
factor.
Rail
access
was
20
used to deliver the generator and gas
21
turbine components which are very heavy
22
that come in by rail and then transported
23
from the rail siting
to the side on
24
special heavy wait
--
heavy load type
Page 115
1
trucks.
2
MR. JOHNSON:
So the zoning as
3
well as the nature and character of
the
4
area,
wherever
it
is you decided to make
5
a siting decision,
comes
into play?
6
MR.
SMITH:
Yes,
it does.
7
MS. McFAWN:
Could you,
B
Mr.
Smith,
tell us the time frame of when
9
Ameren was considering
the Elgin site?
10
MR.
SMITH:
We began getting
11
interested
in building
a peaker plant
in
12
the Chicago area on the CornEd system
in
13
late 1999 and early 2000 and,
in fact,
we
14
began prospecting
for
a site in this area
15
in January of
2000.
16
MS.
McFAWN:
And do you recall
17
what the zoning was of the property now
18
referred to as the Realen property?
19
MR.
SMITH:
Industrial
is my
20
understanding.
21
MS. McFAWN:
And
at that time
it
22
was part of just Cook County,
correct?
23
MR.
SMITH:
It was
24
unincorporated Cook County,
zoned
Page
I 16
a.
industrial.
We understood
the intended
2
use to be
a balefill to be operated by
3
the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook
4
County.
5
MS.
McFAWN:
Thank you.
6
MR.
JOHNSON:
You also
--
when
7
you talk about unexpected
residential
8
development,
I think you made it clear
9
that the residential development was
10
unexpected.
You then said that you did
a
11
sound study when you discovered that the
12
parcel directly
to the west of this
13
facility was going to be used for
14
residential purposes.
Which of the three
15
-
-
you had
a preliminary sound study done
16
by Mr.
Parzych and that was prior to
17
making a siting decision at all,
right,
18
that was your first study,
is that right,
19
Mr.
Parzych?
20
MR.
PARZYCH:
That was in
21
November of
2000.
22
MR.
SMITH:
I would characterize
23
it as we knew
--
we knew we wanted to be
24
in this location
--
or we believe we
Page 117
1
wanted to be
in this location, but we
2
knew we needed to work with the
3
manufacturer
to develop equipment to
4
abate noise
to meet the Illinois rule.
S
We had some experience with the same type
6
of gas turbines
and the Illinois rule at
7
our Gibson City sites and knew that we
8
would need to do something with the
9
exhaust stack and inlet to achieve
10
acceptable
limits
in the rule.
11
MR.
JOHNSON:
Okay.
Did you
12
purchase the property at that juncture?
13
MR.
SMITH:
We entered into
a
14
purchase option agreement with the land
15
owner
in September of 2000.
16
MR.
JOHNSON:
I’m just trying to
17
get the timing with respect to the
18
initial
sound study, your purchase and
19
decision to site the plant there and then
20
the subsequent
studies
of which there
21
were two more,
correct,
Mr.
Parzych did
22
one
in June of
‘03 and then Mr.
Zak one
23
in September?
24
MR.
SMITH:
We felt we had an
Page 118
1
acceptable
sound abatement solution
2
working with Mr.
Parzych and Siemens
3
Westinghouse.
Between the time we signed
4
the
land
purchase
option
in
September
5
2000 and the summer
of 2001 we committed
6
to purchase
the property and move forward
7
with the project.
My recollection
is
it
8
was July 2001.
9
MS. McFAWN:
And the studies
10
that Member Johnson referred
to,
the ones
11
that were done this last summer by Power
12
Acoustics,
Inc.,
and by Noise Solutions
13
by Greg Zak in September
of this year
-
-
14
or of 2003,
those were subsequent
to
--
15
MR.
JOHNSON:
That was to
16
rezoning.
17
MS. McFAWN:
That was
to address
18
the rezoning?
19
MR.
SMITH:
Right.
20
MR. JOHNSON:
And since you
21
bring up Gibson City,
do you have any
22
other peaker plants
in Illinois that are
23
located contiguous
to residential
24
property,
residentially zoned
--
or
Page
1 L9
1
actually for our purposes,
it’s the land
2
use that1s most important rather than
3
zoning.
4
MR.
SMITH:
Gibson City is
a
S
similar situation.
They had
a partially
6
developed industrial park that the people
7
there were trying to get off the ground
B
and have more businesses located
in
it.
9
We came in and discussed our plans with
10
the mayor and appropriate planning people
11
and they pointed us
to this industrial
12
park,
which we liked,
it had enough of
13
the factors we look for
--
14
MS.
McFAWN:
You’re talking
15
about Elgin now?
16
MR.
SMITH:
I’m talking about
17
Gibson City at this point.
So it is
a
18
parallel situation and they were happy to
19
have us come
in.
We connected their
20
utilities and took about
20 acres
of
21
their property there and the residences
22
are not contiguous
there.
I would say
23
that they’re not contiguous
in Elgin
24
either.
We
do have all this industrial
Page 120
ons
1
property between us and the subdivisi
2
that exist
there, but Gibson City was
3
similar they had this industrial park and
4
there was property between us,
like,
5
subdivisions
or the actual residents that
6
lived
in the area and that one went very
7
well.
Everybody
is very happy with the
S
plant down there
in Gibson City.
I’ve
9
had no complaints
about anything on that
10
site.
11
MR.
JOHNSON:
And you say in
12
Elgin you’re not contiguous, but with the
13
exception
of,
I don’t have the one
I made
14
the note on
it, what’s the name of the
15
road?
16
MS.
McFAWN:
Gifford?
17
MR.
JOHNSON:
Gifford Road,
18
that’s the only thing that’s
a buffer
19
between you and the newly rezoned Realen
20
property?
21
MR.
SMITH:
Right.
At the time
22
--
I guess
I was referring to the time we
23
sited there,
there was nothing
24
contiguous.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
requested.
MR.
SMITH:
MS.
McFAWN:
Power Acoustics,
Inc.
report states
at page
units are anticipated
during daytime hours,
2
the
lease
That were requested.
Number
three,
the
November 2000
three that the
to run primarily
but the unit may be
MR.
JOHNSON:
ahead.
Sorry.
Page 121
I see.
You can go
MS. McFAWN:
Question No.
then,
regarding noise emitted from
Ameren facility to Class
A land,
p
clarify whether the proposed site
specific regulations
are intended
to
replace only the daytime noise standards
under Section 901.102 or both the daytime
and nighttime
standards?
MR.
SMITH:
We were trying to
address both and
I would like to note
that the noise measurements were
conducted at night and the proposed
numerical values represent the night
as
well
as daytime
levels.
MS. McFAWN:
That were
Page 122
1
run during nighttime periods as
2
necessary.
Please comment on whether the
3
units are being operated during nighttime
4
periods and
if
so, would
it be possible
5
to provide data on the frequency,
6
duration
and
number
of
units
operating
7
during nighttime period?
8
MR.
SMITH:
The majority of run
9
hours are still expected to occur during
10
the daytime hours.
At this time,
I
11
really cannot give the number of hours
12
the plant will operate during daytime
13
versus nighttime,
it’s
a function of
14
market conditions,
weather and what’s
15
going on on the ComEd system,
but
I
can
16
add that the IEPA or Illinois EPA air
17
permit
limits our operation to
16 percent
18
of the time on an annual basis,
so that
19
would be the maximum number of hours that
20
we can operate under that air permit,
21
whether they be day or night.
22
MR.
RAO:
Could you
--
23
MR.
SMITH:
You couldn’t hear me
24
over the El?
Do you want me to repeat
Page 123
1
it?
2
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
3
MR.
SMITH:
Okay.
The majority
4
of run hours are still expected to occur
5
during daytime hours and at this time,
I
6
really cannot give the number of hours
7
the plant will operate during daytime
8
versus nighttime because this
is
a
9
function
of
weather,
market
conditions
10
and the deregulated market and conditions
11
on the ComEd transmission
system,
but
I
12
can add that our
--
Illinois EPA air
13
permit
limits our operation to
16
percent
14
of the time on an annual basis,
so it
15
doesn’t matter
if we run day or night,
16
we’re only going to be able to operate
16
17
percent
of the time
in
a year.
18
MR.
RAO:
When you say
16
19
percent
of the time,
what are you
20
referring
to?
21
MR.
SMITH:
Number of hours
in
a
22
year.
23
MR.
RAO:
Okay
24
MR.
JOHNSON:
But you could do
Page 124
1
that all
in the summer when people
2
typically need more power than they do in
3
the winter?
4
MR.
SMITH:
That
is correct.
5
MR.
RAO:
So do you keep track
6
of when the plant operated on
a
7
day-to-day basis which can tell you
8
whether it’s operated during nighttime or
9
daytime?
10
MR. SMITH:
Yes,
we keep a
log.
11
MR.
RAO:
Based
on
that
12
information,
could you tell us,
you know,
13
what percentage
of the hours
it was
14
operating nighttime?
15
MR.
SMITH:
Most of the
16
operation that we’ve had since we went
17
commercial
for testing purposes either
18
for equipment guaranteed testing or noise
19
measurement
testing.
We’ve had only
a
20
limited number
of commercial dispatches
21
where there was an economic reason or
22
business reason to run the units
to make
23
an electricity
sale.
Sitting here today,
24
I can’t answer your question.
I don’t
Page 125
1
know what that split would be.
2
MR.
RAO:
Would it be possible
3
for you to look at your operating data
4
and give us an estimate?
5
MR.
SMITH:
I’ll try to come up
6
with something for you.
I’ll have to go
7
back and try to do that.
8
MS. McFAWN:
Mr.
Smith, when did
9
you go operational?
10
MR.
SMITH:
The fall of 2002.
11
MS.
McFAWN:
So you’ve really
12
been only operational
for
a little over
a
13
year?
14
MR.
SMITH:
Right,
that is
15
correct
16
MS.
McFAWN:
Has the plant been
17
operated very often?
18
MR.
SMITH:
No.
19
MS.
McFAWN:
So generally your
20
records of nighttime versus daytime would
21
be rather scant?
22
MR. SMITH:
It would be very
23
limited.
24
MR. JOHNSON:
You clearly hope
Page 126
1
to be operating more than you have been
2
in the past?
3
MR.
SMITH:
That
is correct.
4
MR. RAO:
Along those
lines,
has
5
Ameren done any future production
6
concerning power generation
at the
7
facility,
you know,
to estimate whether
8
in the future Ameren would be required to
9
generate more power based on the growth
10
in the area?
11
MR.
SMITH:
I’m not aware of any
12
studies
like that for this site.
13
MR.
RAO:
Are there any plans to
14
convert the facility to
a base load
15
facility
in the future?
16
MR.
SMITH:
No.
We have no
17
plans
to significantly change anything in
18
the plant.
It was designed and approved
19
by all the agencies
as well
as the city
20
of Elgin as
a four unit peaker
site.
21
Elgin would not allow more units
to be
22
added later and we’ve agreed with that
23
with them.
24
MR.
RAO:
And
in case if Ameren
Page 127
1
decides
to,
you know,
pursue
a change in
2
the operation,
then you have to go
3
through this whole permitting procedure
4
process with IEPA one more time,
am
I
5
correct?
6
MR. SMITH:
Yes,
that would be
7
correct.
8
MR. JOHNSON:
To exceed
16
9
percent,
you1d have to go through
a
10
repermitting process?
11
MR.
SMITH:
That
is correct.
12
MR.
RAO:
Thank you.
13
MS. McFAWN:
Mr.
Smith,
maybe
14
this
is a good time for me to ask you
15
this question.
16
If you were to make physical
17
changes at the plant to accommodate
18
additional
noise abatement equipment,
do
19
you think you’d have to go through air
20
permitting again?
21
MR.
SMITH:
It would depend on
22
what that modification was.
My
--
the
23
options that we’re talking about
like
a
24
new stack or
a higher stack or
a stack
in
Page 128
1
a different location or a change to the
2
footprint
of one of
the units would
3
require approvals by the city of Elgin
as
4
well as potentially
the air permit.
5
Anything with the stack would require an
6
air permit modification and
if we would
7
change
a location of the stack
to move
it
8
out further, we would have to remodel the
9
emissions and resubmit that data to IEPA
10
and go through the permit again.
11
MS.
McFAWN:
You said that
if
12
you were to change the footprint then you
13
would have to return to the city of Elgin
14
for approval?
15
MR.
SMITH:
That
is correct.
16
MS.
McFAWN:
And you might have
17
to change the footprint
if you had to
18
move the stack?
19
MR.
SMITH:
That’s correct.
20
MS.
McFAWN:
Or you were to put
21
a secondary enclosure around any of the
22
ducting?
23
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
24
MR.
JOHNSON:
Is that road then
Page 129
1
--
that’s one point
of confusion that
2
I’ve had
is Elgin versus Bartlett.
Is
it
3
--
Bartlett did rezone,
correct,
and is
4
it just across that street,
is
--
that’s
S
the dividing line between the two
-
-
6
MR.
SMITH:
My understanding
of
7
the rezoning was to bring the Realen
8
property into the city of Bartlett.
It
9
was before that unincorporated.
10
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
It was
11
an annexation.
12
MR.
SMITH:
It was an
13
annexation,
yes,
sir.
And clifford Road
14
is the dividing line between Elgin and
15
Bartlett now,
I presume.
16
MS. MCFAWN:
Formerly
it was
17
unincorporated Cook County.
Bartlett
18
annexed
it and at the same time rezoned
19
it.
20
MR. JOHNSON:
Do you work out
21
there
at the site?
I mean,
are you there
22
on a regular
-
23
MR.
SMITH:
On occasion.
24
MR.
JOHNSON:
On occasions.
Page 130
1
So you’ve had an opportunity to see the
2
residential
development
so to speak
3
across the street.
Are they building
4
houses now?
5
MR.
SMITH:
I haven’t been there
6
recently.
It’s been
a number
of months
7
since
I visited.
I don’t think they’re
8
actually constructing
yet.
9
MS. McFAWN:
I was there on
10
December 30th and they are not
11
constructing.
There are some impediments
12
currently to their constructing homes
13
there and also they’re waiting
for the
14
spring season to construct as
I
15
understand
it and one of the reasons
we
16
asked for expedited consideration was to
17
accommodate
fewer homeowners.
18
THE REPORTER:
Can
I have
a
19
minute?
20
(Brief pause.)
21
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
22
Mr. Member Johnson,
any further
23
questions?
24
MS. McFAWN:
I’ll move onto
Page 131
1
question No.
4
then.
At page four the
2
estimated cost of noise abatement
3
measures for all the four units
is listed
4
as $11,650,000.
A, please clarify
S
whether the cost of noise abatement
is an
6
add-on cost or the turbines are sold with
7
some noise abatement measures
as an
B
integral part of the power generation
9
equipment?
10
MR.
SMITH:
My answer
is,
the
11
estimate of $11,650,000
is
a combination
12
of equipment supply and installation
13
costs.
The units were purchased from
14
Siemens Westinghouse with the Illinois
15
noise regulations
in mind.
The equipment
16
we installed at the site was provided as
17
part of
the equipment supply contract
18
with Siemens Westinghouse.
The
11.65
19
million estimate represents
the items
20
installed that were custom designed and
21
supplied specifically
for the Elgin
22
Energy Center
site.
So
I suppose
I would
23
call them add-on improvements
to the
24
equipment.
Page 132
1
MR. RAO:
So
if you wanted to
2
buy the turbines without the noise
3
abatement measures it’s possible to get
4
--
you know,
buy one at
a lower cost?
5
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
6
MR.
RAO:
Okay.
7
MS.
McFAWN:
If you were to buy
8
the standard equipment
for noise
9
abatement,
would that be at
a lower cost
10
than that specifically designed
--
1.
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
12
MS. McFAWN:
--
for Elgin?
Is
13
that
a
significantly
different
cost,
if
14
you know offhand?
15
MR.
SMITH:
I believe
it to be
16
significant and
I would represent
the
17
$11,650,000
figure
as the incremental
18
cost that we spent because
of
the Elgin
19
site
conditions
in
concert
with
the
20
Illinois noise rule.
21
MS. McFAWN:
Thank you.
22
B,
comment on whether
the noise
23
abatement equipment currently used at the
24
facility was designed specifically
for
Page 133
1
Ameren’s Elgin facility to meet certain
2
noise emission levels specified by
3
Ameren.
4
MR.
SMITH:
The noise abatement
5
equipment was designed and supplied
6
specifically to comply with the Illinois
7
noise regulations
at the Elgin Energy
8
Center
site.
9
MR.
JOHNSON:
Based upon the
10
existing at that time land use?
11
MR.
SMITH:
That is correct.
12
MS.
McFAWN:
What percentage
of
13
the
overall
cost
of
the
facility
does
the
14
cost of noise abatement measures
15
represent?
16
MR.
SMITH:
A little more than
S
17
percent
of
the
total
capital
requirements
18
were
for
the
noise
abatement
systems.
19
MS. McFAWN:
By extrapolation
20
the facility cost over 200
million?
21
MR.
SMITH:
Yes,
sir.
22
MS. McFAWN:
Number five,
at
23
page
five
of
the
petition
you
state
that
24
the sound testing would have to be
Page 134
1
conducted to determine sound power levels
2
at each sound source.
Please clarify
3
whether the equipment manufacturer
4
provides such data.
If so,
comment on
5
whether such data
is based on actual
6
sound testing.
7
MR.
SMITH:
Siemens Westinghouse
8
did not provide actual sound testing data
9
at the time our plant was designed and
10
installed.
They provided estimated noise
11
emissions from major components
to Power
12
Acoustics for use
in our noise abatement
13
planning and study work.
To my
14
knowledge,
Siemens Westinghouse currently
15
uses similar non-specific,
non-measured
16
data
to
customers.
17
MR.
RAO:
Is that data that was
18
provide Siemens,
is there some kind of
a
19
rating for each,
you know,
piece
of
20
equipment that they provide you?
21
MR.
SMITH:
My understanding was
22
that we received expected noise level
at
23
a distance from that piece
of equipment,
24
but there’s
--
to my knowledge,
they1ve
Page 135
1
never used and I’ve never seen any noise
2
ratings per se.
We purchased quite
a few
3
combustion turbines
in recent years and
4
we’ve
installed
a lot of them and no
5
manufacturer
that we ever dealt with
6
talked about noise ratings.
7
MR.
RAO:
So when you order a
8
turbine,
do you include sort of a
9
specification
of what noise level that
10
turbine should meet at
a
certain
distance
11
or
-
-
12
MR.
SMITH:
Yeah,
that
would
13
basically be the process of working with
14
the manufacturer.
15
MR.
RAO:
Okay.
16
MS. McFAWN:
Question
six,
at
17
page five you mention that the estimated
18
cost
of the detailed sound study does not
19
include the cost of operating the
20
facility for purposes
of recording noise
21
measurements.
A,
would
it
be
possible
to
22
provide
a general cost estimate for
23
operating the facility for purposes
of
24
sound monitoring?
Page 136
1
MR.
SMITH;
Yes.
2
MR.
RAO:
David Parzych,
I
think
3
he answered this question.
4
MR.
SMITH:
I would like to
5
clarify just
a little bit more
if you
6
could bear with me just for
a moment.
7
He gave you
a substantial part of
it in
8
terms of
the operating fuel cost,
but in
9
addition we would include
a start cost on
10
one of the machines of $7,500 and then
11
approximately
$8,000 an hour for each
12
machine that would be running at
full
13
output and the typical two-hour test for
14
all four units running simultaneously
15
would be $90
to
$100,000,
assuming that
16
the ComEd system can absorb that much
17
energy at the time of the testing.
If
18
not,
we would probably incur additional
19
expenses
to compensate
others for
20
non-economic dispatch of their units.
21.
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Is
22
there
a way to know before?
23
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
The people
24
that set up our dispatch with ComEd plan
Page 137
1
that
day
ahead
or
more
so
we
would
know
a
2
day ahead of time if it was going
to cost
3
us that additional
amount.
4
MR. JOHNSON:
How did Mr.
Zak
5
end up lucky enough to be there when
-
-
6
or unlucky enough
to be there when all
7
four
units
were
operating?
8
MR.
SMITH:
We scheduled
it,
9
worked
out
a suitable date for ComEd,
we
10
scheduled
it for an uneconomic dispatch.
11.
MS.
McFAWN:
So it was
a
12
non-economic
dispatch?
13
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
14
MS.
McFAWN:
And you scheduled
15
it specifically
so that Mr.
Zak could
16
come and take the measurements?
17
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
18
MS.
McFAWN:
The same with the
19
measurements
taken
in
June
2003 by PAl?
20
MR.
SMITH:
I
don’t
recall
if
21
that was
a
--
22
MS.
McFAWN:
That was
a single
23
unit.
24
MR.
SMITH:
It was
a single
Page 138
1
unit.
My recollection
is that the
2
scheduling
of
it was specifically
for the
3
sound measurement activities.
I do not
4
recall
if it was profitable or not.
S
MR. RAO:
So in Mr.
Zak’s sound
6
survey, Ameren didn’t incur all the costs
7
that you mentioned
--
8
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
9
MR.
RAO:
--
earlier?
10
MS.
McFAWN:
The next question
11
is Greg Zak notes
that he measured the
12
sound levels while all four peaker units
13
were operating at maximum load.
Please
14
comment on whether the units were
15
operated
at maximum load for the sole
16
purpose
of measuring sound level.
I
17
think we’ve covered that.
18
MR.
SMITH:
Yes
--
the answer is
19
yes.
20
MS. McFAWN:
Question seven,
21
attachment
E to our petition lists the
22
cost of the various noise abatement
23
alternatives
in terms of total capital
24
cost.
Please provide the cost of the
Page 139
1
alternatives
in terms
of the incremental
2
operating
cost.
3
MR. SMITH:
This question was
4
unclear to me.
S
MR.
RAO:
Let me clarify
it.
6
In table
E
of
--
listed the cost of all
7
the different alternatives
of total
8
capital cost,
could you give us a better
9
idea as to what this cost means
in terms
10
of
-
-
in terms
of the operating cost or
11
revenue for Ameren?
You know,
I was
12
trying to see
if you could provide the
13
cost and, you know, what does this means
14
in terms
of the incremental
cost for
15
Ameren
or,
you know,
what would be the
15
incremental
cost that you would charge
17
your consumers?
18
MR.
JOHNSON:
It seems that
it
19
would vary with the number of hours that
20
the plant ran,
that you can’t tell us
in
21
advance,
right?
22
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
I would agree
23
with that.
What
I might be able to do
--
24
what
I probably can do is tell you what
Page 140
1
the capital
investment
is costing us on
2
an annual basis and then you could assume
3
that that’s money that we would need to
0~
4
receive in order to pay for
it.
5
MR.
RAO:
That would be helpful
6
to get some handle on the capital costs
7
that are listed here.
8
MR.
SMITH:
But to clarify,
you
9
do want
it on an annual basis
--
10
MR.
RAO:
Yes.
11
MR.
SMITH:
-
-
a revenue stream?
12
MS. McFAWN:
Can we get back to
13
the Board on that?
14
MR.
RAO:
tjh-huh.
15
MS.
McFAWN:
Question eight,
at
16
page six of the petition regarding the
17
installation
of additional
exhaust stack
18
silencers
for low frequency noise
19
reduction you state that the likely
20
success
of this option
is small since
a
21
large amount of noise reduction
is
22
required to comply with the Board’s
23
residential
standards.
Please clarify
24
whether this standard refers to both the
Page 141
1
Board’s daytime standards or nighttime
2
standards or both.
3
MR. SMITH:
Both.
4
MS. McFAWN:
And
B,
the next
5
question
is,
is low frequency noise
6
reduction
in the range
of five to ten
7
decibels considered
a significant
8
reduction?
9
MR.
SMITH:
This range of
10
reduction
is
highly
significant
and
very
11
difficult
to
achieve
at
low
frequency.
12
In
our
case
in
dealing
with
the
Elgin
13
Energy
Center,
it
would
be
infeasible
and
14
technically
impossible
to reduce the 31.5
15
Hertz
band
to
ten
dE
below
current
16
existing levels.
17
MR.
RAO:
Is
that because like
18
Mr.
Parzych stated earlier that you
19
already achieved 99.99 percent reduction
20
and it’s difficult to go beyond that
21
further reduction or can you elaborate
a
22
little
more?
23
MR.
PARZYCH:
Low frequency has
24
very,
very long wave lengths and
in order
Page 142
1
to get
a lot of noise reduction with
2
very,
very long wave lengths
the
3
silencing materials have to be very thick
4
and they have to be comparable in length
5
to these long wave lengths.
The Elgin
6
silencers,
exhaust silencers,
there’s a
7
total length of about
50
feet
in
there.
8
We believe that we’re at the stage now
9
where those silencers have reduced the
10
noise coming out
the
back of the gas
11
turbine as much as they can
before you
12
get
to the point where the exhaust gases
13
themselves interacting with the surfaces
14
inside the silencer start creating their
15
own noise.
Just like when you open the
16
windows on your car driving down the
17
highway.
So that low frequency noise
is
18
at this point where it’s a very
19
questionable situation that you can get
20
any additional noise reduction by simply
21
increasing the silencing that’s on there
22
because of that limitation.
The silencer
23
that’s on there,
the best we can say,
24
it’s really
--
out of
hundreds
of
plants
Page
143
1
that I’ve seen,
the most substantial
2
silencing I’ve ever seen on a simple
3
cycle gas turbine unit
of any brand.
4
MR.
RAO:
Along the same lines
5
in considering different measure
6
alternatives,
did Ameren consider
7
setbacks or buffer zones
as an
8
alternative
and,
you know,
did Ameren
9
explore the option of purchasing Realen
10
property as
a means
of complying with the
11
board regulations?
12
MS.
McFAWN:
Can
we
consider
13
that as
a two-part question
--
14
MR.
RAO:
Yes.
15
MS. McFAWN:
--
so that we can
16
put
it
in
a relevant time frame?
17
You asked if we considered
18
buffers or setbacks.
I
think that
19
Mr.
Smith addressed that
in the time
20
frame of when we were considering
21
purchasing the property.
Do
you want to
22
just put
--
answer the question in that
23
context again very briefly?
24
MR.
SMITH:
Sure.
At the time
Page
144
we selected the site it was an industrial
zoned area,
including the now Realen
property.
The understanding was that the
Solid Waste Agency was planning on using
that property
for their purposes and with
the industrial nature of the area,
the
sound improvements that we made to the
equipment
would
be
adequate
to
meet
the
Illinois
noise
rules.
This
particular
site,
there was not adequate buffer or
open land that could have been purchased
and it was judged unnecessary at the
time.
(Whereupon,
the requested
portion of the record
was read accordingly.)
MS. McFAWN:
Mr.
Rao,
if you
I might just rephrase that
a
Again,
to put
it
in
a time
assume you’re asking did we
at the time that perhaps
1
2
.3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MS. McFAWN:
second part
And could you read
of Mr. Rao’s
the back
question?
don’t
mind,
little bit?
context.
I
consider it
Page 145
1
SWANCC or the Solid Waste Agency of
2
Northern Cook County was marketing
it?
3
That
--
we’re not exactly sure when that
4
began?
5
MR.
RAO:
The rezoning was when
6
Bartlett was annexed in the land and
7
rezoning.
Was there
a consideration
8
given
to
-
-
you know,
purchasing
the
9
property as
a means
of complying?
10
MS.
McFAWN:
At that time
--
11
well,
actually,
we were
in compliance
12
with the Board’s noise regulations as we
13
are currently,
but at that time
--
at the
14
rezoning and the annexation,
Realen
15
property already owned
--
Realen Homes
16
already owned the property.
It wasn’t on
17
the market
so it wasn’t
a consideration
18
that Ameren could make.
19
MR.
RAO:
Thanks.
20
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Is
21
that sufficient?
22
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
23
MS.
McFAWN:
Number nine,
at
24
page nine you state
a new stack would
Page 146
1
require full aerodynamic modeling as well
2
as significant analytical work to ensure
3
that the exhaust system would achieve
4
further
noise
reduction.
Please
clarify
S
whether
similar
modeling
and
analysis
was
6
performed
in
designing
the
existing
7
stack.
8
MR.
SMITH:
Siemens Westinghouse
9
and
their
supplier
designed
the
existing
10
stacks.
My understanding
is that the
11
stack design was developed over a long
12
period of time and was likely based on
13
stacks supplied at similar units by the
14
same suppliers.
I do not know whether
15
detailed
analytical
work
was
ever
done
by
16
these manufacturers for us.
17
MR.
RAO:
So what you’re saying
18
is
if you consider installing a new stack
19
then
in
full
aerodynamic
modeling
needs
20
to be done?
Is it done by the
2.
manufacturer
or
is
it
done
by
Ameren?
22
MR.
SMITH:
It would not be done
23
by
us.
It would be
--
it
would
have
to
24
be
done
by
a
sound
expert
or
a
fluid
flow
Page 147
1
expert or someone that’s in the business
2
of manufacturing equipment
like that.
It
3
would not be done by Ameren and
4
typically we
--
like gas turbine engine
5
design,
we don’t design the machines that
6
we buy.
We rely on the manufacturers and
7
suppliers
to do their own design.
8
MR.
RAO:
So if somebody sells
9
you that equipment you would assume that
10
they
have
done
all
these modeling studies
11
or do they charge you extra for doing
it?
12
MR.
SMITH:
Are
we
talking
about
13
the existing equipment?
14
MR.
RAO:
No,
the new one,
if
15
you put in a new stack.
I think that’s
16
what
your
testimony
said,
a
new
stack
17
would
require
full
aerodynamic
modeling
18
as
well
as significant
analytical
work,
19
so
my
question
is
whether
--
is
the
20
modeling
done
as
part
of
the
package
of
21
supplying
you
the
equipment
or
is
it
22
something
that
needs
to
be
done
--
23
MR.
SMITH:
But your question is
24
related
to the existing equipment
as
I
Page 148
1
read
your
question.
It
says
was
this
2
performed in designing the existing
3
stack?
4
MR.
RAO:
Yes.
5
MS.
McFAWN:
But now you’d like
6
to
know
why
the
aerodynamic
--
7
MR.
RAO:
I just want to get
it
8
clear
in
my
mind
as it’s something,
you
9
know,
additional
work
that
needs
to
be
10
done
when
you
put
in
a
new
one
or
is
it
11
something that comes with the equipment?
12
MS.
McFAWN:
So concerning
the
13
new one, why did we make that statement?
14
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
15
MS.
McFAWN:
Can
we
have
Mr.
Parzych
16
address
that
for
you?
17
MR.
PARZYCH:
Let me first
18
address
the
existing
stack.
I
know
that
19
Siemens
Westinghouse
did
the
analytical
20
work to develop what
--
how
much
21
silencing they would get from that stack.
22
I
do not believe,
and
I can’t speak for
23
Siemens Westinghouse,
that they actually
24
made a physical model and did aerodynamic
Page 149
1
modeling of that to assure that
it wasn’t
2
creating
a certain amount
of aerodynamic
3
noise within the exhaust stack.
If
4
Ameren were to go out
to the livid number
5
of stack manufacturers
there are and ask
6
them to design them a stack that would
7
meet X dB worth
of attenuation and
8
individual
frequency bands,
they could
9
ask them to perform all
the
analytical
10
studies and any of the aerodynamic
11
modeling,
physical
or
on
the
computers,
12
CFD
type
model,
and
they should be able
13
to actually perform
that kind of study
14
with
the
new
design
stack.
15
MR. RAO:
Will
that add to the
16
cost?
17
MR.
PARZYCH:
It depends,
I
18
guess,
on the level that ends up being
19
done.
Probably
with
the
stage
of
the
20
silencing
that
they’d be asking
for,
it
21
might be something that gets added to the
22
cost.
Generally analytical things or
23
scale
model
things
are
cheap
compared
to
24
making huge pieces
of steel
like that,
so
Page 150
1
the
cost
of
that
is
--
would be
a few
2
percent maybe of the total cost.
It’s
3
not
--
it wouldn’t be
a tremendously
4
large cost.
S
MR.
RAO:
Okay.
6
MS. McFAWN:
For the new stack,
7
wouldn’t
the aerodynamic modeling have to
8
be more precise because you’d be trying
9
to achieve further reduction than
10
currently
--
11
MR.
PARZYCH:
Yeah
--
12
MS. McFAWN:
--
normally
13
available?
14
MR.
PARZYCH:
--
probably you
15
wouldn’t rely strictly on like
a CFD
16
analysis,
you
would
build
after
the
17
design was done analytically
and
a CFD
18
model was made,
the likelihood would be
19
the resulting design
--
a physical model
20
would
be made and tested in some wind
21
tunnel,
for instance,
to determine that
22
the aerodynamics
are working
as expected.
23
MS.
McFAWN:
And would that be
a
24
costly
proposition?
Page 151
1
MR.
PARZYCH:
Again,
relative
to
2
the cost of physically buying the stacks
3
and the manufacturing
of these large
4
stacks,
it would be
a small percentage.
5
I
can’t
say
exactly
what
it
would
be.
It
6
would be depending on the level
of detail
7
that
went
into
the model.
8
MS. McFAWN:
Okay.
Question
9
ten,
please
comment
on
whether
10
degradation
of
turbine
performance
as
a
11
result
of
a
new
stack
is
also
due
to
12
increased
back
pressure.
13
MR.
SMITH:
Back
pressure
would
14
be
a
chief
contributor
to
degraded
15
performance.
It
would
affect
efficiency
16
as
well
as
capacity
and
it
seems
possible
17
to me
that
the
flow
and
acoustic
patterns
18
could be problematic for the combustion
19
process.
Another
feature
that
we
20
purchased
for
these
machines
was
dry
low
21
Knox
burners
which
are
also
state
of
the
22
art
and
they
are
delicate
and
require
23
tuning and attention and it seems
24
conceivable to me based on our experience
Page
152
1
at given the unit’s condition that
2
disturbances in the downstream
flow
could
3
be problematic
for
these devices.
4
MS.
McFAWN:
A
question
before
5
we
go
on,
would that require additional
6
air permitting since you might have to
7
address again
the
Knox burners?
8
MR.
SMITH:
If
we
have to
9
address the low Knox burners,
we would
10
have to do something with the air permit.
11
MS.
McFAWN:
The next part of
12
the Board’s question is please explain
13
the necessary design criteria
--
please
14
explain what the necessary design
15
criteria
are
in
the
context
of
the
16
proposed rulemaking?
17
MR.
SMITH:
Well,
the design
18
criteria would be the levels of sound
19
emissions necessary to achieve the levels
20
in the rule.
The manufacturer has stated
21
to us on several occasions during the
22
procurement and design of our combustion
23
turbine equipment that they had never
24
ever supplied such extensive noise
Page 153
1
abatement
for other customers and that
2
our equipment was state of the art.
3
MS.
McFAWN:
Also comment on
4
whether
a
gas
turbine
exhaust
stack
5
meeting
the
design
criteria
is
available
6
in
any
other
country.
7
MR.
SMITH:
To my knowledge
8
there are none.
9
MR.
RAO:
This
is just
a
10
clarification question, you said in the
11
U.s.
it’s not available
--
12
MR.
SMITH:
We’re not aware
of
13
any anywhere.
14
MS. McFAWN:
Question
12,
please
15
explain how the active noise control
16
system reduces low frequency sound
17
levels.
Are you aware of any gas turbine
18
power generation facility that
utilizes
19
an
active
noise
control
system?
20
MR.
SMITH:
And
my understanding
21
of
the
concept is that it would provide
22
cancellation of the undesirable sound
23
waves with an out-of-phase sound and that
24
both sets of sound waves would consider
Page 154
1
each other.
I am
not aware of any
2
combustion turbine power generation
3
facilities
with
this
type
of
a system.
4
MR.
RAO:
Is
NASA marketing this
S
technology or
is it just out there?
6
MR. PARZYCH:
There’s
a company
7
that’s worked with NASA under contract to
8
develop an active noise control system
9
that
would
be
applicable
to
a
hot
gas
10
application.
Most systems to this point
11
in
time
have
been
worked
in
ambient
12
temperature,
room temperature air.
It’s
13
a
trick
to
get
transducers
that
produce
14
sound into a hot gas environment without
15
burning
them
up
and
a
company
exists
that
16
has been working on doing just that and
17
they
have
situations where
they
have
18
shown that they can cancel low frequency
19
noise
in
a
hot
gas
environment,
but
it
20
hasn’t been applied
to
a
large gas
21
turbine
unit
like
this.
It’s
been
22
strictly done on an experimental basis.
23
MR.
RAO:
Thank you.
24
MS.
McFAWN:
At page seven you
Page 155
1
state that a relatively short section of
2
the inlet silencing
may
provide noise
3
reduction
only
if
the
inlet
system
is
4
found to be
a significant sound source at
5
higher
frequencies.
Please
clarify
6
whether
it
is possible to identify the
7
significant sources of the high frequency
8
noise based on the sound power levels
9
provided by the equipment manufacturer.
10
MR.
SMITH:
The
information that
it
was provided to us
by
Siemens
12
Westinghouse
during
the
project
was
based
13
on
either
their
prior
experience
with
14
existing similar units or their
15
analytical
calculations.
The individual
16
equipment sound sources have not been
17
defined
specifically
for
the
equipment
18
that
we
have
at
the
Elgin
site
and
it
19
would be extremely difficult and probably
20
a
waste
of time to try to do that at this
21
point with,
you
know,
the
installed
22
facility.
23
MR.
RAO:
You mentioned
in your
24
detailed noise study
that
I think
--
let
Page
156
1
me go back to your testimony just
a
2
minute.
You stated at page five of your
3
prefiled testimony
that sound testing
4
would have to
be
conducted to determine
5
the
octave band sound power
levels
of
6
each sound source,
that
is
the gas
7
turbine,
inlet
system,
exhaust system,
8
generator,
transformer or coolers.
9
Can you explain why you made the
10
statement you think that that kind of
11
information
is not going
to be
very
12
helpful?
13
MR.
SMITH:
I
don’t
think
doing
14
a detailed sound evaluation would
be
15
helpful primarily because we have
16
equipment sitting there
in the
conditions
17
that you’ve
already seen, you know,
the
18
heavy industrial activity,
the insect
19
noise,
the ambient conditions
are so
20
variable,
so
to take the time and
effort
21
to try to do
this
very detailed highly
22
prescriptive type study,
I don’t believe
23
is
going to change anything.
I don’t
24
think it’s going to give us
a result that
Page
157
1
anyone can work with to come out with
2
some
fancy solution
that will somehow
get
3
us in compliance with the existing
4
regulations with Realen Homes being
S
built,
so that’s really my
point.
I
6
don’t
really
think there’s much point to
7
it,
in my opinions.
8
MR.
RAO:
Okay.
9
MS. McFAWN:
Please explain the
10
reasons
for concluding
that additional
11
inlet silencing and additional ducting
12
enclosure
would have little
positive
13
effect on the overall
sound emissions
14
from
the
site.
This might also address
15
some of your
other questions,
Mr.
Rao.
16
MR.
SMITH:
I
think this helps
17
to articulate the reason
I
just gave you
18
for
the last question
you asked me.
We
19
recently realized that our inlet silencer
20
is
actually
12 feet long,
not eight.
We
21
understand
the industry standard
is more
22
or less eight
feet,
but,
again,
we put an
23
additional
four feet of silencing
in.
At
24
12
feet the
inlet
silencer should be well
Page
158
1
into the peak 50 to
60 dB reduction that
2
is attainable with silencing panels
of
3
this
type
and ducting that we currently
4
have.
Therefore,
simply
extending the
S
inlet
silencer should have little
6
benefit,
if any,
in reducing the
sound
7
beyond the current levels.
As for the
8
ducking,
in our opinion,
the lagging
9
already present
in the ducting is the
10
very best that we could obtain for this
11
purpose.
We believe that the current
12
lagging and 12
feet of silencers
could
13
not
be
improved upon to sufficiently
14
reduce noise beyond the
current
levels
to
15
levels
necessary
to meet
the Board’s
16
residential
limits
once
they
become
17
applicable to the Realen property.
18
Likewise,
we
do not believe that
a
19
secondary enclosure around the ducting
20
would reduce the
current noise
level to
21
achieve compliance with the residential
22
levels.
Furthermore,
such an improvement
23
would
require its own support system and
24
may not be technically
feasible or
Page
159
1
economically reasonable
to add on to the
2
existing equipment.
3
MS.
McFAWN:
Could
we take
a
4
five-minute break?
S
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Sure.
6
Let’s go
off for
a
second.
7
(Whereupon,
a discussion
B
was had off the record.)
9
(Whereupon,
after a short
10
break was had,
the
11
following
proceedings
12
were held
accordingly.)
13
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Let’s
14
get back on the record and we’re
15
continuing with the Board’s questions
16
that were previously
asked
of
Ameren
and
17
I think
we’re finished with Mr.
Smith,
18
correct?
I thought
Joel would be
19
chiming in as
-
-
20
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Should
we
ask
21
our questions of Mr.
Smith?
22
MR.
JOHNSON:
Why don’t you ask
23
your questions
of Mr.
Smith
so
he can
24
relax after you’re done?
Page 160
1
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
I have
a few
2
here.
Mr.
Smith, with respect to the
3
cost estimates that you provided for the
4
various noise control options,
I believe
S
we’re calling that Exhibit
6,
were those
6
prepared internally at Ameren or were
7
those prepared by a consultant?
B
MR.
SMITH:
Referring to
9
attachment
E,
is that correct?
10
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
That’s correct.
11
MR.
SMITH:
These numbers
were
12
developed
in concert with Mr.
Parzych and
13
my internal
staff.
14
MR.
JOHNSON:
Those are the
15
estimates that you said that they
could
16
be
as much as 25 percent less than the
17
amount
in the exhibit or 75 percent more,
18
that’s your range?
19
MR.
SMITH:
That’s what
I said
20
earlier today,
yes.
21
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Mr.
Smith,
you
22
also
showed us a
series
of photos earlier
23
in the hearing
today.
You had said that
24
one
of
those
photos was taken early
in
Page
161
1
the morning.
What time of day were the
2
remaining
photos taken?
3
MS.
McFAWN:
Actually,
I
was
4
with
--
out there
at the time that the
5
photos
were
taken.
They were taken on
6
December 30th and we started taking the
7
photos at approximately noon.
8
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
And
what
time
9
did you finish taking the photos
if you
10
remember, Marili?
11
MS. McFAWN:
I think
it took us
12
like
an
hour.
13
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Actually,
14
Mr.
Chinn
had
a
follow-up
question
on
15
those
photos.
Go
ahead.
16
MR.
CHINN:
I
don’t
remember
17
seeing
any
slides
of the area to the
east
18
where
in attachment
A2
itls
indicated
in
19
yellow.
20
MS.
McFAWN:
That’s
correct.
21
There are no pictures of that area.
That
22
is an
area
east
--
wait
a
minute.
I
need
23
to look at attachment
two.
I don’t have
24
a color version.
This
is attachment A2.
Page 162
1
Okay.
We’re looking
at attachment
A2
2
right now and,
Mr.
Chinn, you’ve asked us
3
about the yellow area over here,
which
4
would
actually
be
to
the
far
east,
is
S
that correct?
6
MR.
CHINN:
It’s
east.
7
MS. McFAWN:
Okay.
And the
B
reason there’s no pictures of that
area
9
is that they are really not contiguous
in
10
terms of space or as
I understand
it
11
noise because in between the Ameren
12
facility where this
--
what you saw in
13
the slides was the BFI
Weigh
System,
the
14
rail lines,
the transmission
lines and
15
the gas pipeline,
so that area
--
it’s
16
maybe
hard
to
determine
based on this
17
map,
is really quite
a distance from the
18
Ameren facility.
19
MR.
JOHNSON:
That’s
a
20
residential
area,
correct?
21
MR.
SMITH:
That is correct.
22
MR.
JOHNSON:
Would it have been
23
the one that you pointed out that Member
24
Moore asked about.
Page
163
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
see
--
MS. McFAWN:
MR.
SMITH:
MS. McFAWN:
MR.
RAO:
Th
MR.
SMITH:
which would be north
on exhibit
--
or rath
that
would
have
been
she asked about.
MS. McFAWN:
indicating
that those
the white area on the
attachment
A2.
Exactly.
You can
No.
No?
at goes northeast.
That was northeast
of the yellow area
er attachment
A2,
up here
(phonetic)
Mr.
Smith is
would have been in
northeast part of
is no?
know
MR.
CHINN:
So the answer
MR.
SMITH:
Well,
I don’t
that it’s no.
This
--
there were
pictures taken that we showed to you
today
in the direction
of the yellow
area,
but what you saw between our site
and the yellow area was BFI,
railroad
tracks,
transmission lines and so
forth.
MR. CHINN:
Okay.
Out of the 50
I don’t
remember seeing
a
slides,
Page
164
1
photograph
of any residential
area?
2
MS.
McFAWN:
You are correct.
3
There were none taken specifically of
4
that
area.
5
MR.
CHINN:
Thank you.
S
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Ms.
McFawn,
one
7
follow-up question on the photos.
Who
B
took those photos?
9
MS. McFAWN:
We hired
a
10
photographer,
Jim Fogarty,
to take our
11
photos.
12
MR. STERNSTEIN:
Is he employed
13
by Ameren?
14
MS.
McFAWN:
No, he
is not.
15
MR.
JOHNSON:
Let me clarify
16
then because I’m confused.
You did take
17
photographs
from the Ameren site facing
18
to the east,
correct?
19
MS. McFAWN:
That’s correct.
20
MR. JOHNSON:
And
so the
21
residential
area indicated by Mr.
Chinn
22
in the east and on the other side of EFI
23
Weigh Systems
would have been in the
24
photos,
but in the far distance,
is that
Page
165
1
correct?
2
MR.
SMITH:
That is correct.
3
MS.
McFAWN:
If we
were
to zoom
4
in,
they might show up,
but
they
are
5
quite
a distance away and that’s what
I
6
meant when
I said they were not
7
specifically taken of that area.
B
MR. STERNSTEIN:
Mr. Smith,
one
9
more question.
Was the option
of
10
constructing
an earthen mound or earthen
11
berm
ever
considered
and
that
would
be
12
putting the
berm
or
mound
in
between
the
13
peaker units
at Ameren and the newly
14
designated residential
area on the other
15
side
of
Gifford Road.
16
MS.
McFAWN:
We’re
going
to
have
17
someone else answer that for you.
18
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
That’s
fine.
19
MR.
PARZYCH:
The way that
berms
20
work
is
the same as
the
way
a barrier
21
wall works.
You put the
--
you put
22
something up and you try to block the
23
line
of
sight
to the equipment.
A berm
24
could block the line of sight to the
Page 166
1
equipment
if
it’s very close
to the
2
equipment or very close to the receivers.
3
It would work best
if you could put
it
4
very close to the receivers because
the
5
equipment
is so tall that you would need
6
a 50-foot tall berm to block the line of
7
sight to
it.
So in order to block the
B
line of sight
near
the facility on the
9
property,
the berm would have to be
a
10
huge, huge mound that would be 50
feet or
11
so
tall
to block the line
of sight
to the
12
Realen property.
If they could put
a
13
berm on the Realen property then
--
14
because
the berm
--
well,
for instance,
15
if I’m
sitting in
this chair,
a berm
16
that’s five feet high would block my
17
sight
to anything that would be in that
18
area because it’s
--
so,
in order
to make
19
that berm effectively
it really needs
to
20
be on the Realen property.
21
MR. STERNSTEIN:
Okay.
Has the
22
option of
constructing
some sort of
a
23
berm ever been discussed
with
--
between
24
Ameren and Realen?
Page 167
1
MR.
SMITH:
I
recall
a
2
discussion of
their site plan with Realen
3
representatives and that they had plans
4
of some berms
as
I recall
to sort of hide
5
their subdivision from Gifford Road.
6
I don’t recall anything of the magnitude
7
that Mr.
Parzych just described to you.
8
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
In other words,
9
the discussions didn’t focus on blocking
10
a line of sight from the top of the homes
11
to the peaker facility
--
to the peaker
12
unit?
13
MR.
SMITH:
Well,
I
think we did
14
have
a
discussion like that.
I don’t
15
recall
it being given serious discussion,
16
though.
17
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Okay.
It never
18
moved to the point
of actually talking
19
about the costs
of constructing the berm
20
or anything of that nature?
21
MR.
SMITH:
Not that
I remember.
22
MS.
McFAWN:
If
I
could ask
a
23
follow-up question on that.
24
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Sure.
Page ~68
1
MS. McFAWN:
Mr.
Smith,
some
2
public comments have been filed with the
3
Pollution Control Board and
I believe one
4
of those was from Realen.
If you could
S
just explain
--
you haven’t seen
it
6
probably recently, but
--
I have them
7
here.
Well,
I
thought
I brought
it, but
8
I didn’t bring it with me.
When we’ve
9
had discussions with Realen,
are they in
10
support of our petition?
11
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
Realen
is
in
12
support and my understanding
is that they
13
were going to submit
a letter to the
14
Board stating
that support.
15
MS. McFAWN:
Mr.
Knittle,
do you
16
know if that’s
in the public record now?
17
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
I
18
don’t have the docket sheet
in front of
19
me.
I tend to recall
that
a public
20
comment was filed,
but
I couldn’t say
21
that for sure.
If it
is filed, you know,
22
itls
something the board will consider.
23
MS.
McFAWN:
We were copied by
24
Realen on that letter.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Yes, we have.
9
you
know if Realen
10
ormation
to
11
of this information?
12
I do not know the
13
could be part of
14
right currently
15
16
s all
I
17
you have
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I
of
Page 169
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
think something came
in at the end
December.
MR.
RAC:
So you have had
discussions with Realen Property about
the
proposed rulemaking to change the
noise
standards?
MS.
McFAWN:
MR.
RAO:
Do
is also providing inf
potential homeowners
MS.
McFAWN:
answer to that,
but
it
the reason they’re not
a construction phase.
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
That’
Smith.
Howard,
do
in
have for Mr
anything?
MR.
CHINN:
Mr.
Smith,
was an
engineering
specification prepared for
the acquisition
or purchase
of this site
and the equipment
in particular?
MR.
SMITH:
There’s really two
parts
to your question,
I think.
For the
Page 270
1
purchase of
a site that was
a real estate
2
transaction and there was no
3
specification.
For the purchase of
4
equipment there was
a technical
5
specification that was written by a
6
consulting engineer company,
Burns
&
7
McDonald of Kansas
City, Missouri.
The
8
specific discussions with Siemens
9
westinghouse over noise engineering
10
issues and site design and so forth would
11
have been held between Sergeant Lundy and
12
Siemens Westinghouse
and there would
have
13
been
a specification regarding those
14
matters
as the
project developed.
15
MR. CHINN:
So
it would
have
16
been Sergeant Lundy who would have
17
prepared the specifications
for the
18
plant?
19
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
20
MR.
CHINN:
Are those in your
21
possession?
22
MR.
SMITH:
Not here
today.
23
MR.
CHINN:
Is it under your
24
control?
Page 171
1
MR.
SMITH:
We should have
2
copies of those specifications
in the
3
file.
4
MR.
CHINN:
I
see.
S
MR.
SMITH:
In the project file.
6
MR.
CHINN:
There had been some
7
discussion about changing or modifying or
8
adding on to the inlet stack and outlet
9
stack and there was some comments about
10
restriction in air flow and back
11
pressure.
Does the restrictions in air
12
flow and back pressure contingent upon
13
the
velocity in the duct?
14
MR.
JOHNSON:
The
velocity,
15
what?
16
MR.
CHINN:
The
velocity,
the
17
speed.
18
MR.
PARZYCH:
I
mean,
basic
19
fluid mechanics
tells you
that,
you know,
20
pressure drop is a function of
a number
21
of things and velocity could be one
of
22
them.
23
MR.
CHINN:
And the other would
24
be the design of
the duct work?
Page 172
1
MR.
PARZYCH:
Pressure drop
2
would be dependent on design of duct
3
work,
yes?
4
MR. CHINN:
In your Exhibit
4,
5
attachment
C,
there
is shown an inlet
6
filter,
inlet silencer,
inlet manifold.
7
How does
the combustion turbine get
its
8
combustion air?
9
MR.
SMITH:
Would you like for
10
me to refer to attachment
C?
Is that the
11
--
to
clarify attachment
C?
12
MR. CHINN:
If
you need to.
13
MR.
CHINN:
Well,
attachment C
14
shows the major components that we’re
15
talking about.
There
is
a compressor
in
16
the
combustion turbine,
which draws
air
17
in through the inlet
filter device, which
18
then flows through the inlet silencer,
19
that
air then enters the
inlet manifold
20
and then enters the
suction side of
the
21
compressor,
so
that’s basically how it’s
22
done.
23
MR.
CHINN:
The compressor
24
compresses the air and forces it into the
Page 173
1
combustion turbine?
2
MR.
SMITH:
The compressor
--
3
yes.
The compressor
would
compress
the
4
air and blow it
--
essentially into the
5
combustion
section of
the turbine.
6
MR.
CHIN:
Which
is your
7
combustion
air?
B
MR.
SMITH:
It’s all combustion
9
air.
10
MR.
CHINN:
So your back
11
pressure
is dependent upon the outlet
12
pressure
of the compressor?
13
MR.
SMITH:
There
is
a suction
14
pressure, which
is important for
15
performance
issues, which
is the
16
dependent on the resistance
of flow
17
through the inlet filter,
the inlet
18
silencer,
inlet manifold into the
19
compressor.
That compressor efficiency
20
is dependent upon how low that pressure
21
has to go to get the required air flow.
22
The back pressure
is actually on the
23
other end of the system which affects the
24
exhaust from the gas turbine.
Page 174
1
MR.
CHINN:
Do you have the
2
specifications
for the exhaust stack and
3
silencer?
4
MR.
SMITH:
No.
5
MR.
CHINN:
Not on you today?
6
MR.
SMITH:
No.
7
MR.
CHINN:
Do you have the
B
specifications
for the inlet filter and
9
inlet silencer?
10
MR.
SMITH:
These devices that
11
you’re referring to were supplied by
12
Siemens Westinghouse
as we’ve mentioned
13
before
a couple
of times
and typically
14
from a manufacturer
we would not receive
15
specifications per
se.
We would get some
16
descriptive
information
that we would
17
need to perform certain maintenance
18
functions on the equipment,
but not what
19
I would call specifications.
20
MR. CHINN:
Have you been
21
provided with any data on what the sound
22
level
would be without the inlet
23
silencer?
24
MR.
SMITH:
I’ll defer that to
Page
175
1
Mr.
Parzych if that’s okay with you?
I
2
don’t recall seeing information like that
3
during design of these units working with
4
Siemens Westinghouse.
5
MR. CHINN:
Similarly,
that
6
would go true for the exhaust stack and
7
silencer?
8
MR.
PARZYCH:
They,
for this
9
particular project,
did not provide
the
10
unsilenced sound power levels
that would
11
be emitted by the machine.
They provided
12
the silenced Sound power levels
of them
13
radiating from either the surfaces
of the
14
equipment or being emitted from the
15
orifices
of the equipment,
such as the
16
top of the stack or the front
of the
17
filter bases
of the inlet system.
18
MR CHINN:
I
see.
You indicated
19
that to make the exhaust stack and
20
silencer longer may be problematical
21
because of the back pressure potentially?
22
Again,
the back pressure would be also
23
influenced by the velocity and the
24
configuration of the silencer,
not
Page
176
1
necessarily
solely on the length?
2
MR.
PARZYCH:
That’s true except
3
that you do have frictional
losses along
4
the surfaces
of the silencer,
which are
a
5
perforated metal plate,
and that is
6
dependent on the length of the silencer,
7
just like if you had a 50-foot long hose
B
versus 100-long hose,
the 100-foot
long
9
hose at the end is going
to
have less
10
pressure than
a 50-foot long hose.
11
MR.
CHINN:
And
there
would
be
12
difference between the half-inch diameter
13
of
hose
and
a
one-inch
diameter
hose?
14
MR.
PARZYCH:
That
is true.
15
MR. CHINN:
Thank you.
16
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Any
17
further questions from the Attorney
18
General’s Office at this time?
19
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
I have a couple
20
for Mr.
Zak,
but I’ll wait until
--
21
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
You
22
can wait until we get
to Mr.
Zak.
All
23
right.
Let’s go back to the Board
24
questions
then if we could and,
Page
177
1
Ms.~McFawn, whenever you are ready.
2
MS. McFAWN:
Mr.
Parzych,
the
3
first
question
the
Board
has
proposed
is
4
at page
12
of the June 2003 report
it
is
5
stated that the ambient
at several
6
locations exceed Board’s noise standards.
7
Please
clarify whether the ambient
B
measurements were obtained
by excluding
9
extraneous sounds?
10
MR.
PARZYCH:
Yes, we did
11
exclude the extraneous
sounds.
12
MS. McFAWN:
Question No.
2,
at
13
page
14
of that report
it appears that
a
14
large number
of indeterminate values
in
15
table eight
resulted due to the
16
applicable of ambient correction prior
to
17
the full facility,
that
is four units
18
operational,
extrapolation.
Please
19
explain why the ambient correction was
20
made prior to the
full
facility
21
extrapolation.
22
MR.
PARZYCH:
The ambient must
23
be extracted from the sound measurements
24
before any extrapolations
are made to
Page 178
1
multiple units since the measured
2
operational sound levels includes both
3
the single unit operation sound plus the
4
existing ambient sound.
So in other
S
words,
if the total sound level consists
6
of one ambient sound level,
plus one gas
7
turbine package,
one ambient sound level
8
must be subtracted from the total to
9
obtain the sound level of one gas turbine
10
package.
If we were to extrapolate the
11
total sound to four units
first,
we would
12
artificially introduce four ambient sound
13
levels
in the total.
From this,
only one
14
ambient sound level would be subtracted.
15
It
is
therefore technically incorrect to
16
perform the correction in that fashion
17
since the extrapolated sound level data
18
would then include three ambient sound
19
levels plus four gas turbines.
We have
20
to keep in mind that our objective
is to
21
determine the sound from the gas turbines
22
without the ambient.
23
MR.
JOHNSON:
The decibel levels
24
in that instance would have been
Page
179
1
significantly higher than what your
--
2
what page
14 reported,
right?
3
MR.
PARZYCH:
That’s correct.
4
And we could give you
a hypothetical
5
example
if you’d like that we’ve put
6
together here.
7
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
B
MR. JOHNSON:
Anand’s concern
9
was that the ambient sound level was
10
taken out four times rather than once and
11
I think you’ve sufficiently explained why
12
you do it that way.
13
MR.
RAO:
Also,
can you give an
14
example?
15
MR.
PARZYCH:
Sure.
Let’s first
16
make the assumption that
a gas turbine’s
17
true sound
pressure
level
at some given
18
frequency
is
equal to
60
dB and the
19
ambient same level at that same frequency
20
is equal
to
70 dE.
The ambient sound
21
level would totally mask the sound from
22
the gas turbine and the sound would be
23
indeterminate.
In this case,
the true
24
sound level
from four operating gas
Page 180
1
turbines would be
66 dE.
Basically,
it’s
2
ten times the log of four units
is
a
3
correction of six
dB,
six dB plus six dB
4
equals
66.
If we use the total
sound
S
data to extrapolate
to four units,
we
6
would add
six
dB
to the
70 dB ambient
7
sound
resulting
in
76 dE.
Please note
8
that the 76 dB
is representative
of four
9
ambient sound levels.
The ambient sound
10
level
we defined as being 70
dB.
So it’s
11
not even slightly representative
of any
12
noise generated
by the gas turbines
in
13
this
example.
If we now subtract the
14
single ambient we’re left 74.7 dE and
15
clearly,
74.7
is not representative
of
16
the sound from the four gas turbines
17
which we have shown in this
example to be
18
equal to 66 dB.
19
MR.
RAO:
It
could work the
20
other way too,
right?
If with
a single
21
turbine,
if
it was
60 dB and the ambient
22
was
61,
you
apply the correction and
it
23
becomes indeterminate right there?
24
MR.
PARZYCH:
Uh-huh.
Page 181
1
MR.
RAO:
But
if you add six dE
2
to 60
it would be 66 with four and then
3
you apply the correction?
4
MR.
PARZYCH:
Yeah
--
5
MR.
RAO:
That’s why
I thought
6
this whole
--
applying this correction
7
itself was not
a very appropriate way to
B
9
MR.
PARZYCH:
It’s 100 percent
10
technically the only way
to do
it.
11
MR.
RAO:
I know,
but it can
12
work both ways
is what I’m saying.
If
13
you use
--
however,
you use the example
14
is
--
15
MR.
PARZYCH:
I think the
you
16
have to realize that when you take the
17
measurement
of
sound of
a gas turbine
in
18
the
presence of an ambient,
you have one
19
ambient and one gas turbine equals total
20
sound level.
So
total
sound level
then
21
minus one ambient sound level equals one
22
gas turbine.
Unfortunately,
sometimes
it
23
puts you in the position where
24
immediately you are
in an indeterminate
Page
182
all four units and not
1
situation.
2
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
3
MR.
PARZYCH:
But that’s the
4
real situation unfortunately.
The only
5
way that you could get around that
6
potentially
would be to bring the
7
operating levels up,
which would mean
8
operating
9
MR.
RAO:
Looking at this table
10
it’s hard to say,
you know,
how many of
11
these indeterminates were those where the
12
ambient was very close
to the single unit
13
operation where you got those
14
indeterminates.
15
MR.
PARZYCH:
And the answer
16
you can’t tell
if it’s indeterminate.
17
MR.
RAO:
You know,
it’s hard
18
say.
It merely reflects what’s going o
19
MR. JOHNSON:
The site change
20
the rule
that
you asked for,
the change
21
in the decibel
levels
fo
22
Hertz
levels
is what you
23
and what you
would
feel
24
the rule
was
changed to
is,
to
n.
in
r the different
can live with
comfortable
reflect your
--
if
Page
183
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I
--
MS.
McFAWN:
answer,
the expert and
MR.
JOHNSON:
you wouldn’t be asking
level that
is going to
you’re actually produci
would we sitting here
i
You’re asking for what
think that you’ll be ab
the Class
C,
the Class
those levels
to meet
You can both
I guess
I assumed
for a decibel
be lower than what
ng because why
f
that’s
the case?
it is that you
le to live with
A
if we change
your request?
request,
you would feel comfortable
having one of the residents at the Realen
property to stand there with a decibel
meter and measurer the sound coming from
your facility and you would then be
within the limits,
right?
MR.
SMITH:
Uh-huh.
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
You
guys, you have to say yes or no as
opposed to nodding or she can’t get your
response.
I saw two people nodding, but
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MS. McFAWN:
That’s correct.
Page 184
was
was
MR. SMITH:
Correct.
MR. RAO:
My question here
just to make sure what you did here
appropriate because in the July 2003
sound measurement you did use this data
to back up your sound power
level
so
I
just wanted to make sure,
you know,
the
results you got with this extrapolation
is,
you know,
what you can live with?
MR.
PARZYCH:
Yeah,
it
is.
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Is
that sufficient,
Anand?
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
MS.
McFAWN:
one question just to
(Brief
MS.
McFAWN:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I have to ask him
make
sure.
pause.)
Mr
Rao, you asked
we could live with the levels.
you asking us about the levels we
proposed?
us
if
Were
were
MR.
RAO:
Yes.
MS.
McFAWN:
I
just wanted
to
clarify that.
Thank you.
This would be question 2(b)
of
Page
185
1
the Board’s questions and it would be,
2
please comment on whether making the
3
correction for ambient after estimating
4
the sound levels for four unit operation
S
would have resulted
in
a large number of
6
indeterminate values used in table eight
7
leading to the assumption that the
B
facility is compliant
if sound level
9
value
is indeterminate.
10
MR.
PARZYCH:
Again,
the
11
extrapolation as suggested would provide
12
technically incorrect information and it
13
really would be useless
in meaning.
14
MS. McFAWN:
Do you mean the
15
extrapolation
as
suggested
by the
Board?
16
MR.
PARZYCH:
Correct.
By
17
correcting
the total sound level
for four
18
unit operation.
19
MR.
JOHNSON:
That was the tech
20
unit,
that was not the Board.
The good
21
questions the Board came up with.
22
MS.
McFAWN:
C, also comment on
23
whether any of
the estimated values other
24
than those
at locations at Realen property
Page 186
1
would exceed the Board’s property line
2
noise standards
if full facility
3
extrapolation was made prior to ambient
4
correction.
5
MR.
PARZYCH:
And our answer
6
again,
you really can’t do the full
7
facility extrapolation
first using the
B
total noise.
It needed to be done the
9
way
it was done.
10
MS. McFAWN:
Question No.
3 from
11
the Board,
please explain why the sound
12
power levels provided by Westinghouse
was
13
not used instead of the estimated sound
14
power levels
in the sound propagation
15
analysis done in July 2003.
16
MR.
PARZYCI-I:
Because we had the
17
opportunity to measure the actual sound
18
levels of the facility.
The actual sound
19
from the facility,
as its installed,
20
could be more reliable than the
21
manufacturer’s data,
which was initially
22
based on Siemens Westinghouse design
23
calculations
or data Siemens Westinghouse
24
had from equipment
at other installations.
Page
187
1
Also,
it accounts
for any degradation or
2
changes
in the equipment sound levels
3
from when it was originally purchased.
4
MS. McFAWN:
Question four,
at
5
page four you state that the gas turbines
6
at the Ameren facility contain the
7
largest amount of sound abatement
B
supplied by Siemens Westinghouse
for
9
simple
cycled SO1DSA gas turbines.
10
Please comment on whether the turbine
11
manufacturer usually provides noise
12
abatement measures.
13
MR.
PARZYCH:
The
answer
is
yes.
14
Siemens Westinghouse typically provides
15
inlet and exhaust silencing and
16
enclosures for its gas turbines and
17
generators.
Siemens Westinghouse
18
generally provides more standard noise
19
control features than their competitors
20
such as G.E.
on similarly sized units and
21
for example,
a standard Siemens
22
westinghouse 501D5
unit,
Siemens
23
Westinghouse would quote
as achieving
63
24
dB(A)
or less
at 400 feet while
a
Page
188
1
standard G.E.
frame 7E would typically be
2
quoted as achieving
65 dB(A)
or less at
3
400
feet
in
a standard configuration.
4
Question become.
5
MS. McFAWN:
Question
“B”
is,
is
6
it possible
to retrofit
a gas turbine
7
with noise abatement equipment not made
B
by the turbine manufacturer?
9
MR.
PARZYCH:
And the answer is
10
yes.
Silencing can be added
to the
11
equipment by the owners.
12
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Can
I
13
have a second?
14
(Brief pause.)
15
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
I’m
16
sorry.
17
MS. McFAWN:
That’s
okay.
We’re
18
done chatting.
If you’re ready
to
go
on.
19
MS.
McFAWN:
We’re just using
20
the time to
--
21
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
No.
22
Have at it
if you need some additional
23
time.
24
MS. McFAWN:
Question
C,
in your
Page
189
1
experience
in dealing with similar gas
2
turbines manufactured by companies other
3
than Siemens Westinghouse facilities,
4
have you come across noise abatement
5
measures
in excess of what
is used at the
6
Ameren facility?
7
MR.
PARZYCH:
Not on the exhaust
8
end of the equipment.
For example,
a
9
substantially upgraded G.E.
exhaust
10
silencer
consists
of
16
feet
of
low
11
frequency
silencing
and
four
feet
of
high
12
frequency silencing,
20 feet
in total
13
length.
The Siemens Westinghouse exhaust
14
silencer
at the
Elgin
site
is approximately
15
50
feet
in
total length
and it’s a huge
16
silencer and you have to keep in mind
17
that
the
exhaust is the most difficult
18
noise
source
in
gas
turbines
to control
19
because of its low frequency components.
20
As far as the remaining equipment
21
supplied
by
the
gas
turbine
22
manufacturers,
the
sound treatments are
23
essentially
the same.
Gas turbine
24
enclosures
are acoustically insulated
Page 190
1.
steel plate,
they have air intake
2
silencers and
they
are virtually
3
identical in the design.
Fin-fan
coolers
4
are
purchased
from
the
same
group
of
5
vendors and produce about the same sound
6
levels.
Note,
however that the Ameren
7
units,
they purchased and installed 12
8
feet of air intake silencers versus the
9
standard eight feet long silencers,
which
10
are
typically
used
in
standard
11
applications.
12
MS.
McFAWN:
That
does
conclude
13
the
questions
you
submitted.
14
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
I
have
nothing
15
for
Mr.
Parzych.
Howard,
do
you
have
16
anything?
17
MR.
CHINN:
No.
lB
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
I
guess
we
can
19
go on to Mr.
Zak.
20
MS.
McFAWN:
The
questions the
21
Board
proposed
to
Greg
Zak
are
as
22
follows:
At page three
of your testimony
23
you state
that
one
of the primary sources
24
of ambient noise was the U.S.
Can
Page 191
1
fad~1itylocated south of Ameren and that
2
the type of noise emitted from the U.S.
3
Can are the kind that mask or even drown
4
out the noise from the Ameren facility.
S
There’s really not
a question posed,
but
6
we do have
a comment.
7
MR.
RAO:
If
you go down to
8
subsection
(a)
-
9
MS.
McFAWN:
Did
I
miss
it?
10
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
11
MS. McFAWN:
Please clarify
12
whether the noise from U.S.
Can is
13
reflected in the ambient measurement.
14
MR.
ZAK:
Yes.
15
MS.
McFAWN:
And then B,
if
so,
16
please
explain how the noise from U.S.
17
Can
facility
masks
and
drowns
out
the
18
noise
from
the
Ameren
facility.
19
Mr.
Zak,
when
you
answer
this
one,
20
perhaps you could refer
to the comment
21
that we just went over.
22
MR.
ZAK:
It doesn’t and I’d
23
like to refer
--
I’d like to explain
24
that.
While
I referred the U.S.
Can
Page
192
1
facility as a primary source of ambient
2
noise,
I did not state that the type of
3
noise emitted from U.S. Can is the kind
4
that masks and even drowns out the noise
5
from the Ameren facility.
U.S.
Can
6
generated little or no extraneous noise
7
while we were there.
8
Appearing
at the bottom of page
9
three
of
my
prefiled
testimony
I
stated
10
the
following
regarding
extraneous
noise:
11
These
extraneous
noises
are
the
type
that
12
mask
and
even
drown
out
the
noise
from
13
the facility.
The confusion can be
14
alleviated by relocating
the last
15
sentence on page three
just after the
16
explanation of extraneous
sound noise on
17
page four.
That should clarify that
18
issue.
19
MS.
McFAWN:
I hope
that helps.
20
We realize by your question that there
21
had been a typo,
an editorial correction
22
that we needed to make to Mr.
Zak’s
23
prefiled testimony.
24
MR. RAO:
The way
I read
Page
193
1
Mr.
Zak’s
prefiled
testimony
was
that
2
U.S. Can was
a source of extraneous
3
sounds and that’s why
I was trying to get
4
a handle on, you know,
what the nature of
5
the sound emitted by U.S.
Can was.
6
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
But at
7
this
point you’re
comfortable
in
the
8
explanation?
9
MR.
RAO:
Yes.
10
MS.
McFAWN:
And
we
have
11
answered
that
--
12
MR.
RAO:
What you
are
saying
is
13
the extraneous
sounds
are the ones that
14
mask
the
sound
from
Ameren’s
facility
not
15
the
sounds
from
U.S.
Can?
16
MR.
ZAK:
That’s
correct,
the
17
jet
overflights
and
passbys
on
the
road
18
were
the
types
of
sounds
that
would
mask,
19
cover
up,
overwhelm
the
sound
we
heard
20
from
the
Ameren
facility
when
we
were
out
21
taking our measurements.
We would
--
at
22
times
we
couldn’t
even
hear
Ameren
due
to
23
a
jet.
I
would
kind
of
draw
the
Board’s
24
attention
as
we’re
in
the
room
here
Page
194
1
listening
to
the
El
going
by
and
2
periodically
we
hear
the
El
going
by,
it
3
tends
to just overwhelm whatever we’re
4
doing
in
this
room
here
and
that’s
the
5
same
experience
we
had
when
we
were
6
measuring
the
Ameren
facility
when
we
had
7
a
jet
fly
over
or
a
truck
go
by
on
the
8
road.
9
MS.
McFAWN:
And
that’s
10
extraneous
noise, correct?
11
MR.
ZAK:
That’s
correct.
12
MS.
McFAWN:
Question
No.
2,
at
13
page
six
you
state
that
the
comparison
of
14
the
proposed
site
specific
noise
emission
15
limitations
with
the
Board’s
current
16
limits
demonstrate
that
the
proposed
17
limitations
are
not
significant.
Please
18
clarify
whether
your
conclusion
applies
19
to
both
the
standards
for
sound
emitted
20
from
Class
C
to
Class
A
land,
which
is
in
21
Section
901.102
of
the
Board’s
22
regulations
and
Class
C
to
Class
B
23
receiving
land,
which
is
in
Section
24
901.103.
Page 195
1
MR.
ZAK:
My conclusion
is that
2
it does apply to both.
3
MS.
McFAWN:
And their next
4
question
is please explain what not
5
significant means
in the context of
6
comparing sound levels considering
that
7
the proposed limits for Class A land are
8
higher
than
the Board’s daytime noise
9
limits
by
five
decibels
at
the
31.5
Hertz
10
and
six
decibels
at
the
1,000
Hertz
and
11
11 decibels
at
2,000
Hertz
and
seven
12
decibels at 4,000 Hertz.
13
MR.
ZAK:
The
presence
of
14
extraneous noise
in the heavily
15
industrialized
area
around
the
Elgin
16
Ameren
facility
dominates
the
area
in
the
17
31.5 Hertz,
1,000 Hertz and 2,000 Hertz
18
octave bands
so as
to
mask sound
19
emissions from Ameren
at
these
frequencies.
20
I would also note at 4,000 Hertz,
insect
21
noise,
our ambient source of noise
in
22
this case,
was found to override sound
23
emissions from Ameren.
24
MR.
RAO:
Mr.
Zak,
regarding
Page 196
1
this
issue
of
extraneous
sounds,
the
2
noise data that
you
summarized
in
table
3
one attached to your prefiled testimony,
4
you
list
what
the
ambient
sound
levels
5
are,
which have been
--
you know,
which
6
do not reflect the extraneous sounds.
Is
7
it possible for you to give us sound data
8
with the extraneous sounds
so we can see
9
what those
levels are?
10
MR.
ZAK:
We don’t currently
11
have
it.
What we did when we performed
12
the
measurements
of
both
the
ambient
back
13
in the area and Ameren in that area was
14
to
carefully
exclude
the
extraneous
15
noise.
By
excluding
it
we
didn’t
measure
16
it.
The only characterization we can
17
have
for
the
extraneous
sound
is
to
18
describe what we actually heard when we
19
were
taking
the
measurement
and
that
was
20
that when we did have the presence of
21
extraneous noise such as again
22
overflights by jet aircraft, passbys on
23
the road would be to say that we couldn’t
24
hear with our ears Ameren at that time,
Page 197
1
which
would
be
a
pretty
good
indicator
2
that
the extraneous sound was approaching
3
ten decibels higher in level than any
4
sound
from
Ameren
and
the
reason
I
can
S
say that is typically
from
an
acoustic
6
standpoint whenever
you’re
reaching
a
7
level that’s about ten decibels higher
8
than what you’re listening to and the
9
sound you’re trying
to listen to fades
10
out,
it’s about
a ten decibel
difference.
11
So,
again,
we would estimate that the
12
levels
could
-~
those
levels
could
exceed
13
the
ambient
and
Ameren
by
up
to
ten dB.
14
MS.
McFAWN:
Do
you
exclude
15
those
from
your
measurements
for
any
16
particular
reason?
17
MR.
ZAK:
Yes.
As
part
of
the
18
measurement
procedures
that we’ve been
19
following
for
the
--
back
even
when
I
20
worked
for
Illinois
EPA
and
also
for
all
21
measurements
before
the
Pollution
Control
22
Board
is
we
exclude
extraneous
sound
and
23
that’s typically done not only for
24
measurements
before
the
Pollution
Control
Page 198
1
Board,
but
measurements
in
general
it
is
2
usually
done.
3
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Don’t
4
you have to quantify before you exclude
5
or wouldn’t you have to measure
and
I
6
don’t know
--
it
would seem to me you
7
would
have
to
measure
them
before
you
B
exclude them?
9
MR.
ZAK:
Outside
of
Illinois
10
sometimes
that’s done and
Mr.
Parzych has
11
had a lot of experience
--
12
HEARING OFFICER
KNITTLE:
I
13
understand.
I meant more in a practical
14
sense when you’re
conducting
the
15
measurements
that
you’re
there,
wouldn’t
16
you
--
when you’re excluding something,
17
does that mean you have to quantify
it?
18
MR.
ZAK:
Perhaps
it would help
19
if
I explain what we do.
What we
20
basically do is we actually stop the
21
analysis momentarily
so the
22
instrumentation
doesn’t
pick
up
this
23
large surge
of energy coming
in.
What
24
will
happen
is
it
will,
in
essence,
Page 199
1
overload
the
instrumentation,
all
the
2
octave bands will be overloaded with a
3
large level
of sound.
It will saturate
4
the
instrument
so
what
we
would
do
is,
S
again,
stop the analysis very,
very
6
briefly until the overflight
is passed.
7
Once the jet
is passed then we go ahead
B
and start the instrumentation again and
9
then
continue
the
measurement.
So,
no,
10
we don’t have a measurement of the actual
11
--
how
loud
the
extraneous
sound
was.
12
The
other
thing
we
--
we could do it.
13
What
we
would
have
to
do
there
also
would
14
be to raise the sound window that we’re
15
looking
at to
a higher level.
If we
16
raise
it
at
the
top, we
also
raise the
17
bottom.
By
raising
it
at
the
bottom
then
18
we
can’t
see
some
of
the
quieter
sounds
19
that
we
would
typically
see
on the
20
analyzer,
so that’s one of the trade offs
21
you
have
is
what
we
call
dynamic
range
in
22
that
you
have
a
certain
window
of
dynamic
23
range.
In order to measure extraneous
24
sound you would have to raise your window
Page
200
1
up much higher, which would then exclude
2
some
of
the
lower
--
some
of
the
data
of
3
the quieter background,
especially in the
4
ambient
where
you’ve
got
some
very
quiet
5
areas
in the ambient.
What we would see
6
there
is really a false reading of the
--
7
what we call the noise
floor
in the
8
instrument and not really the true level
9
that’s present
in the environment.
10
MR.
RAO:
Where
I
was
coming
11
from
was
that
you
said
that
this
12
extraneous
sound
so
dominates
in
the
area
13
that
it
masks
the
sound
from
the
14
facility,
then
would
you
still
consider
15
all
these sounds
in the
area extraneous
16
or
is
it
part
of
the
ambient,
like
for
17
example,
if you’re measuring sound
in
18
this
room,
every
ten
seconds
a
train
is
19
passing by,
would
you
consider
that
as
20
part of the ambient or do you exclude
it
21
if
you’re
measuring
the
ambient,
you
22
know,
that’s what
--
23
MR. JOHNSON:
Shay
Stadium.
24
MR.
ZAK:
What we would
do in
a
Page 201
1
case like that
is we would exclude that
2
as
an extraneous
sound.
There’s part of
3
a rationale behind that.
4
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
It’s
5
not
due
to
any
ambient
sound
at
all?
6
It’s not due to any ambient measurements
7
8
MR.
ZAK:
That’s correct.
And
9
part
of
the
rationale
-
-
by getting into
10
the
rationale
is
very
brief.
For
11
example,
let’s say
--
take the El as
a
12
perfect example.
Why would we exclude
13
that?
It’s
an
unregulated
sound.
Who
14
regulates
the
El?
Well,
in
Illinois
we
15
don’t
really
regulate
the
sound
from
the
16
El.
We can’t control
it.
The controls
17
are really
not
there.
To
record
that
18
sound
really
does
us
no
good
and
it’s
19
much
the same situation
we have when
20
we’re measuring the ambient in
the
21
background
around
the
Ameren
facility.
22
If
we were
to measure the extraneous
23
sound
and
actually
have
it
there,
the
24
numbers would be much higher than the
Page 202
numbers we measured.
We would see
--
for
example,
we might see 75 dEja)
for the
ambient,
75 dEja)
for Ameren and
75 dB(a)
for
the
extraneous
sound.
In
other
words,
the extraneous
sound so dominates
that industrialized
area there that
it
would be the only number we would see,
whether
we
were
measuring
ambient,
Ameren
or
extraneous
sound.
Again,
when
we
were
taking
our
measurements
our
charge
was
not to measure the extraneous sound.
We
could
have
done
that
if
that
was
part
of
the goal at
the time,
which
it
wasn1t,
to
measure and get actual
--
quantify
what
the
extraneous
sound
was,
that
could
have
been done.
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
It could
helped
us
to
know,
you
know,
the
extraneous
sound doesn’t dominate
area,
that its so high
--
McFAWN:
Well,
Mr
RAO:
It
is hard
out
just
looking
at
the
table,
whether
sound
from
Ameren
has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MS.
MR.
have
in
the
.Zak--
to figure
you know,
the
same
Page
203
1
level
as
the
--
2
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
All we
3
have at this time is
Mr.
Zak’s
testimony.
4
MR. RAO:
Now
I know.
5
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
But
6
still,
that’s what you’re
saying.
It
7
would
help
to have actual numbers.
8
MS.
McFAWN:
If you were to
9
include
the
extraneous
sound
in
your
10
measurements,
would that comply with the
11
Board’s measurement protocol?
12
MR.
ZAK:
No.
13
MR.
RAO:
Just
to
--
and not
14
from that perspective,
just from the
15
perspective
of demonstrating the
16
extraneous
sound
to
dominate.
17
MS.
McFAWN:
You
testified
18
earlier
today
that
when
you
were
19
measuring
the
ambient
sound
at
Ameren
in
20
September 2003 you had to pause your
21
instrumentation
12 times
I believe
it
22
was?
23
MR.
ZAK:
At least.
24
MS
McFAWN:
At
least.
And
you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
you
you
around
-
o’clock
with
th
we were
would
be
a little
you
and
u paused
might
then
at
so
when
9:00
t
Page
204
took 17 minutes worth
of reading to get
ten minutes
worth of valid data?
MR.
ZAK:
That’s correct.
MS. McFAWN:
And when yo
it,
it
was
for
what
kind
of
sound
MR.
ZAK:
Extraneous.
MS.
McFAWN:
I
hope that helps
understand,
and
what
time
of
the
day
were taking those measuremen
5?
MR.
ZAK:
It would have been
-
between 10:00 o’clock and 11:00
at night
--
well,
let’s start
e ambient.
We also paused it when
taking ambient measurements.
It
run
from
9:30
p.m.
until
little
after
11:00
p.m.
MS.
McFAWN:
I
think
started
at 9:00
from ambient
--
MR.
ZAK:
That’s correct.
have
9:30
actually
switched
I
started
at
9:00,
yes
--
9:11.
MS.
McFAWN:
I hope that
maybe that puts
it
in
the
context
the extraneous noise
is present.
of
At
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
right.
if
we
wi
and lett
HEARING
OFFI
Let’s go back
11
and
thank
ing
me
make
MS.
McFAWN:
Page 205
flyovers
Let
‘
5
o’clock at night,
that often,
12
in a half hour’s time.
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
take five real quick.
MS. McFAWN:
Certainly.
(Whereupon,
after
a
short break was had,
the
following
proceedings
were had.)
CER KNITTLE:
All
on
the
record
then
you
for
humoring
me
my
phone
call.
Glad
to
do
it,
Let
‘5
but
just
icant,”
I
It
seemed
lme
John
think
we’
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
go back on the record.
We’re
still
asking questions of Mr.
Greg Zak.
MS.
McFAWN:
Yes,
we
are.
re on question No.
3.
MR.
JOHNSON:
We
are,
before
we
leave
the
“not
signif
guess
I misread this question.
to me that you’re,
and just tel
I
Page 206
1
whether I’m right or wrong,
your
2
characterization
of the non-significance
3
of
a
particular
noise
level,
it
seems
to
4
me like you testified that that was
5
dependent upon the
character
of the noise
6
in
the
particular
area,
is
that
what
you
7
were
-
-
B
MR.
ZAK:
Exactly.
It
is very
9
area dependent.
If you have
a very noisy
10
area,
the levels we’re talking about here
11
are
not
significance.
In
a
very
quiet
12
area,
these
levels
could
be
extremely
13
significant.
It all depends upon the
14
area that we’re talking about.
15
MR.
JOHNSON:
Okay.
That’s
it
16
for
me.
17
MR.
RAO:
I had
a follow-up.
In
18
terms
of the nighttime standards,
do you
19
have
the
same
opinion
as
what’s
being
20
proposed as compared to what the Board
21
has
on
its
books?
22
MR.
ZAK:
Yes.
23
MR.
RAO:
Are they not
24
significant
based
on
the extraneous
sound
Page 207
1
in
the
area?
2
MR.
ZAK:
Yes.
We
run
into
3
exactly the same problem that we’ve just
4
been
discussing
and
that
is
that
the
S
extraneous noise
in the area is so
6
dominant
because
of
the
fact
it
is an
7
industrialized
area,
we’ve got a road
B
there that’s got
a lot of traffic on
it,
9
a lot of heavy truck traffic,
we’ve got
a
10
tremendous
amount
of
air
traffic
11
overhead,
so
even
at
night
we
still
have
12
so
much
extraneous
noise
and
sound
that
13
the
level
that
Ameren
is
requesting
are
14
typically reasonable because
from my
15
perspective,
what
I
see happening
here
is
16
the
impact
of
Ameren
as
compared
to
the
17
extraneous
sound
is
minimal
even
at
lB
night.
When we were there
from say 10:00
19
olclock until after 11:00
p.m.,
again
we
20
had
to stop
our
analysis
so
many
times,
21
over
a dozen times,
because
of aircraft
22
flyovers that greatly exceeded the
levels
23
from Ameren.
We simply
couldn’t
hear
24
Ameren for about
a seven-minute
period
Page 208
1
there.
For
a
total
period
of
17
minutes,
2
seven minutes we couldn’t hear Ameren and
3
ten minutes
we could and the ten minutes
4
we could we measured Ameren noise.
5
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
You
6
were there for how long out of that
--
I
7
mean,
you
took
17
minutes
worth
of
8
measurements.
Were you there
long enough
9
to
determine
--
well,
he
was
taking
10
measurements
and then excluding.
Were
11
you there
long enough past that 17-minute
12
period,
was
that
fairly
typical
of
the
13
situation
out
at
Ameren?
14
MR.
ZAK:
Yes.
15
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
How
16
long
were
you
there,
I guess,
first of
17
all?
lB
MR.
ZAK:
The
whole
time?
19
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Right.
20
MS. McFAWN:
You arrived at
--
21
or
you
arrived
earlier
than
this,
but
you
22
started taking sound measurements
at
23
9:00?
24
MR.
ZAK:
Correct.
Page 209
1
MS. McFAWN:
And then the
--
2
then you concluded the section of taking
3
your measurements
for ambient purposes,
4
right?
S
MR.
ZAK:
Yes,
about
9:30.
6
MS.
McFAWN:
And
then
you
still
7
stayed at
the same location?
8
MR.
ZAK:
We never moved.
We
9
kept everything running and we never even
10
turned our analyzer off.
We just kept
11
everything
going
and
from
9:30
until
12
10:00,
the
peakers
were
in
the
process
of
13
starting up and we had radio contact with
14
the
technicians
at
Ameren
that
were
15
starting
the
entire
system
up.
At
10:00
16
o’clock they told us that they were fully
17
up
and
then
we
began
trying
to gather
18
data
on
the
facility
and
we
got
about
ten
19
minutes
worth
of
data
in
a
period
of
20
about,
say,
15 to
16 minutes and
then
we
21
got another chunk
of data
a little
later
22
after that and when we went back to the
23
office and analyzed,
we had about three
24
big
chunks
of
data,
each
one
ten
minutes
Page 210
1
long.
Of
the
three
we
had
--
we picked
2
the
noise
of
the
three
to
represent
3
Ameren and there wasn’t
a very
4
significant
difference.
My
guess
from
5
memory
is about
a two decibel difference
6
between the quietest measurement
and the
7
loudest measurement.
It wasn’t
a lot of
8
difference.
9
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
You’re
10
talking about the measurements
of Ameren,
11
right?
12
MR.
ZAK:
Of Ameren,
yes.
13
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
I
14
guess
my
question,
and
I
probably
phrased
15
it
inartfully
was,
you
were
there
--
you
16
were referring
to a 17-minute period
17
where only
ten
of
those
17
minutes
you
18
were listening to Ameren because
of the
19
extraneous noise?
20
MR.
ZAK:
Right.
21
MS. McFAWN:
Let me just
22
clarify.
That particular discussion was
23
based on when he was trying to take the
24
ambient and then he concluded the ambient
Page 211
1
and
he
went
on
to
take
with
Ameren
2
running at
full power.
3
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
So
4
then at that point he wouldn’t be able to
5
tel.
whether
in
the
17—minute
period
the
6
ten
minutes
where
he
took
Ameren
--
7
MS. NcFAWN:
Well,
then he
B
testified that subsequent
to that,
9
correct me
if I’m wrong,
Greg, you talked
10
about
during
the
period
when
the
plant
11
was fully operational you still had
12
extraneous noise that interfered with
13
your
taking
—-
there were only
some
14
periods
of
time
that
you
couldn’t
measure
15
the
facility
at
full
operation
load?
16
MR.
ZAK:
That’s correct.
If
I
17
can
kind
of
go
through
the
scenario
18
briefly here and
--
19
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Yeah.
20
You know,
and
I want you to do that as
21
well,
but
I
just
--
the
only
thing
I
was
22
really concerned about
is whether that
23
was
a fairly typical
17-minute period for
24
the time you were out there?
Page 212
1
MR.
ZAK:
Yes,
it was the
--
2
from
the
standpoint
of
the
noise
that
was
3
generated by Ameren,
it was the worst
4
period
we could find.
For the period
-
-
5
as far as the extraneous
sound
is
6
concerned,
we were trying to do
7
everything
we
could
to
avoid
that.
Even
8
with
trying
to
avoid
the
extraneous
9
sound,
we still had a 17—minute period
10
there where we could only get Ameren
11
measurements
for
ten
minutes
out
of
17,
12
but that gave us our ten minutes of
13
Ameren
data.
14
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
So
at
15
a
minimum
it
was
that
type
of
situation
16
throughout
the
time
you
were
there
in
17
terms
of
the
extraneous
noises?
18
MR.
ZAK:
Yes,
but we had
19
extraneous
noise
happening
really
from
20
9:00 o’clock until
about 11:15 or 11:20,
21
whenever we concluded our measurements.
22
MR.
JOHNSON:
I think he’s
23
asking was that time frame representative
24
of
a normal typical time frame
at any
Page 213
1
other
time
on
another
day?
Was
there
a
2
similar amount
of extraneous noise and a
3
similar amount
of time that you could
4
hear Ameren and a similar amount of time
5
you can’t hear it?
6
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Well,
7
right, because right now we’re looking at
8
a 17-minute period where for
--
you
9
testified
that
seven
out
of
those
minutes
10
was extraneous
noise
that you couldn’t
11
take measurements,
you know,
but
I want
12
to know,
and
I think you have answered
13
that
was
the case,
but the 17-minute
14
sample time is a pretty limited sample of
15
size?
16
MR.
ZAK:
Right.
17
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
For
lB
all we know during those
17 minutes
there
19
really was
a lot of extraneous
noise,
20
but,
you know,
a couple hours
later
21
there’s no extraneous
noise.
22
MR.
ZAK:
And we actually were
23
measuring from approximately say 9:00
24
p.m.
until 11:15 p.m.
continuously and we
Page 214
1
were looking for ten-minute periods
of
2
time
so we could say well,
we have
--
we
3
used the Leq methodology
of measuring and
4
we were trying
for what we call a
5
ten-minute
Leq, which would be roughly
6
equivalent
to
a one hour 100 Leq.
The
7
results would be,
in essence,
the same,
B
but we were looking for chunks
of time,
g
ten minutes
long,
but they were somewhat
10
artificial because
in reality the chunk
11
of time was probably
17 minutes
long,
but
12
we kept subtracting out the extraneous
13
sound
so
we
got
down
to ten minutes of
14
pure Ameren sound and this was going on
15
from about
10:00 p.m. until 11:00
--
16
after
11:00.
Let me rephrase that.
I’d
17
say from 10:00
p.m. until
about
a few
18
minutes before 11:00 when they told us
19
they
were
beginning
to
shut
down
and
the
20
shutting down process takes quite a while
21
so we did continue to measure, but the
22
results we were getting we could
see were
23
dropping by
a few decibels between say
a
24
little bit before 11:00 o’clock and by
Page 215
1
11:15 we could see
a slight drop in sound
2
level
so we thought well,
we’re not going
3
to use data,
we’re going to use the data
4
and we went back and talked to the
5
technicians and they showed us their
6
power curves when they hit peek power and
7
that was from roughly say 10:00
p.m.
to
8
about
10:50
p.m.
and that
was the time
9
frame that we
--
we
looked at that time
10
frame and said,
okay,
out of that time
11
frame we got about three chunks of data
12
we gathered.
Each one was one where
we
13
had about
17 minutes
of data,
but of that
14
17 minutes,
seven minutes was extraneous
15
sound,
but
ten
minutes
was
Ameren
so
it
16
was pretty
consistent
actually.
If we
17
looked
at the time period for just
18
measuring
Ameren,
we
probably
had at a
19
one hour period of time
at least
21
20
minutes of extraneous sound where we
21
couldn’t measure Ameren because all we
22
could hear was vehicles passing by on
the
23
road or airplanes flying overhead.
24
MR.
JOHNSON:
You were looking
Page 216
1
for
-
-
you wanted to have the highest
2
decibel reading that you legitimately
3
would get from the operation of those
4
four
because
that
was
the
basis
of
your
5
request for
a deviation from our rule,
6
right?
7
MR.
ZAK:
Exactly.
I was taking
8
my
measurement
very
much
in
the
way
I
9
would back when
I worked for Illinois EPA
10
if
I was doing enforcement measurement
11
where we were looking for a violation and
12
so I’m looking for the worst case here
13
and
I want
to get
the highest possible
14
numbers,
but
I
also
want
to
get
these
15
high numbers, but with excluding the
16
extraneous noise because that really
17
wasn’t
--
had
nothing
to
do
with
Ameren
18
-
-
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
extraneous
19
noise
and
back
in
my
enforcement
days
20
that’s
how
we
would
have
done
an
21
enforcement case
is to,
again,
exclude
22
any extraneous noise from the
--
both
the
23
ambient
and
the
noise
source
of
interest.
24
MS.
McFAWN:
Should we go on to
Page 217
3.
the next question?
2
HEARING OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Yeah.
3
MS.
McFAWN:
The next question
4
is would sound levels at the proposed
5
limitations of 80 decibels at 31.5 Hertz,
6
which
is
5
dB
above
the
current
limit,
be
7
able to penetrate
a house
with
windows
B
closed?
If
so,
please
comment
on
the
9
impact,
if any,
on the proposed limit.
10
MR.
ZAK:
Jet
aircraft
-
-
I
11
should say passenger jet aircraft or
12
package jet aircraft
at nighttime,
the
13
over-flights
currently exceed
80 dE at
14
31.5
Hertz and penetrate houses with
15
closed
windows.
These
are
the
dominant
16
sources of this type of noise
in the area
17
when
compared
to
the
Ameren
facility.
18
MS. McFAWN:
So at night you
19
mentioned there are still jets overhead
20
in this area?
21
MR.
ZAK:
That’s correct.
And,
22
again,
we would be seeing periods of time
23
the night we were there that out of
say
24
17
minutes
of time,
we have seven minutes
Page 218
1
of
jet
aircraft noise dominating the area
2
with perhaps ten minutes during that
3
17-minute period of
time
where
we
could
4
hear
the
--
just
hear
the
Ameren
5
facility.
6
MS. McFAWN:
Thank you.
7
MR.
ZAK:
But
we had
a
B
competition going on between the jet
9
traffic
and
Ameren
and,
again,
in
a
house
10
--
as far as penetrating the house
is
11
concerned,
the problem the homeowner is
12
going to run into there
is again the
13
intrusion
of
the
coming
--
the constantly
14
coming
and
going
of
the jet
sound.
15
MS. McFAWN:
Question four,
16
do you believe that the proposed noise
17
limits
for sound emitted to Class A land
18
offer
protection
against
unreasonable
19
exposure
to environmental noise burdens
20
that result in annoyance,
speech
21
interference
or
adverse
community
22
reaction during daytime hours?
23
MR.
ZAK:
The environmental
24
noise
in
the
area
around
the
Ameren
Page219
1
facility is characterized by
the
roar
of
2
overhead jet traffic,
the
rumble
of
3
distant railroad trains and their
4
whistles and also truck and automobile
5
traffic on clifford Road.
These noise
6
sources create the unreasonable exposure
7
listed in your question.
Thus,
these
8
extraneous noise sources are of greater
9
impact
than
the
noise
emitted
at
the
10
levels proposed by Ameren.
11
MR.
RAO:
And
do
you
have
the
12
same
opinion
as
to the
nighttime
hours
13
also,
which
goes
to
questions
five
and
--
14
I
think
--
yeah,
question five
deals with
15
the nighttime?
16
MR.
ZAK:
Yes.
It would be the
17
same
for
the nighttime because again when
18
we were
there,
we started taking our
19
measurements
at
the
end
of
the
day
--
20
daytime
--
ending at
10:00
p.m.
and we
21
had gotten the ambient and just began
to
22
obtain our data on Ameren when we crossed
23
from
that
line
in
the
regulations
from
24
daytime to nighttime.
So,
again,
our
Page 220
1
opinion here is based upon our nighttime
2
observations.
3
MR.
RAO:
Go on to question
4
six
5
145.
McFAWN:
Okay.
This
6
question is raised by some comments at
7
page seven of your testimony regarding
B
the proposed Class B noise limits.
You
9
state that the environmental impact based
10
on the proposed changes would be of
11
insignificant
consequence.
Please
12
explain
the
rationale
for
your
13
conclusion.
14
MR.
ZAK:
And
the
rationale
for
15
this conclusion
is the same as the one
16
for
the proposed
Class A noise limits.
17
The
presence of extraneous noise
in the
18
heavily industrialized area around the
19
Elgin
Ameren facility dominates the area
20
and,
again,
since
we
have
a
request
for
21
higher limits under Class
B,
the impact
22
with the extraneous noise again would be
23
very
-
-
I basically stand by my
24
statement
Page 221
1
MS. McFAWN:
Okay.
2
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
That
3
is the extent
of the Board’s questions.
4
Member Johnson,
do you have anymore?
5
MR.
JOHNSON:
You said
a couple
6
of
times,
Mr.
Zak,
that you considered
7
the possibility of that facility being
B
subject to a no noise complaint
in the
9
future as being remote?
10
MR.
ZAK:
That’s correct.
11
MR.
JOHNSON:
Clearly there’s
12
some chance or we wouldn’t be here today
13
and you wouldn’t have filed the petition
14
for the site specific rule.
Have you
15
talked
to Ameren individuals,
employees?
16
Have you told
them the difference between
17
numeric noise
violation
and nuisance
18
noise
violation?
Have they asked you at
19
all about how this will affect
the
20
potential
nuisance noise case in the
21
future?
22
MR.
ZAK:
No,
they haven’t.
23
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Yeah,
24
we’d like to hear
a response.
Page
222
1
MS.
McFAWN:
Could you read back
2
the question?
I was thinking still of
3
something
else.
Can
you
paraphrase
it?
4
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
5
Essentially Member Johnson,
and
I
don’t
6
want
to state what he said,
but,
you
7
know,
there’s different types of
8
potential enforcement cases involving
9
noise
and
one
of
course
is
a
numeric
10
violation and another is
a nuisance type
11
violation and,
you know,
the two are not
12
completely related.
He asked
--
13
MR.
JOHNSON:
I just asked if
14
anyone had talked to you,
I guess
15
specifically,
Mr.
Smith,
or other Ameren
16
employees
and
explained
to
them
that
if
17
the
Board
were
to
grant
a
site
specific
18
rule
and
change
this
based
upon
your
19
request
that
that
would
not
insulate
you
20
in the future from a nuisance noise
21
violation
-
-
a nuisance noise case being
22
brought in
the
citizens
enforcement
23
context or otherwise?
24
MS.
McFAWN:
I’ve
advised
the
Page 223
3.
client
of that fact.
2
MR.
JOHNSON:
That’s the extent
3
of my questions.
4
MS. McFAWN:
That
is an
5
interesting protection afforded by the
6
Board’s regulations.
7
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Pardon.
8
MS. NcFAWN:
It’s
a very
9
interesting protection afforded
to the
10
public by the Board’s regulations.
11
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
And
I
12
think Mr. Zak touched on it earlier when
13
he was talking about the high degree
of
14
the
noise
regulations
or
noise
in
the
15
state of Illinois even though there’s
16
essentially no noise program with the
17
Illinois
EPA.
18
MR.
JOHNSON:
The
program
is
19
right
at
your
table.
20
MS.
MCFAWN:
And
then
also
it
21
kind
of
--
your
question
and
our
answer
22
or discussion
about
it
also
goes to
23
testimony from
the Attorney General’s
24
office
about
homeowners
--
future
home
Page
224
1
owners.
We
realize
that
they
are
2
afforded that avenue of having the noise
3
program in Illinois work.
4
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Which
5
is?
6
MS.
McFAWN:
I
had
a
couple
of
7
other
questions
if
I
could
just
to
S
follow-up
on
Mr.
Zak’s
last
question
9
about
the
commercial
changes
that
we’re
10
asking
for.
11
Mr.
Zak,
they
were
wondering
12
about the
impact
of
the change
in
the
13
Class
B
limits?
14
MR.
ZAK:
Yes.
15
MS.
McFAWN:
We’ve
only
16
requested three numerical changes
in the
17
Class
B
limits,
is
that
correct?
18
MR.
ZAK:
That’s
correct.
19
MS.
McFAWN:
Those
would
be
at
20
the
1,000,
2,000 and 4,000 Hertz levels?
21
MR.
ZAK:
That’s
correct.
22
MS. McFAWN:
And the levels we
23
asked for,
aren’t those equal
to the
24
daytime
limits
for
Class
A
or
residential
Page 225
1
land?
2
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Ms. McFawn,
3
can
I stop you?
4
MS. McFAWN:
Sure.
S
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Joel
6
7
MR. STERNSTEIN:
I’ve got to go,
8
sorry.
9
HEARING OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Do
you
10
have questions you want
to ask?
11
MR. STERNSTEIN:
Pardon?
12
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
You
13
can ask questions now if you have any.
14
MR. STERNSTEIN:
No.
I gave
15
Howard my questions,
so he’ll ask them.
16
I have to go.
17
MS. McFAWN:
I have to ask
18
Howard some questions.
19
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
You
20
know,
Howard will be here without the
21
benefit
of counsel.
22
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
I understand
23
that.
24
MS. McFAWN:
I need this on the
Page 226
1
record.
2
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
If
I don’t
3
catch the
-~
4
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
This
5
is
all
on
the
record.
I
understand
that,
6
but
you
understand
that
he
may
be
subject
7
to questions and you are going to allow
8
him to be subject to those questions
9
without counsel being present.
10
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
Howard,
if you
11
don’t understand something,
say you don’t
12
understand
it.
If you don’t want to
13
answer,
say you don’t want
to answer.
14
Okay?
15
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
You
16
don’t have any objection
to those
17
questions being asked?
18
MR.
STERNSTEIN:
No.
19
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Okay.
20
MS. McFAWN:
My apologies
to the
21
Attorney General’s Office.
I didn’t
--
I
22
wasn’t aware that he would have to leave
23
prematurely.
24
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Just
Page 227
1
for the record,
Mr.
Sternstein
did
not
2
make that available
—-
that particular
3
information
available
to
anybody.
You
4
can proceed.
S
MS. McFAWN:
Okay.
We were
6
talking about
the proposed noise
limits
7
for the Class B limits,
the Class B
8
properties,
and that there are three and
9
that they are equal
to the daytime noise
10
limits
as proposed
and,
in fact,
the
11
difference between the current Class
B
12
limits and those proposed
at the three
13
octave bands we’re talking about,
are
14
those
significant
differences,
for
15
instance,
at Class B for the 1,00 Hertz
16
octave band it goes from
--
the current
17
is at
57 and the proposed
is
at
58?
18
MR.
ZAK:
That’s correct.
19
MS. McFAWN:
Would that be a
20
significant difference to a commercial
21
establishment?
22
MR.
ZAK:
No.
We’re talking
23
about
one
decibel
and
one
decibel
is
an
24
increment
that
is
so
small
that
it’s
Page 228
1
usually only perceptible if somebody
2
hears
a sound,
a pure tone, and the
tone
3
is increased by one decibel,
that’s about
4
the minimum amount of increase or
S
decrease that is perceptible
by the
6
average person, but that’s
only
the
7
presence of the tone.
If you were to
8
have
a one decibel change and then the
9
sound stopped and then you brought the
10
sound
back
again,
you
change
it
by
one
11
decibel,
the
average
person
could
not
12
tell the difference.
It would sound the
13
same to them.
14
MS.
McFAWN:
Okay.
Thank
you.
15
MR.
RAO:
I
have
a
follow-up.
16
Do
you still stand by your earlier
17
opinion that
the increase in sound levels
18
that have been proposed here are not
19
significant
because
of the
extraneous
20
sound
or just because of the difference
21
in the
decibel
level?
22
MR.
ZAK:
No.
Due
to the area
23
in question,
the
actual
character
of
the
24
neighborhood and more
specifically,
the
Page 229
1
extraneous
sound
in
the
character
of
the
2
neighborhood, we look at the heavily
3
industrialized area there,
not only the
4
jet aircraft over-flights, but the heavy
5
truck traffic in the area there
is such
6
that
--
is
the
dominant
noise
in
the
7
area.
8
MR.
RAO:
Absent the extraneous
9
sound,
a six decibel increase or a 22
10
decibel
increase
in
sound,
do
you
think
11
it
will
have
a
significant
affect
absent
12
extraneous
sound?
13
MR.
ZAK:
Absent extraneous
14
sound?
15
MS.
MCFAWN:
Are you talking for
16
the purposes
of commercial property?
17
MR.
RAO:
Residential or
18
commercial.
You just
--
Mr.
Zak just
19
said, you know,
one decibel
is
20
insignificant just looking
at
the numbers
21
and
I was
just asking
if there’s no
22
extraneous sound,
does
a six-decibel
23
increase
--
whether it’s significant
or
24
not?
Page
230
1
MR.
ZAK:
IL-
ambient.
Now,
the six decibel
be insignifican
able to hear it
example,
in an
quiet,
which we
did have
a very
decibels increa
significant,
22
12
the area.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
It depends upon the
if the ambient
is high,
increase will,
you
know,
t.
We might not even be
but,
again
--
for
area that’s extremely
don’t have here,
but we
quiet
area
then,
yes,
six
se
would
be
quite
decibels
would
be
It’s based upon
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
extremely significant.
MR.
RAO:
So the bottom line
here
is
--
your
position
is because of
the extraneous
sound,
all these increases
that you have asked
for is reasonable?
MR.
ZAK:
Yes.
MS.
McFAWN:
Okay.
Mr.
Zak,
wouldn’t
the
--
you
just
testified
that
the
ambient
would
also
be
part
of
that
conclusion
or
could
be
part
of
that
conclusion
or
have
an
impact
on
the
recipient,
the
noise
recipient,
not
just
extraneous,
so if you set aside
the
Page
231
1
extraneous,
don’t
we
need
to
also
still
2
address,
as
you
did,
that
ambient
noise
3
also affects whether or not the
increased
4
decibel
level
is
of
significance?
S
MR.
ZAK:
Yes.
6
MS.
McFAWN:
So
it’s
not
totally
7
dependent
on
the
extraneous,
your
8
opinion?
9
MR.
ZAK:
That’s
correct,
it’s
10
both.
11
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Anything
12
further,
Ms.
McFawn?
13
MS.
McFAWN:
Not
for
me.
I
14
might
want
to
ask
him
some
for
questions
15
after
Mr.
Chinn
does.
16
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Mr.
Chinn,
17
do
you
have
some
questions
for
Mr.
Zak?
18
MR.
CHINN:
I
just
have
a
few
19
questions.
20
Mr.
Zak,
you’ve
put
a
lot
of
21
emphasis
on
extraneous
noise
or
22
background
ambient
noise.
Would
you
23
expect
that
the
ambient
noise
or
24
extraneous
noise
would
be
consistent
and
Page 232
1
constant 365 days a year?
2
MR.
ZAK:
No.
3
MR.
CHINN:
Would there be time
4
or days when the ambient level would be
5
lowest?
6
MR.
ZAK:
There
could
be.
7
MR.
CHINN:
Could
you
tell
us
8
what
those
days
might
be?
9
MS.
McFAWN:
That’s
a rather
10
broad question.
11
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Is
12
that
an
objection?
13
MS.
McFAWN:
It’s an objection.
14
That’s
too
--
you’re
asking
him
to
15
specify which days
in the course
of 365
16
days might be less noisy than others?
17
MR.
CHINN:
Yes.
18
MS.
McFAWN:
If
you
can
answer
19
it,
Mr.
Zak,
try,
but
--
or
answer
it,
20
but
if
you
can’t
because
it’s
too
general
21
and too broad,
then so state.
22
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
I
23
don’t think
I have to rule because
24
Ms. McFawn
is allowing him to answer,
but
Page
233
1
go ahead and answer the question
if you
2
can.
3
MR.
ZAK:
Well,
I could conjure
4
up
a situation.
For example,
say
5
Christmas day we wouldn’t expect
to see
6
much in the way of the truck traffic in
7
the area,
but we might still see a lot of
8
air traffic overhead because of Christmas
9
jet flights,
a lot of folks traveling
10
back and forth during the Christmas
11
holidays,
so
I would expect
to see the
12
character of the noise
in the area change
13
from day-to-day,
but,
again,
the
--
using
14
the example,
say Christmas day, well,
we
15
might see
a drop in
—-
a big drop in
16
truck traffic because of the holiday,
but
17
we
might
see an increase
in air traffic
18
so
it’s
a
little
hard
to
pick
out
a
19
specific
day
and
say,
well,
on
a certain
20
day at a certain time we would expect
to
21
see
a real
significant
drop
or
for
that
22
matter
a real significant
increase
in
23
extraneous
ambient noise
in the area.
24
MR.
CHINN:
Would you expect
Page 234
1
industrial
noise,
say,
on New Year’s day
2
or as you had mentioned Christmas day?
3
MR.
ZAK:
Very little.
4
MR.
CHINN:
Would you expect
to
5
have any significant
insect noise on New
6
Year’s
day
or
Christmas
day?
7
MR.
ZAK:
Virtually none.
8
MR.
CHINN:
Would you expect the
9
ambient
level
to
be
comparable
to
10
weekdays
as
on
Sunday?
11
MS.
McFAWN:
If
you
know,
12
Mr.
Zak.
13
MR.
ZAK:
It
would
be
a
little
14
bit
lower
on
Sunday,
in
my
opinion.
15
MR.
CHINN:
And
what
do
you
base
16
your
opinion
on?
17
MR.
ZAK:
Just my general
30
18
years
of
experience.
Now,
I
kind
of
19
condition
that
upon
I
think
as
some
of
20
the
testimony
from
today
touched
upon
the
21
fact
that
U.S.
Can
operates
365
days
of
22
the year.
23
MR.
CHINN:
I’m sorry?
24
MR.
ZAK:
I’m sorry?
Page 235
1
MR. CHINN:
I
didn’t hear you.
2
MR.
ZAK:
I said it’s my
3
understanding that U.S.
Can operates
4
throughout
the year,
365 days,
24 hours a
5
day.
If that’s the case,
they won’t be
6
expected to see very little change
in the
7
ambient
levels
in the area.
I think
a
8
lot of it would depend upon U.S.
Can
9
because when we were there,
we did notice
10
a significant amount of noise
-
-
ambient
11
noise from U.S.
Can.
12
MR.
CHINN:
I was there January
13
1st and
I didn’t hear any noise from U.S.
14
Can.
I was there
at about 4:00,
4:30.
15
MS. McFAWN:
I believe that the
16
witness has already testified about
17
conditions
on January 1st and December
18
25th and
I believe he also said there
19
would not be much ambient noise,
so
I
20
think that question has already been
-
-
I
21
think Mr.
Zak has already addressed what
22
you just testified to.
He agrees with
23
you,
in other words.
24
MR.
CHINN:
Mr.
Zak placed
a lot
Page 236
1
of
emphasis
in
his
testimony
on
ambient
2
or extraneous noise and I’m trying to
3
learn whether this
is constant
365 days
a
4
year and obviously
it
is not,
there
are
5
holidays that
-
-
6
MS. McFAWN:
Mr.
Chinn,
your
7
testifying now as opposed to questioning
8
Mr.
Zak and
I would just note that it
9
seems
that you’re testifying about one
10
day and you’ve asked him about 365 days.
11
MR.
CHINN:
That
is correct.
12
I’m trying to learn whether on holidays
13
you would expect the same ambient level
14
as you would on regular workdays?
15
MS. McFAWN:
And he’s addressed
16
that by his answers to you.
17
MR. CHINN:
In your testimony
18
before the Board on the peaker plant
as
I
19
have already asked you you indicated that
20
the
noise
level
can
be
controlled
to
99.
21
Blah,
blah,
blah.
In order
to make that
22
determination whether
a silencer
is
23
achieving those efficiencies,
would you
24
not have to know what the inlet noise
Page 237
1
level
is
so you can compare
it to the
2
outlet noise level?
3
MR.
ZAK:
Well,
I wouldn’t
4
normally compare the inlet noise
level
to
5
the outlet noise
level.
6
MR.
CHINN:
Pardon?
7
MR.
ZAK:
I wouldn’t normally
8
compare the inlet noise level to the
9
outlet noise
level.
10
MR.
CHINN:
Isn’t that how you
11
calculate your efficiency?
12
MR.
ZAK:
I don’t quite
13
understand the question.
Could you kind
14
of give me
a little bit more detail
in
15
the question?
16
MS. McFAWN:
Can
I just ask a
17
question?
I guess,
could
I object?
18
I don’t
see the relevance of this
19
question.
The Board’s noise limits
are
20
set as numerical values,
not efficiency.
21
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Mr.
Chinn,
22
do you have anything in response to that?
23
MR.
CHINN:
Pardon?
24
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Do you
Page
238
1
have
a response to her objection?
2
MR.
CHINN:
Yes.
There’s
3
testimony here that their silencers are
4
state
of the art maximum reduction and
5
how would you know that unless you know
6
what the
--
you start with and what you
7
end up with?
So
a silencer
-
-
in order
8
to determine the efficiency
of
a silencer
9
you need to know what the
inlet
is
10
compared to the outlet.
11
MS.
McFAWN:
My objection
is on
12
the relevance.
It doesn’t
--
it’s not
13
relevant,
how efficient.
It
is relevant
14
as to how much we can contain the noise
15
and does
it meet Board limits or could
it
16
meet the proposed Board
limits.
It’s not
17
based on efficiency.
18
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
19
Anything further?
20
MS.
McFAWN:
I’m
sorry.
I
was
21
just trying to explain the relevance.
22
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
No.
23
when
I
say anything further,
I mean if
24
you have anything further before
I
rule,
Page 239
1
I’m more than eager
to hear
it.
2
MS.
McFAWN:
Thank you,
Mr.
Knittle.
3
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
There’s
4
no hidden message there.
The objection
5
is overruled.
I want to hear what
6
Mr.
Chinn
--
what Mr.
Zak has to say in
7
response to Mr.
Chinn’s question.
8
Noting,
of course,
that this
is
a
9
rulemaking proceeding and it’s hard for
10
us to keep any information that
is
ii.
relevant, and
I know that’s your
12
objection,
but we like to let as much
in
13
as we possibly can in the rulemaking
14
context.
I think that question
is
15
relevant.
16
MS. MCFAWN:
Well,
then,
could
I
17
just make a slight statement?
Mr.
Chinn
18
is asking Mr.
Zak about
a statement he
19
made not
in this proceeding,
but
a
20
statement he made at
a general
21
informational proceeding where
the Board
22
was trying to learn more about peaker
23
plants and efficiency and sound levels
24
and
a whole plethory of things and now
Page 240
1.
he’s asked him to take that statement out
2
of context and address
it in this
3
proceeding
and
I
do
not
see
the
relevance
4
to
this proceeding and
I just have to
S
point
that out on the record.
6
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
It’s
7
duly
noted
and
you
can
have
a
standing
8
objection on the record to this line of
9
questioning.
Mr.
Zak?
10
MS.
McFAWN:
Can
we
--
also
I
11
would
object
that
Mr.
Zak
is
probably
not
12
the right person to address this.
Could
13
I
have
a
different witness address
14
Mr.
Chinn’s
question?
15
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Mr.
Chinn,
16
do
you
care
if
another
one
of
the
17
witnesses
on
the
panel
addresses
the
18
question or
--
19
MR.
CHINN:
I’m
sorry?
20
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Do
you
21
care or do you have any
preference
as to
22
whether Mr.
Zak addresses this question
23
or one of the other witnesses or do you
24
want
to
hear
what
Mr.
Zak
says?
Page 241
1
MR.
CHINN:
No.
I was just
2
saying that when Mr.
Zak testified before
3
the Board,
he had testified
as to the
4
available control technology
in
a generic
5
form as
it relates
to peaker plants.
6
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Right,
7
and Ms.
McFawn has suggested that one of
8
her other witnesses would be better able
9
to answer that question.
Would you
10
rather hear it from Mr.
Zak or do you
11
have
a preference?
12
MR.
CHINN:
Yeah.
The other
13
witnesses did not testify before the
14
Board.
15
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
16
Understood.
I just wanted to hear what
17
you said.
I’m going to allow the
18
question to Mr.
Zak.
If you want to have
19
one of the other witnesses follow-up,
20
you’ll be more than able to do
so.
21
MS.
McFAWN:
Mr. Chinn has just
22
said that it’s from a different
23
proceeding.
24
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Yes,
Page 242
1
and I’ve already ruled.
2
MS.
McFAWN:
Do we want to get
3
to the answer or
--
4
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
We
5
want
to hear the answer to the question
6
that you’ve objected to and I’ve
7
overruled the objection at this point.
8
Mr.
Zak,
do you need the question
9
rephrased or
-
-
10
MR.
ZAK:
No.
I think
I can
11
address the question and I’d like to
12
clarify while I’m answering if
I
could,
13
Mr.
Chinn.
I think what you’re asking me
14
is if we know what the amount of sound
15
energy
is of the gas turbine
--
peaker
16
without
a silencer on there and we insert
17
a silencer in the system,
what type of
18
sound reduction would we expect to see by
19
inserting
a
--
and by silencer
I don’t
20
mean just one small silencer,
say an
21
exhaust silencing system as part of the
22
gas turbine and
I think you’re asking me,
23
well,
I testified
a number of years ago
24
back in 2000 as to what the proximate
Page 243
1
sound energy would be of the gas turbine
2
with no silencer on there versus
a
3
silenced
gas
turbine
system
as
you
find
4
in a peaker and
I characterized that by a
5
percentage
of
99.99999
percent
and
the
6
reason
I used that terminology was to try
7
and make
it
a little more understandable
8
for those folks who deal
a lot
in
9
pollution levels
in parts per million and
10
so
I used the percentages.
The way
I
11
calculated
those was to go back to the
12
insertion loss of
a silencing system
13
having talked
to an individual
who had
14
spent several years
in the
peaker
15
industry and
I basically got my numbers
16
from him as to what one would expect
to
17
get from a totally uncontrolled gas
18
turbine engine to
a fairly typical
19
silenced peaker that was typically used
20
by the industry.
I hope
I answered your
21
question.
22
MR.
CHINN:
I’m not sure.
23
Any silencer
--
we can look at the
24
catalog, manufacturer’s
catalog,
and it
Page
244
1
will tell you what the percentage
2
reduction it would have,
right, based
3
upon what you start out with and what you
4
end up with?
5
MR.
ZAK:
Correct,
the insertion
6
loss.
7
MS. McFAWN:
Could Mr.
Parzych
8
answer that question for you,
if you can
9
look at
such
a catalog and find that out?
10
MR.
CHINN:
I think Mr.
Zak
11
already answered it.
12
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Mr.
Parzych,
13
if you have a further clarification,
14
you’d be more than welcome
to give
it.
15
MR.
PARZYCH:
Yes.
Mr.
Zak
16
answered that you can get the insertion
17
loss of
the silencer,
that
is
in
18
decibels,
not percent.
So if you want to
19
get to percent,
there’s
an easy way you
20
can convert decibels into percent,
so you
21
don’t need to know the unsilenced
sound
22
level of the gas turbine and then the
23
silenced sound level
of the gas turbine.
24
If you know the insertion loss from the
Page 245
1
catalog,
as Mr.
Chinn says, you can now
2
determine what the percentage reduction
3
would be and if it’s a ten dE insertion
4
loss,
you effectively would have a
90
5
percent reduction in the overall sound.
6
If it’s
a 20 dB insertion loss,
you would
7
have
a 99 percent reduction in the
8
overall sound,
30,
99.9;
40,
99.99.
9
For each ten dE that you go up there’s an
10
additional nine that goes to the end of
11
the decimal points
there.
So
if you had
12
a
so
dE reduction,
insertion loss if you
13
will
of your silencer,
it would be 99.999
14
percent
efficient..
So you don’t need to
15
have the unsilenced
sound power level to
16
determine the efficiency of the silencer.
17
It’s
the insertion loss
of the silencer.
18
MR.
RAO:
Thank you for the
19
clarification.
20
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
21
Anything further,
Mr.
Chinn?
22
MR.
CHINN:
Would you know what
23
the
outlet
dB
is
if
you
don’t
know
what
24
the inlet dB is?
Page 246
1
MR.
ZAK:
Mr.
Chinn,
are you
2
asking me or Mr.
Parzych?
3
MS.
McFAWN:
How about either
4
one?
5
MR.
PARZYCH:
No.
6
MR.
CHINN:
Thank you.
7
MR.
PARZYCH:
Because you’d have
8
to apply the amount of insertion loss of
9
your silencer to some number.
10
MR.
CHINN:
Thank you.
11
Mr.
Sternstein had some
12
questions,
I’m trying to interpret his
13
writing.
He was asking that
--
you had
14
testified that the noise
of Ameren’s
15
peaker plant would not interrupt
16
conversation or sleep because it is
a
17
constant noise,
is that accurate?
18
MR.
ZAK:
That would be in
19
conjunction with the presence of the
20
extraneous noise.
21
MR.
CHINN:
I think his
22
question,
I’m trying to translate it,
is
23
that he’s talking about
the sound source
24
is a constant sound source that would not
Page 247
1
tend to interrupt conversation,
is that
2
an accurate characterization of your
3
testimony?
4
MR.
ZAK:
Yes,
I would say it
5
is.
6
MR.
CHINN:
Thank you.
The
7
other question he had was when you
8
conducted your noise for sound
9
measurement,
was that in compliance with
10
the Board’s measurement procedures
--
the
11
proposed procedures?
12
MR.
ZAK:
Yes,
in strict
13
compliance with the proposed procedures.
14
MR. CHINN:
Is that also
15
consistent with in compliance with the
16
current rules of
the Board at regulation
17
Section 910?
18
MR.
ZAK:
Yes.
19
MR. CHINN:
I have one question
20
for Mr.
Smith.
Is one of the factors
in
21
locating the peaker plant
at the location
22
where it’s at due to the proximity of the
23
gas pipeline?
24
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
Page
248
1
MR.
CHINN:
Thank you.
And am
I
2
correct
in understanding
that the peaker
3
plant operates
16 percent of the time.
4
MR.
SMITH:
Not quite.
What
I
5
testified today was that the air permit
6
that we were granted by the Illinois EPA
7
would allow us to run up to about
16
8
percent of the time on an annual basis.
9
MR.
CHINN:
On an annual basis?
10
MR.
SMITH:
Yes.
11
MR. CHINN:
So
84 percent
of the
12
time you would be down,
not operating?
13
MR.
SMITH:
Yeah.
I
think for
14
clarification,
the
air permit
is
a
cap,
15
it provides a limit on how much we’re
16
able to operate.
It doesn’t mean that we
17
will operate
16 percent
of
the
time.
So
18
to say that we would be down 84 percent,
19
I don’t
know if that’s really the right
20
way
to look at
it,
but we probably will
21
be down more than 84 percent.
22
MR. CHINN:
More than 84
23
percent?
24
MR. SMITH:
I believe
so.
Page 249
1
MR.
CHINN:
So if you were to
2
make any modifications,
physical
3
modifications
to the plant,
you have more
4
than 84 percent
of the time available
to
5
do that without
interpreting
operations,
6
would that be
a correct statement?
7
MR. SMITH:
Well,
I don’t know
8
if
it
is or not because
it would depend
9
upon the schedules
for doing whatever
10
modifications we’re talking about and
11
the market conditions would also
12
influence what
--
when we would need to
13
operate.
So sitting here today,
I can’t
14
really speculate on
it.
15
MR. CHINN:
So would you say
16
it’s true there are times available when
17
you would be able to do construction or
18
modification
to the plant and not
19
interrupt or interfere with operations?
20
MR.
SMITH:
For minor activities
21
or minor periods
of time where the units
22
would be unavailable or usually in the
23
calendar year would be sometime where we
24
would conduct those activities.
Page250
1
MR.
CHINN:
That’s all the
2
questions we have.
3
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Ms.
McFawn,
4
you have,
you said some follow-up
5
questions to ask Mr. Chinn.
6
MS. McFAWN:
I do.
Before that,
7
I have
a question to ask Mr.
Smith.
S
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Sure.
9
MS. McFAWN:
Mr. Chinn was
10
asking you about being able to schedule
11
down time in the event you had to do some
12
modifications or do some installation,
my
13
question to you is
in the
--
regularly in
14
much of the power industry you schedule
15
outages and those outages are routinely
16
scheduled for maintenance and sometimes
17
for minor to mid level
changes.
could
18
you schedule such outages
--
would the
19
market and the need for this type of
20
plant allow you to schedule those outages
21
in advance
if they were major
--
if you
22
had major work to do?
23
MR.
SMITH:
If the outage was
a
24
few days it’s probably likely we could
Page 251
1
find some time to conduct the work.
For
2
something major like in the context
of
3
some of the modifications we’ve talked
4
about today,
it would not really be
S
feasible to schedule
long outages to,
6
say,
for example,
install
a new exhaust
7
stack or relocate a stack.
I mean,
those
8
kinds
of things would be very major
9
modifications
to these units and very
10
difficult to be able to take the outages.
11
We also have
some contractual
12
obligations
that we have to meet,
which
13
would be impacted
if we had to enter into
14
a major construction program,
not to
15
mention the time lines required again to
16
go back and modify the air permit
as well
17
as the city ordinances with the city of
18
Elgin.
19
MS. McFAWN:
Could some of those
20
changes like a new stack
-
-
you know,
if
21
you’re going to extend the
exhaust
22
silencer and install
a new stack or
23
otherwise install
a new stack,
some of
24
those types
of things would take
Page 252
1
structural changes to the existing
2
facility,
right?
3
MR.
SMITH:
That
is correct.
4
MS.
McFAWN:
Which could mean
5
disassembling
--
the time to disassemble
6
the existing facility?
7
MR.
SMITH:
It would include
8
time to disassemble existing equipment.
9
If it involved extending the stack or
10
relocating
a stack,
it would involve
11
foundation work,
which requires
12
excavation and structural
fill as well as
13
concrete work and then reconstruction
14
with the new equipment
15
MS. McFAWN:
Could that take up
16
to
a
year?
17
MR.
SMITH:
Well,
the actual,
18
you know,
demolition and installation
19
time is unclear
to me.
We haven’t really
20
studied that.
I don1t
think it would
21
take up to a year.
22
MS.
McFAWN: A good part of
a
23
year or
a half year?
24
MR.
SMITH:
Maybe half
a year
Page 253
1
depending on the extent of the
2
modifications.
3
MS.
McFAWN:
Thank you.
4
MR.
CHINN:
Mr.
Smith, you
5
indicated that the modifications may
6
entail
a modification of your air permit?
7
MR.
SMITH:
That is correct.
8
MR.
CHINN:
Under what
9
circumstances
or conditions
that you
10
would need to modify the permit?
11
MR.
SMITH:
Any modification
12
that would change the flow dynamics or
13
dispersion
of the exhaust gases
into the
14
atmosphere
or the location
of a stack
15
would require additional modeling work
16
and a
re
--
or a modification of the air
17
permit
itself.
18
MS. McFAWN:
That’s our
19
understanding
at least.
20
MR.
SMITH:
That’s right,
that
21
is my understanding.
22
MR.
CHINN:
Is that part of the
23
air pollution regulation that you’re
24
reciting?
Page
254
1
MR. SMITH:
Is modeling?
‘m not
2
sure what
--
3
MR.
CHINN:
A requirement for
a
4
modification of the permit?
5
MS. McFAWN:
You know,
I would
6
just want to interject here that the air
7
--
as you well know,
Mr.
Chinn,
the
8
regulations
for air permits and air
9
permit modifications at facilities,
is
10
really quite a complex area and our
11
testimony today was to explain that
12
there’s
a high
likelihood of that.
I
13
don’t mean to say that
in all instances
14
no matter what the modification
is to
15
this plant that we
would
have to
seek an
16
air permit modification,
but in some of
17
the examples that we gave today and we
18
discussed today, there’s a high
19
likelihood we would at least have to
20
investigate whether we need to seek a
21
modification
from the Illinois EPA and if
22
we did we would have to maybe conduct
23
modeling in order to obtain such
a
24
modification,
but at this point
Mr.
Smith
Page 255
1
has testified about what he thinks we
2
might have to do.
We don’t want to say
3
that
in all instances we will have to do
4
that.
5
MR. CHINN:
Because I’m not
6
familiar with the conditions that
7
Mr.
Smith recited as a requirement
to
8
modify the permit.
9
MS. McFAWN:
Well,
generally we
10
have staff and the staff
is subject to
11
air pollution permits and so we’re
just
12
bringing
it to the Board’s attention that
13
if we have to do some significant
changes
14
to this facility
in order to comply with
15
noise limitations,
then there’s
a high
16
likelihood that
it also now becomes
17
involved
in the second media.
18
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Is
19
that sufficient,
Mr.
Chinn?
20
MR.
CHINN:
That’s
it.
21
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Any
22
more
--
no further questions?
23
MR.
CHINN:
Pardon?
24
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
No
Page 256
1
further questions?
2
MR.
CHINN:
No further
3
questions.
4
HEARING OFFICER
KNITTLE:
How
5
about from you,
Ms. McFawn?
6
MS. McFAWN:
I have some
7
questions
of Mr.
Chinn.
B
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
That’s
9
correct.
Proceed.
Mr.
Chinn,
I know
10
you’ve been hopping back and forth since
11
Mr.
Sternstein left
in roles here,
but
12
let me remind you you’re still under
13
oath.
Okay?
14
MR.
CHINN:
Thank you.
15
MS. McFAWN:
It’s been a while
16
since you testified
so give me a moment
17
if you would?
18
Mr.
Chinn,
you testified or at
19
least
in your questioning you indicated
20
that you had been out to the facility on
21
January 1st of this year,
is that
22
correct?
23
MR.
INN:
Pardon?
24
MS.
McFAWN:
You testified
--
in
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
questioning
you
at our facility
MR.
CHINN:
MS. McFAWN:
Did you
--
15 minutes.
MS.
McFAWN:
that area before that
MR.
CHINN:
area,
no.
MS.
McFAWN:
of
your
prefiled
test
according to Ameren’s
already residences in
to
Ameren’s
facility
been classified
--
r
A
land
use.
Is
that
MR.
CHINN:
reclassify
was
a
typo
MS.
McFAWN:
Page
257
indicated that you
on January 1st?
I
was
by
there.
You
were
by
there.
how long did you stay
At
paragraph
eight
imony you state that
proposal
there
are
the area adjacent
that has recently
eclassified as Class
statement
correct?
I think the word
by my attorney.
Well,
it’s got a
says
that
based
Ameren
in its
1
your
2
•were
3
4
5
6
there?
7
8
MR.
CHINN:
Approximately
ten,
9
10
11
Had you been out to
day?
Not
in the immediate
footnote and the footnote
on information provided by
Page
258
1
petition,
the village
of Bartlett rezoned
2
the
Realen
property
as
residential
in
3
June
2003
so
I
don’t
know
if
it’s
a
typo.
4
MR.
CHINN:
That’s
correct,
but
5
it’s
not
--
6
MS.
McFAWN:
Let
me
ask
you
7
this:
Are
there
any
residences
on
the
8
Realen property?
9
MR.
CHINN:
I
didn’t
see
any,
10
no.
11
MS.
McFAWN:
So that statement
12
of
fact
in
your
prefiled
testimony
is
not
13
correct,
is
that
right?
14
MR.
CHINN:
No.
You can rezone
15
a
property
without
anyone
residing
on
16
that property.
17
MS.
McFAWN:
That wasn’t my
18
question.
My question was your statement
19
is that there were residences on the
20
property
that
was
reclassified
as
Class
A
21
land use and I’m just asking you since
22
you’ve
been
there,
did
you
see
any
23
residences?
24
MR.
CHINN:
No.
I’m
saying
that
Page 259
3.
the word reclassified was an error and
2
what
was
meant
by
that
is the area to the
3
east
has
already
been
classified
as
4
residential,
which
was
the
yellow
part
of
5
that
Exhibit
A2.
6
MS.
McFAWN:
Mr.
Chinn,
you
7
know,
if
you’re
talking
about
the
area
to
8
the
east
that
we
talked
about
earlier,
is
9
that adjacent to our facility?
10
MR. CHINN:
Adjacent?
11
MS. McFAWN:
Yeah.
12
MR.
CHINN:
It’s in proximity to
13
it.
I was not
--
14
MS. McFAWN:
Is
it adjacent,
15
though,
in
your
opinion?
16
MR.
CHINN:
Well,
you can say
17
it’s
adjacent.
It’s
not
contiguous,
but
18
it’s in proximity close
--
close
19
proximity to Ameren.
20
MS.
McFAWN:
By
close
proximity,
21
like how far away is
it?
22
MR.
CHINN:
There’s
no
scale
on
23
this map.
24
MS.
McFAWN:
There
isn’t,
but
Page 260
1
you recall there.
2
MR.
CHINN:
Pardon?
3
MS.
McFAWN:
There
isn’t
a
scale
4
and we admit
that and we say that it’s on
5
the other side of the railroad and the
6
other side of the gas pipeline and the
7
other
side
of
the
transmission
lines,
so
8
in
your
opinion,
how
far
away
is
it?
9
What’s
contiguous?
10
MR. CHINN:
It looks like it’s
11
about
800 to 1,000
feet.
12
MS. McFAWN:
Okay.
That’s your
13
opinion of how far away it
is?
14
MR.
CHINN:
I’m eyeballing
it
15
based upon this Exhibit
A2.
16
MS.
McFAWN:
Back
to my original
17
question,
though.
Your statement says
18
that
there
are
residences
on
the
Realen
19
property and you did not see any
20
residences
on
the
Realen
property,
is
21
that
right?
22
MR.
CHINN:
No.
There
were
no
23
homes
on
the
Realen
property.
24
MS.
McFAWN:
Okay.
That’s
good.
Page 261
1
I
just
wanted
to
correct
that
fact.
2
Mr.
Chinn,
you’re
concerned
that
3
the
hearing
is
premature.
Are
you
aware
4
of
the
fact
that
Realen
Homes
has
5
submitted
a letter of support?
6
MR. CHINN:
Pardon?
7
MS.
McFAWN:
Are
you
aware
that
8
Realen
Homes
has
submitted
a
letter
of
9
support
on
our
behalf?
10
MR. CHINN:
No,
I’m not.
11
MS. McFAWN:
In support
of our
12
petition.
13
MR.
CHINN:
As
part
of
your
14
petition?
15
MS. McFAWN:
Not
as
part
of
our
16
petition,
but
into
the
Board’s
record
in
17
this proceeding?
18
MR.
CHINN:
No,
I
haven’t
seen
19
it
20
MS. McFAWN:
Okay.
21
MR.
CHINN:
Is
it
a part of your
22
petition?
23
MS.
McFAWN:
It
is
not
attached
24
to
our
petition.
It
was
filed
with
the
Page 262
1
Board.
2
MR. JOHNSON:
I think
she said
3
in support.
4
MS. McFAWN:
It
is in support of
5
our petition.
6
MR.
CHINN:
Thank you.
7
MS. McFAWN:
If we were granted
8
a site specific regulation,
would this
9
put the purchasers on notice?
Wouldn’t
10
that put the purchasers on notice?
11
MR. CHINN:
I don’t know the
12
answer
to that.
13
MS.
McFAWN:
All right.
Do you
14
know who owned the property
--
the Realen
15
property
in the year 2000?
16
MR. CHINN:
I don’t know who
17
owns
it.
18
MS. McFAWN:
You stated that we
19
should have had an expectation or that
20
of the land being converted.
What did
21
you base that opinion on?
22
MR.
CHINN:
You’re asking me
23
whether
I would have an expectation that
24
the
--
Page 263
MS. McFAWN:
that
we
should
have
the
land
being
cony
know
who
owned
the
MR.
CHINN:
expansion of
I would not
would
remain
MS. McFAWN:
who owned the property
any idea what the use
use
was
in
the
year
2000?
MR.
CHINN:
As
I
your petition stated that
have already rezoned that
residential.
MS.
McFAWN:
I’m
getting
confused now.
We stated that
it was
rezoned for residential
in the year 2003.
I’m
asking
in
the
year
2000,
you
didn’t
know who owned
the profit and you didn’t
know what the intended use of
it was?
MR.
CHINN:
Well,
the property
was
owned
by
the
--
I
believe
it’s
called
general
westward
property
No.
You
stated
had an expectation of
erted and you don’t
property?
Based upon the
the
development
expect
that
that
non-residential.
But you don’t know
so
you
don’t
have
--
or
the
intended
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
understand,
(inaudible)
for
Page 264
1
Northwest Municipal
--
I
don’t
remember
2
the
name,
but
it
was
owned
by
a
group
of
3
community
--
northwest community who was
4
planning to develop that property into a
S
balefill.
6
MS. McFAWN:
Could that have
7
been
the
Solid
Waste
Agency
of
Northern
B
Cook County?
9
MR.
CHINN:
That
sounds
10
familiar
11
MS. McFAWN:
SWANCC known by its
12
acronym?
13
MR.
CHINN:
Yes.
14
MS.
McFAWN:
Is
that
a
15
government
agency?
16
MR.
CHINN:
Pardon?
17
MS. McFAWN:
Is that a
18
government agency?
19
MR.
CHINN:
I don’t know.
20
MS.
McFAWN:
You
asked
some
21
questions about
a buffer zone
22
and
Mr.
Zak’s
testimony
at
the
2000
23
hearings
on
peaker
plants.
If
you
have
a
24
buffer
zone,
is
that
an
alternative
to
Page 265
1
designing
a
noise
reduction?
2
MR.
CHINN:
It
is
not
3
necessarily
an
alternative.
It
is
an
4
option.
5
MS.
McFAWN:
Could
you
tell
me
6
--
you questioned whether or not our
7
equipment
is
state
of
the
art.
What
do
8
you
mean
by
state
of
the
art?
9
MR.
CHINN:
That
was
my
10
question.
11
MS. McFAWN:
If
I know how you
12
define
it then
I might be better to
13
answer your question.
14
MR.
CHINN:
Pardon?
15
MS.
McFAWN:
If
I know how you
16
define
it
and
you
don’t
seem
satisfied
by
17
our answers,
we might be able to give you
18
a better answer.
19
MR. CHINN:
State
of the art was
20
what
is
in
your
petition
and
I’m
asking
21
what
--
how
you
define
state
of
the
art.
22
MS.
McFAWN:
Do
you
have
an
23
opinion
of
what
state
of
the
art
means?
24
MR. CHINN:
I’m trying to
Page 266
1
understand what you meant by state of the
2
art.
3
MS.
McF’AWN:
I
know
that,
but
4
for
me
to
better
help
you
understand
what
5
we
meant,
I’d
like
to
know
what
you
--
6
what
kind
of
answer
you’re
expecting.
7
MR.
CHINN:
If
I
knew,
I
8
wouldn’t
have
asked
that
question.
9
MS.
McFAWN:
Our
testimony
has
10
been
that
noise
abatement
equipment
at
11
this facility provides the maximum noise
12
control that we believe
is technically
13
feasible and economically
reasonable.
Is
14
that
not
state
of
the
art?
15
MR.
CHINN:
Yes.
Except
we
16
don’t know what that maximum control
17
means.
18
MS.
McFAWN:
You
and
I
would
19
define
that
in
different
ways.
20
You
testified
that
you
visited
a
21
facility
in
Hillside.
What
was
the
name
22
of
that
facility?
23
MR.
CRINN:
I
don’t
remember
the
24
name
of
the
facility.
It
is
located
at
Page 267
1
the Sexton Landfill at Eisenhower and
2
Manheim
Road
company
and
I
can’t
remember
3
the
name
of
the
company
that
went
in
4
there and constructed an electronic
5
generating plant using landfill gas which
6
is
pretty
common
nowadays.
7
MS.
McFAWN:
And
the
equipment
8
used
to
generate
the
electricity
is
of
9
what
kind?
10
MR. CHINN:
Pardon?
11
MS.
McFAWN:
What’s
the
kind
of
12
equipment
used
to
generate
the
13
electricity?
14
MR.
CHINN:
Generators.
15
MS.
McFAWN:
Generators
akin to
16
the ones we have?
17
MR.
CHINN:
I
don’t
know
that.
18
I didn’t look at
it
in detail and
I have
19
not seen your equipment.
20
MS.
McFAWN:
But
you’ve
seen
a
21
description
of our equipment?
22
MR.
CHINN:
Pardon?
23
MS. McFAWN:
You’ve seen
a
24
detailed description
of the type of
Page 268
equipment
as
answer
--
in
think
here
principle
or
no detail here
equipment we have?
MR. CHINN:
No.
I
Mr.
Smith said this drawing
(indicating)
only shows the
major equipment so there’s
on Exhibit
C
--
Exhibit
4.
MS. McFAWN:
Have we now
identified
the type of turbine we have?
MR.
CHINN:
Only the major
Mr. Smith had testified
in
response
to my question.
MS. McFAWN:
I’m asking you
about what kind of equipment was used to
generate electricity
at this Hillside
location that you don’t
remember the name
of it and you don’t know what kind of
equipment was used.
Could you please
provide those details to us then so we
can understand
if it’s
a relevant
comparison?
MR. CHINN:
I believe that
facility is available
to visit
if you so
desire.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MS. McFAWN:
Well,
I would
Page 269
1
prefer that since you put this into the
2
record,
that you identify it for me.
Can
3
I ask the Board to see that that’s done?
4
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Mr.
Chinn,
5
do you have that information or no.
6
MR.
CHINN:
Pardon?
7
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Do you
8
have the information that she’s
9
requesting?
10
MR.
CHINN:
I can get it.
11
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
If you
12
have it and you want to submit
it,
we’d
13
be happy to take
a look at
it,
but it’s
14
not necessarily
-
-
15
MR.
CHINN:
No problem.
I’ll
16
get the name and the name
of the company
17
and if they’re interested in visiting
it,
18
that’s probably very feasible.
19
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Sure.
20
If you want to submit that
as public
21
comment,
we would be more than happy to
22
receive that.
23
MR.
CHINN:
Okay.
24
MS.
McFAWN:
Could you also
Page 270
submit the type of equipment
it uses
generate electricity?
MR. CHINN:
The type
equipment they have?
MS. McFAWN:
That generates
their electricity,
yes.
they
MR.
CHINN:
It’s
a generator,
have compressors,
they have
transformers.
number?
MS. McFAWN:
How about the model
MR.
CHINN:
No.
I didn’t take
the model number down.
I was there for
a
different purpose
MS. McFAWN:
Well,
I would like
that information
in order to make
a valid
comparison.
MR. CHINN:
I believe that’s
accessible.
MS. McFAWN:
Could you
MR.
CHINN:
Sure.
MS. McFAWN:
Thank
1
2
3
4
to
5
of
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
it?
22
23
provide
you.
24
You mentioned that that building
Page 271
1
-
-
that that was
a building that enclosed
2
the facility?
3
MR. CHINN:
Correct.
4
MS. McFAWN:
But that building
S
has no roof?
6
MR.
CHINN:
Correct.
7
MS. McFAWN:
You also mentioned
B
that you have to wear ear phones?
9
MR.
CHINN:
Pardon?
10
MS.
McFAWN:
You have to wear
11
ear protection?
12
MR.
CHINN:
When you go inside
13
you have to wear ear protection.
14
MS.
McFAWN:
So was this
15
equipment
--
did this equipment have
16
noise control equipment?
17
MR.
CHINN:
I believe they did,
18
but
I can’t
say for sure because
as
I
19
indicated,
I was not there
to
--
for that
20
purpose.
21
MS. McFAWN:
At paragraph 21 of
22
your prefiled testimony you cite to
a
23
statement
in the 2000 hearings that there
24
were 67 air permits.
Do you realize that
Page 272
1
those air permits
for existing and
2
proposed power plants?
3
MR.
CHINN:
I believe that’s
4
true.
5
MS. McFAWN:
So some of those
6
power plants might not have been built?
7
MR.
CHINN:
That’s
true.
8
MS. McFAWN:
You state that none
9
of the owners of those facilities
have
10
submitted
a petition for relief from the
11
Illinois noise regulations?
12
MR. CHINN:
To the best of my
13
knowledge,
that’s true.
14
MS.
McFAWN:
Does that mean that
15
those facilities
are in compliance with
16
the Board’s regulations on noise?
17
MR.
CHINN:
I would not have
18
that information.
19
MS.
McFAWN:
To your knowledge,
20
have there been any complaints
filed with
21
the IEPA or the Pollution Control Board
22
concerning peaker plants
since 2000?
23
MR.
CHINN:
I would not have
24
that information.
Page 273
1
MS. NcFAWN:
At paragraph
22
of
2
your prefiled testimony you site to
3
testimony by Versar about peaker power
4
plant noise and say that Versar provided
5
information
at the hearing on six
6
proposed peaker power plants,
five in
7
Illinois and one in Maryland from four
8
different developers
and you said that
9
the five proposed plants
in Illinois were
10
expected to meet noise
--
Illinois noise
11
regulations,
is that right?
12
MR.
CHINN:
Yes.
13
MS.
McFAWN:
Do you know if
14
those five proposed power plants
were,
in
15
fact,
constructed?
16
MR.
CHINN:
No.
17
MS.
McFAWN:
Do you know which
18
--
what those five plants were
--
what
19
their names were?
20
MR.
CHINN:
The names?
21
MS. McFAWN:
Uh-huh.
22
MR.
CHINN:
That’s part of the
23
Illinois Pollution Control Board record.
24
MS.
McFAWN:
It
is.
Since you
Page 274
1
looked at the Versar report,
I wondered
2
if you could provide those to me?
3
MR.
CHINN:
I can provide
it,
4
but it’s part
of the Illinois Pollution
S
Control Board record.
6
MS.
McFAWN:
Do you know the
7
location
of those plants?
8
MR.
CHINN:
Of the record?
9
MS. McFAWN:
No,
not
of the
10
record,
of the plants that you site
to.
11
MR.
CHINN:
Again,
that’s part
12
of the Illinois Pollution record.
13
MS. McFAWN:
So when you looked
14
at this
information,
did you look in to
15
find out the names or the locations
of
16
those plants?
17
MR.
CHINN:
As
I answered,
18
that’s part of the Illinois
Pollution
19
Control Board record.
20
MS. McFAWN:
My question
to you
21
is,
did you look at the underlying
22
testimony in the Versar report?
23
MR.
CHINN:
Only what
I have
24
testified
to.
Page 275
1
MS. McFAWN:
Is that
a yes or
2
no?
3
MR.
JOHNSON:
Ms. McFawn,
can
I
4
interrupt,
just briefly?
I note we’re on
5
page ten of a
--
if you can wrap this up
6
in short order we’ll continue,
if not,
7
I’m going
to need
a break.
B
MS.
McFAWN:
Okay.
I believe
I
9
can,
Member Johnson.
10
So did you look at the Versar
11
report?
12
MR.
CHINN:
The who?
13
MS.
McFAWN:
The Versar report.
14
MR.
CHINN:
I’m sorry.
15
MS.
McFAWN:
Did you look at the
16
report done by Versar for DuPage County?
17
MR.
CHINN:
No,
no.
18
MS. McFAWN:
Okay.
At paragraph
19
25
--
well,
I’ll go on to
--
let me
20
backtrack to paragraph 23.
You say that
21
the peaker power plants
--
or our
22
contention
is that peaker power plants
23
are not regulated under the federal
--
on
24
a federal
level.
You say that we’re
Page 276
1
inaccurate when we say that.
Are peaker
2
power plants
-
-
are there regulations
for
3
peaker power plants under the federal
4
Noise Control Act?
5
MR. CHINN:
No.
6
MS. McFAWN:
At paragraph
29
of
7
your prefiled testimony you say during
B
the Board’s hearing held pursuant to
9
Docket ROl-lO,
Indeck testified or an
10
employee of Indeck indicated that
11
Indeck’s peaker plants were designed to
12
meet the Board’s nighttime numerical
13
noise limits at
all times because those
14
plants might be called upon to operate at
15
any time or day.
Do you know if those
16
plants were built?
17
MR. CHINN:
When?
18
MS. McFAWN:
If they were.
19
MR.
CHINN:
No,
I don’t
know.
20
MS. McFAWN:
The witness for
21
Indeck,
he said they were designed,
22
correct,
just designed
to meet the
23
Board’s nighttime limits?
24
MR.
CHINN:
Correct.
Page
277
1
MS. McFAWN:
You asked us about
2
buffer
zones.
The witness there says
3
that
--
to
the Board,
it said that Indeck
4
peaker
power
plants
are
meeting
Illinois
5
standards via buffer
zones or design.
So
6
does that seem like those are two
7
alternatives?
8
MR. CHINN:
Again,
this is part
9
of the Board’s record.
10
MS.
McFAWN:
I
know,
but
you
put
11
it
into
your
--
what
was
the
purpose
of
12
putting
it into your prefiled testimony?
13
MR.
CHINN:
I
took
it
out
of
the
14
Board’s record.
15
MS.
McFAWN:
And
for
what
16
purpose?
Why would you cite to this?
17
MR.
CI-IINN:
Because
it would
18
indicate
that
there
is
technology
19
available to mitigate noise from peaker
20
plants.
21
MS.
McFAWN:
Okay.
Thank
you.
22
That would be all my questions.
23
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Anything
24
else
from
you,
Mr.
Chinn?
Page 278
1
MR.
CHINN:
I
have
no
further
2
questions or comments.
3
MR.
JOHNSON:
I
just want to
4
know
why
you
weren’t
watching
football
on
5
New Year’s day?
6
MR.
CHINN:
That’s
a good
7
question.
B
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Okay.
9
I
think that wraps up the meat of the
10
proceedings here today.
If anybody has
11
any questions regarding this proceeding
12
or
anything
relating
to
it,
they
can
13
always
give
me
a
call
at
217-278-2111,
14
that’s
more
geared
to
members
of
the
15
public
and
I
note
for
the
last
time
that
16
there
are
still
no
members
of
the
public
17
here at this point
in time.
We will have
18
a transcript
available on?
19
THE
REPORTER:
Eight
business
20
days from today?
21
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE
The
22
transcript
will be available
we are told
23
on February 3rd,
which means that the
24
public
comment
period
will
end
30
days
Page 279
1
after the transcript
is available.
Let’s
2
set
it at March
5th,
though,
which is a
3
Friday.
Any problem with that?
4
MS.
McFAWN:
No.
5
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Does
6
the Attorney General’s Office have
a
7
problem with March 5th for the end of the
8
public comment period?
9
MR.
CHINN:
I’m sorry?
10
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Any
11
objection
to
March
5th
for
the
end
of
the
12
public
comment
period?
13
MR.
CHINN:
No.
14
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
March
15
5th
it
will
be.
The
Board’s
transcript
16
--
excuse
me.
The
transcript,
although
17
available
on
February
3rd,
will
be
18
available shortly thereafter on the
19
Board’s web site which
is
20
www.ipcb.state.il.us.
That is all
I
21
have.
Thank you all very much for your
22
attention.
Anything else,
Member
23
Johnson?
24
MR.
JOHNSON:
No.
Thanks
all.
Page 280
1
(Whereupon,
no
2
further proceedings
3
were had.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 281
1
STATE OF ILLINOIS
2
)
55.
3
COUNTYOFCOOK
4
5
6
I,
TERRY A.
BUCHANAN,
CSR,
do
7
hereby state that
I am
a court reporter doing
8
business in the
City
of Chicago,
County of Cook,
and
9
State of Illinois;
that
I reported by means
of
10
machine shorthand the proceedings held in the
11
foregoing cause,
and that the foregoing is
a true
12
and correct
transcript
of my shorthand notes
so
13
taken as
aforesaid.
14
17
Terry
A.
BUCHANAN,
CSR
18
Notary
Public,
Will
County,
Illinois
19
20
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
rd
before me this
3_
day
~
Of.~A
‘
fèaa
~/.
23
Notary Public
_____
.~
~
.
fl~FICIALSEAL”
24
1
TamaraL Bailey
I
Ntktty P~N.Sfl~cof Illinois
~
t~h,*42~l
jfl-r-..
-‘—S.--.
-‘