1. page 1
    2. page 2
    3. page 3
    4. page 4
    5. page 5
    6. page 6
    7. page 7
    8. page 8
 
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARIFCE
CKE
I V E D
JUN 0 2 2006
In The Matter of:
)
Pollution
STATE OILLINOIS
Control Board
Proposed New 35 111 . Adm. Code 225
)
No. R06-25
Control of Emissions from
)
(Rulemaking - Air)
Large Combustion Sources
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO: See attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June
2, 2006, 1
filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Pollution Control Board, Participant Kincaid Generation, L
.L .C
.'s QUESTIONS FOR DR.
JAMES STAUDT AT THE HEARING COMMENCING JUNE 12, 2006,
copies of which are
herewith served upon you .
By:
Bill S . Forcade
Katherine M . Rahill
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
Attorneys for Kincaid Generation, LLC
One IBM Plaza
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 222-9350
THIS FILING IS SUBMITED ON RECYCLED PAPER
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Katherine M
. Rahill, an attorney, hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing
QUESTIONS FOR DR
. JAMES STAUDT AT THE HEARING COMMENCING JUNE 12,
2006, via first-class mail, postage fully prepaid, upon the parties on the attached Service List this
2nd day of June, 2006 :
By:
e
Katherine M .
ahill
~~
 
Gina Roccaforte, Assistant Counsel
Charles Matoesian, Assistant Counsel
John J. Kim, Managing Attorney
Air Regulatory Unit
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W
. Randolph St ., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
Bruce Nilles
Sierra Club
122 W
. Washington Ave ., Suite 830
Madison, WI 53703
Matthew Dunn, Chief
Division of Environmental Enforcement
Office of the Attorney General
188 West Randolph St ., 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
William A . Murray
Special Assistant Corporation Counsel
Office of Public Utilities
800 East Monroe
Springfield, Illinois 62757
Christopher W . Newcomb
Karaganis, White & Mage ., Ltd
.
414 North Orleans Street, Suite 810
Chicago, Illinois 60610
David Rieser
James T
. Harrington
McGuire Woods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
SERVICE LIST
Faith E. Bugel
Howard A . Learner
Meleah Geertsma
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
James W. Ingram
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5800
Houston, TX 77002
N. LaDonna Driver
Katherine D
. Hodge
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland Avenue, P
.O. Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
Keith I
. Harley
Chicago Legal Clinic
205 West Monroe Street, 4th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
S
. David Farris
Manager, Environmental, Health and Safety
Office of Public Utilities, City of Springfield
201 East Lake Shore Drive
Springfield, Illinois 62757
Marie Tipsord
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R
. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Kathleen C . Bassi
Sheldon A
. Zabel
Stephen J . Bonebrake
Joshua R . More
Glenna L
. Gilbert
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
 
RECEIVEDCLERK'S
OFFICE
JUN 0 2 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROST&EVMjLLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
In The Matter of:
)
Proposed New 35 Ill . Adm. Code 225
)
No
. R06-25
Control of Emissions from
)
(Rulemaking -Air)
Large Combustion Sources
)
KINCAID GENERATION L .L.C.'S
QUESTIONS FOR DR . JAMES STAUDT AT
THE HEARING COMMENCING JUNE 12, 2006
NOW COMES Kincaid Generation,
L.L.C., by and through its attorneys, Jenner & Block
LLP, and submits the following questions for Dr
. James Staudt based upon the Statement of
Reasons, Technical Support Document ("TSD")
and its Appendices ("App."),
and the testimony
submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Agency" or "Illinois EPA") on Dr
.
Staudt's behalf in this matter .
For James E . Staudt, Ph.D.
I
.
Explain your reasons for amending your original testimony filed on or about April 28,
2006 .
2.
Explain your reasons for further amending your amended testimony filed on or about
May 19, 2006 .
3 .
Did you assist in writing any of the TSD? If so, which sections?
4.
Have you reviewed the ICF report attached as Appendix C to the TSD?
a.
If so, did you rely on the ICF report in forming any opinions or testimony?
b .
If so, on which facts contained in the ICF report did you rely? Specifically, what
opinions or parts of your testimony rely on those facts?
c.
If so, on which conclusions contained in the ICF report did you rely? Specifically
what opinions or parts of your testimony rely on those conclusions?
THIS FILING IS SUBMITED ON RECYCLED PAPER
 
5 .
What is your definition of "commercially available?"
6.
What is your definition of "cost effective?"
7.
What is your definition of "economically feasible?"
8.
What are the costs associated with sorbent injection? What factors affect the costs of
sorbent injection? How do these factors play out at each of the affected generating units
in Illinois?
9.
On page 3 of your amended testimony, you removed three sentences from your testimony
and replaced those sentences with one sentence . Please explain this change and your
understanding of its effect on your testimony
.
10.
On page 4 of your amended testimony, you changed previous statements
. Please explain
the following changes and your understanding of the effect of each of those changes
:
a.
The change from "[r]esults of measurements of co-benefit mercury removal rates
taken in response to the U.S
. EPA's [ICR] as part of the development of the
federal Clean Air Mercury Rule and subsequent test programs since the ICR
program showed"
to "[r]esults of measurements of co-benefit mercury removal
rates taken in response to the U .S
. EPA's [ICR] as part of the development of the
federal Clean Air Mercury Rule and subsequent test programs since the ICR
program
provided data that indicates that the following cobenefit removal rates
may be expected."
b .
The addition of "expected to be" in the first bullet
.
c.
The replacement of the phrase "will usually" with "is expected to" in the second
bullet.
d.
The addition of "expected to be" in the third bullet
.
2
 
e.
The change from "likely" to "expected" in the fourth and fifth bullets .
11 .
On page 6 of your original testimony, you stated that "all of the coal-fired units in the
State of Illinois are capable of meeting the requirements of the proposed mercury control
rule." In your amended testimony, you deleted the "all" and acknowledged that some
units might need a TTBS to comply . Please explain your rationale for this change .
a.
Which units in Illinois are not "capable of meeting the requirements of the
proposed mercury control rule at a cost close that described in the TSD" and why?
b.
What will these units need to do then in order to comply?
c.
What additional costs will each of these units incur? Please provide, to the best of
your knowledge, a numeric answer .
12 .
Why did you change your cost estimates on page 7 of your testimony for sorbent costs?
13 .
Have you done an independent analysis of the capabilities of each of the coal-fired
electric generating units in Illinois to accept the various control technologies? Which
technology would be required at each plant to achieve compliance 100% of the time
under all operating conditions? How much would that technology cost each plant?
14.
What is the basis for your statement on page 8 that the incremental cost of the Illinois
rule over CAMR will be $32-37 million per year spread across all of the Illinois units for
the period of 2010-2018?
15 .
What do you predict will be the incremental cost of the Illinois rule over CAMR prior to
the 2010-2018 time period?
16.
Explain the meaning of the five sentences which you added to the end of the first full
paragraph on page 9 . What is your basis for these statements?
3
 
17 .
Did you have any input into the Agency's decision to revise the proposed regulations to
include a Temporary Technology Based Standard ("TTBS")?
If so, describe your role in
detail.
18.
Do you believe the TTBS is warranted? Why or why not?
19.
At specifically which sources in the State of Illinois do you believe the TTBS as provided
for in the proposed amendment to the mercury proposal would need to be implemented?
20.
At specifically which sources in the State of Illinois do you believe the TTBS as provided
for in the proposed amendment to the mercury proposal could be implemented?
21 .
What is your understanding of the eligibility requirements for use of the TTBS?
22.
Will any sources in the state have difficulty meeting those eligibility requirements?
23 .
As discussed earlier, in your amended testimony, you stated that "[t]here is a risk that a
small number of coal-fired units in Illinois may need a [TTBS] until they bring their
emissions reductions in compliance with the emission reduction requirements of the
rule." Of the units that "may need a [TTBS] :"
a
. Are there any units that will have difficulty meeting the eligibility requirements?
b
. Are there any units for which the TTBS as proposed in the rule is technologically
unfeasible?
4
 
24.
What is the basis for your statement on page 10 of your amended testimony that newer,
improved sorbents "will likely be available in the future?"
Respectfully submitted,
KINCAID GENERATION, L
.L.C.
by:
Dated
: June 2, 2006
Bill S. Forcade
Katherine M . Rahill
Jenner & Block LLP
One IBM Plaza
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 222-9350
CHICAGO- 1404853
-2
5

Back to top