BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
AMENDMENTS TO 35
ILL.
ADM.
CODE 225: CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
)
)
)
)
R09-10
(Rulemaking - Air)
NOTICE
TO:
John Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago,
1L 6060I
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that
I
have today filed with the Office of the Pollution Control
Board the TESTIMONY OF KEVIN MATTISON, DAVID BLOOMBERG, RORY DAVIS and
JIM ROSS and the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S FIRST
ERRATA SHEET TO ITS PROPOSAL TO AMEND
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225 ofthe lllinois
Environmental Protection Agency a copy
ofwhich is herewith served upon you.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
BY~
Charles E. Matoesian
Assistant Counsel
Division
of Legal Counsel
DATED: December 3, 2008
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217.782.5544
217.782.9143 (TDD)
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 35 ILL.ADM.
CODE PART 225, CONTROL OF
EMISSIONS
FROM LARGE COMBUSTION
SOURCES (MERCURY)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
R2009 - 010
(Rulemaking - Air)
TESTIMONY OF
KEVIN J. MATTISON
My name is Kevin Mattison. I am an Environmental Protection Specialist
N
for the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, acting as the source emissions test specialist in the
Compliance Section within the Division
of Air Pollution Control. I have been at the Agency in
this capacity for approximately fifteen years. My academic credentials include a Bachelor of
Science degree in ceramic engineering from the University of lllinois at Champaign-Urbana.
I have also completed numerous environmental courses over the years, including
USEPA's Air
Pollution Training Institute courses on source sampling (also known as emissions testing or stack
testing) and continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), visible emission instructor
workshop, and courses on specific methodologies such as dioxin/furan and mercury (Mercury
Measurement
in Combustion Flue Gases Short Course). Additionally, I attended a USEPA
sponsored workshop for mercury monitoring, "Mercury Monitoring Training," presented
by the
Clean Air Market Programs. I have also provided training on air pollution emission testing
issues to industry personnel and environmental consultants.
Among
my duties, I develop, explain, interpret, and apply technical criteria, policies, and
regulations relating to source emissions monitoring and testing; coordinate source monitoring
and testing activities with other sections within the Bureau; assist the general public in
the.
application of engineering standards and procedures in the design of source emissions
monitoring and testing programs; review and evaluate engineering documents; serve as the
primary technical staff expert in the areas
of source emissions monitoring and testing; witness
source emissions testing and assist those performing such tests; implement and evaluate source
emissions monitoring and testing policies and procedures; perform in-depth analysis
of complex
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
source emissions test protocols; determine compatibility with applicable requirements; and
conduct Agency smoke school training for the Agency, governmental agencies, industry plant
personnel, and the general public.
I am here today to provide testimony and to answer questions that might arise primarily
regarding the portions
of the Illinois EPA'sproposed revisions to the Illinois mercury rule
incorporating the previously referenced requirements
of 40 CFR Part 75 and the new proposed
alternative emissions testing.
Methods for Monitoring Mercury - Feasibility and Reasonableness
The methods for monitoring mercury from EGUs were previously determined by the Illinois
Pollution Control Board ("Board") during the initial mercury rulemaking to be valid, technically
feasible, and economically reasonable, and they remain so today. The costs and feasibility
of
monitoring were researched and considered by USEPA prior to the promulgation of CAMR and
found to be both reasonable and feasible.
The vacatur
of CAMR on the grounds ofUSEPA's regulatory approach does not invalidate the
technical
or economic assessments that were conducted regarding mercury monitoring.
However, most of the mercury monitoring requirements referenced in USEPA'sPart 75 were
part
of the CAMR vacatur and thus are no longer valid. Therefore, Illinois EPA is proposing to
add Appendix B and the Exhibits to Appendix B to the Illinois mercury rule to incorporate the
relevant monitoring requirements that had previously been in USEPA'sPart 75. For the most
part, the requirements in proposed Appendix B and the Exhibits to Appendix B now being added
to the Illinois mercury rule are identical to the requirements
of Part 75, with a few exceptions;
the main exceptions are the elimination ofrequirements for a bias adjustment factor and missing
data substitution, both
ofwhich are addressed in more detail within David Bloomberg's
testimony. Otherwise, the intent was to move the previously relied-upon Part
75 requirements of
CAMR into the Illinois regulations.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
Alternative Emissions Testing
In addition to moving the previous CAMR Part 75 requirements into the Illinois mercury rule,
Illinois EPA is also proposing amendments to provide a greater degree
of flexibility and
potentially lower cost in mercury monitoring, specifically the Periodic Emissions Testing
Alternative Requirements.
This alternative, interim plan, which would be in place for three years, requires quarterly
emissions testing
of sources in lieu ofthe proposed reconstituted Part 75 monitoring
requirements that have been added to the proposed rule. These emissions testing provisions
provide sources an alternative method for demonstrating compliance with Illinois mercury
emission standards while still ensuring a high level
of integrity in regards to compliance
verification. While CEMS were required under CAMR, the Illinois EPA believes that with the
vacatur
ofCAMR, it is appropriate to allow this alternative in the early stage ofthe Illinois
mercury rule in order to provide sources with another approach to compliance determination, as
some sources have expressed concerns about the use
ofCEMS.
The Periodic Emissions Testing Alternative Requirements, proposed as amendments at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code Section 225.239, can be performed using existing approved USEPA test methods
(Ontario Hydro Method and USEPA Method 29, 30A, and 30B) for measuring mercury in an
emissions test
of a coal-fired EGU, and thus have already been determined to be technically
feasible. Mfected sources may determine which method of emissions determination will best
address their particular situations.
Technical Feasibility of Alternative Testing
The Ontario Hydro Method and EPA Methods 29, 30A, and 30B were approved by USEPA for
initial certification and relative accuracy test audits ("RATA")
ofPart 75 monitoring equipment,
and are considered to
be accurate methods for the measurement ofmercury from coal-fired EGU
stacks. Emissions tests are to be conducted while monitoring source operational parameters to
ensure that measurements accurately represent mercury emissions for the time interval that the
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
test will be used to demonstrate compliance. These operational parameters will be submitted to
Illinois
EPA in a Continuous Parameter Monitoring Plan prior to the test as prescribed in the
proposed amendments at 35
lil.
Adm. Code Subsection 225.239(£)(4). The source must then
continue to monitor these same parameters and operate the EGU in a manner consistent with the
Continuous Parameter Monitoring Plan for the duration
of the compliance interval. This will
ensure that the source continues to operate consistent with the operational conditions under
which compliance was demonstrated, thus providing assurance that the source maintains ongoing
compliance.
Alternative testing - USEPA Method 29
USEPA Method 29, "Determination
ofMetals Emissions from Stationary Sources," is an EPA
Method for determining antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), cadmium
(Cd), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), mercury (Hg), nickel
(Ni), phosphorus (P), selenium (Se), silver (Ag), thallium (Tl), and zinc (Zn) emissions from
stationary sources.
It
has been an approved method for measuring metal emissions from
stationary sources since 1996, and is codified at
40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A (incorporated by
reference in 35
lil.
Adm. Code Section 225.140).
Alternative Testing - USEPA Methods 30A and 30B
USEPA approved two alternative methods for measuring mercury
in
a stack test of a stationary
source,
in response to comments to USEPA objecting to the Ontario Hydro Method being used
for RATA tests
of mercury monitors. These two methods are Method 30A, "Determination of
Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer
Procedure)," and Method 30B, "Use
ofSorbent Traps to Measure Total Vapor Phase Mercury
Emissions from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources." These two methods were approved as
alternatives because both the Ontario Hydro Method and Method 29 are wet chemistry methods,
and the Ontario Hydro Method is considered to be accurate, but complex. Both methods, 30A
and 30B, were approved
by the USEPA for the measurement ofmercury emissions from
stationary sources
in 2007, and are codified at 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A-8 (incorporated by
reference in 35
Ill.
Adm. Code Section 225.140).
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 35 ILL.ADM.
CODE PART 225, CONTROL OF
EMISSIONS
FROM LARGE COMBUSTION
SOURCES (MERCURY)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Rl009
-
010
(Rulemaking - Air)
TESTIMONY
OF DAVID E. BLOOMBERG
Good afternoon.
My name is David E. Bloomberg. I am employed by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) as the Compliance Unit Manager in the
Compliance Section within the Division
of Air Pollution Control. I have been at the
Agency in this capacity for approximately four and a
half years, and was previously an
Environmental Protection Engineer
in the Air Quality Planning Section for twelve and a
half years. My academic credentials include a Bachelor of Science degree in ceramic
engineering from the University
of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, as well as completion
of all graduate coursework required for a Master'sdegree in the same field.
I have also completed numerous environmental courses over the years, including the
United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) Air Pollution Training
Institute courses on-source sampling (also known as emissions testing or stack testing)
and continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). I have also provided training
on
air pollution compliance issues to industry personnel and environmental consultants.
Among
my duties, I supervise the Bureau ofAir staffwho review emissions tests and
CEMS tests, and I sign
off on all such reviews before they are finalized. I also supervise
the
staffreviewing other source documents, such as exceedance, semi-annual, and annual
compliance reports. In addition, I participate in decisions regarding enforcement
of the
Board'sair pollution regulations and oversee the process of sending out Violation
Notices and related activities.
In
my 17 years with the Illinois EPA, I have been involved in designing, writing,
implementing, and enforcing a wide variety
of air pollution regulations, including those
for mercury, NOx trading, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the Emissions
Reduction Market System (ERMS), and several industry-specific rules.
I am here today to provide testimony and to answer questions that might arise primarily
regarding the portions
of the Illinois EPA's proposed rule changes for compliance
demonstrations, the Multi-Pollutant Standard (MPS) and Combined Pollutant Standard
(CPS), and the elimination
ofthe bias adjustment factor and missing data procedures.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
Compliance Demonstrations for CEMS
The Illinois Mercury Rule, like the vacated Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) before it,
requires submittal
of electronic data to USEPA and the illinois EPA. USEPA has assured
states in general, and the Illinois EPA specifically, that they will provide the support for
receipt and quality assurance
of that data at a level equal to that which would have been
provided under the CAMR.
In
the unlikely event, however, that USEPA cannot provide
that support, USEPA has stated that Illinois and other states will be able to obtain the
same support through a vendor utilizing the same software and infrastructure that USEPA
plans to use and that was developed in anticipation
of CAMR.
All foreseeable efforts have been made
by the Illinois EPA in these proposed revisions to
ensure that reporting protocols are consistent with those anticipated under CAMR for
sources utilizing CEMS monitoring and reporting. However,
if unforeseen circumstances
cause USEPA and the planned designee to both be unable to receive mercury monitoring
data in the proper format, the proposed rule modifications include provisions allowing the
Illinois EPA to specify a different format for data reporting, thus giving additional
flexibility and reassurance to sources while ensuring that Illinois EPA receives the
necessary data.
Compliance
Demonstrations for Emissions Testing
Sources opting to demonstrate compliance with illinois' mercury emissions standards
using the Periodic Emissions Testing Alternative Requirements will report emissions test
results, parametric monitoring data during the emissions tests, and parametric monitoring
data from the reporting period to the Illinois EPA. This data will be used to determine
whether the source is complying with the 90% mercury removal standard
or the 0.0080
Ibs/GWh output-based standard. This proposed optional alternative provides additional
flexibility to sources while not modifying the Illinois mercury emission standards during
the three-year interval that the alternative is available.
Sources using the emissions testing alternative must operate the EGU and all associated
relevant controls in a manner similar to that under which the unit was tested and
compliance was demonstrated. To ensure such operations, sources will be required to
submit a Continuous Parameter Monitoring Plan with their protocol to describe how they
will accomplish this requirement. The proposal also contains recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that further ensure proper operations in this regard.
MPS and CPS
Minimal technical changes are being proposed to the MPS and the CPS. Those that are
included are focused on adding flexibility consistent with the rest
of the rulemaking and
are mostly focused on the changes necessary to deal with the vacatur
of CAMR.
One such addition is that, for a three-year period, sources complying
by use ofthe MPS
or CPS may choose a version of the alternative emissions testing rather than the use of
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
CEMS. More detailed technical information on such testing is contained in Mr.
Mattison's testimony. However, it should be noted that a primary reason for the necessity
of emissions testing for MPS and CPS sources if they are not using CEMS is that while
they are not required to meet the control or emissions standards
of90% or 0.0080 lb
Hg/GWh, there is a need for a method
by which the source and the Illinois EPA can
ensure that mercury controls are being operating in an optimum manner, as required
by
the rule, and consistent with the expected control levels. A test showing a low level of
mercury control could reveal inadvertent changes at a source that would not otherwise be
identified, indicate that the sorbent is not being injecting in the optimum manner, suggest
that that an unsatisfactory sorbent is being used,
or show that the quality of the sorbent
being used has decreased.
In addition to the changes related to the vacatur
of CAMR, additional flexibility is also
being added for sources in the MPS and CPS. Both the MPS and CPS contain lists
of
approved sorbents and sorbent manufacturers, along with a method by which sources can
demonstrate that another sorbent gets similar
or better effectiveness for control of
mercury and thus can be approved for use. Two such sorbents have been approved by the
Illinois EPA for use at several Illinois sources, and thus the Illinois EPA is taking this
opportunity to add them in this rulemaking. The two sorbents are Calgon Carbon's
FLUEPAC MC Plus and Calgon Carbon'sFLUEPAC CF Plus, the second
ofwhich is
proposed in the Agency's First Errata Sheet.
It
should be noted that for all approved sorbents, sources must follow Section
225.233(c)(2) or 225.294(g), which state, "the EGU must inject halogenated activated
carbon in an optimum manner." This is further clarified in the rules as including "The use
of an injection system designed for effective absorption ofmercury, considering the
configuration
of the EGU and its ductwork."
As such, injecting in an optimum manner should include consideration
of the placement
of the injection lance. For example, some sorbents have been shown through testing to
get a much higher level
of control (around 90%) when injected upstream of the preheater
as opposed to downstream
of the preheater.
In
such a situation, injection upstream is
clearly "optimum" in comparison to injecting downstream, and absent other data to
justify downstream injection, the source would need to inject upstream
ofthe preheater to
be in compliance with the regulations.
An
objective of injecting the sorbent in an optimum manner is to attempt to obtain
mercury control consistent with the mercury rule's standard, or around 90%. Indeed, Jim
Staudt, a consultant, provided data and information at the original Illinois Mercury
Rulemaking that most mercury control systems at Illinois EGUs injecting at the default
sorbent rates listed in the MPS and CPS should be able to obtain at or near 90% control
of mercury emissions.
Bias
Adjustment
Factor
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
The Illinois EPA is proposing to delete references to the bias adjustment factor (BAF) for
mercury monitoring. The BAF was originally promulgated
in
40 CFR Part 75, Appendix
A, Section 7.6, and was vacated along with CAMR.
It
was intended to ensure that CEMS
did not record mercury readings lower than emissions measured
by a reference method.
The BAF was intended to account for underestimation
ofmercury emissions from a
CEMS that failed a bias test, resulting in higher reported emissions.
While conservatively reporting higher emissions was necessary when CAMR and its
associated federal trading and monitoring regulations were in force, the BAF is
unnecessary in the current situation. After considering the situation after the CAMR
vacatur, the Illinois EPA did not include the BAF in the new regulatory language that was
taken from Part 75, and struck references to the BAF where it might have appeared in the
previously-promulgated Illinois Mercury Rule.
Missing Data Procedures
The Illinois EPA is also proposing to delete references to missing data substitution
procedures. These procedures are used when monitors are offline to produce a
conservative estimate
of mercury emissions during that period, and were included to
ensure that affected sources would operate their CEMS with the least possible down time
in order to generate a complete record
of a source'smass mercury emissions. This kind
ofprocedure is frequently a requirement of rules that involve a trading program, and like
the BAF, were included in the Illinois Mercury Rule to maintain consistency with CAMR
and the relied-upon monitoring provisions therein. However, in the Illinois command and
control rule with the CAMR vacatur, such procedures are unnecessary.
As a replacement to the missing data procedures, the Illinois EPA is proposing a monitor
availability requirement, similar to that found
in
other non-trading rules that require
CEMS. The 75% uptime requirement proposed has been found to
be achievable by
USEPA and is comparable to the level ofmonitor availability for mercury monitoring of
new sources required by 40 CFR 60.49Da(p)(4)(i). This requirement was discussed with
stakeholders prior to the filing
ofthe Agency'sproposal. Furthermore, if a situation
should arise where the owner or operator
of a source foresees monitor uptime of less than
75% for a quarter, they may make use
ofthe emissions testing alternative for that quarter.
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE
MATTER OF:
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 35 ILL.ADM.
CODE PART 225, CONTROL
OF
EMISSIONS FROM LARGE COMBUSTION
SOURCES (MERCURY)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
R2009 - 010
(Rulemaking - Air)
TESTIMONY
OF RORY
A.
DAVIS
My name is Rory Davis. I am an Environmental Protection Engineer in the Air Quality Planning
Section, Air Pollution Control Division
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's
("lllinois EPA" or "Agency") Bureau of Air. I have been employed by the Agency in the Air
Quality Planning Section for over three years. Prior to that, I worked at the lllinois Department
of Transportation for four years as an Engineering Technician. I have a Bachelor of Science
degree in Computational Physics, as well as a Bachelor
of Science degree in Mathematics from
Illinois State University. I also have a Masters degree in Engineering from the University
of
Illinois at Chicago. My graduate studies consisted of an interdisciplinary program involving
coursework from the Chemical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering fields with a
concentration on Environmental Engineering.
In
my current position with the Agency, my duties include providing technical support for
regulatory proposals. In regard to the revisions to the Illinois mercury rule proposed at this
proceeding,
my duties included assisting in drafting revised language for the rule and composing
the technical support document. I will be providing testimony regarding the proposed
amendments to the rule, specifically the economic reasonableness
of the revisions.
Economic Impacts of
the
Proposed Revisions
Following the vacatur of the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule ("CAMR"), Illinois EPA began
efforts to draft amendments to the lllinois mercury rule. The purpose
of the revision was to
reestablish monitoring provisions from CAMR that were relied upon
by Illinois EPA in its initial
mercury rule proposal, adopted
by the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") in January of
2007. Other revisions were included in the current amendment proposal to address differences
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
between the Illinois mercury rule and the vacated CAMR, which are discussed in the testimony
of other witnesses. Still other revisions were included in the proposal in order to provide
affected sources more flexibility in their monitoring and compliance demonstration strategies.
These revisions include the extension
of the effective date ofmonitoring requirements from
January I to July I in 2009, and the inclusion
of a stack testing option for compliance
demonstration. The economic impact
of these revisions should be minimal in most cases, and
could possibly have a positive economic impact for some affected sources. The Illinois
EPA
considers all the proposed revisions to be economically reasonable.
Economic Impact
of the
Bias Adjustment Factor and Missing Data Procedure Removal
The omission ofthe Bias Adjustment Factor and the missing data procedures should have no
negative economic impact on any source affected
by the Illinois mercury rule. David
Bloomberg's testimony discusses the technical aspects
of these proposed changes. Economically,
the omission
of these two provisions will not have any impact on affected sources beyond that
already contemplated in the adopted Illinois mercury rule.
Economic Impact of the Reconstitution of CAMR Monitoring Provisions
In
its efforts to reconstitute the monitoring provisions of CAMR that were relied upon in the
Illinois mercury rule, Illinois has proposed amendments to enable sources to continue with the
monitoring plans initially formulated for the adopted Illinois mercury rule before the vacatur
of
CAMR. As discussed in Kevin Mattison's testimony, the proposed amendments were drafted to
avoid significant changes in requirements for monitoring, reporting,
or recordkeeping for sources
that desired to continue in their original monitoring strategy.
In
addition, the proposed revisions
include a change
ofthe effective date ofmonitoring requirements, from January I to July I of
2009, to mitigate the effects ofuncertainty about the requirements in the interim, or delays in the
implementation
of monitoring plans that may have occurred. This change will have either no
economic impact
or a small positive impact for affected sources.
As stated and discussed in the technical support document for the proposed amendments, the
adopted Illinois mercury rule and its requirements, including the monitoring provisions that have
been reconstituted
in the amendments, were considered economically reasonable at the time of
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
its adoption. Illinois EPA has addressed a number of issues in the proposed amendments in
order to avoid any further economic impact beyond the cost to affected sources imposed
by the
previously adopted rule. Accordingly, the adopted
TIJinois mercury rule, along with the proposed
amendments, remains an economically reasonable measure for the control of mercury emissions
from coal-fired electrical generating units.
Economic Impact ofthe Alternative Stack Testing Provisions
In
order to provide an added degree of flexibility in compliance demonstration for affected
sources, Illinois EPA has included in the proposed amendments provisions for stack testing in
lieu
of continuous emissions monitors ("CEMS"). The stack testing provisions, discussed in
great technical detail within Kevin Mattison'stestimony, are considered to be an alternative and
additional option for sources that may find stack testing to be a lower cost option, and as such,
the Agency has not performed a detailed cost analysis for stack testing. A figure
of
approximately $50,000 per test was given in the technical support document as an estimate for
the cost
of stack testing; however, it will be left to the individual sources to determine whether it
may be a lower cost option based upon their own technical and economic analysis at any specific
unit.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED REVISIONS
TO 35 ILL.ADM.
CODE
PART 225, CONTROL OF
EMISSIONS FROM LARGE COMBUSTION
SOURCES (MERCURY)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
R2009 - 010
(Rulemaking - Air)
TESTIMONY
OF JIM ROSS
Oualifications
My name is Jim Ross and I am here today representing the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Illinois EPA) where I
am the Division of Air Pollution Control Manager in the Bureau
of Air.
I have a Bachelors of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale. I have completed numerous environmental courses over the years
including the study
of emissions and controls of each of the criteria air pollutants, many
hazardous air pollutants, as well as several courses on the background and implementation
of
environmental regulations. I have also provided training on air pollution permitting and
regulations to TIlinois
EPA and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) staff,
persons from industry, environmental consulting firms, environmental organizations, and the
general public.
In
my current position as Division Manager, I supervise a large staff of over 150 engineers,
specialists, and administrative support personnel in developing, monitoring, and enforcing State
and Federal air pollution control requirements.
.I
am also an Illinois EPA Duty Officer which
requires
me to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week during several periods throughout
the year.
In
this capacity, 1 am responsible for ensuring Illinois EPA's response to emergency
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
incidents anywhere in the State, especially those involving hazardous materials, oil spills, natural
disasters, and issues
of homeland security.
In
my 20 years with the Illinois EPA, I have been involved with detailed review of Illinois'
industrial processes and their emissions
of air pollutants and the measures and controls used to
mitigate these emissions. This review has included on-site visits to a wide-variety
ofprocesses,
including steel mills, large chemical plants, refineries, and coal-fired power plants. I have helped
develop and implement several major programs and rules since their inception including the
Clean Air Act Permit Program (CAAPP) and Illinois' volatile organic material trading program
for the greater Chicago area, i.e., the Emissions Reduction Market System. As Permit Section
Manager, I oversaw the permitting
of over 6,000 facilities in the State. I was deeply involved in
the CAAPP permitting of Illinois' 22 coal-fired power plants, including representing the Illinois
EPA at several public hearings on the proposed permits. Furthermore, I have overseen the
Illinois
EPA's efforts in the development of several rulemaking efforts, including the Illinois
mercury rule.
My testimony will provide background information and a broad overview
of the revisions being
proposed to the Illinois mercury rule. I would like to note that the Illinois EPA performed
significant outreach to stakeholders on the proposed revisions, including holding a stakeholder
outreach meeting on July 22, 2008 where we presented information on the proposed rule
revisions, requested feedback on issues, and held a question and answer session. We also
provided interested parties regular mail and e-mail addresses to allow submittal
ofcomments and
questions that were answered at the stakeholder meeting. In addition, we repeatedly offered to
meet with any stakeholders in smaller groups to discuss the rule and related issues, and in fact
held several such meetings.
Introduction
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
On January 5, 2006, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich announced an aggressive proposal to
reduce mercury emissions from Illinois' coal-fired power plants
by 90 percent beginning mid
2009. After nearly a full year
of stakeholder meetings, contested public hearings, rulemaking
procedural processes, and lengthy negotiations, the Illinois mercury rule (i.e., 35 Ill. Adm. Code
Part 225 Subpart B) was unanimously approved
by both the Illinois Pollution Control Board and
the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. The Illinois mercury rule became effective on
December 21,2006. This rule requires coal-fired power plants in Illinois to achieve greater
reductions
of mercury and achieve these reductions more quickly than that proposed in May
2005 by the USEPA under the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR).
On February 8, 2008, the United States Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
vacated the USEPA CAMR. This court action raised concerns regarding the status of certain
federal provisions in 40 CFR Part
75 (part 75) dealing with the monitoring ofmercury emissions.
Due to the incorporation of several ofthese federal mercury monitoring provisions into the
Illinois mercury rule and given the current uncertainty surrounding these provisions, the Illinois
EPA has determined that a revision to the Illinois mercury rule is appropriate.
Proposed Revisions
The proposed revisions are extremely limited in scope and do not include any revisions to the
emission and control standards themselves. The primary focus
ofthe proposed revisions is on
the methods used to measure mercury emissions for the demonstration
of compliance with the
emissions and control requirements. Mercury monitoring via a continuous emissions monitoring
system (CEMS) will continue to be an option for measuring mercury emissions. The proposed
revisions also add stack testing as an alternative method to monitoring. This will provide sources
with flexibility in their methods used to measure mercury emissions for compliance
demonstrations. Further proposed amendments to the rule include the addition
oftwo approved
sorbents for use in mercury control, reconstituting the provisions
ofPart 225 Subpart F (i.e.,
Combined Pollutant Standard) into Part 225 Subpart B, and the replacement of specific citation
to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) with citation to any trading program. The last revision is
needed due to the July 11, 2008 vacatur
of CAIR and the uncertainty on what the citation would
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
be to any future trading program for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (S02) allowances.
The Illinois EPA considers these last few amendments as "housekeeping" measures.
Continuous Emissions Monitoring
The Illinois EPA continues to support CEMS for measuring emissions of mercury from electric
generating units (EGUs) for demonstrating compliance with the Illinois mercury rule. CEMS
were deemed by the USEPA to be a technically feasible and economically reasonable method of
measuring mercury emissions while promulgating CAMR, and these same methods were
incorporated into the Illinois mercury rule. The Illinois EPA has received assurances from
USEPA
oftheir support for such an approach, as well as assurances that the level of support
given to state agencies for mercury monitoring provisions will be equal
to that which was
intended for monitoring under CAMR.
Previously, the Illinois mercury rule incorporated federal Part
75 by reference. The proposed
amendments include the appropriate provisions of Part 75 monitoring requirements, with noted
changes. Such changes include the removal ofprovisions that were appropriate only with the
existence of a national mercury trading program and a state-by-state emissions cap (e.g., bias
adjustment factor, missing data substitution).
Stack Testing Alternative
Stack testing provides a measure
of flexibility and certainty for sources in demonstrating
compliance and therefore is being proposed as a temporary means
to demonstrate compliance
during this time of uncertainty. This additional flexibility is also appropriate as Illinois is no
longer required
to demonstrate compliance with a mercury emissions cap for purposes of
CAMR. The Illinois EPA has broad historic knowledge and experience with the use of stack
testing for emissions measurement and compliance demonstrations. Quarterly stack testing,
along with the monitoring
of source operating parameters, will provide sources an alternative to
CEMS monitoring of mercury emissions for a three-year period. The Illinois EPA anticipates
that during this three-year window new federal regulations will prescribe monitoring provisions
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
for mercury emissions and that the lllinois EPA will either adopt, or otherwise allow the use of,
those provisions to demonstrate compliance with the Illinois mercury rule going forward.
Approved Sorbents
The Illinois mercury rule includes a list of approved sorbent manufacturers whose sorbents have
been tested and demonstrated to achieve a high level
of mercury control as of the time ofthe
rulemaking process. The rule also allows the use
of any other halogenated activated carbon or
sorbent that has demonstrated similar or better effectiveness for control ofmercury emissions.
Since the promulgation
ofthe Illinois mercury rule Calgon Carbon has demonstrated to the
Illinois
EPA that two of their sorbents obtain a similar or better level of control in comparison to
the approved sorbents. As a result, it is proposed that Calgon Carbon'ssorbents
be included as
approved sorbents for mercury control.
Combined Pollutant Standard
The Combined Pollutant Standard (CPS) was negotiated between the Illinois EPA and Midwest
Generation during the original mercury rulemaking process. Similar to the Multi-Pollutant
Standard currently contained in the Illinois mercury rule, the CPS allows flexibility in complying
with the mercury provisions in exchange for
S02 reductions, NOx reductions, and other
considerations agreed to
by the parties. The desire at the time when agreement was reached
between the parties was to include the CPS in the Illinois mercury rule, however, the rule was in
the final stages
of adoption and therefore it was inappropriate at that time to reopen the rule for
inclusion
ofthe CPS. The CPS was subsequently included in Illinois' CAIR. Consistent with
the original desire and determination that the more appropriate place for the CPS was in the
Illinois mercury rule, it is proposed that the CPS now be removed from CAIR and included in the
Illinois mercury rule.
Summary
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
Limited revisions to the Illinois mercury rule are appropriate in light of the vacatur ofCAMR.
The proposed revisions are focused on the methods allowed to measure mercury emissions for
demonstration
of compliance. The proposed revisions do not include any change to the
emissions and control requirements for mercury emissions and therefore the level
ofmercury
control required
by the rule is not affected. Aside from providing additional flexibility to sources
for compliance purposes, these proposed amendments represent little substantive change from
the implementation
of the Illinois mercury rule prior to the vacatur of CAMR.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
)
)
)
)
)
R09-10
(Rulemaking
- Air)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S
FIRST ERRATA
SHEET TO ITS PROPOSAL TO AMEND 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA"), by
and through its attorney Charles E. Matoesian, and submits this First Errata Sheet to its
proposal to amend 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225. The Illinois EPA proposes the following
amendments to the text
ofthe rules submitted in its proposal to the Board dated October
2,2008:
1. Amend Section 225.265(a)(1) to make a minor clarification. Language was added to
describe thefrequency
ofrequired coal analysis. However, in an earlier sentence in
the paragraph several necessary alterations were missed. In addition, a comment
from a regulated source suggested the addition
oflanguage to address situations
when a boiler has not operated over a given time period
and askedfor clarification
about how to handle the testing
ofmultiple coal samples. Accordingly, the Illinois
EPA
is
suggesting the following additions and deletions.
I)
Perform ffilily-sampling ofthe coal combusted in the EGU for mercury
content. The owner or operator
of such EGU must collect a minimum of
one 2-lb. grab sample
per
clay ef eperatieH from the belt feeders anywhere
between the crusher house
or breaker building and the boiler. according to
the schedule below. The sample must be taken in a manner that provides a
representative mercury content for the coal burned on that day. EGUs
complying
by means of Section 225.233 or Sections 225.291 through
225.299
of this Subpart must perform such coal sampling at least once per
month unless the boiler did not operate or combust coal at all during that
month; EGUs complying
by means of the emissions testing, monitoring,
and recordkeeping requirements under Section 225.239 must perform such
coal sampling according to the schedule provided in Section 225.239(e)(3)
of this Subpart; all other EGUs subject to this requirement must perform
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
such coal sampling on a daily basis when the boiler is operating and
combusting coal.
If multiple samples are tested, the owner or operator
must average those tests to arrive at the final mercury content for that time
period.
2. Section 225.239(e)(3) needs to be modifiedfor reasons similar to
1.
Language must
be added to describe the frequency
ofrequired coal analysis. Accordingly, the
Illinois EPA
is
suggesting thefollowing addition.
3)
For units complying with the control efficiency standard of
subsection (b)(1 )(B) or (b)(2)(B) of this Section, the owner or
operator must perform coal sampling as follows:
A)
in accordance with Section 225.265
ofthis Subpart at least
once during each day
of testing; and
B)
in accordance with Section 225.265
of this Subpart, once
each month in those months when emissions testing is not
performed unless the boiler did not operate or combust coal
at all during that month;
3. In Section 225.290(d)(2)(F), data substitution
is
no longer required. Accordingly, the
lllinois EPA
is
suggesting thefollowing deletions.
F)
Any deviations, data SIIBstitlltieHs, or exceptions each
month and discussion
ofthe reasons for such deviations;
data slIestitlltieHs, or exceptions.
4. Recently, the Agency has learned ofa new sorbent that meets the criteria for use in
the Illinois Mercury Rule. Accordingly, the Illinois EPA suggests adding Calgon
Carbon's FLUEPAC
CF Plus to Section 225.233(c)(2)(B), the list ofacceptable
sorbents. This will add even greaterflexibility
for sources seeking to comply with the
rule.
B)
The injection ofhalogenated activated carbon
manufactured
by Alstom, Norit, or Sorbent Technologies,
Calgon Carbon'sFLUEPAC CF Plus, or Calgon Carbon's
FLUEPAC MC Plus,
or the injection of any other
halogenated activated carbon or sorbent that the owner or
operator
of the EGU has demonstrated to have similar or
better effectiveness for control of mercury emissions; and
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
5. Recently, the Agency has learned ofa new sorbent that meets the criteria for use in
the
ntinois Mercury Rule. Accordingly, the Illinois EPA suggests adding Calgon
Carbon's FLUEPAC
CF Plus to Section 225.234(b)(2), the list ofacceptable
sorbents. This will
add even greaterflexibility for sources seeking to comply with the
rule.
2)
The owner or operator ofthe EGU is injecting halogenated
activated carbon in an optimum manner for control
of mercury
emissions, which must include injection
of Alstom, Norit, Sorbent
Technologies, Calgon
Carbon'sFLUEPAC CF Plus, Calgon
Carbon's FLUEPAC
MC Plus, or other halogenated activated
carbon that the owner or operator
of the EGU has demonstrated to
have similar
or better effectiveness for control of mercury
emissions, at least at the following rates set forth in subsections
(b)(2)(A) through (b)(2)(D)
ofthis Section, unless other provisions
for injection
of halogenated activated carbon are established in a
federally enforceable operating permit issued for the EGU, using
an injection system designed for effective absorption
ofmercury,
considering the configuration
of the EGU and its ductwork. For
the purposes ofthis subsection (b)(2), the flue gas flow rate must
be determined for the point of sorbent injection (provided,
however, that this flow rate
may be assumed to be identical to the
stack flow rate
if the gas temperatures at the point of injection and
the stack are normally within 100° F) or
may otherwise be
calculated from the stack flow rate, corrected for the difference in
gas temperatures.
6. Recently, the Agency has learned ofa new sorbent that meets the criteria for use in
the Illinois Mercury Rule. Accordingly, the fllinois EPA suggests adding Calgon
Carbon's FLUEPAC
CF Plus to Section 225.238(b)(2), the list ofacceptable
sorbents. This will add even greaterflexibility for sources seeking to comply with the
rule.
2)
For an EGU for which injection of a sorbent or other mercury
control technique is required pursuant to subsection
(b)(I) of this
Section, the owner or operator
of the EGU is injecting sorbent or
other mercury control technique in an optimum manner for control
ofmercury emissions, which must include injection of Alstom,
Norit, Sorbent Technologies, Calgon Carbon's FLUEPAC CF
Plus, Calgon Carbon'sFLUEPAC MC Plus, or other sorbent or
other mercury control technique that the owner
or operator of the
EGU demonstrates to have similar or better effectiveness for
control
ofmercury emissions, at least at the rate set forth in the
appropriate
of subsections (b)(2)(A) through (b)(2)(C) ofthis
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
Section, unless other provisions for injection of sorbent or other
mercury control technique
are established in a federally
enforceable operating permit issued for the EGU, with an injection
system designed for effective absorption
ofmercury. For the
purposes
of this subsection (b)(2), the flue gas flow rate must be
determined for the point of sorbent injection or other mercury
control technique (provided, however, that this flow rate
may be
assumed to be identical to the stack flow rate if the gas
temperatures at the point
of injection and the stack are normally
within 100. F) , or the flow rate may otherwise be calculated from
the stack flow rate, corrected for the difference
in gas
temperatures.
7. Recently, the Agency has learned ofa new sorbent that meets the criteria for use in
the Illinois Mercury Rule. Accordingly, the Illinois EPA suggests adding Calgon
Carbon's FLUEPAC
CF Plus to Section 225.294(g)(2), the list ofacceptable
sorbents. This will
add even greaterflexibility for sources seeking to comply with the
rule.
2)
The injection of halogenated activated carbon manufactured by
Alstom, Norit, or Sorbent Technologies, Calgon Carbon's
FLUEPAC
CF Plus, or Calgon Carbon's FLUEPAC MC Plus, or
the injection of any other halogenated activated carbon or sorbent
that the owner or operator
of the EGU has demonstrated to have
similar
or better effectiveness for control ofmercury emissions;
and
8. Amend Section
6.1.2
ofExhibit A to Appendix B ofPart
225
to add a citation that was
inadvertently omittedfrom the original proposal.
6.1.2 Requirements for Air Emission Testing Bodies
(a)
On and after January
1,2009,
any Air Emission Testing Body (AETB) conducting
relative accuracy test audits
of CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems under Part
225, Subpart B, must conform to the requirements
ofASTM D7036-04 pursuant to 40
CFR Part 75 Appendix A Section 6.1.2 (incorporated by reference under Section
225.140). This Section is not applicable to daily operation, daily calibration error
checks, daily flow interference checks, quarterly linearity checks
or routine
maintenance
of CEMS.
(b) The AETB must provide to the affected source(s) certification that the AETB
operates in conformance with, and that data submitted to the Agency has been
collected in accordance with, the requirements
of ASTM D7036-04 pursuant to 40
CFR Part
75 Appendix A Section 6.1.2 (incorporated by reference under Section
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
225.140). This certification may be provided in the form of:
(1)
A certificate of accreditation of relevant scope issued by a recognized, national
accreditation body; or
(2) A letter
of certification signed by a member of the senior management staff of the
AETB.
(c) The AETB must either provide a Qualified Individual on-site to conduct or must
oversee all relative accuracy testing carried out by the AETB as required in ASTM
D7036-04 pursuant
to 40 CFR Part 75 Appendix A Section 6.1.2 (incorporated by
reference under Section 225.140). The Qualified Individual must provide the affected
source(s) with copies
of the qualification credentials relevant to the scope of the
testing conducted.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
~~
Charles E. Matoesian
Assistant Counsel
Division
of Legal Counsel
Date: December
3, 2008
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217.782.5544
217.782.9143 (TDD)
.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
)
)
)
)
SS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached
TESTIMONY OF
KEVIN MATTISON, DAVID BLOOMBERG, RORY DAVIS and
JIM ROSS and the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S FIRST
ERRATA SHEET TO ITS PROPOSAL TO AMEND 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225, upon
the following person:
John Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James
R.
Thompson Center
100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
and mailing it
by first-class mail from Springfield, Illinois, with sufficient postage affixed
to the following persons:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Charles E. Matoesian
Assistant Counsel
Division
of Legal Counsel
Dated: December 3, 2008
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217.782.5544
217:782.9143 (TDD)
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008
Tim Fox, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
R09-10
Service
List
Matthew Dunn, Chief
Division
of Environmental Enforcement
Office of the Attorney General
69 West Washington St., Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60602
Virginia Yang
Deputy Legal Counsel
Illinois Department
ofNatural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, IL 62702
Bill S. Forcade
Katherine M. Rahill
Jenner
&
Block
One IBM Plaza, 40
th
Floor
Chicago, IL 60611
Stephen J. Bonebrake
KatWeen C. Bassi
Joshua R. More
Glenna
L.
Gilbert
SchiffHardin, LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 S. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606
Keith
1. Harley
Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.
205 W. Monroe St., 4
th
Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
David Reiser
McGuire Woods, LLP
77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60601
Dianna Tickner
Mary Frontczak
Prairie State Generating Co., LLC
701 Market St., Suite 781
St. Louis, MO 63101
Steve Frenkel
Office
ofthe Governor
100 W. Randolph St., Suite 16-100
Chicago,IL 60601
Christopher
W. Newcomb
Karaganis, White
&
Magel, Ltd.
414
N. Orleans St., Suite 810
Chicago, IL 60610
Karin
T. O'Connell
Gould
&
Ratner
222 N. LaSalle St., Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60601
Faith E. Bugel
Howard
A.
Leamer
Meleah Geertsma
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 E. Wacker Dr., Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 6060I
James
W. Ingram, Senior Corp. Counsel
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5800
Houston, TX 77002
Daniel McDevitt
Midwest Generation
440
S. LaSalle St., Suite 3500
Chicago, IL 60605
S. David Farris
City
of Springfield, Office ofPublic Works
201 East Lake Shore Dr.
Springfield, IL 62757
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 2, 2008