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,
IL 60601
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control
Board the AMENDED TESTIMONY OF DAVID BLOOMBERG and JIM ROSS
of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency a copy
ofwhich is herewith served upon you.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
:~CY
Charles E. Matoesiit:==::::=,/
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
DATED: December 10, 2008
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217.782.5544
217.782.9143 (TOD)
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2008
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)
AMENDED 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 ofthe 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 Illinois 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 ofover 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, I am responsible for ensuring Illinois EPA'sresponse to emergencies
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 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
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 ofIllinois'
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'sefforts in the
development
of several rulemaking efforts, including the Illinois mercury rule.
My testimony will provide background information and a broad overview ofthe revisions being
proposed to the Illinois mercury rule. I would like to note that the lllinois 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 allowsubmittal
of comments 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
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,
th~
Illinois mercury rule (i.e., 35 Ill. Adm. Code
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2008
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
ofmercury 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 of these 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
ruleis 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
of the 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 of Part 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
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
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2008
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, however, USEPA has recently indicated that they
believe there are legal constraints regarding their ability
to accept mercury monitoring data from
sources. Therefore, the Illinois EPA is currently working on an alternative approach that would
require sources to directly submit a summary of monitoring data to Illinois EPA.
Previously, the Illinois mercury rule incorporated federal Part 75 by reference. The proposed
amendments include the appropriate provisions
ofPart 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
for mercury emissions and that the Illinois EPA will either adopt, or otherwise allow the use of,
those provisions
to demonstrate compliance with the llIinois mercury rule going forward.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2008
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 of the
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 of mercury emissions.
Since the promulgation of the 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
an approved sorbent 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
of the 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
Limited revisions to the Illinois mercury rule are appropriate in light
ofthe vacatur of CAMR.
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 of mercury
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2008
control required by the rule is not affected. Aside from providing additional flexibility to sources
for compliance purposes, these proposed
amendm~nts
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 10, 2008
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)
AMENDED 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
halfyears, 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 of Air 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
ofthe
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
ofthe lllinois EPA'sproposed rule changes for compliance
demonstrations, the Multi-Pollutant Standard (MPS) and Combined Pollutant Standard
(CPS), and the elimination
of the bias adjustment factor and missing data procedures.
Compliance Demonstrations for CEMS
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2008
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. Previously, USEPA
had assured states in general, and the Illinois EPA specifically, that they would provide
the support for receipt and quality assurance
ofthat data at a level equal to that which
would have been provided under the CAMR. However, last week, USEPA indicated to
the Illinois EPA that they now believe there are legal constraints to them accepting the
data and they cannot provide that support.
The intent in these proposed revisions was to ensure that reporting protocols would be
consistent with those anticipated under CAMR for sources utilizing CEMS monitoring
and reporting. However, these new circumstances do not require any change in the
proposed regulations, as the proposed rule modifications already include provisions
allowing the Illinois EPA to specify a different fonnat for data reporting, thus giving
additional flexibility and reassurance to sources while ensuring that Illinois EPA receives
the necessary data. The Illinois EPA is currently working on an alternative approach that
would involve sources submitting summary monitoring data along with a certification
of
truth and accuracy. We will provide further infonnation on what we expect to see in the
near future.
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
ofthe 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 10, 2008
CEMS. More detailed technical information on such testing is contained in Mr.
Mattison'stestimony. 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
of which is
proposed in the Agency'sFirst 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 of mercury, considering the
configuration
of the EGU and its ductwork."
As such, injecting in an optimum manner should include consideration
ofthe placement
ofthe 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
ofthe 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
of the 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'sstandard,
or around 90%. Indeed, Jim
Staudt, a consultant, provided data and information at the original Illinois Mercury
Rulemaking that most mercury control systems at llJinois 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 10, 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
of mercury 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's mass mercury emissions. This kind
of procedure is frequently a requirement ofrules 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. Furthennore, 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
of the emissions testing alternative for that quarter.
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2008
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY
OF SANGAMON
)
)
)
)
SS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached
AMENDED TESTIMONY OF DAVID BLOOMBERG and JIM ROSS, 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, llIinois, 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 10, 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 10, 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 ofEnvironmental Enforcement
Office
of the Attorney General
69 West Washington St., Suite 1800
Chicago, 1L 60602
Virginia Yang
Deputy Legal Counsel
Illinois Department
ofNatural Resources
One Natural Resources
Way
Springfield, 1L 62702
Bill
S. Forcade
Katherine M. Rahill
Jenner
&
Block
One IBM Plaza, 40
th
Floor
Chicago,
1L 60611
Stephen J. Bonebrake
Kathleen C. Bassi
Joshua R. More
Glenna
L.
Gilbert
SchiffHardin, LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233
S. Wacker Dr.
Chicago,
1L 60606
Keith
1. Harley
Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.
205 W. Monroe St., 4
th
Floor
Chicago,
1L 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,
1L 60610
Karin T. O'Connell
Gould
&
Ratner
222 N. LaSalle St., Suite 800
Chicago,
IL 6060 I
Faith E. Bugel
Howard
A.
Leamer
Meleah Geertsma
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 E. Wacker Dr., Suite 1300
Chicago,
1L 60601
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,
1L 60605
S. David Farris
City
of Springfield, Office ofPublic Works
201 East Lake Shore Dr.
Springfield,
1L 62757
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, December 10, 2008
