AMENDMENTS

CONTROL

COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY

MONITORING)

)

)

)

)

)

)

R09-IO

NOTICE OF FILING

To:

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James

R.

Thompson Center

Suite 11-500

100 West Randolph

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Persons included

on the

ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the

Pollution Control Board the

GENERATION, INC.

-Wk,Aa!itu~

K~engassi

Dated: March 5, 2009

Kathleen

C. Bassi

Stephen

J. Bonebrake

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

Fax: 312-258-5600

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 5, 2009

---

•

IN THE MATTER OF:

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL.ADM.CODE 225:

CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM LARGE

COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY

MONITORING)

)

)

)

)

)

)

R09-10

POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF

DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION. INC.

NOW COMES Participant in this rulemaking, DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION,

INC. ("DMG"),

by and through its attorneys, SCHIFF HARDIN

LLP,

and offers comments on

the proposed amendments to 35 Ill.Adm.Code Part 225, Subparts A and B.

DMG has actively participated in the development of this rule, both before the rule was

filed with the Board during the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's("Agency'')outreach

efforts and subsequent to the December 17,2008, hearing. DMG generally supports the proposal

as it has been amended and as reflected in the Agency'scompilation

of its recommended

revisions to the proposed amendments, filed with the Board February 19, 2009 ("Revised

Proposal") with three additional changes discussed below. The Revised Proposal sets forth the

rule its final form, and DMG encourages the Board to adopt the rule as reflected

in the Revised

Proposal with the three additional changes to Sections 225.265(a)(1)(C), 225.233(c)(5)(B), and

225.290(b)(4) identified below. In addition, there are several points regarding the rule that DMG

wishes particularly to address in these comments.

First, regarding coal sampling,

DMG understands that the rule does not require the

inclusion

of coal data in the semi-annual reports submitted by companies complying with the

mercury rule through the Multi-Pollutant Standard ("MPS"), Section 225.233, that are relying

on

-1-

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 5, 2009

---

the periodic stack testing provisions of proposed Section 225.239 for units that are not early

compliers with the 90% reduction standard,

i.

e.,

that have not "opted in" to the 90% reduction

requirement prior to the compliance deadline. Rather, this data

is to be maintained at each power

station and made available to the Agency upon request.

DMG also understands that MPS units that are early compliers with the mercury

standard,

i. e.,

before 2015, where the company is relying on the periodic stack testing provisions

ofproposed Section 225.239 must collect and analyze coal samples for mercury content for each

day during stack testing and then on a monthly basis between stack tests. In other words, the

coal sampling requirement is contemporaneous with the emission sampling period.

DMG further understands that MPS units complying with the mercury emission standard

through the 90% reduction approach and using sorbent traps

(i.

e.,

"excepted monitoring system"

as defined in the Revised Proposal) as the monitoring method must collect daily coal samples.

Section 225.265 requires the grab sample to be analyzed, and those analyses are to be averaged

to provide mercury content data but does not specifically allow or prohibit compositing

of

samples prior to analysis. In other words, the daily coal sampling requirement is much more

frequent than the emission sampling period. DMG, thus, suggests that the Board allow for the

period over which the daily samples are analyzed to correspond with the sorbent trap data

capture period, which varies depending on the flue gas flow rate in the stack and the mercury

emission rate. We currently anticipate that sorbent traps will remain in the stack capturing data

for a period

of seven or eight days at a time. Effectively, sorbent traps create a composite of

mercury emissions over that time period. Likewise, DMG suggests that the coal samples could

be composited over a period

of time corresponding to the sorbent trap sampling period. For

example,

ifthe sorbent trap analysis cycle is eight days, then the daily coal samples could be

-2-

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 5, 2009

---

composited and analyzed on an eight-day cycle. This practice would produce more relevant data

because the data analyzed would be have been collected over a similar period

of time. DMG

suggests the following amendment:

Section 225.265

Coal Analysis for Input Mercury Levels

a)

***

1)

***

C)

All other EGUs subject to this requirement, including EGUs

in an MPS or CPS Group electing to comply with the

control efficiency standard in Section 225.233(d)(l)(B)

or

(d)(2)(B), Section 225.294(c)(2), or Section 225.294(c)(2)

pursuant to Section 225.294(e)(l)(A), must perform such

coal sampling on a daily basis with the boiler is operating

and combusting coal. except that EGUs using an excepted

monitoring system may analyze samples that have been

composited to correspond to the emission sampling period.

Second, in conjunction with the removal

of the temperature correction factor from

Section 225.233(c)(2)(D) for all units except those equipped with sorbent injection prior to a hot-

side electrostatic precipitator ("ESP"), the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting

of "flue gas

temperature at the point

of sorbent injection" should be removed from Section 225.233(c)(5)(B)

for all units except those injecting sorbent prior to a hot-side ESP. DMG suggests the following

revision in Section 225.233(c)(5)(B):

Section 225.233

***

Multi-Pollutant Standards (MPS)

c)

***

5)

***

B)

After the first 36 months that injection of sorbent is

required, it must monitor activated sorbent feed rate to the

EGU, flue gas temperature at the point

of sorbent injection

if the unit is equipped with activated carbon injection prior

-3-

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 5, 2009

---

to a hot-side electrostatic precipitator, and exhaust gas flow

rate from the EGU, automatically recording this data and

the sorbent carbon feed rate, in pounds per million actual

cubic feet

of exhaust gas at the injection point, on an hourly

average;

Third,

DMG also understands that EGUs using excepted monitoring systems will be

hard-pressed to have their end-of-quarter emission measurements collected, sent off-site for

analysis, and the reported data then included in the quarterly report for submittal to the Agency,

all within 45 days. A 60-day reporting deadline is more appropriate for the additional

transportation and analytical steps associated with excepted monitoring systems. Accordingly,

for EGUs using excepted monitoring systems,

DMG asks the Board to provide 60 days in

Section 225.290(b)(4) for submittal

of quarterly reports. DMG suggests the following revision

to the proposal:

Section 225.290

***

Recordkeeping and Reporting

b)

Quarterly Reports.

* * *

4)

The owner or operator must submit each quarterly report to the

Agency within 45 days following the end

ofthe calendar quarter

covered by the report, except that for an EGU using an excepted

monitoring system, the quarterly report shall be submitted within

60 days following the end

of the calendar quarter covered by the

report.

Fourth, DMG injects sulfur trioxide ("S03") prior to the ESP

on some units to enhance

particulate capture. However, the presence

of S03 in the flue gas can inhibit mercury capture by

halogenated activated carbon. Ramsay Chang and Katherine Dombrowski, "Near and Long

Term Options for Controlling Mercury Emissions from Power Plants," Paper # 25, MEGA

Symposium (2008), P

9; Thomas

1.

Feeley, III,

et al.,

"DOEINETL'sMercury Control

Technology R&D Program -

Taking Technology from Concept to Commercial Reality,"

Paper #

-4-

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 5, 2009

---

42, MEGA Symposium (2008), p. 6.

1

S03 "competes with Hg for adsorption sites on the sorbent

surface thereby limiting [the sorbent's] performance." Feeley,

p. 6 (citation omitted).

In

testing

funded by NETL

at Ameren's Labadie plant, for example, the units achieved greater than 90%

reduction in mercury with a sorbent injected at about 5 Ib/macf with S03 injection disengaged;

that percentage reduction dropped to 50% with S03 injection engaged. Feeley,

p. 6. Likewise,

at Progress Energy'sLee Station Unit I, sorbent injected at a rate

of about 8lb/macfwith the

S03 injection disengaged resulted in about an 82% reduction in mercury, and dropped to about

32% when the S03 injection was turned back on. Feeley, p. 6.

As indicated, the literature describing tests at other units suggests that DMG should

expect reduced mercury removal at those units where it injects S03, even, perhaps, those units

controlled by both an ESP and a baghouse.

In

utilizing the flexibilities provided by the MPS

prior to 2015 to develop the system best suited to DMG's operations,

DMG units injecting S03

may not be able to achieve mercury reductions at levels normally anticipated to be achieved

through injection

of sorbent at a rate of 5 Ib/macf, despite that the injection system is "designed

for effective absorption

of mercury" in accordance with Section 225.233(c)(2).

Finally, with respect to "optimum manner," during the course

of this rulemaking

proceeding, DMG had some questions regarding the Agency'sapplication

of the provision

requiring that units subject to Section 225.233(c)(2) inject sorbent in an optimum manner. The

Agency has clarified the issue through Mr. Jim Ross' statement

on the issue at the February 10

th

hearing. DMG seeks no further clarification or other action from the Board regarding "optimum

manner."

1 The Chang and the Feeley documents are, respectively, Exhibits 4 and 5 to DMG's

Petition for Variance, PCB 09-48, and

so are readily available to the Board for further review.

-5-

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 5, 2009

---

DMG supports the proposed amendments to the mercury rule and encourages the Board

to adopt the Revised Proposal with the changes to Sections 225.265(a)(J)(C), 225.233(c)(5)(B),

and 225.290(b)(4) suggested above.

Respectfully submitted,

DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION, INC.

by:

1f;JUudk~'b.,L-,;-one

~ts

attorneys

Dated: March

5, 2009

Kathleen

C. Bassi

Stephen

1.

Bonebrake

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5567

fax: 312-258-5600

kbassi@schifthardin.com

-6-

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 5, 2009

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I,

the undersigned, certify that on this 5

th

day of March, 2009, I have served electronically

the attached

POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION,

INC. upon the following persons:

John

T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

Suite 11-500

100 West Randolph

Chicago, Illinois 6060 I

and electronically and by first class mail, postage affixed upon persons included on the

ATTACHED SERVICE LIST.

4/

_c/~tM4u'

~

Kathleen C. BaSSI

Kathleen C. Bassi

Stephen

J. Bonebrake

SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

Fax: 312-258-5600

kbassi@schiffhardin.com

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 5, 2009

---

•

-- --- -------------

(R09-10)

Timothy Fox

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 6060 I

foxt@ipcb.state.il.us

S. David Farris, Manager, Environmental,

Health and Safety

City

of Springfield, City Water Light

&

Power

201 East Lake Shore Drive

Springfield, Illinois 62757

dfarris@cwlp.com

Renee Cipriano

Kathleen

C. Bassi

Joshua R. More

SchiffHardin LLP

on behalf

of Ameren

6600 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

rcipriano@schiffhardin.com

kbassi@schiffhardin.com

jmore@schiffhardin.com

JohnJ. Kim

Charles

E. Matoesian

Dana Vetterhoffer

Division

of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue, East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

john.j.kim@illinois.gov

charles.matoesian@illinois.gov

dana.vetterhoffer@illinois.gov

David Rieser

McGuireWoods LLP

on behalf

of Kincaid Generation, L.L.C.

77

W. Wacker Drive, Suite 4100

Chicago, Illinois 6060I

drieser@mcguirewoods.com

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 5, 2009