1
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
In The Matter of: )
)
Listing of Federal Hazardous Air ) R 96-4
Pollutants, Great Lakes Commissions Toxic )
Compounds, and Great Waters Program Toxic )(Rulemaking)
Compounds, and Source Reporting for )
Illinois Toxic Air Contaminants, Amendments )
to 35 Illinois Administrative Code Part 252.)
The following is a transcript of a
hearing held in the above-entitled matter, at 100 West
Randolph Street, Room 9-031, Chicago, Illinois, on the 9th
of April, 1996, A.D., commencing at the hour of 10:00
o'clock a.m.
BEFORE: Mr. Charles M. Feinen, Hearing Officer.
PRESENT:
Mr. Joseph Yi, Board Member
Mr. Anand M. Rao, Environmental Engineer
Scientific/Technical Section
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Laurel L. Kroack
Acting Associate Counsel
Bureau of Air
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Mr. Henry G. Naour
Manager, Technical Support Unit
Permit Section
Bureau of Air Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R.
17369 Highwood Drive
Orland Park, IL 60462
(708) 479-6664
2
ALSO PRESENT:
Mr. David L. Rieser
Ross & Hardies
150 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Mr. Mark W. Homer
Chemical Industry Council of Illinois
920 South Spring
Springfield, IL 62704
Phone: 217/522-5805
FAX: 217/522-5815
Ms. Jennifer M. Crain
Hodge & Dwyer
808 South Second Street
springfield, IL 62704
Phone: 217/523-4900
FAX: 217/523-4948
Mr. Jack Snyder
Styrene Information and Research Center
1275 K Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202/371-5299
FAX: 202/371-1784
Ms. Mary A. Ross
Sierra Club - Illinois Chapter
One North LaSalle Street
Suite 4242
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Phone: 312/261-1580
Home: 708/524-8534
Mr. Philip A. Ramos, P.G., CHMM
Beling Consultants
175 West Jackson Blvd.
Suite A361
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312/986-0390
FAX: 312/986-0067
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R.
17369 Highwood Drive
Orland Park, IL 60462
(708) 479-6664
3
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: Good morning. My name is
Chuck Feinen, the assigned Hearing Officer for this
matter.
The attending Board Member for this
hearing is Joe Yi, who is seated to my right.
And to my left is Anand Rao, one of our
Technical Unit Members.
This matter has been docketed as R 96-4
entitled: Listing of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants,
Great Lakes Commissions Toxic Compounds, and Great Waters
Program Toxic Compounds, and Source Reporting for Illinois
Toxic Air Contaminants, Amendments to 35 Illinois
Administrative Code Part 252.
This was the second hearing in this
proceeding. The first hearing was in Springfield held on
February 23rd, 1996. And at that hearing, the Agency
presented a case, and there was some cross-examination
done by David Reiser and Mark Homer and Whitney Wagner
Rosen.
Today, hopefully, we'll start out with
any further questions of the Agency's technical expert,
Henry Naour. And then we'll start off by asking further
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
4
questions of him or having other parties presenting
evidence or testimony.
With that, let's just get any new
appearances to be made on the record.
I see some new faces here today.
MS. KROACK: My name is Laurel Kroack and I believe
my appearance is already on the record.
Also, the Agency would like to make a
brief presentation before we get started, if that would be
okay. I have some corrections. Typographical.
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: Is that concerning the
errata sheet?
MS. KROACK: Correct.
No? In addition to the errata sheet?
In addition to the errata sheet, we found
some additional typographical errors.
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: Are there any other
appearances?
MS. CRAIN: Jennifer Crain. I'm here on behalf of
the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group.
MR. SNYDER: Jack Snyder, Society Plastics Industry.
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: Mary, you want to?
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
5
MS. ROSS: I'm not a lawyer, so, not appearing.
But, I'm Mary Ross on behalf of the
Sierra Club.
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: Okay. Let's go off the
record for a second. I need a couple of minutes here.
(Whereupon, a discussion was held off
the record.)
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: I guess we'll start out
with the Agency's technical statement they want to make.
MS. KROACK: Good morning. My name is Laurel
Kroack. I'm the Acting Associate Counsel for the
Regulatory Development Unit of the Bureau of Air, Division
of Legal Counsel.
The Agency's presentation today will be
brief.
We're going to propose some amendments to
the Agency's petition to correct a typographical error,
one chemical name in Appendix A, to clarify the identity
of several chemicals in Appendix A, and to remove one
appearance of a chemical that appears twice on this list.
With me today is Mr. Henry Naour of the
Agency's Toxic Screening Unit in the Bureau of Air. He
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
6
has previously offered brief testimony. He will be
available for questioning.
At this point I would like to introduce
the Agency's exhibit into the record listing the specific
corrections.
Just briefly, the specific corrections
and changes to be made are "ethylidine dichloride," which
is also referred to as 1,1-Dichloroethanel with a chemical
abstract service number of 75-34-3 is misspelled in the
original proposal.
The correct spelling is
e-t-h-y-l-i-d-e-n-e for ethylidene dichloride. The
proposal also lists the synonym for this chemical name
incorrectly. The synonym is currently listed as
"1,1-Dichloroethane." It should read 1,1-Dichloroethanel.
For the purposes of clarity, we've added
the synonyms for the four Lindane isomers in Appendix A.
In the original proposal each of these
synonyms contained the word "hexachlorohexane." This is
incorrect. The correct appearance of the word should be
hexachlorocyclohexane.
At the time of the original proposal the
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
7
Agency could not find CAS numbers for three of the
chemicals. We have since found the appropriate CAS
numbers for these chemicals.
They are for 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether,
octachlorostyrene, and photomirex.
And we've proposed to add those CAS
numbers.
The chemical 2,4-Diaminotoluene with the
CAS number 95-80-7 is also listed as "2,4-Toluene diamine"
CAS 95-80-7 with a designation as an HAP under Section
112(b) of the Clean Air Act.
Since it appears twice, we suggest that
we remove the reference to "2,4-Toluene diamine" and add
an asterisk to the 2,4-Diaminotoluene.
The chemical hexachlorocyclohexane is
listed without reference to a CAS number. We've
identified that CAS number and propose to add that at this
time.
It's also a Lindane isomer listed
elsewhere in Appendix A.
I'd like to stress that these changes are
not substantive. They're merely for clarity. And they
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
8
address some typographical errors.
Do you have any questions at this time?
Mr. Naour is available.
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: Any questions about these?
Do you want to move this as an exhibit?
MS. KROACK: Yes. I would like to move it into the
record as an Exhibit.
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: Does anyone have an
problem moving this as an exhibit?
(No response.)
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: Let's make this -- I
believe we're up to Proponent's Exhibit Number -- this
will be Number 13, and it will be entitled: Proposed
Corrections and Changes to 35 Illinois Adm. Code Part 232
for Appendix A. And enter that into the record.
(Said document, heretofore marked
Proponent's Exhibit No. 13 for
identification, was admitted into
evidence, to wit, as follows:)
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: I would like to note that
the Agency also sent an errata sheet with certain changes.
These changes appear to be in addition to what was
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
9
previously sent around and served on us.
Okay. Is there anything further from the
Agency?
MS. KROACK: No.
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: At the close of the first
hearing, I continued the record so we could have further
discussions or have any more questions of the Agency's
technical expert. I would open the floor up for that.
Is there anyone? Mary?
MS. ROSS: We have submitted, sort of, questions to
the Agency as part of the testimony Ron Berg has submitted
on May 12, 1995, and then we resubmitted that. Sort of
the same questions.
Have those questions ever been answered?
Were they entered in the last hearing?
MR. NAOUR: Mary, as Ron indicated in his letter,
actually on the second paragraph, last sentence.
"These concerns can and should be
assessed once the initial data is
collected."
Ron and I had a significant conversation
regarding our current database and why we're requiring the
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
10
reporting rule.
And the result of the information that we
would receive, we would be able to, basically, investigate
that data that we're receiving and perhaps even look at
increasing the efficiency of our approach.
Right now, we're dealing with, primarily,
trying to develop the structure.
And, so, at that time he agreed. And as
he didn't say here that I said or he said, but, "they can
and should be addressed once the initial data was
collected." And that was our intent.
MR. BERG: I came in a little late, so I'm not
sure -- Ron Berg with the American Lung Association.
I'm not sure where we are in the agenda
right now. You just started? The Agency is taking
questions?
MS. KROACK: We're taking questions.
MR. BERG: Let's see.
We had made a suggestion that the de
minimis emissions levels for fugitive ITAC emissions be
somewhere at or below 0.5 tons per year.
I'm suffering from a cold.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
11
It's in the comments we submitted. We
note that IEPA's proposal does not lower the de minimis
emissions level for fugitive ITAC emissions below 0.5 tons
per year.
As we recommended last year when we
submitted comments -- I'll just read from what I wrote
here.
"We think this is important because of
potential risk to workers, because of exposure to people
of ITAC emissions."
And, moreover, the additional data that
might be derived from tracking these emissions better
could be of assistance to some other state agencies, such
as the Department of Public Health has related interests
in these types of occupational exposures.
And I'm just curious if there was any
decisions, you know, not to do that or what?
MR. NAOUR: Ron, the point that would be certainly
beneficial from the standpoint of, say, workplace related
exposures. What we're dealing with, of course, the
Illinois EPA Bureau of Air, is primarily fence line and
beyond concentrations because we are concerned with the
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
12
ecosystem and the effect of chemical emissions on a
ecosystem, per se.
Historically, developing emission data on
fugitive emissions is extremely difficult. There is no
real good engineering estimates or emission factors. Over
the years, U.S. EPA has spent a lot of time and along with
states, working on these emission factors. They're
extremely difficult to develop.
Again, historically, the emissions that
we receive on fugitive emissions from state permits or,
apparently, the federal permits that are now coming
in-house under the Title V, is very difficult working with
the sources in clearly defining what their fugitive
emissions are. Again, a very difficult thing to do.
So, historically, the fugitive emissions
are always extremely conservative. Very very high.
Sometimes to the point of ridiculousness. And the .5, we
felt that the .5, which is extremely stringent, even more
so than some other states that I have been -- have current
state rules, toxic programs, and the federal program as
well -- we felt was more than adequate to handle this
problem.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
13
And, again, as we, you and I, discussed,
once we get the data in-house, it's going to provide a
significant amount of information by which we'll be able
to provide a picture of the facility and make some
additional determinations. Again, fence line is our
current consideration.
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: Are there any other
questions for the Agency at this time?
Okay. Let's go off the record for a
second.
(Whereupon, a discussion was held off
the record.)
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: Let's go back on the
record.
MR. RAO: I have a few questions for the Agency.
The process deals with the definition for
ITAC, and in the definition you say that coke oven gas is
specifically excluded from the definition of ITAC. And,
as I was going through the list in Appendix A, you list
coke oven emissions.
Are they the same? Coke oven gas and
coke oven emissions? That are listed in the --
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
14
MR. NAOUR: Yes. They're considered the same.
They're part of the same family that has
been designated by U.S. EPA under the Hazardous Air
Pollutants listing, as well.
MR. RAO: So, if a coke oven gas is particularly
excluded from ITAC, how come it's not deleted in the list
on Appendix A?
MR. NAOUR: Appendix A is an extension of the ITAC
list. Appendix A, I believe -- Pardon me?
MS. KROACK: This is Appendix A.
(Whereupon, a discussion was
had.)
MR. NAOUR: As Laurel has just counselled me, it was
previously listed, and we did not make any additions or
deletions to the existing listing. But it was clearly
defined. The intent was defined in the definition itself.
MR. RAO: So, what's the basis for excluding coke
oven gas, because it was previously listed and now you're
excluding it from the definition of ITAC. What's the
specifications for it?
MR. NAOUR: Well, basically, first of all, there is
a NESHAP. Number one. The federal NESHAP which was
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
15
promulgated two years ago, as well as, we also had defined
or in the definition of ITAC, "any hazardous air
pollutants."
So, we made specific deletion of those
compounds which were already being considered under
federal standards would, in fact, be affected by those
standards.
MR. RAO: So are you saying that coke oven gas is
specifically excluded in the federal listings?
MR. NAOUR: It's included in the Federal Register.
In other words, the coke oven gas and
emissions from coke ovens is part of the coke oven NESHAP,
the National Emissions Standard, that was promulgated two
years ago.
MR. RAO: I still don't know what you mean.
MR. NAOUR: So, it's a federal concern.
In other words, the ITAC, the basic point
of ITAC is that any compound that does not have a federal
concern --
MR. RAO: Yes.
MR. NAOUR: -- is an ITAC.
MR. RAO: Yes.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
16
MR. NAOUR: And then, that particular compound will
be, then, focused by the reporting rule and subsequent
rulemaking.
The issue here is the coke oven gas, and
all emissions from coke ovens is an integral part of the
current promulgated standard.
MR. RAO: At the federal level?
MR. NAOUR: At the federal level.
MR. RAO: That's why you're saying it's not part of
the ITAC?
MR. NAOUR: And, therefore, not part of the ITAC.
MR. RAO: If that's the case, then, all the
chemicals that are listed as part of ITAC have no federal
concerns and, you know, they don't have any requirements
under the Clean Air Act?
MS. KROACK: Right.
MR. NAOUR: That's correct.
If I may just add, one other item is,
that the structure of the federal standard, of course,
also is a very stringent reporting performance standard
and emission control requirements under the Clean Air Act
for each of the standard, for each of the hazardous air
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
17
pollutants. So, it has its own structure for reporting as
well.
MR. RAO: Are they compatible to what they had
proposed for ITAC? I'm just curious.
MR. NAOUR: In some cases, they're more stringent.
But, generally, since we are talking 10 tons as the
threshold, they're less stringent in that sense.
MR. RAO: Okay. Now, moving along to Section
232.430 where you proposed the de minimis levels for ITAC.
I had a question. This is kind of a
follow-up on what Ron Berg had in his comments.
You know, in his comments, Mr. Berg says
that: "Some of the concerns relating to a number of
emission units that may not be covered because of the
de minimis levels could be assessed as the data comes in."
Is that possible under this rule or will
that have to be done under the rulemaking?
Like, if, some of the emission units
would not be covered because of their emitting less than
the de minimis levels, so you'll never get any emission
data from those sources.
So, is there any possibility of the
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
18
Agency assessing the data that comes in and making any
decisions as to whether they should change the de minimis
levels or not?
MR. NAOUR: A significant amount of information is
starting to come into the Agency from a number of sources,
which we have not been privy to in the past.
The previous permitting process, the
information was primarily in light of criteria pollutants.
So, there was very little speciation that we, in fact,
were able to, since we did not have rulemaking, to
actually require from the emitting sources. The affected
sources.
This rule will allow us to have
information. And the information that Ron and I discussed
was primarily on a "what if" determination, based on the
threshold and the approach that we had proposed in the
rulemaking, indicated what the potential sources would be
and what the potential affect on those sources would be.
In order for us to determine that, we
really need to have the sound data sent to our system to
review.
In addition to that, Title V, which is
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
19
the current U.S. EPA federal permitting process, which
Illinois currently has an approved program, we in Illinois
EPA are receiving information on individual sources on
specific speciated compounds which we had never had
before, as well.
We feel that all of this, in general,
will give us a better picture of the facility and be able
to review these de minimis values as to whether or not
their impact is less or greater than what we had
estimated.
MR. RAO: So based on this assessment, if because
the impact may be greater, will there be, like, any
changes?
MR. NAOUR: I think we would have to reserve that.
I would think that certainly we would
review it, in light of, certainly, some risk assessment
point of view as to whether or not any changes would, in
fact, and from a risk stand point would be warranted, we
would review it.
MR. RAO: Talking about risk assessment. At the
last hearing, I think you said you were using some U.S.
EPA guidelines, and I think maybe Dave Reiser requested
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
20
you for a copy of the guidelines.
MR. NAOUR: I believe Mark did.
MR. RAO: I'm sorry.
MR. HOMER: Yes, I did.
They supplied me with the number of the
document.
MR. RAO: Would it be possible for the Agency to
submit one for the record for the Board? Or is it like a
proof document, you may have a problem?
MR. NAOUR: I have no problem with that.
MR. RAO: I have one more question.
Moving on to Section 232.440, the use of
available data.
At the last hearing in response to a
question, you said that no additional monitoring or
measurement would be required to comply with the data
requirements of this rule.
Under both Section 232.440 and Section
232.450 there is no information requirement.
I just, you know, wanted to know whether
the Agency thinks that all the affected sources, you know,
sources affected by this rule, would have adequate
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
21
information to meet the reporting requirements of the rule
without doing any additional monitoring or measurement?
Do you think they'd have anything -- you
know, all the data in their files, that they could
estimate the emission reports?
MR. NAOUR: Generally speaking and, actually, I
think, if you remember my testimony, I was in industry for
25 years and plant manager for 20 of that, so I'm very
familiar with what engineers were constantly coming to my
office and crying and not crying about what they could and
could not do.
From an engineering point of view,
generally speaking, good material balance information,
good engineering, optimization, for most of these
facilities, the majority of the facilities, would be
available, including the fact that CEMs are more prevalent
today than they were even 20 years ago.
In some cases, in particular in those
cases where we hope to gain some positive benefit from the
federal rules where CEMs are required for HAPs. And when
you talk about HAPs VOCs and ITAC VOCs of which there are
a significant number of ITACs that are volatile organic
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
22
compounds, we expect to see some information from this as
well, as part of an offshoot.
What we're saying by the rule statement
is, is that we expect good material balance, good sound
basis of information that currently is now being utilized,
and we're not going through extraneous means.
And, I think that for the majority of the
facilities and what that majority is, I would say that
there would be enough information to handle that.
MR. RAO: And, in cases a facility does not have
that kind of information, can they say, you know, the rule
does not require us to do any monitoring or measurement,
so we cannot give you that information?
MR. NAOUR: Well, what they don't have would be
typically of material balance or good engineering
calculation, we would require them to do that.
They have to have that information.
That's basically the information that they've got to have.
At least the very basic information on their facility.
A simple material balance, well-designed,
can go a long way to providing information that we need.
MR. RAO: Thank you.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
23
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: Are there any follow-ups?
MR. RIESER: Yes. If I could just follow-up briefly
on the first point raised relating to coke oven emissions
and the ITACs.
Mr. Naour, it's correct, isn't it, that
the ITACs, Illinois Toxic Air Contaminant is a subset of
the Toxic Air Contaminant List that appears in Appendix A;
is that correct?
MR. NAOUR: That's right. Exactly.
MR. RIESER: Okay. And that the reporting
requirements that are being proposed here today only
applies to that subset that's been identified as the
Illinois Toxic Air Contaminants?
MR. NAOUR: That's correct.
MR. RIESER: And the basis for doing that is, I
think you initially testified very clearly, that the other
toxic air contaminants which were not ITACs, were
primarily covered under the Hazardous Air Pollutants list
and, therefore, had reporting and control requirements
associated with the regulation by the U.S. EPA?
MR. NAOUR: That's correct.
MR. RIESER: And that's the basis for excluding
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
24
specifically coke oven gases you indicated at this point,
is because of the extent of its regulation under the
NESHAP and other U.S. EPA proposed regulations?
MR. NAOUR: Correct.
MR. RIESER: And, I think, your testimony with
regard to the last question basically summarizes that the
type of information that the Agency is seeking through
this rule can be provided by information that would be
available to any company to which this rule would apply.
They'd have the information to hand
regarding their throughput materials that they're using in
their process, and that testing would not be required in
order to answer the questions that the -- to provide the
information that the Agency needs; is that correct?
MR. NAOUR: That's the expectation. That's correct.
MR. RIESER: I have nothing further.
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: I guess at this point then,
if there are no further questions for the Agency, we will
allow other people to present testimony and/or comments.
Is there anyone here who would like to
present testimony or comments?
MS. ROSS: Is the testimony of the Illinois Lung
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
25
Association and Sierra Club entered as exhibits?
Is the testimony submitted earlier by the
Lung Association and the Sierra Club entered as an exhibit
already?
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: I think it will be entered
as, like, a public comment.
Is it entered as an exhibit? No, I don't
think so.
MS. ROSS: Well, if it's in the record, that's fine.
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: And at the close of this
hearing, you'll have additional time to enter more public
comments, and you can reiterate all those points again, if
you care to.
Very well. Seeing that there is no more
questions of the Agency, no one wants to make any
statements, I guess I will close the record and set up
some time for the closing of public comments.
The rules say within 14 days, but I
usually like to give more than 14 days. I think it's
impractical for people to give more comments before 14
days. So, I'm going to give until, let's say, May 17th
will be the close of the public comment period.
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
26
And we will go off the record, now,
Sally.
(Whereupon, a discussion was held off
the record.)
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: So public comments will end
on May 17th and, with that, I think we have thirteen
exhibits and the last being what was entered in today.
And if the Agency could supply us with
their public comments, a copy of the U.S. EPA guidelines,
we'll include it in the record.
MS. KROACK: We'd be happy to do that.
HEARING OFFICER FEINEN: Thank you very much.
(HEARING CLOSED.)
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664
27
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS:
COUNTY OF C O O K )
Sally A. Guardado hereby certifies that she
is the Certified Shorthand Reporter who reported in
shorthand the proceedings had in the above-entitled
matter, and that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of said proceedings.
Certified Shorthand Reporter
Notary Public, County of Cook, State of Illinois
Sally A. Guardado, C.S.R. * (708) 479-6664