1
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
EXEMPTIONS FROM STATE PERMIT ) R96-17
REQUIREMENTS, AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. )
ADM. CODE 201 AND 211. )(Rulemaking)
)
The following is a transcript of a
hearing held in the above-entitled matter, at James
Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph Street, Room 11-500,
Chicago, Illinois, on the 16th of August, 1996 A.D.,
commencing at the hour of 10:00 o'clock a.m.
BEFORE:
MS. MARIE TIPSORD, Hearing Officer.
PRESENT:
Dr. G. Tanner Girard, Board Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Sheila G. Kolbe
Assistant Counsel
Bureau of Air
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Mr. William D. Marr
Environmental Engineer
Permit Section
Bureau of Air
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
2
APPEARANCES (Continued):
Mr. Mark W. Homer
Chemical Industry Council of Illinois
920 South Spring
Springfield, IL 62704
Phone: 217/522-5805
FAX: 217/522-5815
Ms. Whitney Wagner Rosen
Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group.
215 East Avenue Street
Springfield, Illinois 62701
PH: 217/522-5612
Ms. Maribeth Flowers
Outboard Marine Corporation
100 Sea Horse Drive
Waukegan, IL 60085
PH: 847/689-6160
FAX: 847/689-6246
3
1 INDEX
2 WITNESSES:
3 William D. MARR 11
4 Christopher Romaine 18
5
6 QUESTIONS:
7 Ms. Rosen 26
8 Mr. Homer 33
9
10 EXHIBITS
11 EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION
12
13 2 9
14 3 26
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
4
1 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Good morning. My name
2 is Marie Tipsord and I've been appointed by the Board
3 to serve as Hearing Officer in this proceeding entitled
4 In The Matter Of: Exemptions From State Permit
5 Requirements, Amendments To 35 Illinois Adm. Code 201
6 and 211. Docket number R 96-17.
7 To my right side is Dr. Tanner
8 Girard, the presiding Board Member in this proceeding.
9 This is the second hearing in this
10 proceeding which was filed initially on May 10, 1996 by
11 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
12 First hearing was held in
13 Collinsville on July 23, 1996. At that hearing the
14 Agency presented testimony and will be presenting
15 additional testimony today.
16 Is there anyone else here who wishes
17 to testify and make a statement on the record?
18 MS. ROSEN: I do.
19 Whitney Rosen, Legal Counsel for the
20 Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group.
21 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anyone else?
22 MR. HOMER: And Mark Homer with the Chemical
23 Industry Council of Illinois.
24 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
5
1 And, I believe, Miss Kolbe, you
2 indicated that you wanted to have both of your
3 witnesses sworn again, today?
4 MS. KOLBE: That's correct.
5 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead. Proceed.
6 (The witnesses were sworn.)
7 MS. KOLBE: Actually, before I called them, I was
8 going to go through an opening statement, if that's all
9 right.
10 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's fine. Go ahead.
11 MS. KOLBE: I am Sheila Kolbe, Assistant Counsel
12 with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and
13 I've been assigned to represent the Agency In The
14 Matter Of: Exemptions From State Permit Requirements,
15 Amendments to 35 Illinois Adm. Code 201 and 211.
16 With me today are Bill Marr, a
17 technical expert from the Permit Section, and Chris
18 Romaine a P.E. and Manager from the Permit Section.
19 They will testify on behalf of the Agency and will also
20 assist in answering technical questions.
21 This rulemaking has been proposed
22 under Sections 27 and 28 of the Illinois Environmental
23 Protection Act. The proposed rule amends the current
24 list of emission units and activities under 35 Illinois
6
1 Adm. Code 201.146 that are exempt from the State
2 permitting requirements under 35 Illinois Adm. Code,
3 Sections 201.142 Construction Permit Requirements,
4 201.143 Operating Permit Requirements For New Sources,
5 and 201.144 Operating Permit Requirements For Existing
6 Sources, in order to expand the list to include
7 categories of activities or emission units from
8 non-major sources from which emissions are very minimal
9 and no informational need has been furthered by
10 requiring such a permit.
11 These proposed amendments to expand
12 the list of exemptions under Section 201.146 also
13 include emission units or activities that have been
14 deemed insignificant under the Clean Air Act permitting
15 Program (CAAPP) as specified in 35 Illinois Adm. Code
16 201.210 for which the Agency, pursuant to its
17 discretion under CAAPP, has determined merits such an
18 exemption. That is, under the CAAP program, the Agency
19 is allowed to evaluate insignificant emission units and
20 activities. For those insignificant activities that
21 are listed as exempt under Section 201.146, no permit
22 application will be required by the Agency.
23 Some of the proposed amendments to
24 Section 201.146 are intended to merely clarify the
7
1 types of activities or emission units that are covered
2 by an exemption category.
3 Additionally, in several instances an
4 existing exemption category is being modified so that
5 emission units subject to certain requirements will
6 require permits.
7 Permitting these activities is
8 appropriate in order to assure compliance with the
9 underlying applicable requirements. Specifically, some
10 previously exempted emission units are subject to new
11 requirements under 35 Illinois Adm. Code, Parts 215,
12 218, and 219.
13 Also, an amendment for clarification
14 purposes has been included in this proposal to state
15 that exemptions from permitting requirements do not
16 apply to emission units that are subject to federal
17 requirements for New Source Performance Standards
18 (NSPS) pursuant to 40 CFR 60.
19 In addition to proposed changes in
20 Part 201 for this rulemaking, the Agency proposes to
21 add a definition for "feed mill" in Part 211 at Section
22 211.2285. This is necessary because the term "feed
23 mill" is used in one of the accompanying proposed
24 amendments to Section 201.146.
8
1 In a nutshell, the purpose of this
2 rulemaking is to update the list of exemption units or
3 activities under Section 201.146 and clean up Section
4 201.146 in order to eliminate conflicts or confusion
5 between exemptions from permitting requirements for
6 non-major sources, the CAAP program, other parts of 35
7 Illinois Adm. Code and federal permit requirements.
8 Before I introduce my witnesses, I
9 would like to move to admit into evidence an errata
10 sheet of two minor changes regarding the revisions of
11 the proposal requested by the Board at the first
12 hearing.
13 I have copies available for those
14 here today and I will ensure that those on the service
15 list who are not here today will receive a copy also.
16 The errors -- scrivener errors -- are
17 the omission of two commas in Section 201.146, Section
18 fff (2). There should be a comma after the word
19 "dryer" at the end of the second line. There should
20 also be a comma after the phrase "volatile organic
21 material" and before the phrase "are not" in the sixth
22 line
23 these seem like minor changes, but
24 these are important for clarity.
9
1 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Is there any objection
2 to the motion?
3 (No response.)
4 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Seeing none, the motion
5 is granted and this will be admitted as Exhibit 2 in
6 the rulemaking.
7 (Said document, heretofore marked
8 Agency's Exhibit No. 2 for
9 identification, was admitted into
10 evidence, to wit, as follows:)
11 MS. KOLBE: At this time, I would like to
12 introduce the Agency's witnesses, William D. Marr and
13 Chris P. Romaine, who are the Agency's technical
14 experts on the proposed exemption.
15 Mr. Marr's testimony in this matter
16 has been pre-filed and has been entered into evidence
17 at the first hearing. However, for the benefit of
18 those who were not present at the first hearing and
19 because of a slight error regarding a technical support
20 document -- that is, there isn't one -- I requested
21 the Hearing Officer to allow him to read a statement
22 into the record with the appropriate correction.
23 Mr. Romaine's testimony has also been
24 pre-filed before this second hearing. He will testify
10
1 today on the revisions to the proposal that the Agency
2 filed pursuant to the Board and Hearing Officer's
3 request at the first hearing.
4 For the benefit of those who may not
5 have had the chance to read his pre-filed testimony
6 before the hearing, I requested that the Hearing
7 Officer allow him to also read his statement into the
8 record.
9 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's granted.
10 MS. KOLBE: Madam Hearing Officer, I would also
11 like to request that the questions be held until both
12 witnesses have testified?
13 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Fine.
14 MS. KOLBE: Bill, would you like to start?
15 WILLIAM D. MARR
16 called as a witness, having been previously sworn, was
17 examined and testified in the narrative as follows:
18 STATEMENT
19 BY
20 MR. MARR: Good morning. My name is William D.
21 Marr. I'm employed by the Illinois Environmental
22 Protection Agency in the Permit Section of the Division
23 of Air Pollution Control in the Bureau of Air. I have
24 been employed by the Agency as an Air Pollution Permit
11
1 analyst since May 1992. My educational background
2 includes a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical
3 Engineering from Southern Illinois at Carbondale.
4 The proposal before you today would
5 affect exemptions from state air permit requirements
6 and I was involved in the development of the Agency's
7 proposal. I personally prepared the technical support
8 information for the Statement of Reasons filed by the
9 Agency.
10 This proposal would amend 35 Illinois
11 Administrative Code 201.146 to expand, clarify and
12 modify the list of emission units and activities that
13 are exempt from state air pollution control
14 construction and operating permits as specified in 35
15 Ill. Adm. Code 201.142, 201.143, and 201.144.
16 The proposal would also amend Section
17 201.146 to establish greater consistency between the
18 exemptions from state air permit requirements and the
19 insignificant activity provisions of the Clean Air Act
20 Permit Program for major sources of air pollution, as
21 specified at 35 Illinois Administrative Code 201.210.
22 The primary effect of this proposal
23 is to expand the list of activities and emission units
24 that would qualify from exemption from state air
12
1 permitting requirements by either adding categories of
2 activities or emission units or by loosening the
3 threshold for the exemption.
4 The activities and emission units
5 that are proposed for exemption are based on the
6 Agency's historical experience that such emission units
7 do not merit permitting. Associated emissions are very
8 minimal and there are no applicable rules or a unit
9 readily complies with applicable rules.
10 Individual information on these
11 activities have not been needed for purposes of air
12 quality planning.
13 In this respect, the Agency believes
14 that many of the emission units for activities that
15 have been deemed insignificant under the CAAPP, as
16 specified in 35 Illinois Administrative Code 210.210,
17 can also be exempt from state air permitting
18 requirements.
19 The Agency does not believe, however,
20 that all of the activities and emission units listed as
21 insignificant under the CAAPP merit exemption from the
22 state air permit requirements. This is because the
23 Agency retains discretion under the CAAPP to determine
24 if a specific emission unit should be treated as
13
1 significant.
2 This discretion is appropriate for
3 insignificant activities under the CAAPP as it applies
4 to sources that are otherwise required to submit permit
5 applications, thereby allowing the Agency the
6 opportunity to evaluate proposed insignificant emission
7 units. If an emission unit or activity qualifies for
8 exemption from state air permitting requirements
9 pursuant to Section 201.146, however, no permit
10 application is required to be submitted to the Agency,
11 thereby allowing the Agency no opportunity to evaluate
12 the nature and significance of such emission units.
13 Certain of the proposed amendments to
14 Section 210.146 are intended to clarify the types of
15 activities or emission units that are covered by a
16 particular exemption. For example, the exemptions for
17 fuel combustion equipment would be reworded to make
18 clear that they apply, on an individual basis, to each
19 fuel burning emission unit. The proposal also explains
20 that if an emission unit is exempt, associated air
21 pollution control equipment is also exempt.
22 In a few instances in the proposal,
23 an existing exemption is being modified so that
24 emission units subject to certain state requirements
14
1 will require permits. An example is coating operations
2 located at a source that are subject to the limitations
3 or control requirements of 35 Illinois Administrative
4 Codes 215, 218, or 219, Subpart F.
5 The current exemption level for
6 coating operations is the use of less than 5,000
7 gallons of coating at a source per year. The
8 applicability level for the coating rules in the ozone
9 non-attainment areas is now such that coating lines
10 that are exempt from permit requirements are subject to
11 control requirements.
12 The Agency believes permitting for
13 these emission units is appropriate to facilitate
14 compliance with the applicable rules.
15 Additionally, in a few instances, an
16 existing exemption is being revised to clarify that an
17 emission unit that is subject to a federal New Source
18 Performance Standard (NSPS) under 40 CFR Part 60
19 requires a permit. These revisions are merely intended
20 to clarify that permitting exemptions do not apply to
21 emission units subject to an NSPS, as such emission
22 units are required to obtain permits pursuant to
23 Section 9.1(d)(2) of the Environmental Protection Act.
24 Finally, the proposal also includes
15
1 revisions to update terminology, such as using the term
2 "emission unit" to describe an individual item of
3 equipment or activity, rather than "emission source."
4 The proposed amendments also provide a definition for
5 one term, "feed mill," used in the proposed amendments.
6 As the proposed amendments deal with
7 and generally expand the list of exemptions from state
8 air permit requirements, these revisions do not impose
9 new emission limitations or control requirements on
10 affected sources. Therefore, this proposal does not
11 pose any issues with respect to technical feasibility.
12 As previously stated, the additional
13 exemptions will not significantly affect the
14 effectiveness of the permit program. If anything, they
15 will help focus attention on the more important
16 emission units.
17 As an economic matter, the proposal
18 will reduce costs. The amendments significantly expand
19 the list of exemptions and many affected sources will
20 be relieved of the requirement to obtain state air
21 permits. Also, the affected sources will be relieved
22 of other requirements resulting from a permit, such as
23 the obligation to annually report emissions data for
24 permitted emission units.
16
1 As a consequence, the affected
2 sources will realize a cost savings because they will
3 be relieved of the need to collect data, prepare permit
4 applications, submit reports, and pay permit fees. The
5 savings in permit fees would likely be the minimum fee
6 associated with state air operating permits, which is
7 $100 per year for sources with total permitted
8 emissions of less than 25 tons per year.
9 The loss of revenue to the Agency
10 would be matched by the savings from eliminating
11 permitting of these sources. Many other sources will
12 still be required to have permits, because they still
13 have emission units that are not exempt. However,
14 these permits are related activity -- and related
15 activity will be simplified as additional emission
16 units, are considered exempt and can be dropped from
17 existing permits. New and revised permits will not be
18 needed as these newly exempt units are added or
19 replaced at a source.
20 The only sources that may be required
21 to obtain a state permit for the first time based on
22 this proposal are sources with coating operations that
23 are subject to compliance requirements under 35 Ill.
24 Adm. Codes 215, 218, or 219, Subpart F, and that used
17
1 less than 5,000 gallons of coatings (including thinner)
2 at the source annually. Most, if not all of these
3 sources will also be small sources that would only be
4 required to pay the $100 fee. These sources are
5 already subject to data collection and to reporting
6 requirements.
7 In conclusion, this proposal amends
8 Section 201.146 to expand, clarify and modify the list
9 of emission units and activities that are exempt from
10 state air permit requirements. The overall effect
11 would be to reduce the effort expended by smaller
12 sources of air permitting without any significant
13 deterioration in the effectiveness of the air pollution
14 control program.
15 Accordingly, the Agency requests that
16 the Pollution Control Board adopt these amendments to
17 Parts 201 and 211 for the State of Illinois.
18 MS. KOLBE: At this time, Chris Romaine, will you
19 testify?
20 CHRISTOPHER ROMAINE
21 called as a witness, having been previously sworn, was
22 examined and testified in the narrative as follows:
23 STATEMENT
24 BY
18
1 MR. ROMAINE: Good morning.
2 My name is Chris Romaine. I am
3 employed by the Illinois Environmental Protection
4 Agency as Manager of the New Source Review Unit in the
5 Permit Section of the Division of Air Pollution
6 Control.
7 I have been employed by the Agency
8 since 1976. My educational background includes a
9 Bachelor of Science degree from Brown University. I'm
10 a licensed professional engineer.
11 I have assisted in the development of
12 the Agency's proposal in this rulemaking concerning 35
13 Illinois Administrative Code 201.146, the exemptions
14 from the State's construction and operating permit
15 programs for stationery sources of emissions.
16 At the last hearing, the Board asked
17 the Agency to consider various changes to the proposal.
18 The Agency has considered these changes and has
19 prepared revisions to the proposal, which I explain in
20 this testimony.
21 First: Section 201.146. The
22 preamble or introductory paragraph for Section 201.146
23 was restructured in order to have the exemption itself
24 stated before the explanatory language warning that air
19
1 sources may still be subject to other requirements for
2 Air Pollution Control permits.
3 That is, Section 201.146 provides the
4 exemptions for the State air permits required by
5 Sections 201.142, 201.143, and 201.144. This is the
6 exemption. However, there are other independent
7 requirements for air permits as found in the
8 Environmental Protection Act and Clean Air Act that are
9 not subject to the exemptions in Section 201.146, but
10 have their own applicability provisions.
11 Thus, air equipment and sources
12 exempted by Section 201.146 may in certain
13 circumstances still require permit due to these other
14 permit requirements.
15 There are also certain activities
16 that are subject to specific registration requirements,
17 such as motor vehicle refinishing and gasoline
18 dispensing operations in the Chicago and Metro-East
19 ozone non-attainment areas, that are independent of the
20 permit exemptions in Section 201.146.
21 The warning language that addresses
22 these other requirements now follows the exemption
23 language. In addition, the warning language has also
24 been expanded to mention the existence of these
20
1 independent registration requirements.
2 Now, getting to the body of the
3 proposal, which is the exemption that we addressed as
4 Section 201.146(n). In this section, subsection (n),
5 the connecting "and" between subsections 201.146(n)(2)
6 and (n)(3) was replaced with an "or".
7 This change was made because, as the
8 Board correctly observed, the subsections identify
9 separate classes of storage tanks that are eligible for
10 the exemptions. That's generally provided by Section
11 201.146(n).
12 Next, subsection (t) was revised to
13 better reflect the applicability provisions of the U.S.
14 EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for grain
15 elevators at 40 CFR 60 Subpart DD.
16 In particular, the terms "grain
17 terminal elevator" and "grain storage elevator" were
18 substituted for "source," along with the representative
19 storage capacities. Those are 88,100 cubic meters or
20 about 2.5 million bushels and 35,200 meters or about 1
21 million bushels. And those are the storage capacities
22 at which applicability of this New Source Performance
23 Standard can be triggered.
24 In subsection (z), we amended it to
21
1 substitute the term "facilities" for "equipment," as
2 this exemption broadly applies to certain
3 establishments and areas involved in food preparation,
4 rather than to individual equipment.
5 This subsection has also been revised
6 to make clear that this exemption also applies to food
7 preparation operations associated with off-site
8 catering or direct retail sales, as well as to
9 restaurants and institutional kitchens.
10 The purpose of this exemption is to
11 broadly exclude from permitting most activities
12 involved with the preparation of food except
13 manufacturing activities at plants engaged in the
14 production of food or beverage products.
15 To accomplish this goal in the
16 simplest way, the exemption was reworked to specify
17 activities that may be subject to permitting rather
18 than identify the vast variety or all the different
19 types of operations that are intended to be exempt from
20 permitting.
21 Examples of the types of food
22 manufacturing operations where emission units should
23 continue to be subject to permitting include meat
24 packing plants, commercial dairies canneries, grain
22
1 processing plants, cereal mills, commercial bakeries
2 coffee roasting plants, confectionary plants,
3 malthouses and distilleries.
4 Subsection (bb) was amended to
5 clarify that a permit is only needed for a feed mill
6 that is otherwise entitled to this exemption if the
7 feed mill, for other reasons, is required to have state
8 air permits. That is, as distinguished from having to
9 have state land or water permits.
10 Section 201.146(cc), which deals with
11 extruders, was restructured to separately identify in
12 subsections (1) (2), and (3), the three classes of
13 extruders that are not eligible for the exemption
14 generally established for extruders by this provision.
15 Section 201.146(nn), which deals with
16 motor vehicle maintenance and repair, was revised to
17 expand the description of exempt vehicle maintenance
18 and service activities to broadly include vehicle
19 repair and body shops.
20 The purpose of this exemption is to
21 exclude motor vehicle service facilities from
22 permitting, but not facilities engaged in manufacturing
23 or remanufacturing automobile parts or engines. This
24 exemption does not extend to gasoline fuel handling or
23
1 motor vehicle refinishing, that is, coating, which are
2 both addressed by separate exemptions in subsections
3 (g), (n), and (kk).
4 Subsection (qq) was revised to expand
5 the description of exempt laundry equipment to include
6 coin operated and commercial laundry drying equipment.
7 The purpose of this exemption is to exclude laundry
8 equipment from permitting unless solvent-based cleaning
9 is performed or industrial items containing solvent are
10 being laundered on-site.
11 Subsection (rr), which deals with
12 housekeeping activities, was amended to remove the
13 phrase "at the source." Although, this phrase is
14 present in the parallel provision for insignificant
15 activities, it is not needed for purposes of Section
16 201.146.
17 The final thing we proposed to change
18 was subsection (fff), which deals with direct --
19 certain direct fired process dryers. And it was
20 amended to remove the phrase "at the source," as it was
21 unnecessary. It was also restructured to separately
22 identify the two classes of dryers that are not
23 eligible for the exemption as subsections (1) and (2).
24 I'd like to turn to the provisions
24
1 that we have not revised.
2 First, subsection (yy), which deals
3 with the use of consumer products, was not amended to
4 remove the phrase "at the source." This phrase is
5 present in the parallel provision for insignificant
6 activities. It is needed for purposes of Section
7 201.146 to make clear that this exemption applies
8 narrowly to the use of materials on a source-by-source
9 basis.
10 For example, the use of a "household"
11 furniture polish could be exempt at one source where it
12 is used as part of the care of office furniture. But
13 it could be subject to permitting at another source
14 where the same polish is used in the manufacture of
15 furniture.
16 Household furniture polish would not
17 be exempted from permitting as a general category
18 independent of where and how it was used
19 it's very specific as to usage at the
20 source. At the particular source.
21 And the other one that we didn't
22 propose to change is subsection (ccc). Again, with
23 maintenance, repair or dismantlement of emission units,
24 we did not amend that subsection to remove the phrase
25
1 "at the source." This phrase is present in the
2 parallel provision for insignificant activities. It is
3 needed in Section 201.146, as well, to make it clear
4 that these activities are only exempt when they occur
5 at a site where an emission unit is located.
6 Emission units located at a source
7 whose business is dismantlement, disassembly,
8 maintenance and repair of equipment brought to the
9 business, would not be covered by this exemption.
10 Finally, in conclusion, we appreciate
11 the comments made by the Board. They have lead the
12 Agency to clarify the organization and language of the
13 proposal to better carry out the intended broadening of
14 the permit exemptions in Section 201.146.
15 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Ms. Kolbe, did you wish
16 to enter the pre-filed testimony of Mr. Romaine as an
17 exhibit?
18 MS. KOLBE: Yes, I do.
19 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Is there any objection?
20 (No response.)
21 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Seeing none, we will
22 enter it as Exhibit 3.
23 (Said document, heretofore marked
24 Agency's Exhibit No. 3 for
26
1 identification, was admitted into
2 evidence, to wit, as follows:)
3 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are you ready to
4 proceed with questions?
5 MS. KOLBE: Yes.
6 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are there any
7 questions?
8 MS. ROSEN: I'm Whitney Rosen with the Illinois
9 Environmental Regulatory Group.
10 We, first, would like to just commend
11 the Agency on their effort to work with the regulated
12 community on this rulemaking and we are generally in
13 support of it.
14 I just have a few clarification
15 questions, if I could ask. And I will direct them to
16 Mr. Romaine.
17 The first question is, there has been
18 a lot of testimony regarding the fact that the Agency's
19 proposal is intended to make the Section 201.146
20 provision consistent with the insignificant activity
21 exemptions under the CAAPP. I would just like to
22 clarify that the Agency's use of the word "consistent"
23 is not intended to mean "identical"; is that correct?
24 MR. ROMAINE: That is correct.
27
1 The CAAP program and State permit
2 programs are really very different programs.
3 The CAAP program deals with sources
4 that a major source of emission will have to get
5 permitted.
6 And what we've tried to do in the
7 insignificant activities was identify particular units
8 or activities at those sources that didn't have to be
9 described in writing or in any detail in the
10 application, but those sources will still have
11 permitting and they will be visited by our field
12 inspectors. Those sources have a fair degree of
13 expertise. They better have a fair degree of expertise
14 with air pollution control requirements.
15 So we are refining what has been
16 described in writing.
17 For the State permit programs,
18 though, we are really defining whether or not somebody
19 has to get a permit. We are dealing with a much larger
20 category, a much larger population of sources, people
21 who may have minimal expertise, so we can't have exact
22 consistency.
23 But, as part of the CAAP program, we
24 did come up with some new types of equipment and
28
1 operations that we thought was appropriate to be
2 insignificant to Title V and we also thought that, in
3 terms of the State permitting programs, they were not
4 appropriate to be covered by the permit program. So to
5 the extent that there was an overlap, we wanted to make
6 sure that those specific units that we didn't want to
7 be dealt with in Title V permits could also be
8 completely dropped out of the State permitting program,
9 were dropped out of the State permitting program.
10 MS. ROSEN: Okay. Then it's correct to say that
11 it's not your intent right now to go back and revise
12 the CAAPP and the activity list to make it identical to
13 what we are doing in 201.146? The same limitations,
14 et cetera.
15 MR. ROMAINE: No, it is not.
16 MS. ROSEN: My next question -- And I guess I'll
17 kind of stay on the subject of the differences between
18 the CAAPP, the insignificant activities, and the
19 201.146 exemptions.
20 Could you just clarify what a CAAPP
21 source that has to move forward and get a construction
22 permit would have to do for an activity that could be
23 deemed insignificant under the CAAPP or that might be
24 listed on 201.146, since those exemptions do pertain to
29
1 the CAAPP -- construction permits for CAAPP?
2 MR. ROMAINE: We have discussed this ahead of
3 time, so I'm prepared.
4 One of the other features of the
5 CAAPP program deals with what happens for changes
6 involving insignificant activities. And Section
7 201.212, dealing with insignificant activities for the
8 CAAPP sources, specifically addresses what a CAAPP
9 source has to do with regard to new insignificant
10 activities and very specifically says that the
11 owner/operator of a CAAPP source is not required to
12 notify the Agency of an additional insignificant
13 activity if it's of a type that they've already
14 mentioned in their CAAPP application.
15 It also indicates that for certain
16 types of insignificant activities no notification is
17 required. And, then, for new types of insignificant
18 activities, at most what is required is notification.
19 So, basically, for the CAAPP program,
20 we do not want to have construction permits for
21 insignificant activities.
22 If it's not worth describing in the
23 Title V application in the first place, it's certainly
24 not worth coming in with a separate construction permit
30
1 for new insignificant activity.
2 Beyond that, if there are certain
3 activities that we've identified as not needing
4 construction permits, we would not expect there to be a
5 requirement for a construction permit for Title V
6 source, as well.
7 It would be appropriate, though, to
8 notify us, since they aren't covered by the Title V
9 provisions, and notify us that pursuant to such and
10 such construction permit, we have added a new piece of
11 equipment to our operation.
12 I've got that backwards.
13 That we have added a piece of
14 equipment that didn't require construction permit, it
15 is not an insignificant activity, but to keep our Title
16 V permitting process up to date, we are sending you
17 notification that we have added a piece of equipment
18 that a construction permit was not required for.
19 MS. ROSEN: Okay. I have one last question and
20 it just deals with sort of a clarification.
21 There are a number of provisions or
22 an exemption within that 201.146 exemption that pertain
23 to specific activities or units at the source.
24 I wanted to clarify that the
31
1 exemptions under (ccc), which have to do with
2 maintenance activities at a source, that the existence
3 of a particular provision such as section (cc) which
4 governs extruders and excludes specific extruders from
5 having to get a permit, that they could still take
6 advantage of an exclusion for the maintenance
7 activities at that unit under (ccc).
8 MR. ROMAINE: That is correct.
9 We have put a lot of different
10 exemptions into Section 201.146.
11 All you have to do is qualify under
12 one of those exemptions and you're entitled to it. You
13 may not quite fit the one that seems to directly apply
14 to you, but there may be another one that catches you.
15 Some other examples. The maintenance
16 is a very broad one that even if your particular
17 emission unit is not exempt or if it is exempt,
18 maintenance of that emission unit is exempt.
19 You may have a piece of equipment
20 that isn't otherwise exempt, but because you use it for
21 domestic purposes, it's broadly exempt.
22 We don't expect that people that for
23 some reason have extruders that aren't otherwise exempt
24 that's used in the back yard for some reason, will have
32
1 to come in and permit because they get the domestic
2 exemption.
3 Likewise, given an exemption that
4 doesn't exempt vapor degreasers, for example. But, if
5 you used a vapor degreaser as part of your vehicle
6 maintenance, it would be exempt.
7 So, you just have to find an
8 exemption that you can qualify for, and then you are
9 out of the permit program with regard to that
10 particular activity or operation.
11 MS. ROSEN: Thank you. I have nothing further.
12 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anyone else?
13 MR. HOMER: Yes. I'm Mark Homer with the
14 Chemical Industry Council of Illinois.
15 I would also like to thank you on
16 behalf of CICI for the Board's willingness to discuss
17 issues we had regarding this proposal with us.
18 All of the questions I have are going
19 to relate to Section 146(g) dealing with coating
20 operations and the proposed changes to that section.
21 First, in Bill's testimony, he
22 indicated that the reason for the proposed changes of
23 that section is to ensure compliance for coating
24 operations under current regulations. Is that correct?
33
1 MR. MARR: Yes.
2 MR. HOMER: Isn't it also true that the Agency,
3 under current regulations, are supposed to obtain
4 information from these sources which would show their
5 compliance or non-compliance?
6 MR. MARR: Yes. They are to submit an initial
7 certification if they are in compliance.
8 MR. HOMER: How does the Agency foresee that the
9 proposed changes then will enhance the compliance of
10 these sources?
11 MR. MARR: Well, by them submitting the -- If
12 they are required to have a permit, they are required
13 to submit a permit application. That would help us
14 determine that they are in compliance with the
15 requirements of the rule in Subpart (f).
16 MR. HOMER: Doesn't it seem superfluous to ask
17 them to file information saying they're in compliance
18 so they're already required to file information with
19 the Agency stating whether they're in compliance or
20 not?
21 MR. ROMAINE: The permit program has been our
22 main focus for assuring compliance with regulations in
23 a broad sense. And most sources look to their permit
24 as the means by which they demonstrate that they are,
34
1 in fact, authorized to operate; that they've, in fact,
2 communicated to the Agency what their different
3 emission units are; that they've provided sufficient
4 information to demonstrate that they are in compliance.
5 The permit is also a tool to communicate additional
6 conditions appropriate for the operation of the source
7 to clarify what rules the source is complying with.
8 Accordingly, I guess, it may be
9 theoretically possible to say that yes, sources can
10 demonstrate compliance simply with a certification.
11 In fact, sources look to permits as
12 the means by which to demonstrate they're in
13 compliance.
14 In talking to my manager --
15 Unfortunately, I have been avoiding those calls. But,
16 occasionally, we'll get calls from people when we visit
17 them even under the current rules and they are subject
18 to these coating rules.
19 We visit them because there may be an
20 odor complaint. Some other inspection, because they
21 have other types of operation at the source and they
22 come back and say, "What? I'm out of compliance? But
23 I don't need a permit."
24 So their first response is we expect
35
1 that if we don't have a permit, there isn't anything
2 significant we have to worry about.
3 If there is a permit, then we begin
4 to get concerned about, "What are the specific
5 regulations I have to comply with?"
6 The need for a permit -- As a general
7 matter, the Agency thinks, for certain sources,
8 permitting or registration programs do facilitate
9 compliance much more effectively than any unilateral
10 certification coming from the source.
11 MR. HOMER: Okay. So, does the Agency contend
12 that -- First of all, we're talking about relatively
13 small sources here, and, first of all, I guess, the
14 Agency contends that because they're such small sources
15 that they do not -- they're unaware of the current
16 regulations and that's the reason why they're not in
17 compliance in both cases.
18 MR. ROMAINE: I guess that's two pieces.
19 We are certainly dealing with smaller
20 sources. Our current exemption is at 5,000 gallons.
21 5,000 gallons, depending on the VOM content of the
22 source, can conceivably be somebody that emits 15, 20
23 tons per year of volatile organic materials.
24 What the U.S. EPA did in the Federal
36
1 Implementation Plan was lower the applicability level
2 down to 15 pounds per day. With that, we could be
3 conceivably talking about somebody in the 1 to 2 ton
4 range. So, we are certainly dealing with much smaller
5 sources. We have not dealt with them routinely because
6 they are not part of the permitting program. We have
7 only visited them when there have been other things
8 that trigger our attention.
9 So, I guess we have a concern that
10 they may be not aware of regulations that they are
11 subject to. Because they are not aware of those
12 regulations, we are also concerned that they may be out
13 of compliance with those regulations without any
14 efforts underway to come into compliance.
15 So, it is, I guess, a sector that we
16 now have to gradually bring into the permit program.
17 To bring into compliance and bring into the permit
18 program.
19 And one of the things that's the
20 obstacle to that point is this permit exemption simply
21 says, well, if you are less than 5,000 gallons, you
22 don't have to talk to the Agency about a permit for
23 your coating operations.
24 MR. HOMER: And, so, basically, it's the Agency's
37
1 contention that by requiring these sources to obtain a
2 permit -- Let me rephrase that.
3 By putting a regulation on the books
4 that says that they have to obtain a permit, suddenly
5 these sources that obviously haven't read regulations
6 that they're already required to be in compliance with,
7 will suddenly see the light and think, "well, jeez, I
8 should just check the regulations to see if I need a
9 permit," versus "whether I need to be in compliance."
10 My question is, do you think they're
11 going to look at the regulations any more strenuously,
12 because we put this on the books than they have in the
13 past?
14 MR. ROMAINE: No, I don't. I think it's simply a
15 tool, as part of the Agency's overall program, to deal
16 with these sources, that, rather than visiting them
17 once and saying -- or sending them mailings saying "You
18 need to certify. Tell us you are out of compliance or
19 that you are in compliance."
20 But they need to realize that they
21 are sources of VOC emissions and start working with the
22 Agency. Our field people and other entities will be
23 more effective with dealing with these sources if they
24 say "You are now subject to a permit requirement. Call
38
1 the small businesses office."
2 You may start talking to us because
3 of a clean break; because of concerns with hazardous
4 waste; your wastewater operations, and we can now
5 incorporate them into the overall environmental
6 program, rather than saying you are sort of in this
7 halfway position.
8 Yes. They're complying.
9 Requirements that you have to comply with that are
10 potentially significant requirements that you may very
11 well not know it and be violating as a result, but you
12 don't need a permit.
13 If you say you are a source that we
14 are concerned about, there are regulations that could
15 be significant, you should be concerned about coming
16 into compliance, and because you are that type of
17 source, you need to have a permit.
18 MR. HOMER: So, I think it's reasonable to say
19 that the important thing is to get information to these
20 affected sources that are out of compliance, though,
21 because they don't have any understanding or any
22 knowledge whatsoever of the regulations.
23 The important thing is to get the
24 information to them that they need to abide by these
39
1 regulations and comply with them.
2 MR. ROMAINE: I'd agree with that.
3 Our goal is to get a source in
4 compliance. And if there is a more effective way to do
5 that, then we are certainly open to other ways to
6 achieve that goal.
7 MR. HOMER: Okay. I don't have any further
8 questions.
9 I would just like to let the Board
10 know that we are going to, in our comments, submit or
11 request that the proposed changes to Section 146(g) be
12 removed.
13 We've already had some discussions
14 with the Agency regarding different methods by which to
15 get information to smaller coating users, in order to
16 try and help get them to understand what the compliance
17 issues are that the Agency and I have discussed here.
18 And we, frankly, feel that asking
19 these folks to obtain a permit and go through the
20 hassle of filling out an application and paying a
21 permit fee really is unnecessary for the goals that the
22 Agency wants obtained.
23 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you, Mr. Homer.
24 Is there anyone else with questions
40
1 for Mr. Romaine?
2 BOARD MEMBER GIRARD: Yes. I have a question
3 dealing with Chris Romaine's testimony.
4 I'd like to refer you to Section
5 201.146(t) which deals with grain storage facilities.
6 In the amendments, in the latest
7 testimony, you've introduced the terms "grain terminal
8 elevator" and "grain storage elevator" which have
9 different applicability thresholds, depending on
10 storage capacity.
11 When I look over at the definitions
12 in Section 211, I don't find these two terms defined or
13 distinguished. And my question is should the
14 definitions of these two terms "grain terminal
15 elevator" and "grain storage elevator" be written out
16 in Section 211 definitions?
17 MR. ROMAINE: Those definitions or those terms
18 are adapted -- taken from the provisions of the New
19 Source Performance Standards. They do have specific
20 definitions in 40 CFR 60 Subpart DD.
21 We did not choose to introduce a
22 separate listing of that definition in Section 211. It
23 was a matter of judgment whether it would be
24 appropriate or not.
41
1 Our goal here is to point out to
2 people that if there are units subject to the New
3 Source Performance Standard, then those units are in
4 the Department, and, certainly, for that reason we
5 thought it was sufficient to rely on the regulations
6 and the definitions found in the provisions of the New
7 Source Performance Standard.
8 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: But the --
9 BOARD MEMBER GIRARD: I guess my comment is, up
10 to this point in time, the State has pretty much lumped
11 all grain storage facilities under one category. And
12 now we're splitting that out into two different
13 categories which have different applicability
14 thresholds. So an individual who has a grain storage
15 facility is going to be very interested in knowing
16 whether they have a grain terminal elevator or grain
17 storage elevator because there are different
18 applicability thresholds in terms of the number of
19 bushels stored.
20 So, would it be better for them to be
21 able to determine that by reading the Illinois
22 Regulations, rather than also having in hand a copy of
23 the Federal Regulations? And all it would take is
24 introducing two definitions in Section 211.
42
1 We already have about four grain
2 definitions at that point. A place it could be put is,
3 for instance, right after the definition of "Grain
4 Handling Operation" at 211.2710.
5 MR. ROMAINE: I guess it's a matter of judgment.
6 In terms of the majority of grain
7 handling operations in Illinois, they are grain
8 terminal elevators.
9 The definition for grain storage
10 elevator, in fact, refers to grain storage facilities
11 that are associated with manufacturing plants.
12 So there are only a handful of grain
13 storage facilities in Illinois associated with plants
14 like ADM, CPC, AD Stanley. Everybody else is, in fact,
15 a grain terminal elevator.
16 But, I guess I would leave it to the
17 Board's judgment.
18 Do you have any comments, Sheila?
19 MS. KOLBE: Yes.
20 Basically, we want the same
21 definition as in 40 CFR 60 Subpart DD. If that
22 requires just pulling it out from there and copying it
23 into 211, that would be fine or, otherwise, it would be
24 better to reference 40 CFR -- Well, it is referenced in
43
1 how we wrote it. 40 CFR 60 Subpart DD.
2 But we would have no objection if the
3 same definition was just taken from 40 CFR 60 and put
4 into 211.
5 BOARD MEMBER GIRARD: Well, I'm still willing to
6 consider not having the definitions in there, if, maybe
7 in an additional comment you can explain all this and
8 we can, at least, incorporate it into the opinion, so
9 that in some future date when the Board is deciding
10 some case we can, at least, go back into the opinion to
11 see how we discriminated between these two terms.
12 MS. KOLBE: Okay. The Agency could probably
13 address that in its final response to comments.
14 BOARD MEMBER GIRARD: That would be fine.
15 MS. KOLBE: Unless you would prefer that we --
16 BOARD MEMBER GIRARD: I don't know how the entire
17 Board would feel about this. I think we would probably
18 need to digest the comments and then decide whether or
19 not we want to add two more definitions.
20 So the best thing to do would be for
21 you to explain the entire situation, distinguish the
22 terms, so we can at least include it in an opinion.
23 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I have a couple of
24 follow-up questions to that.
44
1 And I apologize. I didn't bring a
2 copy of the Act with me, especially the most recent
3 amendments.
4 But there are some recent amendments
5 to Section 9 of the Act which exempt, to my
6 understanding, grain elevators from a lot of the air
7 regulations.
8 What effect does this provision, read
9 in Section 9, have on grain elevators? Or even if -- I
10 mean, do the grain elevators -- Is this broader than
11 Section 9, the Section 9 exemption, or how do the two
12 relate?
13 You may want to check on comments,
14 because there has been a very recent amendment to that,
15 like public acts the governor recently signed -- I'm
16 sorry. That have recently been amended. The governor
17 recently signed an amendment to that. There may, in
18 fact, be no affect, but, as I say, I know there are
19 some exemptions for grain elevators built into the Act.
20 MR. ROMAINE: We will have to go back. This was
21 prepared before that legislation was adopted, so we
22 have not considered the interaction. That's a good
23 point.
24 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And, also, just as a
45
1 further clarification, the copy of the amendments that
2 you provided us so graciously talks about 88,100 m-3.
3 That "3" should be superscript, should it not?
4 MS. KOLBE: Yes. It should be.
5 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And that's in both
6 cases. The other one is 35,200 and it should also be
7 superscript?
8 MS. KOLBE: Right.
9 MR. ROMAINE: And as long as we are on this
10 topic, the other strange thing about the New Source
11 Performance Standard was that I believe it was the 1
12 million bushels is simply "greater than" 1 million
13 bushels. And the 2-1/2 million bushels is "equal to or
14 greater than."
15 I'm not sure why the U.S. EPA did it
16 that way, but that is the way it's found in the New
17 Source Performance Standard.
18 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Were there any other
19 questions?
20 (No response.)
21 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Seeing none, Miss
22 Rosen, did you have a statement you would like to make?
23 MS. ROSEN: Actually, the statement that I made
24 at the beginning of my question, just that we were
46
1 supportive of the proposal, was my statement.
2 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
3 Mr. Homer, anything further?
4 MR. HOMER: Nothing further. Thank you.
5 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything else?
6 MS. KOLBE: No.
7 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Just as way of
8 explanation. Since the Board has not currently went to
9 First Notice on this, we would anticipate we would go
10 to First Notice within, I hope, depending on the
11 workload, about a month after receipt of transcript.
12 Given that we've raised some
13 additional issues for the Agency, would you like to
14 submit another comment prior to Board's proceeding to
15 First Notice with this? Especially if we decide that
16 there would need to be some additional changes to the
17 rule.
18 MS. KOLBE: Yes.
19 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Would you say
20 twenty-one days of the receipt of the transcript?
21 MS. KOLBE: That would be -- When is the
22 transcript due?
23 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: 23rd?
24 MS. KOLBE: 23rd? That would be fine.
47
1 HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And after that, the
2 Board will then proceed to First Notice and publish in
3 the Illinois Register.
4 I'm assuming they will proceed to
5 First Notice, of course, if they find no problems going
6 forward.
7 I don't anticipate at this time that
8 we'll hold additional public hearings after going to
9 First Notice, unless there seems to be a need after its
10 published in the Illinois Register.
11 We'll remain open to that, but I
12 would anticipate that that would not be the case.
13 Then the Rule will be open for at
14 least forty-five days for public comment after
15 publication in the Illinois Register before we proceed
16 to second notice and on to adoption.
17 So, we'll look forward to your
18 comments in September.
19 And thank you all for coming. And in
20 the meantime the record remains open to receive
21 comments at any time.
22 Thank you very much.
23 (HEARING CLOSED.)
24
48
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS:
2 COUNTY OF C O O K )
3 Sally A. Guardado hereby certifies that
4 she is the Certified Shorthand Reporter who reported in
5 shorthand the proceedings had in the above-entitled
6 matter, and that the foregoing is a true and correct
7 transcript of said proceedings.
8
9
10 Certified Shorthand Reporter
Notary Public, County of Cook, State of Illinois
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24