1
1 BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
2 July 1, 2005
3
4 IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
5 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ) R05-20
EXEMPTIONS FROM STATE )(Rulemaking - Air)
6 PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR )
PLASTIC INJECTION MOLDING )
7 OPERATIONS )
(35 ILL. ADM. CODE 201.146 )
8
9
10
11 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held in
12 the hearing of the above-entitled matter, taken
13 stenographically by Maria E. Shockey, CSR, before
14 Amy C. Antoniolli, Hearing Officer, at the
15 James R. Thompson Center, Room 8-032, Chicago,
16 Illinois, on the 1st day of July, A.D., 2005,
17 scheduled to commence at 11:00 a.m.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
3 James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
4 Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
5 (312) 814-6983
BY: MS. AMY C. ANTONIOLLI, Hearing Officer
6 MR. ANAND RAO
MR. NICHOLAS J. MELAS
7 MS. ALISA LIU
MR. THOMAS E. JOHNSON
8
9 MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW, L.L.P.,
71 South Wacker Drive
10 Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 782-0600
11 BY: MS. PATRICIA F. SHARKEY
12
Appeared on behalf of Chemical Industry
13 Council of Illinois.
14
15
16
ALSO PRESENT:
17
MR. CHARLES E. MATOESIAN, ILLINOIS EPA
18 MR. KEN BROWN
MS. HEIDI HANSON
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
3
1 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Good
2 morning and welcome to the Illinois Pollution
3 Control Board. My name is Amy Antoniolli and
4 I've been assigned as the hearing officer in
5 this rulemaking. The Board has captioned
6 this proceeding in the matter of Proposed
7 Amendments to Exemptions from State
8 Permitting Requirements for Plastic Injection
9 Molding Operations, 35 Illinois
10 Administrative Code 201.146, which the Board
11 has docketed R05-20.
12 In this proceeding, the proponent,
13 the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois or
14 CICI, is seeking to add an exemption for
15 plastic injection molding operations to the
16 existing list of exemptions from state air
17 permitting requirements in Section 201.146 of
18 the Board's air rules.
19 This rulemaking was filed on
20 April 19, 2005 by CICI. The Board accepted
21 the proposal for hearing on May 5, 2005.
22 Today is the first hearing, and a second
23 hearing is scheduled for July 15, 2005 to
24 take place at 10 a.m. in the Board's offices
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
4
1 in Springfield.
2 To my right is member Nicholas
3 Melas, the Board member assigned to this
4 matter. Seated to the right of member Melas
5 is member Thomas Johnson. Also present today
6 from the Board's technical unit is Mr. Anand
7 Rao and Ms. Alisa Liu.
8 If you would like to testify
9 today, please let me know. But for the
10 record, I notice one member of the public,
11 Ms. Heidi Hanson.
12 Today's proceeding is governed by
13 the Board's procedural rules. All
14 information that is relevant and not
15 repetitious or privileged will be admitted
16 into the record. I've also included at the
17 back of the room a sign-up sheet for the
18 service list and also for the notice list, a
19 copy of the statement of reasons for this
20 rulemaking and a notice of hearing sheets.
21 We will begin with the testimony
22 of three witnesses that have prefiled
23 testimony in this matter, Ms. Lisa Frede,
24 Lynne Harris, and Patricia Sharkey, all three
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
5
1 on behalf of CICI, followed by any questions
2 for those witnesses.
3 Please note that any questions
4 posed by Board members or staff are designed
5 to help develop a complete record for the
6 Board's decision and do not reflect any bias.
7 So we will now turn it over to the proponent
8 for an opening statement. And I guess before
9 we do that, I'll also note that Mr. Charles
10 Matoesian is here on behalf of the Agency.
11 MR. MATOESIAN: Thank you.
12 MS. SHARKEY: Thank you, Madam Hearing
13 Officer. Good morning Board members. My
14 name is Patricia F. Sharkey. I am an
15 attorney with the law firm of Mayer, Brown,
16 Rowe & Maw and I am here today representing
17 the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois.
18 We are here today to propose an
19 exemption to the Board's rules that govern
20 state permitting. As the Board is aware, we
21 filed a statement of reasons in this
22 proceeding in which we explained that the
23 Board's regulations for state permitting
24 require a construction and operating permit
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
6
1 for emission sources of any size.
2 And this rule in effect results in
3 emission sources of very, very low emissions
4 being regulated and required to obtain
5 permits in Illinois. While there's another
6 proceeding pending in front of the Board,
7 which you're aware of in R05-19, which would
8 create a de minimis exemption, it only
9 applies to emissions sources that already
10 have another requirement to obtain a state
11 operating and construction permit.
12 This rulemaking is designed to be
13 a categorical exemption -- would provide a
14 categorical exemption for one category of
15 emission sources of which we believe there
16 are many in the state of Illinois, and you'll
17 be hearing testimony on this, that do not
18 otherwise require a state or operating or
19 construction permit.
20 This would add simply one more
21 categorical exemption to the list of
22 categorical exemptions under Rule 201.146.
23 We have been in conversation since we filed
24 our statement of reasons with the Board and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
7
1 since we filed our prefiled testimony with
2 the Illinois EPA reviewing some of the
3 language in our proposed -- for the proposed
4 amendment and have made some changes to that
5 or would like to propose some changes to it
6 in an errata sheet that I would like to offer
7 into evidence as CICI Exhibit 1.
8 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
9 And does anyone have any objection to this
10 Exhibit 1, which is entitled Chemical
11 Industry Council of Illinois's first errata
12 which I have before me?
13 (No response.)
14 There being no objections, I'll enter
15 this as Exhibit 1.
16 MS. SHARKEY: Madam Hearing Officer,
17 we are filing this morning electronically
18 with the Clerk of the Board as well. What
19 you will see in this is that we have
20 basically one amendment to the -- that's
21 being offered to the language of the
22 rulemaking itself and one correction to the
23 prefiled testimony of Lynne Harris, which
24 we've discovered, frankly, just yesterday as
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
8
1 we were looking at our testimony again.
2 The language that -- I'd like to
3 briefly explain what we're proposing to do
4 with the language of the exemption itself.
5 First of all, I'd like to note that we're
6 using the Subsection HHH and we are aware
7 that there's a proposed rule -- that a
8 proposed Rule R05-19 there would be another
9 HHH, so we are assuming that this would be
10 fitted as appropriate in the Rule 201.446
11 exemption.
12 We have in conversations with the
13 Illinois EPA been discussing the compression
14 and transfer molding language that was in our
15 original exemption. What I'd like to explain
16 is that our original exemption was based on
17 the language of the rule that the state of
18 Michigan, the Department of Environmental
19 Quality, has adopted exempting all three
20 processes: Plastic injection molding,
21 compression molding, and transfer molding.
22 Our concern at CICI has been with
23 plastic injection molding. As we focused on
24 this some more, we realized that while we're
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
9
1 not certain that there are not compression
2 molders that transfer moldings out there that
3 may very well qualify for an exemption. We
4 were not prepared to be presenting testimony
5 on that in this proceeding, so we've agreed
6 that we're going to recommend deleting
7 compression and transfer molding from this
8 language.
9 The second change you'll see is
10 that we've deleted the word handling and
11 we've sort of unpacked that word to try to
12 make it clearer of what kinds of processes
13 and equipment can actually be covered in the
14 concept of handling, so we've explained that
15 that's loading, unloading, conveying, mixing.
16 We've eliminated the word
17 granulating and replaced it with grinding
18 because grinding is actually a more generic
19 term for the same thing. What we found in
20 talking to people in this business is that
21 some people use the word granulating, some
22 people use the word grinding, but it's
23 intended to be the same thing, so we're using
24 the more generic word.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
10
1 The intent here is to cover all of
2 the associated processes that involve the
3 handling of resin materials in this
4 exemption. In addition, we have added
5 associated mold release agents. We have been
6 in conversations with the Illinois EPA, and
7 as we've been talking about this and talking
8 with our experts, we have focused somewhat on
9 the level of emissions involved with mold
10 release agents.
11 We're not going to be presenting
12 testimony on these particular handling
13 activities or the mold release agents today,
14 but as we have gone through and looked at
15 more -- focused more precisely on these
16 associated activities, we would like to
17 present you with some testimony and we'll do
18 so in prefiled testimony form for the next
19 hearing.
20 So those are the changes to the
21 proposed regulatory language. We've, in
22 addition, discovered a slight error in the
23 testimony that we filed for Mr. Harris,
24 Page 5, Line 10 of that testimony, which we
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
11
1 will be submitting in the record when
2 Mr. Harris testifies, has a reference to
3 PM10.
4 That should have been a reference
5 to total particulate and it's referred to
6 throughout his testimony as PM. And that
7 study that Mr. Harris is referring to looked
8 at total particulate rather than PM10, so
9 this would correct his testimony to clarify
10 that.
11 With that, Madman Hearing Officer,
12 I take it the exhibit is already in the
13 record, but that is what the errata sheet
14 would do, so the proposal has slightly
15 changed that's before you.
16 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
17 MS. SHARKEY: The final thing I'd like
18 to say is that our -- as a way of
19 introduction to this hearing today is that we
20 are not going to be providing you with
21 information today on statewide emission
22 levels. We are discussing that with the
23 Illinois EPA because, as we've been working
24 on in preparing for this hearing, it was
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
12
1 suggested that that would be useful
2 information for the Board to have.
3 And so it's another level of work
4 that the plastics -- the Society of the
5 Plastics Industry and CICI are working on
6 together to come up with numbers to give you
7 a better sense of what the overall number
8 of -- we know the number of plastic injectors
9 in Illinois, but we are looking to try to
10 give you some sense of what the volume of
11 emissions are statewide. So that will be
12 another item that we plan to present to you
13 in our next hearing and with prefiled
14 testimony on that.
15 In addition, we're looking at the
16 question of whether or not it makes sense,
17 depending on what we're finding with that,
18 whether it makes sense to in fact include an
19 upper limit that this -- of resin usage that
20 this exemption would address and we've had
21 conversations with Illinois EPA, and as we
22 are looking at what is out there in the
23 state, we expect to be able to focus on this
24 in the next week.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
13
1 I just wanted to give you that
2 preview, and with that, I would like to
3 present the testimony of our witnesses and
4 introduce to you who they are. We have with
5 us today Ms. Lisa Frede, who is the
6 regulatory affairs director for the Chemical
7 Industry Council of Illinois. Ms. Frede has
8 been there for four years and has been in
9 government and environmental roles prior to
10 that.
11 And Mr. Lynne Harris, who is with
12 the Society of the Plastics Industry, has
13 been there, as you can see from his
14 testimony, for a number of years, been
15 involved in creating a number of -- involved
16 in creating at least one of the studies and
17 overseeing and involved with other studies
18 and developing emission factors for the
19 plastics industry and 25 years experience in
20 the business.
21 The final piece of testimony would
22 be my own on -- just a design to give the
23 Board some perspective on what other states
24 have done in terms of regulating or exempting
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
14
1 plastic injection molders. So with that
2 brief overview, I would like to introduce
3 Ms. Lisa Frede, who will be happy -- because
4 we have really a very short presentation
5 today, our thought had been to have her read
6 this into the record just so that everyone
7 can focus on it if we can indulge the Board
8 in doing that.
9 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: That's
10 fine. And before you begin, I'll have the
11 court reporter swear in your witnesses.
12 MS. SHARKEY: Very good. Thank you.
13 What I was actually going to do in getting
14 here is to actually introduce that testimony
15 into the record as CICI Exhibit 2.
16 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: We can do
17 that then before you begin as well.
18 Is there any objection to entering
19 the prefiled testimony of Lisa Frede on
20 behalf of the Chemical Industry Council of
21 Illinois into the record?
22 (No response.)
23 And seeing none, I'll enter it now as
24 Exhibit 2.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
15
1 (Witness sworn.)
2 MS. FREDE: Good morning. My name is
3 Lisa Frede. I'm the director of regulatory
4 affairs for the Chemical Industry Council of
5 Illinois, also known as CICI, a
6 not-for-profit Illinois corporation. CICI is
7 pleased to be the proponent of this
8 rulemaking proposal in this proceeding.
9 I would like to begin by giving
10 you an overview of CICI and its membership
11 and then briefly discuss the significance of
12 this proposed rulemaking to our members.
13 CICI is a statewide trade association
14 representing the chemical industry in
15 Illinois. CICI has offices in Des Plaines
16 and in Springfield, Illinois.
17 We have 198 member companies with
18 over 54,000 employees employed at 745
19 manufacturing facilities and 975 wholesale
20 and distribution facilities in Illinois. One
21 of CICI's functions is to represent its
22 member companies in the formation of public
23 policies and programs which are mutually
24 beneficial to the citizens of Illinois and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
16
1 the chemical industry.
2 In this capacity, CICI monitors
3 statewide legislation and regulations in
4 Illinois, including environmental permitting
5 programs and provides information and makes
6 recommendations to its membership. CICI also
7 often advocates on behalf of its membership
8 for more cost effective and efficient
9 regulatory requirements.
10 Chemical manufacturers in Illinois
11 produce a wide array of products from
12 plastics, pesticides, and industrial
13 chemicals to lifesaving medicines and
14 household products. Workers directly
15 employed in the chemical industry represent
16 7.3% of the state's manufacturing work force
17 and have an average wage of over $60,000 per
18 year.
19 The chemical industry generates an
20 additional 296,000 jobs in Illinois at
21 industry suppliers, manufacturers,
22 transporters, trade and business services
23 companies, and construction companies.
24 The proposal in this proceeding
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
17
1 will amend the Board's regulations governing
2 state air pollution control permits to exempt
3 plastic injection molding operations from the
4 state construction and operation permitting
5 procedures.
6 CICI is proposing this amendment
7 to clarify the Board's regulations and
8 achieve efficiencies and cost savings for its
9 plastic injection molding company members in
10 Illinois and for the state permitting
11 program. As will be discussed by another
12 witness in this proceeding, the emissions
13 from plastic injection molding machines are
14 extremely low, on the order of a few tenths
15 of a ton of volatile organic emissions per
16 year.
17 This is on the order of, and in
18 fact less than, the 0.1 pounds per hour or
19 0.44 tons per year that defines an
20 insignificant activity under the Board's
21 major source regulations at 35 Illinois
22 Amendment Code 201.210(a)(2) and (3).
23 These emission levels are also on
24 the order of, or less than, the emissions
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
18
1 recognized to be associated with other
2 categories of emission sources that are
3 currently exempt from state permitting under
4 Section 201.146.
5 In fact, the emission factors
6 accepted by Illinois EPA and other regulators
7 across the country for determining emissions
8 from plastic injection molding operations are
9 the same as those that are used for plastic
10 extrusion, a process which is exempted from
11 Illinois state permitting in Section
12 201.146(cc) and defined as an insignificant
13 activity in Section 201.210(a)(5).
14 While many owners and operators
15 believe that plastic injection molding is a
16 form of extrusion covered under the existing
17 categorical exemption, the adoption of the
18 specific language proposed in this rulemaking
19 is designed to resolve any question.
20 Here's what this amendment will
21 do: It will appropriately regulate the
22 insignificant levels of emissions generated
23 by plastic injection molding operations by
24 treating those operations in the same fashion
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
19
1 as other operations with similarly low levels
2 of emissions.
3 It will reduce unwarranted
4 permitting costs to plastic injection molding
5 businesses across Illinois. It will also
6 relieve owners and operators of plastic
7 injection molding operations from the risk of
8 enforcement actions based upon differences in
9 interpretation of existing categorical
10 exemptions.
11 Finally, it will allow Illinois
12 EPA to allocate its permitting and
13 enforcement resources to more significant
14 emission resources.
15 What this amendment will not do:
16 It will not relieve affected emission units
17 from any applicable requirement other than
18 state construction and operating permitting.
19 Thus, for example, a plastic injection
20 molder, like any other exempt emission source
21 under Section 201.146, remains subject to the
22 generic volatile organic matter emissions
23 limit of eight pounds per hour found in the
24 Board's rule at 35 Illinois Amendment Code
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
20
1 215.301.
2 It will not result in an increase
3 in emissions and will not have an impact on
4 air quality in Illinois. Because this is
5 only an exemption from procedural
6 requirements, it will not affect emissions to
7 the environment.
8 Prior to proposing this regulatory
9 amendment, CICI's executive director,
10 Mark Biel, had several discussions with
11 Don Sutton, the manager of the Illinois EPA
12 permit section, about adding a categorical
13 exemption to the list of existing categorical
14 exemptions in 35 Illinois Amendment Code
15 201.146 for plastic injection molding and
16 associated resin handling and storage
17 activities.
18 Mr. Sutton, agreed that this is a
19 category of insignificant emission sources
20 for which a permit exemption is consistent
21 with other categorical exemptions in
22 Section 201.146. He also agreed that
23 relieving the state of the burden of
24 permitting these insignificant sources would
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
21
1 be beneficial to the state.
2 CICI believes that reducing the
3 permitting burden on the Agency is in the
4 interest of its members. Agency resources
5 should be focused on significant emission
6 sources. In the pending rulemaking
7 proceeding, R05-19, Mr. Sutton testified that
8 the Agency still hasn't issued 30 of the
9 Title V major source permits that were due to
10 be issued back in 1997. This can be found in
11 the transcript on Pages 29 and 30, April 12,
12 2005 hearing, Illinois Pollution Control
13 Docket R05-19.
14 In addition, CICI is aware that
15 many of its members have Title V permit
16 renewals and permit revisions that have been
17 pending before the Agency for several years.
18 Mr. Sutton testified that while IEPA issues
19 roughly 1,900 air permits a year, it has at
20 any time a backlog of 900 to 1,000 permit
21 applications, yet the Agency is required to
22 spend its resources on a host of construction
23 and operating permits for very minor emission
24 sources.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
22
1 The transcript of the R05-19,
2 April 12, 2005 hearing reveals that 70% of
3 the Agency's construction permits are issued
4 for modifications involving no emission
5 increase or increases of less than one ton.
6 At the same time, 95% of the actual emissions
7 emitted in Illinois are emitted by the top
8 15% of the state's major sources.
9 Permitting very small emission
10 sources, while large emission source
11 applications are backlogged, isn't a good use
12 of tax dollars, it isn't good for the
13 environment, and it isn't good for regulated
14 businesses. That burden will be
15 significantly reduced when the rulemaking in
16 R05-19 is adopted.
17 However, because that rulemaking
18 only exempts insignificant emission sources
19 at facilities with other significant or
20 non-exempt emission sources, it does not
21 relieve the Agency from permitting a plastic
22 injection molding facility that has no other
23 emission sources.
24 This is an anomaly with no
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
23
1 rationale in terms of emissions or the
2 environment when it comes to plastic
3 injection molding. Given the limitation in
4 the proposals in R05-19, the adoption of a
5 clear categorical exemption for plastic
6 injection molding operations in this
7 rulemaking proceeding will harmonize the
8 Board's regulatory approach for a category
9 recognized by all to emit at levels that do
10 not warrant separate state permitting.
11 CICI would like to thank the Board
12 for its consideration of this proposal, and I
13 would be happy to answer any questions you
14 may have.
15 MS. SHARKEY: Madam Hearing Officer,
16 if I might -- we would like to ask that the
17 questions be held until after all of the
18 testimony has been taken, if that's all
19 right, such that some of those questions may
20 be answered by Mr. Harris or by --
21 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: I agree.
22 We can do questioning as a panel and we may
23 have questions about the errata sheet as
24 well. At that time, maybe the group would be
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
24
1 better prepared to answer those together.
2 MS. SHARKEY: Thank you.
3 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
4 Thank you.
5 MS. SHARKEY: One other item I just
6 wanted to mention in regard to Ms. Frede's
7 testimony, she referred to Mr. Sutton --
8 conversations with Mr. Sutton that CICI has
9 had, I conferred with Mr. Matoesian and he's
10 confirmed that Mr. Sutton does plan to be
11 available at the hearing in Springfield.
12 This date did not work out for him
13 unfortunately, but you will have an
14 opportunity to hear from Mr. Sutton at that
15 time.
16 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
17 Thank you.
18 MS. SHARKEY: I'm not saying he's
19 necessarily going to put in testimony, but
20 he'll be available for questions. Thank you.
21 At this time, I'd like to
22 introduce Mr. Lynne Harris. As I mentioned,
23 he's with the Society of the Plastics
24 Industry, Inc., and his prefiled testimony
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
25
1 was included that you've received. We have
2 talked off the record about handling his
3 testimony as a group exhibit because there
4 are some 11 exhibits behind his prefiled
5 testimony.
6 I have a package in which we have
7 the full prefiled testimony, which we can
8 enter as CICI Exhibit 3 if you would like,
9 and then I also have a package with the
10 individual exhibits labeled as Harris
11 Group Exhibits 1 through 11.
12 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Let's do
13 it the latter way that you had because
14 they're marked well and we can do it then.
15 If there are 11 exhibits, we can make them --
16 instead of one group exhibit, we can just
17 make them 3 through 13.
18 MS. SHARKEY: Okay.
19 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: And that
20 way they're easy to refer to in future
21 citations; is that okay?
22 MS. SHARKEY: The only thing that I'm
23 concerned about is that in Mr. Harris'
24 prefiled testimony, they're referred to as
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
26
1 1 through 11, and I'm a little worried that
2 in reading it, he may get -- in going through
3 the testimony, there may be some confusion
4 about that.
5 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: So stick
6 with the group exhibit format?
7 MS. SHARKEY: That had been our
8 thought.
9 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
10 MS. SHARKEY: Is that all right?
11 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Uh-huh.
12 And they're clearly marked as far as -- yeah.
13 MR. RAO: And also, you know, in the
14 prefiled testimony, there are a bunch of
15 footnotes, you know, references and they're
16 also -- they are the exhibits, right, the
17 attachments, are they what you're talking
18 about, like attachment A --
19 MS. SHARKEY: We were not going to be
20 actually referring to those today as
21 exhibits, but you're correct, they are
22 attachments, and they would be included in
23 the prefiled testimony package but were not
24 separately marked as exhibits here unless you
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
27
1 would like to refer to them, in which case we
2 would be happy to do that or we could just
3 simply --
4 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Since we
5 have it part of the record already, let's
6 keep it to the way that you've marked it and
7 if you're willing to, we can enter that into
8 the group exhibit.
9 MS. SHARKEY: Okay. So this would be
10 entitled -- what we would be offering to then
11 is Harris group exhibits, which would consist
12 of prefiled testimony and Harris Exhibits 1
13 through 12 and attachments?
14 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Can we go
15 off the record for one minute?
16 THE REPORTER: Sure.
17 (Whereupon, a discussion
18 was had off the record.)
19 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: And you
20 can come around, Mr. Harris.
21 I have in front of me the prefiled
22 testimony of Mr. Lynne Harris on behalf of
23 the Society of Plastics Industry, Inc., as it
24 was prefiled on June 16, 2005. If there's no
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
28
1 objection, I will enter this into the record
2 as Group Exhibit 3, which includes the
3 attachments and exhibits as they were
4 prefiled.
5 Can you please swear in the
6 witness?
7 THE REPORTER: Sure.
8 (Witness sworn.)
9 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Go ahead.
10 MR. HARRIS: Good morning. My name is
11 Lynne Harris, and I am the vice-president,
12 science and technology, for the Society of
13 the Plastics Industry, Inc., SPI, a
14 not-for-profit 501(c)(6) trade association
15 headquartered in Washington, D.C.,
16 predominantly serving members across the
17 United States.
18 I've been employed by SPI for over
19 14 years. My current work focuses on science
20 and technology, environmental health and
21 safety, and codes and standards for the
22 plastics industry. My educational background
23 includes a bachelor of science and a master's
24 of engineering in chemical engineering.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
29
1 My publications include
2 co-authorship on a paper for the development
3 of emission factors for the extrusion of
4 processing polyethylene resin. I have worked
5 in and around the plastics industry for over
6 25 years.
7 I've been asked by the Chemical
8 Industry Council of Illinois, CICI, to
9 provide an overview of the plastics injection
10 molding industry, a description of the
11 plastic injection molding process, and a
12 discussion of the types and volumes of
13 emissions generated during the plastic
14 injection molding process for various resins.
15 Let me begin by describing SPI and
16 the work it performs on behalf of its
17 members. Founded in 1937, The Society of
18 Plastics Industry, Inc., is the trade
19 association representing one of the largest
20 manufacturing industries in the United
21 States.
22 SPI's members represent the entire
23 plastics industry supply chain, including
24 processors, machinery and equipment
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
30
1 manufacturers and raw materials suppliers.
2 The U.S. plastics industry employs
3 1.4 million workers and provides more than
4 $310 billion in annual shipments.
5 SPI represents the entire plastics
6 industry and has more than 1,000 members.
7 SPI has been involved in the development of
8 state and federal environmental regulations
9 affecting the plastics industry for decades.
10 As I will be discussing, SPI has
11 also coordinated a number of studies of
12 emissions generated by the extrusion
13 processing of thermoplastics. My testimony
14 today is focused on plastic injection
15 molding, PIM, a category of plastic product
16 manufacturing.
17 There are over 7,700 PIM
18 facilities in the United States and
19 approximately 500 operating in Illinois.
20 These facilities range in size from small
21 facilities with a few machines and less than
22 20 employees to larger facilities with dozens
23 of machines employing over 100 employees.
24 The trade publication, Plastics
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
31
1 News, survey the PIM industry annually and
2 publishes an annual listing of over 600 PIM
3 companies in North America. That listing
4 indicates the top PIM companies responding to
5 the survey with annual sales ranging from
6 approximately $100,000 to $1.5 billion with
7 median annual sales on the order of
8 $10 million.
9 The components produced in PIM
10 processes are generally small plastic
11 components used in a multitude of products.
12 For example, PIM products include knobs and
13 handles used in the automotive industry and
14 hole plugs used in household appliances.
15 PIM products tend to be molded to
16 meet specific needs in customized molds and
17 made with resins meeting the temperature,
18 strength, and durability specifications
19 required for a specific use.
20 As a result, PIM machines are
21 generally dedicated to molding specific
22 component parts and cannot be used to produce
23 other parts without physical modification of
24 the equipment.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
32
1 The PIM process essentially
2 involves forcing molten plastic into a mold
3 cavity; this takes place in several steps. A
4 diagram of a standard PIM machine attached to
5 my prefiled testimony depicts the components
6 of the PIM process, Exhibit 1.
7 As can be seen from that diagram,
8 the essential components are a hopper from
9 which palletized resin is fed into the
10 extruder screw, a heated extruder barrel
11 which melts the resin as it is advanced by
12 the extruder screw under pressure, and a die
13 head through which the molten resin is
14 injected into the mold cavity.
15 Note that the fundamental piece of
16 equipment involved in this process is a
17 heated screw extruder. The equipment that is
18 required to extrude resin into molds in the
19 PIM process is the same as that which is
20 required to extrude resin into a continuous
21 strand except that the resin is injected into
22 an enclosed mold at the end of the process
23 rather than simply conforming to the shape of
24 the extrusion die.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
33
1 A PIM machine is essentially a
2 non-continuous extruder. As I will discuss
3 later, this is why the emission factors
4 developed for extrusion processes are
5 appropriate for the PIM process. Plastic
6 injection molding machines, like other types
7 of extruders, vary in size.
8 A small PIM machine may have a
9 throughput of ten pounds per hour, while a
10 large machine may process as much as
11 200 pounds per hour. These numbers are
12 derived based on a typical injection capacity
13 of four to 100 ounces and typical tonnage of
14 50 to 600 tons.
15 Injection capacity can go to
16 around 400 ounces and tonnage can go up to
17 around 10,000 tons. These data are
18 consistent with the product information
19 compiled from several equipment manufacturers
20 as illustrated in Exhibit 2.
21 Very large PIM machines can
22 process over 1,000 pounds per hour. PIM
23 machines of all sizes are used in Illinois
24 and across the United States. However, the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
34
1 most commonly used machines in the PIM
2 industry have an average daily throughput of
3 less than 100 pounds per hour.
4 The five most commonly used
5 plastic resins in the PIM industry, according
6 to the 2005 survey of North American
7 injection molders by Plastics News, are
8 polypropylene, PP; acrylonitrile butadiene
9 styrene, ABS; polycarbonate, PC; high density
10 polyethylene, HDPE; and nylon, polyamide,
11 also called PA.
12 Until 1995, little quantitative
13 information was publicly available regarding
14 emissions from thermoplastic extrusion
15 processes. While it was assumed that any
16 volatile organic, particulate or hazardous
17 air emissions were very low, emission factors
18 simply did not exist.
19 To fill this gap, SPI sponsored a
20 number of studies published between 1995 and
21 2002 to develop emissions factors for a range
22 of plastic resins. The studies were intended
23 to provide emission factors for processors
24 who needed Title V permits under the U.S.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
35
1 Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act
2 Amendments of 1990.
3 The SPI-sponsored studies were
4 conducted at an independent testing
5 laboratory operated by Battelle in Columbus,
6 Ohio. Studies were conducted using a strand
7 extruder with a 1.5-inch single screw and
8 fitted with an eight-strand die for commonly
9 used resins.
10 Resins with basic additives were
11 provided by a number of suppliers and tested
12 as aggregates. The resins tested were PP,
13 polypropylene; PC, polycarbonate; PE,
14 polyethylene; PA, polyamide; and
15 ethylene-vinyl acetate and ethylene-methyl
16 acrylate copolymer or EVA, EMA.
17 The extruder system was chosen as
18 the process likely to overestimate emissions.
19 As a continuous system, it was anticipated to
20 mimic extrusion processes and overestimate
21 closed mold operation, such as injection
22 molding. This assumption was supported by a
23 two-year study that found extrusion processes
24 generated a higher level of emissions than
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
36
1 injection molding.
2 Emissions from the die head of the
3 extruder system were captured and analyzed
4 for volatile organic compounds, VOCs, also
5 known as VOMs here in Illinois; total
6 particulate matter, PM; and a variety of
7 hazardous air pollutants.
8 The SPI sponsored studies of the
9 commonly used resins, PP, PS, PE, and PA are
10 attached to my prefiled testimony as
11 Exhibits 3 through 6. The EVA/EMA study,
12 Exhibit 7, is provided for informational
13 purposes only.
14 A study on ABS conducted at the
15 same laboratory as the SPI studies is also
16 provided for informational purposes as
17 Exhibit 8. That study was not conducted
18 under SPI auspices, and thus I have limited
19 knowledge of the conditions under which it
20 was performed.
21 The above-mentioned studies form
22 the basis for the plastics industry's
23 understanding of emissions from these
24 processes and are recognized by industry and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
37
1 regulatory authorities as defining emission
2 factors for both simple extrusion and the
3 extrusion process utilized in PIM.
4 What these studies demonstrate is
5 that extrusion processing of different resins
6 under various operating conditions produces
7 different types and amounts of emissions.
8 Exhibit 9, attached to my prefiled testimony,
9 is a chart summarizing the emission factors
10 developed in the SPI studies for each of the
11 emissions of interest for the resins studied.
12 The information in this chart was
13 compiled from information contained in each
14 of the SPI studies to make it easier to
15 review this data in this proceeding. As can
16 be seen from this chart, the emissions of
17 interest include VOM, PM, and a variety of
18 HAPs.
19 The type and volume of emissions
20 varies from a high of approximately .04
21 pounds of VOM per ton of resin processed to a
22 low of approximately 0.1 pound per ton of
23 resin processed. HAPs ranged from a high of
24 approximately 0.3 pounds per ton of resin
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
38
1 processed to a low of approximately 0.02
2 pounds per thousand tons of resins processed.
3 Particulate emissions ranged from
4 a high of approximately 0.5 PM per ton of
5 resin processed to a low of approximately
6 0.02 pounds PM per ton of resin processed for
7 the commonly used resins, which are in
8 Exhibit 10.
9 Based on the emission factors
10 developed in the SPI studies and the capacity
11 of PIM machines across the range from small
12 to large PIM machines discussed above, one
13 can obtain an overview of the annual volume
14 of emissions associated with PIM processes.
15 Exhibit 11 to my prefiled
16 testimony is a chart showing the estimated
17 volume of VOM, PM, and HAP emissions in tons
18 per year associated with the various types of
19 resins studied by SPI. As can be seen from
20 this chart, the emissions range from a high
21 of 0.2 tons per year of VOM to a low of 0.002
22 tons per year of VOM.
23 HAP emissions range from 0.1 tons
24 per year to 0.0004 thousandths of a ton per
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
39
1 year. PM emissions range from 0.2 tons per
2 year to 0.0004 tons per year.
3 That concludes my prefiled
4 testimony describing the PIM industry, PIM
5 process, and types and volumes of emissions
6 associated with the processing of various
7 resins.
8 I appreciate the opportunity to
9 testify and I'm available to answer any
10 questions the Board or other participants in
11 this proceeding may have.
12 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Thank
13 you, Mr. Harris.
14 MS. SHARKEY: Madam Hearing Officer, I
15 have one additional exhibit that we thought
16 might be helpful to the Board and I thought I
17 might introduce this and just ask Mr. Harris
18 if he could walk through it for you because
19 we realized in looking at this later that it
20 may not have been 100 percent clear.
21 We would offer -- it's a diagram
22 of a plastic injection molding machine that
23 actually shows you the mold, and what we
24 realized is that in our prior diagram, which
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
40
1 was Exhibit 1 to Mr. Harris' testimony, you
2 couldn't actually see the mold at the end of
3 the die head.
4 THE WITNESS: Basically what happened
5 here is that in this schematic, it was cut
6 off over here (indicating), but this is mold
7 cavity. And on this diagram, you can see --
8 MR. MELAS: A little clearer, yeah.
9 THE WITNESS: So we thought that this
10 would be easier for you to understand how the
11 process is configured.
12 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
13 And now that we've a chance to briefly look
14 at it, does anyone have an objection to
15 entering the plastic injection molding
16 machine sequence of operation diagram into
17 the record as Exhibit 4?
18 (No response.)
19 And seeing none, this will be
20 Exhibit 4 for this hearing record. And if
21 you'd like to explain the exhibit, you can go
22 ahead.
23 THE WITNESS: Well, there are three
24 different sections here.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
41
1 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: It's
2 pretty self-explanatory.
3 THE WITNESS: It's pretty
4 self-explanatory.
5 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
6 Any further exhibits or would you like to
7 proceed?
8 MS. SHARKEY: We have nothing further
9 at this point. And I'd like to proceed with
10 my prefiled testimony, which we would like to
11 enter in the record as CICI Exhibit 5 and
12 that would be the testimony of Patricia F.
13 Sharkey on behalf of the Chemical Industry
14 Council of Illinois.
15 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
16 MS. SHARKEY: Madam Hearing Officer,
17 would you like another copy of that?
18 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: I would
19 because my copy is marked up.
20 MS. SHARKEY: (Indicating.)
21 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: What I
22 have before me is the prefiled testimony of
23 Patricia F. Sharkey, on behalf of the
24 Chemical Industry Council of Illinois. If
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
42
1 there are no objections, we'll enter this
2 into the record as Exhibit 5.
3 MS. SHARKEY: Madam Hearing Officer, I
4 would be happy to read this, but I know the
5 Board has heard a lot of read testimony this
6 morning, and if -- it also involves simply
7 legal research on work that we did looking at
8 the question of what have other states done
9 in terms of exempting plastic injection
10 molders.
11 And I would be happy to summarize
12 this for you and I would like it actually
13 entered into the record, but if you would
14 prefer, I would be happy to summarize what we
15 found.
16 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Sure.
17 Please feel free to summarize it.
18 MS. SHARKEY: Okay. Essentially CICI
19 asked Mayer, Brown, Rowe and Maw to take a
20 look at what some other states have done and
21 what we did was look at -- we didn't try to
22 do 50 states, it's a little difficult to walk
23 through all of those regulations.
24 But what we did find were a number
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
43
1 of states that have exempted plastic
2 injection molding. As I said earlier, we
3 actually found Michigan's to be simple and
4 clear and thought that it covered what we
5 were concerned with.
6 I have attached to my testimony
7 the language from the Michigan exemption,
8 which simply reads -- it's Michigan DEQ
9 Regulation R336.1286(b), which states that a
10 permit to install does not apply to plastic
11 injection, compression, and transfer molding
12 equipment and associated plastic resin
13 handling, storage, and drying equipment.
14 We also looked at another
15 neighboring region five state and -- in Ohio,
16 and the Ohio and regulation is, as you can
17 see, is a bit more complicated. Basically
18 Ohio has said there is a permit -- what they
19 call a permanent exception for plastic
20 injection molding as well as compression
21 molding, by the way, for facilities that are
22 processing a million pounds of resin or less
23 annually.
24 They also provide another
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
44
1 exemption for those facilities that are
2 processing under six million or less and are
3 also using less than 1000 pounds of volatile
4 organic compound as an external mold release,
5 so they have sort of a two-tiered approach to
6 it for the plastic injection molder with some
7 upper limits in terms of what they were
8 looking at.
9 Finally, the Texas administrative
10 code was most interesting in that it was very
11 simple and they simply have an exemption for
12 equipment use for compression molding and
13 injection molding of plastics and they have
14 got that permitted by rule.
15 We noted also that Iowa, another
16 neighboring state, while they haven't adopted
17 an exemption right now, is looking at -- has
18 announced that they are going to be looking
19 at exempting plastic injection molding, and
20 that's in Exhibit 4 to my prefiled testimony.
21 So we don't know the contours of that
22 exception, but we do know that they're
23 looking at it.
24 So Illinois is certainly not alone
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
45
1 in looking at exempting this category of
2 emission sources. And what we wanted to
3 point out, in addition, in my testimony is
4 that nobody of course is looking at exempting
5 any facilities from regulation in Illinois.
6 And certainly plastic injection
7 molding is -- to the extent that emissions
8 are involved, a plastic injection molder is
9 required to meet all of the general
10 requirements, such as process weight rate,
11 such as visible emissions, opacity, general
12 requirements that are out there which, of
13 course, would apply whether one has a permit
14 or not.
15 Also, just to point out that there
16 is no exception from any requirement here,
17 it's an exemption from a procedure, which is
18 permitting, but no exemption from being
19 required to properly control emissions per
20 the Board's regulations and no new emissions
21 that are going to be generated by virtue of
22 this exception.
23 When we're talking about emissions
24 in Mr. Harris' testimony, what we're talking
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
46
1 about are emissions that are either out there
2 our they're not and they're either -- whether
3 they're permitted or not, they are -- it's
4 not as though somebody is not going to do
5 business because they have to get a permit,
6 but it's a question of whether we're going to
7 be burdening this industry with these very
8 small emissions with that same permitting
9 process that we use for sources with larger
10 emissions and whether we're going to be
11 burdening Illinois EPA with that permit
12 processing.
13 And that simply -- we've also then
14 mentioned in my testimony that there are a
15 number of other states that don't need a
16 categorical exemption because they have
17 exempted these very small emission sources
18 across the board where a de minimis cutoff
19 that would have included facilities even
20 though those facilities were not otherwise
21 required to have a permit.
22 And so it wouldn't be surprising
23 not to find a categorical exemption in
24 50 states because they simply wouldn't need
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
47
1 it. And I would be happy to answer any
2 questions regarding our research into the
3 other states' regulations and I -- stepping
4 out of my role as a witness, I would be
5 happy -- and I don't think I was sworn in
6 actually.
7 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: No, you
8 weren't. Thanks for reminding me. We can
9 have you sworn in now.
10 MS. SHARKEY: I would be happy to be
11 sworn in.
12 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
13 (Witness sworn.)
14 MS. SHARKEY: At this point, we would
15 be happy to answer any questions the Board
16 members or the staff may have or anybody else
17 from the public. We would also -- of course,
18 if Mr. Matoesian wants to make a statement --
19 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Would you
20 like to?
21 MR. MATOESIAN: I would just state
22 that as mentioned -- or eluded to earlier,
23 the ABT technical staff had scheduling
24 conflicts and were not able to attend today,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
48
1 however, they will be available at the second
2 hearing to answer any questions the Board may
3 have, and just in general that the Agency
4 does agree that going forward with this is an
5 acceptable exemption to be added to the list
6 of Section 201.146 and that's all.
7 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
8 Thank you. We can proceed with the
9 questioning period now if you have nothing
10 further at this time and also note that if
11 the Agency chooses, it can respond in writing
12 prior to the next hearing or at the next
13 hearing, however you choose.
14 MR. MATOESIAN: Thank you.
15 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
16 Are there any questions now for any of the
17 witnesses?
18 Would you like to go ahead?
19 MR. MELAS: Before I actually start
20 the questioning, may I suggest, Mr. Harris
21 and Ms. Frede, if you would sit where you
22 were to make it easier for our court
23 reporter.
24 MS. FREDE: No problem.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
49
1 MR. MELAS: I'd like to start, if I
2 may, with Mr. Harris. I appreciate very much
3 your very detailed explanation of just
4 exactly how these processes work. Just in
5 general terms, a plastic injection molder
6 factory or plant, does it generally only do
7 that kind of work or is it the large complex
8 that may be manufacturing other plastic
9 products, maybe like this bottle, for example
10 (indicating)? Generally speaking, how does
11 that operate?
12 MR. HARRIS: It could be a lit bit of
13 everything. They could be doing other things
14 besides injection molding, but the ones that
15 we were focusing on here were just the
16 injection molding.
17 MR. MELAS: The injection molding
18 operation of course --
19 MR. HARRIS: Right.
20 MR. MELAS: I'm just wondering if on a
21 particular plant site they would be doing a
22 number of other things?
23 MR. HARRIS: It's possible.
24 MR. MELAS: For example, is this cap
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
50
1 one of the products that would be made
2 through plastic --
3 MR. HARRIS: Yes.
4 Mr. MELAS: -- injection molding?
5 MR. HARRIS: Right, whereas the
6 bottle --
7 MR. MELAS: The bottle would not?
8 MR. HARRIS: Right.
9 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: And for
10 the record, you're referring to your water
11 bottle that you have in front of you and the
12 cap that screws on top.
13 MR. MELAS: A blue cap.
14 You were talking about the
15 emissions in the last couple of paragraphs of
16 your testimony. The particulates that you
17 talk about that come from these typical types
18 of operations, can you describe those very,
19 very tiny particulates that we hear about
20 that sometimes are causing the serious
21 asthma-type problems?
22 MR. HARRIS: I think it would be more
23 appropriate to call them fumes or aerosols.
24 MR. MELAS: Fumes.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
51
1 MR. HARRIS: When we did the
2 measurements, they were measured as total
3 particulates, whatever landed on the filter.
4 MR. MELAS: Okay. So they would be
5 more dispersed as a --
6 MR. HARRIS: Well, they come off as
7 emissions from the operating facility just as
8 the VOM or HAPs would.
9 MR. MELAS: Okay. And the total
10 amount that is -- well, let me ask this of
11 Ms. Frede because there was one thing that
12 you used in your testimony, if I can find the
13 right place -- excuse me for just a moment.
14 Oh, here it is.
15 On Page 3 of your testimony,
16 Ms. Frede, there is a -- just before that
17 last paragraph you make a simple declarative
18 sentence: Because this is only an exemption
19 procedural requirement, it will not affect
20 emissions to the environment.
21 And you also say: It will not
22 result in an increase in total emissions and
23 will not have an impact on air quality.
24 What do you base that it will not
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
52
1 have an impact on air quality? And that
2 maybe goes back to something that you said
3 you were going to have Mr. Sutton address
4 the -- what are the total emissions in the
5 state of Illinois that come from this
6 particular industry?
7 MS. SHARKEY: If I could respond,
8 Mr. Melas --
9 MR. MELAS: Yes, because you brought
10 that up earlier.
11 MS. SHARKEY: Yes, I did.
12 I think the testimony that's
13 involved here is is that the -- what we're
14 talking about is a procedural exemption and
15 it's an exemption from a permitting
16 procedure, but that certainly the emissions
17 involved in plastic injection molding,
18 whether they are at a facility that has other
19 processes as well or at a facility that's
20 solely plastic injection molding, must be
21 accounted for by that facility because, of
22 course, once that facility -- if that
23 facility were ever to have 15 tons of fine
24 particulate, 25 tons of a particulate or
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
53
1 whatever the threshold is a more major
2 source, they need to be considering whether
3 or not they are triggering, depending on what
4 attainment area they're in, whether they are
5 triggering major source status.
6 So they are certainly responsible
7 for their emissions in the same way that they
8 that would be without a permit. What they
9 are -- what you have is I think some -- the
10 only reason we're talking about what are the
11 statewide volumes --
12 MR. MELAS: Right.
13 MS. SHARKEY: -- is, frankly,
14 reflected in the hearing in R05-20 in which
15 there was some concern and questions raised
16 about what are we talking about in terms of
17 having a category or a number of sources out
18 there for which we do not have a permit, how
19 concerned are we, what's the volume of
20 emissions out there.
21 And it's not that the permitting
22 -- I believe Mr. Sutton testified to this in
23 that hearing and I think we just wanted to
24 make the same point here that it's not as
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
54
1 though those emissions are going to be
2 different whether they're permitted or not,
3 it's simply whether or not there is going to
4 be a permit issued.
5 The regulations that would be
6 reflected in those permits will be the same
7 as any other -- will be applicable whether
8 they have a permit or not.
9 MR. MELAS: That hearing you were
10 talking about was 19.
11 MS. SHARKEY: Excuse me, RO5-19.
12 Thank you.
13 MR. MELAS: That's the one thing that
14 concerns me is that, you know, we talked
15 about -- the phrase de minimis has been used,
16 so what I -- as a question that I ask is, you
17 know, how many di minimises do you have to
18 add before you get a de maximis, if I may use
19 that term, because, you know, all these
20 little things add up?
21 And that's the point that
22 Mr. Sutton addressed at that hearing and
23 that's exactly the same kind of thing that I
24 would, you know, like to hear from him about
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
55
1 next week or in two weeks.
2 MS. SHARKEY: If I could add one point
3 here, I want to make it clear that if you
4 consider what a permit for these types of
5 emission sources would look like, it would
6 not have any individualized emission limit in
7 it.
8 It would not have -- because there
9 are no individualized emission limitations
10 that would apply, so there would be no
11 federal NESHAP requirements or federal new
12 source performance requirements, technology
13 requirements, pollution control requirements,
14 because these are de minimis sources that --
15 if any of that is triggered, your categorical
16 exemption, your language at the front of that
17 exemption states they would not be eligible
18 for the exemption.
19 So if there are any other
20 requirements that would actually be reflected
21 in a permit that would require control, they
22 will -- this source will not be eligible for
23 the exception. So you're talking about a
24 category of sources which are -- you can
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
56
1 issue them a permit, you can go through the
2 paperwork of issuing them a permit, but there
3 are not going to be any extra controls on
4 them.
5 It's just a matter of whether or
6 not you're going to have that paperwork in
7 Springfield on them. The emission source is
8 out there one way or the other, whether it's
9 exempt or whether it's permitting. So it
10 isn't as though we are talking about any
11 increased level of emissions, we're simply
12 talking about whether the state needs to have
13 that paperwork on these sources.
14 And I would point out that many
15 states as you -- some of which we've cited
16 have a general permit, a permit by rule so
17 that they don't issue a permit, they simply
18 say abide by the rules. Illinois doesn't
19 call it permit by rule, but, obviously, every
20 emission source in Illinois is subject to the
21 Pollution Control Board's rules no matter
22 whether they have a permit or not.
23 MR. JOHNSON: Can I follow up on that,
24 Nick?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
57
1 MR. MELAS: That's fine.
2 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Please
3 do.
4 MR. JOHNSON: Just before you go to
5 another question, when I read that what it
6 said to me was permit or no permit, the
7 emissions are going to be the same. However,
8 to me, part of the impetus behind your rule
9 changing proposal is to make conducting
10 business -- and in particular the plastic
11 injection molding business -- in the state of
12 Illinois easier for industry and to provide a
13 more business-friendly -- I won't say
14 environment, I'll say atmosphere -- in this
15 state by doing so and hopefully attract more
16 business to this state.
17 So that statement is incorrect if
18 in fact that happens because the more PIM
19 business that comes into the state of
20 Illinois necessarily, the more emissions
21 there are going to be, correct?
22 MS. SHARKEY: I would -- yes, I
23 suppose that's true if we -- you know, if the
24 question is whether or not somebody is
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
58
1 actually going to choose not to locate in
2 Illinois because they have to get a minor
3 source permit, obviously, once they get a
4 major source permit, the interesting thing
5 about this is once they're required to get
6 out and get a permit if they're are one of
7 these sources that has other emissions, they
8 would be covered under this minor source
9 exception.
10 If they are at a major source,
11 they're going to be covered under the
12 exemptions for Title V permits because there
13 would be an insignificant activity because
14 they're well under the insignificant activity
15 levels.
16 MR. JOHNSON: And that's a distinction
17 that I'm having a hell of a time making. And
18 I know that your proposal is asking for an
19 additional subheading under 201.146
20 exemption, but if you could try and
21 straighten me out -- Anand has tried to do it
22 and has been unable to so far -- on the
23 difference between -- what the practical
24 difference is of that exemption as an actual
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
59
1 exemption versus the 201.210 insignificant
2 activities. I can't -- I'm not making that
3 leap for whatever reason.
4 MS. SHARKEY: As a practical matter,
5 if I am a large source, if I'm already a
6 major source and I have emissions less than
7 .44 tons per year, any individual emission
8 unit at that source less than .44 tons is
9 categorized as an insignificant activity.
10 And a Title V permit will be
11 simply listed and will not have any specific
12 control requirements applicable to it if it
13 qualifies. Now, again, it must qualify as
14 not having a federal new source performance
15 standard or any other draft requirement or
16 NESHAP requirement.
17 In that instance, it will simply
18 be listed in your Title V permit under the
19 section of insignificant activity. And in
20 many instances, they don't even list the
21 number, so you could have -- we've seen some
22 simply say plastic injection. They'll simply
23 say extruders or they'll say -- they'll check
24 off a list and indicate that they have
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
60
1 insignificant activity falling into this
2 category or that category.
3 So the same plastic machines that
4 you're concerned about that right now -- at a
5 little facility with 25 machines with, you
6 know, two-tenths of a ton of emissions right
7 now has to go in and get a permit for those,
8 whereas, if there was a major source, there
9 would only be a check-off at that source.
10 Similarly, if, you know, you're
11 talking about under the state regulation, as
12 I understand it, the state -- the proposal in
13 RO5-19 would take those same insignificant
14 levels and now apply them to state
15 permitting.
16 But the problem there from the
17 perspective of plastic injection molders is
18 many of them are not at facilities that
19 otherwise would require a permit.
20 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. I see now. Thank
21 you.
22 MR. RAO: You know, just related to
23 what Mr. Johnson was asking regarding those
24 insignificant activities under 201.210, I
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
61
1 think it also lists a plastic extrusion
2 operation as one of those insignificant
3 activities and which is also a categorical
4 exemption under 146.
5 And I was just curious, I was
6 looking at the rulemaking where the Board
7 added it to 201.146 and the Agency who
8 proposed that addition to the categorical
9 exemption said, you know, it's okay to add
10 plastic extrusion under the categorical
11 exemption because, you know, we know where
12 those facilities are because they are also
13 listed insignificant activities.
14 So my question is, do you think
15 there is a need for the Agency to know about
16 these PIM facilities, you know, just like
17 some of the other states that have some
18 registration requirements or something like
19 that in their exemptions?
20 MS. SHARKEY: In my opinion, I think
21 we have many very small emission sources,
22 you're talking about very small emission
23 sources. As Mr. Harris indicated in his
24 testimony, up until a few years ago people
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
62
1 didn't even realize they didn't have any good
2 emission factors for these. They didn't
3 realize there was any substantial amount of
4 emission at all from these facilities. They
5 were very clean facilities.
6 And what we have is, as science
7 has gone on and we've gotten more concerned
8 about our hazardous conditions, particularly
9 we've gone and we begin to study in more
10 depth, and I would suggest to you that there
11 are many, many emission sources out there at
12 these very tiny emission levels that Illinois
13 right now is not regulating and that what we
14 have is an ambiguous situation for those
15 parties and that Illinois needs to decide
16 whether or not it is going to be focusing on
17 these very tiny emission sources with its
18 permitting resources for taking and looking
19 at the fact that it doesn't have Title V
20 permits that are out and revised and up to
21 date for every source in this state where the
22 big emissions are.
23 And if I could just say one more
24 thing, what we're trying to say is to put it
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
63
1 in perspective, the states and I think that
2 the Illinois environmental regulatory's group
3 testimony in RO5-19 and my testimony in this
4 proceeding is that other states have provided
5 far bigger exemptions and are focusing their
6 permitting resources right now on the big
7 emission sources.
8 So I hope that answers your
9 question, but the thought is that when we
10 are at this point in Illinois focusing on
11 some very small stuff and perhaps loosing
12 site of the bigger of -- where the ball is
13 and the real issue here is that --
14 Mr. Sutton's testimony in that proceeding
15 told you that something like 90 percent of
16 emissions in the state of Illinois are
17 produced by something like 15 percent of the
18 emission sources.
19 And when we start to go down to
20 this minutia level, we have to ask ourselves
21 as policymakers, as the Board is the
22 policymakers, as regulators is this where
23 these resources should be going. The rest of
24 the states in region five had cited no and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
64
1 they have created these kinds of small de
2 minimis exemption levels saying we're not
3 going to use our resources here.
4 We're not letting you out, we're
5 still saying that there's requirements. Now,
6 is registration required? In some states
7 there are registrations, but in many of them
8 there's nothing. In Indiana at ten tons,
9 there is not even -- there's nothing, no
10 emission regulation all the way to ten tons.
11 In Wisconsin, an entire facility
12 -- until you get an entire facility up to
13 25 tons, there's nothing. There's no --
14 MR. RAO: See, one of the reasons that
15 I ask this question is in the other ongoing
16 rulemaking, 05-19, the issue came up and they
17 said the Agency knows about these facilities
18 because they already have a permit, so they
19 know what's going on, so it's okay for those
20 facilities to be accepted.
21 So that was where my question was
22 kind of -- you know, like for PIM, it's not
23 part of the insignificant activity, so I was
24 wondering if that same rationale applies?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
65
1 MS. SHARKEY: I don't think there's
2 100 percent overlap either between the
3 exemptions so that there are some that are in
4 there that are not. I believe Mr. Sutton has
5 said that he is comfortable that this is a
6 small emission source that falls in the same
7 level of emissions as others, that he's been
8 comfortable with not having that
9 information -- not having that paperwork, but
10 you're certainly --
11 MR. RAO: And I think what you
12 mentioned earlier about -- you know, you were
13 talking about de minimis and production
14 limitation that you're still discussing with
15 the Agency that may also help us at a Board
16 to --
17 MS. SHARKEY: Get a handle.
18 MR. RAO: Yeah.
19 MS. SHARKEY: We understand. Thank
20 you. We do plan to provide you with that
21 information. We hear that concern that's
22 being expressed that you would like to know
23 sort of the size of what is out there that
24 we're asking.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
66
1 MR. MELAS: That's our main concern.
2 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: And for a
3 little bit of background, these minor source
4 permit applications are applications that you
5 may have reviewed -- just to give a little
6 background to your testimony -- and that
7 perhaps even plastic molding operation
8 applications you've reviewed as well?
9 MS. SHARKEY: We have reviewed plastic
10 injection molding operations that have been
11 permitted in the context of facilities that
12 have other operations going on. We have also
13 used -- found them in context of major
14 sources where Illinois EPA has issued major
15 source permits where plastic injection
16 molding was involved.
17 And in at least a few of those
18 that we've looked at, the Agency has
19 categorized them as extruders. And, you
20 know, the issue of whether or not these are
21 extruders or whether they are plastic
22 injection molders and whether or not plastic
23 injection molding was intended to be included
24 under that extrusion exemption is one that --
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
67
1 there's a lack of clarity on that issue and
2 so what we're trying to do in this rulemaking
3 is to clarify that issue.
4 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: And
5 what's the current, I guess, state of that
6 controversy that you just referred to between
7 whether a plastic injection molding operation
8 would be considered an extruder?
9 MS. SHARKEY: I think that there's a
10 difference of opinion. Some engineers have
11 looked at it and said the emission source is
12 the extruder. Others have looked at it and
13 said, yeah, but extruder is a term of art in
14 the industry that means only a strand
15 extruder, a continuous strand extruder.
16 And so if the issue is is it a
17 continuous strand extruder, certainly not.
18 Is the main emission source the extruder --
19 the injection barrel as we've seen, I think
20 Mr. Harris' testimony is that that
21 essentially is not a continuous extruder.
22 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
23 And, Mr. Harris, do you have any differing
24 opinion or is that -- would you agree with
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
68
1 that explanation?
2 MR. HARRIS: Based on the design of
3 the equipment, I would agree with what Pat
4 just said.
5 MR. JOHNSON: That was your testimony,
6 that the PIM machine is essentially a
7 non-continuous extruder.
8 MR. HARRIS: A non-continuous
9 extruder.
10 MR. JOHNSON: And to me, the question
11 aught to be is there a difference or what
12 difference, if any, is there in emissions
13 between the two because --
14 MR. HARRIS: In general, they're
15 lower.
16 MR. MELAS: In general they're what?
17 MR. HARRIS: Lower.
18 MR. MELAS: Lower, okay.
19 MR. JOHNSON: And extruders are
20 already exempt under 201.146, right?
21 MS. SHARKEY: Right.
22 MR. JOHNSON: That's to me in a
23 nutshell --
24 MR. RAO: And does the Agency have
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
69
1 anything to say about what they view as --
2 you know, whether they view plastic injection
3 as an extrusion operation or --
4 MR. MATOESIAN: I would have to allow
5 Mr. Sutton to answer that in the second
6 hearing.
7 MR. RAO: Okay. And does U.S. EPA
8 have any guidance on this issue if there's
9 some controversy about the way it's looked
10 at?
11 MS. SHARKEY: We have not found any.
12 MR. RAO: Okay.
13 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Would you
14 like to continue? Do you have any further
15 questions?
16 MR. RAO: Yeah.
17 I had a couple of clarifying
18 questions for Mr. Harris and some of them
19 were kind of addressed by your changes to the
20 proposed language. Basically, I wanted to
21 know what does compression and transfer
22 molding involve, whether it's part of this
23 whole injection molding or it's a separate
24 process? I know it's no longer part of your
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
70
1 proposed language but --
2 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Under the
3 errata sheet that is now Exhibit 1, that
4 compression and transfer language was
5 deleted.
6 MR. RAO: Stricken out.
7 But is that a different process
8 altogether, those two, plastic compression --
9 MR. HARRIS: From what I know, they
10 are different but --
11 MS. SHARKEY: One of the reasons we've
12 struck that is that we've been working with
13 Mr. Harris and we've been focused on plastic
14 injection molding and he told us he's a
15 scientist, he does not comment on processes
16 that he is not very familiar with, and he has
17 not studied those two processes.
18 And generally the SPI, the Society
19 of Plastics Industry, does have separate
20 definitions for compression molding and
21 transfer molding and we would be happy to get
22 you those.
23 MR. RAO: Okay.
24 MS. SHARKEY: Mr. Harris, is it true
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
71
1 that they use a different type of plastic or
2 thermoset plastic that's different from the
3 type of plastic used in the --
4 THE WITNESS: In the resin, yes.
5 MS. SHARKEY: The resin has been
6 essentially different?
7 MR. HARRIS: Uh-huh.
8 MR. RAO: But is the injection molding
9 machine the same or is it just the raw
10 material that's different or is the equipment
11 different too?
12 MR. HARRIS: The equipment is slightly
13 different, but we can get you the information
14 of what the differences are.
15 MR. RAO: Okay. That would be
16 helpful.
17 And you have provided a diagram of
18 the PIM machine that's in Exhibit 1 and
19 Exhibit 4. I had a question about where the
20 VOM emissions occur, is it -- can you show us
21 on the diagram?
22 MR. HARRIS: So the emissions would
23 come -- in the PIM process?
24 MR. RAO: Yeah.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
72
1 MR. HARRIS: When the mold cavity is
2 opened. You know, you have to think of it
3 as -- an extruder would be like the resins
4 flowing through the extruder and coming out
5 with a tubular -- or depending on what film
6 or whatever the die head is designed for,
7 whereas, here you're forming an object,
8 whatever the part may be, a cap or -- and so
9 you're flowing -- the extruder would be
10 coming continuous, it's reached a steady
11 state so it's flowing through.
12 The injection molding would be
13 stopping to fill the cavity of the mold,
14 cooling it down and letting the part --
15 MR. MELAS: So the VOM comes when the
16 mold opens?
17 MR. HARRIS: Well, it's basically when
18 the resin is melted. The pellets are melted
19 into a liquid --
20 MR. MELAS: Right.
21 MR. HARRIS: -- and it's flowing
22 through the extruder. And as they come
23 out (indicating) --
24 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: You're
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
73
1 referring to right now Exhibit 4 -- oh, no,
2 I'm sorry, Exhibit 1 --
3 MR. HARRIS: My Exhibit 1.
4 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: -- of
5 your prefiled testimony, which is Exhibit 3.
6 MR. HARRIS: Correct.
7 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
8 MR. HARRIS: So basically, at the very
9 end of the process is where you would find
10 the emission sources. And in the extrusion
11 process that we tested, when the strand comes
12 out, it's quenched, cooled down, and you
13 would see some very small emissions, but most
14 of them would be right at the die head.
15 MR. MELAS: Okay.
16 MR. RAO: In some of the studies that
17 you have submitted as part of your prefiled
18 testimony, they explain how they captured the
19 emissions to, you know, quantify them, and
20 I'm assuming that was done just for the
21 purpose of the studies and it's not practical
22 to do it on a --
23 MR. HARRIS: It would be very
24 expensive.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
74
1 MR. RAO: For such low emission
2 levels?
3 MR. HARRIS: Right.
4 MR. RAO: Okay.
5 MR. HARRIS: We tried in these studies
6 to have 100 percent capture of all the
7 emissions that would come out and the system
8 equipment was designed that way.
9 MR. RAO: And with regards to emission
10 of particulate matter, is that, you know,
11 fugitive emissions that are involved in a
12 part of your grinding operation and feeding
13 the hoppers and stuff like that or is it just
14 part of what you --
15 MR. HARRIS: You mean in the studies
16 that we did?
17 MR. RAO: No, in general.
18 MR. HARRIS: Oh, in general. Well,
19 different steps are going to require
20 different types of emissions. But what we
21 did in this study was only looked at the
22 extrusion point, the melting of the resin in
23 the system.
24 We assumed that -- when you look
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
75
1 at this, the resin comes into the hopper
2 here, that's where we started from, but the
3 handling of it we're going to address that
4 later (indicating).
5 MR. RAO: At the second hearing?
6 MS. SHARKEY: We're talking about the
7 handling of resins, loading, unloading?
8 MR. RAO: Yeah.
9 MS. SHARKEY: Yes, we will be
10 providing you with some information on that.
11 MR. RAO: Okay. I have one more
12 question about, you know, the associated
13 activities with PIM facilities. Do these
14 facilities also do any finishing activities
15 of the products that they, you know,
16 manufacture, painting, coatings for their
17 products at this same facility?
18 MR. HARRIS: Some of them may do that.
19 MR. RAO: And if they do that, then
20 depending on what they do, you know, like if
21 it's coating or painting, you know, they are
22 subject to applicable regulations?
23 MR. HARRIS: Yes.
24 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Or would
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
76
1 part of the finishing include what is the new
2 language added to the proposed section HHH,
3 associated mold release agents, is that
4 something that's done as a finishing?
5 MR. HARRIS: No. That's actually for
6 cleaning the mold or trying to keep little
7 pieces that are attached to it from causing
8 any defects in the product.
9 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
10 MR. RAO: And we will be hearing more
11 about those?
12 MS. SHARKEY: Yes, you definitely will
13 be getting some more information on the mold
14 release agents and on these other activities
15 that we've talked about. But I think we can
16 briefly say they're at very low temperatures,
17 and you're going to be hearing testimony
18 about the temperatures. Mr. Harris has
19 already talked in his testimony and in the
20 studies underneath about the relationship
21 between temperatures and the production of
22 VOM.
23 We plan to give you some more
24 information on that and in addition the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
77
1 issue -- perhaps the other kind of question
2 that comes up with handling is just this
3 sloughing off of tiny particles and the
4 handling of these resin beads, and you're
5 going to be getting some more information as
6 best as we can find it.
7 We have to tell you we are looking
8 for emission factors or something to help us
9 with this because they really aren't out
10 there and people are not focusing on these
11 activities. We just want to make sure --
12 we're all quite sure that the emissions we're
13 going to find are very low because of their
14 clean operations but that what we are looking
15 for is a way to give you an understanding of
16 something concrete and objective to
17 understand that.
18 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
19 MR. RAO: In your prefiled testimony,
20 Mr. Harris, you noted that there are like
21 approximately 500 PIM facilities in
22 Illinois --
23 MR. HARRIS: Yes.
24 MR. RAO: -- and I know you're going
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
78
1 to provide more information about the maybe
2 approximate total emissions of these
3 facilities. Could you also give us some idea
4 as to where these facilities are located in
5 terms of, you know, whether most of them are
6 in the non-attainment area or if they're
7 evenly spread around the state because that
8 would be helpful to know where these
9 facilities are?
10 MS. SHARKEY: If I could just say
11 we've been looking at this question. We have
12 asked -- the CICI has itself been looking at
13 the question. We can provide anecdotal
14 information for those entities that we know
15 of through CICI.
16 But as you've heard in Ms. Frede's
17 testimony, there are over 500 plastic
18 injection molding facilities that are -- at
19 least Plastics News tell us are located in
20 Illinois. And so we have really had to -- as
21 we've been looking at this question had to
22 operate on some assumptions that they are
23 spread all over the state because we don't
24 know otherwise.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
79
1 And I would like to promise you
2 the vehicle to tell you whether they're -- I
3 know you're concerned whether they're in
4 attainment areas or not in attainment areas
5 and I can't promise you at this point that we
6 are going to be able to give you that
7 information, but we will certainly --
8 MR. RAO: Yeah, whatever you can come
9 up with for us.
10 MR. MELAS: What is the membership of
11 CICI again?
12 MS. FREDE: One hundred and
13 eighty-eight members.
14 MR. MELAS: One hundred and
15 eighty-eight members, okay.
16 MR. RAO: Mr. Harris, in Pages 3 and 4
17 of your prefiled testimony, you note that
18 depending on the size of the PIM machines,
19 they may have throughputs ranging from ten
20 pounds per hour to over 1,000 pounds per
21 hour. Could you give us an idea of the size
22 of these machines and size of a typical PIM
23 facility?
24 MR. HARRIS: The physical size in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
80
1 geometry?
2 MR. RAO: Yeah, how big these machines
3 are. You know, I have no idea whether
4 they're --
5 MR. HARRIS: Well, it could be
6 anything from, you know, maybe something like
7 ten or 20 feet long to 1,000 tons with, I
8 don't know, something on the order of 30,
9 40 feet. You know, they're large machines.
10 MR. RAO: And is it common for these
11 facilities to have like multiple machines?
12 MR. HARRIS: Yes, generally.
13 MR. RAO: And other than air pollution
14 concerns, do PIM facilities -- do you know if
15 they have any other environmental concerns
16 such as noise or water pollution?
17 MR. HARRIS: Well, each facility would
18 have a person at that site who would have
19 responsibilities for OSHA and other
20 regulatory agencies as well, so they would --
21 if they had a problem, they would have to
22 file with the Agency, with the state or the
23 federal.
24 MR. RAO: But are you aware of whether
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
81
1 these facilities need any other environmental
2 permits other than the --
3 MR. HARRIS: Environmental permits,
4 no.
5 MS. SHARKEY: Is your answer that
6 you're not aware or that they do not?
7 MR. HARRIS: I'm not aware.
8 MR. RAO: Okay.
9 MS. SHARKEY: You know, if you've got,
10 for example, they needed a storm water permit
11 for activities on parking lots and
12 construction and such, like any other
13 facilities they would need it. I think that
14 the answer is that there's no water involved
15 in this process.
16 It would require a water -- an
17 NPDES or a sewer hookup permit that is
18 specifically associated with plastic
19 injection molding. Now, again, if the
20 facility has other operations, they may have
21 those types of permits.
22 MR. RAO: Is noise an issue with these
23 machines?
24 MR. MELAS: Are they noisy?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
82
1 MR. HARRIS: Well, you know, they do
2 make some noise levels, but from what I've
3 seen of them they've been within the decibel
4 levels of --
5 MR. MELAS: It's not like a forging
6 machine operation or anything like that?
7 MR. HARRIS: No.
8 MS. SHARKEY: If I might ask a
9 question to clarify --
10 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Please
11 do.
12 MS. SHARKEY: Mr. Harris, have you
13 ever stood outside a facility that had
14 plastic injection molding operations in the
15 interior?
16 MR. HARRIS: Yes.
17 MS. SHARKEY: Have you been able to
18 hear anything in terms of the operation of
19 the plastic injection molding machine from
20 the outside of the building?
21 MR. HARRIS: I'm trying to visualize.
22 You can hear some sound, but I don't think
23 it's -- it's not what I would call a concern
24 to the employee.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
83
1 MS. SHARKEY: Apart from an employee
2 concern, are you --
3 MR. HARRIS: Oh, are you talking about
4 outside?
5 MS. SHARKEY: Concerning noise at the
6 property's line is the Pollution Control
7 Board's concern on regulatory noise. If
8 you're standing at the property line in this
9 type of facility, would you be able to hear
10 anything --
11 MR. HARRIS: No, most likely not.
12 MR. MELAS: Most likely not.
13 MR. RAO: Okay. Ms. Sharkey had
14 mentioned that, you know, you may present
15 some information about, you know, de minimis
16 levels and that sort. If you do, can you
17 also try to, you know, address this issue.
18 I had this question about if a
19 facility has large multiple machines like,
20 you know, in the range of a thousand pounds
21 per hour or so, looking at the calculations
22 that Mr. Harris has submitted, those, you
23 know, in the low levels can add up and be I
24 would say significant levels of emissions
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
84
1 still below the threshold of regulations, but
2 maybe three or four tons per year if you had
3 like three or four machines, these big
4 machines, so can you, you know, discuss that
5 as part of your --
6 MS. SHARKEY: Additional testimony?
7 MR. RAO: Additional testimony.
8 MS. SHARKEY: Yes. What it's sounding
9 to us like is that you would like to know
10 something about a typical facility in terms
11 of how many machines one would expect to
12 have.
13 MR. RAO: Yes.
14 MS. SHARKEY: And then you would like
15 to know statewide what volume of emissions
16 we'll be talking about.
17 MR. RAO: Yes, that will be helpful.
18 MR. MELAS: That would be important.
19 MS. SHARKEY: We will provide that
20 information.
21 MR. RAO: Because one of the things in
22 the prefiled information was there was a
23 listing of 600, you know, big companies that
24 were listed by -- was it Plastics News?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
85
1 MR. HARRIS: Uh-huh.
2 MR. RAO: I was just going over it and
3 one other facility was in Glenview, Illinois,
4 which is ranked No. 12, and it just gave, you
5 know, the ranking based on the amount of
6 money that they, you know, make or generate,
7 so I was curious as to how big these
8 facilities are and what their production
9 capability is.
10 MR. HARRIS: Uh-huh.
11 MR. RAO: And I had one final question
12 for Mr. Harris. This is about the emission
13 factor summary chart that you have in
14 Exhibit 9.
15 MR. HARRIS: Yes.
16 MR. RAO: In the summary chart, you
17 have, you know, various types of resins that
18 were tested and there was one under
19 polypropylene for which I think it's
20 homopolymers and the temperature was over
21 600 degrees Fahrenheit?
22 MR. HARRIS: Yes.
23 MR. RAO: It was indicated as an
24 outlayer in one of the footnotes and I was
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
86
1 just curious to know whether -- is that like
2 an outlayer in the statistical sense or it's
3 not generally -- that level of temperature is
4 not typically used in your injection molding
5 operations?
6 MR. HARRIS: Most the latter. As you
7 can see from the table here, as you increase
8 temperature, you get greater emissions
9 regardless of what the resin is. Higher
10 temperatures produce higher emissions and
11 generally polypropylene is not processed at
12 those temperatures, but we took it up that
13 high just to see what the impact would be.
14 MR. RAO: Okay. Thank you. We look
15 forward to your additional testimony.
16 Alisa, do you have any?
17 MS. LIU: (Indicating.)
18 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Do
19 any of the witnesses or, Ms. Sharkey, do you
20 have anything further at this time?
21 MS. SHARKEY: No, we don't. We're
22 happy to provide the Board with additional
23 information. We appreciate the questions.
24 They've been very helpful for us to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
87
1 understand what your concerns are, and we
2 will try to make sure that we get that to
3 you.
4 The one thing we would request,
5 we've got a holiday intervening here and I
6 know our second round of prefiled testimony
7 will be due on the 8th and we were wondering
8 if we can get that weekend to work on it and
9 provide it to you on the 11th, if that
10 wouldn't present a problem.
11 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Let's go
12 off the record a moment to discuss. We have
13 a couple of things to discuss.
14 (Whereupon, a discussion
15 was had off the record.)
16 We are back on the record. Thank you
17 for being here, everyone. I --
18 MS. HANSON: Were you going to allow
19 members of the public to speak?
20 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Oh,
21 absolutely, please ask questions. I thought
22 I had made it clear, but if I haven't, I
23 apologize.
24 MS. HANSON: You said witnesses and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
88
1 left me out.
2 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
3 MS. HANSON: I just have a couple of
4 really quick things. First of all, Pat, was
5 your testimony submitted into the record and
6 marked?
7 MS. SHARKEY: Yes.
8 MS. HANSON: So that's CICI 5?
9 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Yes. The
10 prefiled testimony of Patricia Sharkey is
11 marked as Exhibit 5 and it's also -- it was
12 prefiled on June 16th. It's been made part
13 of the record twice, and then her testimony
14 will be on record as far as the hearing
15 transcript today is concerned, and that will
16 be available online as soon as we receive
17 that transcript.
18 MS. HANSON: Okay.
19 MS. SHARKEY: Did I give you a copy?
20 MS. HANSON: Yes.
21 I assume that you have adopted and
22 ratified your previous unsworn testimony now
23 that you've been sworn?
24 MS. SHARKEY: Thank you. Yes.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
89
1 MS. HANSON: In response to your
2 questioning of what was the status of the
3 controversy regarding whether injection
4 molding is considered part of extrusion,
5 certainly is still very much a matter of
6 controversy for my client.
7 And part of the reason I'm here
8 today is we wanted to make sure that this
9 Board didn't inadvertently address that
10 controversy in this proceeding unless, of
11 course, the Board decides to order briefing
12 on it, in which case we'll have an
13 opportunity to deal with it, so --
14 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Okay.
15 Thank you for your comment. Anything
16 further, any questions for the witnesses?
17 MS. HANSON: No.
18 HEARING OFFICER ANTONIOLLI: Thank
19 you. We have one more member of the public
20 here that we would note, Mr. Ken Brown.
21 Thank you.
22 Now, the Board has scheduled a
23 second hearing in this matter for July 15,
24 2005 in Springfield. We had set a prefiling
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
90
1 deadline of July 8th and we're going to
2 change that prefiling deadline today on the
3 record until Monday, July 11th, so any person
4 wishing to prefile testimony should do so by
5 that date.
6 The proponent, CICI, has offered
7 to expedite the transcript in order to
8 expedite the hearing process. We expect to
9 have the transcript of today's hearing by
10 Tuesday, July 5th. Soon after we receive it,
11 the Board will post the transcript on our web
12 site, which is www.ipcb.state.il.us.
13 There, the transcript as well as
14 the Agency's -- as the CICI's proposal and
15 all of the Board orders throughout this
16 proceeding will be viewable and downloadable
17 at no charge. Alternatively, you can order a
18 copy of the transcript from the clerk of the
19 Board at 75 cents per page.
20 Anyone can file a public comment
21 in this proceeding with the clerk of the
22 Board, but please note that when filing a
23 public comment, you must serve all of the
24 people on the service list with a copy of the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
91
1 public comment.
2 There's nothing further. I would
3 like to thank everyone for being here today,
4 for your testimony and comments and
5 questions, and the hearing is adjourned and
6 we will see you all again -- or most of
7 you -- again on July 15th, 2005.
8 MS. SHARKEY: Thank you very much.
9 (Whereupon, at 12:42, an
10 adjournment was taken to
11 July 15, 2005.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
92
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
2 COUNTY OF KANE )
3
4
5 I, MARIA E. SHOCKEY, CSR, do
6 hereby state that I am a court reporter doing
7 business in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, and
8 State of Illinois; that I reported by means of
9 machine shorthand the proceedings held in the
10 foregoing cause, and that the foregoing is a true
11 and correct transcript of my shorthand notes so
12 taken as aforesaid.
13
14
15 _____________________
Maria E. Shockey, CSR
16 Notary Public,
Kane County, Illinois
17
18 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
before me this ___ day
19 of ________, A.D., 2005.
20
_________________________
21 Notary Public
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292