BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JOSEPH BOGACZ,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
) No. PCB-96-47
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
The following is a transcript of a hearing held
in the above-entitled matter taken stenographically by
MICHELLE M. DOSE, C.S.R., a Notary Public within and for
the County of Cook and State of Illinois, before JUNE C.
EDVENSON, ESQ., Hearing Officer, at the Lake Zurich
Village Hall, 70 East Main Street, Lake Zurich, Illinois,
commencing at 10:00 a.m. on the 22nd day of November,
1996.
2
1 HEARING TAKEN BEFORE:
2
3
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, by
MS. JUNE C. EDVENSON, ESQ., Hearing Officer
4
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
5
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-6930
6
7
8 APPEARANCES:
9
MR. JOSEPH BOGACZ, Petitioner
30432 North Highway 12
10
Round Lake, Illinois 60073
(815) 385-3264
11
Appearing Pro Se;
12
13
HOPKINS & SUTTER, by
14
MR. CHRISTOPHER W. ZIBART
MR. E. GLENN RIPPIE
15
Three First National Plaza
Chicago, Illinois 60602
16
(312) 558-4214
17
Appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
3
1
I N D E X
2
3 WITNESS
BRIAN CRAMER
4
Page
Direct Examination by Mr. Zibart
8
5 Cross-Examination by Mr. Bogacz
10
6 WITNESS
JAROSLAV J. VOSTAL, M.D., Ph.D.
7
Page
Direct Examination by Mr. Zibart
22
8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Bogacz
48
Redirect Examination by Mr. Zibart
69
9 Recross-Examination by Mr. Bogacz
70
10 WITNESS
MARK LORENZ
11
Page
Direct Examination by Mr. Rippie
72
12 Cross-Examination by Mr. Bogacz
87
13
COMPLAINANT'S CASE-IN-REBUTTAL
14
Page
Pro Se Case-in-Rebuttal by Mr. Bogacz
97
15
16
17
E X H I B I T S
18
(Respondent's Exhibits marked for identification.)
19
Page
Respondent's Exhibit No. 16
24
20 Respondent's Exhibit No. 17
75
21
(Respondent's Exhibits admitted into evidence.)
22
Page
Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 13-16
71
23 Respondent's Exhibit No. 17
95
24
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
4
1
THE HEARING OFFICER: Good morning and
2
welcome. We are reconvened for the
3
continuation of the hearing of PCB-96-47,
4
Joseph Bogacz versus Commonwealth Edison
5
Company, and we hope to conclude this
6
morning.
7
We have two further witnesses by
8
Respondent, and then I will give the
9
Complainant an opportunity to present case in
10
rebuttal.
11
Following that, we will discuss on the
12
record the scheduling needs for the case prior
13
to closure.
14
All right. We do have some persons in
15
attendance, and I would like to distribute a
16
pad of paper and ask the individuals that are
17
in attendance to sign in for the day.
18
And I thought I would share with the
19
persons present a little bit about the
20
procedural history of the case.
21
The Board did deny a motion to dismiss
22
the case in November 1995.
23
Is that correct?
24
MR. ZIBART: That's correct.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
5
1
THE HEARING OFFICER: And following that,
2
the parties were in discovery activities for a
3
period of months and then agreed to this
4
hearing date.
5
All right. Do we have any preliminary
6
motions or stipulations?
7
MR. BOGACZ: I have an objection that I'd
8
like to make at this time regarding a previous
9
witness evidence.
10
THE HEARING OFFICER: And what is your
11
objection, Mr. Bogacz?
12
MR. BOGACZ: Mr. Gary V. Johnson,
13
Dr. Gary V. Johnson, testified regarding
14
certain documentary evidence, certain
15
calculations. He admitted that he did not
16
make the calculations himself, and I feel that
17
his testimony regarding that was hearsay.
18
The person that apparently did the
19
calculations was a Brian Cramer, an employee
20
of the Commonwealth Edison Company, and he was
21
not here for me to examine him.
22
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank you.
23
Then your objection will be noted for the
24
record.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
6
1
MR. BOGACZ: Okay. I'd like to -- well,
2
add to that, but the evidence or the testimony
3
that he presented regarding those calculations
4
be not allowed.
5
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. That is
6
a motion to strike testimony.
7
Do I have a response to the motion?
8
MR. ZIBART: Yes, Madam Hearing Officer.
9
I think the record would reflect that on
10
cross-examination, Dr. Johnson explained how
11
he, in fact, supervised and was actively
12
involved in the calculations. I think he --
13
As I recall it, he described how Mr. Cramer
14
assisted him and actually did the printing out
15
of the spreadsheets and so forth. So we would
16
oppose the motion on that basis.
17
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,
18
Counsel.
19
MR. ZIBART: Madam Hearing Officer, just
20
in the interest of full disclosure and
21
avoiding any future problems in the case, I
22
would mention that Mr. Cramer is present in
23
the hearing room today. And if it would give
24
anybody a sense of comfort to hear from him, I
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
7
1
could certainly call him very briefly as a
2
witness.
3
He was listed on our witness list, so I
4
don't think there would be any procedural
5
irregularity to that.
6
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,
7
Counsel.
8
All right. The motion to strike
9
testimony is denied.
10
The Board will determine the reliability
11
of the testimony given in their deliberations
12
on this case. Whether Respondent's counsel
13
wishes to call Mr. Cramer as a witness is up
14
to Respondent's counsel.
15
Are there any further preliminary motions
16
or stipulations?
17
All right then. At this time, Respondent
18
may call their next witness.
19
MR. ZIBART: At this time, Respondent
20
would call Brian Cramer as a witness.
21
Is that satisfactory?
22
THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes.
23
Hi, Mr. Cramer. Would you please be
24
sworn?
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
8
1
(Witness sworn.)
2
BRIAN CRAMER,
3 called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn,
4 was examined upon oral interrogatories and testified as
5 follows:
6
DIRECT EXAMINATION
7 BY MR. ZIBART:
8
Q. What is your name, sir?
9
A. Brian, B-r-i-a-n, Cramer, C-r-a-m-e-r.
10
Q. And could you -- And are you employed, sir?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. In what position?
13
A. I'm employed with Commonwealth Edison. My
14 title is technical expert for induction coordination and
15 electrical effects.
16
Q. And what are your duties in that position?
17
A. I do various studies of induction,
18 electromagnetic/electrostatic induction, and various
19 electrical effects, electric fields, magnetic fields,
20 corona, ozone, other related things.
21
Q. Could you briefly describe your educational
22 background?
23
A. I have a bachelor of science in electrical
24 engineering from Lehigh University.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
9
1
Q. Have you done any postgraduate training in
2 electrical engineering or electromagnetics?
3
A. Yes. Many courses, both graduate level
4 college courses, short courses, and specialty training.
5
Q. Do you hold any professional qualifications?
6
A. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the
7 State of Illinois, electrical engineering.
8
Q. And are you a member of any organizations of
9 electrical engineers?
10
A. I'm a senior member of the IEEE.
11
Q. Mr. Cramer, I'm going to show you what's
12 already been received into evidence as Respondent's
13 Exhibit 14. Could you take a look at that document,
14 sir?
15
Do you recognize that?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. And could you tell us what it is?
18
A. This is the document that we provided as
19 output of the work that I did together with Dr. Johnson.
20
Q. Were you involved in doing the TL work station
21 and AC/DC line module calculations?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. And what was your role in that?
24
A. I ran the -- these various calculations,
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
10
1 copied them to Dr. Johnson, he reviewed them, and in some
2 cases we ran them to verify all aspects of input and
3 function.
4
Q. Is it fair to say that Dr. Johnson sent you
5 some revisions on the calculations?
6
A. Yes.
7
Q. And did you make those revisions?
8
A. Yes.
9
Q. Would you describe yourself as familiar with
10 the TL work station software and the AC/DC line module?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. Could you give me an estimate of how many
13 AC/DC line runs you've done?
14
A. Several hundred.
15
MR. ZIBART: I have no further questions
16
for Mr. Cramer on direct examination.
17
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right.
18
Mr. Bogacz, do you have any
19
cross-examination for Mr. Cramer?
20
CROSS-EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. BOGACZ:
22
Q. Mr. Cramer, did you consider or is there a
23 component factor within the AC/DC line program that
24 includes humidity in your -- in the calculations?
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
11
1
A. There is a weather model. You select one of
2 the available weather models which are basically
3 regional. There is not the option to individually adjust,
4 say, humidity separate from other variables.
5
Q. So you -- would you agree that you did not
6 make any, as quoted in the document, fair weather
7 calculations of any kind that included the various levels
8 of relative humidity?
9
A. No, I wouldn't agree to that.
10
The model in determining corona provides -- it
11 does the result -- it does the calculation, I should say,
12 for various conditions. One of them is a fair weather
13 condition. Another is referred to as average rain;
14 another as maximum rain. You could see that on the first
15 page of Exhibit 14 in the bottom third of the page. You
16 can see the various outputs for the various conditions.
17
Q. What is the kilowatt factor used for fair
18 weather in your calculations?
19
A. I'm not sure what you mean.
20
Q. The factor that's used to determine the output
21 of ozone.
22
A. There are many. I'm not sure what you're
23 referring to.
24
Q. Well, the one that's listed on that document
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
12
1 towards the end of the pages there where you list fair
2 weather calculations for various voltages.
3
A. I'm still not sure which factor you're
4 referring to. Can you refer to a page?
5
Q. I keep losing these documents.
6
MR. BOGACZ: Is it all right if I go over
7
there and point it out to him?
8
THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. You'll have
9
to be more specific with your question.
10
MR. BOGACZ: Huh?
11
THE HEARING OFFICER: You will have to be
12
more specific with your question.
13
MR. BOGACZ: Right.
14
MR. ZIBART: Mr. Bogacz, I have one more
15
copy of this.
16
MR. BOGACZ: Oh, you have it. Thanks.
17
MR. ZIBART: We'll have to ask for it
18
back.
19
MR. BOGACZ: Oh, sure. Thanks.
20 BY MR. BOGACZ:
21
Q. On -- well, for -- on page 2 --
22
A. The second page -- the second sheet or the
23 page numbered page 2?
24
Q. It says page 2 with your name on it in the
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
13
1 back, the total ozone at the top. It says, total ozone,
2 fair weather. It's a 138 kV double circuit.
3
A. Yes.
4
Q. Right below that, it says fair weather corona
5 losses, zero kilowatt per mile.
6
THE HEARING OFFICER: Can you state your
7
question?
8 BY MR. BOGACZ:
9
Q. The -- Is that the same figure that's stated
10 in document number -- the EP -- the documents for the
11 extraordinary losses and other sources of ozone?
12
I'm trying to get the documents straightened
13 out here, and, unfortunately, I have to ...
14
The identification and characterization of
15 missing or unaccounted for area source categories, are you
16 familiar with that document that was submitted?
17
A. Yes.
18
MR. ZIBART: For the record, Madam
19
Hearing Officer, I believe that's Respondent's
20
Exhibit 6.
21
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
22 BY MR. BOGACZ:
23
Q. On page 2 -- 227 of that document, it states
24 fair weather corona loss at 3 kilowatts per mile.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
14
1
A. Which page?
2
Q. 227.
3
THE HEARING OFFICER: Could you restate
4
your question?
5 BY MR. BOGACZ:
6
Q. Can you explain the difference in values that
7 were -- that are stated in these two different documents?
8
A. For corona loss?
9
Q. Right.
10
A. As I recall, this -- yeah, this study,
11 identification and characterization of missing or
12 unaccounted for, et cetera, is looking at 765,000 volt
13 transmission lines. They apparently have modeled a
14 specific configuration that they feel is representative
15 and come up with a fair weather corona loss level of
16 3 kilowatts per mile.
17
The sample that you referred to in Exhibit 14
18 is for a 138,000 volt double circuit transmission line.
19
Q. Could you look on page 1 of the calculations
20 with your name on it down at the bottom?
21
A. Again, total ozone for fair weather?
22
Q. Yes. It says 765 kV?
23
A. Uh-huh.
24
Q. And the fair weather corona loss is stated as
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
15
1 zero kilowatts per mile?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. What -- why -- why is there a difference? You
4 just stated that the other document was calculated at 765
5 and -- as opposed to 138, but your calculations still
6 reflect the same corona loss.
7
Is that a correct figure for that 765 kV?
8
A. The zero kilowatt per mile in our -- in our
9 calculations?
10
Q. Right.
11
A. Yes, that is.
12
Q. Even though it's stated as 3 kilowatt per mile
13 in the EPA document on page 227?
14
A. We've suddenly -- We've changed subjects
15 here. These are, in fact, the same voltage, but that does
16 not mean that other aspects of these lines are the same.
17 A minute ago we were looking at a 138 line, which is
18 radically different, of course.
19
You can still have -- There are many factors,
20 I should say, that affect corona loss. We use a different
21 bundle conductor spacing. We may well be using different
22 conductors. I don't know the configuration of what the
23 EPA model -- they don't give that detail in here.
24
Our number of a fair weather corona loss is as
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
16
1 designed zero kilowatts per mile for our lines, and that's
2 correct.
3
Q. So you'd say that the calculation that you
4 made is not really correct per the EPA determination?
5
A. No, I wouldn't say that at all. The EPA was
6 not looking at our lines. Our lines I don't believe were
7 built at the time that this was done.
8
Q. Did you use the average ozone production to
9 corona loss ratio of 1.92 grams per kilowatt an hour?
10
A. Yes, uh-huh.
11
Q. Why did you -- why do you consider that a --
12 an appropriate figure if you did not use the 3 kilowatt an
13 hour per mile figure for your calculations?
14
A. Those two things are unrelated. One is the
15 corona loss for the line, and then the other is the
16 conversion factor that you use to get from corona loss to
17 quantity of ozone. You can have a line that has higher
18 corona loss and a line that has lower corona loss. You
19 still use the same conversion factor.
20
Q. Where did you obtain zero kilowatt per mile?
21 How did you make that -- or where did you obtain that
22 figure?
23
A. For the 765 kV line now?
24
Q. Yes.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
17
1
A. If you go back to the --
2
Q. Or any of them, actually. They are all zero
3 for 765, 138.
4
A. For fair weather, they are all zero.
5
If you look at the first sheet of Exhibit
6 14 --
7
Q. First sheet?
8
A. Yes.
9
Q. Okay.
10
A. This is the output per AC/DC line for the
11 765 kV transmission line. It shows all the details of the
12 model that we used, conductor type, location, voltages.
13
And at the bottom, you can see the corona loss
14 results for the various weather models that the program
15 used for our region. And you can see the average fair and
16 maximum fair is zero. That's where that number came from.
17
Q. Does this page state anything about fair
18 weather calculations?
19
A. It says that the corona loss in fair weather
20 is zero for this type of line.
21
Q. But there's no evidence of describing how you
22 came about obtaining zero, is there?
23
A. All the inputs are shown on this page. Beyond
24 that, beyond evidence of the accuracy of this computer
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
18
1 model, that's not shown on this page.
2
THE HEARING OFFICER: Excuse me.
3
I think what Mr. Bogacz is attempting to
4
get at is whether the zero for fair weather is
5
an assumption or a calculation you arrived at
6
through scientific measurement.
7
Can you tell us which it is?
8
THE WITNESS: It is a calculation.
9
As was described by Dr. Johnson
10
yesterday, this computer modeling system was
11
based on a great deal of research and
12
measurement, and it is accepted in the
13
industry as an accurate way of calculating
14
corona loss for a line design.
15
THE HEARING OFFICER: And it itself was
16
based on calculations of the amount of fair
17
weather?
18
THE WITNESS: Calculations and
19
measurements that went into validating that
20
software package.
21
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
22 BY MR. BOGACZ:
23
Q. Was this document -- or are these calculations
24 ever submitted to the U.S. EPA or IEPA?
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
19
1
MR. ZIBART: I'll object as beyond the
2
scope of direct.
3
THE HEARING OFFICER: Sustained.
4 BY MR. BOGACZ:
5
Q. Are these -- So in your estimation, these
6 calculations that you made generally indicate a major
7 deterioration of ozone under foul weather or very rainy
8 conditions?
9
MR. ZIBART: I'll object to that also as
10
beyond the scope of direct.
11
Madam Hearing Officer, I put a witness on
12
yesterday who testified about this model and
13
who testified about the results of the model,
14
and he was subject to cross-examination.
15
I have put Mr. Cramer on to verify as to
16
how the actual calculations were made, but I
17
did not ask him any questions nor do I think
18
it's proper about interpreting the results
19
that the model came up with.
20
THE HEARING OFFICER: What is your
21
response to the objection?
22
MR. BOGACZ: Brian Cramer's name is on
23
the report, and he is the one that apparently
24
made the calculations. So, therefore, he
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
20
1
should be able to answer any specific detailed
2
information that he has or used to obtain
3
these calculations; otherwise, they are
4
completely conclusion, and they'd be
5
arbitrary.
6
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
7
The objection was made as to a specific
8
question asked of Mr. Cramer, and the
9
objection is sustained.
10 BY MR. BOGACZ:
11
Q. What really is the purpose of this document,
12 Mr. Cramer, in your estimation? I mean, why did you make
13 all these calculations?
14
A. Because there were questions -- I believe it's
15 called an interrogatory -- that we received on this case
16 that we did not have the answers to on file, so we did
17 this.
18
Q. So this was done at the -- at my request for
19 information --
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. -- basically?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. So it's a fairly recent report --
24
A. Yes.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
21
1
Q. -- or calculation?
2
Has it ever -- To your knowledge, has it ever
3 been done before?
4
A. I don't think it's been done this way before.
5 I mean, ozone calculations have been done in the past,
6 mostly back in the late 70s. But exactly in this form and
7 format, I don't believe so.
8
Q. And back in the late 70s, who did those
9 calculations?
10
A. Many different people. A lot of that's --
11
Q. I mean, could you name a specific company or
12 individual or ...
13
A. I could name many. Commonwealth Edison, IIT
14 Research Institute, The Power Administration, and many
15 more.
16
Q. But no governmental agency?
17
A. Governmental agencies as well, yes.
18
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Bogacz, I'm
19
going to ask you to limit your questioning to
20
the subject of the direct.
21
MR. BOGACZ: That's all I have right now.
22
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Is
23
there any redirect?
24
MR. ZIBART: No, there's not.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
22
1
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Thank
2
you very much, Mr. Cramer.
3
The Respondent can call their next
4
witness.
5
(Comments off the record between parties.)
6
THE HEARING OFFICER: We remain on the
7
record.
8
Will Respondent call their next witness?
9
MR. ZIBART: The Respondent will next
10
call Dr. Jaroslav Vostal.
11
THE HEARING OFFICER: The witness may
12
now be sworn.
13
(Witness sworn.)
14
JAROSLAV J. VOSTAL, M.D., Ph.D.,
15 called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn,
16 was examined upon oral interrogatories and testified as
17 follows:
18
DIRECT EXAMINATION
19 BY MR. ZIBART:
20
Q. What is your name, sir?
21
A. Jaroslav, J-a-r-o-s-l-a-v, middle initial J,
22 last name, V, as in Victor, o-s-t-a-l.
23
Q. And what do you do for a living, sir?
24
A. At present, I am the principle and the senior
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
23
1 medical advisor for the Environmental Health Assistant
2 Consultants in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
3
Q. And what does your company do?
4
A. Practically, we are responding to all requests
5 for evaluating the potential health effects due to
6 environmental pollutants.
7
Q. Could you describe your educational
8 background?
9
A. Yes. My background is in medicine primarily.
10 I got my medical degree in 1951, and I got my Ph.D. degree
11 in occupational environmental health in 1961.
12
Q. And could you just briefly describe some of
13 the positions you have held over the years?
14
A. Yes. Shortly after I have completed my
15 residency and my boards in internal medicine, I returned
16 back to do research, research which has been aiming
17 specifically to the questions of the health impacts of
18 different environmental factors.
19
Practically since 1955, that means more than
20 40 years, I have been working as a research investigator,
21 educator, consultant, and medical doctor in different
22 functions up to the year 199 -- the end of the year 1992
23 when I have returned to this private consulting
24 occupation.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
24
1
Q. Dr. Vostal, have you prepared a curriculum
2 vitae with more detail on your professional
3 qualifications?
4
A. Yes, I have provided it.
5
Q. And I'm handing you a document, sir, that's
6 been marked --
7
THE HEARING OFFICER: That will be
8
Respondent's No. 16.
9
(Respondent's Exhibit No. 16
10
marked for identification.)
11 BY MR. ZIBART:
12
Q. (Continuing.) -- Respondent's Exhibit No. 16.
13
Is that your curriculum vitae, sir?
14
A. Yes, it is.
15
Q. And if I were to ask you more specific
16 questions regarding your experience and qualifications,
17 would your answers be consistent with that curriculum
18 vitae?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. Do you have any experience during your
21 professional career with the health effects of ozone?
22
A. Yes. Practically, when I have started my
23 major research interests and major activities, it started
24 in fluoride when I was the member of the National Academy
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
25
1 of Sciences, committee on the biological effects of air
2 pollutant in the 1970s --
3
MS. REPORTER: I'm sorry. I'm having a
4
little bit of a problem.
5
THE WITNESS: Sorry. I will slow down.
6
MS. REPORTER: Okay. Great.
7
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Let's go
8
back.
9 BY THE WITNESS:
10
A. (Continuing.) -- in the 1970s when I was with
11 fluorides, and then later it changed to the heavy metals;
12 after that, to the health effects of gaseous pollutants in
13 connection with the exhaust of vehicles.
14
THE HEARING OFFICER: That is health
15
effects, not heart effects?
16
THE WITNESS: No, health.
17
THE HEARING OFFICER: Health?
18
THE WITNESS: Health, yes, health effects
19
of it.
20 BY THE WITNESS:
21
A. And this was the time when I started to be
22 active in the question of ozone.
23
THE HEARING OFFICER: Did you say health
24
effects of carbon monoxide?
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
26
1
THE WITNESS: Ozone. It was involved in
2
it, but ozone was the last one.
3
THE HEARING OFFICER: Ozone.
4
And prior to that, health effect of what?
5
THE WITNESS: Heavy metals, carbon
6
monoxide.
7
THE HEARING OFFICER: Carbon monoxide?
8
THE WITNESS: Yes.
9
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
10 BY MR. ZIBART:
11
Q. As to ozone, Dr. Vostal, do you have any
12 experience with lab tests on people as to the effects of
13 ozone?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Could you describe those and that experience?
16
A. I have been for about 20 years the department
17 head of a research facility which was specifically devoted
18 to do some studies related to the different pollutants.
19 Ozone was one of them. We have done studies on animals as
20 well as studies on human volunteers.
21
Q. Are you familiar with the medical literature
22 on exposure to ozone?
23
A. Yes. I have been keeping myself abreast with
24 all the literature data which have been either presented
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
27
1 in scientific meetings or published in the review
2 literature.
3
Q. Are you familiar with the epidemiological
4 studies regarding public exposure to ozone?
5
A. Yes. We have been reviewing some of those
6 studies since about 1978, and we have been doing also the
7 specifics, that is, where the people have been exposed in
8 laboratory conditions to the very low concentrations of
9 ozone while they were exercising.
10
Q. Dr. Vostal, have you participated in any of
11 the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
12 committees dealing with ozone?
13
A. Not specifically with ozone; but when the U.S.
14 Environmental Protection Agency started to produce the
15 second version of something which is called Air Quality
16 Criteria document for ozone and for the chemical oxidants,
17 which was approximately in 1978, I have been involved in
18 many meetings with professional colleagues at the
19 Environmental Protection Agency. And I was involved in
20 many discussions. I have organized several meetings and
21 several sessions dealing with the problem, how to
22 evaluate, how it affects ambient ozone concentrations, up
23 to recently.
24
The last meeting which I have organized was
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
28
1 the special conference on the critical issues in the
2 laboratory process of tropospheric -- tropospheric ozone
3 which was held in 1995 in Orlando, Florida. I was also
4 the editor of the proceedings which came out from the
5 conference.
6
Q. Dr. Vostal, other than the background that
7 you've discussed, how have you prepared specifically for
8 your testimony today?
9
A. Concerning -- I had the possibility to see
10 written complaints which were submitted in this case, and
11 I have been also able to review the issue of the potential
12 contribution to the ambient ozone coming from the
13 transmission lines with high voltage when they are in
14 operation. And, specifically, I have seen also the data
15 which were produced by Dr. Johnson in cooperation with his
16 colleagues.
17
Q. I'd like to ask you some questions about
18 the -- sort of some information about ozone generally.
19
Can you tell the Board what happens when
20 people are exposed to high concentrations of ozone?
21
A. Yes. There is no question that ozone in high
22 concentrations is a very powerful toxin for the
23 respiratory system. We have seen cases -- those cases
24 occurred primarily in some occupational exposures -- where
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
29
1 people who have been exposed to concentrations higher than
2 maybe 10, 50 or 100 PPM and suffered from it such a big
3 damage to their respiratory system that they have died.
4 Those cases are published in the literature.
5
Q. How is it medically speaking that ozone hurts
6 people?
7
A. Well, since as you have already heard in the
8 previous testimony, ozone is a very powerful oxidant; and,
9 therefore, it is prepared to react with any type of
10 available molecules, including the biological tissues. If
11 ozone is inhaled in high concentrations, it overcomes the
12 natural defense mechanisms which could prevent some
13 effects of ozone at very low concentrations. It
14 penetrates deeply into the respiratory system, corrodes
15 the lining of the respiratory airways, and practically
16 permits that the fluid which is circulating in the
17 interstitial space -- that means a space which is between
18 the blood vessels and between the tissue -- could really
19 penetrate into the respiratory airways and generate
20 conditions which we call in clinical medicine as pulmonary
21 edema.
22
Q. Do scientists observe the same effects at
23 lower concentrations of ozone?
24
A. No. This is really where it all started
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
30
1 considering that we have had some experience from the
2 occupational exposures to high concentrations.
3
When the Environmental Protection Agency was
4 reviewing the air quality standard for ozone in 1978,
5 there have been some members of the scientific community
6 who were very much concerned that even the low
7 concentrations of ozone, when they penetrate, again, deep
8 into respiratory airways, could accumulate there and
9 result in some type of an injury. It is not the same type
10 of injury which is being produced by the high
11 concentrations, but it is the injury which probably could
12 really give the chance that we can observe the process
13 like inflammation which could finally when it is not
14 treated lead to some even permanent effects on the
15 respiratory airways.
16
Now, those were the concerns which we have had
17 in 1970s. You know, science is not a static system. We
18 are developing continuously new data; and with the
19 development of the data, we have learned that, first of
20 all, within the respiratory system, there are some
21 defensive mechanisms, mainly the special lining of the
22 upper respiratory airways which is producing material
23 which is called mucus. This mucus could function as a
24 sink for the concentrations of ozone which are very low.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
31
1 And if the rate of the intake of the ozone is not very
2 high, then the mucus could practically bind to the ozone.
3 And since the mucus is continuously being replaced by a
4 new one, it doesn't really have the possibility to
5 penetrate to the sensitive cells of the respiratory
6 system. It is only when we are exposed either to high
7 concentrations or if we are doing some heavy physical
8 exercise.
9
In that case, at least with the help of very
10 sensitive methods, like methods which are being used for
11 measurement of the pulmonary function, it has been
12 described that the people who are exposed, even the
13 concentrations which are compatible with the levels of
14 ozone to be found in American cities, could under the
15 conditions of heavy exercise produce some results which
16 are statistically different from those before the person
17 has been exposed to the ozone. That data have been very
18 intensively reviewed by the Environmental Protection
19 Agency.
20
Since, as you probably know, the Clean Air Act
21 amendments of 1977 mandate that starting with 1980 with a
22 period of every five years, the Environmental Protection
23 Agency is supposed to produce a new document, Air Quality
24 Criteria document, which is prescribed. Based on the
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
32
1 production of such a product, the EPA Office of the Air
2 Quality Planning and Standards then writes something which
3 is called Assessment of the Scientific and Technical
4 Information in connection with the version of the ozone
5 standard. And this is a document which is finally going
6 to the desk of the EPA administrator for the decision if
7 the current ambient air quality standard should be changed
8 or should be kept in the form and at the level as it has
9 been set last time, which was in 1979.
10
In 1979, the Agency decided to relax the
11 standard. Originally, the standard was set up in 1971 at
12 the level of 80 parts per billion. And it stated that
13 this is the level which in one hour should not be exceeded
14 in any of the counties of the United States for more than
15 once per year. Whenever it is exceeded for the second
16 time, then such an area is becoming an area which is out
17 of the compliance with the air quality standard for ozone.
18
And as a consequence, the local authorities
19 have to prepare a special plan how to work on the
20 reduction of the ozone concentrations.
21
Q. Okay. You've given us a lot to think about
22 there. I'm going to bring out a couple of points that you
23 made.
24
Can you tell the Board what concentrations of
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
33
1 ozone are considered background levels?
2
A. Yes. This is a very important issue which was
3 very intensely discussed in connection with the
4 preparation of the latest update of the Air Quality
5 document. This was started in the year 1992, and,
6 finally, it was completed in July 1996.
7
During the meetings which we have had with our
8 colleagues at EPA -- and when I'm talking about we, that
9 means the general scientific community -- we have been
10 invited for public hearings, we have been invited to
11 provide comments, and there has been very intensive
12 discussion how significant is the generation of ozone by
13 normal processes which are occurring in the environment,
14 even without any human activities.
15
It has been finally concluded in our
16 discussions that we can differentiate between so-called
17 biogenic generation of ozone, which is the generation of
18 ozone, practically by the same mechanism as we have been
19 describing in the previous testimony. That means if there
20 is a substrates, a precursor, present in the air and those
21 precursors are coming from two classes of chemical
22 compounds, the first one is nitrogen -- are the nitrogen
23 oxides, specifically the nitrogen dioxide.
24
If a nitrogen dioxide is present, then through
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
34
1 the activity of the UV radiation, it could finally be
2 exposed to a process which is called photolysis and
3 produce the nitric oxide, which is NO. That means a
4 molecule which has only one atom of nitrogen and one atom
5 of oxygen in contrast with the nitrogen dioxide which has
6 one atom of nitrogen and two atoms of oxygen.
7
That means that by that is generated one atom
8 of oxygen which is in a state that it could be very
9 actively reacting with any type of the substrate which
10 could be found in the air. Obviously, there is oxygen
11 present in the air. So if there is a molecule of oxygen,
12 this ground atom of oxygen connects with the molecule and
13 forms O3; that means ozone.
14
And if this is a process which is going on and
15 we can duplicate it in laboratory conditions, then we
16 assume that finally it comes to some type of a state of
17 the balance. We call it steady state. And by that, we
18 are seeing that all the ozone molecules which have been
19 generated could, again, react back with the nitric oxide
20 and to form the nitrogen dioxide.
21
Now, this happens only when there is nitrogen
22 dioxide present there without any other chemicals in the
23 air. Unfortunately, we know that there are many plants
24 which are continuously emitting, you know, some
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
35
1 hydrocarbons. And it is mainly this presence of the
2 hydrocarbons which can, you know, reinstate the formation
3 of the nitrogen dioxide so that it could be, again,
4 exposed to the radiation and become a new source of
5 ozone.
6
Due to the presence of this second substrate,
7 which is the volatile organic compounds, hydrocarbons, it
8 is, therefore, that we are not seeing a formation of a
9 steady state, but there could be a continuous formation of
10 ozone up to levels which are higher.
11
When this issue has been discussed, then based
12 on the inventories which are presented also in the latest
13 edition of the Air Quality Criteria document, it has been
14 computed that surprisingly those biogenic activities, that
15 means biogenic sources of ozone, are at least the same
16 size if not larger than all the human activities which are
17 producing the ozone.
18
Therefore, we know that even if he stopped to
19 generate any additional precursors of ozone, we will be
20 always facing some certain background level of ozone.
21 The document concludes that these background levels of
22 ozone are at the concentrations of approximately 250 to
23 450 parts per billion of ozone.
24
Now, the ozone could be in some places even
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
36
1 higher than this one. I said the 25 to 45 -- no -- 250 to
2 450 parts per billion is the average level.
3
We know that we have also in the stratosphere
4 high concentrations of ozone which are very protective
5 which are protecting us against very intensive UV
6 radiation, mainly in the area of very short, you know,
7 wavelengths. And sometimes these concentrations of the
8 stratospheric ozone could penetrate down to the
9 troposphere and come even to the earth surface. And for a
10 period which could be maybe one hour, maybe four hours,
11 could increase this background concentrations up to a
12 level which could be at about -- when we were talking
13 about 25 to -- excuse me -- what -- I have probably
14 misquoted the data. It was 25 to 45 parts per billion.
15 And we can find even some levels like 60 up to the 100
16 parts per billion of ozone even without any other human
17 activities.
18
Q. Now, Dr. Vostal, what is the current federal
19 ambient standard that counties and states are trying to
20 attain?
21
A. The ambient air pollutant standard at present
22 is at the level of 120 parts per billion as a one-hour
23 standard which should not be exceeded more than once in a
24 year.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
37
1
Q. Now, does that mean that the EPA has concluded
2 that 120 parts per billion will hurt everyone?
3
A. Now, as you know, the level of the ambient air
4 quality standard as it is mandated by the Clean Air Act
5 legislation says that the U.S. EPA administrator should
6 consider as an ambient air quality standard such a level
7 which -- of which the attainment and maintenance in the
8 judgment of the administrator and including even some
9 margin of safety should not -- should not really result in
10 any damage to the public health.
11
Now, this is really a very function of the
12 administrator to make the final decision, first of all,
13 what is the relationship between the concentrations of
14 ozone and something which would be measured as a health
15 effect, and it must be also decided by the administrator
16 what should be considered as an adverse health effect.
17 And this is not a very easy situation. This is the reason
18 that we have been so frequently meeting in the scientific
19 community and discussing those issues.
20
As I said before, if we had thought in 1970s
21 that even some low concentrations of ambient ozone can
22 produce some injury to respiratory airways, it seems that
23 the most recent data, even the data which has not yet been
24 published, but have been presented at the scientific
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
38
1 meetings, seems to indicate that the results of the
2 testing where we are using this pulmonary function methods
3 which we consider still that this is the most sensitive
4 method of how to measure the accurate effects of ozone,
5 might not be due to the fact that there is some injury
6 being done by ozone to the sensitive cells, but could be
7 only some type of irritation of sensitive receptors in the
8 respiratory airways which are warning the exposed person
9 that the exposed person should not take a full deep breath
10 which is needed for testing the pulmonary function.
11
By that, we are having some data which are
12 indicating that when we used a simple dose of an
13 anesthetic -- anesthetic, that means a compound which is
14 being used in the medical profession to take away the pain
15 when people, for example, have to go through some
16 surgeries -- if we are using a very low level of the
17 anesthetic and we apply it to the respiratory tract of
18 those people, then they are exposed to ozone. They are
19 not displaying the effects, which have been shown when
20 they have not been anesthetized before.
21
This indicates that rather than to be talking
22 about that we are considering a process which would really
23 produce adversity, which could result in some even
24 permanent damage to our breathing, that we are seeing only
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
39
1 something which is a temporary interaction and which is
2 relatively insignificant from the clinical point of view.
3
This has really been changing the view -- as I
4 said, those are the data which have not yet been even
5 included into the most recent Air Quality Criteria
6 document because they have not yet been published, they
7 have not yet been adequately discussed, and, therefore,
8 they have to wait for the next revision of the document
9 and of the standard probably in the next five years.
10
Q. I think one of the factors you mentioned
11 before was the level of exercise.
12
Can a person at rest be exposed to higher
13 levels of ozone without adverse effect?
14
A. Yes. As a matter of fact, it is very clearly
15 stated in the Air Quality Criteria document that the
16 people if they are at first surprisingly, they can
17 tolerate relatively high concentrations of ozone.
18
Q. And what kind of concentrations are you
19 talking about?
20
A. Concentrations which could be tolerated for
21 maybe one or two hours without any effect on the
22 performance of the pulmonary function tests would be as
23 high as 500 parts per billion of ozone.
24
Q. And what about on the other extreme like
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
40
1 someone running?
2
A. Now, obviously when you start with physical
3 exercise, there's effect levels. That means there's
4 thresholds which we can observe which are well described
5 in the literature are becoming lower and lower. But
6 still, even when we consider such an intensive physical
7 exercise as it is running off a marathon where we see that
8 the ventilation rate could exceed levels which are
9 extremely high like 60 liters per minute, that even at
10 that level, it must be point -- it must be 160 parts per
11 billion of ozone present before we can observe any impact
12 on the performance of pulmonary function tests.
13
Q. Now, 160 parts per billion is higher than the
14 120 parts per billion standard that you mentioned.
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. Why would they -- Why would the government
17 choose a standard lower than the 160 parts per billion?
18
A. As I have mentioned, the mandate of the Clean
19 Air Act requires that the administrator must consider even
20 something which we call margin of safety. And since we
21 know that what we are listing here, those levels, are
22 applicable to the group of the people, there could be
23 sensitive individuals which could be a little more
24 reactive than the others and maybe to display even, you
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
41
1 know, the same small decline in the respiratory function
2 performance when exposed to a level as low as .120. That
3 means 120 parts per billion.
4
Q. Are you aware that the Environmental
5 Protection Agency monitors ozone levels in the various
6 counties?
7
A. Yes. There's an extensive air sampling
8 network which is all over the United States. This is the
9 system of stations which are either operated directly by
10 the EPA or operated through the local regulatory agencies
11 and reporting all the data to one single center in the --
12 in North Carolina where the data are being processed and
13 evaluated every year.
14
Q. And do you know how high the level must be
15 before the EPA considers it a violation of the ambient
16 standard?
17
A. Obviously, this all depends on the sensitivity
18 of the methods which we have available for this
19 monitoring. Those stations which are just, you know,
20 distributed all over the United States are using now
21 mainly some UV methods which are capable to measure the
22 concentrations of ozone in very short periods of time.
23 But then since the standard is defined as a one-hour
24 average concentration, they are integrated into the
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
42
1 periods of one hour, and those levels are being reported
2 to the EPA center in North Carolina.
3
Q. Okay. And is there a number that they use --
4 I think you said 120 is the standard.
5
A. 120 is the standard. But, you know, the
6 operation procedure which is described in the Federal
7 Register states that the sensitivity of the method is
8 probably to measure about one parts per million. But the
9 stability of the zero is not capable to do anything more
10 than to measure the differences by five parts per
11 billion.
12
So it is stated that we are considering that
13 the standard has been violated only when the reading of
14 this monitor has been changed from 120 parts per billion
15 to the 125 parts per billion. Only when the 125 parts per
16 billion reading occurs, then it means that this is a
17 violation of the standard. And if it occurs on the
18 average during the three years more than twice in a year,
19 that county is out of compliance.
20
Q. Dr. Vostal, do you know, does the EPA regulate
21 directly individual sources of ozone?
22
A. As you can really see, even as described in
23 the Air Quality Criteria document, we consider ozone as a
24 secondary pollutant. That means we are not really, you
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
43
1 know, aware that there is any substantial source which is
2 producing ozone directly into the air and that the ozone
3 which is being measured in our monitoring stations are all
4 due to the fact that it is the effect of the UV radiation
5 on the precursors which are present in the air.
6 Therefore, the activity of the agencies, if they want to
7 reduce the levels of ozone, it's not aimed directly on any
8 specific sources of ozone, but they are concentrating on
9 reducing the substrates; that means the precursors, like
10 the hydrocarbons or the nitrogen oxides.
11
Q. What is a state implementation plan?
12
A. Oh, state implementation plan is a plan which
13 according to the federal regulation must be submitted by
14 all states to EPA. And if the state has some areas which
15 are out of the compliance, it should indicate to the
16 federal agency what are the processes by which the state
17 plans to reduce the levels of the ozone in that state.
18
Q. Do you know of any state implementation plans
19 that seek to reduce ozone from transmission lines?
20
A. No. I have not seen, you know, the
21 transmission lines as any source of ozone either in any of
22 the state implementation plans or even in the Air Quality
23 Criteria document.
24
Q. Dr. Vostal, based on your research and review
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
44
1 of the documents regarding Com Ed's transmission lines,
2 have you been able to form a professional and medical
3 opinion as to whether ozone from transmission lines is a
4 significant public health issue?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. And what is your opinion?
7
A. Practically, it is not different from the
8 opinion which has been formed already by other authors
9 and/or even some type of regulatory agencies like
10 Department of Energy.
11
When they have evaluated what could be the
12 contribution of the transmission lines as a source of the
13 ozone, it has been concluded that the levels which are
14 being produced are too small to be considered -- that
15 could be really be a substantial factor in generating
16 concentrations of ozone which would be harmful to human
17 health.
18
As you -- As we have heard, even the
19 calculations done by Dr. Johnson are coming to the point
20 that they can estimate a contribution like which will
21 result in a concentration at the level of a fraction of
22 the parts per billion. It's easy to indicate that we are
23 beyond the limit of the sensitivity of the method which is
24 being used to establish the compliance with the ozone
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
45
1 standard since, as I said before, it must be a difference
2 of about five parts per billion, between 120 and 125 parts
3 per billion, before we can really say that the monitor or
4 the county is out of the compliance with the ozone
5 standard.
6
And in comparison with it, the level as small
7 as .5 parts per billion is so low that it cannot really be
8 resulting any -- in any significant impact on public
9 health.
10
The second aspect to be mentioned as we were
11 discussing a while ago, the levels of the biogenic ozone
12 which are estimated to be at least even in the complete
13 absence of human activities, at levels of about 25 to 45
14 parts per billion. Then even for that, it is really such
15 a small contribution, that it could not really be
16 responsible for any potential impact on public health.
17
Q. Based on Dr. Johnson's calculations, do you
18 have an opinion as to whether Commonwealth Edison's
19 transmission lines are causing a medically significant
20 increase in the amount of ozone to which the public is
21 exposed?
22
A. No, since practically what is very important
23 to remember and what we have heard from Dr. Johnson that
24 there is a large difference in the generation of ozone by
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
46
1 transmission lines between the foul weather and between
2 the fair weather.
3
Now, if he should be considering that there
4 might be a possibility that the -- even the small amounts
5 generated by the transmission lines could aggravate the
6 existing, you know, pollution which is in a specific site
7 or at a specific time, we have to keep it in mind that we
8 know, as we said, that ozone is a pollutant which is
9 absolutely limited only to the daytime period and only to
10 the warm months of the year. As a matter of fact, all of
11 the elevation of the ozone pollution are not considering
12 the total year. They usually are considering only the
13 months when the ozone generation is by -- by the UV
14 radiation from the substrates is highest. It means a
15 period maybe between May up through the end of the
16 September.
17
From this point of view, those are the months
18 where we are really having most of the weather under fair
19 conditions. If the generation of ozone by transmission
20 lines, even if it is small, is occurring mainly during the
21 bad weather conditions, mainly during the winter months,
22 then obviously we are seeing, again, a difference that
23 means that we could not expect that on the days when there
24 is a high solar radiation, that there will be any
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
47
1 production of the transmission line; and if there is ozone
2 being produced from the precursors, then there is no
3 contribution.
4
If it is in the bad weather where there is no
5 solar radiation, then the amounts which are being produced
6 by the transmission line are so small, that they are
7 completely negligible in consideration of potential public
8 health effects.
9
Q. Is someone's health at risk due to ozone
10 exposure because they live near a transmission line?
11
A. If the -- It can really depend on the
12 measurements. If -- It depends mainly what is the
13 concentration of the ozone from all sources. It doesn't
14 exclude that if you are living somewhere near transmission
15 lines and there are many other sources of the substrates
16 for generation of ozone, that you can really have levels
17 which could even violate the standard; but they are based
18 on the data which have been presented by Dr. Johnson and
19 based on the data which have been published before that
20 even in the literature. There is a very good consistency
21 with the other data that there could not be any effect
22 whatsoever by such a small generated amount of ozone.
23
MR. ZIBART: I have no further questions
24
for Dr. Vostal.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
48
1
THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's take a
2
five-minute break now, and then we will have
3
cross-examination.
4
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
5
(A short recess was taken.)
6
THE HEARING OFFICER: We are back on the
7
record now.
8
And, Mr. Bogacz, would you like to ask
9
the doctor any questions on cross-examination?
10
CROSS-EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. BOGACZ:
12
Q. Dr. Vostal, you say -- you said during your
13 testimony that you were on a committee with the U.S. EPA
14 putting in some input regarding the Air Quality Standard
15 Criteria?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. Specifically, what was your input?
18
A. I have mentioned it already here during our
19 discussion. It was mainly to point out what is the most
20 recent development of the science. And I feel that the
21 data of clinical experiment, which I have mentioned, that
22 means the one in which a low dose of an anesthetic has
23 been used before exposure to ozone and took away all the
24 symptoms, took away all the declines in the pulmonary
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
49
1 function performance.
2
It's very important for us to consider and
3 very important for the EPA administrator to recognize that
4 it might not really be considered as an adverse health
5 effect, but it could be considered as maybe a typical
6 documentation that we have some natural defense mechanisms
7 in our system. We have some receptors which are telling
8 us that something unknown is coming into our respiratory
9 system, and, therefore, this is telling us even
10 subconsciously that we should not take the very deep
11 breath.
12
And this is the one of the important aspects
13 of consideration of how to evaluate the potential impact
14 of low levels of ozone as we are having in the United
15 States now.
16
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. If
17
you could try to be as brief in your response
18
as is appropriate for the question, then we
19
will be able to proceed.
20 BY MR. BOGACZ:
21
Q. Along with the -- Was there any input
22 regarding ozone produced by transmission lines presented
23 to the U.S. EPA regarding Air Quality Standard Criteria
24 document?
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
50
1
A. No, during the meetings in which I have
2 attended.
3
Q. I believe you mentioned acid rain or
4 possibly. Do you know what acid rain is?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. Is that a product of pollutants in the air,
7 including ozone?
8
A. Not specifically ozone. It is mainly
9 connected with the emissions of the very acidic gases like
10 sulfur dioxide. Practically, all the concerns about acid
11 rain, between us, between Canada, is coming from the large
12 emissions of sulfur dioxide.
13
Q. But ozone is a component of acid rain. I
14 mean, it could be -- Is it a component which would
15 possibly accelerate the formation of acid rain?
16
A. Theoretically --
17
Q. Or allow the formation of acid rain.
18
A. Theoretically, yes. You could consider what
19 is happening during -- mainly during the nighttime. As it
20 has been mentioned here before, there is a large
21 difference between the concentrations of ozone during the
22 daytime. Peak of the ozone concentration is usually
23 observed at 2:00 or 3:00 in the afternoon. In the night,
24 levels are practically very low or zero.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
51
1
Now, during the nighttime, one of the
2 mechanisms by which the ozone decays is that the ozone
3 molecules could really oxidate the nitrogen dioxide into
4 the nitrate, and by that, contribute to the formation of
5 nitrate particles and maybe some type of acid deposition.
6
But when we are considering what could really
7 be a specific contribution of this mechanism through the
8 acid rain, that it is very small in comparison with direct
9 emissions of the sulfur dioxide. There have been specific
10 studies which we're looking into the data from our
11 monitoring network and trying to find out how much the
12 peaks of ozone could be correlated either with the peaks
13 of sulfur dioxide or nitrogen dioxide, which are both
14 sources of the acid rain. And they have been found that
15 there is very infrequent correlation between those two
16 pollutants. Those are papers which were done by
17 Dr. Lefohn, L-e-f-o-h-n, from Montana. They are published
18 in the literature.
19
Q. You mentioned during your testimony the EPA --
20 U.S. EPA administrator determines or decides on the
21 adoption of certain standards and regulations in the air
22 quality document?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. Does he also determine exemptions from the
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
52
1 Clean Air Act?
2
A. I don't think that there is -- There are some
3 other parts of the Clean Air Act where the administrator
4 has the power to determine some exemptions, but not as far
5 as I know with the ozone issue or with the ambient air
6 quality standards.
7
Q. Do you know of any exemptions granted to
8 Commonwealth Edison by the U.S. EPA regarding emission of
9 ozone from their transmission lines?
10
MR. ZIBART: I'll object to that
11
question. The witness has just answered that
12
the EPA does not grant such exemptions.
13
THE HEARING OFFICER: Any response?
14
MR. BOGACZ: The administrator has the
15
authority, and his duty is to grant exemptions
16
in accordance with the Clean Air Act; and,
17
therefore, if there are any exemptions,
18
Commonwealth Edison is claiming some sort of
19
privilege in exemption from the basic
20
fundamental Clean Air Act.
21
THE HEARING OFFICER: Your response to
22
the objection, Mr. Bogacz?
23
MR. BOGACZ: The what?
24
THE HEARING OFFICER: Your response to
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
53
1
the objection?
2
MR. BOGACZ: Yes, I am responding.
3
THE HEARING OFFICER: Without making
4
statements that are allegations.
5
Could you restate your response to the
6
objection?
7
MR. BOGACZ: Mr. -- Dr. Vostal indicated
8
that he knows of no duty or authority of the
9
administrator of the U.S. EPA, but yet he has
10
testified that he does determine or the
11
eventual adoption of the air quality document.
12
I'm trying to determine whether that is
13
his only or prime duty or he has other duties
14
and how familiar he is with the Clean Air
15
Act.
16
He has mentioned a Clean Air Act. He has
17
mentioned that he has done a tremendous amount
18
of work regarding pollutants, including the
19
ozone, and I'm trying to find out whether he
20
knows what -- anything besides what he has
21
mentioned about the administrator's duty.
22
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
23
The objection is sustained. I believe
24
the question was answered.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
54
1 BY MR. BOGACZ:
2
Q. Dr. Vostal, are you familiar with the Clean
3 Air Act at all?
4
A. Just mainly in the area where it deals with
5 the problems of the effects on human health.
6
Q. Do you agree with the intent and regulations
7 formulated from the Clean Air Act?
8
MR. ZIBART: I'll object on the grounds
9
of relevance. I don't see -- The law is the
10
law, and it doesn't matter whether Dr. Vostal
11
agrees with it or not.
12
THE HEARING OFFICER: Sustained.
13 BY MR. BOGACZ:
14
Q. Dr. Vostal, I submitted a document as evidence
15 of communications with governmental officials at the
16 request of Commonwealth Edison, and one of the documents I
17 have here is a letter from a James A. Raub, R-a-u-b.
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. Are you familiar with that gentleman?
20
A. Yes. I know him very well.
21
Q. Would you like to -- I don't know --
22
THE HEARING OFFICER: What is your
23
question, Mr. Bogacz?
24
MR. BOGACZ: Can I -- Should I submit him
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
55
1
the document or can he get a copy or
2
something?
3
THE HEARING OFFICER: What is your
4
question?
5 BY MR. BOGACZ:
6
Q. Within this letter he sent to me, I'll read
7 you a portion of it, and you could tell me if you agree,
8 yes or no.
9
MR. ZIBART: I'll object to Mr. Bogacz
10
reading something that's not in the record.
11
MR. BOGACZ: I'm sorry. It is in the
12
record. It's a document I submitted.
13
THE HEARING OFFICER: What is the
14
exhibit number?
15
MR. BOGACZ: It's offered -- It's entered
16
as evidence in my case.
17
MR. ZIBART: This is the danger that
18
Mr. Rippie warned us of of putting documents
19
into the record all at once. Perhaps it's
20
attached to a bunch of others. I'll locate
21
it.
22
MR. RIPPIE: If it's the letter I think
23
it is, it's one of the myriad pages attached
24
to the exhibit that we entered into the record
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
56
1
at the end of yesterday's hearing constituting
2
all of Complainant's responses in bulk to our
3
discovery.
4
MR. BOGACZ: Right, interrogatories,
5
right.
6
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Continue.
7
MR. BOGACZ: Do you want me to read the
8
document to -- or the portions and go from
9
there?
10
THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes.
11
The objection's overruled.
12
MR. BOGACZ: Thank you.
13 BY MR. BOGACZ:
14
Q. Dr. Vostal, Mr. Raub answered my inquiry on
15 the status of transmission line emissions of ozone. And
16 he states, thank you for your comments on the December
17 1993 draft of the ozone Air Quality Criteria document
18 dated 8-25-95. Although the scientific staff of the U.S.
19 Environmental Protection Agency are certainly aware of the
20 potential for direct emissions of ozone from high voltage
21 power lines, we are not aware of specific peer reviewed
22 papers identifying research, tests or data on this
23 possible source of ambient air, in other words, outdoor
24 ozone concentrations. And he goes on asking for any
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
57
1 additional information I might have to send him.
2
Do you agree with that?
3
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Bogacz, this is
4
the letter dated August 29, 1995?
5
MR. BOGACZ: Yes.
6 BY MR. BOGACZ:
7
Q. Do you agree with that statement he made?
8
A. Yes.
9
Q. That there are no peer reviewed papers?
10
A. If you could read it justly, he is requesting
11 that if there are some peer reviewed documents which could
12 really provide information for the EPA, that they should
13 be sent to him.
14
Do I understand it correctly or do I quote it
15 correctly?
16
Q. Well, that is at the end of the letter, but he
17 states we are not aware of specific peer reviewed papers
18 identifying research, tests or data on this possible
19 source of ambient air, in other words, outdoor ozone
20 concentrations.
21
A. We are taking it out of the context.
22
Could you just read the whole question once
23 more?
24
Q. He states, Dear Mr. Bogacz, thank you for your
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
58
1 comments on the December 1993 draft of the ozone Air
2 Quality Criteria document dated 8-25-95. Although the
3 scientific staff of the U.S. Environmental Protection
4 Agency, EPA, are certainly aware of the potential for
5 direct emissions of ozone from high voltage power lines,
6 we are not aware of specific peer reviewed papers
7 identifying research, tests or data on this possible
8 source of ambient air, in other words, outdoor ozone
9 concentrations.
10
A. This is what he stated. This is what we have
11 to take for granted. He is asking, therefore, if you have
12 some material which has been discussed here during our,
13 you know, testimony before, that it should be submitted to
14 them.
15
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Bogacz, I'm
16
going to insist that you move on with your
17
questions and that you limit your questions to
18
inquiries that you have that are specifically
19
related to statements that Dr. Vostal has made
20
here this morning.
21
MR. BOGACZ: Well, I must assume then
22
that he's not answered the question. Thank
23
you.
24
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
59
1 BY MR. BOGACZ:
2
Q. There are regulations in a Clean Air Act
3 concerning auto emissions and other sources of ozone,
4 possible ozone?
5
A. No. There is no ozone emitted from any
6 sources -- there is nothing written in the Clean Air Act
7 which would identify that there are some emissions of
8 ozone.
9
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Bogacz, I have
10
to ask you to make your question in the form
11
of a question and not a statement.
12 BY MR. BOGACZ:
13
Q. Are there any regulations issued by the U.S.
14 EPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act requirements governing
15 automobile emissions?
16
A. Yes, there are regulations.
17
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Bogacz,
18
automobile emissions are not the subject of
19
this case. I'm going --
20
MR. BOGACZ: The subject of --
21
THE HEARING OFFICER: -- to ask you to
22
move on to --
23
MR. BOGACZ: The subject of this case is
24
ozone.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
60
1
MS. REPORTER: I'm sorry. One at a time,
2
please.
3
MR. BOGACZ: Oh.
4
MS. REPORTER: The Hearing Officer is not
5
finished.
6
THE HEARING OFFICER: I have to ask you
7
to move to the subject of the case, which is
8
transmission lines.
9
MR. BOGACZ: The witness testified to the
10
deterioration of ozone and the atmosphere and
11
other factors regarding ozone.
12
Auto emissions have everything to do with
13
this particular subject since they are being
14
regulated for their production of ozone
15
from -- by photochemical means.
16
THE HEARING OFFICER: What is your next
17
question for the witness?
18 BY MR. BOGACZ:
19
Q. Is it possible for the ozone to occur in fair
20 weather plus smog conditions?
21
A. That -- In connection with the transmission
22 lines or in general?
23
Q. Both, in general and transmission lines.
24
A. The answer is yes. It is mainly during the
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
61
1 fair weather when the ozone is being generated by the UV
2 radiation from the substrates.
3
Q. Would you agree that the transmission lines
4 produce ozone and that ozone is an air pollutant?
5
A. I think that we have heard here during the
6 testimony that there have been measurements done and that
7 there are literature data which indicate that there is a
8 possibility that small amounts of ozone are generated by
9 the high voltage transmission lines.
10
Q. That's not the question I asked you.
11
A. So could you repeat the question?
12
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Bogacz, I have
13
to ask you to be courteous of the witness.
14 BY MR. BOGACZ:
15
Q. Dr. Vostal, is it true that electric
16 transmission lines owned by Commonwealth Edison Company
17 produce ozone?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. Is ozone an air pollutant as determined
20 currently by the Clean Air Act and the --
21
A. Yes.
22
Q. -- U.S. EPA?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. You mentioned oxidants from a previous
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
62
1 testimony. Could you explain that?
2
During your testimony, you said something
3 about oxidants were mentioned from a previous testimony.
4
A. Previous criteria documents.
5
Q. Well, specifically, which comments were those
6 or can you remember?
7
A. The first standard for ozone has been set
8 by -- in 1971 by the EPA administrator as a standard for
9 ozone and photochemical oxidants.
10
Since the term of the photochemical oxidant is
11 not very specific and since it has been discovered that
12 those photochemical oxidants are not as important as ozone
13 in determining potential public health impact, in 1979,
14 during the revision of the Air Quality standard, the
15 standard has been changed so that it is now for ozone only
16 and not for photochemical oxidants.
17
Q. I didn't quite get the last -- Photo what?
18
A. Photochemical oxidants, photochemical
19 oxidants.
20
Q. Oh, okay.
21
You're talking about precursors?
22
A. No.
23
Q. Photochemical --
24
A. Those are more some type of a degradation
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
63
1 product which could exist in small concentrations, and it
2 was given by the original method which was available in
3 1971 which measured practically the total amount of all
4 oxidants present in the air rather than to be measuring
5 ozone only. Since 1979, we are measuring ozone only and
6 the standard is ozone only.
7
Q. Okay. That's in relation to the Clean Air
8 Act?
9
A. Yes.
10
THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you have any
11
further questions of this witness on
12
cross-examination?
13
MR. BOGACZ: I am continuing, yes.
14
I wish to object to your interrupting me
15
and putting a tone of impatience since you did
16
not do that with the Respondents.
17
THE HEARING OFFICER: Let the record
18
reflect --
19
MR. BOGACZ: I wish to file a formal
20
complaint against you before the Board.
21
THE HEARING OFFICER: Let the record
22
reflect that I did not interrupt the
23
Complainant.
24
MR. BOGACZ: Well, you're insisting that
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
64
1
I move along faster, and you did not say
2
anything about that to the Respondent, and I
3
object strenuously to that.
4
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Bogacz, I have
5
the authority under Section 103200, Subpart G,
6
to regulate the course of the hearing and the
7
conduct of their parties and their counsel. I
8
am attempting to administer an efficient
9
hearing process here, and I believe that we
10
are wasting time.
11
MR. BOGACZ: You're what? I object to
12
that comment, that you are saying that I'm
13
wasting time by asking the witness questions.
14
THE HEARING OFFICER: Complainant --
15
MR. BOGACZ: I insist that you retract
16
that right now. I will file a complaint
17
immediately after I leave this building
18
against you and whoever else governs your
19
legal profession.
20
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Bogacz, you
21
interrupted my statement.
22
I would like the parties to proceed --
23
MR. BOGACZ: You're not going to be
24
sitting there insulting me.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
65
1
THE HEARING OFFICER: Excuse me.
2
I would like the parties to proceed as
3
efficiently as possible with their questioning
4
and to limit their questions as much as
5
possible to the issue, which is that a harm
6
has occurred -- allegedly occurred due to the
7
transmission lines of Commonwealth Edison to
8
the Complainant.
9
MR. BOGACZ: Could I respond?
10
THE HEARING OFFICER: You may proceed
11
with your questioning of the witness.
12 BY MR. BOGACZ:
13
Q. You say -- You mentioned during your testimony
14 background ozone is always present.
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. The -- What is background ozone again?
17
A. The background -- excuse me -- the background
18 ozone concentrations are concentrations which could be
19 found even in the most pristine areas without any human
20 activities, and they are explained by the presence of the
21 ozone precursors which are coming either from the effects
22 like lightening producing nitrogen oxides or emanation of
23 hydrocarbons from the vegetation.
24
Q. Do you know of any regulations concerning
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
66
1 emissions -- ozone emissions from transmission lines?
2
A. No, I don't know that.
3
Q. Do you know of any reason why there isn't any
4 regulation regarding them?
5
A. We have heard and it has been mentioned here
6 that the issue has been already considered by another
7 government component and that they have concluded that
8 when they looked into the issue, they have discovered that
9 the contributions of ozone from those transmission lines
10 are very small and negligible.
11
Q. What is that government component?
12
A. I think that it was the Department of Energy.
13
Q. I see. It wasn't the U.S. EPA?
14
A. No.
15
Q. Did you ever do any consulting work or assist
16 the American Lung Association?
17
A. I have not done any consulting work for the
18 American Lung Association, but we have been very
19 frequently in contact with them. And Dr. Arnold White,
20 who is the executive director of the American Lung
21 Association, participated in many scientific discussions
22 in our meetings and in our symposium.
23
Q. Has -- have -- or do heavy metals have
24 anything to do with ozone or are they -- does ozone react
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
67
1 more actively with heavy metals --
2
A. Ozone is --
3
Q. -- relative to other elements?
4
A. Ozone is a very active compound and prepared
5 to react with any available molecule, including heavy
6 metals; but I am not aware about some specific
7 pre-election from the elements in the air for the ozone.
8
Q. So you would say that ozone is a general --
9
A. Oxidant.
10
Q. -- oxidant; right?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. One more question, maybe two.
13
I have another document here that I submitted
14 to the Respondent in answer to interrogatories. This is a
15 copy of a preliminary draft for the Air Quality document.
16 This one is, I believe, 1986, although, it might be
17 already incorporated -- I don't know -- Well, wait a
18 minute. This might be the latest -- No. It's probably a
19 draft. I'd like to read some.
20
THE HEARING OFFICER: What is the number
21
of the exhibit?
22
MR. BOGACZ: I don't recall if we ...
23
MR. ZIBART: I believe subject to
24
checking with Mr. Bogacz, I believe it's
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
68
1
Complainant's Exhibit 9.
2
MR. BOGACZ: This is the one that's 413,
3
3-127 and 2-5.
4
MR. ZIBART: This is the one we had
5
excerpts of a much larger document.
6
MR. BOGACZ: Right.
7
MR. ZIBART: These are the ones that's
8
been stamped do not quote or site.
9
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
10 BY MR. BOGACZ:
11
Q. Dr. Vostal, you're fairly familiar with the
12 preliminary draft documents for the Air Quality Criteria
13 document?
14
A. Yes, I have been familiar with them.
15
Q. Within these -- this document that's dated
16 December 1993, at 3.5.1.1.6, Calibration Methods for
17 Ozone, it states electrical discharges in air or oxygen
18 readily produce 03, in other words, ozone, at -- but at
19 concentrations far too high for calibration of ambient
20 monitors. Would you agree with that?
21
A. Yes. They are commercially available
22 generators of ozone which could produce very high
23 concentrations of ozone using oxygen as an substrate.
24
MR. BOGACZ: That's all I have right
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
69
1
now. Thank you.
2
MR. ZIBART: If I could have just a
3
moment.
4
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right.
5
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. ZIBART:
7
Q. Dr. Vostal, I'm showing you what's been marked
8 as Complainant's Exhibit 9, which I believe is the
9 document that Mr. Bogacz was just asking you about.
10
A. Yes.
11
Q. Is that the final version of the ozone Air
12 Quality Criteria document?
13
A. No.
14
Q. Okay. Has the final version of the ozone Air
15 Quality Criteria document been released yet?
16
A. It has been released in July 1996.
17
Q. Okay. Does the -- Let's see. Mr. Bogacz also
18 asked you about this letter. It's a letter from James A.
19 Raub, project manager at the U.S. EPA to Mr. Bogacz?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. And what is the date of that letter?
22
A. August 29, 1995.
23
Q. So is that before the final version of the Air
24 Quality Criteria document was released?
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
70
1
A. Yes, it is.
2
Q. Have you reviewed the final version of the Air
3 Quality Criteria document?
4
A. Yes, I did.
5
Q. And do you know whether it has any mention of
6 transmission line ozone in it?
7
A. Not to my knowledge.
8
MR. ZIBART: I have no further questions
9
for Dr. Vostal.
10
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Mr. Bogacz,
11
do you have any question about what the doctor
12
just stated?
13
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
14 BY MR. BOGACZ:
15
Q. The reason why -- The document has been
16 released you say?
17
A. Yes, in July 1996 is the date on the document.
18
Q. The -- Do you know of any reason why the
19 transmission lines emissions of ozone was not entered into
20 the document?
21
A. There is no specific reason for it mentioned
22 in the document. But, personally, I think that probably
23 it has been evaluated the same way as the Department of
24 Energy did it, and they have not found a substantial
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
71
1 contribution of this method of generation as a source of
2 ozone.
3
MR. BOGACZ: That's all I have.
4
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very
5
much, Doctor.
6
MR. ZIBART: At this time, the
7
Respondent would move for the admission of
8
Respondent's Exhibit No. 16, which is
9
Dr. Vostal's curriculum vitae.
10
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
11
Counsel, did we admit Respondent's 13
12
through 15 yesterday?
13
MR. ZIBART: I believe we did. I mean,
14
to the extent we didn't, though --
15
THE HEARING OFFICER: In case we did not,
16
can we do that now? I didn't have a mark for
17
their acceptance into evidence.
18
Is there any objection to the
19
introduction of these documents into evidence?
20
MR. BOGACZ: No.
21
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right.
22
Respondent's 13 through 16 are admitted into
23
evidence.
24
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
72
1
(Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 13-16
2
admitted into evidence.)
3
THE HEARING OFFICER: Respondent may
4
call their next witness.
5
MR. RIPPIE: Respondent's next witness is
6
Mr. Mark Lorenz.
7
THE HEARING OFFICER: Will the witness be
8
sworn?
9
(Witness sworn.)
10
MARK J. LORENZ,
11 called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn,
12 was examined upon oral interrogatories and testified as
13 follows:
14
DIRECT EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. RIPPIE:
16
Q. Mr. Lorenz, would you please state and spell
17 your full legal name for the record?
18
A. Yes. It's Mark with a K, middle initial J,
19 Lorenz, L-o-r-e-n-z.
20
Q. Mr. Lorenz, by whom are you employed?
21
A. I'm employed by Commonwealth Edison.
22
Q. What is your position with Commonwealth
23 Edison?
24
A. I am the siting and estimating engineer in the
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
73
1 right-of-way and site selection department of the
2 transmission system area of Commonwealth Edison.
3
Q. Could you please briefly summarize your
4 educational background?
5
A. Yes. I have a bachelor of science degree in
6 electrical engineering from Valparaiso University.
7
Q. Are you a licensed professional engineer in
8 the State of Illinois?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. Could you briefly summarize your experience in
11 the design and analysis of electrical transmission
12 facilities?
13
A. In my present position, myself and engineers
14 who report to me actually take electrical plans that have
15 been proposed by our system planning folks to fulfill a
16 need, that need being a power shortage or an area under a
17 contingency situation where a transmission line or in the
18 case of a distribution deficiency where a substation may
19 be needed.
20
We would take and analyze those plans from a
21 physical standpoint and determine routing alternatives or
22 site alternatives for that substation or those
23 transmission lines connecting that substation.
24
Q. Does this function include an analysis of the
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
74
1 feasibility of various methods of constructing and
2 operating such lines and substations?
3
A. Yes.
4
Q. Does your function also include analysis of
5 the comparative cost of such lines and substation
6 facilities?
7
A. Yes. Cost would be one of the factors that we
8 would use in our analysis to determine which would be the
9 best plan of those that are feasible.
10
Q. Let me then summarize it this way,
11 Mr. Lorenz.
12
If someone in Commonwealth Edison or someone
13 inquiring of Commonwealth Edison wanted to know whether or
14 not it would be possible to build a transmission line in a
15 certain way, and if so, how much it would cost, who at Com
16 Ed would receive that question and have the responsibility
17 for answering it?
18
A. That would be me.
19
Q. Have you prepared a curriculum vitae that
20 summarizes in greater detail your educational and
21 professional background and experience?
22
A. Yes, I have.
23
MR. RIPPIE: Madam Hearing Officer, will
24
that be Respondent's 17?
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
75
1
THE HEARING OFFICER: That will be
2
Respondent's Exhibit 17.
3
(Respondent's Exhibit No. 17
4
marked for identification.)
5 BY MR. RIPPIE:
6
Q. Mr. Lorenz, I show you a document that's been
7 designated Respondent's Exhibit No. 17, and I ask you if
8 that is a true and correct copy of your curriculum vitae?
9
A. Yes, it is.
10
Q. Mr. Lorenz, have you been present throughout
11 this hearing?
12
A. Yes, I have.
13
Q. You've heard some discussions about something
14 called corona. Can you please explain to the Hearing
15 Officer what effect corona has on Com Ed's transmission
16 system?
17
A. Yes. The corona has the effect of a release
18 of energy. Energy that we would otherwise wish to
19 transmit through the lines unfortunately is released along
20 the way in the form of corona.
21
Q. Because of this loss of energy due to corona,
22 does Commonwealth Edison take any action to minimize
23 corona?
24
A. Yes.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
76
1
Q. Could you explain to the Board and to the
2 Hearing Officer what those actions are?
3
A. Yes. There's really several things.
4
During the actual construction of a
5 transmission line, great care is taken to try avoid
6 marring or scratching the surface of the conductors as we
7 hang them.
8
In the case of a 345,000 volt lines and
9 765,000 volt lines, we will actually use hardware to
10 support those conductors that in and of itself is referred
11 to as corona free. It has much smoother surfaces and --
12 again, in an attempt to try to avoid sharp corners in the
13 electric field, if you will, as Dr. Johnson was describing
14 yesterday.
15
We also add an item called a corona ring on
16 certain types of hardware, suspension and dead-end
17 insulator assemblies, that literally has that same effect
18 as well.
19
Q. Mr. Lorenz, I know that you mentioned these
20 rings and bundled conductors with respect to 345 and 765
21 kV lines.
22
Can you explain to the Board and to the
23 Hearing Officer why those features are not uniformly used
24 on 138 kV lines?
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
77
1
A. Essentially, 138,000 volt lines does not have
2 a level of corona that makes any additional application of
3 reducing or eliminating corona practical.
4
Q. Does Commonwealth Edison take the corona
5 reducing measures that you've just described -- does Com
6 Ed undertake those measures because of the potential, if
7 any, of a line produced ozone?
8
A. No.
9
Q. Why does Com Ed take them?
10
A. Again, because corona in and of itself is a
11 loss of energy. We attempt to try to avoid that loss of
12 energy.
13
Q. Mr. Lorenz, are there any other practical
14 methods as a matter of transmission engineering of
15 reducing corona which Commonwealth Edison does not
16 undertake?
17
A. No.
18
Q. Can you please identify and describe to the
19 Board and to the Hearing Officer the major structural
20 components of both an overhead and an underground
21 transmission line?
22
A. Yes. In the case of an overhead transmission
23 line, besides the conductors that I have described before
24 that we use to actually transmit power from one area to
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
78
1 another or interchange electricity from our neighboring
2 utilities as we discussed yesterday, the conductors are
3 supported by insulators. I described those before. They
4 serve two functions. They support the conductor in air
5 from a structure, but they also insulate that conductor
6 from the structure itself so that the path of the
7 electricity would not be directly to ground by weight of
8 that structure.
9
In addition, there is the structure themselves
10 that support all of the above. In the case of
11 underground, the underground transmission, they also have
12 conductors, not unlike the conductors that I described in
13 overhead. They could even be made up of the same
14 material. However, in the case of underground, the
15 insulators or insulation, if you will, is something that's
16 not a structural number. It strictly keeps the
17 electricity from going directly to ground, especially in a
18 case where that conductor is truly buried in ground.
19
The support of an underground transmission
20 line is in the form of concrete encased conduits or a
21 pipe.
22
Q. Can Com Ed underground its entire system of
23 transmission lines?
24
A. No, it cannot.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
79
1
Q. Why not?
2
A. Well, in the case of 765,000 volt lines, there
3 simply isn't technology that allows that to occur. In the
4 case of 345,000 volt lines, the difference electrically in
5 an underground 345 kV line versus an overhead 345 kV line
6 introduces a tremendous amount of capacitance between that
7 conductor and ground.
8
I believe Ms. Manning mentioned this
9 yesterday. The difference between an overhead 345 line
10 and an underground 345 line in terms of capacitance is
11 approximately 40 times more. If we did not add additional
12 what we would call shunt inductors into the system, which
13 essentially is a -- it's an impedance component that is
14 the opposite of the capacitance, all of the energy that we
15 would attempt to transmit across an underground
16 transmission line would be used up in fulfilling that
17 lines need for capacitance.
18
Q. These shunt inductors are -- I'm going to
19 speak now as a lay person -- they are large components
20 that sit in a substation or a yard above ground; they are
21 not in the -- they are not part of the underground
22 transmission line?
23
A. Correct. They are yet another component,
24 maybe not quite as big as a house, that would sit inside a
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
80
1 substation yard to offset that capacitance.
2
Q. Now, Mr. Lorenz, where it is physically
3 possible to place a transmission line underground, is it
4 more or is it less expensive than an overhead line?
5
A. Underground transmission is far more expensive
6 than overhead. In the case of 345,000 volt lines, our
7 experience is that the cost is at least 10 times more.
8 And that's even for an underground line that has not
9 nearly the capacity, if you will, of an equivalent
10 overhead circuit.
11
In the case of 138,000 volt lines, the cost of
12 undergrounding a circuit is about five to seven times the
13 cost of an equivalent overhead circuit.
14
Q. Can you briefly explain to the Examiner, to
15 the Hearing Officer, and to the Board why that's true?
16
A. It's strictly a function of the cost of the
17 components themselves. The fabrication of cable with
18 proper insulation qualities and levels to keep that
19 conductor from going to ground and the electricity from
20 going to ground is dramatically more expensive as compared
21 to its equivalent overhead component. And, frankly, the
22 cost of construction, the labor cost of underground
23 installation versus overhead is also significantly more.
24
Q. Do underground transmission systems cost less
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
81
1 or more to operate and maintain than overhead systems?
2
A. Our experience is that underground
3 transmission systems are -- cost slightly more to maintain
4 than overhead systems as well as the initial installation
5 cost.
6
Q. Can you tell the Board then why Com Ed ever
7 builds an underground line?
8
A. Well, unfortunately, there are instances where
9 an overhead transmission line simply will not fit.
10 There's also other situations where our feasible routing
11 would take an overhead transmission line past a facility
12 that would concern us from a reliability standpoint. It
13 may actually pose a danger to our line.
14
Q. Mr. Lorenz, have you been able to prepare an
15 estimate of what it would cost Commonwealth Edison and its
16 rate bearers to construct underground those portions of
17 its existing overhead transmission system that physically
18 could be built underground?
19
A. Yes. The cost of undergrounding the existing
20 overhead circuits that we have would be approximately
21 $14.3 billion. This cost, though, does not include any
22 additional right-of-way we may need or the cost of
23 acquiring the rights to put even the overhead facilities
24 that we have, replace them in place with underground
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
82
1 facilities. We are assuming no environmental issues that
2 we would have to come across, so to speak, be they wet
3 lands or rivers that we would have to traverse. It does
4 not include any of those substation components that I
5 described before such as the inductors.
6
There's also an issue with underground --
7 underground transmission as well that it does have a much
8 lower impedance than overhead and would cause a higher
9 level of fault duties available at the various substations
10 that we presently have and, frankly, it would have to
11 cause us to upgrade those substation components as well.
12 Those costs also are not included.
13
Q. I am not going to ask you to do a mini course
14 in electrical engineering, but for the sake of
15 completeness of the record, can you explain what a fault
16 duty is?
17
A. Simply -- Not so simply. If an energized
18 electrical component at no matter what voltage it is, if
19 it was to accidentally contact ground such as I described
20 before, if for some reason a conductor suspended on a
21 transmission structure were to contact that structure,
22 that would cause what we would describe as a fault. What
23 happens during a fault condition is given the amount of
24 generation we have available in the system and the amount
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
83
1 of other lines interconnecting at substations to that
2 particular component, it could cause a large in-rush of
3 current through that line to ground. It's a path of least
4 resistance, so to speak.
5
Q. Mr. Lorenz, have you been able to estimate
6 approximately how much it would cost in addition to the
7 $14.3 billion involving undergrounding the line to do the
8 other ancillary functions that you've described, namely,
9 acquiring land and upgrading substations and the like?
10
A. No. That would require a very detailed
11 planning study in order to analyze exactly where
12 substation upgrades would need to occur, where additional
13 inductors may need to be added, et cetera, et cetera.
14
MR. BOGACZ: Excuse me, Hearing Officer.
15
May I object to the testimony and
16
questions?
17
THE HEARING OFFICER: You may raise an
18
objection.
19
What is your objection?
20
MR. BOGACZ: I object to these questions
21
that are not directly or specifically
22
addressed to transmission line emissions
23
creating ozone.
24
THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you have a
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
84
1
response?
2
MR. RIPPIE: The complaint seeks supposed
3
mitigation of transmission line production of
4
ozone in response to interrogatories; and as
5
stated in the complaint, the remedy sought is
6
undergrounding or other isolation from air.
7
Mr. Lorenz has commented on the technical
8
feasibility of other methods of reducing
9
corona, and he is now commenting on the cost
10
and feasibility of undergrounding. It is
11
directly relevant.
12
THE HEARING OFFICER: The objection is
13
overruled.
14
I'm sorry. Can you continue with your
15
response to that last question or should we
16
have the question repeated?
17
THE WITNESS: No. I think I can
18
continue.
19
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
20 BY THE WITNESS:
21
A. The $14.3 billion that I quoted before for
22 just the actual undergrounding of the existing overhead
23 circuits would most certainly be doubled by all the
24 additional ancillary needs to support an entirely
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
85
1 undergrounded transmission system.
2
Q. Aside from cost, are there any other reasons
3 why Commonwealth Edison Company could not as a practical
4 matter underground its 345 and 138 kV transmission
5 systems?
6
A. Well, there is one other issue, and I believe
7 Ms. Manning described it yesterday, and that is the fact
8 that -- and I mentioning it earlier -- to an underground
9 system has a much lower impedance than an equivalent
10 overhead system. And as such, our system, again, by the
11 path of least resistance that I quoted before, our system
12 would tend to want to absorb power from all of the other
13 electrical systems around us. We would have -- We would
14 frankly have no way of controlling power flow through our
15 system from one utility to another.
16
Q. Mr. Lorenz, are there sufficient -- Let me
17 strike that question and start over, please.
18
In view of the level of underground
19 construction undertaken today, are there sufficient
20 engineers, equipment, and trained construction personnel
21 to accomplish the undergrounding of Com Ed's transmission
22 system with any degree of speed?
23
A. No. Again, assuming other resources besides
24 cost, there simply are not enough underground transmission
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
86
1 engineers to design such a system. We would be putting
2 quite a burden on the manufacturers of such underground
3 components as cable, as manholes, as conduit systems.
4
And aside from cost, as I say, those resources
5 would be extremely hard to come by to try to underground a
6 transmission system as large as Commonwealth Edison's with
7 any speed.
8
Q. Mr. Lorenz, I now want you to put aside all of
9 the difficulties and possibilities you testified about.
10
And I ask you, if putting all those issues
11 aside Com Ed was somehow able to underground all of its
12 transmission lines, do you expect that that would reduce
13 the amount of ozone produced by Com Ed's utility function?
14
A. Likely not. Some of the substation components
15 that I described before just like a transmission line
16 conductor or its support hardware, these items also have a
17 tendency to cause corona. In a substation, there may be
18 very many volted connections, electrical connections,
19 between wires and supports, for example, or between
20 inductors and transformers and conductors. And just by
21 the nature of the sharp edges on these volted connections,
22 for example, there would certainly be corona generated.
23
Q. Would the undergrounding of the transmission
24 system require an increased number of substation
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
87
1 components and connections?
2
A. Absolutely.
3
Q. And those would be the inductors and the like
4 that you have referred to earlier in your testimony?
5
A. Correct.
6
MR. RIPPIE: That's all the questions I
7
have for Mr. Lorenz.
8
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Do you have
9
cross-examination of Mr. Lorenz?
10
CROSS-EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. BOGACZ:
12
Q. Mr. Lorenz, would you describe your testimony
13 you just presented as basically a description of a private
14 company's economic health?
15
A. Could I ask for a clarification? I'm not sure
16 I understand the question.
17
Q. Well, all your testimony you just presented,
18 okay, specifically describes Commonwealth Edison's
19 capabilities or restrictions regarding transmission lines
20 bearing underground and as opposed to building overhead or
21 vice versa. And you mentioned various costs that would be
22 related to building underground rather than putting
23 overhead. It would be more expensive?
24
A. Yes, that's correct, bearing transmission
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
88
1 facilities is more expensive than building overhead
2 facilities.
3
Q. So, basically, your testimony describes how a
4 private company which Commonwealth Edison is more or less
5 makes considerations regarding continuing their
6 existence -- in other words, continuing their
7 profit-making operation; right?
8
A. Well, I'd like to point out that Commonwealth
9 Edison is not a private company. We are, in fact, a
10 public utility. We are regulated by the Illinois Commerce
11 Commission. The function that I described before of
12 reviewing feasible routes or construction alternatives, if
13 you will, of transmission facilities is something that we
14 also present to the Illinois Commerce Commission before we
15 undertake such a project to quite frankly satisfy the
16 justification that what we propose to design and build is,
17 in fact, the least cost alternative to satisfy the need.
18
Q. You said it's a public company. Is there such
19 a legal designation?
20
A. Yes, I believe so.
21
Q. I mean --
22
A. We are a public utility.
23
Q. I don't quite understand how Commonwealth
24 Edison is a public corporation.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
89
1
I mean, is it a government or is it a separate
2 entity provided in a constitution or could you explain
3 what you mean by that?
4
MR. RIPPIE: I'm going to note an
5
objection, if I can.
6
Mr. Bogacz and counsel for Com Ed are
7
perfectly capable of arguing about the
8
legalities of this. This exceeds the scope of
9
Mr. Lorenz's testimony considerably at this
10
point as well as his expertise to the extent
11
that Mr. Bogacz is asking questions about the
12
constitutional origins of public utilities.
13
THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you have a
14
response?
15
MR. BOGACZ: Mr. Lorenz is -- according
16
to his resume, is charged or responsible for
17
acquisition of property and permits and
18
presenting testimony to the ICC, and I'm just
19
trying to determine whether -- He mentioned
20
that it's a public corporation. I'm trying to
21
have him define to me what a public
22
corporation is or whether how -- how does
23
Commonwealth Edison apply to that.
24
MR. RIPPIE: I believe -- and I don't
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
90
1
mean to get into any sort of a dispute -- but
2
I believe Mr. Lorenz's words was that it was a
3
public utility.
4
MR. BOGACZ: Oh, okay. Sorry for my ...
5 BY MR. BOGACZ:
6
Q. Mr. Lorenz, on that same line, though,
7 Commonwealth Edison is concerned about basic -- primarily
8 to continue as a profit-making corporation?
9
A. Within the limits that the Illinois Commerce
10 Commission allows us.
11
Q. Right. In your site plans for these
12 transmission lines, do you ever consider the effect they
13 would have on property values?
14
MR. RIPPIE: Object to lack of relevance.
15
THE HEARING OFFICER: Any response?
16
MR. BOGACZ: Property values are affected
17
by transmission lines, and I'm wondering if
18
the Commonwealth Edison considers them in any
19
way or -- and when they decide to acquire
20
property and in its transmission line routing.
21
Mr. Lorenz is responsible for that, rights of
22
ways and everything that's related to
23
presenting -- to presenting their case before
24
the ICC.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
91
1
THE HEARING OFFICER: The objection is
2
sustained.
3 BY MR. BOGACZ:
4
Q. Mr. Lorenz, do you know what the public
5 convenience and necessity is --
6
A. Yes.
7
Q. -- in reference to Commonwealth Edison's
8 applications before ICC?
9
A. Yes, I do.
10
Q. Do you know what -- Do you know if the ICC
11 considers the public health in any way or the environment
12 in their consideration of Commonwealth Edison's
13 application?
14
A. Yes, they do.
15
Q. In what way?
16
A. They are, as I stated before -- Part of my
17 testimony to them describes line routing. And in the
18 process of seeking the least cost reasonable route
19 alternative for a proposed transmission facility, we
20 review environmental impacts.
21
Q. So environmental impacts are a consideration
22 for other governmental agencies, say, regarding wet lands
23 or some other environmental consideration?
24
A. Yes, yes. If a proposed line route, for
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
92
1 example, would take us through a wet land area, we have an
2 obligation to apply for a permit to cross through that wet
3 land area from the Corps of Engineers.
4
Q. And -- So that would cost extra money to
5 possibly divert the route or mitigation of the wet land in
6 accordance with wet land laws?
7
MR. RIPPIE: I thought that this might be
8
coming back to ozone, but it doesn't appear
9
that it is; so I have a relevance objection
10
again.
11
THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you have a
12
response to the objection?
13
MR. BOGACZ: I object to your objection
14
in that Mr. Lorenz testified that he is
15
responsible for site planning and he is
16
responsible for determining whether certain --
17
the lines go in a certain direction and how
18
they affect certain property, and a wet land
19
and any other environmental factor is
20
something that he considers and he has
21
information on; and the cost involved in
22
diverting that line because of an
23
environmental consideration, he has
24
information on that. So that's the question
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
93
1
I'm asking him to determine what, if any,
2
difference in costs there are from his --
3
their possible original plans or if that
4
factor is even considered.
5
THE HEARING OFFICER: The objection as to
6
the question that was asked previously,
7
previous to the objection being made, and the
8
objection is sustained.
9 BY MR. BOGACZ:
10
Q. You did testify about costs, didn't you,
11 Mr. Lorenz on -- during your testimony on how much more
12 expensive it would be regarding environmental issues?
13
A. No, I did not specifically.
14
Q. You did not?
15
A. I believe I stated the cost of undergrounding
16 versus overhead to be a certain value; but as I then
17 stated, I did not take into account necessarily what exact
18 additional costs there would be due to environmental
19 effects.
20
Q. But you did discuss environment
21 considerations, didn't you?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. In your opinion or with your experience in
24 site planning for Commonwealth Edison, do you know of any
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
94
1 extra costs involved in accommodating environmental
2 considerations?
3
A. Yes.
4
Q. And where was that?
5
A. Such as traversing a wet land as opposed to
6 going around a wet land, we would weigh the cost of each
7 alternative. To traverse a wet land requires us to
8 perform our work in a very certain set way as described by
9 a permit, which we would obtain from the Corps of
10 Engineers, such as matting a wet land to avoid rutting it
11 as we drive our trucks in different facilities in or
12 through it in order to construct our own.
13
Q. Does the EPA -- United States Environmental
14 Protection Agency or the Illinois Environmental Protection
15 Agency have regulations concerning the site planning or
16 construction of transmission lines?
17
A. Not that I'm aware of.
18
MR. BOGACZ: I believe that's all I have
19
right now.
20
MR. RIPPIE: There is no redirect of
21
this witness.
22
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Thank
23
you very much, Mr. Lorenz.
24
Do we have a motion for the introduction
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
95
1
into evidence of the last exhibit?
2
MR. RIPPIE: Respondent moves into
3
evidence Exhibit No. 17.
4
THE HEARING OFFICER: Is there any
5
objection?
6
MR. BOGACZ: No.
7
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right.
8
Exhibits -- Respondent's Exhibit 17 is entered
9
into evidence.
10
(Respondent's Exhibit No. 17
11
admitted into evidence.)
12
THE HEARING OFFICER: Does Respondent
13
have any additional witnesses?
14
MR. RIPPIE: That would conclude the
15
presentation of witnesses in the Respondent's
16
direct case.
17
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Then at
18
this time, I would like to ask the Complainant
19
if they would like to make any further
20
statements at the hearing in the form of a
21
rebuttal case?
22
MR. BOGACZ: Could I take a break first?
23
THE HEARING OFFICER: Would you like to
24
make such statements, Mr. Bogacz?
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
96
1
MR. BOGACZ: Oh, yes.
2
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
3
MR. BOGACZ: But can I take a break
4
first?
5
THE HEARING OFFICER: Can we come back in
6
five minutes?
7
MR. BOGACZ: Yes.
8
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
9
(A short recess was taken.)
10
THE HEARING OFFICER: We are back on the
11
record.
12
And at this point in time, we'll
13
entertain Complainant's case in rebuttal at
14
hearing.
15
The case in rebuttal is an opportunity,
16
Mr. Bogacz, for you to contest any aspects of
17
the Respondent's case-in-chief that
18
Respondent's witnesses have made.
19
You may proceed if you would like to make
20
a statement.
21
I think perhaps because you are your own
22
witness in your own case, then we might have a
23
re-swearing of the witness.
24
(Complainant sworn.)
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
97
1
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
2
You can proceed.
3
(Complainant's Case in Rebuttal.)
4
MR. BOGACZ: As I stated in my
5
preliminary statement regarding this case,
6
this is a case of air pollution. This is a
7
case of air pollution caused by Commonwealth
8
Edison by their emission of ozone from their
9
transmission lines.
10
Their contention is that they are
11
sacrosanct through arbitrary decisions or no
12
decision from governmental officials,
13
including the United States Environmental
14
Protection Agency.
15
Their only evidence points to a
16
self-interest on their part and/or those
17
particular witnesses and the evidence that
18
they presented.
19
None -- None of their evidence indicates
20
an approval by the United States Environmental
21
Protection Agency, which is the primary, the
22
primary agency that governs pollution -- air
23
pollution in the United States. It's not
24
governed by the IEE, it's not governed by the
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
98
1
Bonneville Power Administration, it's not
2
governed by the Illinois Institute of
3
Technology, it's not governed by Dr. Vostal,
4
it's not governed by Gary Johnson, it's not
5
governed by Linda S. Manning, it's not
6
governed by Mark J. Lorenz, and it's not --
7
MR. RIPPIE: Madam Hearing Officer, I
8
think there may be some confusion. I
9
certainly understand that Mr. Bogacz has a
10
right to a closing statement or a brief which
11
contains argument.
12
It is my understanding that this was an
13
opportunity to introduce more factual
14
testimony into the record as opposed to his
15
opportunity to make his closing statement.
16
And it's my impression that what
17
Mr. Bogacz is doing now, while appropriate for
18
argument, is not factual testimony.
19
THE HEARING OFFICER: I will permit the
20
Complainant to continue.
21
MR. BOGACZ: I was going to say that
22
according to --
23
THE HEARING OFFICER: You may continue,
24
Mr. Bogacz.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
99
1
MR. BOGACZ: Okay.
2
THE HEARING OFFICER: The objection is
3
overruled.
4
MR. BOGACZ: I wish to object to the
5
interruption from the Respondent regarding the
6
argument. Respondent's attorney -- or claims
7
to be an attorney familiar with the legal
8
procedures in these cases which are spelled
9
out very specifically in the regulations of
10
the IPCB, and I wish to note that this
11
particular interruption is uncalled for and
12
done to interrupt my argument, and I object
13
strenuously.
14
Could you read me back or -- Can you read
15
back or you can't?
16
MS. REPORTER: I can read back.
17
MR. BOGACZ: Where I stopped on my ...
18
MS. REPORTER: Sure.
19
(Record read as requested.)
20
MR. BOGACZ: Thank you.
21
Yes. It's not governed by these private
22
individuals or companies or groups. It's
23
governed by a public agency. An agency who
24
has a duty and a responsibility to enforce the
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
100
1
air pollution laws in this country. It's an
2
agency charged with determining whether
3
certain individuals, companies, or even
4
governmental agencies must abide by certain
5
air pollution standards.
6
There is no evidence presented by the
7
Respondent to prove that they have an
8
exemption from the United States Environmental
9
Protection Agency to continue emitting ozone
10
from their transmission lines.
11
It appears that there is some sort of a
12
gentleman's agreement between agencies
13
possibly and Commonwealth Edison and the power
14
industry. I really don't know what it is, but
15
there is no evidence of any official exemption
16
which has a duty and a responsibility of the
17
United States Environmental Protection Agency
18
administrator to issue to any person or
19
company or group or party, whatever, who
20
wishes to be exempt from any air standard
21
pollution regulation.
22
Commonwealth Edison claims that there are
23
no permits required. There are no regulations
24
governing their ozone emissions. That is
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
101
1
true. But why is it true? They have not
2
shown why that should be true. Why that
3
should be -- Why should they have the special
4
status to be immune from the air standard
5
pollution regulation of the Clean Air Act.
6
THE HEARING OFFICER: Excuse me.
7
Let the record show there was some
8
question as to that.
9
MR. BOGACZ: Huh?
10
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Bogacz, you are
11
asserting something as factual that you have
12
not established as factual yourself. So I am
13
stating let the record reflect that there was
14
a question as to that.
15
MR. BOGACZ: Oh, okay, about the
16
administrator. Is that my understanding of
17
what you are --
18
THE HEARING OFFICER: About the
19
exception.
20
MR. BOGACZ: Exception?
21
THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. You mentioned
22
an exception to regulations.
23
MR. BOGACZ: Yes. Oh, okay.
24
Yes. There is no exception. There is a
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
102
1
privilege existing for Commonwealth Edison and
2
apparently the entire power industry in the
3
whole country.
4
This privilege, immunity, exception,
5
exemption, whatever you want to call it, can
6
only be determined by United States
7
Environmental Protection Agency and enforced
8
by state agencies by their -- under direction
9
from the U.S. EPA.
10
None of their witnesses provided any
11
Environmental Protection Agency authorized
12
studies. All these studies were provided by
13
private groups or research organizations or
14
persons. None of the studies, calculations
15
were approved by the EPA. They are not looked
16
at by the EPA. And yet the Respondent asserts
17
these as some form of authority which is
18
superior to the U.S. EPA or for that matter
19
the IEPA or for that matter the IPCB.
20
There is definitely ozone being produced
21
by Commonwealth Edison transmission lines.
22
Ozone is an air pollutant. Their own
23
witnesses testified to that fact. Because
24
costs are involved which would possibly
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
103
1
undermine the profitability of Commonwealth
2
Edison, they assumed that they have a right to
3
continue in their old ways, their old ways
4
going back to the Victorian age over a hundred
5
years. They are still using the same
6
technology of building overhead lines and
7
spewing out this poison, this poison that
8
everybody else in the country generally has to
9
respond to and obey laws, including automobile
10
emissions, myself included.
11
I object alone on that basis as a citizen
12
that I -- my equal protection rights are being
13
deprived because other parties are being
14
treated differently because they assume an
15
immune status in this country, so they can
16
continue making millions of dollars.
17
It may be true that the construction of
18
underground lines may be technically not
19
feasible. It may be true. What has
20
Commonwealth Edison and the power industry
21
been doing for the last hundred years with
22
their money regarding research? There is --
23
Apparently, they haven't been doing anything.
24
They want to continue spewing out this air
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
104
1
pollutant and making millions of dollars at
2
the expense of the public interest.
3
Well, I say I think it's time that we
4
stop it. There are apparently others maybe
5
more responsible for their -- for Commonwealth
6
Edison's failure to prevent pollution from
7
their transmission lines. That may be down
8
the line to be found out by other citizens or
9
maybe myself.
10
I mean, the cavalier attitude of
11
Commonwealth Edison regarding ozone and the
12
cavalier attitude presented by their witnesses
13
that ozone is something that's, well, you
14
know, it's just a little tiny amount, well, I
15
call that a lot of baloney because the U.S.
16
EPA does not consider ozone a cavalier topic.
17
Everybody has to take their automobile
18
vehicles into -- just about everybody has to
19
take their vehicles in for emission control.
20
Why? Because ozone. We have to go there and
21
gravel and wait in line and get our test done
22
with as a good citizen, but certain
23
corporations like Commonwealth Edison can
24
continue on without any regulation or control
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
105
1
to emit their ozone directly into the
2
atmosphere. Why? They should be stopped.
3
It's insanity. Just because they haven't done
4
anything for the last hundred years regarding
5
new technology. There is new technology to
6
bury transmission lines. It can be found in
7
Europe primarily. And they apparently don't
8
want to do it. It may cost a few extra more
9
bucks, maybe less for the stockholders.
10
A private company in this country does
11
not have more rights than a public interest.
12
I know that well. If it does, then we're --
13
this country's in real deep do-do.
14
The environment is more important than
15
company profits. The public interest is more
16
important than company profits. Public
17
convenience and necessity, that is, the
18
bulwark rat battering ram used by Commonwealth
19
Edison and the power industry. They feed on
20
pollution actually. They create it. They
21
follow it wherever it's spread in the sprawl
22
of the country, in the Chicago area. They
23
feed it.
24
I read an -- The article that I read
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
106
1
fairly recently described our society as a --
2
as being in a mental situation where we are in
3
a dilemma. We don't know what to do. On the
4
one hand, we are asking for protection from
5
pollution; on the other hand, we are running
6
around like crazies wanting to make millions
7
of more dollars. And it's time we bite the
8
bullet. I think it's probably one of the
9
foundations of drug addiction. That's
10
probably why a lot of people are going to it
11
to forget their problems.
12
But Commonwealth Edison did not present
13
any evidence to support their case that they
14
should not abide by the Clean Air Act and the
15
IEPA and the Environmental Protection Act.
16
My case, my documents, the evidence I
17
presented show that the air is being polluted
18
by ozone, which is an air pollutant. It is
19
confirmed by the witnesses from the Respondent
20
and the -- there are no regulations currently
21
regulating or controlling this emission, and
22
this particular pollution activity should be
23
stopped or regulated to protect the public
24
health.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
107
1
Thank you.
2
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very
3
much, Mr. Bogacz.
4
MR. RIPPIE: There is no
5
cross-examination of that statement.
6
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Then at
7
this time, we have a couple of administrative
8
matters to discuss prior to closing the record
9
of the hearing.
10
MR. BOGACZ: Excuse me, Hearing Officer.
11
THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes.
12
MR. BOGACZ: I'm just looking at the
13
order of enforcement hearings.
14
Was that considered my opening argument
15
or letter G?
16
THE HEARING OFFICER: That was E,
17
Complainant's case in rebuttal.
18
MR. BOGACZ: Oh, okay. I'm jumping
19
ahead.
20
THE HEARING OFFICER: Now, at this point,
21
the parties in the case determine whether
22
they wish to brief or not.
23
I had the impression that you did wish to
24
brief the issues in the case. Is that
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
108
1
correct?
2
MR. BOGACZ: Yes.
3
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. That
4
can occur after the conclusion of the
5
collection of documents which are going to be
6
a part of the case, and we had discussion
7
yesterday about documents that will be entered
8
into evidence once I have seen them and
9
determined that they are relevant to the
10
proceeding, and those are the documents we
11
discussed that are a part of a FOIA request at
12
this time.
13
MR. BOGACZ: Yes.
14
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Bogacz, when
15
you get those documents, if you would see that
16
I receive a copy of those. Then we can
17
discuss -- and also, Mr. Zibart -- then we can
18
discuss perhaps in a phone conference the
19
documents that have come in.
20
At that time, we will have the date on
21
which they have come in since we do not know
22
now what date we will obtain those documents;
23
and, therefore, the case schedule for closing
24
and briefing will not be determined here on
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
109
1
the record today. We will determine that once
2
we receive the documents that will be the
3
documents we will enter into the record.
4
All right.
5
MR. ZIBART: Would the Hearing Officer
6
consider it prudent perhaps to set sort of an
7
outside limit conference in case time drags on
8
and we haven't heard anything from the U.S.
9
EPA?
10
I assume they have some obligation to
11
respond in a timely manner, but ...
12
THE HEARING OFFICER: What is the
13
timeline, Mr. Bogacz; do you know?
14
MR. BOGACZ: I don't -- I don't think I
15
brought it with me, a document I got the other
16
day stating they have 14 days or something to
17
respond to my request. I may have to specify
18
more.
19
THE HEARING OFFICER: I would like to
20
suggest that we have a phone conference call
21
in about a month. We have done this for
22
purposes of reporting status, and that's what
23
we'll call it. We'll call it a status
24
reporting phone conference.
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
110
1
And you are welcome to contact me prior
2
to the date that we come to hearing --
3
MR. BOGACZ: Oh, okay.
4
THE HEARING OFFICER: -- if you receive
5
the materials sooner.
6
MR. BOGACZ: Okay.
7
THE HEARING OFFICER: But in case we do
8
not have any contact prior to that date due to
9
the receipt of materials on the FOIA request,
10
then perhaps -- Well, that takes us to
11
Christmas.
12
Is there any date in that area of days
13
when you could agree to have a phone
14
conference.
15
I plan to be in the office that week, but
16
for the holiday, and also the following week.
17
MR. BOGACZ: The week of the 15th?
18
THE HEARING OFFICER: The week of the
19
30th.
20
MR. BOGACZ: Oh, the 30th. Right before
21
New Year's Eve you mean?
22
THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes. Christmas is
23
on a Wednesday, the 25th.
24
Mr. Zibart, are you in the office that
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
111
1
week in general?
2
MR. ZIBART: Yes. Perhaps we could try
3
something like Monday, the 23rd?
4
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Bogacz, would
5
that be suitable for you for a phone
6
conference?
7
MR. BOGACZ: Yes. I think it would be
8
all right. I might be -- It might be
9
something about going out of town, but I'm not
10
quite sure yet. But it looks good now.
11
THE HEARING OFFICER: We can change that
12
date if necessary.
13
MR. BOGACZ: Okay.
14
THE HEARING OFFICER: Just call to change
15
it if necessary.
16
Then why don't we say Monday the 23rd of
17
December at 10:00 a.m.
18
MR. BOGACZ: Okay.
19
MR. RIPPIE: That's fine with us.
20
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. I have
21
identified no issues of witness credibility.
22
I am determined by the rules to make a
23
statement as to witness credibility at the
24
hearing. I identified no issues of witness
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
112
1
credibility at yesterday's hearing, and I am
2
identifying no issues of witness credibility
3
at the hearing today.
4
The closing schedule will be ordered
5
after receipt of the documents from U.S. EPA
6
requested by Mr. Bogacz on October 31, 1996, I
7
believe was the date of your request that went
8
with your subpoena.
9
MR. BOGACZ: Oh, yes.
10
THE HEARING OFFICER: And indications are
11
that the U.S. EPA is processing the subpoena
12
with respect to the documents as a FOIA
13
requests.
14
Other administrative matters; Mr. Rippie,
15
I would like is a separate written appearance
16
for you, if you don't mind.
17
MR. RIPPIE: That will be prepared and
18
filed with the clerk of the Board on Monday.
19
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Thanks
20
very much. And be sure that you bring the
21
proper number of copies.
22
And then with respect to the filing that
23
occurred at the hearing, I will make sure that
24
the clerk receives the proper number of copies
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
113
1
on that.
2
MR. ZIBART: Thanks very much.
3
THE HEARING OFFICER: Now, the closing
4
schedule will be forthcoming.
5
And I want to thank all of the witnesses
6
that are present today for coming to the
7
Pollution Control Board's Hearing. I know
8
that I appreciated your testimony very much,
9
and I know that the Board will appreciate
10
hearing from all of the individuals in this
11
case and their testimony very much.
12
This concludes the hearing of this case.
13
Thank you for your attendance and cooperation
14
in our process.
15
Off the record.
16
17
(Which were all the proceedings
18
had in this matter at this time.)
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292
114
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
2 COUNTY OF C O O K )
3
4
5
I, MICHELLE M. DOSE, C.S.R., do hereby state
6 that I am a court reporter doing business in the City of
7 Chicago, County of Cook, and State of Illinois; that I
8 reported by means of machine shorthand the proceedings
9 held in the foregoing cause, and that the foregoing is a
10 true and correct transcript of my shorthand notes so taken
11 as aforesaid.
12
13
__________________________________
MICHELLE M. DOSE, C.S.R.
14
Notary Public, Cook County, IL
15
16
17
18
19
20 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
before me this______day
21 of_________, A.D., 1996.
22
________________________
23
Notary Public
•
24
L.A. REPORTING
(312) 419-9292