R96004b.PDF

1 BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

2 STATE OF ILLINOIS

5 IN THE MATTER OF:

6 LISTING OF FEDERAL HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS, GREAT LAKES COMMISSION

7 TOXIC COMPOUNDS and GREAT WATERS

PROGRAM TOXIC COMPOUNDS, and NO. R96-004

8 SOURCE REPORTING for ILLINOIS

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS:

9 AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 232

13 Hearing held, pursuant to Notice, on the 23rd day

14 of February, 1996, at the hour of 9:55 a.m., at Third

15 Floor, 600 South Second Street, Springfield, Illinois,

16 before Mr. Charles

Feinen, duly appointed Hearing

17 Officer.

21 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 PRESENT:

2 MR. JOSEPH YI, Board Member

MS. RACHEL DOCTORS, on behalf of IEPA

3 MR. BROOKE PETERSON, on behalf of IEPA

DR. MANI TEHSEEN, on behalf of IEPA

4 MR. HENRY NAOUR, on behalf of IEPA

MR. DAVID L. RIESER, on behalf of the Illinois Steel

5 Group and SIRC

MS. WHITNEY WAGNER ROSEN, on behalf of IERG

6 MR. MARK HOMER, on behalf of CICI

INDEX

10 WITNESS PAGE

Henry

Naour

11 Direct Testimony 5

Cross-Examination by Mr.

Rieser 17

Cross-Examination by Ms.

Rosen 28

Recross-Examination by Mr.

Rieser 29

Cross-Examination by Mr. Homer 30

14 EXHIBITS IDENTIFIED ADMITTED

Agency Exhibit No. 1 9 17

15 Agency Exhibit No. 2 9 17

Agency Exhibit No. 3 10 17

16 Agency Exhibit No. 4 10 17

Agency Exhibit No. 5 10 17

17 Agency Exhibit No. 6 10 17

Agency Exhibit No. 7 10 17

18 Agency Exhibit No. 8 10 17

Agency Exhibit No. 9 10 17

19 Agency Exhibit No. 10

10 17

Agency Exhibit No. 11 10 17

20 Agency Exhibit No. 12 11 17

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 HEARING OFFICER: Good morning. My name is

2 Chuck

Feinen. I am the assigned Hearing Officer to

3 this matter. The attending Board Member for this

4 matter is Joseph

Yi, sitting to my right.

5 This matter has been docketed as R96-4, entitled

6 Listing of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants, Great

7 Lakes Commission Toxic Compounds and Great Waters

8 Program Toxic Compounds, and Source Reporting for

9 Illinois Toxic Air Contaminants: Amendments to 35

10 Ill. Adm. Code 232.

11 This matter is before the Board pursuant to the

12 Agency's proposal being filed on October 13th, 1995.

13 The matter was filed pursuant to Sections 9.527 and

14 28. The rulemaking has not been filed pursuant to the

15 fast track rulemaking provisions under 28.5 of the

16 Act.

17 The Agency's proposal is to make certain

18 amendments to section or Part 232 of 35 Ill. Adm. Code

19 Toxic Air Contaminants, which would add to the list of

20 toxic air contaminants certain chemicals and create a

21 source identification requirement.

22 Today's hearing is for the purpose of starting the

23 Agency's presentation on the proposal.

24 If I can go off the record.

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 (Discussion off the record.)

2 HEARING OFFICER: Let's get any appearances

3 that need to be filed on the record today.

4 MR. RIESER: I've previously filed my

5 appearance. My name is David

Rieser. I'm appearing

6 on behalf of both the Illinois Steel Group and also

7 the Styrene Information and Research Center, otherwise

8 known as SIRC, S-I-R-C.

9 MS. ROSEN: I'm Whitney

Rosen. I've also

10 previously filed my appearance. I'm legal counsel for

11 Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group.

12 MR. HOMER: I'm Mark Homer -- I have not

13 filed an appearance but will do so -- with the

14 Chemical Industry Council of Illinois.

15 HEARING OFFICER: Is there anyone else who

16 would like to file an appearance or state they're

17 present here today?

18 MS. DOCTORS: Do you want me to state -- with

19 me today is Hank

Naour, who's Manager of our Technical

20 Support Unit,

Mani Tehseen, who works in the Technical

21 Support Unit, and Brooke Peterson, who's with Division

22 of Legal Counsel.

23 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.

24 With that I guess then we'll start with the

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 presentation from the Agency. If there's any

2 witnesses that need to be sworn in, let's swear them

3 in now.

4 (Whereupon Henry

Naour was duly sworn.)

5 MS. DOCTORS: We can just start with Hank

6 giving his short statement. That will be fine.

7 MR. NAOUR: Thank you, Rachel.

8 My name is Henry

Naour. I received a Bachelors

9 degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of

10 Detroit in 1964. I have completed required courses

11 for a Masters degree in Chemical Engineering at the

12 University of Detroit.

13 I am currently employed as the Manager of the

14 Technical Support Unit in the Permit Section of the

15 Bureau of Air of the Illinois Environmental Protection

16 Agency. I joined the Agency in October 1991. My

17 responsibilities primarily relate to the

18 implementation of the Federal Air Standards as

19 promulgated by USEPA under the Clean Air Act amended

20 in 1990. The Agency plays a vital role in the USEPA

21 implementation strategy. Furthermore, my

22 responsibilities also relate to the development of a

23 State Air

Toxics Program which include the issues

24 regarding selection criteria for Illinois Toxic Air

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 Contaminants, reporting requirements for affected

2 facilities, emission standards, modification

3 procedures, and compliance assurance. It is my

4 ultimate responsibility to assure that a State

Toxics

5 Program is in place to facilitate the implementation

6 of both of these programs.

7 Prior to joining the Agency, I worked as a

8 chemical engineer in the industrial sector for 25

9 years. For the past 20 years, I worked at the plant

10 management level where my responsibilities included,

11 among other matters, complying with Federal and State

12 regulations.

13 The Part 232 Subpart D reporting rule is a

14 culmination of many hours of discussion regarding

15 Phase II of the Illinois Toxic Air Contaminant or ITAC

16 Program. Phase II will accumulate ITAC emissions data

17 to be used in determining geographic impact in the

18 State of Illinois. The stakeholders, Illinois EPA,

19 IERG, and the Illinois Petroleum Council, the

20 Chemicals Industry Council of Illinois, Sierra Club

21 and the Chicago Lung Association, were also involved

22 as partners in the development of the R90-1 Toxic Air

23 Contaminant, TAC, list and final adoption by the

24 Illinois Pollution Control Board. This adoption of

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 R90-1 completed Phase I of the ITAC Program which

2 provided the scoring mechanism for listing or

3 de-listing TAC chemicals.

4 Phase II of the program is designed to provide

5 information to the Agency regarding those affected

6 sources and the emissions of

ITACs from these sources.

7 The current information that the Agency possesses is

8 limited, in that, the source information located in

9 the Bureau of Air Permit Section database was provided

10 vis-a-vis the permit application process. These

11 sources were only obliged to provide information

12 limited to the permit process. The emissions,

13 therefore, do not provide the total source emissions

14 data needed for the Bureau of Air's Phase III study.

15 The reporting rule will provide more complete data

16 regarding ITAC emissions in the State which can be

17 reviewed on the basis of geographical impact. This

18 study will support Phase III of the program which will

19 focus on the control options for those affected

20 sources if controls are in fact required as a result

21 of the study.

22 The proposal provides that the Bureau of Air

23 Permit Section will develop a series of turnaround

24 documents that will be mailed to the potential

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 affected sources. A reporting format similar to the

2 Federal SARA 313

Toxics Release Inventory form has

3 been developed and will be available to the sources

4 for reporting. The Agency has also stated that it

5 will allow ITAC emissions data that has been reported

6 on the SARA 313 form to be sent to the Agency instead

7 of using the Agency's suggested format.

8 And this completes my testimony.

9 MS. DOCTORS: Okay. I just have one thing

10 I'd like to mention is that in reading the rule I

11 found a couple typographical errors. Like we mention

12 Part 210 when we mean Part 201. So before the second

13 hearing I will put together an errata sheet and mail

14 that out so that people are aware of the corrections.

15 And these are just typographical corrections.

16 And that's what the Agency would like to put on

17 this morning.

18 HEARING OFFICER: I want to go off the record

19 for a second.

20 (Discussion off the record.)

21 MS. DOCTORS: The Agency would like to have

22 admitted into the record a copy of the Technical

23 Support Document and its attachments as well as

24 exhibits that have previously been labeled 1 through

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 9, and two documents that have been given to the Board

2 previously, specifically Deposition of Air Pollutants

3 to the Great Waters First Report to Congress, USEPA

4 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Number

5 453-R-93-055 May 1994, and the Report on Toxic

6 Chemical Release Inventory Form R and Instructions

7 published by USEPA Office of Pollution Prevention and

8 Toxics, Number 745-K-93-001, January 1993. I don't

9 have copies of the last two but I will give you --

10 HEARING OFFICER: Go off the record again.

11 (Discussion off the record.)

12 HEARING OFFICER: The Agency has submitted

13 exhibits. If there's no objection, I'll enter them

14 into the record.

15 MR. RIESER: I want to hear what's being

16 submitted.

17 HEARING OFFICER: All right. The first

18 exhibit for proponent Agency will be the Technical

19 Support Document and that will be marked as Exhibit

20 Number 1 for proponent.

21 The next document the Agency enters into is March

22 9th, 1993 Outreach Meeting Attendance Sheet. That

23 will be marked as Exhibit Number 2.

24 The next document is the March 30th, 1993 Outreach

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 Meeting Attendance Sheet. That will be marked as

2 document number 3 or Exhibit Number 3, excuse me.

3 The May 6th, 1993 Outreach Meeting Attendance

4 Sheet will be marked as Exhibit Number 4.

5 The May 25th, 1993 Outreach Meeting Attendance

6 Sheet will be marked as Exhibit Number 5.

7 The March 18th, 1994 Outreach Meeting Attendance

8 Sheet will be marked as Number 6 -- Exhibit Number 6.

9 Excuse me again.

10 The August 23rd, 1994 Outreach Meeting Attendance

11 Sheet will be marked as Exhibit Number 7.

12 The March 1st, 1995 Outreach Meeting Attendance

13 Sheet will be marked as Exhibit Number 8.

14 The list of sources expected to be affected by the

15 proposal will be marked as Exhibit Number 9.

16 The description of the processes affected by the

17 proposal will be listed as Exhibit Number 10.

18 The Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great

19 Waters First Report to Congress, United States

20 Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality

21 Planning and Standards Research, Triangle Park, North

22 Carolina, EPA Document 453-R-93-055, May 1994, will be

23 listed as Exhibit Number 11.

24 And the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 Form R and Instructions Revised 1992 Version, USEPA

2 Number 745-K-93-001, January 1993, will be marked as

3 Exhibit Number 12.

4 If there's no objections to that --

5 MR. RIESER: Can I ask a question just on the

6 technical support -- I've got a couple of questions on

7 some of the exhibits that I don't think were covered

8 in the testimony. With regard to the Technical

9 Support Document who prepared that?

10 MR. NAOUR: I did.

11 MR. RIESER: Hank, you prepared this. And at

12 what time did you prepare this?

13 MR. NAOUR: David, I can't recall exactly.

14 Let me think. Well, let's see. There is a date on

15 it.

16 MR. RIESER: Even better. May 26th, 1995?

17 MR. NAOUR:

Uh-huh.

18 MR. RIESER: So this document was prepared

19 after the last outreach meeting and in light of the

20 final discussions that were had at that meeting?

21 MR. NAOUR: That's correct.

22 MR. RIESER: Were there any changes to the

23 proposal after you prepared the Technical Support

24 Document?

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 MR. NAOUR: No, there were not. This

2 document was then given to -- as part of the final

3 total package.

4 MR. RIESER: It was filed with the Board as

5 part of the total package?

6 MR. NAOUR: Yeah.

7 MR. RIESER: All right. On the list of

8 sources expected to be affected, how was this

9 prepared?

10 MR. NAOUR: As I indicated, the current

11 Bureau of Air database that we maintain is a permitted

12 oriented database, so the list -- and the word

13 expected could also -- and I would want to say

14 potential because I think they're similar. And that

15 with our information we, as we indicated in my

16 testimony, are going to send turnaround documents and

17 we're going to send them to those that are the

18 potential based on our information. And so it was

19 prepared from our existing limited database.

20 MR. RIESER: So this is the database made up

21 of all your

permittees, is that right?

22 MR. NAOUR: That's right.

23 MR. RIESER: And then you selected for the

24 release of ITAC the

permittees that released

ITACs

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 more than a certain amount, is that correct?

2 MR. NAOUR: Based on our proposed de

minimis

3 threshold values.

4 MR. RIESER: Okay. And so it's a computer

5 run of your existing database?

6 MR. NAOUR: Precisely.

7 MR. RIESER: Given those search parameters?

8 MR. NAOUR: Exactly.

9 MR. RIESER: Now, you've got -- don't you

10 have two -- you've got potential annual emissions.

11 There are two reports in here.

12 MR. NAOUR: Well, one indicates sources that

13 would be excluded as a possibility and then also we

14 have one that indicates those that would be affected.

15 So what we did is as part of the discussion which was

16 in the previous two meetings that we had was trying to

17 determine for the steering committee what would be a

18 potential impact on those that would be excluded by de

19 minimis values and what would be the potential impact

20 by those that would be in fact included or affected

21 sources. Again, keep in mind limited in value since

22 we're talking estimations from our current database.

23 MR. RIESER: Yeah, I understand. What I'm

24 focusing on now is how the two things were prepared.

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 Just looking at the two attachments, they seem to have

2 the same -- in the package I've got they seem to have

3 the same title.

4 MS. ROSEN: Yeah, that's what I'm --

5 MR. RIESER: I haven't looked at the

6 information to see if it's the same.

7 MR. NAOUR: You're talking Attachment 5.2 at

8 the top?

9 MR. RIESER: There's Attachment 5.1 at the

10 top.

11 Oh, 5.2, I'm sorry. So 5.2 is just this one page

12 with three entries on it?

13 MR. NAOUR: Yes. And then 5.1 are those

14 affected.

15 MR. RIESER: So those should be two separate

16 exhibits?

17 MS. DOCTORS: The whole TSD was admitted with

18 all its attachments. Or that's what I requested.

19 MR. RIESER: It sounds like Mr.

Feinen broke

20 them out and described each one as a separate exhibit.

21 HEARING OFFICER: When I read the exhibits

22 and am marking them, I just took the Technical Support

23 Document as one exhibit and I did not separate these

24 two attachments out or the third attachment, 5.3, out

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 as separate exhibits. Exhibit Number 1 is the whole

2 technical document with the attachments. Exhibit

3 Number 2 starts off with the sign-in sheets.

4 MR. RIESER: Okay. But then you had Exhibit

5 9 which was the list of sources.

6 MS. ROSEN: It's this list. It's this one,

7 David.

8 MR. RIESER: Right.

9 MS. ROSEN: It's the same list.

10 HEARING OFFICER: Is it the same list?

11 MS. ROSEN: Yeah.

12 MR. RIESER: But there's apparently two other

13 -- oh, I see.

14 MS. ROSEN: This information is in the packet

15 twice is what --

16 MR. RIESER: I've got it. I understand.

17 And the description of the processes is simply

18 your breakout, kind of a subjective breakout from this

19 other -- this larger database search that you talked

20 about?

21 MR. NAOUR: That's right.

22 MR. RIESER: And all these are things that

23 you prepared?

24 MR. NAOUR: That's right.

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 MR. RIESER: I don't have any objection to

2 them.

3 HEARING OFFICER: With hearing no objection,

4 I'll enter those --

5 MS. ROSEN: Wait, I'm sorry.

6 HEARING OFFICER: Hold on a second.

7 MS. ROSEN: Is this the same document, Hank?

8 I think Chuck has listed it as Exhibit Number 9. It

9 is way in the back of the information that was

10 submitted. It seems to be a number of pages shorter.

11 That's why I'm -- what's the --

12 HEARING OFFICER: Let's go off the record for

13 a second. Let me interrupt for a second. Go off the

14 record.

15 (Discussion off the record.)

16 HEARING OFFICER: Let's go back on the

17 record. The discussion off the record was to

18 determine whether or not what I have marked or intend

19 to mark as Exhibit Number 9 is the same as attachment

20 5.1 to the Technical Support Document. At the end of

21 the discussion we determined that, yes, it is.

22 And with that, I hear no objections to entering

23 these as exhibits and I do move to enter those as

24 exhibits and they're entered as exhibits.

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 (Agency Exhibit Numbers 1 - 12

2 admitted.)

3 HEARING OFFICER: With that I think the

4 Agency is done with their presentation for today. So

5 let's go off the record again real quick.

6 (Discussion off the record.)

7 HEARING OFFICER: Let's go back on the

8 record.

9 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY

10 MR. RIESER:

11 Q. Morning, Mr.

Naour. As you heard, my name is

12 David

Rieser and I'm appearing both on behalf of the

13 Illinois Steel Group and the Styrene Information and

14 Research Center.

15 The questions I want to ask I think are going to

16 be pretty straightforward and will focus on certain

17 issues in the regulations themselves.

18 With respect to the definition of the Illinois

19 toxic air contaminants, there's an exclusion from coke

20 oven gas and this was a result of our discussions

21 during various outreach meetings. And I just want to

22 confirm it's coke oven gas was excluded from the

23 definition of ITAC and, therefore, from reporting

24 requirements under this regulation because of the

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 other regulations of coke oven emissions under the

2 federal laws and regulations. Is it correct that what

3 we're doing is excluding from reporting the

4 constituents of all the coke oven emissions that would

5 be emitted by a coke oven battery?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. Is it also correct that we're excluding

8 emissions from the byproducts plant as well?

9 A. As I recall, David, that was not part of the

10 discussions. We focused primarily on coke oven

11 emission as a given definition that is typically being

12 focused on by, as you indicated, by other regulations

13 that are focusing on those emissions.

14 Q. Okay. But this would exclude the emissions

15 from the coke oven batteries themselves?

16 A. That's right.

17 Q. There's also no question based on Section

18 232.440 that no emissions or other type of physical

19 testing will be required by this reporting regulation?

20 MS. DOCTORS: I'm sorry, where are you?

21 MR. RIESER: 230.440.

22 MS. DOCTORS: That's not part of this

23 proposal. That's part of the rule.

24 HEARING OFFICER: 232.440?

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 MR. RIESER: 232.440.

2 A. Yeah, 232.440 using available data. So your

3 question, David?

4 Q. The question is just to confirm that people

5 in complying with this rule will not have to perform

6 any physical emissions testing of any kind by the

7 reporting requirements?

8 A. David, as we negotiated and worked on the

9 rule, that was the agreed approach. As you know, as

10 we wanted the ability if we needed to have additional

11 information, that would in fact be worked out with the

12 particular source as to what would be required. We

13 would be looking at available data only and we didn't

14 want any excessive resources expended unless we felt

15 that it was necessary. And that necessity would be

16 worked out again with the source itself.

17 Q. Okay. Now, isn't the issue of additional

18 information covered by 232.450?

19 A. That's right.

20 Q. 450(a). And 450(a) describes the type of

21 additional information which the Agency would require,

22 (a) (1), (2) and (3), is that correct?

23 A. That's right.

24 Q. Okay. Isn't it correct that the source would

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 not have to do any addition -- would not be required

2 to perform any additional physical testing to provide

3 the Agency that data pursuant to 232.450(a)?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. So getting back to my original question, the

6 Agency can request more information than is described

7 in 232.430(a)(1) and (2) but only under the conditions

8 described in 232.450 and only the limited information

9 that's described in 232.450(a)(1), (2) and (3)?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. And that no testing would be required to

12 provide that information?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. With regard to 232.450(a), under what types

15 of circumstances would this additional information be

16 required?

17 A. We view the information on the basis of being

18 able to establish geographical impact. And in this

19 case it would be source by source. And therefore, on

20 that basis, if we -- in the analysis of the

21 information that we received from the reporting

22 mechanism that our screening process which we have

23 described indicates that a source may have a

24 significant impact according to current technical

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 approach, then we would be working with the source on

2 additional information to define what that impact may

3 be. And we may -- in that case we may request

4 additional information to clarify a risk assessment

5 analysis of that source's impact.

6 Q. So when you say significant impact, what

7 specifically -- what specific types of impacts are you

8 going to be looking at and how would those be

9 measured?

10 A. Typically the impacts would be the ecological

11 effect of emissions from the source would be tied to

12 the public health aspect, would be fence line

13 characteristics of how the emissions would be

14 impacting at the fence line of that facility, beyond

15 the fence line potentially would be those focus

16 groups, schools, hospitals, et cetera, and we would

17 look at that data on the basis of impact on current

18 federal guideline and using that as a guideline

19 establish whether or not we would need additional

20 information to clarify that impact.

21 Q. How would the Agency have all of the data

22 that you describe with regard to a particular source?

23 A. Well, the reporting rule is going to define

24 for all

ITACs emitted at the source source-wide

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 emissions.

2 Q. Right.

3 A. We will be able to do a conservative rather

4 simplified analysis of the facility's impact at the

5 fence line. With that information we intend through

6 our development of the structure of analysis to

7 determine whether or not further information would be

8 needed to clarify beyond the fence line any public

9 health impact.

10 Q. Okay. So for certain types of sources based

11 on the source emitting -- source emissions information

12 that you're going to get pursuant to this rule, if

13 that emissions information reflects more than a

14 certain level of certain types of -- more than a

15 certain level of certain types of

ITACs, then you're

16 going to be following up for more information, is that

17 correct?

18 A. That's right.

19 Q. Now, is it -- are there certain types of

20 ITACs to which that's going to apply or to all

ITACs?

21 A. It is to all

ITACs that is in the rule.

22 Q. Are there certain types of sources to which

23 that would apply or certain types of geographic

24 locations?

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 A. It is going to be for all sources. We're

2 looking at the overall picture.

3 Q. Is there a threshold value for individual

4 ITACs that you've decided upon as a trigger for

5 requiring the additional information?

6 A. We don't intend to operate on that basis.

7 We're going to operate on current USEPA guidelines and

8 risk assessment as to determine whether or not we

9 would -- again, working with the facility whether or

10 not that would be a potential impact to define further

11 and to clarify further.

12 Q. But the guidelines would require the

13 collection of other information to make a risk

14 assessment determination, wouldn't they?

15 A. May.

16 Q. I mean for the Agency to make a decision

17 whether this is an issue at an individual source,

18 you'd have to have more than just the emissions data

19 that you're collecting here.

20 A. We may. It's very clear that we could

21 determine initially that the impact from the source is

22 minimal at the fence line and therefore we're not

23 going to expend additional resources to go beyond that

24 point. However, again, using current risk assessment

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 guidelines, if again if we feel that there is

2 potential there, then we will work with the facility

3 on some additional information, perhaps on an emission

4 unit basis, which of course is defined in the rule as

5 well.

6 Q. Is there any -- you know, the conditional

7 language of 232.450(a) talks about for purposes of

8 modeling, conducting assessments of information the

9 Agency may request supporting documentation. Is there

10 any -- based on what you've just talked about is there

11 any way to refine that further to include the types of

12 issues that you're -- that you've just discussed?

13 A. In the negotiation we determined not to do

14 that. In all of the steering committee's

15 determination they felt that it would be difficult to

16 refine it to become prescriptive because what we're

17 talking about as an example would be, for instance,

18 stack height where emissions may be occurring.

19 Originally we were discussing the need for that

20 information on the initial pass of reporting

21 requirements. We felt that in discussion that we

22 didn't need that type of prescription.

23 Q. Right.

24 A. However, we may need it in the interest of

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 modeling and looking at beyond the fence line, we may

2 need additional information, for instance stack

3 height. And again, we decided not to put it in the

4 rule to describe it as a requirement up front. That

5 means that we would require that all in the initial

6 reporting requirements. It was additional unnecessary

7 information we felt at that time. We all agreed to

8 that.

9 Q. Do you have a sense now based on this initial

10 run of the potential reporters, this 307 facilities,

11 of how many of those you'd be requesting additional

12 information from?

13 A. I do not.

14 Q. With respect to the additional -- the listing

15 of additional toxic air contaminants, the Great Lakes

16 and Great Waters -- a couple of the Great Lakes and

17 Great Waters air contaminants were added. What's the

18 reasoning behind that?

19 A. The Great Lakes and Great Waters pollutants

20 are primarily all hazardous air pollutants under Title

21 III of the Clean Air Act amendments, but we are

22 located in the Great Lakes basin and there is a

23 significant initiative in the basin for the eight

24 Great Lake states to focus on those chemicals that

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 would in fact impact the area. They are not

ITACs so

2 they don't come into this particular purview but we

3 wanted them as part of an administrative cleanup to

4 have on our list as those

toxics of concern in

5 Illinois.

6 Q. Do you know if they're emitted by any

7 facilities in Illinois?

8 A. We do have facilities that emit these

9 compounds. I can't describe any or give you --

10 Q. Compounds that are Great Lakes and Great

11 Waters compounds but not otherwise air pollutants or

12 toxic air contaminants?

13 A. Repeat that, David.

14 Q. Are there facilities in Illinois that emit

15 the Great Lakes or Great Waters compounds that are not

16 otherwise hazardous air pollutants or toxic air

17 contaminants? In other words, the few Great Lakes,

18 Great Waters compounds that you've added -- that you

19 seek to add to the list?

20 A. Which I've indicated they're also hazardous

21 air pollutants and, therefore, they do -- they do --

22 therefore, are emitted by facilities that emit the 189

23 hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act

24 amendments. So they're parallel.

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 Q. It's my understanding that there were a

2 couple of them that were not hazardous air pollutants.

3 Am I correct about that?

4 A. I believe so. I believe there is one or two

5 that are what the Great Waters through their report to

6 Congress considered what they called high impact or

7 high focus chemicals.

8 Q. Do you know if those one or two are emitted

9 by any facilities in Illinois?

10 A. That I do not know.

11 Q. With regard to the reporting requirements, a

12 facility is required to report if it emits the -- if

13 it manufactures, stores or uses the initial threshold

14 of 25,000 pounds of an individual ITAC, correct?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Once it meets that threshold it must report

17 for all

ITACs except for those that are below the

18 de minimis emissions level, is that correct?

19 A. That's correct.

20 MR. RIESER: I have no further questions at

21 this time.

22 MS. ROSEN: I just have one question -- well,

23 one or two questions for Mr.

Naour.

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY

2 MS. ROSEN:

3 Q. It has to do with the situation that might

4 arise if

HAPs were de-listed from the Clean Air

5 Section 112(b) list. You indicated on page 3 of the

6 statement of reasons that those chemicals once

7 de-listed could become

ITACs. Under what situations

8 could they become

ITACs and is it your intention to

9 automatically list them as

ITACs or would they have to

10 go through the State toxicological scoring process, et

11 cetera, if they had not already done so?

12 A. They would have to go through the State

13 scoring mechanism. I'll give you a case in point

14 would be

caprolactam. It's currently in the proposal

15 phase of de-listing by USEPA. It is also a TAC. If

16 in fact final rule exists on that de-listing,

17 caprolactam has been scored initially by our system

18 and therefore would become an ITAC.

19 Q. Right.

20 A. And the reverse is true, of course.

21 Q. The reverse is true meaning that if a

22 chemical had not been scored, it would have to go

23 through the scoring process prior to becoming an ITAC?

24 A. Correct.

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 MS. ROSEN: I have nothing further.

2 HEARING OFFICER: I just want to add for the

3 record that was Whitney

Wagner Rosen for IERG asking

4 those questions.

5 MR. RIESER: If I could do a brief follow-up

6 on that.

7 RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY

8 MR. RIESER:

9 Q. For something to become an ITAC would there

10 have to be a proposal before the Board to shift it to

11 another list?

12 A. That's part of the procedure, yes.

13 Q. So if something is de-listed from the federal

14 list, there would have to be a Board proceeding to

15 list it as a toxic air contaminant?

16 A. Except in the case of

caprolactam which is

17 already a listed chemical and, therefore, just by

18 default, having been scored, it automatically becomes

19 an ITAC.

20 Q. It's already listed as a toxic air

21 contaminant?

22 A. Correct. On the issue as Whitney indicated

23 we would then have to make proposal as an addendum to

24 the list.

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 MS. ROSEN: Just to clarify, I believe that

2 the initial determination and listing before the Board

3 would be pursuant to Section -- 35 Illinois

4 Administrative Code Section 232.200?

5 A. That's right.

6 MS. ROSEN: Okay.

7 MR. HOMER: My name's Mark Homer with the

8 Chemical Industry Council and I just have one

9 clarification question.

10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY

11 MR. HOMER:

12 Q. Is it the Agency's contention that they're

13 going to base whether or not they're going to ask for

14 further information pursuant to Section 232.450 upon

15 risk assessment factors that are in guidelines that

16 the USEPA has issued?

17 A. That's correct, Mark.

18 Q. And that would be the only basis for asking

19 for that information?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. Do you happen to either have a copy of those

22 guidelines or know the

USEPA's numerical numbers for

23 the guidelines?

24 A. I do not at this time.

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 Q. Is there any way you could provide us with

2 that information at a future point?

3 A. I believe we can. We can provide that

4 current USEPA guidelines.

5 MR. HOMER: Thank you.

6 HEARING OFFICER: Go off the record for a

7 second.

8 (Discussion off the record.)

9 HEARING OFFICER: I just have a few

10 questions. I'm Chuck

Feinen, the Hearing Officer in

11 this matter.

12 The first question I have is just for

13 clarification. You talk about how 364 of the

14 substances -- of 607 substances are already being

15 reported by SARA. Could you just report about how

16 much overlapping there is between this proposal and

17 the SARA requirements?

18 A. There is very limited -- I can't recall the

19 exact numbers. We had investigated that. There is a

20 very limited number of SARA 313 compounds and that's

21 being exacerbated to the point where USEPA is

22 currently in a position to either increase or decrease

23 the number of compounds for SARA 313. But our

24 original assessment indicated, as I recall, there were

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 a few in number compounds that would have paralleled,

2 and hence, the reason we felt the requirement to go

3 into a separate rule.

4 HEARING OFFICER: I guess that will be all

5 the questions I have.

6 Let's go off the record again.

7 (Discussion off the record.)

8 HEARING OFFICER: Off the record we discussed

9 possible hearing dates. I'm going to continue this

10 hearing and issue a Hearing Officer Order for possible

11 hearing dates in April, either April 2nd, Tuesday, at

12 10 a.m. or April 9th, a Tuesday at 10 a.m.. If those

13 dates aren't available, we will do so by Hearing

14 Officer Order announce the second date, but there will

15 be a second hearing at that time.

16 With that, I guess we'll continue the record until

17 that time.

18 (Which were all of the proceedings had

19 on the hearing of this cause on this

20 date.)

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167

1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )

)SS

2 COUNTY OF SANGAMON )

4 CERTIFICATE

5 I, Dorothy J. Hart, affiliated with Capitol

6 Reporting Service, Inc., do hereby certify that I

7 reported in shorthand the foregoing proceedings; that

8 the witness was duly sworn by me; and that the

9 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the

10 shorthand notes so taken as aforesaid.

11 I further certify that I am in no way associated

12 with or related to any of the parties or attorneys

13 involved herein, nor am I financially interested in

14 the action.

16 _____________________________

CSR License No. 084-001390

17 Certified Shorthand Reporter

Registered Professional Reporter

18 and Notary Public

20 Dated this 28th day of

21 February,

A.D., 1996, at

22 Springfield, Illinois.

CAPITOL REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 217-525-6167