1 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: )

3 )

PETITION OF CROMWELL-PHOENIX, ) AS 03-05

4 INC., FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD )

FROM 35 ILL ADM CODE 218.204(c) )

ADJUSTED STANDARD - AIR

7 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held

8 in the hearing of the above-entitled matter,

9 taken stenographically by Stacy L. Lulias, CSR,

10 before BRADLEY P. HALLORAN, hearing officer,

11 at 100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500,

12 Room 11-512, Chicago, Illinois, on the 7th day of

13 August, A.D., 2003, scheduled to commence at 1:30

14 p.m., commencing at 1:32 p.m.

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

3 100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

4 Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-8917

5 BY: Mr. Bradley P. Halloran, Hearing Officer

Mr. Nicholas J. Melas, Board Member

6 Ms. Alisa Liu, P.E.

Ms. Amy C. Antioniolli

8 SEYFARTH SHAW,

55 East Monroe Street

9 Suite 4200

Chicago, Illinois 60603

10 (312) 346-8000

BY: MR. ERIC E. BOYD

Appeared on behalf of the Petitioner,

12 Cromwell-Phoenix, Inc.;

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

14 1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

15 Springfield, Illinois 62794

(217) 782-5544

16 BY: MR. CHARLES E. MATOESIAN

17 Appeared on behalf of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency.

1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Good

2 afternoon, everyone. My name is Bradley Halloran.

3 I'm a hearing officer with the Illinois Pollution

4 Control Board. I've been assigned to preside over

5 this matter.

6 This is a hearing in the matter of

7 the petition of Cromwell-Phoenix, Inc., for an

8 adjusted standard from 35 Illinois Administrative

9 Code 218.204(c). The corresponding Board number is

10 Adjusted Standard 03-5.

11 Today is Thursday, August 7th,

12 2003. It's approximately 1:32 p.m. I note from the

13 side of the parties and representatives, there are

14 not any members of the public here; however, there

15 are people from the Board here, and to my left is

16 the esteemed member Mr. Nicholas Melas, who's

17 present today, and we have staff attorney Amy

18 Antoniolli, and we also have Alisa Liu from our

19 technical unit.

20 This hearing was scheduled and

21 noticed pursuant to Section 104.400, Subpart D, in

22 the Board's procedural rules. It will be governed

23 in accordance with Section 101-600 in the Board's

24 procedural rules.

1 I also want to note that this

2 hearing is intended to develop a record for review

3 by the seven members of the Illinois Pollution

4 Control Board. I will not be making the ultimate

5 decision in the case. That is left up to the seven

6 members.

7 They will review the transcript of

8 this proceeding in the remainder of the record and

9 will render a decision. My job is to ensure an

10 orderly hearing and a clear record and to rule on

11 any evidentiary matters that may arise.

12 After the hearing, the parties

13 have an opportunity to submit posthearing briefs and

14 I also will schedule a public comment period.

15 With that said, Mr. Boyd, would

16 you like to introduce yourself?

17 MR. BOYD: Yes.

18 I'm Eric Boyd of Seyfarth Shaw for

19 the Petitioner, Cromwell-Phoenix, Inc.

20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr.

21 Matoesian?

22 MR. MATOESIAN: Charles Matoesian with

23 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

24 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: And I think

1 what will happen here today, we do not have any

2 witnesses today. Mr. Boyd will give kind of a

3 summary of the petition in his, I guess, opening

4 and closing. He will submit posthearing briefs.

5 Mr. Matoesian may or may not contribute.

6 And after that is through,

7 Ms. Liu will ask some questions into the record

8 which will be addressed by the respective parties or

9 Mr. Boyd's experts in the posthearing briefs. Also,

10 Amy may have some questions as well as Member Melas

11 as we proceed.

12 So if there's no questions,

13 Mr. Boyd, you can remain seated and do your thing.

14 MR. BOYD: Thank you.

15 Cromwell-Phoenix is requesting an

16 adjusted standard from the volatile organic

17 material, or VOM, limits in the Board's paper

18 coating regulations of 35 Ill. Admin. Code Section

19 218.204(c).

20 The company filed a petition for

21 an adjusted standard with the Board on May 29, 2003.

22 The petition contained the information required by

23 35 Ill. Admin. Code Section 104.406, including a

24 technical report prepared by Environmental Resources

1 Management, Inc., as Exhibit A, and an affidavit of

2 Francis Houlihan, the president of Cromwell-Pheonix,

3 as Exhibit B.

4 On June 19, 2003, the Board

5 entered an order finding that the petition met the

6 content requirements of Section 104.406 of the

7 Board's procedural rules, and that the notice met

8 the requirements of Sections 28.1 of the Illinois

9 Environmental Protection Act and Section 104.408 of

10 the Board's procedural rules.

11 On July 14, 2003, the IEPA

12 recommended that the Board grant Cromwell-Phoenix an

13 adjusted standard subject to the terms and

14 conditions contained in the recommendation.

15 The company has decided to rely on

16 its petition and the exhibits included with the

17 petition. These documents are presented here as

18 Petitioner's Exhibit 1.

19 The Agency has previously

20 stipulated to the admissibility of these documents.

21 We will not be calling any witnesses or introducing

22 any other documents at today's hearing.

23 In order to set the stage for the

24 Board, however, I will provide a short statement.

1 The statement is based on information contained in

2 the petition and the petition exhibits.

3 Cromwell-Phoenix produces

4 corrosion inhibiting, or CI, packaging material at

5 its facility in Alsip, Illinois. The CI packaging

6 materials are used by the metal parts industry to

7 keep their parts from corroding.

8 The company produces CI packaging

9 materials by impregnating kraft paper with corrosion

10 inhibiting solutions. The carrier for the solutions

11 is comprised of high molecular weight, VOM and

12 water.

13 The purpose of the carrier is to

14 transport the CI compounds into the paper where they

15 are retained and ultimately released to the

16 customer's wrapped metal parts over a prolonged

17 period of time. The VOM contents of the carrier

18 solution are themselves corrosion inhibitors and

19 also facilitate the gradual migration of other

20 corrosion inhibiting solids present in the CI

21 packaging products toward the surface of the

22 customer's wrapped metal parts.

23 Due to the stability and the low

24 volatility of the impregnated CI components, the CI

1 packaging materials have a shelf life of up to five

2 years.

3 As a result of this basic product

4 functionality, Cromwell-Phoenix has economic and

5 product performance incentives to ensure that the

6 VOM components are retained in the product and not

7 emitted at the Alsip facility. In fact, the only

8 regulating emissions from the production of the CI

9 packaging materials at the Alsip facility are

10 relatively low emissions of VOM. The VOM emissions

11 are low by design. The company selects impregnation

12 coating and carrier constituents based upon their

13 ability to be retained in the CI product.

14 The vapor pressures of the VOM

15 components are very low, and therefore, their

16 evaporation is minimal. The vast majority of the

17 company's products are produced without using

18 dryers. The finished CI packaging material is

19 rewound on a cylindrical core immediately after the

20 CI solutions are applied, thereby physically

21 encapsulating the product and further impeding the

22 volatilization of the VOM components.

23 As a result, the actual annual VOM

24 emissions at the Alsip facility are typically only

1 around five to six tons per year, and the maximum

2 potential VOM emissions from the facility are less

3 than 25 tons per year.

4 Despite the low annual emissions

5 of VOM, the as-applied VOM content, less water, of

6 the CI solutions is greater than the limitation for

7 paper coating located at 35 Ill. Admin. Code

8 Part 218, Subpart F.

9 Cromwell-Phoenix has attempted to

10 develop a CI solution reformulation that would

11 reduce the as-applied VOM content, less water, to

12 the greatest practicable, while still providing

13 sufficient solids dissolution, retention and

14 migration.

15 Reformulation, however, requires

16 the substitution of the water for some of the VOM.

17 Water is not conducive to the corrosion inhibiting

18 properties of the CI packaging materials.

19 First and foremost, the presence

20 of residual water in the CI products promotes

21 corrosion of the customer's metal parts. Excess

22 water also causes unacceptable expansion of the

23 paper fibers resulting in the CI paper product

24 becoming wrinkled and welted, as well as the cut

1 sheets becoming curled. This makes the paper very

2 difficult to handle and results in the inability to

3 achieve a good wrap on the metal items that are

4 being protected by the CI packaging material.

5 Increased use of water in the CI

6 solutions also leads to greater emissions. When CI

7 solution formulations with greater amounts of water

8 are used, infrared drying is required to drive off

9 the excess water. Drying not only requires

10 additional energy consumption, is also increases VOM

11 emissions. The drying drives off VOM as well as

12 water. As such, any attempts to meet the pound per

13 gallon VOM content limit in 35 Ill. Admin. Code,

14 Part 218.104(c) would result in greater VOM

15 emissions from the Alsip facility, not fewer.

16 Cromwell-Phoenix has estimated

17 that its VOM emissions using compliant coatings, if

18 such use were possible, would result in VOM

19 emissions much greater than those associated with

20 the current formulations raising actual annual

21 emissions from approximately five to six tons per

22 year to approximately 39 tons per year or more.

23 Cromwell-Phoenix also investigated

24 the feasibility of add-on controls. The 35 Ill.

1 Admin. Code, Part 218, Subpart F coating regulations

2 require that either the VOM content of a coating be

3 below certain levels or that add-on controls be

4 applied.

5 The only technically feasible

6 control options that were identified by

7 Environmental Resources Management, the company's

8 outside consultant, were oxidation and a combination

9 carbon adsorption/oxidation system. The cost per

10 ton of VOM control for each of these options,

11 however, is well above the level that would be

12 considered reasonable under a conventional

13 reasonably available control technology, or RACT,

14 demonstration. These costs are outlined in the

15 ERM report.

16 As Mr. Houlihan's affidavit

17 attests, Cromwell-Phoenix cannot afford the initial

18 capital outlay or the annual operating costs

19 associated with these add-on controls.

20 Cromwell-Phoenix needs the requested adjusted

21 standard in order to continue to manufacture CI

22 packaging materials at the Alsip facility.

23 The facility currently employs 31

24 people. By the end of this year, Cromwell-Phoenix

1 hopes to conclude a merger with another company that

2 would lead to additional CI packaging material

3 business at the Alsip facility, as well as new jobs

4 and increased revenues for the state.

5 Cromwell-Phoenix believes it is the only

6 manufacturer of CI packaging materials in Illinois.

7 In summary, Cromwell-Phoenix finds

8 itself in a classic Catch-22 situation. As the

9 petition describes, the Board's paper coating

10 limitation was based on coatings for which the VOM

11 content is emitted during the application, drying

12 and curing steps, not retained in the coated

13 product.

14 Cromwell-Phoenix cannot currently

15 use coatings that comply with the paper coating

16 limit of 35 Ill. Admin. Code, Part 218, Subpart F,

17 and still make its corrosion inhibiting packaging

18 materials. Using lower VOM materials would actually

19 increase VOM emissions from the Alsip facility, not

20 decrease them.

21 In addition, the available control

22 technologies will result in only nominal VOM

23 reductions as a cost that is prohibitive. For all

24 these reasons, as more fully outlined in

1 Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Cromwell-Phoenix

2 respectfully states that an adjusted standard is

3 warranted under the factors set forth in Section

4 28.1 of the Act and asks the Board to grant its

5 adjusted standard request.

6 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,

7 Mr. Boyd.

8 So you're going to ask for this

9 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1 to be put into

10 evidence?

11 MR. BOYD: Yes, I'll do that now.

12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Any

13 objection, Mr. Matoesian?

14 MR. MATOESIAN: No objection.

15 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: It's

16 granted. Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1 is admitted

17 into evidence.

18 Mr. Matoesian?

19 MR. MATOESIAN: Thank you, sir.

20 Just briefly, Charles Matoesian

21 for the Illinois EPA. We filed a recommendation on

22 July 14th pursuant to 35 Ill. Admin. Code Section

23 104.416. And in that recommendation we recommended

24 that the Board grant the petition. We still stand

1 by that. And I would simply submit a copy of our

2 recommendation into the record and stand on it.

3 That's all.

4 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Any

5 objection, Mr. Boyd?

6 MR. BOYD: Not at all.

7 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'll

8 entitle it as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1, and it is

9 admitted into evidence.

10 MR. MATOESIAN: Thank you.

11 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

12 There's nothing further.

13 Mr. Melas, do you have any

14 questions yet or would you like Ms. Liu to ask

15 hers?

16 BOARD MEMBER MELAS: Nothing.

17 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: And then

18 these questions, again, are basically going to be

19 read into the record so they can be addressed during

20 posthearing briefs. However, Mr. Boyd is free to

21 answer, if he's able, at this time.

22 MS. LIU: Good afternoon, Mr. Boyd.

23 We'd like to pose some questions

24 to your Petitioner to help clarify the petition as

1 well as to make a complete record.

2 MR. BOYD: Okay.

3 MS. LIU: The Petitioner, on page 17,

4 refers to some experiments that were conducted,

5 reformulate CI coatings and installation of add-on

6 controls. There's some detailed information

7 concerning the evaluation of the add-on controls,

8 but there is no data documenting the experiments

9 that were conducted on the reformulated coatings.

10 I was wondering if you could

11 please provide some information on those experiments

12 and the results of their testing?

13 MR. BOYD: Ms. Liu, could you tell me

14 exactly where on page 17 you're referring, just so

15 I'm clear?

16 MS. LIU: Looks like paragraph B.

17 The sentence is, "The compliance

18 alternatives investigated include experiments with

19 reformulated CI coatings and the installation of

20 add-on controls."

21 MR. BOYD: I'm not sure whether

22 there's an actual report based on those experiments

23 or if it's just described in the petition, but I'll

24 find out and let you know.

1 MS. LIU: Appreciate that.

2 In the petition on page four,

3 Cromwell mentions that it may be the only

4 manufacturer of CI packaging material in Illinois.

5 Could you please comment on

6 whether or not Cromwell is aware of other CI

7 packaging manufacturers in other states that are

8 subject to similar VOM emission control

9 requirements?

10 MR. BOYD: I'm not able to at this

11 time, but I will ask our consultant and our client

12 and we'll address that in the posthearing brief.

13 MS. LIU: And if so, could you follow

14 up with whether or not Cromwell is aware of how

15 those other facilities comply with those applicable

16 VOM limitations that they have in their states?

17 MR. BOYD: I will, if we're able to.

18 MS. LIU: I understand.

19 This is an easy one. The petition

20 does not include a street number for Cromwell's

21 Alsip facility. It refers to Ridgeway Avenue.

22 Could you please provide a more precise address,

23 please?

24 MR. BOYD: Certainly.

1 MS. LIU: Also, on page four of the

2 petition, it states that Cromwell started CI

3 packaging operations in 2001.

4 The building has been around since

5 1965, and we were wondering if that same Alsip

6 facility was being used for manufacturing CI

7 products prior to Cromwell taking over operations?

8 And if so, is Cromwell or the Agency aware of any

9 information of the compliance status of the facility

10 if it was doing that kind of operation before 2001?

11 MR. BOYD: My understanding is that it

12 was not used for CI material manufacturing, but I'll

13 confirm that.

14 MS. LIU: In the petition on page six,

15 it states that Cromwell had performed gravimetric

16 tests to determine the weight loss in emissions from

17 CI packaging production processes.

18 It was stated that the gravimetric

19 demonstrated the overall VOM emissions are less than

20 five percent of the weight of the CI solution

21 applied, could you possibly provide the gravimetric

22 test data, including the results, that demonstrates

23 that five percent?

24 MR. BOYD: Certainly.

1 That information was provided to

2 the IEPA in a Clean Air Act permit program permit

3 application. That was not submitted as part of the

4 adjusted standard, but we can make it an exhibit and

5 we'll provide it to the Board.

6 MS. LIU: Thank you.

7 Could you also, along those lines,

8 provide some information on the amount of different

9 types of CI coatings used on an annual basis along

10 with their VOM content? If there are some trade

11 secrets involved, perhaps just the gallons per year

12 along with associated VOM content.

13 MR. BOYD: I'm sure that information

14 is in the application, and we'll provide -- we can

15 provide both a trade secret and a non-trade secret

16 copy for you. I don't think there will be a problem

17 with that.

18 MS. LIU: In Cromwell's motion for an

19 expedited review, the Petitioner indicates that

20 there's going to be a proposed merger with this

21 other company and that that will result in an

22 increase in production of CI packaging, and the

23 motion states the facility will still be a minor

24 source.

1 Given Cromwell's earlier

2 pre-merger estimates of five to six tons of VOM per

3 year from the CI process, could you please provide

4 an estimate of the anticipated increase?

5 MR. BOYD: We sure can. We don't

6 really know at this point in time. That's one of

7 the reasons it's not been provided to this date. So

8 if it's possible by the time we submit our

9 information, we'll let you know.

10 On a related note, we're

11 aware that the adjusted standard would be for

12 Cromwell-Phoenix. We are not clear yet whether the

13 merge entity will be Cromwell-Phoenix or another

14 entity, so we are also aware that we'll have to go

15 back to the Board and say, we'd like this new

16 entity, if there is one, to be named the recipient

17 of the adjusted standard. We aren't at that point

18 yet. If we are, then I'll get you that information

19 too.

20 MS. LIU: Not being a lawyer, I was

21 slightly confused about one portion of your

22 petition.

23 MR. BOYD: Okay.

24 MS. LIU: On page two, Cromwell

1 notes that, "Because it prints on the majority of

2 its products before applying the corrosion

3 inhibiting solutions, it's printing/coating

4 operations are regulated by 35 Illinois

5 Administrative Code, Subpart H, 218.401."

6 In the section from which Cromwell

7 seeks the adjusted standard, which is 218.204(c),

8 there is a note that says that the paper coating

9 VOM limit does not apply to sources regulated under

10 218.401, so I was wondering if you could clarify

11 whether the requested relief from the adjusted

12 standard pertains only to the CI packaging materials

13 that you don't print on, or if you meant it to apply

14 to all of your CI packaging materials whether you

15 printed on them or not?

16 MR. BOYD: I think I can clarify that

17 now.

18 MS. LIU: Okay.

19 MR. BOYD: The adjusted standard

20 applies to the CI packaging materials solutions. It

21 does not apply to the printing that may go on the

22 kraft paper prior to the use of the CI solutions.

23 In other words, there are -- you

24 know, there's a printing -- printing something on

1 the packaging materials before they are coated,

2 before they're impregnated with this CI solution.

3 To my knowledge, there is no

4 problem meeting the requirements for the printing

5 regulations of 35 Ill. Admin. Code, Subpart H,

6 218.401. The only issue is the fact that the

7 VOM content of the CI coating material is higher

8 than the paper coating standard.

9 MS. LIU: So you view them as separate

10 processes, printing regulated by one set of the

11 regulations and the coating by another?

12 MR. BOYD: I don't have the rules in

13 front of me, but my understanding is that note that

14 you're referring to, in essence, suggests that if

15 you're meeting the coating -- if you're really

16 coating instead of printing and you're meeting the

17 coating rules, then that Subpart H rule doesn't

18 apply.

19 We're not even arguing now that

20 the printing they do on those is really coating. It

21 is printing, and they're meeting the printing

22 regulations.

23 MS. LIU: If you don't mind, does the

24 Agency agree with that interpretation?

1 MR. MATOESIAN: We'll respond to that

2 in the brief.

3 MS. LIU: Thank you.

4 I was wondering if you could also

5 explain the rationale for limiting the VOM content

6 of the CI coatings to 8.3 pounds per gallon in your

7 adjusted standard wording?

8 MR. BOYD: Because that's what they're

9 using now, so we don't want to have a backsliding or

10 anything like that. We want to be clear what

11 they're using now and that what we're using now is

12 sufficient under the adjusted standard.

13 MS. LIU: In the proposed language for

14 the adjusted standard, it would require that

15 Cromwell report all annual emissions to the Illinois

16 Environmental Protection Agency, could you please

17 clarify whether this requirement pertains to all

18 emissions of VOM at the facility or all air

19 emissions in general? It might be something that

20 you might want to insert in the wording so that

21 you're only gearing this adjusted standard to the

22 VOM emissions rather than other emissions that your

23 client might have that might be regulated.

24 MR. BOYD: Well, if you look -- is it

1 paragraph seven that you're talking about where it

2 says, Cromwell shall continue to report all annual

3 emissions to the IEPA?

4 MS. LIU: Yes.

5 MR. BOYD: Well, that is a -- there's

6 an obligation under the Board's rules and the

7 Agency's rules to file annual emissions reports, and

8 they'll continue to do that, in the annual emissions

9 report, include information about VOM emissions from

10 the facility. So I think the annual emissions

11 reports you're talking about there are the currently

12 required reports that -- they're not anything new or

13 special in terms of an annual emissions report

14 relating to this adjusted standard.

15 If you'd like, you can clarify

16 it by adding the section of the regulation which

17 requires the annual emissions report.

18 MS. LIU: I just didn't want, for some

19 reason, this adjusted standard to become too

20 onerous.

21 MR. BOYD: Neither do we.

22 MS. LIU: In the Agency's

23 recommendation on pages five and six, the Agency

24 proposes conditions to the adjusted standard very

1 similar to the one that Cromwell had crafted for

2 itself, with the exception of one additional

3 condition. The Agency proposed limiting the

4 adjusted standard to equipment in emission sources

5 that were in place as of July 14th of 2003 and which

6 were identified in that Clear Air Act permit program

7 application.

8 Does Cromwell find this added

9 condition acceptable given the proposed merger?

10 MR. BOYD: Yes, it does.

11 As I said, at this point in time,

12 it certainly does.

13 MS. LIU: So you won't be adding new

14 equipment or --

15 MR. BOYD: The current plan is not to

16 do that.

17 Let me just rephrase that.

18 There are no current plans to do

19 that, I should say. I'm not sure there is a

20 current plan.

21 MS. LIU: On page 14 of the petition,

22 Cromwell states that if the requested relief is not

23 granted, it will have to control 15.21 tons of VOM

24 per year.

1 I was wondering if you could

2 explain how the potential VOM reduction of 15.21

3 tons per year was calculated?

4 MR. BOYD: I think I can. And again,

5 this is really clarified in the Title V permit

6 application.

7 My understanding is that the

8 15.21 tons per year are the theoretical maximum

9 emissions of VOM from the corrosion inhibiting

10 products portion of this Alsip facility. So that

11 the total potential emissions of VOM for that

12 portion of the facility are 15.21 tons per year.

13 That's, again, the potential emissions, not actually

14 emissions, which are much lower.

15 They used the 15.21 ton number for

16 purposes of the RACT demonstration to show that even

17 if we're emitting, you know, as much as it

18 potentially could emit, the cost per ton of control

19 for the oxidizer or the combined system addressed by

20 ERM would still be cost prohibitive.

21 MS. LIU: Thank you.

22 Also on that page 14, Cromwell

23 states that its operation is a "relatively small

24 contribution to the local air shed when compared to

1 the hundreds of thousands of tons of VOM emitted

2 each year in the Chicagoland non-attainment area."

3 Could you please calculate the

4 impact of those VOM emissions from the Alsip

5 facility in terms of the overall emissions from the

6 Chicago non-attainment area if the Board were to

7 grant the relief?

8 MR. BOYD: Well, we certainly could do

9 that if the Board would like us to, but however, I'm

10 sure it will be a fraction number, and it doesn't

11 seem to make much sense to try to do that in this

12 context because the overall point was a, you know,

13 it might seem more argumentative than anything, it's

14 just a very, very small facility, that the emissions

15 are very small given the overall VOM emissions for

16 the area.

17 We can certainly try to calculate

18 that if the Board would like us to.

19 MS. LIU: I'm concerned the word small

20 is kind of a subjective term --

21 MR. BOYD: It is, and it was intended

22 to be subjective.

23 MS. LIU: It would be nice to see a

24 number to demonstrate the environmental impact.

1 And that's it.

2 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I want to

3 make the record clear that Mr. Boyd was not under

4 oath, and I don't have any issues with his

5 credibility, nor have I ever had any issues with his

6 voracity, but I think the way I understand it, it

7 was Mr. Boyd's intent to also address these

8 questions posed here today supported with an

9 affidavit in the posthearing brief.

10 So with that said --

11 MR. BOYD: That is my intent, and I'm

12 glad you clarified that.

13 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.

14 Ms. Antoniolli?

15 MS. ANTONIOLLI: No, I have no further

16 questions.

17 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Member

18 Melas?

19 BOARD MEMBER MELAS: No.

20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Let's go

21 off the record for a second and we'll talk

22 posthearing briefing schedule.

23 (Whereupon, a discussion

24 was had off the record.)

1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're back

2 on the record. We've been discussing a few

3 housekeeping matters.

4 We've decided that the transcript

5 will be available August 12th and be ready, and I

6 might -- as an aside, the Board today granted

7 Mr. Boyd's motion for expedited review and motion

8 for expedited transcripts.

9 So what will happen, the Board

10 will order the expedited transcripts, and it's my

11 understanding that the Petitioner will file or pay

12 the difference between the regular transcript and

13 the expedited transcript to be worked out later.

14 With that said, the expedited

15 transcript will be available August 12th. I'm going

16 to set August 19th as the close of public comment;

17 August 22nd, Petitioner's brief is due; August 29th,

18 the Agency's brief is due; and the record closes

19 August 29th. If need be, the Petitioner will ask

20 for a leave to file a reply, but at this time, the

21 record closes on August 29th.

22 I think that's all I have, unless

23 somebody else has any comments, issues, questions?

24 All right. Thank you all very

1 much for coming here today and have a safe trip

2 home.

3 (Which were all the proceedings

4 had in the above-entitled cause

5 on this date.)

1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS.

2 COUNTY OF DUPAGE )

4 I, STACY L. LULIAS, CSR, do hereby

5 state that I am a court reporter doing business in

6 the City of Chicago, County of DuPage, and State of

7 Illinois; that I reported by means of machine

8 shorthand the proceedings held in the foregoing

9 cause, and that the foregoing is a true and correct

10 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken as

11 aforesaid.

14 _____________________

Stacy L. Lulias, CSR

15 Notary Public,

DuPage County, Illinois

17 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO

before me this ___ day

18 of ________, A.D., 2003.

_________________________

20 Notary Public