OR!O!NAL
Page
1
1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
2
March
18,
2004
CLERK’SOFFICE
APR 20
200k
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
)
STATE
OF
ILLJNOIS
4
)
Pollution ContrOl Boarc
CLEAN-UP PART III AMENDMENTS
)
R04-20
5
TO
35
ILL.
ADM.
CODE PARTS 211,
)
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
218
AND
219
6
7
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
8
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO
)
R04-12
FORMULAS
IN 35 ILL.
ADM.
CODE
)
(Rulemaking
-
Air)
9
214
“SULFUR LIMITATIONS”
)
(Consolidated)
11
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held
12
in the hearing of the above-entitled matter,
13
taken stenographically by Stacy L.
Lulias,
CSR,
14
before Richard
R.
McGill,
Jr.,
Hearing Officer,
at
15
James
R. Thompson Center,
100 West Randolph Street,
16
Room 11-512,
Chicago,
Illinois, on the 18th day of
17
March,
A.D.,
2004,
scheduled to commence at 1:30
18
p.m.,
commencing at 1:32 p.m.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page2
1
APPEARANCES:
2
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD,
3
James
R.
Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
4
Suite 11-500
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
5
(312)
814-3956
BY:
MR.
RICHARD
R. McGILL,
JR.,
6
Hearing Officer
7
MS. ANDREA
S.
MOORE,
Lead Board Member
8
MR. ANAND RAO,
9
Senior Environmental Scientist,
Technical Unit
10
MS. ALISA LIU,
P.E.,
11
Environmental Scientist,
Technical Unit;
12
13
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
1021 North Grand Avenue East
14
P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794
15
(217)
782-5544
BY:
MR. CHARLES
E.
MATOESIAN,
16
Assistant
Counsel
Division
of Legal Counsel
17
MR. GARY
E. BECKSTEAD,
18
Environmental Protection Engineer,
Bureau of Air
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 3
1
INDEX
2
Opening Statements
Page
Line
3
By Mr. Matoesian
6
6
4
By Mr. Beckstead
7
14
5
6
Closing Remarks
Page
Line
7
By
Mr. McGill
26
16
8
EXHIBITS
9
10
Hearing Exhibit
Marked
Received
11
No.
1
27
27
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 4
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
Good
afternoon.
Welcome
to the Illinois
Pollution
Control Board.
My name
is Richard McGill.
The
Board has appointed me to serve as Hearing Officer
in this consolidated rulemaking
The Board consolidated two
rulemaking proposals
for purposes of this
proceeding.
There’s
docket R04-12,
that’s
a
Board-initiated rulemaking proposal to amendment air
pollution rules.
That rulemaking
is captioned
Technical Corrections
to Formulas
in 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 214
“Sulfur Limitations.”
The second
rulemaking proposal
is in docket R04-20 and was
filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency.
That rulemaking
is captioned Clean-Up
Part
III
Amendments to
35 Ill.
Adm. Code Parts 211,
218,
and
219
Today is the first hearing in this
consolidated rulemaking.
Another hearing
is
scheduled for May
6,
2004
in Springfield.
Also present today on behalf
of
the Board,
to my left,
Member Andrea Moore
is the
lead Board Member for this rulemaking.
To my right,
Anand Rao,
and to his right,
Alisa Liu.
Both are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page
5
1
scientists
in the Board’s Technical Unit.
2
Today’s proceedings
is governed by
3
the Board’s procedural
rules.
All information that
4
is relevant and not repetitious or privileged will
5
be admitted into the record.
We’ll begin with the
6
Agency’s testimony on R04-20,
followed by any
7
questions the Board,
or
if any members
of the public
8
arrive,
may have for the Agency.
After
that,
we’ll
9
open
it up for anyone
to provide
testimony on R04-20
10
or R04-12.
Those testifying will be sworn in and
11
may be asked questions about their testimony.
12
Lastly,
if anyone has any
13
questions or testimony on the Board-initiated
14
proposal on R04-l2,
they’ll have an opportunity to
15
state that on the record for the Board to later
16
consider.
17
For the court reporter
18
transcribing
today’s proceedings,
if you’d please
19
speak up and not talk over each other so we get a
20
clear transcript.
21
Are
there
any
questions
about
our
22
procedures today?
23
Seeing none,
the court reporter,
24
would you go ahead and swear in the Agency’s
Page
6
1
witness?
2
(Witness sworn.)
3
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
At this
4
point,
I’m going to turn it over to Charles
5
Matoesian,
the Agency’s attorney.
6
MR.
MATOESIAN:
Thank you,
sir.
7
Hello,
ladies and gentlemen.
My
8
names is Charles Matoesian.
I’m the Assistant
9
Counsel in the Division of Legal Counsel with the
10
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
11
I’m here concerning
the proposed
12
amendments
to
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code Parts
211,
218, and
13
219.
These proposed amendments are simply a
14
clean-up of existing regulations which result from
15
discussions with the United States Environmental
16
Protection Agency and industry in which will reduce
17
the burden of complying with certain provisions and
18
increase the flexibility for complying with certain
19
other provisions.
20
Originally,
the Subparts at issue
21
were adopted to satisfy Clean Air Act requirements.
22
The amendments generally clarify existing regulatory
23
provisions with the goals of reducing the burdens of
24
and affording greater flexibility in
demonstrating
Page 7
1
compliance.
The amendments
are emission-neutral
and
2
do not impact the overall plans or goals of the
3
Chicago Non-Attainment Area or Metro East Ozone
4
Area.
5
With me here today is Mr. Gary
6
Beckstead.
He’s an Environmental Protection
7
Engineer in the Air Quality Planning Section of the
8
Bureau of Air at the Illinois Environmental
9
Protection Agency,
and he can present a more
10
detailed and technical analysis of these rules.
And
11
I turn it over to him now.
12
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
Thank you.
13
Mr. Beckstead?
14
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
My name is Gary
15
Beckstead,
and as Mr. Matoesian said,
I am an
16
Environmental Protection Engineer.
I’ve been with
17
the Illinois EPA for going on
13 years since 1991.
18
I’ve been involved in many things.
19
My primary job is emissions inventories, but
I also
20
am involved with technical support on rules,
the
21
rulemaking and writings,
as well as testifying on
22
our regulations.
In addition to that,
I
get
23
involved in enforcement cases mainly in technical
24
support,
in that area.
I’ve been involved in many
Page
8
1
of
the
rules,
again,
that
Mr.
Matoesian
referred
to,
2
the
1990
Clean
Air
Act
required
as
to
--
write rules
3
on RACT for various categories,
I’ve been involved
4
in
the
expansion
of
this
RACT,
I’ve been involved in
5
tightening our regulations later than 1996 to get
6
more emission reductions
to meet our ROP plans.
7
As far as this rule is concerned,
8
I have been the leadman.
There’s been several
9
engineers involved here.
These rules have been
--
10
our proposed regulations have been peer-reviewed by
11
us,
our management,
and also have been sent out to
12
Illinois Environmental Research Group and they sent
13
the rules out to their constituency and they’re in
14
agreement that everything we’re proposing today
15
seems to be to their satisfaction.
16
I’m here to answer any technical
17
questions,
and if we can’t get them answered today,
18
again,
several engineers have been involved, but due
19
to the resource cutbacks,
I was the one who was
20
chosen to come up and represent.
So
I may not have
21
the answers, but we can get to the right people who
22
do have the answers.
23
MR.
MATOESIAN:
Is there anything else
24
you wanted to
--
Page 9
1
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
No,
that
was
it.
2
HEARING
OFFICER
McGILL:
Thank
you.
3
The
Board
has
a
few
questions
4
after
reviewing
the
Agency’s
proposal.
I’ll
just
5
note
for
the
record
no
members
of
the
public
are
6
present.
7
Again,
as
you
alluded
to
earlier,
8
if
you’re
not
prepared
to
answer
any
of
these
9
questions,
we
do
have
a
second
hearing
scheduled
and
10
you
can
certainly
follow
up
at
that
time,
but
we
11
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
get
these
questions
at
least
12
on
the
record.
13
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Okay.
That’s
fine.
14
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
Thanks.
15
Anand,
why
don’t
you
start
us
off.
16
MR.
RAO:
I
have
a
question
on
the
17
changes
you
have
proposed
for
Section
218.105.
18
If an alternative protocol is used
19
to
measure
capture
efficiency,
the
proposed
Section
20
318.105(c)
(2)
would
require
the
use
of
either
Data
21
Quality
Objective,
which
is
also
referred to as DQO,
22
or
the
Lower
Confidence
Limit,
LCL,
methodology.
23
Please
briefly
explain
the
DQO
and
LCL
methodologies
24
and
the
differences
between
them.
Page 10
1
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
USEPA,
back in 1992,
2
called a moratorium on our capture efficiency
3
testing to evaluate ways that they can reduce costs
4
in determining capture efficiency.
The industry had
5
repeatedly
stated that the cost,
especially for
6
temporary total enclosures, were a lot of times
7
prohibited.
So during this study,
the stakeholders
8
and manufacturing institute was very involved in
9
studies, and the conclusions after the testing and
10
the study was that the existing protocols were still
11
the most precise methodology they used for
12
determining capture efficiency.
13
However,
from the studies,
USEPA,
14
to give the industry some more flexibility to
15
respond to this cost question,
they recommended that
16
states include the DQO and LCL approach.
Basically,
17
these methodologies use a process parameter
18
measuring it repeatedly to a confidence level.
If
19
you’re going to satisfy the DQO,
the confidence
20
level
is 95 percent.
If you’re going to satisfy the
21
LCL,
the confidence level is only 90 percent.
The
22
difference between the two,
the first,
the DQO would
23
be used in the case of enforcement and to prove that
24
they are in compliance
--
it doesn’t disprove
Page
11
anything, but
it can prove
that they’re
in
compliance with the capture efficiency requirements.
The LCL is a quick,
much easier
administered type statistical approach, and it
merely proves a compliance for a permit or something
of
that
nature,
but
it
would
not
stand
the
riggers
if
enforcement
was
involved
and
you
needed
--
the
DQO needs
to be satisfied if there’s
a question of
meeting the requirement
Does that answer your question?
MR.
RAO:
Yes
You
mentioned
that
one
of
the
--
and
not
the
limitation,
but
the
factors
that
cause
the USEPA to propose this alternate methodology was
the cost of the existing protocol
Do you have any estimate of
what’s, you know,
the cost savings that these
industries will have by moving away from the
existing protocol?
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
No,
I don’t recall
ever
seeing numbers of that nature, but
I can
certainly see if
I can get
my hands
on something.
know that building a temporary
total enclosure,
as you can well appreciate,
could
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page
12
1
be an expensive proposition with the DQO and LCL.
2
All that cost is eliminated if the parameter,
if the
3
process parameter chosen is acceptable and they do
4
meet the statistical requirements and the
5
measurements.
6
I would have to touch base with
7
the USEPA and see if they have some numbers on
8
possible reduction of costs,
but
I don’t have
--
9
MR.
RAO:
If you can get any
10
information,
you can provide it at the hearing.
11
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Sure.
12
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
I wanted to
13
follow up.
14
You mentioned the use of DQO for
15
enforcement purposes.
There are
a couple of
16
provisions in the proposal, Section 218.105(c) (2)
17
and the corresponding 219.105(c) (2), and the
18
language
stated
there,
it
says,
in
enforcement
19
cases,
LCL cannot be used to establish
20
noncompliance.
Sufficient
tests
must
be
performed
21
to
satisfy
the
DQO.
22
My question
is
--
let me just ask
23
the general question.
24
Do you think this kind of language
Page
13
1
belongs in the regulation,
or is this more an
2
evidentiary issue that would be better left to a
3
case-by-case determination in an actual enforcement
4
action?
5
MR. BECKSTEAD:
I think it belongs in
6
the regulation
for this reason:
I’ve had experience
7
already
in the field that the LCL confidence
level
8
being at 90 percent we don’t feel
is rigorous enough
9
when enforcement
is involved.
It’s a good test,
10
it’s kind of
a go,
no-go situation that it can allow
11
a person to
--
say the capture efficiency
12
requirement
is
90 percent,
they could say with a
13
90 percent confidence we’re passing 90 percent in
14
one or two quick tests.
15
But where you’re talking about
16
enforcement or trading situations where units,
17
emission units might be traded like in interims,
we
18
feel that the
95 percent confidence
level
gives
19
us more assurance,
more confidence
from an
20
environmental
point
of
view
that
they
really
are
21
meeting our requirements and to give us
a more exact
22
number, not just say,
well,
it’s 90 percent.
23
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
Could a
24
regulated entity then use LCL alone to demonstrate
Page
14
1
compliance?
2
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Right,
yes,
3
definitely,
definitely.
4
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
So the
5
language, providing that in enforcement cases LCL
6
cannot be used to established noncompliance,
is that
7
really addressing a complainant’s burden of proof in
8
an enforcement case?
I mean,
that’s
a legal term,
9
and,
Charles,
if you want to jump in here we can go
10
ahead and swear you in or you guys can just think
11
about
this,
that really seems to be directed not to
12
the owner/operator or the regulated entity,
but the
13
Attorney General’s Office
or a citizen complainant
14
in terms
of what they might have
to show to
15
establish a violation.
I just
--
personally,
I’m
16
not speaking on behalf
of the Board,
it just struck
17
me
as something curious to have in a regulation for
18
the
--
for industry.
19
MR. BECKSTEAD:
That terminology
20
and that exact wording was extracted from a
21
memorandum from USEPA when this DQO/LCL approach was
22
recommended,
highly recommended,
that we get this on
23
the books when the guideline was released for
24
implementation of
--
and that’s why we are more or
Page
15
1
less following
the USEPA’s guidance on this.
I
2
understand your dilemma there.
3
I think that,
again,
I
feel that
4
we’re
--
I think the owner/operator would be aware
5
of this problem that if he’s wanting to prove beyond
6
a doubt that he’s in compliance,
that he
--
it’s a
7
matter of taking a couple more tests,
and,
again,
8
there’s considerable
--
though
I can’t put an exact
9
cost savings number on
it,
there’s considerable
10
cost savings already involved with allowing this to
11
be an alternative equivalent to our standard
12
protocol for capture efficiency testing.
13
I don’t
see where
it would add
14
any additional unreasonable effort from the
15
owner/operator,
but
--
and,
therefore,
I would lean
16
more towards the guidance as written by USEPA that
17
we should follow that
in.
18
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
I had a
19
couple related questions.
I’m going to go ahead and
20
just read them into the record and
--
21
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Okay.
22
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
Because
I
23
think
it
would
make
sense
for
you
guys
to
consider
24
it and then maybe we can talk about
it more in May
Page 16
1
at the second hearing.
2
But
I guess one of the questions
I
3
had was the language provides that sufficient tests
4
must be performed to satisfy the DQO,
does that mean
5
that those tests are required to prove a violation?
6
You’re free to respond to that if you care to now or
7
we can take it up
later.
8
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
No,
that’s
--
I think
9
I can answer that question.
10
No,
it’s not to prove
--
you know,
11
it’s to
--
the purpose of DQO and the additional
12
tests to satisfy DQO confidence level is to
--
not
13
to prove violation at all, but to prove compliance.
14
It shouldn’t be used to prove
a violation.
15
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
That’s why
16
the language struck me as curious because it talks
17
about what can be used to establish noncompliance.
18
In enforcement
cases,
LCL cannot be used to
19
establish noncompliance, and it says sufficient
20
tests must be used to demonstrate DQO.
It seems
21
like it’s talking about an enforcement case where
22
somebody’s trying to prove
a violation, and what
23
might be considered admissible evidence or what
24
might be considered dispositive evidence or relevant
Page
17
1
evidence,
it
just
seems
to
be
getting
into
2
evidentiary
issues
for
an
enforcement
case
and
a
3
potential
violation
which
just
--
I
recognize
that
4
the
guidance
is
out
there,
the
‘95
memo,
it
just
5
struck
me
as
an
unusual
provision,
something
6
potentially
impacting
the
Board
when
it’s
ruling
in
7
an
enforcement
case
or
a
Hearing
Officer’s
ruling
on
8
the
admissibility
of
evidence
or
what’s
considered
9
dispositive
of
establishing
a
violation
that
that
10
might be better left to a case-by-case
11
determination.
But,
again,
that’s
just
my
own
12
personal
view
and
question
that
I
have
from
looking
13
at
this.
I’m
not
speaking
on
the
Board’s
behalf,
14
but
I’d
appreciate
it
if
you
guys
could
consider
it
15
and
--
16
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Well,
the
other
thing
17
that
strikes
my
mind
is
that
in
the
event
that
DQO
18
or
LCL
is
not
satisfied,
there
is
always.
the
option
19
of
returning
back
to
our
existing
testing
protocol
20
and
just
go
back
to
the
standard
temporary
total
21
enclosure
and
go
that
direction.
If
the
DQO
seems
22
to
be
an
obstacle
in
an
enforcement
case
and
--
in
23
whatever
dimension,
I
mean,
we
could
always
require
24
a
standard
protocol
methodology.
Page
18
1
HEARING
OFFICER
McGILL:
That
was
2
actually
the
last
question
I
had.
3
This language that
I’ve been
4
talking about where it starts talking about
in
5
enforcement
cases,
this
only
relates
to
a
facility
6
that’s
using
an
alternative
protocol.
7
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Right.
8
HEARING
OFFICER
McGILL:
Thanks.
9
BOARD
MEMBER
MOORE:
The
Agency’s
10
proposed
definition
of
the
term
screen printing on
11
paper,
that
Section
211.580,
relies
on
the
12
definition
of paper coating
in Section 211.447.
The
13
definition
of
paper
coating
includes
coating
not
14
only
on
paper,
but
also
on
plastic
film
or
metallic
15
foil.
16
Please
clarify
whether
the
17
Agency’s
proposed
definition
of
screen
printing
on
18
paper
would
include
printing
on
plastic
film
and
19
metallic foil
or to be limited only to printing on
20
paper?
21
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
It’s
purpose
is
22
printing
on
paper.
The
idea
was
that,
historically,
23
people
who
are
printing
on
paper
should
not
and
have
24
not
been
held
to
the
limitations
of
Subpart
F
or
Page
19
1
should
not
be
covered
under
Subpart
H,
so
it
is
2
primarily,
but
I
will,
again,
go
back
to
the
staff
3
engineer
who
drafted
the
definition
and
make
sure.
4
BOARD
MEMBER
MOORE:
Okay.
5.
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
But from my
6
discussions
with
him,
I
think
that’s
--
the
best
of
7
my
knowledge,
that’s
what
it’s
supposed
to
be,
paper
8
only.
9
MR.
RAO:
I
think
in
your
statement
of
10
reasons you had mentioned
that the definition for
11
screen
printing
on
paper
was
the
same
as
paper
12
coating,
the definition
of paper coating,
except for
13
the
way
the
ink
is
applied,
you’re
reapplying
the
14
ink
by
screens?
15
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Right.
16
MR.
RAO:
Yeah,
that
would
be
helpful
17
if
you
can
clarify.
18
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Okay.
19
HEARING
OFFICER
McGILL:
So
it’s
20
really
except
--
screen printing on paper
is a
21
process
that
would
otherwise
be
paper
coating,
22
except
the ink is passed through a screen or fabric
23
to
which
a
refined
form
of
stencil
has
been
applied.
24
I’m
reading
from
the
proposed
definition.
Page 20
1
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Right.
2
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
It’s really
3
except ink is passed through that screen onto paper?
4
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Right.
5
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
I mean,
it’s
6
only paper.
7
MR. BECKSTEAD:
Right.
8
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
Thank you.
9
MR.
RAO:
One more clarification
10
question.
11
On Section 218.105(c) (2) (e),
12
please clarify whether section 218.105(c)
(2) (e)
13
applies only to alternative
capture efficiency
14
protocol described under Section 218.105(c) (2).
If
15
so, would
it be acceptable
to the Agency to add
16
language
limiting Subsection
(c) (2) (e)
to
17
alternative protocol?
18
MR. BECKSTEAD:
You have to give me
19
time to get to that.
20
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
Do you have
a
21
copy of
(c) (2) (e)
in front of you?
It’s a new
22
Subsection.
23
MR.
RAO:
It
says
mass
balance
using
24
DQO/LCL.
Page 21
MR. BECKSTEAD:
Right.
And your
question is is that
--
MR.
RAO:
Is that limited only to
situations when they use alternative protocol?
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Right,
right.
From talking to our field
representative,
we specifically put that in to save
us from going to the Board every time somebody
wanted to use DQO/LCL in a mass balance type
approach rather than come to you and say,
okay,
here
is an equivalent alternative methodology that USEPA
has already approved in advance, and rather than go
through that process
which from talking to our
field representative this
is probably going
to be
the major use of DQO/LCL,
the mass balance kind of
approach.
So we’ve put it in our rules up
front,
and, yes,
it does apply only to people who have used
DQO and LCL.
And if you need additional language in
there,
we’re amenable
to that additional
language to
that effect
following up.
MR.
RAO:
Okay.
Thank you very much.
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
I’m just
So
this
is
limited
to
the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page22
1
alternative
protocol
or
situation
and
to
avoid
2
having
to
come
in
for
an
adjusted
standard
or
a
3
variance
before
the
Board?
4
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Right.
5
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
Thank you.
6
MS.
LIU:
My
question
goes
to
Section
7
218.411
(a)
(1)
(b)
(3).
I
don’t
know
if
you
want
to
8
flip
to
that
one.
9
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Okay.
10
MS.
LItJ:
Right now it uses the term
11
adjustment factor when referring to non-impervious
12
substrates or pervious substrates,
and then later on
13
in the language the Agency proposes the term
14
retention factor used in that same paragraph,
and
I
15
was wondering, were they the same thing,
the
16
adjustment
factor and the retention factor or just
17
different terminology?
18
MR. BECKSTEAD:
That one is beyond my
19
technical knowledge.
I’ll have to go to the
20
gentleman who actually wrote
the terminology and
21
address
that.
22
So
your
question
is,
does
23
impervious
adjustment
factor equal retention
factor?
24
MR. LIU:
Yes.
I had another question
Page 23
as
well
There were some formulas in
Section
218.406
and
the
corresponding
219.406,
and
they
were
revised
by
replacing
a
notation
(e)
Sub
(p)
with
Sigma,
capital
Sigma
Sub
(p),
and
I
was
wondering
if
someone
knew
why
they
had
done
that?
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Okay
MS. LIU:
I went back to the original
Board
opinion
when
they
actually
adopted
the
language
and
they
do
use
(e)
Sub
(p),
and
it
would
seem to me that the Sigma notation is something
generally
used
in
math
for
a
summation
--
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Right
MS.
LIU:
--
and it is not used that
way
here
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
it
was
a
mistake
or
--
okay
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
The use of that Sigma,
MS.
LIU:
--
what somebody was
thinking when they did that?
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Okay.
We’ll check
it
Same
gentleman.
MS.
LIU:
In those equations,
they
also
add
a
new
factor,
R,
the
retention
factor,
and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 24
1
they
assign
two
different
values,
whether
you’re
2
using
an
impervious
surface
or
a
pervious
surface,
3
and
I
think
for
the
pervious
surface
they
give
a
4
default value now of R equals point
8,
and
I was
5
wondering
if
somebody
knew
how
they
derived
that
6
value of point
8 for a pervious surface?
7
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
The
changes
were
on
8
the
basis
of
a
CTG,
an
issued
CTG,
or
an
alternative
9
guidance
document,
and
I’m
sure
that
it
was
just
10
lifted
directly
from
that
guidance.
I’m
sure
that’s
11
how it was applied.
12
MS.
LIU:
Okay.
13
MR.
RAO:
Just
as
a
follow-up,
is
that
14
CTG
in
confidence
by
reference
in
this
rule
or
in
15
any other rule or
--
16
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
It
should
have
been,
17
yeah.
Okay.
If
it’s
not,
it’s
an
oversight,
and
we
18
should reference
that.
19
HEARING
OFFICER
McGILL:
I’m
sorry.
20
Could
we
just
explain
what
CTG
stands
for?
21
MR.
BECKSTEAD:
Oh,
I’m
sorry.
22
Control
Techniques
Guideline.
23
HEARING
OFFICER
McGILL:
Thank
you,
24
for the record.
Page 25
1
MS.
LIU:
I’m done.
2
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
I just had
3
one last question.
4
It has to do with the
5
incorporation by reference of the February 1995 memo
6
from USEPA’s John Seitz regarding capture
7
efficiency.
That’s Sections 218.112(b) (b)
and
8
219.112(z).
9
It does not appear that the memo
10
is referred to anywhere else in the rules and so
I
11
was wondering,
if that
is the case,
do you think
12
it’s necessary to incorporate the memo by reference.
13
MR. BECKSTEAD:
This memorandum
14
contains the language that we were discussing
at the
15
opening of the hearing about when can LCL be used
16
versus when should DQO be used,
because
I had this
17
controversy in the field with a gentleman that said
18
no place in the guidelines
is that defined,
is that
19
actually clarified.
The DQO should only be used if
20
enforcement
is involved.
I mean,
not only, but it’s
21
the only way that you could prove
that you’re
22
actually meeting a requirement
if enforcement
is in
23
action,
or if you want to use the commission credit
24
for trading purposes, we need the DQO to be
Page26
1
satisfied in both those.
And that’s the only
2
place
--
and
I
don’t
know
why
USEPA
--
that’s why we
3
felt that it was necessary to incorporate that
4
memorandum to substantiate that this is the
5
intention that USEPA had and how we should use and
6
how we feel should use DQO/LCL.
We feel it’s a
7
necessary ingredient.
8
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
Thank you.
9
I’ll note for the record that no
10
member
of
the
public
has
joined
us.
11
Did the Agency have any additional
12
testimony they’d like
to add today?
Did you have
13
any questions
on the Board-initiated proposal R04-12
14
or any comments at this point?
15
MR. MATOESIAN:
No, we don’t.
16
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
Thank you.
17
I’ll just address
a few procedural
issues before we
18
adjourn.
19
I am going to mark as Hearing
20
Exhibit Number
1 five Board orders from past
21
proceedings that provide the basis for the proposed
22
changes
to the equations
in R04-12.
Those Board
23
orders
--
I’ll just give the dates and the docket
24
numbers, May 25,
1978,
that’s R75-5,
R74-2;
Page 27
1
December
14,
1978,
R75-5,
R74-2;
February 15,
1979,
2
R75-5,
R74-2;
February
24,
1983,
R80-22;
and
3
April
20,
1995,
R94-32.
4
(Document
marked
as
Hearing
5
Exhibit No.
1 for identification,
6
3/18/04.)
7
HEARING
OFFICER
McGILL:
And
having
8
these
Board
orders
collected
as
a
Hearing
Exhibit
9
will
make
them
easier
to
access
for
any
interested
10
participants
in this rulemaking.
11
For the record,
is there any
12
objection to entering these documents
as a Hearing
13
Exhibit?
14
MR. MATOESIAN:
No.
15
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
Then
I will
16
go ahead and enter this into the record as Hearing
17
Exhibit Number
1.
18
(Whereupon,
Hearing Exhibit
19
No.
1 was entered into
20
record
by
Hearing
Officer
21
McGill.)
22
HEARING
OFFICER
McGILL:
The
next
item
23
I’ll
just
note
that
anyone
may
file
written
public
24
comments on either or both of these rulemaking
Page 28
proposals with the Clerk of the Board.
The second
hearing in this consolidated rulemaking
is scheduled
for May
6,
2004 beginning at 1:30
in the afternoon.
It will be held in the Illinois Pollution Control
Board hearing room at 1021 North Grand Avenue East,
north entrance,
in Springfield
I note the current notice and
service list for this rulemaking are located over by
the door.
Persons on the notice list receive only
Board and Hearing Officer orders,
those on the
service list receive copies of those orders as
as filings made by other participants
For example,
if you file
a public
comment with the Clerk of the Board, you must serve
a copy of your public comments to those persons on
the service list
Copies of today’s hearing
transcript should be available at the Board’s
offices by the end of this month.
Shortly after
that,
the transcript
should be available on the
Boards
website
at
www.ipcb.state.il.us.
There
you
will also find both rulemaking proposals R04-12 and
R04-20,
as well as Board orders throughout this
proceeding
well
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 29
.7
If anyone has any questions about
the procedural
aspects
of this rulemaking,
I can be
reached by telephone at
(312)
814-6983 or e-mail
at
mcgillr@ipcb.state.il.us
Are there any other matters
that
need to be addressed at this time
MR. MATOESIAN:
No
HEARING OFFICER McGILL:
Thank you.
Thanks
to everyone for your
participation today and this hearing is adjourned.
(Which were all the proceedings
had in the above-entitled cause
on this date.
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page
30
1
STATE OF ILLINOIS
2
)
SS.
3
COUNTY OF DUPAGE
I,
STACY L.
LULIAS,
CSR, do hereby
state that
I am a court reporter doing business in
the City of Chicago,
County of DuPage,
and State of
Illinois;
that
I reported by means of machine
shorthand the proceedings held in the foregoing
cause,
and that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript
of my shorthand notes
so taken as
aforesaid
18
SUBSCRIBED
AND
SWORN TO
before me this
of
_p~Q~1
A.D.,
2004.
Stacy L. Lulias,
CSR
Notary Public,
DuPage County,
Illinois
21
Notary Publi
22
23
24
OFFICIAL SEAL
KIMBERLY A
MEEKS
NOTARY
PUBLIC~
STATE OF
IWNO4S
MY
COMMISSION
EWIRES:12I11~l
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
