1

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

CLEAN CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION ) R06-19

5 DEBRIS FILL OPERATIONS UNDER

) (Rulemaking-Land)

PA 94-272 (35 ILL. ADM. CODE

)

6 PART 1100)

)

Report of proceedings had at the hearing in

9 the above-entitled cause at 100 West Randolph Street,

10 Suite 16-503, Chicago, Illinois commencing at 1:00 p.m.

11 on the 26th day of January, A.D., 2006.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 APPEARANCES:

Ms. Amy C. Antoniolli

(Illinois Pollution Control Board)

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Phone: (312) 814-3665

Mr. Nicholas J. Melas

(Illinois Pollution Control Board)

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Phone: (312) 814-3932

Mr. G. Tanner Girard

(Illinois Pollution Control Board)

704 North Schrader Avenue

Havana, Illinois 62644

Phone: (309) 543-2230

Mr. Thomas E. Johnson

(Illinois Pollution Control Board)

2125 South First Street

Champaign, Illinois 61820

Phone: (217) 278-3109

Mr. Anand Rao

(Illinois Pollution Control Board)

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Phone: (312) 814-3956

Ms. Alisa Liu

(Illinois Pollution Control Board)

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Phone: (312) 814-8916

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 APPEARANCES: (continued)

Ms. Stephanie Flowers

(Illinois Environmental Protection Agency)

1021 North Grand Avenue East

PO Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794

Phone: (217) 782-6494

Ms. Joyce Munie

(Illinois Environmental Protection Agency)

1021 North Grand Avenue East

PO Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794

Phone: (217) 524-3300

Mr. Paul M. Purseglove

(Illinois Environmental Protection Agency)

1021 North Grand Avenue East

PO Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794

Phone: (217) 524-5597

Mr. Christian J. Liebman

(Illinois Environmental Protection Agency)

1021 North Grand Avenue East

PO Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794

Phone: (217) 524-3294

Mr. Thomas W. Hubbard

(Illinois Environmental Protection Agency)

1021 North Grand Avenue East

PO Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794

Phone: (217) 524-3286

Mr. M. Kyle Rominger

(Illinois Environmental Protection Agency)

1021 North Grand Avenue East

PO Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794

Phone: (217) 782-5544

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 APPEARANCES: (continued)

Mr. Mike Nechvatal

(Illinois Environmental Protection Agency)

1021 North Grand Avenue East

PO Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794

Phone: (217) 785-8604

Ms. Claire A. Manning

(Brown, Hay & Stephens, LLP)

205 South Fifth Street

Suite 700

PO Box 2459

Springfield, Illinois 62705

Phone: (217) 544-8491

* * * * * *

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Good afternoon and

2 welcome to the Illinois Pollution Control Board Chicago

3 hearing on Docket R06-19.

The Board encaptions this

5 rulemaking "In the Matter Of: Clean Construction or

6 Demolition Debris Fill Operations Under P.A. 94-272

7 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 1100)" and, as I mentioned, docketed

8 as R06-19. And the Board amended the caption slightly

9 only to highlight the authorizing Public Act from when

10 it was originally filed.

My name is Amy Antoniolli, and I'm

12 the assigned hearing officer in this rulemaking. In

13 this proceeding, the Agency is seeking to add a new

14 Part 1100 which would allow and regulate the use of

15 clean construction or demolition debris as fill

16 material in current and former quarries, mines, and

17 other excavations. This rulemaking was filed on

18 November 21st, 2005, by the Illinois Environmental

19 Protection Agency. The Board accepted the proposal for

20 hearing on December 1st, 2005.

Today's the first hearing, and the

22 second hearing is scheduled for March 1, 2006. These

23 are the only two currently scheduled hearings. The

24 second hearing will take place at 10:00 a.m. at the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 Illinois State Museum in Springfield.

To my left is Member Nicholas

3 Melas, and he is the Board member assigned to this

4 matter. To the left of him is Chairman Girard, and to

5 the left of Chairman Girard is Member Thomas Johnson.

6 To my right are the two members of our technical unit,

7 Mr. Anand Rao and Alisa Liu.

If you'd like to testify today and

9 you haven't already told me, please let me know.

Today's proceeding is governed by

11 the Board's procedural rules. All information that is

12 relevant and not repetitious or privileged will be

13 admitted into the record.

We will begin with the testimony of

15 our four witnesses that have prefiled testimony in this

16 matter: Ms. Joyce Munie, Mr. Paul Purseglove,

17 Mr. Christian Liebman -- Am I pronouncing that right?

MR. LIEBMAN: That's right.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

(Continuing.) -- and Mr. Thomas

21 Hubbard, all on behalf of the Illinois Environmental

22 Protection Agency. We will follow that with any

23 questions for the witnesses. Please note that any

24 questions posed by the Board members or staff are only

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 designed to help develop a more complete record for the

2 Board's decision and do not reflect any bias. After

3 that, anyone else can testify regarding the proposal.

4 Like all witnesses, those who wish to testify will be

5 sworn in and may be asked questions about their

6 testimony. We'll conclude today's hearing with a few

7 procedural items.

And, Member Melas, before we begin,

9 would you like to add anything?

MR. MELAS: I'd just like to welcome the

11 representatives of the Illinois Protection Agency for

12 being here with us today and, as well, the members of

13 the public. And as the Hearing Officer just said,

14 we're here to develop a complete record, and we welcome

15 you all here. And we're very much interested to get

16 the input that you're going to give us today.

Thank you.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. And before we

19 begin, I'd also like to say that for the court

20 reporter, who's transcribing today's proceedings,

21 please, when you testify or ask questions, for that

22 matter, please speak up and don't talk over one another

23 so that we have a clear record.

And now I'll turn it over to the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 proponents and Ms. Flowers.

MS. FLOWERS: Good afternoon. My name

3 is Stephanie Flowers, and I'll introduce our panel

4 here.

This is Chris Liebman, who's

6 manager of the solid waste unit in the permit section;

7 Joyce Munie, who's manager of the permit section; Mike

8 Nechvatal, who's manager of the division of pollution

9 control; Thomas Hubbard is the permit writer; and Paul

10 Purseglove, who's the manager of field operations. And

11 we also have Kyle Rominger, who is also assistant

12 counsel with the IEPA.

I just would like to let everybody

14 know that there are copies of the EPA filings out on

15 the table in the front, including the testimony.

Okay. First of all, there was a

17 legislation passed this fall that amended the new

18 sections to the -- in the Illinois Environmental

19 Protection Act that were added this summer under

20 94-272. The legislation passed this fall was assigned

21 into law last Friday, January 20th, and it is Public

22 Act 94-725. This Public Act was referenced in both our

23 testimony and the statement of reasons as Senate

24 Bill 67.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

So at this time I'd like to file

2 Public Act 94-725 with the Board, and I guess that we'd

3 like to mark it as Exhibit 1.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Sure.

Does anyone object to marking

6 Public Act 94-725 as Exhibit 1?

And seeing none, I will enter this

8 into the record as Hearing Exhibit 1, and you can give

9 a copy to the court reporter.

(Hearing Exhibit No. 1 marked as

requested.)

MS. FLOWERS: This legislation is also

13 out on the table in the back.

And now we'll do testimony, and I

15 have a document I'd like Joyce to tell me what that is.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: And before you begin,

17 can we have your witnesses sworn in?

MS. FLOWERS: Yes.

(Witnesses sworn.)

MR. FLOWERS: Joyce, can you let me know

21 what the document is?

MS. MUNIE: Yes. This is my prefiled

23 testimony in support of this rulemaking.

MS. FLOWERS: And is it a true and

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 accurate copy of what was filed before the Board?

MS. MUNIE: Yes.

MS. FLOWERS: Okay. If I could have

4 that entered as Exhibit 2 -- Oh, yes. I forgot to

5 mention there was a page missing in Joyce's testimony.

6 It was inadvertently omitted, and the testimony now

7 that has been entered does have page 11. And also, out

8 on the table, there's testimony that does include that

9 page as well.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Does anyone

11 object -- Do I have any objections to entering the

12 testimony of Joyce Munie into the record as Exhibit 2?

And seeing none, I'll mark this as

14 Exhibit 2.

MS. FLOWERS: And I do have copies for

16 all of you of the testimony so that we all have

17 page 11.

And if I could have Mr. Liebman

19 verify that document. Could you tell us what the

20 document is first?

MR. LIEBMAN: This is a copy of my

22 prefiled testimony.

MS. FLOWERS: And is it a true and

24 accurate copy of what was filed before the Board?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. LIEBMAN: Yes.

MS. FLOWERS: And if I could have that

3 document marked Exhibit 3.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Does anyone object to

5 marking the testimony of Mr. Liebman in support of the

6 EPA's proposal to adopt this rulemaking as Exhibit 3?

And seeing none, I will mark this

8 as Exhibit 3.

MS. FLOWERS: And, Mr. Hubbard, if I

10 could ask you to verify that document.

MR. HUBBARD: This is a copy of the

12 prefiled testimony I submitted to the Board.

MS. FLOWERS: And is it a true and

14 accurate copy of what was submitted?

MR. HUBBARD: Yes.

MS. FLOWERS: And if I could have that

17 document marked Exhibit 4.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Is there any

19 objection to entering Mr. Tom Hubbard's prefiled

20 testimony into the record as Exhibit 4?

And seeing none, I'll enter this as

22 Exhibit 4.

MS. FLOWERS: And if I could have

24 Mr. Purseglove verify this document.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. PURSEGLOVE: This is a copy of my

2 prefiled testimony.

MS. FLOWERS: And is it a true and

4 accurate copy that was filed before the Board?

MR. PURSEGLOVE: Yes.

MS. FLOWERS: And if I could have

7 Mr. Purseglove's testimony entered as Exhibit 5.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Is there any

9 objection to entering Mr. Purseglove's testimony into

10 the record as Exhibit 5?

And seeing none, I'll mark this EPA

12 Exhibit 5.

MS. FLOWERS: We're going to proceed,

14 with your permission, as if the testimony has been read

15 into the record.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

MS. FLOWERS: And I believe Joyce Munie

18 has a clarification on her testimony, and then the

19 panel would be open for questions.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. And before we

21 start, I'll ask if anyone else in the -- any other

22 member of the public would like a copy of this

23 testimony because it will be entered into the record as

24 if read.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

So again, there's extra copies out

2 in -- just right outside the door.

And you can go ahead.

MS. FLOWERS: Okay. Joyce.

MS. MUNIE: Yes. There is a

6 clarification in regards to the exemption for the IDOT

7 specifications.

In my testimony, I discussed that

9 the IDOT specifications are specifically for Department

10 use. And the law itself has this exception in it where

11 it exempts someone following the Illinois Department of

12 Transportation's specifications -- are exempt from

13 these regulations.

The clarification I'd like to give

15 to my original testimony is the fact that it appeared

16 in my testimony that "Department," as defined in the

17 IDOT specifications, was only the Department of

18 Transportation. But the definition in the IDOT

19 specification stands on its own, and it is -- it does

20 go beyond the IDOT engineers themselves. It includes

21 the county board when the county is awarding authority

22 on specifications on a grant on a contract. It also

23 includes the council -- city council, president, board

24 of trustees when the city, village, or town is the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 awarding authority. It further goes on to include the

2 county or municipality and the Illinois Department of

3 Transportation when Illinois Department of

4 Transportation is the awarding agency and the county

5 and municipality is supervising construction.

So this is a reminder that although

7 the legislation exempts them from a permit, it does not

8 exempt them from the requirement of the Acts -- the Act

9 itself, but this just gives them exemption from the

10 permits that we are proposing in these regulations.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Thank you.

MR. RAO: Just a quick follow-up.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Sure. Do you have

14 something?

MR. RAO: Yeah.

Does the rule also reflect your

17 position?

MS. MUNIE: Yes. The rule itself has

19 the exemption that comes out of the legislation, and

20 the rule and the law specifically goes to Illinois

21 Department of Transportation specifications. It

22 exempts someone who is following Illinois Department of

23 Transportation specifications, and the specifications

24 are a published document that are available to anyone.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 And the definitions, specifically the definition I just

2 gave, comes directly out of the Department of

3 Transportation's specifications.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Now, at this

5 time would you like to open your panel up for

6 questions?

MS. FLOWERS: Yes.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. And is there

9 anyone from the public who has questions for the

10 witnesses at this time?

MS. MANNING: Claire Manning on behalf

12 of the City of Chicago.

First of all, we'd like to thank

14 the Agency. The City of Chicago has been discussing

15 the rule with the Agency at great length just to ensure

16 that the City has an understanding, with all of the

17 excavations that it does on a daily basis and its

18 maintaining of its roads and its maintenance operations

19 and its various departments -- that it has a clear

20 understanding of how the rule will impact City

21 operations. And to that end, we have been discussing,

22 potentially, a section in the rules that we have been

23 working out and hopefully we'll get to the Board before

24 the March 1st meeting that will deal with an issue

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 regarding public ways and when excavations are in the

2 public ways.

But I do have a couple of

4 questions. Whether you want to answer them today or

5 not, that's fine with me. If you'd like to put it in

6 writing, whatever the Board's pleasure is in terms of

7 the questions; but we'd like some definition, I think,

8 on the -- The statute uses the word "excavation."

The City of Chicago, as an example,

10 probably has 17,000 digs a year where they have to call

11 Julie and make sure that that they understand where

12 they're digging.

Their concern is: Will permits be

14 required in each of those kinds of excavations? And

15 what line of demarcation is there going to be in terms

16 of an excavation that actually is a fill operation,

17 therefore, under the confines of the Act, requiring a

18 permit?

I think we understand the big ones,

20 you know, and when those are going to require a permit

21 but the day-to-day kind of maintenance work that's done

22 on the part of the City ...

So I guess what I'd ask the Agency

24 is: In the context of that kind of work, has the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 Agency really considered what is an "excavation," and

2 have you sort of talked about the idea of defining the

3 word "excavation"?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: And, again, that's

5 something you can answer now, if you feel comfortable,

6 and even add more later.

MS. MUNIE: Yes. The Agency has

8 discussed "excavation," and we were unable to come up

9 with a clear definition specifically during the time

10 frame that we had. We also didn't feel that it was

11 high on priority for us to put our time and effort, at

12 that point, in it.

However, we will continue to

14 discuss it before the next hearing, and we'll provide

15 at least a response as to what our opinion is to allow

16 the Board to consider that during their discussions.

MS. MANNING: Okay. How about the words

18 "fill operation"? Have you considered whether -- For

19 example, a maintenance project that takes part of a

20 sidewalk or part of a -- and the backhoe moves it

21 somewhere else and moves it to another area within

22 close proximity but what the Agency may traditionally

23 consider a different site, has the Agency talked about

24 or considered how it would deal with those kinds of

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 situations, whether there's a fill operation there or

2 not? What is a "fill operation"?

MS. MUNIE: And I believe that the

4 response to the question on excavation, if we can get

5 you a definition of "excavation," that would answer

6 this question. I believe that's just the other end of

7 the coin in that question.

MS. MANNING: Okay. And then you're

9 willing to look at that and get a response to the

10 Board?

MS. MUNIE: Yes. We will get an opinion

12 and comments to the Board before the next hearing.

MS. MANNING: Great. Thank you.

MR. PURSEGLOVE: I have a follow-up,

15 Claire, on your first question.

Are you wondering -- Or is the City

17 wondering, if they do an excavation at one of these

18 17,000 digs a year, if this law would preclude them

19 from backfilling that hole?

MS. MANNING: Yes.

MR. PURSEGLOVE: I don't think that

22 there's -- We will -- We can certainly follow up on

23 that. But I don't think that we ever envisioned

24 requiring a permit to backfill a sewer cut that the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 City or any municipality might be doing. If you dig

2 out dirt, put in a sewer, and put that dirt back in the

3 hole, these rules are not applicable to that.

MS. MANNING: The question is when you

5 move it from one hole to another, potentially.

MR. PURSEGLOVE: Right.

MS. MANNING: Right. If the hole's down

8 the street or across the street or in a different

9 place, the City typically moves it from one place to

10 another. And it's a backfill, but it may not be in the

11 same location.

MR. PURSEGLOVE: Right.

MS. MANNING: That's the issue.

MR. PURSEGLOVE: Okay.

MR. RAO: Ms. Munie, just so I know --

16 you know, we also had the same questions about what an

17 "excavation" means or what would be a typical CCDD fill

18 operation. So, you know, whatever response that you

19 give would be helpful for us.

MS. MUNIE: Okay.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Further questions?

MS. MANNING: Just a couple.

The question of clean construction

24 or demolition debris and the word "clean" and the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 statutory use of the word "uncontaminated," has the

2 Agency considered or -- the whole idea of what it would

3 consider to be -- in permitting this program and in

4 regulating this program, what it considers to be

5 "uncontaminated debris" and how it will make those

6 decisions?

MS. MUNIE: And the answer is: As far

8 as "uncontaminated," under this definition under the

9 statute and under these rules, this legislation did not

10 change the term "uncontaminated" --

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Ms. Munie, can I have

12 you --

MS. MUNIE: Oh, sure.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: -- talk towards the

15 court reporter?

And I apologize --

MS. MUNIE: That's okay.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: -- for this sort of

19 orientation --

MS. MANNING: That's okay. I can hear

21 her from the back.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

MS. MUNIE: As far as the term

24 "uncontaminated" goes in this rulemaking and in the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 legislation, it has not changed from the law for the

2 last 15 years. This law has been in effect and has

3 been used for 15 years, and the term "uncontaminated"

4 has always been in that law. So we did not feel that,

5 under these rules, there was a necessity to define that

6 term.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Do you have any further

8 questions --

MR. RAO: I have a follow-up --

MS. ANTONIOLLI: -- Mr. Rao --

MR. RAO: -- on that --

MS. ANTONIOLLI: -- on that point?

MR. RAO: Yeah.

Ms. Munie, you just mentioned how

15 you have been implementing this program for the last

16 15 years.

So how have you been, you know,

18 determining what is contaminated and what is

19 uncontaminated in your current program?

MS. MUNIE: Sure. And I didn't mean to

21 say that we've been implementing this law for the last

22 15 years because we have not been implementing the law.

23 The law stood on its own and allowed an exemption from

24 the term "waste" using the term "uncontaminated." It

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 was a matter of, we knew contaminated when we saw it.

2 It was an enforcement issue. And when the materials

3 were not meeting the definition of "clean construction

4 or demolition debris" as defined, which is very

5 specific materials that are not contaminated, then, if

6 it did not meet that law, we would enforce against it.

MR. RAO: Okay. More specifically, in

8 the definition of "clean construction or demolition

9 debris," there's also, you know, terms used there that

10 says -- talks about "uncontaminated soil," and it

11 prohibits any commingling of uncontaminated soil with

12 the CCDD.

So is there any specific

14 demonstrations that the Agency requires, or is it just

15 you go with the law as you just mentioned now?

MS. MUNIE: We just go with the law as I

17 mentioned. The demonstration is that the soil is not

18 mixed with other clean construction or demolition

19 debris, and there's no -- It's not a prohibition

20 against mixing the two. It's just that if they are

21 mixed, then the soil, in addition to the clean

22 construction or demolition debris, becomes clean

23 construction or demolition debris.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: And is that

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 determination made at the time that it arrives at the

2 fill site or when it leaves the site of origin?

MS. MUNIE: Under these rules, that's

4 determined at the point it comes into the fill site.

5 These rules are not -- are meant to regulate only the

6 fill site. It is the upstream end of this system.

7 It's not meant to be covered by these rules.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Thank you.

Does anyone have anything further

10 on this point?

And, Ms. Manning, would you like to

12 continue with questions?

MS. MANNING: Just so that I understand

14 the issue of -- And maybe that answer answers it, but

15 the issue of uncontaminated -- I understand that we've

16 been working with this law for a long time. But you

17 would agree, would you not, that the whole nature of

18 whether something's contaminated or clean has changed

19 with the outset of TACO and risk-based objectives on

20 soil cleanup; and, as a result of that, there may be

21 different levels of clean or contaminated for various

22 different uses in certain areas.

MS. MUNIE: Actually, no, I would not

24 agree with that statement. TACO is the tiered approach

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 to cleanup objectives, and it is meant to be,

2 specifically, levels that are safe to remain at a site

3 when that specific site is being used in a specific

4 manner. It does not give levels of what clean soil is

5 or uncontaminated soil. It is a level -- risk-based

6 level of cleanup for already precontaminated sites.

MS. MANNING: So does that mean, then,

8 that the Agency's definition of "uncontaminated" means

9 pure, clean, absolutely made of virgin soil?

MS. MUNIE: The Agency's definition of

11 "uncontaminated" comes from the term "uncontaminated"

12 which is a defined environmental term that means it is

13 not contaminated with something else.

MS. MANNING: That's all for now, I

15 think, with that.

If I might ask about the IDOT

17 specifications just briefly so that I understand,

18 Joyce, your testimony at the beginning and the

19 clarification.

The statute, I think, talks about a

21 use consistent with IDOT specifications.

You would agree with that as well,

23 that what you said earlier today if a municipality

24 uses -- their use is consistent with the IDOT

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 specifications, that exemption applies; is that

2 correct?

MS. MUNIE: And when you use the term

4 "consistent," I would agree that if a municipality uses

5 and follows the specifications, then it applies to the

6 municipality.

MS. MANNING: Okay. Thank you.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Thank you,

9 Ms. Manning.

Is there anyone else that has any

11 questions at this point?

MR. GIRARD: Well, I have a question.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: And we do. Please,

14 ask.

MR. GIRARD: In looking at these

16 definitions, I have a question here and it deals with

17 the definition of "clean construction or demolition

18 debris," and it says that it means uncontaminated

19 broken concrete without protruding metal bars.

So that means that you can have a

21 chunk of concrete and have rebar in it and it still can

22 be clean construction debris as long as it's not

23 protruding?

MS. MUNIE: Yes.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. GIRARD: But if it's protruding half

2 an inch, does that mean that it's not clean?

MS. MUNIE: I will tell you that from a

4 practical standpoint, we look at really -- from an

5 enforcement standpoint, what the -- how close it could

6 get cut off, and that's based on equipment that is

7 used. And a half an inch of protruding rebar really is

8 about as close as they can get to the concrete to cut

9 it off.

MR. GIRARD: So at what point do you

11 enforce?

MS. MUNIE: That's up to the field

13 office on a case-by-case basis, and it's one of those,

14 "You'll know it when you see it," but it's hard to

15 define as far as defining it with a de minimis level of

16 what that protruding rebar is.

MR. GIRARD: So to be safest, you either

18 have it flush or within half an inch or you just crush

19 it all up and pull the iron out?

MS. MUNIE: To be safe, you would crush

21 it all up and pull the iron out. That would be,

22 clearly, the safest.

MR. GIRARD: Thank you.

MR. PURSEGLOVE: I might add that what

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 we're seeing in the field is very small, de minimis

2 amounts of concrete going into these kinds of fill

3 operations because there is a network of

4 concrete-recycling plants around the state. And people

5 who have large volumes of concrete deliver that

6 concrete to the crushers who crush it and then market

7 it as kind of a surrogate for aggregate. It's not that

8 the CCDD sites won't except some concrete, but the vast

9 majority of it is going to recycle as opposed to

10 disposal sites.

MR. GIRARD: Thank you.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. And the Board

13 and the Board's technical unit have more questions for

14 the witnesses. We'll start with some general questions

15 and then try to go through the proposed rule section by

16 section.

So do any of the Board members have

18 questions at this time?

MR. RAO: Ms. Munie, I had some general

20 questions about -- just to get a handle on the CCDD

21 fill operations.

How many of these, you know, I'd

23 say, fairly bigger fill operations are currently, you

24 know, operating in the state? Do you have a number or

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 estimate?

MS. MUNIE: Under this law, there was a

3 first interim application that had to come to us and

4 notification that came to us, and there were 87 that

5 applied for that. We think, possibly, there might be a

6 few more out there that did not become aware of the

7 law. But there are at least 87 who wanted to continue

8 to operate under the new standards.

MR. RAO: And with these 87 or so

10 applications that you received, have you had an

11 opportunity to go through these applications and see

12 how big these facilities are, how much CCDD they are

13 taking in on an annual basis?

MS. MUNIE: We have the statistics on

15 how much they take in on an annual basis on some major

16 categories. We have not had a chance to really go

17 through those statistics yet. And specifically, with

18 these interim applications or authorizations, it is

19 just more a locational-type application as opposed to

20 how large the facility itself is.

MR. RAO: Okay. Any information that

22 you may have regarding these facilities in terms of the

23 number of facilities and the size or where they're

24 located, if you could, you know, provide that

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 information into the record, that would be helpful.

MS. MUNIE: We will -- We'll provide

3 that information before the next hearing. We should be

4 able to develop a map for you, show you the locations,

5 and give you our statistics on it.

MR. RAO: That would be helpful.

And there are some other general

8 questions that I had related to the economic impact of

9 this rulemaking.

In your testimony -- or in the

11 statement of reasons, you have mentioned that one of

12 the costs that these facilities may face is going

13 through the permit process, and there's a mention that

14 it should not be unduly burdensome.

If it's possible for you to give us

16 some dollar estimate about how much it takes for

17 these -- one of these facilities to go through the

18 permit process and how much it may cost the Agency to

19 issue the permit, that will help us deal with the

20 economic impact of this rule.

MS. MUNIE: We'll try to develop

22 something before the next rulemaking [sic].

MR. RAO: Okay. And on page 2 of the

24 statement of reasons, you have provided a list of

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 persons who attended the Agency's outreach meetings.

Could you comment on whether this

3 list provides a good representation of the entities

4 being -- or that will be regulated under this rule?

MS. MUNIE: We believe it does provide a

6 good representation of the entities being regulated

7 under these rules. We had a couple of organizations

8 that were represented and then individual members from

9 within those organizations. We did minimal outreach

10 because of the time that we had available to us but

11 significant, considering the limited amount of time.

MR. RAO: And in the applicability

13 section, 1100.101(a), the proposal sets forth that the

14 proposed rules do not apply to CCDD fill operations

15 permitted pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807 or 811

16 through 814.

I realize that these are the

18 facilities permitted under the landfill rules. So is

19 the rationale here for this exemption that since they

20 go through the landfill permitting, those sites should

21 be okay to accept this CCDD?

MS. MUNIE: Yes. The rationale is that

23 a facility that's permitted as a landfill -- a

24 municipal waste landfill, a chemical waste landfill, or

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 a putrescible waste landfill -- would be more

2 protective than the regulations we're proposing here

3 for these fill operations. And, in fact, those

4 facilities are allowed to accept construction and

5 demolition debris as part of their entire waste

6 treatment. It's part of a municipal waste stream, and

7 they have been and continue to accept those types of

8 materials.

MR. RAO: Can similar exemptions be

10 provided for landfills regulated under 816 and 817?

MS. MUNIE: Landfills that are regulated

12 under 816 and 817 would not be accepting these type of

13 material.

MR. RAO: All right. And I had one more

15 clarification about your IDOT exemptions -- the

16 specifications.

So any entity that follows the IDOT

18 specifications are completely exempted from this rule?

MS. MUNIE: No. It's quite the

20 opposite. Only the county boards, city councils,

21 municipalities, only the groups that are defined in the

22 IDOT specifications as the "Department" because the

23 specifications under IDOT are clear that they only

24 apply to the Department.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. RAO: Should that be made part of

2 our rules, too, to clarify, you know, the applicability

3 of the rules?

Because right now, when I read

5 this, it seems like, you know, as long as they're

6 following the -- you know, the use of CCDD complies

7 with IDOT specifications, that they're exempted.

So somebody has to go to the IDOT

9 rules to figure out who it applies to?

MS. MUNIE: Someone would have to know

11 what the IDOT specifications are to follow the IDOT

12 specifications, and the IDOT specifications only apply

13 to -- have a requirement that the Department approve

14 it.

MR. RAO: Would it be acceptable to the

16 Agency if we provide a citation to the IDOT

17 specifications in the rules as far as, you know,

18 pursuant to whatever section of the --

MS. ANTONIOLLI: In addition to the Act

20 citation?

MR. RAO: Yeah.

MS. MUNIE: Of course.

MR. RAO: Okay.

MS. MUNIE: Would you like us to provide

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 that?

MR. RAO: I think so. It would be

3 helpful.

MS. MUNIE: Yes. We will provide that

5 before the next hearing.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Actually, I think that

7 is part of the testimony, too.

MS. MUNIE: It is part of the testimony.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: If you could just put

10 that into the rule language.

MS. MUNIE: Okay.

MS. FLOWERS: What are we clarifying?

13 We're clarifying the sections of which -- the Agency

14 sections of the IDOT specs that we think are

15 applicable?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: The exemption that's

17 part of this --

MR. RAO: We want a cross-reference to

19 the IDOT specifications.

MS. MUNIE: Okay. And our only concern

21 on that is that IDOT can change their specifications.

22 They can also change their numbering on the

23 specifications, okay. So it was a concern and really

24 why we did not do it to start with.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

However, we will be glad to provide

2 that to you. And if you decide to do it, that's

3 entirely up to you.

MS. LIU: I think in a public comment,

5 too, Rockford Sand & Gravel had read the language and

6 tried to see how they could apply the IDOT

7 specifications, and I don't think they ran across the

8 same definition of "Department" you did. Otherwise,

9 they would have realized it, and it would have opened

10 things up for them.

Would it be helpful to provide a

12 Board Note that said that this would apply to

13 departments such as county boards and city councils and

14 municipalities rather than having someone completely

15 skip over it and think that they're not eligible for

16 that exemption?

MS. MUNIE: I think a Board Note could

18 provide better clarification. Again, the danger would

19 be IDOT could open their specifications and go beyond

20 municipality, county, and other groups.

However, under the -- the Board

22 Note being not really the regulation itself, it may

23 provide a little more -- provide the clarification

24 without the constraints.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. RAO: We can list the entities that

2 we know now that are in the IDOT specifications

3 (inaudible) "during but not limited to," that kind of

4 language in there.

And I have one more follow-up about

6 an earlier topic we talked about, the uncontaminated

7 soil. There was a public comment filed by the

8 Aggregate Producers. In that comment, they had

9 requested that the Board ask the Agency to confer with

10 them to come up with a definition for "uncontaminated

11 soil."

So my question is: Has the Agency

13 already, you know, done something with Aggregate

14 Producers or in the process of ...

MS. MUNIE: The Agency, as part of our

16 outreach, did consult with Aggregate Producers, and

17 this was an area where we were unable to come up with

18 any consensus.

MR. RAO: Okay. Under Section 1100.201,

20 it specifies the prohibitions. 201 subsection (c)

21 prohibits CCDD operations within a potable water supply

22 well setback zone and that protection area is

23 designated by USEPA.

Could you clarify whether these

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 prohibitions addressed regulated recharged areas

2 delineated by the Board under Section 17.4?

MS. MUNIE: I don't believe they cover

4 those same areas.

MR. RAO: Do you believe a prohibition

6 should apply to regulated recharged areas?

MS. MUNIE: It was one that was not

8 provided for in the legislation, and therefore, we did

9 not go beyond what the legislation clearly put into it.

10 And we were not -- We were not willing to go beyond

11 what we thought the legislation allowed us.

MS. FLOWERS: Basically that's just a

13 listing of what was in 3.160 of the Illinois EPA Act.

MR. RAO: Okay. But --

MS. FLOWERS: We never really discussed

16 anything other -- I mean, we didn't really discuss the

17 issue. We just went ahead and put that in.

MR. RAO: Do you believe it's consistent

19 to protect regulated recharged areas the same way you

20 protect well setback zones?

MS. MUNIE: It would be consistent with

22 our landfill regulations. However, these are not

23 landfills.

MR. RAO: Okay.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. LIU: In that same section, I had a

2 question also.

1100.201(b) states, "CCDD fill

4 operations must not accept material other than CCDD for

5 use as fill." Does that mean that no other fill

6 material would be allowed?

MS. MUNIE: Correct, because anything

8 else would be contaminated or a waste. This is the

9 only material that is defined as not being a waste when

10 used in this manner.

MS. LIU: Does that mean that someone

12 wouldn't be allowed to bring in a clean load of sand or

13 gravel to place in the same fill areas as CCDD?

MS. MUNIE: No, because that material is

15 not a waste. It's dirt.

MS. LIU: So it wouldn't be allowed?

MS. MUNIE: It would be allowed, yes.

MS. LIU: It would be allowed?

MS. MUNIE: It would be allowed, but if

20 it came from construction or demolition debris -- a

21 construction and demolition site, it would -- when

22 commingled with that CCDD, clean construction or

23 demolition debris, it would become clean construction

24 or demolition debris because it was, at that point,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 commingled.

MS. LIU: What if it was not commingled;

3 it was brought in separately?

MS. MUNIE: Then it's just dirt.

MS. LIU: And you could put dirt --

MS. MUNIE: You can put dirt in these

7 holes, yes.

MS. FLOWERS: It would not be a CCDD

9 fill operation at that point.

MS. LIU: Okay. That would be helpful

11 if you could define "fill operation," then.

Is it -- Does it just apply truck

13 by truck, or does it apply to the whole site?

MS. MUNIE: Okay. And "CCDD fill

15 operation" is defined specifically as the use of CCDD

16 as fill material in a current or former quarry, mine,

17 or other excavation. So it's specifically the use of

18 clean construction or demolition debris as the fill.

MR. RAO: I guess -- You know what Alisa

20 is asking is -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the proposed

21 language says "CCDD fill operation must not accept

22 material other than CCDD." And I thought your reply to

23 her question was CC- -- that CCDD fill operations is

24 prohibited from accepting any waste, but they can

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 accept other clean material.

Is that correct?

MS. MUNIE: That's correct. That's just

4 dirt.

MR. RAO: So in this proposed language,

6 should this read as "CCDD fill operations must not

7 accept other waste" or "material"?

MS. MUNIE: When it's talking about

9 this, it's saying for use as fill, okay, and it is just

10 the use as fill that the -- it could only be clean

11 construction or demolition debris. It's not the --

12 It's not the filling of the hole. It's for use as fill

13 within -- within this hole.

MS. LIU: I guess the way I read it, in

15 a very practical sense, is that it says if you've got a

16 fill operation for CCDD, then it's exclusive to CCDD.

17 I don't read into that statement that you can bring in

18 a clean load of sand or gravel that's not associated

19 with that demolition project.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: I think maybe -- Is it

21 the word "material" that you're actually ...

MS. FLOWERS: We might need to propose a

23 clarification as to what the definition of "clean

24 construction or demolition debris" is because there is

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 a provision there that if anything is commingled with

2 CCDD, it becomes CCDD. And that is where you're saying

3 a load of sand, but if it's going in to be fill with

4 other CCDD, it is itself CCDD.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: But not anything;

6 something that's not otherwise a waste?

MR. RAO: Uncontaminated.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Yeah, uncontaminated.

MS. FLOWERS: Yes.

MS. LIU: So although it's not CCDD when

11 you bring it into the site to dump it, once you dump

12 it, it becomes commingled; then it becomes CCDD?

MS. MUNIE: Yes. And that was the point

14 of the Board Note that we had there. So maybe a

15 clarification on the Board Note we have.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: And the Board Note --

17 Yes, that might need a clarification because it doesn't

18 have the full definition there of what "uncontaminated

19 soil that is being placed as fill material" is.

MS. MUNIE: Okay.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: So yeah, that would be

22 a good idea.

MR. RAO: I think, in the Board Note,

24 you've got part of the definition there. I think the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 next sentence that follows is where -- you know, "as

2 long as it's not commingled."

MR. RAO: On Section 1100.202, the

4 surface water drainage requirements, you have provided

5 requirements for runoff control from filled areas and

6 unfilled areas. And in subsection (a) -- (a)(1) -- oh,

7 it's in (a)(2) -- it says, "All surface water control

8 structures must be operated until the final cover is

9 placed and the vegetative or other cover meeting the

10 requirements of 1100.208 of this Part provides

11 erosional stability."

Does this rule require surface

13 water control structures?

MR. LIEBMAN: Yes.

MR. RAO: Okay. I didn't see any design

16 criteria provided in this rule like you have done for

17 diversion of runoff from unfilled areas.

Is this something that, when the

19 facility goes through the NPDES permit, there will be

20 specified any additional requirements for surface water

21 control structures?

MR. LIEBMAN: You mean beyond what our

23 bureau of water would ask for in a non-CCDD site?

MR. RAO: Yeah, or something -- No. On

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 what basis will they provide -- or construct surface

2 water control structures under this rule?

I didn't see any part of the rules

4 that require them to do it. That's my question.

MR. LIEBMAN: I understand your

6 question, and I think it's something we'll need to

7 discuss internally and get back to you on.

MR. RAO: That would be great. Thank

9 you.

MS. FLOWERS: Maybe we ought to clarify

11 that.

Are you asking if we have any other

13 surface water control structure requirements in this

14 Part 1100 other than what NPDES permits would require?

MR. RAO: Yeah. I wanted to know, you

16 know, whether, first of all, they're required to have

17 any surface water control structures because I didn't

18 see any requirement in there other than that it should

19 be operated. And my other question was whether that

20 would be required as a part of the NPDES permit since

21 it's not in the rule.

MS. FLOWERS: Right. And under

23 Section 1100.308, that's where we cover surface water

24 control, and it does -- does show that they need to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 comply with the NPDES permit.

MR. RAO: But to me, it seems like

3 water -- surface water control structures are

4 measured -- will be a part of the NPDES permit under

5 309.

Is that correct?

MS. FLOWERS: Yes.

MR. RAO: Okay.

MS. FLOWERS: I shouldn't answer.

MR. LIEBMAN: Yes.

MR. RAO: All right.

MS. LIU: In Public Comment No. 1, the

13 Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers suggests

14 adding some language to proposed Section 1100.204(h)

15 regarding the final fill elevation. The proposal would

16 allow filling higher than the existing elevation for a

17 site development or reclamation as long as there is

18 Agency approval. And I was wondering if the Agency

19 would comment on the Agency's position regarding that

20 proposal.

MR. LIEBMAN: Well, I believe, in this

22 comment, they were suggesting that a permit could

23 perhaps be issued whereby CCDD material could be used

24 to go above the surrounding grades, and that would not

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 be consistent with the definition of "clean

2 construction or demolition debris" and how it can be

3 used such that it's not a waste. So we would not

4 support that idea.

MS. LIU: If the site was intended for

6 some sort of future development, how would they get the

7 type of grading that they would need if they didn't use

8 CCDD --

MR. LIEBMAN: Using materials other than

10 clean construction or demolition debris.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: As a part of that same

12 section, 204, the section immediately before that, (g),

13 on noise control, there was also a comment about that

14 first sentence under "Noise Control." And I'm

15 wondering what the Agency's idea is of how a facility

16 is designed to minimize noise that would be audible

17 outside of the site or if it would be -- or if you'd

18 consider eliminating that first sentence and just going

19 with the Board's -- as long as it is in compliance with

20 the Board's noise regulation provisions.

MR. LIEBMAN: I don't believe our intent

22 was to make these regulations more stringent than the

23 Board's standards.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Are there any

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 other questions on that section, 204?

MR. RAO: I had just a general kind of a

3 suggestion to the Agency in that under the operating

4 standards for the various provisions that you have, the

5 proposed language includes phrases like "safe manner,"

6 "proper design," and things like that. It would be

7 helpful if you could, you know, be a little bit more

8 specific in the proposed language that way we can

9 address deeper concerns. It would be a little bit more

10 easier for us to deal with them because, a lot of

11 times, we get those questions of what it means and I'll

12 know where this language is coming from. But it would

13 be helpful.

MR. LIEBMAN: We'll see what we can do.

MR. RAO: Yeah.

MS. FLOWERS: Is that only under the

17 operating standards?

MR. RAO: Yes.

MS. FLOWERS: We'll just come up with

20 some different language --

MR. RAO: Yeah.

MS. LIU: Mr. Purseglove?

MR. PURSEGLOVE: Yes.

MS. LIU: In Public Comment No. 1, the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers also makes

2 another suggestion regarding training for

3 load-checking. They propose that a mining industry

4 would pay for the training program but that there would

5 be Agency oversight to ensure continuity and

6 consistency. I was wondering if the Agency could

7 comment on how they feel about that.

MR. PURSEGLOVE: Yes, we can. We are --

9 We are not supporting such a proposal. We don't have

10 the resources to run a training program. There are --

11 We anticipate that there will be people operating CCDD

12 fill operations who are not necessarily members of the

13 Aggregate Producers Association. We don't want to be

14 in a position of training and then retraining people.

15 The rules as proposed are, we feel, fairly

16 straightforward. They do not require a lot of

17 training, nothing similar to what it might require for

18 Certified Subtitle B, landfill operations.

MS. FLOWERS: And if I could just

20 interject. We did talk with IAAP yesterday or the day

21 before about the same issue, and they are comfortable

22 with us just providing -- maybe having us come and

23 speak at something that they themselves develop the

24 training program.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

MS. FLOWERS: And we're okay with that.

3 We just -- We do not want to have the burden of

4 developing a program and providing it for everyone.

MS. LIU: Would it need to be an

6 Agency-approved training program?

MS. FLOWERS: No.

MR. JOHNSON: What are you -- Are you

9 talking about using the PIDs and the FIDs, that

10 training? Is that what you're referring to, Alisa?

MS. LIU: I guess I was just trying to

12 establish some sort of minimum training guidelines that

13 people would be able to adhere to so that there would

14 be some sort of consistency.

MS. FLOWERS: I think they're wanting

16 somewhat of our guidance. I don't really want to say,

17 though, whether there would be an approval.

MS. MUNIE: And I believe what Stephanie

19 was stating earlier, about us providing speakers for

20 their programs, we do this, typically, on every other

21 program where we provide technical expertise and allow

22 an organization such as the Aggregate Producers to put

23 on training, and we provide the technical part of it.

24 The problem with creating an approved program is that

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 there are a lot more resources that we have to put into

2 it, and we don't have those resources at this time.

The problem with putting a Board

4 regulation where it allows a group such as the

5 Aggregate Producers to be -- to provide training that

6 is required in these regulations is the Aggregate

7 Producers, first of all, may decide that they only

8 offer it to their group. Someone has to be a member of

9 their group. Also, there is the problem that if

10 someone left or their trained person left, the

11 Aggregate Producers would have to offer this training

12 quite frequently throughout the year, and they may not

13 be willing to do a formal training that -- as

14 frequently as they -- They realize that they might not

15 have to -- They may not realize how frequently it has

16 to happen. It's just, in our experience, it has to

17 happen quite frequently, and it's just something that

18 we don't think we have the resources to put into right

19 now.

MR. RAO: Just a related question.

21 Under the recordkeeping requirements that you propose,

22 you require these facilities to maintain, you know,

23 written provisions for load-checking, load-rejection

24 notifications, and training required under 1100.205.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

So if the Agency goes on an

2 inspection and they find that whatever information they

3 have in their files doesn't, you know, meet your goal

4 or standard, then would that be an opportunity for the

5 Agency to say, you know, "You should have a better

6 training procedure"?

MS. MUNIE: That would definitely be an

8 opportunity for the Agency to assist the company to do

9 better training. We would also envision that this

10 information would come to us in an application and that

11 we would be able to assist them during the application

12 process on what -- all they need to do to train their

13 employees.

MR. RAO: Okay.

MS. LIU: Mr. Purseglove, another

16 question following on the suggestion by IAAP about

17 Section 1100.205(a) and (b). They suggest some

18 language about calibration of instruments, and I was

19 wondering what the Agency's position was on that.

MR. PURSEGLOVE: I need to see that.

Do you have the response that we

22 prepared for IAAP?

(Document tendered.)

MR. PURSEGLOVE: Did you submit this to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 them?

MS. MUNIE: No. That's for us.

MR. PURSEGLOVE: We feel that these

4 instruments should be calibrated with pure air which is

5 specified by the manufacturers. It's called a zero gas

6 as opposed to zeroing them with air in the atmosphere.

7 That would be the proper way to calibrate an instrument

8 so that when you turn it on and it reads zero, it is,

9 in fact, based on a calibration from zero-gas air.

MS. LIU: Do you think that there needs

11 to be any revision to the language the Agency proposed

12 to reflect that?

MR. PURSEGLOVE: I don't think our

14 language needs to be revised. We can look at it again.

15 if you think that -- having read it, you think you're

16 unclear as to what is required.

Instrument manufacturers provide

18 all that documentation about how to zero and calibrate

19 an instrument. Those are the procedures the Illinois

20 EPA follows when we use these instruments.

MS. FLOWERS: Would you suggest a

22 clarification, then?

MS. LIU: I guess IAAP thought there

24 should be a clarification. That's why I just wanted to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 follow up with you.

MS. FLOWERS: Okay.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Well, I think what

4 their -- Their suggestion was, actually, to change the

5 language affirmatively to, "to measure background

6 noises as included in the prohibitions." So I think

7 the Agency's position is that they're sticking with

8 their original -- I don't want to put words in your

9 mouth, but I think that's just what he said.

MR. PURSEGLOVE: That is correct, right.

MS. LIU: We have a series of questions

12 relating to 1100.209, the postclosure maintenance.

Mr. Liebman, based on your

14 experience, once a quarry or a mine or an excavation

15 has completed fill activities using CCDD, what are some

16 of the final uses of those sites?

MR. LIEBMAN: Well, the use that the

18 Aggregate Producers keep telling us about is a big box

19 store.

MS. LIU: So some type of a building or

21 a structure?

MR. LIEBMAN: Yes.

MS. LIU: Homes? Would you see homes on

24 these types of sites?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. LIEBMAN: Excuse me. A big box

2 store is something like a Walmart.

MR. MELAS: That's a common

4 nomenclature.

MS. LIU: But not necessarily a

6 commercial-type building; it could be any type of a

7 building?

MR. LIEBMAN: Yes, or open space.

9 Essentially anything, I believe.

MS. LIU: From a geotechnical

11 perspective, what makes CCDD well-suited for something

12 like that?

MR. LIEBMAN: Well, it can be very

14 stable as opposed to putrescible waste.

MS. LIU: Since CCDD is comprised of

16 concrete and other types of very rigid materials, does

17 the placement of it tend to create void spaces?

MR. LIEBMAN: I would say, as a general

19 rule, that would not be a problem.

MS. LIU: In terms of what?

MR. LIEBMAN: In terms of having large

22 voids that later collapse and cause the surface to

23 settle differentially.

MS. LIU: That's what I was trying to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 get at.

You don't see situations where

3 those large voids are created by --

MR. LIEBMAN: I don't think that would

5 be a common occurrence.

MS. MUNIE: If I can clarify. A large

7 majority of what we see going into these quarries is

8 soil-type materials, and it is not so much the truly

9 large chunks of concrete. As Paul testified earlier,

10 most of that really goes into making CA-6, a rock-type

11 material and aggregate which is then used again in

12 concrete -- or reused in concrete or used in

13 road-building materials, road building, things like

14 that.

So between that and the weight in

16 the material and the materials themselves, as they're

17 being placed, they're going to go to a natural grade.

18 We're just not seeing the large voids as an issue.

19 Someone is going to maximize the space and -- to the

20 point where they can run a compactor over material, run

21 a piece of equipment if they start seeing voids. They

22 want to be able to put as much material on the ground

23 as they can.

MS. LIU: Even given that, do you see a

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 propensity for these sites at all to exhibit shifting

2 and settling?

MR. LIEBMAN: I'm not aware of that

4 being a common problem.

MS. LIU: Are you aware of how this type

6 of fill material might respond in a seismic event since

7 it's an unconsolidated-type material; it's not in need

8 of soil?

MR. LIEBMAN: No, I'm not aware of -- Or

10 I don't -- I have not done any research into how this

11 material may respond differently from unfilled areas.

MS. LIU: I know this kind of goes

13 beyond what's being allowed in the proposal. But from

14 a geotechnical-engineering standpoint or

15 foundation-engineering standpoint, just to improve the

16 structural properties of a fill area, could CCDD

17 filling operations benefit from the introduction of

18 other types of compatible materials?

MR. LIEBMAN: Perhaps.

MS. MUNIE: But that would not be

21 consistent with the law.

MR. HUBBARD: I'd just like to say that,

23 as Chris mentioned, they normally are -- or Joyce, I

24 meant. Sorry. They normally are using very large

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 equipment to place this, so they tend to compact as

2 they go just with the weight of all this equipment

3 running back and forth on them.

MR. RAO: Is that one of the reasons for

5 why the Agency has picked a fairly short postclosure

6 maintenance period of one year for these

7 specifications, that there's not much settling or any

8 other kinds of problems --

MS. MUNIE: In addition to where we do

10 not expect much settling, it's also not putrescible

11 waste; meaning, it does not decompose. Specifically,

12 it cannot be that type of material. Usually a large

13 postclosure care period is needed when you expect the

14 materials to change inside the fill boundaries

15 themselves. We expect that once this material is

16 placed in the fill, it's just there. It's not going to

17 change its characteristics.

MR. RAO: Thank you.

I have just one more clarification

20 question. This is for the recordkeeping requirements

21 under 1100.210.

This provision doesn't state how

23 long the records should be maintained. I realize,

24 under load-checking, the Agency has proposed a

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 three-year time period.

Should the same three-year time

3 period apply to recordkeeping requirements --

MR. HUBBARD: Generally --

MR. RAO: -- for maintenance of records

6 outside?

MR. HUBBARD: Generally we'd like them

8 to keep all -- a copy of all their permits and permit

9 applications.

MR. RAO: All the -- From the time the

11 facility starts operating, you want --

MS. MUNIE: Until the completion of

13 postclosure care, yes, right, with the exception of the

14 load-checking, which -- because we expect that to be a

15 large volume of paper, which is why there's less time

16 requirements. The rest of the papers, we do not expect

17 to be quite as significant, and we would expect them to

18 know what they've applied for throughout the life of

19 the facility.

MR. RAO: Okay. That's all I have.

Thank you very much.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: I have one more

23 organizational question. This rulemaking is addressing

24 Public Act 94-272. But just out of curiosity, if the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 Agency foresees any other material that could be used

2 as fill in the future, would you consider entitling the

3 Part, Section 1100, something more general and then

4 having the CCDD material rules be, I guess, in the

5 environment of the 1100s for now and in the future

6 potentially have that section apply to other fill

7 materials that may be used?

MS. MUNIE: We -- I don't think that we

9 can envision something that could also be used as fill

10 in this manner simply because this is one of the few

11 exemptions in the Act where a material being used as

12 fill is not a waste.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Right. That's --

MS. MUNIE: Everything else --

MS. ANTONIOLLI: -- the new section?

MS. MUNIE: Right. Any other fills, we

17 would expect to be a landfill and would be more

18 suitable to fit into the 800 series or the 700 series,

19 depending on whether or not it's hazardous waste or

20 nonhazardous waste.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Thanks for your

22 opinion.

MS. FLOWERS: I just have a couple

24 questions. As far as the IDOT specifications, I

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 believe that at some time it was said that "do they

2 just need to be consistent with," and I would just like

3 to -- I guess I'll have Joyce testify to whether --

4 what that exactly is not consistent with, what that

5 actually says if you could.

MS. MUNIE: Yes. In fact, I believe my

7 response to the question made it clear that I did not

8 agree with the term "consistent with." They have to

9 follow the specifications laid out in the IDOT

10 handbook. IDOT specifications are very clear and very

11 specific as to what steps must be taken, what tests

12 have to be made, and what procedures have to be

13 followed.

MS. FLOWERS: And if I could just have

15 you read what that says.

MS. MUNIE: Specifically the Act allows

17 that this subsection does not apply to the use of clean

18 construction or demolition debris as fill material in

19 an excavation other than a current or former quarry or

20 mine if this use complies with Illinois Department of

21 Transportation specifications. And it specifically

22 uses the words "complies with."

MS. FLOWERS: And the other thing I'd

24 just like to mention is that -- just for the Board's

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 information, is that we have worked very closely with

2 the IAAP on this matter. They do represent a large

3 portion of what we -- who we think are going to be

4 subject to these regulations, and we -- we still now

5 talk with them about what's going on. They know all

6 their issues. What they submitted as comments, we have

7 heard before. We have also given them our views on the

8 matter. They do want to, of course, present them for

9 the record. But we have had a very open communication

10 with them, and I would just like to let you know that

11 that's still going on.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

MR. JOHNSON: And the two main areas

14 that you identified in your statement of reasons here,

15 the extent of the notification procedure and the

16 requirement of a professional engineer to certify, are

17 still your two big areas of disagreement? Or have you

18 developed more?

MS. FLOWERS: No. I -- Yeah. They were

20 at the -- They were at the time that we submitted our

21 proposal, but I guess they're -- whatever they

22 submitted as comments would be -- And I don't

23 believe -- I believe one of those issues is in their

24 comments, the notification. So ...

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. JOHNSON: Okay.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: And, Ms. Flowers, I

3 have one more question for you on -- I'm looking at

4 the -- your motion-for-acceptance proposal and

5 statement of reasons, and attached to it, you did

6 attach P.A. 94-272.

MS. FLOWERS: Right.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: There is a new section

9 of Section 42 of the Act, and it's Section i-5. And

10 Section i-5 talks about one basis for the Agency to

11 deny an interim authorization or permit for this type

12 of fill and that it's based on activities at the site

13 that may have caused or allowed contamination unless

14 such contamination is authorized under any permit

15 issued by the Agency. And the responsibility is also

16 on the owner or operator to provide this information.

Do you think that's something that

18 should be part of the permit application content

19 requirements? I guess that would be subpart (c) of the

20 proposed rule?

MS. FLOWERS: Joyce, do you want to --

22 This is a form that we -- It is required --

MS. ANTONIOLLI: I guess it would be

24 implicit, but ...

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. FLOWERS: It's mentioned in the --

2 somewhere.

MS. MUNIE: Are you referencing

4 Section 39(i-5), the new Section 39(i-5)?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Yes, 39(i-5). I think

6 I mentioned 42, but it's 39(i-5).

MS. MUNIE: And this is regarding what

8 we commonly called a bad Act or clause but is in the

9 Act. This provision itself is something that we deal

10 with procedurally, separate from the standard

11 applications and outside each individual regulation,

12 because 39(i) applies to all permits issued.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

MS. FLOWERS: We do require, though --

15 Under 1100.307, we mention that they have to provide

16 certifications that comply with 39(i) and 39(i-5).

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. It's in there.

MS. FLOWERS: And it is submitted as

19 part of the permit application, right?

MS. MUNIE: Yes. It's just a separate

21 form in and of itself.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Thank you.

Are there any other questions at

24 this time?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. RAO: I've just got a quick one.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Go ahead.

MR. RAO: So has the Agency developed

4 forms for CCDD landfill operations?

MS. MUNIE: We have for the interim, but

6 we have not yet completed ones for the landfill -- fill

7 operations. And that's mostly because these

8 regulations, as we're proposing, are not as solid as we

9 normally would do when we propose to the Board. It

10 takes us usually a lot longer to develop them. And so

11 usually we would have the forms available for the Board

12 to review, but I don't know that we would be able to do

13 that until we actually see what your final rules are

14 going to be.

MR. RAO: Okay.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay.

MR. HUBBARD: I have copies of the

18 interim form if you'd like them. I don't know if

19 that's ...

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Is that something that

21 you'd want to enter into the record?

MS. FLOWERS: I don't think it's

23 applicable -- I don't really think it's applicable to

24 this regulation.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Thank you.

Any further questions?

And if not, then I want to thank

4 you all for being here today and for the testimony that

5 you've provided.

Is there anything further?

MS. MANNING: Just as a matter of

8 clarification.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Sure.

MS. MANNING: Would the Agency be

11 answering the questions within a certain period of time

12 prior to the next hearing?

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Agency, would you like

14 to respond to that?

We have -- I want to remind you

16 that we do have a prefiling deadline scheduled already,

17 as it was scheduled in the notice of hearing, and that

18 would be February 17th.

Agency, would you like to say

20 whether you could meet that deadline or whether you'd

21 like to set a separate one?

And we'll go off the record for a

23 second.

(Discussion off the record.)

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. ANTONIOLLI: And we're still

2 discussing the Agency's response to a question we had

3 earlier about what the definition of an "excavation"

4 is. So the Agency has agreed to provide us sort of a

5 clarification on that topic approximately a week before

6 our next scheduled hearing on March 1st.

MS. MANNING: And that's acceptable.

And what I just wanted to say to

9 make it easier for the Agency, we could continue the

10 dialogue, number one; but, number two, we're not

11 looking for a specific definition as much as a

12 clarification. And I think there was quite a bit of

13 clarification already provided today. So I'm not

14 looking necessarily for a piece of language that goes

15 into the rules that you're asking the Board to put in

16 the rules so much as I'm looking for a clarification of

17 applicability, if that helps.

Thank you.

MS. ANTONIOLLI: Okay. Anything further

20 at this point?

Okay. Again, thanks, everyone, for

22 being here today and, Proponents, for all of your

23 testimony that you've provided.

The Board has scheduled, as I

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 mentioned, a second hearing in this matter for

2 March 1st, 2006, and that will be in Springfield at the

3 Illinois State Museum. That hearing will begin at

4 10:00 a.m. And any person who wishes to prefile

5 testimony for that next hearing should do so by

6 February 17th, 2006. And please contact the Board for

7 a copy of the service list if you wish to prefile that

8 testimony.

We will post the transcript of

10 today's hearing on our website, which is

11 www.ipcb.state.il.us. There, the transcript as well as

12 the Agency proposal and all of the Board's orders

13 throughout this proceeding will be viewable and

14 downloadable at no charge. Alternatively, you can

15 order a copy of the transcript from the Clerk of the

16 Board at 75 cents per page.

Also, I'd like to remind everyone

18 that you can file public comment in this proceeding.

19 Again, please note that when you file a public comment,

20 please serve all of the people on the service list with

21 a copy of the public comment. Today, we'll have

22 sign-up sheets just outside the room for the service

23 list and the notice list.

If there's nothing further, I want

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 to thank all of you for your comments and testimony,

2 again, and this hearing is closed. I will see you

3 again on March 1st.

Thank you.

(Which were all the proceedings had

in the above-entitled cause.)

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS.

2 COUNTY OF COOK

)

Martina Manzo, being first duly sworn, on

4 oath says that she is a Certified Shorthand Reporter

5 doing business in the City of Chicago, County of Cook

6 and the State of Illinois;

That she reported in shorthand the

8 proceedings had at the foregoing Illinois Pollution

9 Control Board hearing;

And that the foregoing is a true and correct

11 transcript of her shorthand notes so taken as aforesaid

12 and contains all the proceedings had at the said

13 Illinois Pollution Control Board hearing.

____________________________

MARTINA MANZO, CSR

CSR No. 084-004341

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO

21 before me this 7th day of

February, A.D., 2006.

23 ____________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292