1 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2 IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
3 ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION )
STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR )
4 THE CHICAGO AND METRO-EAST AREAS:)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO )
5 35 ILL: CODE 218 AND 219 )
6
7 HEARING BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
8 Proceedings held on May 17, 2006, at
9:00 a.m. at the offices of the Madison County
9 Administration Building, Edwardsville, Illinois, before
John C. Knittle, Chief Hearing Officer and reported by
10 Holly A. Schmid, Notary Public and Certified Shorthand
Reporter, CSR No. 084-98-254587 for the State of
11 Illinois, pursuant to notice.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page1
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2 MR. JOHN C. KNITTLE
Chief Hearing Officer
3 Illinois Pollution Control Board
2125 South First Street
4 Champaign, IL 61820
5 MR. ANAND RAO
Senior Environmental Scientist
6 Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
7 Chicago, IL 60601
8 MR. THOMAS E. JOHNSON
Board Member
9 Illinois Pollution Control Board
2125 South First Street
10 Champaign, IL 61820
11 MS. ANNET C. GODIKSEN
Assistant Counsel
12 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue
13 Springfield, IL 62794
14 MS. KIMBERLY A. GEVING
Assistant Counsel
15 Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue
16 Springfield, IL 62794
17 ALSO PRESENT: MR. JOHN KIM
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page2
1 I N D E X
2
3 WITNESSES PG.
4 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RAO: 11
5
6 E X H I B I T S
7
8 IDENTIFICATION PG.
9 EXHIBITS 8 THROUGH 10 ADMITTED: 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page3
1 MR. HEARING OFFICER: My name is John
2 Knittle. I'm an attorney with the Illinois Pollution
3 Control Board, also the hearing officer for this
4 rule-making proceeding which is entitled R06-21, organic
5 material emissions standards and limitations for the
6 Chicago and Metro East areas: Proposed amendments to 35
7 Illinois Administrative Code 218 and 219.
8 We accepted the proposal for hearing
9 on January 19, 2006, and the first hearing in this
10 matter was held on April 19 in Chicago. With me today
11 from the Pollution Control Board are Tom Johnson, board
12 member, and Anand Rao of the technical staff. Member
13 Johnson is the board member ably coordinating this
14 rule-making. Mr. Johnson, do you have anything you want
15 to say at this time?
16 MR. JOHNSON: No. Thank you, though.
17 MR. HEARING OFFICER: A little
18 background, even though there is, for the record, no
19 members of the public present today, the Agency is
20 proposing to revise its cold cleaning degreaser rules in
21 Chicago and the Metro East nonattainment areas by making
22 parallel changes, 35 Illinois Administrative Code,
23 218.182 (c) and (d), and 219.182 (c) and (d).
24 The Agency is proposing revisions to
Page4
1 allow the sale or purchase of solvents with vapor
2 pressures bigger than one MM -- how do you say that?
3 MR. RAO: Millimeter.
4 MR. HEARING OFFICER: Millimeter
5 mercury and units greater than five gallons to or by
6 sources that have valid permits, or in compliance with
7 the add-on control requirements or are exempt.
8 The Agency is also proposing control
9 requirements to allow for the option of add-on controls.
10 Subsections are being created that will require sources
11 using solvents with vapor pressures greater than that
12 amount to control their emissions to an overall capture
13 and control efficiency of no less than 95 percent.
14 We have some additional provisions, as
15 well. We have had a hearing in this matter, as I
16 stated, on April 19. That hearing, along with this
17 hearing, was conducted in accordance with Part 102 of
18 the Board's procedural rules. All information that is
19 relevant and not repetitious or privileged will be
20 admitted. All witnesses will be sworn and subject to
21 cross-examination.
22 I also want to note that the Board
23 does maintain service and notice lists of the
24 rule-making proceeding. Those on the notice list
Page5
1 receive only board opinions and orders, and hearing
2 officer orders, and those on the service list will
3 receive these documents, plus other filings, such as
4 public comments. If there was anyone here, I would tell
5 them to contact me on a break to be put on the list, but
6 there are no members of the public here, but we do want
7 to make this part of the record, in case anybody is
8 reading the transcript at a later point in time, and if
9 anybody is, they can contact me, and I will make them
10 part of either list at their request.
11 Anyone may ask a question of any
12 witness. You guys all know that, so we'll move on, and
13 I do want to note for the record that any questions
14 asked by the Board are intended to help build a complete
15 record for the Board's decision, and not to express any
16 preconceived notions or bias for this rule-making. This
17 rule-making and this hearing is also being held to
18 fulfill the requirements of Section 27-B of the Act and
19 Section 27-B of -- when I say "the Act" I mean the
20 Environmental Protection Act -- requires the Board to
21 request the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic
22 Opportunity -- DCEO, is what we will call it. It used
23 to be the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs
24 -- to conduct an economic impact study on certain
Page6
1 proposed rules prior to the adoption of those rules. If
2 the DCEO chooses to conduct the economic impact study,
3 it has 30 to 45 days after the request is made to
4 produce a study of the rules or a study of the economic
5 impact of the rules. The Board must then make that
6 study or the explanation for not conducting the study
7 available to the public, at least, 20 days prior to the
8 public hearing on the economic impact of the proposed
9 rules.
10 In this case, in accordance with
11 Section 27-B of the Act, we sent, on February 27, 2006,
12 a letter to the DCEO requesting an economic impact study
13 on this rule-making. To date, DCEO has not responded.
14 It's been well over the 45 days noted in the Act. It's,
15 approximately, 80 days, I think, since the request has
16 been made. Relying on the fact that they have not
17 responded to the letter, and past representations made
18 by DCEO, including explanation for not conducting this
19 study, the Board is going to proceed, and right now ask
20 if anybody has any questions on the economic impact
21 study or DCEO's apparent decision not to conduct an
22 economic impact study right now. I see nobody who has
23 any questions on that. That requirement being
24 fulfilled, we'll move on.
Page7
1 We also have an Agency response to the
2 Board's questions that were raised at the last hearing.
3 The response was filed on May 12, and as I have talked
4 to Ms. Godiksen, who is representing the Agency, she is
5 going to be offering that later on as an exhibit, so
6 that being said, Ms. Godiksen, you're representing the
7 Illinois Environment Protection Agency in this matter.
8 Would you like to identify yourself and those.
9 MS. GODIKSEN: Thank you. My name is
10 Annet Godiksen. I'm assistant counsel with the Illinois
11 Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Air, and we
12 also have Kim Geving seated behind me. She is also
13 assistant counsel with the Bureau of Land and we have as
14 our witness, Gary Beckstead, regulatory unit manager for
15 the air quality planning section of the Bureau of Air
16 for the Agency, and in case, for the record, we have
17 extra copies of all the documents.
18 MR. HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, and I
19 was remiss in noting that Anand Rao of the Board's
20 technical staff, is present, as well.
21 MR. RAO: I think you mentioned that.
22 MR. HEARING OFFICER: Let's reiterate
23 he is here with us today. Ms. Godiksen, you can
24 proceed.
Page8
1 MS. GODIKSEN: We would like to submit
2 together the filings of May 12, the prefiled
3 supplemental testimony of Gary Beckstead, the
4 supplemental statement No. 2, and errata sheet No. 2 as
5 an exhibit.
6 MR. HEARING OFFICER: That would be
7 Exhibit No. 8. Any objections? Of course, since
8 there's nobody here, other than the Agency and us, there
9 are no objections. That will be admitted.
10 MS. GODIKSEN: As our next exhibit, I
11 believe we have the outreach letter.
12 MR. HEARING OFFICER: Correct.
13 MS. GODIKSEN: We would like to have
14 that admitted as Exhibit No. 9.
15 MR. HEARING OFFICER: That will be so
16 admitted.
17 MS. GODIKSEN: And Exhibit No. 10
18 would be the revised Sections 218 and 219, just for
19 clarification's sake. It includes all the changes from
20 errata sheet one and two.
21 MR. HEARING OFFICER: Are you offering
22 that as Exhibit 10?
23 MS. GODIKSEN: Correct.
24 MR. HEARING OFFICER: That's admitted.
Page9
1 MS. GODIKSEN: And we would like to
2 make a motion to correct the transcript.
3 MR. HEARING OFFICER: You are going to
4 give this to me today. I will take -- this looks like
5 typographical corrections and clarifications.
6 MS. GODIKSEN: Correct.
7 MR. HEARING OFFICER: We will take
8 that up to Chicago. I will have it filed with Clerk
9 Gunn, and we'll adjust it at the next board order or
10 hearing.
11 MS. GODIKSEN: Great.
12 MR. HEARING OFFICER: I do want to
13 note there is another individual here today. Could you
14 identify him, so we know he is not a member of the
15 public.
16 MS. GODIKSEN: John Kim, manager for
17 the regulatory unit for the Bureau of Air.
18 MR. JOHNSON: It's an honor to have
19 him here. I want to say for the record.
20 MR. KIM: It's an honor to be here.
21 MR. HEARING OFFICER: That
22 give-and-take, being completed, you can proceed,
23 Ms. Godiksen.
24 MS. GODIKSEN: Since Gary's prefiled
Page10
1 testimony was in the form of question/answers, we were
2 just going to turn it over, and see whether or not the
3 Board had any further questions.
4 MR. HEARING OFFICER: Let's swear
5 Mr. Beckstead in.
6 (At which point, Gary Beck was sworn
7 in by the court reporter.)
8 MR. HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Rao, do you
9 have some questions for Mr. Bed?
10 DIRECT EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. RAO:
12 Q. A few. First, I would like to thank
13 Mr. Beckstead for his responses. It addressed a lot of
14 our concerns. I have a few clarification-type questions
15 based on your responses. In response to question one,
16 you stated that, while approving this alternate control
17 plan of issuing permits to operate the chosen control
18 plan, the Agency will not request or require sources to
19 demonstrate cost effectiveness via studies. Also, you
20 mentioned at the last hearing, when it comes to new
21 sources, the Agency's policy is to steer these sources
22 toward the use of aqueous-based systems.
23 A. Well, go ahead with your question.
24 Q. So my question is so the Agency requests
Page11
1 applicants to demonstrate technical feasibility or
2 infeasibility, as well as economic reasonableness of an
3 aqueous system before approving a permit for high vapor
4 pressure solvent degreasing operations for new sources?
5 A. Let me make sure I understand your
6 question, Mr. Rue.
7 Q. Basically, I'm asking how you decide
8 whether a new source would be permitted to operate with
9 solvent-based system, rather than an aqueous-based
10 system?
11 A. As far as the permit analysis, it would be
12 only based on the emissions that the various systems
13 that have been chosen have strictly on that decision.
14 Cost effectiveness is really up to the businesses,
15 themselves. We measure only emissions that the
16 environment will experience from the chosen control
17 plan.
18 Q. Okay. That leads me to the question I had.
19 I think it's under Section 218.182 C4-B. That's the
20 three-numbered section of the errata sheet.
21 MS. GODIKSEN: Give us the cite again.
22 MR. RAO: C4-B.
23 MS. GODIKSEN: The original C4?
24 MR. RAO: No. It used to be C-3. Now
Page12
1 it's C-4. In this section, it states that "An
2 equivalent alternate control plan may be used to meet
3 the control requirements of this section pursuant to
4 218.108," and it goes on to state that, "Pursuant to the
5 material requirements of subsection C3-B of this
6 section, a solvent with a vapor pressure of one
7 millimeter mercury measured at 23 degrees centigrade
8 shall be the basis for assessment of equivalent
9 emissions from any equivalent alternative control plan."
10 And then it states, "If used as an equivalent
11 alternative control plan, an add-on control must
12 demonstrate 95 percent overall capture and control
13 efficiency," so there are these two factors that you
14 consider in any equivalent alternative control plan, one
15 relating to the emissions based on one millimeter per
16 mercury, and the other one is the 95 percent capture and
17 control, so any source that comes with an equivalent
18 alternative control plan will have to demonstrate that
19 they meet both the factors?
20 A. Well, we start with the assessment of
21 emissions. A person may not even have an add-on
22 control, for example, could use anaerobic bacteria to
23 destroy the VOC's, so they wouldn't be held to the 95 --
24 well, you would be right because they would have to
Page13
1 still destroy, at least, 95 percent. You're right.
2 It's both criteria, but we'll start with are the
3 emissions equivalent to what would happen if we were
4 just using a one-millimeter mercury, and then any
5 control would have to meet the 95 percent. That's
6 correct.
7 Q. In response to Question No. 6 regarding
8 the solvent, on page eight, Mr. Beckstead, you state
9 that, "The sources impacted by this rule-making do not
10 buy off the shelves solvent cleaners, but rather, the
11 various ingredients to formulate their own solution."
12 A. Mm-hmm.
13 Q. Do the ingredients, themselves, exceed
14 one-millimeter mercury vapor pressure, or when they are
15 combined together they exceed that?
16 A. As I recall, they all did exceed the one
17 millimeter, and the composite for the diverse impact
18 (phonetic) and print pack (phonetic) came to 55. All
19 the various components were greater than one.
20 Q. In response to Question No. 8 regarding
21 the recordkeeping, on page nine, it states, "Daily
22 recordkeeping is being proposed where appropriate in
23 section 218.182 D-3, D-4 and D-6, and when we took a
24 look at the errata sheet 2, we saw that changes were
Page14
1 made only in sections 218.182 D-4 and 219.182 D-4. Did
2 you also mean to add something to D-3 and D-6? Was that
3 an oversight?
4 A. No. When we reviewed in assessing, as I
5 recall, there was only one area that we could actually
6 apply the daily that made -- let me see. The other
7 three components of that section --
8 Q. D-3 and D-6 were the ones -- is there a
9 D-6?
10 MS. GODIKSEN: There were no changes
11 made to D-6.
12 THE WITNESS: Counsel reminded me that
13 the requirements of 218.105, C, D and E covered the
14 other elements in the recordkeeping section. They had
15 to comply with those requirements, which we specified in
16 218.182 C-4-C, so the only place that we felt was needed
17 the requirement of daily was in --
18 MR. RAO CONTINUES:
19 Q. D-4?
20 A. D-4, yeah.
21 MR. HEARING OFFICER: So it was not an
22 omission. It was an intentional act.
23 THE WITNESS: Right.
24 MR. RAO CONTINUES:
Page15
1 Q. In the previous hearing, Board Member
2 Moore had asked you a question regarding the compliant
3 status of these four impact facilities, and you had
4 addressed that question in the supplemental statement,
5 which talks about the Agency's use of discretion for
6 enforcement.
7 MR. HEARING OFFICER: Let's make that
8 clear on the record because this was a question we had
9 in the last hearing a couple times about the
10 retroactivity of the language -- and you guys made clear
11 -- of course, by "you guys" I mean the Agency -- made
12 clear, in Supplemental Statement No. 2, that you do not
13 intend the proposed rule-making to be retroactive,
14 Ms. Godiksen?
15 MS. GODIKSEN: Correct, and we made
16 language changes in Errata Sheet No. 2 to effect that.
17 MR. HEARING OFFICER: Further, we also
18 -- that then leaves these four facilities potentially
19 open to enforcement, and you are going to use your
20 enforcement discretion it says in the Supplemental
21 Statement No. 2, correct?
22 MS. GODIKSEN: That's correct.
23 MR. HEARING OFFICER: The Board -- and
24 I'm sure you're aware, as well, the citizens have a
Page16
1 right, under the Environmental Protection Act, to bring
2 citizen's enforcement cases. Would it be your
3 understanding that these four facilities would also be
4 open to those proceedings, as well?
5 MS. GODIKSEN: To the extent that
6 would be allowed, the Agency would acknowledge that, but
7 we can only speak to what the Agency can and cannot do.
8 MR. HEARING OFFICER: I think Mr. Rao
9 and I had the discussion where you brought something
10 else up.
11 MR. RAO CONTINUES:
12 Q. Actually, the reason I raised the question
13 was, when we discussed this issue of retroactivity at
14 the last hearing, Chairman Girard had asked if US EPA
15 was in agreement with disposable retroactive impact of
16 the originally proposed rule, and Mr. Beckstead had
17 noted that you could contact the US EPA, and discuss it
18 with them, so if you did contact them, could you tell us
19 what the response is it.
20 A. Yes. I did talk to them, and they -- and
21 I conveyed that information to my legal counsel, and do
22 you want me to speak to that matter?
23 MS. GODIKSEN: It's not retroactive
24 anymore, so their stance is moot.
Page17
1 MR. RAO: That's good enough.
2 MR. HEARING OFFICER: Did you change
3 your position, in light of what the US EPA said?
4 MS. GODIKSEN: No. Actually the
5 Agency --
6 MR. HEARING OFFICER: I'm not sure
7 that you guys have proposed it as a non-retroactive rule
8 now, but it's still an issue we're concerned with, so if
9 you have a US EPA stance on it, it would be helpful.
10 MS. GODIKSEN: No. The US EPA stance
11 didn't sway us. The Agency did not intend for it to be
12 retroactive, and we changed the language to clarify the
13 Agency's stance.
14 MR. HEARING OFFICER: Right, but did
15 US EPA have a stance on that? What was the response?
16 THE WITNESS: Can we go off the record
17 for a minute.
18 (Discussion was held off the record.)
19 MR. HEARING OFFICER: Let's go back on
20 the record, and we were talking about the US EPA's
21 stance on the possible retroactivity of this
22 rule-making, which we all acknowledge is no longer being
23 intended as a retroactive ruling.
24 MS. GODIKSEN: I want to clarify that
Page18
1 it was never intended to be retroactive.
2 MR. HEARING OFFICER: My apologies.
3 It was never intended to be a retroactive rule-making.
4 THE WITNESS: I discussed the matter
5 with Region 5, both, to the regulatory technical support
6 people and their enforcement group, and they also agreed
7 that this rule could not be a retroactive type rule.
8 MR. HEARING OFFICER: That it should
9 not be?
10 THE WITNESS: Should not be.
11 MR. RAO CONTINUES:
12 Q. In response to Question No. 6 in your
13 responses regarding the outreach for these proposed
14 provisions, you know that EPA is planning to contact
15 retailers and is compiling a contact list for outreach,
16 and we also know that this outreach will take place
17 before the close of the final comments, and I know you
18 filed a letter that was sent out on May 15.
19 A. Right.
20 Q. Which has been marked --
21 MR. HEARING OFFICER: Exhibit 9.
22 MR. RAO CONTINUES:
23 Q. -- Exhibit 9. Would it be possible for
24 the Agency to address what you, if you hear from these
Page19
1 guys, what comes out of this outreach and put it in your
2 final comments?
3 A. Sure will. Definitely.
4 Q. That's about it.
5 (Discussion was held off the record.)
6 MR. HEARING OFFICER: We are back on
7 the record after an off-the-record discussion. The
8 court reporter informs us that the transcript in this
9 matter will be ready on May 24, 2006. We are going to
10 set a public comment cutoff period of June 14, 2006,
11 which is 21 days after that transcript will become
12 available.
13 Ms. Godiksen, do you have any closing
14 statements or anything you would like to make?
15 MS. GODIKSEN: No. I would just like
16 to thank the Board for their time.
17 MR. HEARING OFFICER: If anyone has
18 any questions about this rule-making, and they are
19 reading the transcript, and wondering what to do, I can
20 be reached by telephone at 217-278-3111, or my E-mail
21 address is Knittle -- K-N-I-T-T-L-E -- J at IPCP dot
22 state dot IL dot US. We will make the transcript
23 available shortly after May 24 on the board's website,
24 and that is www dot IPCB dot state dot IL dot US, and
Page20
1 previous Board and hearing officer orders should also be
2 available on that website. I would like to thank
3 everybody for participating today, and I almost forgot,
4 but we are going to take the outreach list you gave us
5 as Exhibit No. 9, and we accepted it as Exhibit No. 9,
6 and we are going to put those people on the notice list,
7 so that they have notice of the hearing today and the
8 transcript and are going to be more in the loop than
9 they have been up to this time.
10 (At which point in the proceedings,
11 the hearing was concluded at 9:39 a.m. )
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page21
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS)
2 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR)SS
3
4 I, Holly A. Schmid, a Notary Public in
5 and for the County of Williamson, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that
6 pursuant to agreement between counsel there appeared
7 before me on May 17, 2006, at the office of the
8 Administration Building, Madison County, Illinois,
9 Gary Beckstead, who was first duly sworn by me to
10 testify the whole truth of his knowledge touching upon
11 the matter in controversy aforesaid so far as he should
12 be examined and his examination was taken by me in
13 shorthand and afterwards transcribed upon the typewriter
14 (but not signed by the deponent) and said hearing is
15 herewith returned.
16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set
17 my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal this 24 day of May,
18 2006.
19 __________________________
20 HOLLY A. SCHMID
21 Notary Public -- CSR
22 084-98-254587
23 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 5-31-06
24
Page22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page23