1

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

2

CEVED

CLK’S

OFFICE

FEfl

2009

6

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

7

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

‘oUution

Control

Board

NITROGEN

OXIDES

EMISSIONS

)

8

FROM

VARIOUS

SOURCE

)

R08-19

CATEGORIES:

)

(Rulemaking

-

Air)

9

AMENDMENTS

TO

35

ILL.

ADM.

CODE

PARTS

211

and

217.

)

10

11

12

Hearing

13

Taken

February

3,

2009

14

15

16

17

18

19

REPORTER:

Bobbi

L.

Hamlin,

RNR

20

Illinois

License

#

084-002797

21

Keefe

Reporting

Company

11

North

44th

Street

22

Belleville,

Illinois

62226

23

24

1

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

WHEREUPON,

THE

FOLLOWING

PROCEEDINGS

WERE

MADE

OF

2

RECORD:

3

MR.

FOX:

Good

morning,

everyone

and

welcome

4

to

this

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

hearing.

5

My

name

is

Tim

Fox.

And

I’m

the

hearing

6

officer

in

this

proceeding

it

is

entitled

Nitrogen

7

Oxides

Emissions

From

Various

Source

Categories:

8

Amendments

to

35

Illinois

Administrative

Code

Parts

211

9

and

217.

The

board

docket

number

for

this

rule

making

10

is

R08—19.

11

The

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

12

Agency

filed

this

rule

making

proposal

on May

9th

of

13

2008

and

The

Board

accepted

it

for

hearing

in

an

order

14

dated

June

5th

of

2008.

15

We

are,

of

course,

holding

today

the

third

16

hearing

in

this

rule

making.

The

first

hearing

took

17

place

on

October

14th,

2008

in

Springfield

and

the

18

second

took

place

over

two

days

on

December

9th

and

19

December

10th,

2008

in

Chicago.

20

I want

to

take

just

a

moment

to

introduce

21

the

other

people

who

are

present

here

from

the board

22

with

me

today.

To my

immediate

left

is

board

member

23

Andrea

Moore,

who

is

the

lead

board

member

assigned

to

24

this

rule

making,

to

her

left

is

board

member

2

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

Thomas

E.

Johnson

and

to my

right

is

Dr.

Anand

Rao.

We

2

also

refer

to

him --

refer

to you

that way,

apparently,

3

it’s

Mr.

Anand Rao,

who

of

course

is known

to many

of

4

you

from the

board

technical

and scientific

staff.

5

This

proceeding,

as

is all

other

rule

6

making

hearings,

is governed

by

The Board,

its

7

procedural

rules

and

applicable

information

that is

8

relevant

and that

is

not repetitious

or

privileged

will

9

be

admitted

into

the

record

of

this

hearing.

10

Please

note that

any questions

that

are

11

posed

either

by the

board members

or the

staff

are

12

intended

solely

to develop

a

complete

and clear

record

13

of this

proceeding

and

do

not

reflect

any prejudgment

or

14

any

conclusions

regarding

the

merits

of

the

agency’s

15

proposal

or

any

of the

testimony

offered

on

it.

16

The Board

did

receive

pre-filed

testimony

17

for the

second

hearing

from

the

Illinois

EPA

on,

I

18

believe,

January

20th

of 2009,

specifically

the

19

testimony

of

Mr.

Robert

Kaleel,

Mr. Michael

Koerber

and

20

Dr. James

Staudt.

21

And

in speaking

about

procedural

matters

22

with

Ms.

Roccaforte

before

hearing

I believe

she

23

intended

to

offer

those

three

witnesses

in

that

order.

24

And

I

see her

agreeing

that

that

is correct.

3

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

In

addition

to

the testimony,

pre-filed

2

testimony,

from

the

three

witnesses

on

behalf

of

the

3

Environmental

Protection

Agency

The

Board

did

receive

on

4

Monday,

February

2nd

a

pre-filed

testimony

from

5

Mr.

Blake

Stapper

on

behalf

of

United

States

Steel.

And

6

the

hearing

officer

order

setting

this

hearing

date

and

7

the

order

for

hearings

did

contemplate

that

we

would

8

follow

the

pre-filed

testimony

with

the

testimony

of

any

9

other

witnesses

who

wish

to

testify,

including

those

who

10

did

not

pre-file

at

all.

So,

it’s

my

intention

at

the

11

conclusion

of

The Agency’s

testimony

by

it’s

three

12

witnesses

and

all

of

the

questions

based

upon

that

to

13

proceed

to Mr.

Stapper’s testimony

and any

questions

14

that

the

other

participants

may

have

on

that

testimony.

15

In

addition,

the

board

also

received

16

post-hearing

comments

from

the

Illinois

Environmental

17

Regulatory

Group

or

IERG.

And

I

understand

from

Ms.

18

Hodge

that

IERG

did

not wish

to

offer

any

testimony

19

today

on

the

basis

of

those

post-hearing

comments

from

20

the

second

hearing.

21

MS. HODGE:

That’s

correct,

but

IERG’s

22

counsel,

Alec

Davis,

and

executive

director

probably

23

have

some

questions

for

the

agency.

24

MR.

FOX:

Very

good.

Thank

you.

4

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

Ms. Hodge,

we

also

received

post-hearing

2

comments

from

Saint-Gobain

from

Mr.

Smith.

3

And

it

was

my

understanding,

Mr. Smith,

4

that

you

did

not

wish

to

offer

testimony

either,

but

5

were

here

perhaps

to ask

some

questions

or perhaps

6

solely

to monitor

the

course

of

that

proceeding.

7

Does

that

sound

correct?

8

MR.

SMITH:

No.

Actually,

I’d

like

to

9

testify,

but

very,

very

brief.

10

MR.

FOX:

Very

good.

Perhaps

what

we

can

11

do

is

have

you

do

so

after

Mr.

Stapper

and

then

we

can

12

proceed

to you

as

soon

as

he’s

complete

and

the

13

questions

are wrapped

up.

14

MR.

SMITH:

Thank

you.

15

MR.

FOX:

Surely.

16

And

we

also

received

post—hearing

comments

17

from

ConocoPhillips.

And

I

believe

that

there

was,

18

while

no

intent

to

testify

on

their

part,

their

19

representatives

may

have

some

questions

that

they

wish

20

to

pose

of

The Agency

and

the

other

witnesses;

is

that

21

correct,

Ms.

Hodge?

22

MS.

HODGE:

That’s

correct.

23

MR.

FOX:

Very

good.

24

And

finally,

we

also

received

some

5

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

supporting

materials

in

response

to

questions

from

2

The

Board

and

The Agency,

those

materials

from

3

United

States

Steel,

which

I believe

were filed

on

4

Friday

the

30th,

as

well

as I wanted

to

reflect

that

5

those

were part

of

The Board’s

records.

6

MS.

HODGE:

Thank

you.

7

MR.

FOX:

If --

if

any

other

participants

8

do

wish to

testify

and

doesn’t

need

be

right

away,

it

9

certainly

can

be

at a

break,

which

we probably

will

take

10

mid morning,

there

is a sign

up sheet,

it

will

be here

11

on the

counter

next

to

the

court reporter. If

you

would

12

like

to offer

testimony

and did

not

pre-file

it

or

if

13

you

would

like

to offer

a

comment

at the

conclusion

of

14

the

testimony,

please,

do so

just

as a housekeeping

15

matter

so

we can

keep track

of what

we need

to

expect

to

16

allow

time for

and

how long

this

hearing

may run.

17

At the

conclusion

of

the testimony,

18

pre—filed

and

otherwise, we

will,

as

time

allows,

19

provide

an opportunity

for

people

to

offer

comments

20

those,

of course,

are

not sworn

but we

will

make

21

every ——

make every

effort

to

include

an

opportunity

--

22

opportunity

for

people

to offer

those.

I

am

aware

of at

23

least

one

person

who would

like

to offer

a comment.

24

For the

benefit

of

the

court

reporter,

6

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

finally,

who’s

transcribing

our

hearing

today,

please,

2

make

an

effort

to

speak

clearly.

We

can,

as I

said,

3

activate

the

public

address

system

if

that’s

helpful.

4

And,

please,

avoid

talking

at

the

same

time

as

any

other

5

person

I know

that

will

simplify

her

task

and

help

us

6

have

a

clearest

possible

transcript.

7

I do

want

to

take

care

of

just

one

or

two

8

quick

housekeeping

matters.

9

In

looking

over

the

transcript

of our

-—

10

our

last

hearing

on

December

10th

we had

in

the course

11

of

that

hearing

effectively

reserved

Exhibit

Numbers

15

12

and

16

for

two

USEPA

charts

that

related

to Midwest

13

Generations

Boiler

Number

3

and

Joliet

Number

71

Boiler

14

respectively.

Ms.

Bassi,

at

that

hearing

indicated

that

15

she

would

submit

those

into

the

docket.

I

believe

that

16

there

was an

issue

of

both

the

number

of

copies,

the

17

quality

of the

copies

and

the

availability

of

another

18

copy

that

did

have

the

USEPA

web

page

on

the document

19

all

of

which

would

help

make

it

a

little

clearer

and

a

20

little

more

useful

for

the

record.

Ms.

Bassi

had

21

indicated

that

she

would

submit

those

to

the

board

that,

22

quote,

improved

copy,

which

she promptly

did

in

a

file

23

on

December

19th

and

that

she

would

then

propose

24

admission

formally

into

the

record

under

the

exhibit

7

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

numbers

that

we

had

set

aside.

2

And

Ms. Bassi,

that

sort of

sets you

up

for

3

any motion

that

you may

wish

to

offer.

4

MS.

BASSI:

Thank

you.

5

I would

move

to offer

Exhibit

Number

15

6

titled

Baldwin

3 and

Exhibit

Number

16

titled

Joliet

71

7

Boiler

into

the

record

as exhibits.

8

And

I would

like

to show

Baldwin

3 to

9

Mr.

Philbright

here,

who

is from

Baldwin.

10

MR.

FOX:

Mr.

Philbright

from --

11

MS.

BASSI:

Who

is from

Dynegy.

12

MR.

FOX: And

I

should

have noted

in

13

speaking

earlier

that

Ms.

Bassi not

only

had

served

14

those

on

The Board,

but on

the service

list.

15

MS. BASSI:

That’s

correct.

16

MR. FOX:

And

at

this point

I’ll

ask

I

17

can’t

recall,

Ms.

Bassi,

I’m

sorry

if you

had

formally

18

moved

to -—

those

into the

record.

19

Was there

any

objection

to

the

admission

of

20

those

documents

as Exhibits

Number

15 and

16?

21

(No

response.)

22

MR.

FOX:

Neither

seeing

nor

hearing

any,

23

Ms.

Bassi,

they will

be

admitted

under

those

docket

24

numbers

we

had

reserve

on

the

hearing

on December

10th.

8

Keefe Reporting

Company

---

1

MS. BASSI:

Thank

you.

2

MR.

FOX:

Secondly,

I

did

want

to note

also

3

I’m

sure

all

of you

are

aware

Friday,

January

30th,

2009

4

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

did

file

a

5

motion

to

amend

it’s

rule

making

proposal.

That

motion

6

is

directed

to

The

Board.

And

the

14-day

response

7

period

has

not

yet

run.

However,

that

motion

to

amend

8

is

in

the

record

in

these

proceedings

and

we

can

deal

9

today

with

any

questions

or

comments

that

may

arise

on

10

the

substance

of

this

motion.

Certainly,

The

Board

will

11

take

that

up

at

very

quick

opportunity

to

address

the

12

merits

of

that

motion.

13

Any

questions

about

our

procedures

or

any

14

procedural

issues

that

anyone

wishes

to

address

before

15

we

get

under

way?

16

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

I

would.

17

MR.

FOX:

Ms.

Roccaforte?

18

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

Good

morning.

19

My

name

is

Gina

Roccaforte,

assistant

20

counsel

one

behalf

of

the

Environmental

Protection

21

Agency.

And

with

me

today

are

Dana

Vetterhoffer,

22

assistant

counsel;

Shannon

Bilbrook,

legal

specialist;

23

Robert

Kaleel,

Manager

of

the

Air

Quality

Planning

24

Section

Division

of

Air

Pollution

Control

Bureau

of

Air;

9

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

Mike

Koerber,

Executive

Director

Lake Michigan

Air

2

Directors

Consortium;

and Dr.

James

Staudt,

President

3

Andover

Technologies

Partners;

also

two

engineers

in

the

4

Bureau

of

Air

Vera

Hoopta

and

Hojin

Maji.

5

I’d

just

like

to

note

for the

record

that

6

the

agency

objects

to

the

pre-filed

testimony

of

7

Blake

Stapper

on

behalf

of

United

States

Steel

8

Corporation.

9

As

you indicated

pre-filing

deadline

for

10

this

testimony

was

January

20th,

20009

and

Mr.

Stapper’

s

11

testimony

was

filed

yesterday

and

we haven’t

had

12

adequate

time to

prepare

for

this

hearing.

13

And

I’d also

like

to note

for

the record

14

that

at

the December

10th hearing

information

was

15

requested

of United

States

Steel

Corporation

and

16

u.s.

steel

submitted

these

supporting

materials

last

17

Friday,

which

hasn’t

given

us much

time

to prepare,

but

18

we

will

do our

best.

19

Thank

you.

20

MR. FOX:

Very

good.

Thank

you,

21

Ms.

Roccaforte.

22

Any

—- any

further

comments

before

we

get

23

under

way

with

the substantive

testimony

and questions?

24

(No

response.)

10

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

MR.

FOX:

Very

good

2

Ms.

Roccaforte,

you

had

indicated

that

it

3

made

the

most

sense

to

proceed

from

Mr.

Kaleel,

to

4

Mr.

Koerber,

to

Mr.

Staudt.

Does

it

make

the

most

sense

5

to

swear

them

all

in

at

once

and

simply

take

care

of

6

that

before

the

agency

begins?

7

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

That

would

be

fine.

8

MR.

FOX:

Excellent.

9

WHEREUPON,

ROBERT

J. KALEEL,

DR.

JAMES

E.

STAUDT

AND

10

MICHAEL

KOERBER

WERE

FIRST

DULY

SWORN

AND

THEN

TESTIFIED

11

AS FOLLOWS:

12

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

Forgive

me,

did

you

enter

13

the

testimony

--

14

MR.

FOX:

Yes.

I’m

sorry,

I

will

make

that

15

clear

that

under

The Board’s

procedural

rules

the

16

provision

is,

I

believe

it’s

in

Section

102424

F

of

17

The Board’s

procedural

rules

the

pre-filed

testimony

18

will

be

entered

as

if

read.

19

And

Ms.

Roccaforte,

if

you

wish

to

begin

20

with

a

brief

summary

or

any

other

introduction,

please,

21

feel

free

to do

that.

22

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

I have

introduced

my

23

witnesses

and

I

believe

they

may

have

statements

-— I’ve

24

introduced

them

and

I

believe

they

will

each

make

a

1]

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

brief

statement.

2

MR.

FOX:

Very

well.

3

Mr.

Kaleel,

it

looks

like

we’re

ready

for

4

you

if

you’re

set

to

begin.

5

MR.

KALEEL:

Thank

you.

6

I

appreciate

The

Boards’s

attention

to

this

7

matter

having

this

third

hearing.

We

--

we

hope

that

8

we’re

able

to

clarify

the

record

about

this

ongoing

rule

9

making.

10

The purpose

of

my

pre-filed

testimony

--

at

11

least

one

of the

purposes

was

to

explain

the

contents

of

12

the

amendment

that

was

recently

filed

with

The

Board.

13

At

the

time

that

I

wrote

that

testimony

we

were

still

14

working

on

an

amendment. And

in

fact,

we’re

continuing

15

to

work

with

affected

industries

and

anticipate

a

future

16

amendment

as

well.

17

There

are

a

couple

of

things

that

I’d

like

18

to

clarify

about

my

testimony

with

respect

to

what

19

either

was

included

in

the

amendment

or not

and

also,

20

some

additional

efforts

that

we have

with

the

group

of

21

stakeholders.

22

First

off,

I

think

my

testimony

had

23

mentioned

on

page

one

that

the

Illinois

EPA

was

24

recommending

a

compliance

date

for

refineries

to

12

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

coincide

with

already

planned

maintenance

turnarounds.

2

That

language

was,

in

fact,

not

included

in

the

3

amendment,

so

I

just

wanted

to

note

that,

that

we

4

anticipated

we’d

be

able

to

include

language

in

our

5

amendment

and

we —-

we’ve

not

been

able

to

finalize

that

6

yet.

I

would

note

that

we

are

still

working

on

this

and

7

we

have

every

expectation

that

we’ll

be

able

to

work

out

8

this

issue

with

the

affected

industries,

but

that

9

amendment

is

not

--

that

language

is

not

included

in

the

10

amendment

that’s

now

before

The

Board.

11

Also

in

my

testimony

we

anticipated

12

continuing

to

work

with

two

companies,

Saint-Gobain

13

Containers

and

also

Midwest

Generation.

And

at

the

time

14

that

I

wrote

the

testimony

we

didn’t

really

have

those

15

discussions

completed.

I’m

pleased

to

report

to

16

The

Board

that

we

have

completed

discussions

with

these

17

companies.

I

guess

at

least

from

The

Agency’s

18

perspective

the

amendments

that

are

now

before

The

Board

19

resolve

the

outstanding

issues

or

comments

provided

by

20

both

of

those

companies.

21

So,

I

think

--

I

think

those

--

those

22

issues

are

resolved

by

this

amendment.

23

I

think

that

concludes

my

opening

24

statement.

13

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

MR.

FOX:

Very

good.

Thank

you,

Mr.

2

Kaleel.

3

Were

there

any

questions

that

any

of

the

4

participants

had

for

Mr.

Kaleel

on

the

basis

of

his

5

statement

or

his

provided

testimony

here

today?

6

Ms.

Bassi,

I’m

sorry,

through

the

glare

I

7

didn’t

see

you

right

away.

8

MS.

BASSI:

Pm

I

out

of

the

glare?

9

Thank

you.

10

Do

you

--

how

would

you

like

us to

do

this?

11

Would

you

like

us

to

file

a

reply

to

this

testimony?

12

I’m

speaking

on

behalf

of Midwest

13

Generation.

14

Would

you

like

us

to

file

a response

to

15

this

motion

to

amend

or

would

you

like

us

to

just

16

express

our

response

today?

17

MR.

FOX:

If

there

was

a

response

that

you,

18

on

behalf

of

your

clients,

wish

to

make

either

opposed

19

to or

in

favor

of the

motion

you

certainly

would

be

free

20

to

do

that.

The

14-day

deadline

would

not

run

until

21

Friday

the

13th

of

February

that

certainly

would

be

22

in

--

in

order,

Ms.

Bassi,

if

that

answers

your

23

question.

24

MS.

BASSI:

My

client

is

not

here

today,

14

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

but

we have

reviewed

this

motion

and

we do

accept

the

2

motion

as

far

as

it

applies

to Midwest

Generation.

And

3

we

would

waive

any

further

time

for

The

Board

to address

4

the

motion

at

least

as

far

as

Midwest

Generation

goes.

5

MR.

FOX:

So

noted,

Ms.

Bassi.

Thank

you.

6

MS.

BASSI:

Thank

you.

7

MR.

FOX:

I think

there

was

one other

--

8

very

good.

Thank

you.

9

Ms.

Hirner.

10

MS.

HIRNER:

Thank

you

very

much.

11

Deirdre

Hirner,

Executive

Director.

12

I’d

like

to

say

I think

the

IERG

and

it’s

13

members

are

reviewing

the

motion

that

was

submitted

by

14

The

Agency.

We think

it’s

--

we

appreciate

The

Agency’s

15

efforts

to

work

with

the

impacted

regulated

community.

16

And

we

think

it’s

a

good

step

in

the

right

direction,

17

but

we’re

still

reviewing

it

for

particular

impacts.

18

With

that

I

do have

some

questions

for

19

Mr.

Kaleel.

20

MR.

FOX:

Please

proceed,

Ms.

Hirner.

21

MS.

HIPNER:

I’m

going

to kind

of

tie

these

22

together

these

references,

the

bottom

of pages

two

and

23

the

bottom

of

page

three

of your

pre-filed

testimony.

24

We

have

some

specific

questions

that

we

may

follow

up

15

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

on, but

in

light

of

some

of

the

proposed

changes

that

2

we’ve

seen

in the

motion

just

a

couple

just

to

clarify

a

3

bit

of

confusion

that

we

have

about

the purpose

of

this

4

proposed

rule.

5

So,

as we

look

at

the

language

of

the

rule

6

and

some

of

the other

issues

that

have

been

addressed

in

7

separate

regulatory

actions

by

the

agency,

more

8

specifically

those

that

deal

with

the

ozone

designation

9

and

maintenance

plan.

So,

the

qiiestion

I’m

going

to

ask

10

goes

to

the

purpose

of

the

proposed

rule.

Is

this

rule

11

before

us

intended

by

The Agency

to

be

a

NOx

RACT

rule

12

designed

to

achieve

a 1997

ozone

standard

and

the

old

13

PM

2.5

standard

or

is

the

purpose

of

this

rule

now

to

be

14

a

NOx

control

rule

that’s

designed

to

meet

some

yet

15

uncertain

emissions

levels

that

will

need

to

be

achieved

16

to

address

the 2006

PM

2.5

24-hour

standard

and

the

2008

17

ozone

standard?

18

MR.

KALEEL:

That’s

quite

a

question.

19

Maybe

I’ll

try

to

break

this

down.

20

I think

there’s

been

testimony

filed

by

me

21

and

also

answered

numerous

questions

on

this

in terms

of

22

the purpose

of

the

rule

making.

I

think

--

I

think

23

we’ve

been

clear

on

the

record

that

—-

that

this

rule

is

24

intended

to

address

the

requirements

for

NOx

RACT

16

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

reasonably

available

control

technology

for

our

ozone

2

and

PM

2.5

non-attainment

areas

and

we

believe

that

this

3

requirement

will

do

that.

4

The

RACT

requirement

is

tied

to

the

1997

5

ozone

standard

and

also

tied

to

the

1997

PM

2.5

6

standard.

It

isn’t

the

same

question

that

we

are

7

relying

upon

these

reductions

to

attain

those

standards.

8

The

whole

purpose

of

a

control

program,

of

9

course,

is

to

reduce

emissions,

in

this

case

of

nitrogen

10

oxides,

that

will

achieve

or

is

intended

to

achieve

11

improvements

in

air

quality

both

in

the

non-attainment

12

area

and

downwind

of

the

non-attainment

area.

13

It

is

true

that

the

Chicago

area

is

14

attaining

the

1997

ozone

standard

based

on

the

three

15

most

recent

years

of

ozone

data

and

that

that

was

at

16

least

one

of

the

purposes

of

the

public

hearing

17

sponsored

by

the

agency

in

December

in

Chicago

was

to

18

present

the

maintenance

plan

as

required

by

USEPA

to

19

support

the

re-designation

petition

for

the

1997

20

standard.

21

Metro

East

area

does

not

attain

the

1997

22

standard

for

ozone

or

PM

2.5.

There

are

areas,

and

I

23

think

Mike

Koerber

will

address

this

in

his

testimony

as

24

well,

there

are

areas

directly

downwind

of

Chicago

that

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

are

impacted

by Chicago

that

have

not

yet

attained

the

2

1997

standard

and

certainly

have

not

attained

the

new

3

recent

revised

ozone

standards.

4

So,

the

purpose

of

the

rule

is

to

achieve

5

improved

air

quality,

but

it

also

is

intended

to address

6

the

NOx

PACT

requirement.

We

don’

t

and

have

never

7

characterized

NOx

PACT

as

being

the

only

program

that

8

will

bring

us

into

attainment

of

any

of

these

standards.

9

It’s

one

element

of

a very

complex

suite

of

control

10

measures

that

the

agency

is

relying

on

to address

11

attainment

of

both

of

those

standards.

12

MR.

DAVIS:

Alec

Davis,

also

on

behalf

the

13

IERG.

14

Mr.

Kaleel,

you described

the new

standards

15

both

for

ozone

and

you

described

the

new

ozone

and

16

PM

2.3

standard

both

in

your

testimony

and

in

your

17

response

just

now.

18

When

will

the

Illinois

EPA

be able

to

make

19

a

determination

regarding

NOx

PACT

requirements

for

20

these

new

standards?

21

MR.

KALEEL:

Obviously,

we’re

just

now

22

beginning

on the

process

to

address

the new

standards.

23

As I

mentioned

in my

testimony

USEPA

just

in

December

of

24

2008

had

established

the

boundaries

for

PM

2.5

the

18

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

24-hour

standard,

so

that

that’s,

obviously,

very

recent

2

development

ozone

standard

that

was

revised

last

year.

3

We

still

haven’t

even

made

a recommendation

to USEPA.

4

The

USEPA

has

not

acted

yet

establishing

non-attainment

5

boundaries.

We

do

know

that

the

Metro

East

area

and

the

6

Chicago

area

will

not

be

attaining

or

are

not

attaining

7

the

new

ozone

standard.

We

expect

that

USEPA

will

act

8

to

finalize

the

non-attainment

boundaries

some

time

in

9

2010.

If

they

do

that

we

would

be

required

to

provide

a

10

SIP

provision,

State

Implementation

Plan,

revision

three

11

years

after

that.

So,

that

would

be

some

time

in

2013.

12

I

don’t

know

exactly

when

a

RACT

demonstration

will

be

13

required

for

that

new standard.

We

know

that

there

will

14

be

a

requirement

to

address

RACT

for

the

new

standard.

15

The

RACT

requirement

is

--

is

hardwired

16

into

the

Clean

Air

Act,

so

we

know

that

there

will

be

a

17

RACT

requirement

for

these

non—attainment

areas

for

the

18

new

standards,

obviously,

with

a

—-

with

a

later

date

19

than

as

required

by the

1997

standard.

20

I

add

to

that

we

fully

expect

that

the

NOx

21

RACT

limits

that

we

are

proposing

today

would

be

22

adequate

and

we

would

support

this

before

USEPA

would

be

23

adequate

to

address

the NOx

RACT

requirement

for

the

24

future

standards.

So,

as

long

as

they

are

implemented

19

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

in

time

The

Board

is

--

has

finalized

those

2

requirements,

we

believe

that

this

would

address

those

3

requirements

at

least

for

those

areas

and

those

sources

4

that

are

affected

by

this

proposal.

5

MS. HIRNER:

So,

if

I

could

please,

just

to

6

clarify,

you

said

this

NOx

PACT

rule

will

satisfy

NOx

7

PACT

for

the

future

rule,

the

new

standard,

I’m

sorry,

8

for

the

new

standards?

9

MR.

KALEEL:

I

don’t

think

I

said

it

quite

10

like

that,

but

that

would

be

our

contention.

If

11

there’s

--

if

there’s

a

breakthrough

in

technology

12

between

now

and the

time

that

we

have

to

address

the

13

eight-hour

standard

that

makes

a

different

control

level

14

reasonably

available

it’s

possible

that

we

would

need

to

15

amend

this

proposal,

but

we

believe

given

the

short

16

amount

of

time

that

we

have

that

this

requirement

would

17

satisfy

NOx

PACT

for

the

future

standards

for

the

areas

18

and

for

the

sources

that

are

affected

by

this

proposal.

19

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank

you.

20

I’d

like

to

know

has

the

Illinois

EPA

21

drafted

a

draft

NOx

PACT

--

NOx

PACT

SIP

for

these

22

current

standards?

23

MR.

KALEEL:

I

guess

I’m

not

quite

certain

24

the

nature

of

this

question.

20

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

This

--

this

proposal

when

it

--

when

it’s

2

adopted

by

The

Board,

presuming

it

is

adopted

by

3

The

Board,

would

be

part

of

our

overall

attainment

4

demonstration

SIP.

We

would

--

we

would

submit

these

--

5

these

rules

when

finalized

along

with

other

supporting

6

documentation

to

USEPA

with

a

statement.

And

I

guess

7

this

is

what

you’re

asking

whether

the

statement

is

in

8

a

--

the

form

of

a

letter

saying

we’ve

adopted

NOx

RACT

9

and

this

constitutes

our

submittal.

I

mean,

it

could

be

10

just,

I

don’t

mean

to

be

flippant,

but

it

could

be

that

11

our

indication

USEPA

is

just

that

simple,

here’s

--

12

here’s

the

proposed

rule

or

here’s

the

final

rule,

13

here’s

--

here’s

the

evidence

that

we

have

all

the

14

technical

support

that

we

relied

upon,

here’s

the

15

evidence

of

hearing

I

mean,

these

are

the

kinds

of

16

things

that

USEPA

would

require

in

a

submittal.

So,

I

17

think

--

I

think

this

rule

making

constitutes

NOx

RACT.

18

I

don’t

know

if

I

exactly

answered

your

19

question.

20

MS.

HIRNER:

Just

again

to

clarify,

so

when

21

this

is

submitted,

and

we’re

thinking

about

this

in

the

22

context

of

the

--

the

federal

sanctions,

so

will

this

23

meet

a

deadline

to

prevent

possible

federal

sanctions?

24

MR.

KALEEL:

I

guess

--

I

guess

we

hope

so.

21

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

Obviously,

we

—- we

don’t

--

we

don’t

set

The

Board’s

2

calendar.

We

can’t

predict

when

The

Board

will

take

3

action

on

this..

They

--

I

mean,

they

certainly

are

4

aware

of the

sanctions

issue

we’ve

--

we’ve

highlighted

5

that

in

our

statement

of

reasons.

So

-— so,

we

—— we

6

hope

it

does.

And

to

the

extent

that

the

--

the

rule

7

making

is

still

pending

at

the

point

that

the

sanctions

8

kick

in

I

think

at

that

point

we’d

have

some

discussions

9

with

USEPA

to

see

if

they’re

satisfied

that

we

made

10

enough

progress

to avoid

the

sanctions.

I

—- I

—- I

11

guess

it’s

--

given

that

it’s

statutory

I

--

I

--

I

12

don’t

know

whether

a pending

rule

would

be

sufficient

to

13

avoid

the

sanctions.

14

MR.

DAVIS:

Okay.

Thank

you.

15

My

last

question

I’d

like

to

ask

just

a few

16

really

quick

clarifications

regarding

the CAIR

Rule

17

Program

that

you

described

on

page

three

of

your

18

testimony.

19

You

state

that

the

Illinois

EPA

will

be

20

developing

a

regulatory

proposal

to

incorporate

non-EGUs

21

in

the

CAIR

Program

for

the

purpose

of non-EGUs

meeting

22

their

emission

budget

obligations

under

the

Federal

NOx

23

SIP

program.

24

Would

you

say

that’s

a

correct

22

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

characterization

of

your

testimony?

2

MR.

KALEEL:

Trying

to

go

back

and

find

the

3

specific

language

in

my

testimony.

Excuse

me.

4

MR.

DAVIS:

It

1

s

the

first

paragraph

on

5

page

three.

6

MR.

KALEEL:

I

think

the

way

you

phrased

7

the

question

is

the

Illinois

EPA

working

on

a

proposal

8

to

include

the

non-EGUs

in

the

trading

program.

That

9

isn’t

what

my

testimony

says.

10

What

I

intended

to

say

is

that

the

NOx

SIP

11

Call

budget

that

was

established

for

the

non-EGUs

that

12

that

budget

still

applies

under

CAIR.

There

is

an

13

obligation

upon

the

State

of

Illinois

to

--

to

--

to

14

address

how

it

intends

to

ensure

that

that

budget

is

15

being

maintained

in

Illinois

given

that

the

NOx

SIP

Call

16

rules

will

soon

be

sunset

as

a

result

of

the

CAIR

Rule

17

making

we

--

we

know

that

we

need

to

address

that

both

18

sunsetting

the

CAIR

Rule

for

EGUs

and

to

address

in

some

19

fashion

the

budget

or

the

emission

cap

for

non-EGUs.

20

That

isn’t

the

same

thing

as

saying

that

the

non-EGUs

21

will

be

included

in

the

trade.

22

MR.

DAVIS:

What

is

the

current

23

compliance

-—

compliance

status

affected

units

that

are

24

subject

to

the

non-EGU

NOx

SIP

Call

Program

provided

for

23

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

in

sub

part

U

that

is,

excuse

me,

are

affected

units

2

required

to

hold

allowances

for

the

2009

compliance

year

3

even

though

they

have

not

been

given

the

allowances

4

specified

by

sub

part

U?

5

MR.

KALEEL:

Well,

I

guess

I would

note

6

that

this

rule

--

this

rule

making

before

us

right

now

7

is

not

a

sub

part

U

rule

making.

My

--

my

understanding

8

and

I

did not

look

at

this

specifically,

but

my

--

my

9

understanding

is

that

--

that

the

rule

would

work

in

the

10

manner

that

--

that

you

described

and

we

understand

11

that

--

that,

because

the

non-EGU5

are

not

in

CAIR,

they

12

will

not

be

receiving

allocations

under

the

SIP

13

programs.

We

recognize

the

problem.

14

MR.

DAVIS:

Okay.

Thank

you.

15

That’s

all

from

us.

16

MR.

FOX:

Thank

you.

17

Any

further

questions

at

this

point

from

18

any

participant

for

Mr.

Kaleel?

19

Mrs.

Hodge?

20

MS.

HODGE:

Yes.

Okay.

I

have

just

a

21

couple

questions.

22

I

don’t

think

this

is

working..

Can

you

23

hear

me?

24

MR.

FOX:

You’re

quite

clear.

Yes.

24

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

MS.

HODGE:

Okay.

Mr.

Kaleel,

when I

read

2

through

the

pre-filed

testimony

of The

Agency

for

3

today’s

hearing

I

noted

that The

Agency’s

witness,

4

Dr.

Staudt,

indicated

that

ConocoPhillips

has not

made

5

available

it’s

information

to support

the

cost

6

associated

with

recent

ultra

Low-NOx

burn

projects

at

7

the

Wood

River Refinery.

8

Are

you

aware

that

ConocoPhillips

submitted

9

cost

information

to

the agency

in

January

of

2008?

10

MR.

KALEEL:

Yes,

I am

aware

of that.

11

MS.

HODGE:

Has

the agency

reviewed

this

12

information?

13

MR.

KALEEL:

We

-- we

have

reviewed

it,

14

yes.

15

MS. HODGE:

Has

the

agency

made

it

16

available

to

Dr. Staudt

for

review?

17

MR.

KALEEL:

We

have

not

made

it

available

18

to

date.

19

We noted

in

that

the

information

was

20

provided

to the

agency

with

a claim

of confidentiality

21

and

we ——

we ——

we’ve respected

that.

We’ve

not

shared

22

it

with

Dr.

Staudt.

23

We have

requested

through

-- through

you

24

and ConocoPhillips

that

Dr.

Staudt

be

allowed

to review

25

Keefe Reporting

Company

---

1

this

information,

but

to date

he

has

not.

We’ve

not

2

received

it,

any assurance

from

you

or

ConocoPhillips

3

that

that

would

not

be

a

problem.

4

MS.

lIODGE:

And

when

did

the

agency

make

5

this

request?

6

MR.

KALEEL:

We made

the

request

after

the

7

December

9th

hearing.

I don’t

remember

the

specific

8

date.

9

We

also

weren’t

aware

before

the

10

December

9th

hearing

that

ConocoPhillips

would

be

filing

11

that

information

to The

Board

or

making

this

information

12

available

to

The

Board,

so

we

didn’t

really

see

a

need

13

to

share

that

information

with

Dr.

Staudt

prior

to the

14

December

9th

hearing.

15

We

--

we

fully

anticipated

and

still

16

anticipate

continuing

dialogue

with

ConocoPhillips

about

17

that

information

and

about

their

specific

concerns

with

18

the

rule.

We

weren’t

aware

that

they

were

going

to

19

actually

file.

20

MS.

HODGE:

Do you

think

it

was

on

or

about

21

January

the

19th

of

2009

when

The

Agency

made

that

22

request?

23

MR.

KALEEL:

I

--

I

don’t

recall

the

24

specific

date,

but

yeah,

it

was

in

January.

26

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

MS.

HODGE:

Okay.

That’s

all

I

have.

2

Thank

you.

3

MR.

FOX:

Thank

you,

Ms.

Hodge.

4

Any

--

any

further

questions

for

Mr.

Kaleel

5

this

morning?

6

(No

response.)

7

MR.

FOX:

Seeing

--

seeing

none,

8

Ms.

Roccaforte,

it

looks

like

it’s

an

appropriate

time

9

to

go

to

Mr.

Koerber

if

he

had

a

brief

statement

or

10

summary

he

would

like

to

offer

it

appears

to

come

to

11

that

time.

12

Mr.

Koerber,

please

go

ahead.

13

MR.

KOERBER:

I

wish

to

emphasize

two

14

points

in

my

pre-filed

testimony.

Number

one:

My

15

testimony

summarizes

the

air

quality

analyses

performed

16

by

LADCO

and

it’s

contractors,

it

supports

data

and

17

implementation

plans

for

ozone

fine

particles

and

K’s

in

18

the

states

of

Illinois,

Indiana,

Michigan,

Ohio

and

19

Wisconsin.

The

variety

of

technical

analyses

provide

a

20

weight

of

evidence

approach

for

the

states

attainment

21

demonstration.

22

Number

two,

current

ozone

air

quality

23

monitoring

data

in

our

model

projections

show

that

one

24

location

in

the

Lake

Michigan

area

is

not

attaining

1997

27

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

version

of the

eight-hour

ozone

standard

namely

Holland,

2

Michigan

on the

west coast

of Michigan.

Pursuant

to

the

3

Energy

Policy

Act of

‘05 EPA

is required

to address

the

4

Western

Michigan

ozone

problem.

My

written

testimony

5

anticipated

the

release

of EPA’s

Western

Michigan

ozone

6

study

report

that

did happen

on

January

2

1st.

And

I

7

brought

paper

copies

of

it

to

The

Board

today.

I want

8

to

hand

those

out.

I

don’t

know

how that

happens.

9

The

report

is available

electronically

on

10

EPA

Region

five’s

web site.

11

Two

key

findings

in

EPA’s

report

are

number

12

one,

Holland,

Michigan

does not

now

nor

will

by

it’s

13

attainment

date

meet the

1997

version

of

the

eight-hour

14

ozone

standard.

15

And

number

two,

shoreline

areas

in

Western

16

Michigan

like Holland

are

dominated

by

ozone

transport,

17

for

example,

the

technical

analyses

show

that

18

one—quarter,

25

percent,

of the

ozone

on

high

19

concentration

days at

Holland

is

from

Northeastern

20

Illinois.

21

Thank

you.

That

concludes

my

summary

of

my

22

testimony.

23

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

I have

some

questions

for

24

Mr.

Koerber.

28

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

MR. FOX:

Please,

go ahead,

Ms.

Roccaforte.

2

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

Has

LADCO

conducted

any

3

sensitivity

analyses

using

the

air

quality

model

to

4

determine

whether

NOx

emissions

reduction

improved

ozone

5

in

2.5

air

quality?

6

MR.

KOERBER:

Yes.

The weight

of evidence

7

approach,

as

I

indicated,

includes

a

variety

of

8

technical

analyses.

One

of

the

technical

analyses

was

9

to

look

at

the

sensitivity

reducing

ozone

precursors

10

such

as

VOCs,

organic

compounds

or

oxidized

nitro

NOx.

11

The

technical

analyses

did

show

that

reduction

in

VOC,

12

reduction

in NOx,

would

improve

ozone

concentration

in

13

downwind

areas.

14

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

In general

would

you

say

15

that

additional

NOx

reductions

yield

additional

air

16

quality

benefits?

17

MR.

KOERBER:

Sensitivity

analyses

did

show

18

that

more

emission

reduction

resulted

in

more

19

improvement

in

air

quality.

20

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

Do

you

know

if

the

21

St.

Louis

Metropolitan

area

attained

the

1997

ozone

22

standard?

23

MR.

KOERBER:

Based

on

the 2006

to

2008

24

monitoring

data

it

has

not.

I

believe

there’s

at

least

29

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

one

location

that

is

out

of

compliance

with

the

1997

2

version

of

the

standard.

3

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

And

isn’t

it

true

that

4

USEPA

tightened

the

ozone

standards

in

2008?

5

MR.

KOERBER:

In

March

of

2008

Rob

Kaleel

6

did

indicate

the

EPA

lowered

ozone

standards

from

85

7

parts

billion

to

75

parts

per

billion.

8

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

Is

the

Chicago

area

9

attaining

that

standard?

10

MR.

KOERBER:

The

new

lower

standard?

11

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

Yes.

12

MR.

KOERBER:

It

is

not

attaining

the

new

13

75

EPA

standard.

14

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

Do

you

know

if

the

15

St.

Louis

area

is

attaining

that

standard?

16

MR.

KOERBER:

It

is

not.

And

again,

that’s

17

based

upon

monitoring

data,

real

world

measurements,

18

collected

by

this

agency.

19

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

Last

question:

Was

20

Illinois’s

NOx

RACT

proposal

included

in

the

2012

model

21

run

that

demonstrated

attainment

of

the

1997

ozone

22

standard

in

Holland,

Michigan?

23

MR.

KOERBER:

The

NOx

RACT

emission

24

reductions

were

included

along

with

a

nuitiber

of

other

30

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

control

measures

there

are

a bundle

of

control

measures

2

this

were

included

in

this

modeling

in

order

to

show

3

what

the

future

air

quality

would

be.

4

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

Thank

you.

5

MR.

FOX:

That’s

it?

6

Any

further

questions

for

Mr.

Koerber

this

7

morning?

8

Ms.

Hirner

or

Mr.

Davis,

I

see

both

of

you

9

indicating.

10

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank

you.

11

Mr.

Koerber,

I’d

like

to

ask

you

a

few

12

questions

about

the

role

that

base

year

choice

and

13

meteorology

played

in

the model

results.

14

You

state

that

meteorology

similar

to

2002

15

will

make

it

less

likely

that

the

ozone

standard

will

be

16

attained,

this

is

referring

to bottom

of

page

five

and

17

top

of

page

six

of

your

testimony.

18

Is

that

an

accurate

statement?

19

MR.

KOERBER:

Ozone

is

very

sensitive

to

20

two

primary

parameters,

the

emissions,

the

ozone

21

precursor

emissions

and

meteorology.

So,

hotter

summers

22

result

in higher

ozone

concentrations.

So

our

latest

23

modeling

analysis

was

included

in

our

technical

support

24

document

relying

on 2005

meteorology

we

found

to

be

31

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

above

normal

based

on

statistical

analyses,

but

not

as

2

severe

in 2002.

2002

was

very

extreme

meteorology

and

3

resulted

in

much

higher

ozone

concentrations.

4

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank

you.

5

Could

you

elaborate

perhaps

a

little

bit

on

6

the

role

that

emissions

reductions

would

play

in

--

in

7

those

base

year

differences?

8

MR.

KOERBER:

Emissions

reductions

would

9

result

in

lower

estimates

of

future

year

air

quality,

10

but

with

2002

meteorology

the

models

projecting

somewhat

11

higher

future

year

air

quality

levels

compared

to

2005

12

meteorology.

13

MR.

DAVIS:

It’s

my

understanding

that

a

14

model

run was

performed

using

2002

base

year

with

future

15

years

emissions

reduction

included

and

it

did

not

show

16

attainment

for

ozone.

Is

that

accurate?

17

MR.

KOERBER:

As

I

indicated,

the

18

attainment

demonstration

was

based

upon

a weight

of

19

evidence

approach

where

we

considered

a

number

of

20

modeling

analyses,

a number

of emissions

analyses

and

21

analysis

of

ambient

monitoring

data.

And

it

was

the

22

collective

review

of

that

information

that

provided

the

23

foundation

for

the

state!s

attainment

demonstration

24

not

--

not

one

single

model.

32

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

MR.

DAVIS:

I

see.

2

Is

--

is

it

also

true

that

an important

3

component

of modeling

protocol,

one

that

improves

the

4

model

accuracy,

is

to use

what

is

known

as

relative

5

reduction

factors

to

apply

against

actual

ozone

data

6

measured

in

base

year

to

predict

future

levels?

7

MR.

KOERBER:

Yes,

that

is

how we

actually

8

use

the

mathematical

computer

model

in

our

technical

9

analysis.

We

use

the

relative

change

in

air

quality

in

10

combination

with

observed

monitoring

data,

estimate

the

11

future

air

quality.

So,

you’re

absolutely

right

as to

12

relative

change

that

is

important

in

terms

of

model.

13

MR.

DAVIS:

Did

the

modeling

based

on the

14

2005

base

year,

essentially,

predict

the

ozone

15

attainment

levels

that

have

now

been

measured

in

the

16

Chicago

area

and

elsewhere and

isn’t

it

these

modeling

17

results

that

are

being

used

to

support

the

Illinois

EPA

18

rule

request

to

designate

Chicago

as

a

non-attainer?

19

MR.

KOERBER:

Yes,

our

model

projections

20

using

the

2005

meteorology

due

tend

to

agree

with

the

21

most

current

monitoring

data

and

that

is

not

surprising

22

given

that

meteorology

is

somewhat

similar

to

what

we’ve

23

observed

over

the

past

couple

of

summers

it

was

not

as

24

severe

as

what

we saw

in

2002.

33

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank

you.

2

Have

you

evaluated

the PM

2.5

air

quality

3

data

through

2008

to

determine

the

status

of

attainment

4

of

PM

2.5

standard?

5

MR.

KOERBER:

I

do not

believe

states

have

6

certified

2008

monitoring

data,

so

no,

I’ve

not

reviewed

7

2008

final

data

submitted

by the

states.

8

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank

you.

9

What

about

based

on

the

‘06 and

‘07

data.

10

MR.

KOERBER:

Question

again,

based

on

2006

11

or

2005

to 2007?

12

MR.

DAVIS:

Whether

you

have

been

able

to

13

determine

status

of attainment

with

the

PM

2.5

standard.

14

MR.

KOERBER:

There

are

a

number

of

sites

15

that

are

not

in

compliance

based

on 2005

to

2007

data.

16

MR.

DAVIS:

Last

series

of

questions:

At

17

the

bottom

of

page

five

and

top

of

page

six

of

your

18

testimony,

again,

you

state

that

the

2006

PM

2.5

19

standard

and

2008

ozone

standard

were

not obtained

in

20

several

sites

in

the

Lake

Michigan

area.

Is

this

21

conclusion

based

on

using

‘05 base

year

in the

actual

22

PM

2.5

ozone

design

values

from

‘05?

23

MR.

KOERBER:

It

is

based

on

the modeling

24

using

the

2005

base

year

condition,

correct.

34

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

MR.

DAVIS:

What

base

year

do

you

believe

2

will

be

used

for

the

PM

2.5

and

ozone

modeling

for

these

3

new

standards?

4

MR.

KOERBER:

That

question

is

currently

5

being

discussed

by

the

states

and

no

decision

has

been

6

made.

7

MR..

DAVIS:

Do

you

believe

that

a

more

8

current

base

year

and

more

current

air

monitoring

data

9

would

make

a

difference

in

your

conclusions?

10

MR.

KOERBER:

With

regard

to

the

1997

11

standards

or

the

2006

version?

12

MR.

DAVIS:

The

new

standards.

13

MR.

KOERBER:

Really

don’t

know

the

answer

14

to

that.

15

Certainly,

in

putting

together

our

protocol

16

for

the

next

round

of

state

implementation

analyses

we

17

will

look

at

the

most

current

air

quality

--

air

quality

18

information

we

want

to

use

the

most

up

to

date

19

information.

20

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank

you

very

much.

21

That’s

all

I

have.

22

MR.

FOX:

Very

good.

Thank

you,

Mr.

Davis.

23

Any

further

questions

for

Mr.

Koerber?

24

Ms.

Hodge,

I

see

your

hand.

35

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

MS.

HODGE:

Thank

you.

I

have

just

a

few

2

questions..

3

Katherine

Hodge.

4

Mr.

Koerber,

did

LADCO

evaluate

the

amount

5

of

NOx

reductions

needed

to

meet

the

standards?

6

MR.

KOERBER:

We

did

not

use the

modeling

7

to

set

emission

reduction

targets

or

percent

control,

8

rather

we

evaluated

the

bundle

of

control

measures

that

9

were

required

of each

of

the

states

and

that

the

states

10

collectively

agreed

to

implement

in

order

to

improve

air

11

quality

in

the

region.

12

MS.

HODGE:

Thank

you.

13

Do

--

do

the

LADCO

models

reflect

any

14

recent

emission

controls

in

reduction

and

by

recent

I

15

mean

2005

by

various

industrial

categories,

for

example,

16

such

as

petroleum

refineries?

17

MR.

KOERBER:

With

respect

to petroleum

18

refineries

we

are

aware

there

were

a

number

of

federal

19

consent

decrees

that

were

incorporated

in

our

emission

20

inventories.

In

addition

to NOx

RACT

there

are

number

21

of

other

control

measures,

both

state

and

federal,

that

22

are

included

for

non-EGU

point

sources,

but

really

all

23

sectors

of

the

inventory

have

control

included.

24

MS.

HODGE:

Okay.

Just

to

clarify,

so

your

36

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

model did

consider

the post

‘05

reductions

at

petroleum

2

refineries?

3

MR.

KOERBER:

The --

the inventory

-- when

4

we

project

future

year

air

quality

we start

with

the

5

base

year

inventories,

in this

case

‘05.

We

apply

6

various

growth

factors

by sector

for

mobile

sources,

7

point

sources,

utilities,

etc.

And

then on

top of

that

8

we

apply

all

of the

control

programs,

quantify

those

9

emission

reductions

and that’s

the

future

year

emission

10

estimate

that

we

have available.

That’s

the

inventory

11

we plug

in the

model

statement,

the future

air

quality.

12

MS. HODGE:

Okay.

So, would

the

-- the

13

petroleum

refinery

consent

decree

reductions

be

a factor

14

into

--

15

MR. KOERBER:

Yes.

16

MS.

HODGE

-- the

controls.

Yes?

17

MR. KOERBER:

Yes.

18

And we

have

a

contract

report

that

19

discusses

those

particular

consent

decrees,

as

well

as

20

other

consent

decrees

that

were

included

in

our emission

21

inventory.

22

MS.

HODGE:

Thank

you.

23

Could

you

tell

us

a

little

bit

about

how

24

you

consider

the

contribution

of

mobile

sources

in

doing

37

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

this

model?

2

MR.

KOERBER:

We

actually

undertook

a

very

3

rigorous

approach

for

the

mobile

sector.

We

worked

with

4

the

transportation

agencies,

formally

CATS,

in

the

5

Chicago

area

with

link

base,

so

segments

of

roadway

got

6

information

on

the

amount

of

traffic,

the

speed

of

7

traffic,

over

each

--

much

of

those

links

as

a

function

8

of

day

of

week,

time

of

day.

So,

highly

detailed

9

emissions

inventory

for

on—road

mobile

sources

based

10

upon

our

consultation

with

metropolitan

planning

11

organizations

and

used

EPA’s

mobile

six

model

to

12

estimate

the

amount

of

emission

reduction

that

we

would

13

expect

as

a

result

of

a

nuniber

of

different

federal

14

control

programs

both

tailpipe

and

fuel

programs.

15

MS.

HODGE:

Okay.

Thank

you.

16

I

have

to

take

just

a

quick

break,

please.

17

WHEREUPON,

THERE

WAS

A

SHORT

PAUSE

IN

PROCEEDINGS;

18

SUBSEQUENT

TO

WHICH

THE

FOLLOWING

PROCEEDINGS

WERE

MADE

19

OF RECORD:

20

MS.

HODGE:

That’s

all

I

have

for

21

Mr.

Koerber.

Thank

you.

22

MR.

FOX:

Thank

you,

Ms.

Hodge.

23

Any

--

any

further

questions

by

any

of

the

24

participants

for

Mr.

Koerber?

38

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

I have

a

few

follow

up.

2

Mr.

Koerber,

do

you

know

if

the

St.

Louis

3

area

has

attained

the

1997

PM

2.5 standard?

4

MR.

KOERBER:

I do

not

believe

it

has.

5

MS. ROCCAFORTE:

Do

you

know

if

it

will

6

attain

the

standard

by the

applicable

attainment

date?

7

MR.

KOERBER:

It

will

not

according

to

our

8

model

projections.

So,

my

understanding

is

based

on

the

9

most

current

air

quality

monitoring

data

based

on

our

10

model

projections

it

will

not

meet

the

PM

2.5

standard

11

by

it’s

by

the

applicable

attainment’..

12

MS.

ROCCAFORTE:

Thank

you.

13

I

have

nothing

further.

14

MR.

FOX:

Any

more

questions?

15

(No

response.)

16

MR.

FOX:

I understand

Mr.

Rao

has

a

17

question

for

Mr.

Koerber.

18

MR.

RAO:

One

question.

19

Mr. Koerber,

on

page

four

of

your

pre-filed

20

testimony

you

have

noted

that

you

did

not include

21

midwest

ozone

groups

modeling

as

part

of

the

weight

of

22

the

evidence

that

you

stated

that

several

reductions

23

were

made

by

midwestern

group

modeling

were

counter

to

24

USEPA

guidance.

Could

you,

please,

elaborate

on

what

39

Keefe

Reporting

Company

---

1

those

were?

2

MR.

KOERBER:

Right.

3

One

of

the

assumptions

that

were

counter

to

4

EPA

guidance

is

the

use

of ambient monitoring

data

that

5

EPA

specifies

procedure

for

averaging

ambient monitoring

6

data

with

the

modeling

as

part

of the

attainment

7

demonstration.

The

approach

that

they

use

was

not

8

consistent

with

EPA’s

procedure

for

using

monitoring

9

data.

Given

that

this

attainment demonstration

must

10

meet

EPA

guidelines

in

order

to

be

approved

by EPA

we

11

were

not

able

to include

that

analysis

in

our weight

of

12

evidence

demonstration.

We

nevertheless

did

meet

with

13

the

company.

We

did

discuss

their

information

and

14

pointed

out

our

concerns.

15

MR.

RAO:

Okay.

Thank

you.

16

MR.

FOX:

Ms.

Hirner?

Yes.

17

MS.

HIPNER:

Deirdre