IEPAATTACHMENT NO.l_ 

### BEFORE THEILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

# BOARD~~~~**lY::I~EIO** DEC 0I2008 INTHE MATTEROF: CLEAN-UPAMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART243 ) ) 

### ) ) 

# tJ STATE OF ILLINOIS R09- 

# l. J Pollution Control Board 

### (Rulemakmg- Air)

TABLE OFCONTENTS OFREGULATORY SUBMITTAL

1. 

### Notice ofFiling 2. Appearance ofCharles E. Matoesian, Assistant Counsel for the Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency 3. Proposal ofRegulationsbyDirectorDouglas P. Scott 4. AgencyAnalysis ofEconomic and BudgetaryEffects 5. Statement ofReasons 6. Proposed Amendments to 35lll.Adm. Code 243 

### 7. TechnicalSupportDocument forRuleRevisions to Part243: AirQuality Standards, 

### illinoisEnvironmentalProtectionAgency, September2008. 8. Certificate ofService' 9. DiskinMicrosoftWORD containingAgency's Analysis ofEconomic and BudgetaryEffects (ECONOMICBUDGET-243.doc) and Proposed Amendments to Part243 (RULE-243.doc)

### BEFORE THEILLINOISPOLLUTION CONTROLBOARD 

### RECEBVED

CLERK'S OFFICE 

### INTHE MATTEROF: CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243

TO: JohnTherriault, Assistant Clerk IllinoisPollution Control Board James R. 

### Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, TI!inois 60601-3218 

### ) 

### ) ) 

### ) ) ) 

## DEC 01

## 2008 R09- 

# Iq STATE OF ILLINOIS 

### (Rulemaling

- Air) Pollution Control Board

NOTICE MatthewDunn, Chief Division ofEnvironmental Enforcement OfficroftheAttorneyGeneral 69 Wbst Washington St., Suite 1800 Chid o, IL 60602 VirginiaYang, DeputyLegal Counsel illinois DepartmentofNatural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, IL 62702

PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthat I 

### have today filed iththe Office ofthe Pollution Control BoardtheREGULATORY PROPOSALFOR CLEAN- AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243 andAPPEARANCE ofthe lllinois EnvironmentalProtectionAgency ofwhich is herewith serveduponyou.

DATED: November 25, 2008 

### 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217.782.5544 217.782.9143 (TDD) .Matoesian AssistantCounsel Division fLegal Counsel

THIS FILIN IS SUBMITTED ONRECYCLED PAPER

### BEFORE THEILLINOIS POLLUTIO CONTROLBOARD 

### RIECEBVED

ClERK'S OFFICE 

### IN THE MATTEROF: CLEAN-UPAMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243 

### ) ) ) 

### ) 

# \a DEC 0l2DDB R09- 

# J (RulemaKing- 

### .S.TATE OF 

### ILLINOIS 

### PdiiUtJon Control Board APPEARANCE ' 

### The undersignedherebyenters his appearance as attorney onbehalfofthe Illinois EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.

DATED: November 

### 25, 2008 1021 NorthGrand AvenueEast P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217/782-5544 Resp ctfully submitted, ILL OIS ENVIRONMENTAL PRO ECTIONAGENCY



### AssistantCounsel Division ofLegal Counsel 

## ·; /

# Rtece:uv CU:RK'S

## OFFI~Efl:)

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTIO 

## DEC 0 1

## 20UB STATE OF CONTROLBOtflc!lltion

## Co~~L**1N 0IS**  0 

### oard INTHE MATTEROF: CLEAN-UPAMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243 

### ) ) ) 

### ) 

### R09

# -I~ (Rulemaking-Air)

ILLINOISENVIRONMENTALPROTECT! 

# tAGENCYPROPOSAL OF REGULATIONS The illinois EnvironmentalProtection Agency moves .hat the Illinois Pollution Control Board adopt the attachedregulations.

DATED: November 25, 2008 1021 North Grand

### Ave. East P.O. Box 19276 

### Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276**21'/,·1~0~** 'l'lQ'"1 

### By: R spectfully submitted, LlNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCYAgency: Part/Title: 

### Agency Analysis ofEcono ·c and Budgetary Effects ofProposed Rulemaking lllinois Pollution Control Board Air Quality Standards (35 ill.Adm. Code art 243)

nlinois Register Citation: 

## -------------+-- Please attempt to provide as dollar-specificresponses as po sible and feel free to add anyrelevant explanation. I. Anticipated effect on State expenditures andreven es. (a) Current costto the agency for this progra activity. 

### $0 peryear (b) Ifthis rulemaking will result in 

### an increas or decrease in cost, specify the fiscal year in which this change \vill first occura dthe dollar amount ofthe effect. N/A (c) Indicate the funding source, including F nd and appropriation lines, for this program/activity. N/A (d) If an increase or decrease in the costs o another State agency is anticipated, specify the fiscal year in which this chan will first occur and the estimated dollar amount ofthe effect. N/A (e) Will this rulemaking have any effect on State revenues or expenditures not already indicated above? No

2. Economic effect onpersons affectedby therulema ·ng: (a) Indicate the economic effect and specifyth persons affected: Positive

_ Negative

_ No effect

# L

Persons affected: N/A Dollar amountperperson: N/A Total statewide cost: N/A (b) If an economic effect is predicted, please briefly describe how the effect will occur. N/A

### (c) Will the rulemaking have an indirect effect that may result in increased administrative costs? Will there be y change in requirements such as filing, documentation, reporting orcorhpletion offorms? Therulemakin should have no indirec effect thatrna result in increased administrative costs.

### BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTIO CONTROL

### BOA~if:CEOVIS:fO CLERK'S OFFICE INTHEMATTER OF: CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243 ) ) 

### ) ) 

### ) ) 

## DEC 0l2008 STATE OF IlliNOIS 

### Pollution Control 

### Board ( ulemaking- Air)



### STATEMENTOFRE SONS

The Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgenc ("Illinois EPA") hereby submits 

### ""'"'""""'ofR=moro llio

# mm.,;, Pollotioo

# C+rol Boon!

# ("Bood~ '""""''

### ro Sections 27 and 28 oftheEnvironmental Protectionrt("Act")(415 ILCS 5/27 and 28) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.202(b), in support ofthe ached proposed amendments to existingregUlations. Included in this proposal are

# ~endments to 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code Part 243 ("Part 243"), whichupdatetheexistingPartto

# in~orporate new federal air quality standards. These changes include: amending Sectionl243.125 to the repeal the 1-hour

ozone standard and replace itwiththe 8-hourozone sLdard;proposing a new Section 243.!20ato incorporatethe new particulatematterstLdard (PM2.5); 

### and updating Section 243.108 to include the new incorporationsbyreferent. Thisproposal amends themost recent version ofPart243 as found on the Board's wlsite.



### I. ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL !'ROT**.I!.'-~**

### tr)NAGENCY PROPOSAL This proposed rulemak:ing simplyupdates the existingregulauon and is aresult of

new National AmbientAir Quality Standards

# (''NJ S") adopted bythe United States Environmental ProtectionAgency ("U.S. EPA"). Onginally, the Subpart at issue was

### adopted to satisfy Clean Air Act ("CAA'') requiremen s. Recent changes by the U.S. EPA require amendments to the Illinois rules to reflec the new NAAQS for both ozone and particulate matter. More specifically, the amend entsreflect the new 8-hourozone standard and the revocation ofthe 1-hourstandard. T is new standard is set forth in a recent posting in the Federal Register,NationalAmbiltAir QualityStandardsfor Ozone, 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (March 27, 2008). Thejbientrur quality standard for ozone is 0.075 ppm druly maximum 8-hour concentration,jdisbasedon the fourth-highest daily 8-hourvalue recorded during a calendar year

# an~ measuredbyareference or equivalentmethod as describedin 40 CFRPart 50, sltion 50.1 (2003) and thenewly created Interpretationofthe NAAQS for 

### OJ, 40 CFRlppendix P, 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (March 27, 2008). Concerningparticulatematter, several recentrstingsin the Federal Register reflect changes to theNAAQS forPM10 and PM2 .s. 

### On July 18, 1997, a Federal Register posting at 62 Fed. Reg. 386521owered the annual anfeticmean concentrationto 15 microgramsper cubic meter. More recently,in The rtionalAmbientAirQuality Standardsfor ParticulateMatter, 73 Fed. Reg. 61144(0ctober 17, 2006), amaximum 24-hourconcentration of35 microgramspercubic

## me~erwas established. This was to be calculated atthe 98thpercentilevalue, as determined y 40 CFRPart 50, Appendix N. The posting also updated Appendix L of40 CFR Part 50, which describes the reference method used for the determination offine particulate alteras PM2.s in the atmosphere. Appendix N, meanwhile, was furtherupdated in a sep ate posting,Interpretation of the NationalAmbientAir QualityStandards forPM2.5, 

### 4 CFRPart50, Appendix N, 73 Fed. Reg. 1497 (January 9, 2008). Finally, Section 2 3.107, Reference Conditions, was



### 2

### updated to reflect that PM2

### .s measurements should be aseduponthe actual ambient air volume measured at the actual temperature and pressu eatthemonitoring site duringthe measurementperiod. This differs from the other air q alitymeasurements which are correctedto areference temperature of25° C, and to referencepressure of760 millimeters ofmercury (1013.2 millibars). The standard for PM10 

### was also amended byJeFederalRegisterposting of October 17, 2006. TheFederal Registerposting revordthe annual PM10 

### standardwhich hadbeencalculated asthe annual arithmeticmean co centration of50micrograms per cubic meter. Theposting leftthe dailyPM 10 

### standard nchanged at amaximum 24-hour concentration of !50microgramspercubicmeter, not to be exceeded more than onceper year. Theposting further amended Appendix K of40 CFRPart 50, which described the interpretation oftheNAAQS forparticulatematter. Lastly, the Illinois EPA'sproposal involves se era! minorcorrections to Section 243.I0I (Definitions), Section243.I04 (Nondegradatl n), Section243.122 (Sulfur Oxides (SulfurDioxide)), and Section 243.126 (Lead). Theseamendments simply 

### hi I d . . . 

## lfi correcttypograp ca errors an putcitationsm proper orm.



### II. GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS AND S · 

### URCES AFFECTED Sourcesthroughout the state couldbe affectedbythisproposal,but, as stated,the proposal simplyincorporates the addition ofnew fed al standardswhich are currently applicablethroughout the nation.



### III. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF HE PROPOSAL

3This proposal is a minorclean-up ofPart 243. t incorporates new U.S. EPA air quality standards and has no real impact upon sources it is currently federal law. These standards are well knownto industry and have een thoroughlydiscussedbythe U.S. 

### EPA

IV. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND ECON MIC REASONABLENESS The amendmentsto Part 243 do notimposene requirements, theymerelyupdate the State'sregulations to reflectcurrent federal law standards. TheIllinois EPA thereforebelieves that an analysis oftechnical feasibi tyand economic reasonablenessis notappropriate. These standards arewell known to i bustryandhavebeen thoroughly discussedbytheU.S. EPA.



### V. COMMUNICATIONWITHINT RESTEDPARTIES Theseamendments arebeingproposedbasedjncurrentnational ambient air quality standards adoptedbytheU.S. EPAthatmust e reflected in Illinois' regulations. As the changes are commonlyknownthroughoutind stry, no specificprogram of outreach was implemented.



### VI. CONCLUSIO

-:;-;,_

# ~·~:--'- nn'

# ;:'~">pus.;:> a dean-up ofthe Je at 35 Ill. Adm. Code243 to update specified provisions and to reflect

....:TP.nt natilnal ambient air quality standards established bythe U.S. EPAunderthe federal Clean irAct.

4

### WHEREFORE, for thereasons stated above, the Illinois EPA hereby submits thisregulatoryproposal and requests the Board adopt heseproposed amendments to Part 243 fortheState ofIllinois.

DATED: November 25, 2008 

### 1021 North GrandAve. East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

### B

.Matoesian Assistan Counsel Divisio ofLegal Counsel ..-'\

5

### TITLE35: ENVIRONMENTALPR' TECTION SUBTITLEB:AIRPOLLU ON CHAPTERI: POLLUTION CONT L 

### BOARD SUBCHAPTER!: AIR QUALITY STANDA ' SAND EPISODES

Section 243.101 243.102 243.103 243.104 243.106 243.107 243.108 PART243 AIR QUALITY STANDA

SUBPARTA: GENERAL PRO SIONS

Definitions Preamble Applicability Nondegradation Monitoring Reference Conditions IncorporationsbyReference

SUBPART

### B: STANDARDS AND 

### MEAS MENT METHODS Section 243.120 243.120a 243.121 243.122 243.123 243.124 243.125 243.126 Appendix A Appendix B AppenU.ix C 

### PMJ.QPM 10 

### PMu Particulates (Repealed) Sulfur Oxides (SulfurDioxide) CarbonMonoxide Nitrogen Dioxide 8 HourOzone Lead



### Ruleinto Section Table Section into Rule Table l>ast ComplianceDates

AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 

### 1v '""''' · y 

### Section 27 ofthe EnvironmentalProtectionAct(Ill. Rev. Stat. 199l,ch. :;' 1/2,pars. 1010and 1027) SOURCE: Adopted as Chapter2: AirPollution, Part ill: 

### ·r Quality Standards, in R71- 23, 4PCB 191, filed and effectiveApril 14, 1972; amend dinR80-11, 46 PCB 125, at 6 Ill. Reg. 5804, effective April 22, 1982; amended inR8 -12, at 7 Ill. Reg. 9906,effective August 18, 1983; codified at 7 

### Ill. Reg. 13630; nended in R91-35 at 16 

### Ill. Reg. 8185, effective May 15, 1992,; amended in at------- effective-------



### SUBPART A: GENERAL PRO SIONS Section 243.101 Definitions a)



### b) Except ashereinafter stated and unless ad" ferent meaningofa term is clear from itscontext,the definitions oftetsused in this Part shallbethe same as those usedinthe Environmental P otectionAct (ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 

### Ill 112, pars. 1001 etseq.)(Ac ). All terms whichappear in thisParthaveth definitions specifiedbyParts 20I or211 ofthis Subtitle Chapter. (Source: Amended at , effective --1-------' 

### Section 243.102 Preamble a)

b)

c) Airquality standards arelimits on atmosp eric concentrations ofair contaminants established for the pUipose o protectingpublichealth and welfare. The levelsofairqualitydesignat d bythe standards are designed to protectagainstinjuryto human, plantorl 1 animal lifeandtheyare further intended to allowmaximum enjoymentof ife and propertyconsistentwith the intent ofthe Act. 

# l

The first use ofour airresources is to sust ·n life. Airenteringthe respiratorytractmustnotmenacehealth. therefore, the air quality standards setmust, as a minimum, providejairwhichwill not adversely affect, through acute orchronic symptoms thehealth ofthe community. Adversehealth effects includenotonly

### th~possibleproduction and aggravation ofdisease, but alsointerferenctwithbodilyfunctions. The standardshave also taken into account soiltng, corrosion,vegetation damage and otherhuman effects. Primaryambient airquality standardsdefi e levels ofairqualitywhich are necessary, with an adequate marginofsafi , to protectthepublic health. Secondaryambient airquality standards d fine levels ofair qualitywhich are necessaryto protect thepublicwelfare om anyknown oranticipated adverseeffects ofa pollutant. 

### 2

### d) The standards are more than goals. They ar legallyenforceable limitations, and anyperson causing orcont buting to a violation ofthe standards is subject to enforcementproceed ngs underthe Act. The standardshave also been designed for use Jla basis for the development ofimplementation plans byState and local gencies for the abatement and controlofpollutant emissions from existin ·sources, and for the determination ofaircontaminant emission 'mitationsto insure that population and economicgrowth trends do ot add to the region's air pollutionproblems. 

### Section 243.103 Applicability Thestandards in this Part are applicablethroughoutthe St teoflllinois, except as otherwiseprovidedinthis Part. 

### Section 243.104 Nondegradation Existing ambient air

### quality which is betterthan the establ shed 

### OJttalllishee ambient air qualitystandards at the date oftheir adoption willbemaintained in its present high quality. Suchambient airqualityshall not belowered

### unl~s and until itis provedto the illinoisEnvironmental Protection Agency (Agency) that s 1 

### chchange isjustifiableas a resultofnecessaryeconomic and social development and ill not interfere withor becomeinjurious to humanhealth orwelfare. (Source: Amended at , effective-+------' 

### Section 243.106 Monitoring Pollution levels will bedeterminedbyfixed ormobiles piingstationsbeyondthe premises onwhich a source is located. Stationswillbe Io ated accordingto the guildelines for establishedmonitoring networks as develo ed

### bythe United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. 

### Section 243.107 Reference Conditions Allmeasurements ofairquality, exceptPMld> are correct to areferencetemperature of 25° C, and to areferencepressure of760millimeters ofmercury (1013.2 millibars). PM2. 

### measurements shall bebased u onthe actual ambi t air volumemeasured at the actual tern erature and ressure atthe monitorin site d n themeasurement eriod. (Source: Amended at _______ , effective-+-------'

3

### Section 243.108 Incorporations by Reference The following materials are incorporated byreference. T ese incorporations do not include any later amendments or editions: a) b) 

### c) d) e)

t) g)

h)

j)

). 

### Pararosanilinemethod, 40 CFR 50, Appen ix A (J982). Non-dispersive infrared spectrometrytee ,ique, 40 CFR 50, Appendix C (1982), 36 Fed. Reg. 22391, November 2·, 1971. Colorimetric method, 36Fed. Reg. 2239 ,November25, 1971. Ozone-ethylenereaction method, 40 CFR 0, Appendix D (

### 1982), 36 Fed. Reg. 22392,November25, 1971. Lead, 40CFR50, Appendix 

### G (1982), 43 ed. Reg. 46258, October5, 1978, 

### as amended at 44 Fed. Reg. 37915, June29, 1979; 46 Fed. Reg. 44163, September 3, 1981. Reference method for the determination**o~particulate** 

### matter

### as PM!Q PM- -Win the atmosphere, 40CFR 50, Appendix J (1990), Interpretationofthenational ambient air qhalitystandardsfor particulate matter, 40CFR 50, Appendix K, 

### 73 Fed. Reg. 61144 (October 17. 2006).

### ~ Reference method for the determination o ·oarticulate matter

### as 

### PM2.5 in the atmosphere. 40 CFR 50. Appendix L. 73 Fed. Reg. 61144 (October 17, 2006). Interoretation ofthe national ambient air ·ualitv standards for PM2.5 40 CFR50 Appendix N 73 Fed. Reg. 149" (Januarv 

### 9 2008). Interoretation ofthe NAAOS for 

# o,, 40 ( FR50. Appendix P. 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (March 27. 2008). (Source: Amended at______ _,effective 

### --t-------'j.



### SUBPARTB: STANDARDS AND MEASUFEMENTMETHODS Section 243.120 

### PMtoPM 10 4

### a ) Standards. The ambient airquality standa ds for PMJQ PM 10 is a maximum 24-hour concentration of 150 n icro!!Iams per cubic meter, as measured in accordance with subsection (**~)below**

### .

.l\ 

## ·'"'"" -, -o-**·~** 

### eubie meter; ami

')\ A ')A 1-. .r 1 cA ,\." -J ·o 

# .... ,, .1-. J.J 

### •'· 

### , 

### .,_ J b) 

### MeasurementMethod. Fordetermining e<

### •nformance with the PM10 

### PM- 

### -l-0 ambient airquality standards, PM10 m 1 " 

### shallbemeasuredbythe methoddescribed in40 CFR50, Appendi J 

### (incorporated byreference · m 

### Section243.108). The computationsnece saryfor analyzing particulate matterdata to determine attainment ofthe

### ~

### PM Hl standards are described in40 CFR 50, Appendix 

### K (inc ,rporatedbyreference in Section 243.108). (Source: Amended at effective ). 

### 243.120

### a PM2.s



### a

) 

### Standards. The ambient airqualitv stand !rds for 

### PMz.s are: 

### 1) An annual arithmetic mean conce tration of 15 microPrarns ner cubic meter; and 

### 2) A maximum 24-hour concentratio of35 microl!rarns oer cubic · meter, at the 

### 98th percentile valud, as determined by 

### 40 CFRPart 50 A endix N 

### and as measur 'in conformance with subsection (b) below.



### b

in 40 CFR 50 A b reference in Section 243.108). (Source: Added at_______ ,, effectiv 

### 5

### Section 243.121 Particulates (Repealed) (Source: Repealed at 16 Ill. Reg. 8185, effectiveMay 1

# I' 1992) Section 243.122 Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide) a) Primary Standards. Theprimary ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides measured as sulfurdioxide are: 1) An

### annual arithmetic meanconcentration of80 microgramsper cubic meter (0.03 ppm); and, 2) A maximum24-hourconcentration not to beexceededmorethan once peryear of365 micrograms percubic meter (0.14 ppm). b) Secondary Standard. The secondary ambient air quality standard for sulfur oxidesmeasured as sulfurdioxide is amaximum 3-hourconcentrationnot to beexceeded more than once peryearof 1,300 micorgrams percubic meter (0.5 ppm). c) MeasurementMethod. For determining conformancewith sulfuroxide air quality standards, sulfuroxides shall bemeasured as sulfur dioxide bythe pararosanilinemethod described in40 CFR. 50, Appendix

### -Apfr. A, (1982), orby an equivalent method ofproofapproved bythe Agency. (Source: Amended at effective

_______ J 

### Section243.123 Carbon Monoxide a) Standards. The ambient airquality standards for carbon monoxide are: 1) A maximum 8-hour concentrationnot tobeexceeded more than once peryear of10milligramspercubicmeter (9 ppm); and, 2) A maximum 1-hour concentrationnot to be exceeded more than once peryear of40milligramspercubic meter (35 ppm). h)**~**

### <P.asurementMethod. Fordetermining conformancewith the carbon monoxi•**:~** 

### •irnuality standard, carbonmonoxide shallbe measuredbythe nondispersive infrared**spe~:;::-,etrv** 

### technique as described in 40 CFR50, App. C (1982), 36 Fed. Reg. 22,391, J\c·:•..,..,her 25, 1971, orby an equivalent method approvedbythe Agency.
6

### Section 243.124 Nitrogen Dioxide a) Standard. The ambient air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide is an annual arithmetic mean concentration ofI00microgramspercubicmeter (0.05 ppm). b) MeasurementMethod. Fordetermining conformancewith the nitrogen dioxide air quality standard, nitrogen dioxide shall bemeasured bythe colorimetric method 

### as described in36Fed. Reg. 22,396, November25, 1971, orbyan equivalentmethod approvedbytheAgency. Section 243.125 8-HourOzone a) Standard. The ambient 

### air quality standard for ozone is 0.075 ppmdaily maximum 8-hour concentration based on the fourth-highest daily 8-hour value recorded during a calendar year and in accordance with subsection (b) below. b) Measurement Method. Fordetermining conformance with the ozone air quality standard. ozone shall be measured by a reference or equivalent method as described in 40 CFR Part 50, Section 50.1 (2003) and the Interpretation ofthe NAAQS for 

### 03, 40 CFR Appendix 50, P. 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (March27, 2008). a) 

### Staneaffi. The ambient air fjeality staneareferozone is 0.12 J'l!lffi (235 mieFOgrams jler seflie meter) maximWR 1hollF soneeatrationnette ee eJeseeeeEI en mere than one Elayperyear. e) 

### MeasarementMeilioe!. PerEleteffllining senfeff!lanee with the ezene air 

### fjllality staREiare!, ozone shall he meas11reEI bythe ezene ethylene reaetion "'0:::;uct

### as Eleseriee6 in 40 CPR 50, Afl!l· D, (19&2j, as ameneee. (Source: Amended at-------''**¥;<-~,tive** 

### --------' Section 243.126 Lead a) Standard. The ambient air quality standards for lead and its compoundsis are 1.5 micrograms percubic meter, maximum arithmeticmean average overa calendarquarter.

7

### b) MeasurementMethod. Fordetermining confonnancewith the ambient air quality standards for lead and its compounds, lead and its compounds shall be measuredbythe atomic absorbtion spectrometry or equivalentmethod as described in40 

### CFR 50

### Appendix

## Afllr. G (1982). 

### (Source: Amended at-------'effective---------'

301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 

### 313 Appendix A Rule into Section Table

SECTION 243.102 243.103 243.104 

### Appendix C 243.106 243.107 243.121 243.122 

### Repealed 243.123 243.124 243.125 243.126 

### Appendix B Section into Rule Table

SECTION 

## RULE 243.101 243.102 301 243.103 302 243.104 303 243.106 305 243.107 306 243.121 307 243.u: 308 243.123 -1 (\ 

### 243.124 311 243.125 312 8

### 243.126 

### 313 Appendix C Past ComplianceDates 

### Except as otherwise noted, compliancewith this Partwasrequired June 26, 1973.



### 9

### Technical SupportDocument

### for Revisions to Part

### 243: Air Quality Standards 

### Purpose The Clean AirAct (CAA) requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) establishNational AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteriapollutants thathave been deemed harmful to publichealth and the environment. The six criteriapollutants are ozone, particulatematter, sulfurdioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. The CAA also requires that U.S. EPAreview, on aperiodicbasis, new scientific evidence about the effects of these pollutants onpublic health and welfare and torevise the standards as appropriate. On October 17, 2006 (effectiveDecember 18, 2006), U.S. EPArevised theNAAQS forparticulate matter, reducing the 24-hour standard for fine particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) 

### from 65 microgramspercubic meterto 35 micrograms percubic meter. On March 12, 2008, U.S. EPA also strengthenedthe NAAQS for ozone, reducing the 8-houraverage standard from 0.08 partspermillion to 0.075 parts permillion. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) isproposing to amend Part243 of Title 35 ofthe Illinois Administrative Code to update Illinois' air quality standards consistent with those adoptedby theU.S. EPA. TheIllinoisEPA is also proposing to amend Part 243 to establish an annual PM2.s standard of15 micrograms percubic meter, consistentwith the Federal standard established onJuly 18, 1997, and to revoke the annual standard of50 microgramsper cubic meter for

### PMw (particulatematterless than 10microns in diameter), consistentwiththe Federal standards as revised on October 17, 2006. Background The CAA established two types ofnational air

### quality standards: primary standards and secondary standards. Primary standards are limits forprotectingpublic health, includingthe health of"sensitive"populations (such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly). Secondary standards establish limits to protectthe welfare ofthepublic, which includes protection against decreased visibility, damage tobuildings, crops, animals and vegetation. As

### mentioned previously, the CAA established airquality standards for six criteriapollutants: ozone, particulatematter, sulfurdioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. The proposed revisions to Part243 address the recent revisions byU.S. EPA ofthenational air 

### quality**".....;.;.;;:.:--!~** 

### for ozone and particulatematter. Ozone, as it eXlSt> at growl.; 

### ieve1 m .;.._**~.,.,osphere,**

### has been linkedto health effects associated with the lungs and respiratory systems. Specihc.;a;:_;, ;t "'lll 

### cause reduced lung function, irritated airways, ahigherfrequency ofasthma attacks, inflammation anu 

### uaw.:;;:: '-:> 

### the lining ofthe lungs, and ahigherrisk ofrespiratoryinfections. This canresult in greatermedication us.o, absences from school, and more :frequent doctor visits. In 

### addition, ground-level ozone canhave detrimental effects on public welfare. Elevated ozone levels can decrease forest growth and crop yields, greatly damage the leaves oftrees and otherplants (which wouldruin the appearance of

1urban vegetation, nationalparks, and recreation areas), and increase the susceptibilityof sensitive plants to diseases, insects, otherpollutantS, and severe weather. Ozone is notemitted into the ambient air, butratheris produced in the atmosphere through a complex seriesofchemical reactions involvingnitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic material (YOM) emitted byboth man-madeand natural emission sources. Significant sources of NOx and YOM include arangeofindustrialprocesses, motorized vehicles (bothon- and offroad), andtheuseofchemical solvents. Particulate matter(PM) is a complex mixture ofparticles and liquid droplets that are suspended inthe atmosphere. Exposure to suchmatterhas been linked to several significant health problems. Short-term exposureto particulatematter(inhours ordays) can aggravatethe lungs and cause asthma attacks, acutebronchitis, and could even raisethe risk ofrespiratoryinfections, heart attacks, and heart arrhythmias. Othersymptoms include irritationoftheeyes, nose, and throat, shortness ofbreath, andchestpains. Long-term exposuretohigh particulatelevels can leadto the development ofchronicbronchitis and reduced lung function, and premature death from heartand lung disease. Welfare effects includereduced visibilityand soilingofproperty. Particulatematterisemitted from a widerange ofemission sources, include fuel combustion, hightemperature industrial processes, tireandbrakewear, andresuspensionofdustfrom roads and farm fields. Particulate matter can alsobethe result ofchemical reactions occurringin the atmosphere, involving gaseouspollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogenoxides, arrunonia, and organic compounds. U.S. EPAhas establishedNAAQS for two categories ofparticulatematterbasedonthe sizeof the particles. Coarseparticulatematter, alsoknownas

### PMw, is defined asparticles that are less than 10micrometers in diameter. ThePMwNAAQS wereoriginallyestablished in 1987. However, effectiveDecember 17,2006, U.S. EPA revoked the annual standard forPM10 as more recenthealth studies attributed adverse longterm healtheffects to fine particulatematter(PM2.5). U.S. EPAhasretained the existing 24-hour

### PMw standardof150micrometers. 

### In 1997, U.S. EPA established thefine particulatematter standard, orPM2.s, to address the adversehealth impacts associatedwith fme particles thatwerenot adequatelycontrolled bytheprevious PM 10 standards. 

### On October 17,2006,U.S. EPA strengthened the 24-hour fine particle standard based oncontinuingresearchonhealth effects ofparticulate matter. Implementation ofRevised AirOualitv Standards Followingpromulgation ofanew orrevised airquality standard, the CAArequires the Governor ofeach state to recommend initial designations ofthe attainment status for all areas in the state. Areas canbeclassified as nonattainment (doesnot meet, orcontributes to a nearbyarea that does notmeetthe NAAQS), attainment (meets theNAAQS), orunclassifiable (cannotbeclassified based onavailabledata). Ifa stateidentifies,through ambientmonitoring, that an areafails to meet the NAAQS, the CAA requires a state with areas that fail to meet theNAAQS to develop a State ImplementationPlan

2

### (SIP) describing how the statewill attain and maintain the NAAQS. SIPs must include control strategies ormeasures to reduce emissions ofthe criteriapollutant, oritsprecursors, as needed to attain the standards within timeframesprescribed bythe CAA. Also, the SIP mustinclude a program to enforce the measures specified. The state adopts theSIPonly afterreasonablenotice and public involvement, such as a publichearing. The SIP is then sent to U.S. EPA for approval ordisapproval. Subsequent to the 1997NAAQS revisions, the countiesofCook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, Will, and Aux Sableand GooseLakeTownships in GrundyCounty, and Oswego Township in Kendall Countyinthe Chicago areahavebeen designated as nonattainment for both the ozone and PM2.s standards. 

### IntheMetro-East area, thecounties ofMadison, Monroe, St. Clair, and Jerseyhavebeen designated asnonattainment for the ozone standard, and the counties ofMadison, Monroe, St. Clair, and Baldwin Township inRandolph County are designated as nonattainment forPM2.s- TheillinoisEPAisstill intheprocess ofdevelopingIllinois' SIP to ensure attainment and maintenance oftheNAAQS establishedin 1997. Nonattainment areaboundarieshave notyet beenestablishedpursuantto the

### 2006 and

### 2008 NAAQS revisions,butbased on ambientmonitoring data, it is expected that the same areas listed above willbedesignated as nonattainment for one orboth ofthe standards. TheIllinois EPAconsiders the technical feasibility and cost effectiveness ofemissioncontrols before controlmeasures are includedin the SIP. Specific controlmeasures must be adoptedby the illinoisPollution Control Boardthrough a Stateprocess thatprovides forthe consideration of alternate measuresthrough a publicprocess. ·Althoughthe control measures adoptedthroughthe SIP process mayinvoke significant costs on emission sources, 

### itis importanttonote that the proposed revisions to Part243 do not impose newrequirements orimpose new costs to the regulated community.

G:JroblPart243 Revisions TSD (Sep 08)



### 3

### STATE OFILLINOIS COUNTY OFSANGAMON ) ) ) 

## ss

CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE I, the undersigned, an attorney, statethat I have served the attached REGULATORY PROPOSALFOR CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODEPART 243 and APPEARANCE ofthe IllinoisEnvironmental Protection Agencyupon thepersons to whom it is directed, byplacing itin envelopes addressed to:

JohnTherriault, Assistant Clerk IllinoisPollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center I00 WestRandolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, lllinois 60601-3218 (First Class Mail) MatthewDunn, Chief Division ofEnvironmental Enforcement Office ofthe Attorney General 69 WestWashington St, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 (First ClassMail) Virginia Yang, Deputy Legal Counsel lllinoisDepartment ofNatural Resources One NaturalResourcesWay Springfield, IL 62702 (First Class Mail) and mailingit from Springfield, lllinois, with sufficientpostage affixed, as indicated above.

DATED: November 

### 25, 2008 1021 North Grand Ave. East Springfield, IL 62794-9276 217.782.5544 217.782.9143 (TDD) ILLINIOS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, r'--.,#.:::..



### Assistant Counsel DivisionofLegal Counsel

### ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD December 18, 2008 IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) 

### AIR QUALITY STANDARDS CLEAN-UP: ) AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) PART243 ) ORDER OF THE BOARD (by A.S. Moore): R09-19 (Rulemaking

- Air) IEPAATTACHMENJ--



### On December I, 2008, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a proposal under the general rulemaking provisions ofSections 27 and 28 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (Act) (4151LCS 5/27,28 (2006)). Generally, the Agency proposes to amend Part 243 ofthe Board's airpollution regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code 243) to incorporate new federal air quality standards. The Board today acceptsthe Agency's proposal for hearing and directs the hearing officer to expeditiously schedule and proceed to hearing in this matter. SUMMARY OFPROPOSAL 

### In support ofits proposal, the Agency submitted a Statement ofReasons (Statement), a Technical SupportDocument (TSD), and proposed amendments (Prop.) to Part 243 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 243). The Agency concluded that, because the proposal does not impose new requirements and merely reflects current federal law and standards, "an analysis oftechnical feasibility and economic reasonableness is not appropriate. These standards are well known to industry and have been thoroughly discussed by the U.S. EPA [Unites States Environmental Protection Agency]." Statement at4; see 

### TSD at 3. The Agency states that the Board originally adopted Part 243 in orderto satisfy requirements under the Clean AirAct (CAA). Statement at 1-2. The Agency further states that "[t]his proposed rulemaking simply updates the existing regulation and is a result ofnew National AmbientAir Quality Standards {"NAAQS") adopted by the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA")." 

### !d. at I. First, the Agency proposesthatthe Board amend the existing Section 243.125 by incorporating the new eight-hour ozone standard and revoking the one-hour standard. Statement at 2, citing 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (Mar. 27, 2008), Prop. at 7; see 

### 35111. Adm. Code 243.125(a). The Agency also proposes a measurement method for determining compliance with the updated ozone standard. Statement at 2, citing 40 C.F.R. Part 50, Section 50.1, 40 C.F.R. Appendix P, 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (Mar. 27, 2008); see 

### Prop. at 7 (proposed Section 243.125(b)). Second, the Agency proposes to amend the existing Section 243.120, which addresses particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than orequal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM 10). 

### Statement at 3; see 

### 35lll. Adm. Code 211.4770 (defining PMw), TSD at 2. Specifically

# •. 2 the Agency proposes to revoke the "annual PM 10 standard which had been calculated as the annual arithmetic mean concentration ofSO micrograms per cubic meter." Statement at 3, citing 73 Fed. Reg. 6I 144 (Oct. I7, 2006). The Agency notes that USEPA maintained unchanged the maximum 24'hour PM10 concentration of I50 microgram per cubic meter, which is notto be exceeded more than onceperyear. Statement at 3, citing 73 Fed. Reg. 61 144 (Oct. 17, 2006); 

### see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 243.I20(a)(2). Third, in response to recent action by USEPA, the Agency proposes to add a Section 243.120a addressing particulate matterwith an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM2;). Prop. at 5; 

### see TSD at 2. TheAgency notes that USEPA has setthe annual arithmetic mean concentration ofPM2.s at I5 micrograms per cubic meter. Statement at 2, citing 62 Fed. Reg. 38652 (July I8, 1997);

### see Prop. at a5 (proposed Section 243.120a(a)(l)). The Agency further notes that USEPA has established a maximum 24-hour concentration of35 microgramspercubic meter, including methods for its calculation and for the determination offine particulate matter as PM2 5• Statement at 2, citing 40 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendices L, N; 73 Fed. Reg. 61144 (Oct. I7, 2006); 

### see Prop. at 5 (proposed Section 243.120a). Fourth, the Agency proposesto amend Section 243.107, which addresses reference conditions, "to reflectthat PM2 .5measurements should be based upon the actual ambient air volume measured atthe actual temperature and pressure at the monitoring site during the measurement period." Statement at 3, Prop. at 3 (proposed .Section 243.107). The Agency distinguishes thisproposed provision from otherairquality measurements, which provide for correction to a reference temperature and pressure. Statementat 3. 

### CONCLUSION The Board finds that the rulemaking proposal meets the content requirements of35 Ill. Adm. Code I02. The Board accepts this proposal for hearing and directs the assigned hearing officer to proceed to hearing underthe rulemaking provisions ofthe Act and the Board's procedural rules. 415 ILCS 5/27,28 (2006); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102. IT IS SO ORDERED. I, John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board adopted the above orderon December I8, 2008, by a vote of5-0.

John 

### T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board

### 'I ·' 

## ' IEPAATIACHMENT

# NO.L OIS 

# P CONTROL BOARD

December 19,2008 Jack Lavin, Director Department ofCommerce and Economic Opportunity 620 East Adams Street, S-6 Springfield, Illinois 62704

### ~ECEDVED ClERK'S OFFICE

### DEC~, 

## 192008

, STATE OF ILLINOIS ?oJJutJon Control Board

Re: Request for Economic Impact Study for: Air OualitvStandards Clean-Uo: Amendments to 35lll. Adm. Code Part243, (R09-10) DearDirectorLavin: 

### On December 18, 2008, the Boardaccepted aproposal forhearing in Air Ouality Standards Clean-Up: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. CodePart243, R09-19. Thisrulemaking was filed with the Board onDecember 1, 2008, bythe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency). Generally, the Agencyproposesto amend the Board's airpollutionregulationsto incorporate new federal airquality standards. I write to request thatyourDepartment conduct aneconomic impact studyconcerning this proposal. Since 1998, Section 27(b) ofthe Environmental ProtectionAct hasrequired the Board to: I) request that the Department ofCommerce andEconomic Opportunity (formerlythe DepartmentofCommerce and CommunityAffairs) conduct a studyofthe economic impact oftheproposedrules. The Departmentmay within 30 to 45 days ofsuch request produce a study ofthe economic impact oftheproposed rules. At aminimum, the economic impact study shall address a) economic, environmental, and public healthbenefits that maybe achievedthrough compliancewith the proposed rules, b)the effects ofthe proposedrules on employment levels, commercial productivity, the economic growthofsmall businesses with 100 orless employees, andthe State's overall economy, and c) thecost perunit ofpollutionreduced and the variabilityofcompanyrevenues expected to be used to implement the proposed rules; and (2) conduct at least onepublichearingon theeconomic impact ofthose rules. At least 20 daysbeforethe hearing, the Board shall notifythe public of the hearing and make the economic impact study, orthe Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity's explanation for not producing an economic impact study, available to thepublic

. .Suchpublichearingmaybe

# "

.. · 

# OIS 

# P UTION CONTROL BOARD

held simultaneouslyor as apart ofany Board hearing considering such new rules. 415 ILCS 5/27(o) (2006). The Board is in theprocess ofschedulinginitial hearings in this rulemaking. Althoughthere is no decision deadline in this rulemaking, the Board intends to**~ra;·¥n.JJ,,co.,"**

### 1 proceed expeditiouslywith this rulemaking, and asks that you respond to this request as soon as you convenientlycan. IfI, ormy staff, can provide you with any additional information, please let meknow. Thank you in advance for yourprompt response.

G. Tanner Girard Acting Chairman Pollution Control Board

cc: Warren Ribley, DCEO JohnT. Therriault, Assistant Clerk ofthe Board

## -. 

# )

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD December23, 2008 IN THEMATTER OF: ) ) 

### AIR QUALITY STANDARDS CLEAN-UP: ) AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) PART 243 ) R09-19 (Rulemaking- Air)



### NOTICE OFHEARINGS DATES, TIMES, AND LOCATIONS: FIRSTHEARING: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2009 1:00PM Madison CountyAdministrationBuilding CountyBoardRoom #203 157 N. Main St. Edwardsville, Illinois SECOND HEARING: TUESDAY, MARCH 10,2009 9:00AM Illinois Pollution ControlBoard ConferenceRoom 11-512 James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St. Chicago, illinois PURPOSE OFHEARINGS: Merit and Economic ATTENDING BOARD MEMBER: Andrea S. Moore HEARING OFFICER: Timothy

### J. Fox 

### HEARING OFFICER ORDER IEPA ATIACHMENT NO.-4-- 

### RECii:UVED

CLERK'S OFFICE



## DEC 23 2008 STATE OF IWNOIS Pollution Control 

### Board

OnDecember 1, 2008,the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed with the Board aproposalunderthe general rulemakingprovisions ofSections 27 and 28 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/27,28 (2006)). Generally, the Agency proposes to amendPart243 oftheBoard's airpollutionregulations (35 

### ill. Adm. Code 243) to incorporatenew federal airquality standards. The Boardwill conducttwo hearings in orderto allow theproponent and any other interestedparticipantsthe opportunityto present testimony on themerits and economic impact of

In compliance with the Amt'ricans with Dis.tbititks Acl and otht'r applicable federal and State laws, the hcnring will be m:ccssiblt" In indi\·idtmls with disabilities. Persons requiring auxiliary aids 31Hl services**shC~uld** l'Oiltll'tJohn Theniault, AssistantCk:Tk ofthe Bonrd, at I00 \Vc:'t Randol,ph St._. Suite 11 *500. Chicago, nlinois 6060'1_. al telephone number .3'12/81.$-6931, iil."i number 312/814-3669. or TDD number 312:'814-0032. five d:.ys prior to the hc:ning.

### I 2 

### the rulemakingproposaL At hearing, all personswho testifywill be sworn in and subject to questioning. The Board will also receive any testimony on any economic impact study (EelS) conducted bythe Department ofCommerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) on theproposed rules oron DCEO'sdecision not to perform an EelS. 

### In settinghearing dates, the Board has considered and accommodated its general workload and the numerous days ofrulemakinghearings now scheduled. As indicated above in the notice ofhearings, the first hearing will take place on Tuesday, February 

### 3, 2009, in Edwardsville, and the second hearingwill take place onTuesday, March 10,2009, in Chicago. 

### Pre-FilingDeadlines Participantswho intend to testify at hearingare urgedto pre-file their

### testimony and directed to serve anypre-filed testimonyon the hearing officer and all persons on the Service List. Before filing pre-filed testimony or any otherdocument with the Clerk, please checkwith the Board's Clerk to obtain the mostrecent versionofthe ServiceList. Participantswho wish totestify at the first hearing are directed to pre-file all oftheir testimony and anyrelated exhibits no laterthan Tuesday, January20, 2009. Pre-filing deadlines for the secondhearing will be determined at a later date. The "mailbox rule" at 35 

### TIL Adm. Code 101.300(b)(2) does not applyto the filing ofany pre-filed testimonyin thisproceeding. TheBoard'sClerkmustreceivethese documents before the close ofbusiness onthe specified dates. Although documents maybefiled electronically through the Clerk's Office On-Line (COOL) from the Board'sWeb site at www.ipcb.state.il.us, all electronic or approvedfax filings mustbereceivedbythe Clerk's Officeno laterthan4:30 PMon the due date. Anyquestions about electronic filing through COOL shouldbedirectedto the Clerk's Office at (312) 814-3629. 

### Order of

### Hearings Although Section 27 ofthe Act (415 ILCS 5/27 (2006)) does not limit the first hearingto the testimony ofthe proponent, the hearing officer intends to beginthe first hearing with the Agency'spresentationofits proposal. Forthe first hearing, abriefsummary oftestimony will be allowed ifa witness wishes to provideone before respondingto questions. All pre-filed testimony will beentered intotherecord as ifread. 

### See 35 Ill. Adm. c'ode 102.424(£). After the Agencyhas addressed all questions from otherparticipants, and iftime pennits before the conclusion ofthe first hearing, otherparticipants who havepre-filedtestimonymay then testify. Participantswho do notpre-filetestimonywill be allowed to testify as time permits afterthe conclusion ofpre-filed testimony and questions based uponit. Thehearing scheduled to beginMarch 10, 2009 will begin with participants who prefiled testimonyfor the first hearing and were notable to testify at that time. Participants who pre-filed testimonyfor the second hearingwill thenpresent that testimony. Participants who do notpre-file testimony willbe allowedto testify as timepermits afterthe conclusion ofpre-filed

### 3 testimony and questions based upon it. All testimonypre-filed for the second hearing will also be entered into the record as ifread. See 

### 35 Ill. Adm. Code I02.424(!). Anyparticipant who wishes to offer apublic comment at eitherhearing will be allowed to do so iftime permits at the closeofthe testimony and questions based upon it. TheBoard's procedural rules also include an opportunityto file post-hearing comments. See 

### 35 Ill.

### Adm. Code 102.108(b). Therules also provide that "[t]heBoard will accept written comments from anyperson concerningtheproposedregulations during the first noticeperiod." 35 Ill. 

### Adm. Code I

### 02.604. 

### Service and 

### Notice Lists The ServiceList for thisrulemakingis the list ofpersons who wishto participate actively in this proceeding and to receive not onlythe Board's opinions and orders but also otherfilings such as pre-filed testimony andpublic comments. TheNotice List includesparticipants who wish to receive onlythe Board's opinions and orders and hearing officer orders. Note thatinterestedpersonsmaynow request electronicnotice offilings byproviding their e-mail address through COOLunderthis docket numberR09-19. This electronicnotice includes notice ofthe filing ofdocuments that are nottypicallyprovided to persons ontheNotice List. In addition, COOLprovides links to documents filed with theBoard, and those documents· canbe viewed, downloaded, and printed free ofcharge as soon as they are posted to the Board's Web site. Formore information about the optionofelectronicnotice orCOOL,please consult eitherthe Board'sWeb site at www.ipcb.state.il.us orJohn Therriault, the Board'sAssistant Clerk, at (312) 814-3629.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

TimothyJ. Fox Hearing Officer IllinoisPollution ControlBoard I00 W. Randolph St., Suite 1!-500 Chicago, lllinois 60601 312-814-6085 foxt@ipcb.state.il.us

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009 

### r IEPA ATTACHMENT**NO.~** 

### BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243

TO: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Jllinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center I00 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### R09-19 (Rulemaking -Air)

NOTICE Matthew Dunn, Chief Division ofEnvironmental Enforcement Office ofthe Attorney General 69 West Washington St., Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 Virginia Yang, Deputy Legal Counsel Illinois DepartmentofNatural Resources One Natural Resources Way Dave Kolaz Jllinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 E. Adams St. Springfield, IL 62702 Springfield, IL 6270I PLEASE TAKENOTICE that Ihavetoday filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control Board the MOTION TO RESCHEDULE THE HEARING FORRULEMAKING R09-19. CURRENTLY SET FORFEBRUARY 3, 2009, AND SETA NEW SCHEDULE FOR PREFILING TESTIMONY and MOTION TO AMEND AGENCY PROPOSALFOR RULEMAKING R09-19 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.

DATED: January 20, 2009 I021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217.782.5544 217.782.9143 (TDD) ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY By:

### =-~~~--~---­ Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel

THIS FILINGIS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243 ) ) 

### ) ) 

### ) ) 

### R09-19 (Rulemaking -Air)



### MOTION TO RESCHEDULE THE HEARING FORRULEMAKING R09-19, CURRENTLY SET FORFEBRUARY 3, 2009, AND SETANEW SCHEDULE FORPREFILINGTESTIMONY

NOW COMES the Proponent, the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ("Illinois EPA" or "Agency"), by its attorney, and pursuantto 35 Ill. Adm. Code I01.500 and I02.402, moves thatthe Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") reschedule the hearing currently set for February 3, 2009. The Agency has no

concerns overthe date ofthe second hearing (which would now be the first hearing), currently scheduled for March 10,2009. Also, because ofthe need for a new hearing date, the Agency asks thatthe deadline for prefiling testimony be moved to a date commensurate with the new hearing date. In support ofits Motion, the Illinois EPA states as follows: On November 25, 2008, the Illinois EPA filed aproposal with the Board to amend Part 243, entitled "Clean-up Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 243." In a separate motion filed today, the Il.linois EPA moved the Board to allow amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. CodePart 243 ("Part 243"), to update the existingproposal to incorporate a new federal air quality standard for lead. The changes proposed include: further amending Section 243.126 to replace the existing standard for lead with a new one and amending

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

Section 243.108, Incorporations by Reference, to update the citation to the Code of Federal Regulations containing the new lead standard. Due to the proposed addition ofa new pollutant standard, the Illinois EPA asks the Board to reschedule the hearing currently scheduled for February 3, 2009, in Edwardsville, Illinois, to a future date so that the Illinois EPA mayprepare properly for the March 10, 2009, hearing. Furthermore, the Agency asks that the Board set a new schedule for the prefiling oftestimony. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the Illinois EPA moves that the Board reschedule the hearing currently scheduled for February 

### 3, 2009, to a future date and set a new schedule for the prefiling oftestimony.

DATED: January 20, 2009 

### I021 N. Grand Ave., East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217/782-5544 Respectfully submitted, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY By: Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel

### Electronic Filing -Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243 ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### R09-19 

### (Rulemaking -Air)

MOTION TOAMEND AGENCY PROPOSAL FOR RULEMAKING R09-19



### NOW COMES the Proponent, the ILLTNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ("Illinois EPA"), by its attorney, and pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code I01.500 and I02.402, moves thatthe lllinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") amend 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 243 ("Part 243")to modify Sections 243.108 and 243.126. In support ofits Motion, the Illinois EPA states as follows: On November 25, 2008, the lllinois EPA filed a proposal with the Board to amend Part243, entitled "Clean-up Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 243." Included in the presentmotion are amendments to 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code Part 243, which update the previousproposal to incorporate a new federal air quality standard for lead. The changes include: further amending Section 243.126to replace the existing standard with thenew

one and amending Section 243.108, Incorporations by Reference, to update the citation to the federal Code ofFederal Regulations containing the new lead standard. This amendment simply updates the previous proposal and is aresult ofa new National AmbientAir Quality Standard ("NAAQS") adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA"). Originally, the Subpart at issue was adopted to satisfy Clean AirAct ("CAA")requirements. Recent changes by the U.S.

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

EPA require amendments to the Illinois rules to reflect the new NAAQS for lead. This

new standard is set forth in arecent posting in the Federal Register, 

### NationalAmbientAir QualityStandardsforLead, 73 Fed. Reg. 66964 (November 12, 2008). The ambient air quality standard for lead is 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter, as determined as a maximum rolling three month average evaluated over a three yearperiod and measured by the atomic absorbtion spectrometry or equivalent method as described in 40 CFR 50 Appendices G and Q. Sources throughout the state could be affected by thisproposed amendment, but,

as stated, the proposal simply incorporates the addition ofa new federal standard which is currently applicablethroughout the nation. Nor does this amendment impose new requirements on sources. Rather, it merely updatesthe State's regulations to reflect current federal law and standards. The Jllinois EPA therefore believes that the proposed changes do not affectthe existing "Agency Analysis ofEconomic and Budgetary Effects," currently on file in rulemaking R09-19. This standard is well known to industry and has been thoroughly discussed by the U.S. EPA. Accordingly, the Illinois EPA recommends the acceptance by the Board ofthe following amendments to Part 243 to modify Sections 243.108 and 243.126: 

### I) This amendment updates the citation to thefederal Code of FederalRegulations to list the new sectionswhich measure ambient lead concentrations. Italso adds the new Federal Register listingwhich codifies the new standard for lead (copy attached).


### Section 243.108 

### Incorporations by 

### Reference The following materials are incorporated by reference. These incorporations do not include any later amendments or editions:

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

e) Lead, 

### 40 CFR 

### 50, Appendices G and 0 

### (2008). A(l(leREiiJt G (19&2), 43 fed. Reg. 4825&, Oeteeer5, 1978. as amendes at 44 feel Reg. 37915. J!lRe 29, 1979; Hi feel Reg. 41183, 8e(ltemeer 3, 1981. 

### k) National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead: Final Rule. 

### 40 CFR 

### 50. 51. 53, and 

### 58,73 Fed. Reg. 

### 66964 (November 

### 12. 2008). 

### 2) This amendmentreplaces the existing leadstandardwith the new leadstandard. It also replaces the existingmeasurement meathodwith the new method. Only the striking of the word "are" in subsection (a) existedin the originalproposal

Section 

### 243.126 Lead a) Standard. The ambient air quality standards for lead aREI its eeFRJ38HREis is are 

### 0.15 H micrograms per cubic meter, maximum rolling three month average evaluated over a three year period. aritfimetie meBA average ever a ealeREiar**~llarter.** b) Measurement Method. Fordeterminingconformance with the ambient air quality standards for lead and its compounds, lead and its compounds shall be measured by the atomic absorbtion spectrometry or equivalent method as described in 

### 40 CFR

### 50 Appendices

## AJ3fr. G and 0. as incorporated by reference in Section 

### 243.108 ofthis Part. (1982).

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the Illinois EPA moves that the Board amend Part

### 243 to amend Sections 

### 243.108 and 

### 243.126 as set forth herein.

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 20, 2009

DATED: January 20, 2009 1021 N. Grand Ave., East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 2171782-5544 Respectfully submitted, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY By: Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel

### ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD January 30, 2009 IN THEMATTER OF: ) ) 

### AIR QUALITY STANDARDS CLEAN-UP: ) AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) PART243 ) R09-19 (Rulemaking

- Air)

HEARING OFFICER ORDER IEPA ATTACHMENT

# NO.~ F'«ECEBVED

CLERK'S OFFICE



## JAN 302009 STATE OF IWNOIS ?ollution Control Board

OnDecember I, 2008, the lllinoisEnvironmental ProtectionAgency (Agency) filed with the Board aproposal underthe generalru!emakingprovisions ofSections 27 and 28 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/27, 28 (2006)). Generally, the Agency proposesto amendPart 243 oftheBoard's airpollution regulations (35 

### lll. Adm. Code 243) to incorporatenew federal airquality standards. In

### an orderdated December 18, 2008, theBoard acceptedtheproposal for hearing and directed the assignedhearing officerto proceed expeditiouslyto hearing 

### inthismatter. In 

### an orderand notice ofhearings dated December 23, 2008, the hearing officer scheduledtwo hearings: the first onTuesday, February 3, 2009, in Edwardsville, and the second on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, in Chicago. In

### the same order, the hearing officerdirected any participantwishingto testify at the first hearingto pre-filetheirtestimony and anyrelated exhibits no laterthan January 20, 2009. Motion to Reschedule Hearing On January 20, 2009, theAgencyfiled amotiontoreschedule the February 3,2009 hearing as well as thedeadline to pre-filetestimony (Mot. Reschedule). On the same date, the Agency also filed amotionto amendits originalru!emakingproposal (Mot. Amend). The Agency states that it seeks to amend "to updatethe existingproposal to incorporate a new federal air quality standardfor lead." Mot. Reschedule at 1;seeMot. Amend at 2-3. Specifically, the Agency seeks to amend Section243.126 oftheBoard's airpollution regulations "toreplacethe existing standard for lead." Mot. Reschedule at 1; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 243.126(a), Mot. Amend at 3. TheAgencyalso seeksto update a citationto the CodeofFederalRegulations to reflect the new lead standard. Mot. Reschedule at 1-2; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 243.108(e), Mot. Amendat3. With the proposed addition ofthis new language, theAgency effectivelyrequests that the Boardpostponethe date ofthe first hearing to March 10, 2009, which is now the scheduled date ofthe secondhearingin this docket. Mot. Reschedule at 1-2. The Agency also requests that the Board set a new deadline forpre-filingtestimony. 

### !d. Section 101.500(d) ofthe Board'sprocedural rulesprovides that,

In**~omplianl:e** with**1111~** Ameri::ans with Disabilities Aci and other applicable federnl und State [3\VS, the**h.:.~tring will~**  ac1;e$s:iiJ!C' to indivilhmls with**Jis~tbilitics.** Pcrsflns requiring auxiliaryaids and**se1vice~ shot~ld** **~onmct** John 'lherriaulr, :\ssistant Clerk ofthe**Ho::~rd,** :1t I 00 West Randolph St., Suite 11 <'00, C:hicago, lllinoi:; (j()()0'!. nLLCkphonc numhcr _\12!81-1.·69.31, fax numbl"T 311:'8Jtl<l669. orTDD numhcr**312/~** 14-6!_).\2.**livl~** days prior to**th~** hc.·uing.2 [ w]ithin 14 days after serviceofa motion, apartymayfile a responseto the motion. Ifno response is filed, the partywill be deemed to havewaived objection to the granting ofthe motion, but the waiver ofobjection does not bindthe Board orthe hearing officerin its disposition ofthemotion. Unlessundue delay or material prejudice would result, neither the Board northe hearing officerwill grant any motion before expiration ofthe 14 dayresponseperiod exceptin deadline drivenproceedings where no waiverhas been filed. Parties mayrequest that the Board grant more time to respondbyfiling a motion for extension of time. TheAgencyfiled itsmotion to reschedule at thedeadline for pre-filing testimony, which felll4 days before the scheduled hearing date. 

### !d. Underthesecircumstances, allowing a 14-day responseperiodto runmayrequire the Agencyandotherparticipants to prepareprematurelyor unnecessarily for the originally-scheduled hearing date. Accordingly, allowing the 14-day responseperiod to runwould resultinundue delay in addressingtheAgency'smotion, sothe hearingofficerwill rule onthe motionto reschedule. TheAgency's motionto rescheduleis granted. Thefirst hearing in thisproceedingwill takeplaceonthe date, time, and location originally scheduled for the first hearing: Tuesday, March 10,2009,at 9:00AM intheBoard'sConference Room 11-512 ofthe James 

### R. Thompson Center at 100 W. Randolph in Chicago. Among otherbusiness at the hearing onMarch 10, 2009, the Board intends to schedule a secondhearing and set a deadline for pre-filing testimony for it. 

### Pre-FilingDeadlines Participants who intend to testify at thehearing onMarch 10, 2009 are urged to pre-file theirtestimonyand directed to serve anypre-filedtestimonyonthehearing officer and all persons on the Service List Before filing pre-filed testimony or any otherdocument withthe Board's Clerk, please checkwiththeClerkto obtainthemostrecent versionofthe ServiceList. Participants who wish to pre-file testimonyforthe March 10, 2009, hearing are directed topre-file all oftheirtestimony and anyrelated exhibits no laterthan Tuesday, February24, 2009. The "mailbox rule" at 35 

### III. Adm. Code 101.300(b)(2) does not applyto the filing ofany pre-filedtestimonyinthisproceeding. TheBoard's Clerkmustreceivethesedocumentsbefore the closeofbusiness on the specified dates. Although documents maybefiled electronically throughthe Clerk's Office On-Line (COOL) from theBoard's Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us, all electronic or approved fax filings mustbereceivedbythe Clerk's Office no later than4:30 PMon the due date. Any questions aboutelectronic filing through COOLshouldbe directedto the Clerk's Office at (312) 814-3629. 

### Order of

### Hearings As notedinthe original notice ofhearings, Section 27 oftheAct (415 ILCS 5/27 (2006)) does not limit the first hearingto thetestimonyoftheproponent, but thehearing officerintends tobeginthe first hearing with theAgency'spresentation as the proponent. Forthe first hearing, a briefsummaryoftestimonywill be allowed ifa witness wishes to provide one before3 

### responding to**question~.** 

### All pre-filedtestimonywillbe entered into the record as ifread. 

### See 35 lll. 

### Adm. Code 102.424(f). Afterthe Agencyhas addressed all questions from otherparticipants, andiftimepermits beforetheconclusion ofthe first hearing, other participantswho have pre-filedtestimonymay then testify. Participants who do notpre-file testimonywill be allowed to testify as timepennits after the conclusion ofpre-filedtestimony and the questions based upon it. Anyparticipant who wishes to offer apublic comment at eitherhearingwill be allowed to do so iftimepermits at the close ofthetestimony and questions based upon it. TheBoard's procedural rules also include an opportunityto file post-hearing comments. 

### See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.108(b). Therules also providethat "[t]heBoardwill accept written comments [rom anyperson concerning the proposed regulations during the first notice period." 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.604. 

### Service and 

### Notice**List~** 

### The Service List for this rulemakingis the listofpersons who wishto participate actively in this proceeding andto receive not only the Board's opinions and ordersbut also other filings suchas pre-filed testimony and public comments. TheNotice Listincludes participantswho wish to receive onlytheBoard'sopinions and ordersand hearing officerorders. Notethat interested persons maynow request electronic notice offilings byproviding their e-mail address through COOL underthis docket numberR09-19. This electronicnotice includesnoticeofthe filing ofdocumentsthatare nottypicallyprovided to persons ontheNotice List. In 

### addition, COOLprovides links to documents filed with the Board, andthose documents canbe viewed, downloaded, and printed free ofcharge as soon as they are postedto the Board's Web site. Formore information about the option ofelectronic notice orCOOL, please consult eitherthe Board'sWeb site at www.ipcb.state.il.us orJohn Therriault, the Board'sAssistant Clerk, at (312) 814-3629.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

TimothyJ. Fox Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 100W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 312-814-6085 foxt@ipcb.state.il.us

### ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD February 19, 2009 IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) 

### AIR QUALITY STANDARDS CLEAN-UP: ) AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) PART 243 ) ORDER OF THEBOARD (byA.S. Moore): R09-19 (Rulemaking- Air) IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.__]



### On January 20, 2009, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a motion to amend its rulemaking proposal (Mot.). 1 

### The Agency originally filed this proposal on December I, 2008, and the Board accepted it for hearing in an order dated December 18, 2008. Generally, the Agency proposes to amend Part 243 ofthe Board's air pollution regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code 243) to incorporate new federal air quality standards. 

### MOTION TOAMEND The Agency states that it moves to amend its proposal in orderto include in Part 243 a newNational AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead recently adopted by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Mot. at 1, citing 73 Fed. Reg. 66964 (Nov. 12, 2008) (final rule). Specifically, the Agency seeks to amend its original proposal by adding languagethat replaces the existing air quality standard for lead with the new NAAQS of"O.l5 micrograms per cubic meter, as determined as a maximum rolling three month average evaluated over a three yearperiod." Mot. at 2; 

### see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 243.126(a), Mot. at 3. The Agency also proposes to amend its proposal by adding language providing that measurements by the atomic absorption spectrometry or equivalent method described in the Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) must be used to determine compliance with the new standard. Mot. at 2, citing 40 C.F.R. 50 Appendices G, Q; 35111. Adm. Code 243.126(b), Mot. at 3. Finally, the Agency also seeks to amend its original proposal by including in materials incorporated byreference a citation to the provisions ofthe CFR codifying the new standard. Mot. at 2; 

### see 40 C.F.R. 50, 51, 53, 58 (National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead; Final Rule); 73 Fed. Reg. 66964 (Nov. 12, 2008); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 243.1 08; Mot. at 3 (proposing new subsection 243.108(k)). The Agency argues that, while the proposed amendment may affect sourcesthroughout the state, it "simply incorporates the addition ofa new federal standard which is currently applicable throughout the nation." Mot. at 2. The Agency further argues that the proposed

1 

### Also on January 20,2009,the Agency filed a motion to reschedule the first hearing, which the Board had set to take place on Tuesday, February 3, 2009. The Agency effectively requested thatthe Board postpone the first hearingto Tuesday, March 1 0, 2009, which bad been the scheduled date ofthe second bearing. In an order dated January 30. 2009, the bearing officer granted the Agency's motion and rescheduled the hearing as requested.2 

### amendment imposes no new requirements on sources, has been thoroughly analyzed in the course ofits adoption by USEPA, and "is well known to industry." ld. DISCUSSION 

### Section I0I.500(d) ofthe Board's procedural rules provides in pertinentpartthat, "[w)ithin 14 days after serviceofa motion, a party may file a response to the motion. lfno response is filed, the party will be deemed to have waived objection to the granting ofthe motion, but the waiver ofobjection does not bind the Board orthe hearing officer in its disposition ofthe motion." 35 Ill. Adm. Code I

### 01 .500(d). The Board has received no response to theAgency's motionto amend its rulemaking proposal. The Board grants the Agency's motion to amend and accepts the Agency's amendments to its rulemakingproposal. As provided in the hearing officerorder ofJanuary 30, 2009, the Board will conduct its first hearing on the Agency's amended proposal on Tuesday, March I

### 0, 2009, 

### in Chicago. IT IS SO ORDERED. I, John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk ofthe lllinois Pollution Control Board, certifythat the Board adopted the above order on February 19, 2009, by a vote of5-0.

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board

### ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD March I0, 2009 INTHEMATTER OF: ) ) AIR QUALITY STANDARDS CLEAN-UP: ) AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL.ADM. CODE ) PART243 ) R09-19 (Rulemaking • Air)



### NOTICE OFHEARING DATE. TIME, AND LOCATION: TUESDAY, APRIL 28,2009 2:00PM IllinoisPollution ControlBoard Conference Room,FirstFloor 1021 N. Grand Ave. East (North Entrance) Springfield, TI!inois PURPOSE OFHEARING: Merit andEconomic ATTENDINGBOARDMEMBER: Andrea S. Moore HEARING OFFICER: Timothy

### J. Fox 

### HEARINGOFFICERORDER IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.• 

### RECEIVED

CLERK'S OFFICE



## MAR I02009 STATE OF ILLINOIS 

### Pollution Control Board

On December I, 2008, theIllinoisEnvironmental ProtectionAgency(Agency) filed a proposal underthe general rulemakingprovisions ofSections27 and 28 oftheEnvironmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/27, 28 (2006)). Generally, the Agencyproposedto amendPart243 ofthe Board's airpollution regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code 243) to incorporatenew federal airquality standards. In 

### anorder datedDecember 18, 2008, theBoardacceptedtheproposal anddirected thehearing officertoproceed to hearing. TheBoard

### has nowheld one hearing onthe Agency'sproposal. Thathearingtookplace onTuesday, March 10, 2009, 

### in Chicago. As requiredbytheAct, the Boardwill conduct a secondhearing at thedate, time, and locationindicated above. 

### Pre-FilingDeadline Participantswhointendto testify at thishearingareurgedto pre-file theirtestimony and are directed to serve anypre-filedtestimonyonthehearingofficerandallpersons onthe Service

In compliance with the An"Jericans with Disubilities Act 11nd otherapplicable fedcrnl and St3.te laws, tile.' hearing will be accessible to i11dividuals with disabilities. Persons requiring auxiliary Dids and services $hould comactJohn 111erriault,**As~istnnt**Clerk ofthe Board, at 100 West RondQlph St., Suite 11**~500.** Chicago, nlinois 60601. nt telephone number 312/814-6931, fa.'\ number 312i814-3669. orTDD number 31 2/814-6032. five days prior tothe het1ring.

### 2 List. Before filing pre-filedtestimony or any other document with the Clerk, please checkwith the Board'sClerk to obtainthemostrecentversion ofthe ServiceList. Anyparticipants wishing to pre-file testimonyfor this hearing are directed to pre-file all oftheirtestimony and any related exhibits no laterthan Tuesday, Aprill4, 2009. The "mailbox rule" at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(b)(2) does not apply to the filing ofanypre-filed testimony for this hearing. The Board's Clerkmustreceive these documents before the close ofbusiness on Aprill4, 2009. Although documents maybe filed electronicallythrough the Clerk's Office On-Line (COOL) from the Board's Web site atwww.ipcb.state.il.us, all electronic orapproved fax filings must bereceivedbythe Clerk's Office no laterthan 4:30PMon Aprill4, 2009. Any questions about electronic filing through COOLshould be directed to the Clerk's Office at (312) 814-3629. Order ofHearing TheBoardwill determinetheorder for hearingtestimonyofwitnesses whoprefile testimony onApril 28, 2009 before the hearingbegins. Pre-filed testimonywillbeenteredinto the record as ifread. 

### See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.424(f). A briefsummary oftestimony will be allowedifawitnesswishes to provideonebefore respondingto questions. Participantswho do notpre-file testimonyfor this hearingwillbe allowedto testify as time permits afterthe conclusion ofpre-filed testimony and questionsbaseduponit. Athearing, all personswho testifywillbesworn in and subjectto questioning. Anyparticipantwho wishesto offer apublic commentwillbe allowed to do so

### iftime permits at the closeofthe testimony and questionsbasedupon it. TheBoard'sproceduralrules also include anopportunityto file post-hearingcomments. 

### See 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code 102.108(b). Therules also provide that "[t]heBoardwill acceptwrittencomments from anyperson concerningtheproposed regulations during the first noticeperiod." 35 Ill. 

### Adm. Code 102.604. Service and NoticeLists The Service List forthisrulemakingisthe list ofpersonswho wish toparticipate actively in this proceeding and receivenot onlytheBoard's opinions and ordersbut also otherfilings such as pre-filed testimony andpublic comments. TheNotice Listincludesparticipantswho wishto receive onlytheBoard'sopinions and orders andhearingofficerorders. Notethat interestedpersons may now request electronicnoticeoffilings byproviding their e-mail address through COOLunderthis docket numberR09-19. This electronic notice includesnotice ofthefiling ofdocumentsthat are not typicallyprovidedto persons on the Notice List. In 

### addition, COOLprovides linksto documents filed withtheBoard, and those documents canbeviewed, downloaded, andprinted free ofcharge as soon as they are postedto theBoard's Web site. Formore informationaboutthe optionofelectronic notice orCOOL, please consult eitherthe Board's Web site atwww.ipcb.state.il.us orJohnTherriault,theBoard's Assistant Clerk, at (312) 814-3629.

### ITIS SO ORDERED. 

### 3

· Timothy

### J. Fox

Hearing Officer IllinoisPollution ControlBoard 100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, illinois 6060I 312-814-6085 foxt@ipcb.state.il.us1

### ·~ \EPA ATTACHMENT NO.-·

1 BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 2 MARCH 10, 2009 3 IN THE MATTER OF: 4 AIR QUALITY STANDARDS CLEAN-UP: 5 AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE R09-19 PART 243 I (Rulemaking-Airl 

### 6 I 7 8 9 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had before the 10 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD held on March 10, 11 2009, at 9:00 o'clock a.m. at the Thompson Center, 12 Room 11-512, Chicago, Illinois. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 241 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD: 3 MR. TIMOTHY J. FOX, Hearing Officer 4 MS. ANDREAS. MOORE, Member 5 MR. ANAND RAO, Senior Environmental Scientist 6 7 8 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 9 1021 North Grand Avenue East 10 P.O. Box 19276 11 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 12 MR. ROBERT J. KALEEL, Manager, Bureau of Air 13 MR. CHARLES E. MATOESIAN, Assistant Counsel 14 15 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP 16 215 East Adams Street 17 Springfield, Illinois 62701 18 MR. ALEC M. DAVIS 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Good morning everyone, and welcome to this Illinois Pollution Control Board hearing. My name is Tim Fox, and I'm the hearing officer for this Rulemaking proceeding entitled, In The Matter of Clean-Up, Amendments to 35 Illinois Administrative Code, Part 243. Also present from the Board today are at my immediate right, Board Member Andrea S. Moore, the lead Board Member for this rulemaking. And at my left Anand Rao of the technical staff. The Board docket number is R09-19. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency filed this proposal on December 1, 2008, and in an order dated December 18, 2008, the Board accepted the proposal for hearing. On January 20, 2009, IEPA filed a motion to amend its rulemaking proposal. And in an order dated February 19, 2009, the Board granted that motion. Today we are holding the first hearing on this amended rulemaking proposal. 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

### 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Originally, the first hearing had been scheduled to take place on February 3, 2009, with the second hearing scheduled to take place here on March lOth. On January 20, however, the Agency, in addition to its motion to amend the rulemaking proposal, filed a motion to reschedule that first hearing. And on January 30, 2009, a hearing officer order granted that motion and rescheduled the first hearing from February 3rd to today, March lOth. That order did not address the schedule for a second hearing, but as indicated, it's expected that the participants here today will address that issue before adjourning this hearing. For the first hearing, the Board

on March 3, 2009, received pre-filed testimony from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency by Mr. Robert Kaleel, who, of course, is present here today. Also on March 3, the Board received a motion to file Mr. Kaleel's testimony instanter. Does Mr. Davis or anyone else wish to be heard on 41 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 

### 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 that motion? Although Mr. Davis indicates he does not, while the Board's rules do allow for 14 days to respond, undue delay would result from allowing that period to
run. Mr. Kaleel is present, and I suspect he will be sworn in to take any questions very soon, and that motion and the testimony

were served on the entities on the service list as the testimony is relatively brief in length, I will grant that motion to file the testimony instanter and accept it into the record at this proceeding. No other participant has pre-filed testimony for this hearing. So naturally, we will begin with the testimony by Mr. Kaleel which is now in the record, and then proceed to questions that any participants may have on the basis of that testimony. After those questions, we can turn to any witness who did not pre-file testimony but would like to testify. While

no one else appears in the room, other than Mr. Davis and the representatives of the Agency, there is a sheet at the door on 51 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 which any person -- at the end of this head table near the door at which any person who would like to do so, can indicate their interest in testifying today. This proceeding is, of course, governed by the Board 1 s procedural rules, and all information that is relevant and that is not repetitious or privileged will be admitted into record. Please note any question posed today by the Board or its staff are intended solely to develop a clear and complete record, and reflect no prejudgment or predetermining about the substance of the Agency's proposal. For the court reporter, please speak loudly. We do have a fan that may make it a little more difficult to be heard. That, I'm sure, will be appreciated so we can have the clearest possible transcript. Any questions at all about procedures or background? Great. Mr. Matoesian, we're ready to turn to the Agency. Did you or Mr. Kaleel wish to make any quick introduction or summary this morning? 61 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. MATOESIAN: Just briefly. I'm Charles Matoesian, appearing for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency on this matter of clean-up of part 243. This clean-up simply incorporates new federal standards into our rule which are currently applicable throughout the nation, and briefly we add a new PM2.5 standard. We add

a new 8-hour ozone standard. We revoke the existing 1-hour ozone standard, and we
are modifying the PM10 ozone standard, as well as modifying the Lead standard. We also have a few clean-up matters. We proceeded along, since the part was open, and with that I can turn things over to Mr. Robert Kaleel, manager of the Air Quality Section in the Bureau Of Air, who will provide testimony here today. HEARING OFFICER FOX: Mr. Matoesian and Mr. Kaleel, I'm sure, you know, pre-filed testimony is admitted in the record as if read at 102.4F of the procedural rules. If it's a good time, we can swear you in too so you can proceed to 71 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 

### 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 give any kind of summary o.r any other introduction he might like to provide. MR. KALEEL: I have no opening statement. HEARING OFFICER FOX: Very good. I'm presuming you would be willing to go to questions then? Mr. Davis, you are the single nonagency entity, other than the Board, present, so certainly it's an opportune time to ask any questions that you might wish to. MR. DAVIS: Thank you. My name is Alex Davis. I'm here on behalf of the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group. I have a few questions that I'd like to ask you today, Mr. Kaleel. MR. KALEEL: Okay. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Kaleel, in the Agency's filings of your testimony, the intent of the Agency is to have the state's Air Quality Standards be the same in substance to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM 2.5; is that a 81 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 correct understanding? MR. KALEEL: That's correct. MR. DAVIS: The technical support document provides a lot of summary of the characteristics and health impacts of ozone particulate matter and lead, and generally presents a synopsis of the bases for the U.S. EPA setting the National Air Quality Standards for these pollutants. Has the Agency performed an analysis or investigation of the documents that the 

### u.s. EPA used to establish the levels and formed the standards in order to determine if a different level should be set in Illinois, or is it the policy of the Agency to rely upon the expertise of the U.S. EPA in setting the air quality standards in Illinois? MR. KALEEL: We have not done an independent review of the health effect studies. We do rely upon the U.S. EPA, their experts, to develop those proposals, and what we're here to do today is to adopt the federal standards. 91 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Mr. Davis, I neglected to mention that in addition to his pre-filed testimony, Mr. Kaleel did submit into the record a revised technical support document in this proceeding/ and I'm assuming that it's that revised document that you are referring to? MR. DAVIS: That is what I was referring to. HEARING OFFICER FOX: Thank you for letting me interrupt. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Kaleel, in the case of the ozone standards that you are proposing, are you aware that the proposal is subject to an appeal that could result in the standard being changed? MR. KALEEL: We are aware that the

ozone standard is subject to

-- and PM2.5

are subject to legal action. MR. DAVIS: If either of these proposals were changed, would the Agency 40CRF rule begin to incorporate those changes? MR. KALEEL: Yes, it would. 101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

### 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. DAVIS: The Agency's proposed revisions -- in the proposed revisions,

no mention is made to designate the proposed standard as being primary or secondary standards. The proposed standards are identical for primary and secondary standards. If that were to change as a result of ongoing appeals, for example, would the Agency make such a designation in this part 243 or is it the intent of the Agency to only establish a primary or health base standard? MR. KALEEL: I think it would be our intent to propose to make secondary standards consistent with U.S. EPA's Air Quality Standards. As you noted, in most cases, if not all cases, in this proposal, the primary standard and the secondary standard are identical. There's no need to do that at this point. MR. DAVIS: Okay. The Agency's proposed revisions do not duplicate the language of the U.S. EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standard, but seem to capture 111 

### 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 

### 22 23 24 the substance. Why doesn't the Agency use the same language as the federal standard so as to avoid any possible misinterpretation

or confusion? MR. KALEEL: Excuse me for just a second. I think our intent was to capture the essence of the Air Quality Standard. I'm not aware of specific instances where the language is different. If you have some information in that regard MR. DAVIS: I might be able to draw your attention to a few instances that I'm aware of. I think I'll get to that in a minute, if that's all right. The Agency is proposing to delete the 1-hour ozone standard and to adopt the 200 federal ozone standard, but Part 243 has never included the 1997 ozone standard, which is currently the subject of rulemaking before the Board and state implementation plans that are being developed by the Agency. Why didn't the Agency propose to include the 1997 ozone standard in the Part 243 rules? 121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. KALEEL: Well, I guess our preference would have been to adopt the 1997 standard shortly after 1997. We didn't make such a· proposal. As you noted, current

ozone standards are under legal challenge. The 1997 standards were under legal challenge for many years, and at the point that those standards were successfully resolved legally, we are aware that U.S. EPA

was already under a deadline to revise those standards yet again. So it's a little bit of a game of catch-up. The 1-hour standards

are federal standards. We believe they apply to Illinois, even if they are not included in Part 243, and we have an obligation under federal law to address those standards, even if they are not contained in Part 243. So I think it would be a mistake to go back and adopt the 1-hour standard when they no longer exist at the federal level. MR. DAVIS: Thank you. I now have

some questions that are focused directly at the contents of the proposal. It might be 131 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 useful to refer to that. In the proposed section 243.120, that would be the PM10, the proposal says in part, "That the ambient air quality standard for PM10 is a maximum 24-hour concentration of 150 micrograms per cubic meter.'' Does this language mean that the standard is violated if the Agency performs for a single 24-hour period at a value greater than 150 micrograms per cubic meter? MR. KALEEL: That is not in keeping with the form of the standard. I believe the form of the standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter not to be exceeded more than

once per year. MR. DAVIS: I see. And that I think is similar to the federal Ambient Air Quality Standard language. I guess I can -- can I enter that as an exhibit if I were to distribute the Code of rederal Regulations .for reference? HEARING OFFICER E"OX: Certainly. If you've got copies of that, you can 141 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 distribute, we can take that up. MR. DAVIS: This would be Title 40, Sections 50.4 through 50.15, which contain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the various pollutants. HEARING OFFICER FOX: Mr. Davis, I'll take your circulation of that as a motion to admit this as Hearing Exhibit 1. Is that a fair assessment? MR. DAVIS: That would be, exactly. HEARING OFFICER FOX: Does the Agency wish to be heard on the motion to admit this

as Exhibit 1? MR. MATOESIAN: No, thank you. HEARING OFFICER FOX: Very good. It will be marked as Exhibit 1, the citation to the Code of Federal Regulations as Mr. Davis had indicated. MR. DAVIS: The PM10 standard is contained in Section 50.6, and as you indicated, it says there in subsection A, the number of days per calendar year is a single exceedance. And I was just curious to know why or if there was a reason that 151 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the Agency doesn't explicitly include this

or similar language in the standard it's proposing? MR. KALEEL: I don't think we're opposed to do doing that. I would note that the language that you just distributed also makes reference to Appendix K, as does our proposal, and I think the effect of Appendix K would do exact the same thing. It identifies that the first exceedance of 150 micrograms per cubic meter does not constitute a violation and takes a second exceedance. I think our proposal does the

same thing, but we're not opposed to some clarifying language if it's determined that's necessary. MR. DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. Similarly, with regard to the PM5 standard, that would be the 243.20A, and for comparison's sake, is 40CFR,40E.7, referring these two, comparing these two sections, the Agency's proposed standard refers to 50 micrograms per cubic meter, and the federal standard is 161 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter. That's just one indication that was pointed out to

me. A second being that the standard is described as being met in the federal standard when the annual arithmetical mean concentration is determined in accordance with the Appendix N, this part is less than 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter. This information isn't included or at least it's not immediately obvious whether or not the reference to Appendix N is applicable to both the 24-hour and the annual standards in the proposal or to me at least it's not immediately evident that this is the case. Is that the intent? MR. KALEEL: The intent is for Appendix N to apply to both standards, and that is consistent with the language in the federal standard that you have supplied. MR. DAVIS: Thank you. Turning our attention to the 8-hour ozone standard contained MEMBER RAO: Mr. Davis, before you go to that

-- Mr. Kaleel, you didn't 171 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 respond to the issue of 15.0

-- MR. DAVIS: Yes, you are right. Thank you. MEMBER RAO: micrograms per cubic meter. MR. KALEEL: The 15.0, that could conceivably have a substantive effect, and I would agree that the value should be 15.0. In prior air quality standards there's frequently some discussion or some process to deal with rounding. So it's conceivable that 15 micrograms could be interpreted than 15.0. So I think we probably would intend to amend that to make it look at 15.0. MEMBER RAO: Just one more. This is

more of a procedural issue. For PM2.5 you

are given a section number of 243.120A, and

as far as I can tell we have not seen sections broken up in terms of A, B, and C. Would it be acceptable to the Agency if we just make it 243.121? MR. KALEEL: I think we'd want to consider that. We noticed that 243.121 is listed as repealed with an effective date of 181 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1/22. I suspect our attorneys were trying not to use the same section number, but I think I'd want to consult with your attorneys. MEMBER RAO: Because we may have

some J-CAR issues with that numbering system.MR. KALEEL: I appreciate you pointing that out, and I think we will take

a look at that matter. MEMBER RAO: Thank you. MR. DAVIS: Turning our attention to the 8-hour ozone standard contained in the 243.125, and similarly in Section 50.10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, I was pointing out the difference that the Agency's proposal states that the standard is based on the fourth highest 8-hour daily value recorded in a calendar year. But unlike the federal standard, it doesn't explain that compliance is based on the three-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour averages. And I have to apologize because I didn't see 191 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 that. MR. KALEEL: Again, I guess we'd want to take a look specifically at the language that you are pointing to. It is

our intent to match up the state air quality standard with the federal air standard? If there's some sloppiness on that, I do apologize, but we do intend for the state standards to match the federal standards. MR. DAVIS: Okay. If I could take a minute here. HEARING OFFICER FOX: That's just fine, Mr. Davis. Please go ahead. MR. DAVIS: Okay, thank you. HEARING OFFICER FOX: Please go ahead, if you have more questions, Mr. Davis. MR. DAVIS: A few more. With regard to the lead standard, this would be in the amended proposal, Section 243.126. Initially I'd like to indicate that under subsection A you referred to air quality standard for lead, and I suspected this was the case. But I wanted to confirm that there was not an 201 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 intent to have more than one standard. My question that immediately came to mind was that there was going to be a primary and secondary or whether it was just the single standard in this proposal; is that correct? MR. KALEEL: I believe there is just

a single standard. MR. DAVIS: Okay. I'd also like to indicate that as you stated, I believe it

was in regard to the PM10 standard, referred to the appendix that referenced how that standard was to be met, yet in this lead standard, that is not included, this is an Appendix R, which is the method for interpreting the standard. Is there a
reason the Agency chose not to explicitly refer to this Appendix R? And that would not be in the CFR's I distributed because that lead standard was published after the CFR's. So we would have to turn to your filing of the federal register for that citation. Federal register, volume 73, page 60752. This was the Agency's filing accompanied the amendment. 211 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 HEARING OFFICER FOX: That was 67052? MR. DAVIS: Correct. And the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standard for lead are contained in Section 50.16. And in subsection B of that section, it's on the left-hand column about three inches down, it's subsection B, and it describes the use of Appendix R to determine whether or not the standard is met. And I guess my question is, is there a

reason that that appendix R, the reference to appendix R was not included in the proposed standard? MR. KALEEL: I'm not aware of a

reason why that was excluded. I think I appreciate you pointing that out. We'll go back and take a look at that and see if an amendment is appropriate. MR. DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. I have just a few more -- a few questions, and these are along the same vain. However, these are in reference to some of the standards that aren't being explicitly overridden. For example, the sulfur dioxide 221 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 standard, which is contained in 243.122, contains substantial differences between the current state standard and the U.S. EPA standard. Would the Agency be considering reviewing standard other than those it's explicitly updated to make them consistent with the federal standards? MR. KALEEL: We are not proposing any changes for sulfur dioxide. We are trying to get caught up, if you will, with changes for the other standards that we have noted. The S02 standard that you have referred to has existed at the state level for many years. It's not our intent to revise that at this time. MR. DAVIS: The Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Standard, perhaps contained in 243.123, is expressed in parts per million where in comparison to 50.8 of the CFR is a standard in

-- excuse me one second

-- 40CFR 50.8 is the standard for carbon monoxide is in parts per million, and the Agency standard is in milligrams per cubic meter. The federal standard also provides data 231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 summary conventions and rounding conventions that are used when comparing and monitoring data for the level of the standard. Would the Agency consider making notary changes to better adapt its standard to the federal NAAQS, National Air Quality Standards, in order to avoid possible confusion? MR. KALEEL: Again, it's not our intent to revise the carbon monoxide standard. I noted that in the Board's version of 243.123 for carbon monoxide both milligrams per cubic meter and parts per million are listed, and at least my quick read here on the CFR language that you distributed, U.S. EPA does it the same way. Different ones are parenthetical, but both units are listed, both parts per million and milligrams per cubic meter, and in both parts of the rule. I guess I don't understand why there would be any need to revise anything since both are listed. Having said that, we are not proposing any changes for carbon monoxide. It's not our intent to do so. 241 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. DAVIS: I suspect your answer might be similar for nitrogen dioxide? MR. KALEEL: You suspect correctly. We are not making changes to nitrogen dioxide. These quality levels have existed for a very long time, and at such time U.S. EPA revises those standards, we will revisit those, but we don't intend to do those at this time. MEMBER RAO: May I ask a follow-up question, Mr. Kaleel, just for the record? Could you clarify whether the Agency has looked at these standards that Mr. Davis questioned you about to see if there were any substantive changes at the federal level that we need to make at the state level? MR. KALEEL: To be honest, we've not spent any time on the older standards. I don't believe, with the exception of sulfur dioxide, I don't believe just from my own knowledge of these standards that are there substantive differences. The sulfur dioxide, I believe there's a difference in determining compliance between the state 251 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 level and the federal level, and I think we believe that the standard should remain the way we've had it listed for at least 20 years. Maybe longer than that. MEMBER RAO: And you had no problems with the U.S. EPA in terms of how the state is implementing those sulfur dioxides? MR. KALEEL: I believe our sulfur dioxide, the way it is, is slightly more stringent than the U.S. EPA standard. I also point out that there are no places in Illinois that's an issue. All of Illinois is in attainment with both the state form of the standard and the federal form of the standard. So we are not really interested in proposing a change to that at this time. MR. DAVIS: Thank you. That's it for me.HEARING OFFICER FOX: No further questions, Mr. Davis? MR. DAVIS: No. Thank you. HEARING OFFICER FOX: Mr. Davis has indicated that he is has completed his questions, and both Board Member Moore and 261 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mr. Rao have indicated they have no questions based on that testimony. So it is appropriate, Mr. Kaleel, to thank you for your preparation of that testimony and time in testifying today. If everyone is prepared to do so, why don't we go off the record briefly and speak about procedural issues for just a moment or two. (Whereupon, a discussion was had off the record.) HEARING OFFICER FOX: In going off the record and discussing procedural matters, participants have agreed to schedule a second hearing in this rulemaking to take place at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 2009, in Springfield at the Pollution Control Board offices. With the deadline of Tuesday, April 14, 2009, for pre-filing testimony. And it's the Board's intent that the mailbox rule would not apply, and the pre-filed testimony would be in the Board's offices on the 14th. In addition, anyone with the 271 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 

### 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 clerk of Board, those may be made electronically through the Board's clerk's office on-line or call and any questions about that procedure can be directed to John Therriault, T-H-E-R-R-I-A-U-L-T, who is the Board's assistant clerk. Those filings must also be served on the hearing officer and on those persons on the service list as well. Copies of the transcript of today's hearing should be available in about eight business days, by Friday March 20th, and very soon after that, the transcript would be posted to the Board's website www.ipcb.state.il.us. under this docket number R09-19. If any anybody has questions regarding procedural aspects of this rulemaking, they may reach me through the information on the Board's site just provided. Any other matters that need to be addressed at this time? Again, thanks to all of you for your time, effort and travel from Springfield. We're adjourned, and

we look forward to seeing you in Springfield 281 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 29

on the 28th of April.1 STATE OF ILLINOIS 2 

### ss. 3 COUNTY OF COOK 4 5 6 I, DENISE A. ANDRAS, being a Certified 7 Shorthand Reporter doing business in the City of 8 Chicago, Illinois, County of Cook, certify that I 9 reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the 10 foregoing hearing of the above-entitled cause. 11 And I certify that the foregoing is a true and 12 correct transcript of all my shorthand notes so 13 taken as aforesaid and contains all the 14 proceedings had at the said hearing of the 15 above-entitled cause. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DENISE A. ANDRAS, CSR CSR NO. 084-0003437 30

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, April 14, 2009 _/ JEPA ATTACHMENT NO.

### 0~ BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243

TO: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk lllinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, lllinois 60601-3218 SEEATTACHED SERVICE LIST ) ) ) ) ) ) R09-19 (Rulemaking- Air)

NOTICE Timothy Fox, Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Jllinois 60601-3218

PLEASE TAKENOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control Board the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FIRST ERRATA SHEET TO ITS PROPOSALTOAMEND 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 243 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.

DATED: April 14, 2009 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217.782.5544 217.782.9143 (TDD) ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY By: 

### Is/ Charles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, April14, 2009

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243 ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### R09-19 (Rulemaking -Air)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FIRST ERRATA SHEET tO ITS PROPOSALTO AMEND 3 5 ILL. ADM. CODE 243



### NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency(" Illinois EPA"), by and through its attorney Charles E. Matoesian, and submits this First Errata Sheet to its proposal to amend 35 Ill. Adm. Code 243. The Illinois EPA proposes the following amendments to the text ofthe rules submitted in its proposal to the Board dated November 25, 2008: 

### 1. Amendthe contents to reflect the striking of theproposed new Section 243.120a andthe incorporations of the PM2.5provisions into the existing Section 243.120. This will resolve any questions over thepropriety of using an "a" in a section number. It will alsoprevent any cross-citation issues that couldarise 

## if PM10 were moved from Section 243.120.

Section 243.101 243.102 243.103 243.104 243.106 243.107 243.108 SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Definitions Preamble Applicability Nondegradation Monitoring Reference Conditions Incorporations by Reference

SUBPART B: STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENT METHODS

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, April14, 2009

Section 243.120 243.12Qa 243.121 243.122 243.123 243.124 243.125 243.126 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C 

### PMw and PM ,_s f!M-g Particulates (Repealed) Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide) Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide 

### 8 HourOzone Lead

Rule into Section Table Section into Rule Table Past Compiiance Dates 

### 2. AmendSection 243.108 to add40 CFR 50, Appendix R to the incorporations by reference. This is necessary because of the changes made to the leadNational AmbientAir Quality Standard("NAAQS"). AppendixR to 40 CFR 50 contains the Interpretation of the NationalAmbientAir Quality Standards for Lead 

### Section 243.108 Incorporations by

### Reference The following materials are incorporated by reference. These incorporations do not include any later amendments or editions: a) Pararosaniline method, 40 CFR 50, Appendix A (1982). b) Non-dispersive infrared spectrometrytechnique, 40 CFR 50, Appendix 

### C (1982), 36 Fed. Reg. 22391, November 25, 1971. c) Colorimetric method, 36 Fed. Reg. 22396, November 25, 1971. d) Ozone-ethylene reaction method, 40 CFR 50, Appendix D (1982), 36 Fed. Reg. 22392, November 25, 1971. e) Lead, 40 CFR 50, Appendices G and Q (2008). 

### f) Reference method for the determination ofparticulate matter as PM 10 in the atmosphere, 40 CFR 50, Appendix 

### J (1990t g) Interpretation ofthe national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter, 40 CFR 50, Appendix K, 73 Fed. Reg. 61144 (October 17, 2006). h) Reference method for the determination ofparticulate matter as PM2.s in the atmosphere, 40 CFR 50, Appendix L, 73 Fed. Reg. 61144 (October 17, 2006).

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, April14, 2009

i) Interpretation ofthe national ambient air quality standards for PMu, 40 CFR 50, Appendix N, 73 Fed. Reg. 1497 (January 9, 2008). J. 

### Interpretation ofthe NAAQS for Q,, 

### 40 CFR 50, Appendix P, 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (March 27, 2008). k) National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead; Final Rule, 40 CFR 50, 51, 53, and 58, 73 Fed. Reg. 66964 (November 12, 2008). I) 

### Interpretation ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead, 40 CFR 50. Appendix R. 73 Fed. Reg. 66964 (November 12. 2008).



### 3. AmendSection 243.120 to rephrase the standardso that it 

### more closely tracks theprovisions in 

### the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50. Also, to combine theproposednew Section 243.120a with Section 243.120 as new subsections (c) and (d). Changes were also made to theprovisions of theformer Section 243.120a, so as to more closely track theprovisions in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part50. Section 243.120 PM10 

### and PM2.s a) Standards. The primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for PM10 is a maximum 24-hour average concentration of 150 micrograms per cubic**meter~;** 

### The standards are attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 micrograms per cubic meter is equal to or less than one, as measured and determined in accordance with subsection (b) below. b) Measurement Method. For determining conformance with the PM10 ambient air quality standards, PM10 shall be measured by the method described in 40 CFR 50, Appendix 

### J (incorporated by reference in Section 243.108). The computations necessary for analyzing particulate matter data to determine attainment ofthe PM 1

### ostandards are described in 40 · CFR 50, Appendix K (incorporated by reference in Section 243.108). 1 

### c) Standards. The primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for PM,_, are: I) An annual arithmetic mean concentration of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter: and as measured and determined in conformance with subsection (d) below.

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, April 14, 2009

2) A maximum 24-hour concentration of35 micrograms per cubic meter, at the 98th percentile value, and as measured and ' determined in conformance with subsection (d) below. d) Measurement Method for 

### PMn. For determining conformance with the 

### PM, ambient air quality standards, 

### PMu shall be measured by the ! method described in 40 CFR 50, Appendix L (incorporated by referente in Section 243.108). The computations necessary for analyzing I particulate matter data to determine attainment ofthe 

### PMu standards are described in 40 CFR 50, Appendix N (incorporated by reference in Section 243.108).



### 4. StrikeproposedSection 243.120a to combine it

### with existingSection 243.120., It was not clear whether a section ending in an "a"was allowed. Accordingly, the easiest way to rectify thisproblem without creatinganypotential cross-cite issues, was to combine it 

### with Section 243. 120.

243.129a a) StaHclarcls. Tl!e affibieHt air qttal.ity stanclarcls fur PMH-ttre7 I) Afl llflflttal arithmetie me:m eefleefltratiefl ef I5 mieregrams per ettbie 

### meter; anel 2) A mre<iffittffi 24 l!ettr eefteentratiefl ef35 mieregrams per ettbie meter, at tl!e 98tll pereefltile**~altte,** as cleterminecl by 10 CFR Part 59, AppeHclix N, ancl as measttrecl in eenferffianee witll sttbseetiefl (b) belew. b) Measttreffieflt Metllecl. Fer cletermifliflg eeflfurmanee witll tile PMH ambiefll air qttality stanclarcls, PMH sllall be measttrecl by tl!e metl!ecl**cleserib~cl** ifl 49 CFR 59, Appenclix L (ifleerperatecl 

### by referenee in Seetieno 243.l08). Tl!e eempt>tatieHs neeessary fer aHalyziug pmtiettlate matter clata te cletermifle attaiflrneHt eftile PMH sla11clarcls are cleseribecl ifl 

### 4 9 CFR 59, Appeuclix N (iflel'l!peratecl b; refereHee ifl Seetieol 243.I98).



### 5. AmendSection 243.125 to rephrase the standardso that it more closely tracks: theprovisions in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50. '

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, April14, 2009

Section 243.125 8-Hour Ozone a) Standard. The primary and secondary ambient air quality standard for ozone is 0.075 parts per million (ppm} daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, based en the fuurlh highest daily 8 heur ,alue reeerded during a ealenear yea1 aHd measured and determined in accordance with subsection (b) below. b) Measurement Method. For determining conformance with the ozone air quality standard, ozone shall be measured by the tt 

### reference method specified by 40 CFR Part 50. Appendix D, or equivalent method as described in 40 CFR Part 50, Section 50. 1**~** 

### prescribed by 40 CFR ' Part 53 (2003), and the Interpretation ofthe NAAQS for 

# o,, 40 CFR Part Aweneix 50, Appendix P, 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (March 27, 2008).



### 6. AmendSection 243.126 to rephrase the standardso that it more closely tracks theprovisions in the Federal Register at 73 Fed. Reg. 66964 (November 12, 

### 2008).

Section 243.126 Lead a) Standard. The primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for lead is 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter, maximum rolling three month average measured and determined 

### eYaluatea over a three year period. b) Measurement Method. Fordetermining conformance with the ambient air quality standards for lead and its compounds, lead and its compounds shall bemeasured by the atomic absorbtion spectrometry or equivalent method as described in 40 CFR 50 Appendices G and Q, as incorporated by ' reference in Section 243.108 ofthis Part. The primary and secondary ambient air quality standards shall be determined in accordance with Appendix R ofPart 50 as incorporated byreference in Section 243.108 of this Part. '

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, April 14, 2009

DATED: April14, 2009 1021 N. Grand Ave., East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217/782-5544 Respectfully submitted, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY By: is/Charles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, April14, 2009

STATE OFILLINOIS COUNTY OFSANGAMON ) ) ) 

## ss
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that Ihave served electronically the attached ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY'S FIRST ERRATA SHEET TO ITS PROPOSAL TO AMEND 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 243, upon the following persons: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center I00 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 6060I Timothy Fox, Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601 · and mailing it by first-class mail from Springfield, Illinois, with sufficient postage affixed to the foilowing persons: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

Dated: April 14, 2009 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217.782.5544 217.782.9143 (TDD) ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 

### Is/Charles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, April14, 2009

R09-19 Service List

Timothy Fox, Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center I00 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, lL 6060I Virginia Yang, Deputy Legal Counsel Jllinois Department ofNatural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, lL 62702

Matthew Dunn, Chief Division ofEnvironmental Enforcement Office ofthe Attorney General 69 West Washington St., Suite I800 Chicago, IL 60602 Dave Kolaz Alec M. Davis Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 E. Adams St. Springfield, IL 62701 Katherine D. Hodge Monica T. Rios Hodge, Dwyer & 

### Driver 3150 Roland Ave. P.O. Box 5776 Springfield, IL 62705-5776State of Illinois Rod R. Blagojevich, Govcmor Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Douglas P. Scott, Director

50 

## "' >. 

# "' 0 40 Q) u c 

## "' '0 Q) Q) 30 u )( w 20 

# 2007 Illinois Annual Air Quality Report

Illinois Yearly 8-hour Ozone Exceedance Days 1987-2007 8-hour Standard 0.08 Parts Per Million

Year IEPAATIACHMENT NO.

# _J.1_

; i I ' ·!

. !



## '

Yearly Exceedance Days - 10-year Moving Average

December 2008



## . f/.,o9- /9 EXH. 2._ 

### TJT t-f

_ 

### zl?- rJIJIllinois Annual Air Quality Report 2007 Section 1: Air Pollutants-Sources, Health and Welfare Effects

sources, and for the determination of air contaminant emission limitations to ensure that population, industry and economic growth trends do not add to the region's air pollution problems.

Table I: Summary ofNational and Illinois AmbientAir Quality Standards Standard Pollutant Averaging Time Primary Secondary I Standard units are micrograms per cubic meter (ugim.l) and parts per million (ppm) ParticulateMatter 10 micrometers (PM10) 24-hour 150 ugJm3 Same as Primary ParticulateMatter Annual Arithmetic Mean 15.0 ugJm3 Same as Primary 2.5 micrometers (PM2.Sl 24-hour 35 ug/m3 Same as Primary Sulfur dioxide Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.03 ppm None 24-hour 0.14 ppm None 3-hour None 0.5 ppm CarbonMonoxide 1-hour 35 ppm Same as Primary 8-hour 9 ppm Same as Primary Ozone !-hour/day 0.12 ppm Same as Primary 8-hour/day* 0.08 ppm* Same as Primary Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.053 ppm Same as Primary Lead 3-Month Maximum Mean 0.15 ug/m3 Same as Pri**m~ry** ' The PM2.5 standards are referenced to local conditions oftemperature and pressure rather than standard conditions (760 mm and 25 deg C). Note: The State ofIllinois has not adopted the PM2

# 5 or 8-hourozone standards at this time. *The ozone 8-hour standard was changed in 2008 to" .075 ppm.

6Table B8 2007 SULFUR DIOXIDE VALUES IN EXCESS OFTHE 24-HOUR PRIMARY STANDARD OF 0.14 PPM OR THE3-HOUR SECONDARY STANDARD OF 0.5 PPM

AVERAGING NUMBER OF TIME MAXIMUM STATION ADDRESS DATE TIME EXCURSIONS PERIOD AVERAGE 70 BURLINGTON-KEOKUK INTERSTATE (IA- IL)

TAZEWELL COUNTY Pekin 272 Derby Mar 1-3 24-hour 1 1800-2400 0.182 Dec 23-24 24-hour 2 0200-0700 !0.162

'



### 62

### TableB9 2007 SULFUR DIOXIDE

(parts per million)

NUMBER OF SAMPLES HIGHEST SAMPLES ANNUAL 3-HR 24-HR 3-HRAVG. 24-HRAVG. ARITHMETIC STATION ADDRESS TOTAL > 0.5 > 0.14 1ST 2ND 1ST 2ND iMEAN 

### 65 BURLINGTON- KEOKUK INTERSTATE (lA -IL)

PEORIA COUNTY Peoria Hurlburt &MacArthur 8702 0 0 0.071 0.065 0.025 0.021 0.002

TAZEWELL COUNTY Pekin 272 Derby 8696 0 2 0.297 0.276 0.182 0.162 0.004 

### 67 METROPOLITAN CHICAGO INTERSTATE (IL- IN) I

COOK COUNTY Chicago· CTA 320 S. Franklin 8569 0 0 0.043 0.026 0.012 0.011 0.002 Chicago- Com Ed 780 Lawndale 8662 0 0 0.037 0:024 0.012 0.009 0.003 Chicago - SE Police 103rd & Luella 8553 0 0 O.D36 0.031 0.016 0.013 0.002 Cicero 1830 s. 51sl Ave. 8564 0 0 0.050 0.032 0.015 0.014 0.003 Lemont 729 Houston 8702 0 0 0.111 0.095 0.036 0.032 0.005 Northbrook 750 Dundee Rd. 6375 0 0 0.034 0.031 0.014 0.012 0.001

WILL COUNTY ' Joliet Rte 6 &Young Rd. 6662 0 0 0.070 0.051 0.019 0.018 0.004 

### 70 METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS INTERSTATE (IL- MO)
MADISON COUNTY South Roxana Michigan Ave. 8703 0 0 0.072 0.071 0.027 0.026 0.003 Wood River 54 N. Walcott 8633 0 0 0.059 0.056 0.014 0.012 0.003 Wood River 1710 Vaughn Rd. 8693 0 0 0.191 0.147 0.076 0.062 0.004 RANDOLPH COUNTY Houston Twp Rd 150 &Twp Rd 45 6527 0 0 0.031 0.030 0.007 0.007 '0.001 ST. CLAIR COUNTY East St. Louis 13th &Tudor 6625 0 0 0.041 0.026 0.011 0.010 0.002 

### 71 NORTH CENTRALILLINOIS INTRASTATE LASALLE COUNTY Oglesby 508 Portland 8589 0 0 0.394 0.312 0.098 0.082 0.006 

### 74SOUTHEASTILLINOISINTRASTATE WABASH COUNTY Mount Carmel Division St 8199 0 0 0.115 0.090 0.031 0.023 0.005 Rural Wabash County South of SR-1 8682 0 0 0.054 0.042 0.018 0.017 0.005

Primary 24-Hour Standard 0.14 ppm; Primary Annual Standard 0.03 ppm 

### 63

### Table B9 2007 SULFUR DIOXIDE

(parts per million)

NUMBER OF SAMPLES HIGHEST SAMPLES ANNUAL 3-HR 24-HR 3-HRAVG. 24-HRAVG. ARITHMETIC STATION AODRESS TOTAL > 0.5 > 0.14 1ST 2ND 1ST 2ND MEAN 

### 75 WEST CENTRAL ILLINOIS INTRASTATE MACON COUNTY Decatur 2200 N. 22nd St. 8696 0 0 0.049 0.047 0.021 0.021 I Q.QQ2 MACOUPIN COUNTY Nilwood Heaton &DuBois 6644 0 0 0.017 0.017 0.007 0.006 0.001 SANGAMON COUNTY Springfield Sewage Plant 8672 0 0 0.122 0.120 0.053 0.051 0.003

'

Primary 24-Hour Standard 0.14 ppm; Primary Annual Standard 0.03 ppm i 

### 64

### Table BJO 2007 SHORT-TERM TRENDS SULFUR DIOXIDE

ANNUAL MEANS (ppm) STATION ADDRESS 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

### 65 BURLINGTON- KEOKUKINTERSTATE (lA- IL) PEORIA COUNTY Peoria Hurlburt & MQCArthur 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.002 ' I TAZEWELL COUNTY Pekin 272 Derby 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 

### 67 METROPOLITAN CIDCAGO INTERSTATE (IL -IN)
COOK COUNTY Chicago ·CTA 320 S. Franklin 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 Chicago- Com Ed 780 Lawndale 

### - 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.003 Chicago . SE Police 103rd & Luella 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 Cicero 1830 S. 51st Ave. 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.003 Lemont 729Houston 0.005 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 Northbrook 750 Dundee Rd. - - 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001

WILL COUNTY Joliet Rte 6 &Young Rd. 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.004 

### 70 METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS INTERSTATE (IL- MO)
MADISON COUNTY South Roxanna Michigan Ave. 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.003 ' Wood River 54 N. Walcon 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 Wood River 1710 Vaughn Rd. 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 RANDOLPH COUNTY Houston Twp Rd 150 &Twp Rd 45 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 ST. CLAIR COUNTY East St. Louis 13th &Tudor 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.002 

### 71 NORTH CENTRAL ILLINOIS INTRASTATE

LASALLA COUNTY Oglesby 506 Portland 

### • 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.006 

### 74 SOUTHEAST ILLINOIS INTRASTATE

WABASH COUNTY Mount carmel Division St. 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.005 Rural Wabash County South of SR-1 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.005 Primary Annual Standard 0.03 ppm 

## I 65

### Table BlO 

### 2007 SHORT-TERMTRENDS SULFUR DIOXIDE

' ANNUAL MEANS (ppm) STATION ADDRESS 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

### 75 WEST CENTRAL ILLINOIS INTRASTATE

ADAMS COUNTY Quincy 732 Hampshire 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 + MACON COUNTY Decatur 2200 N. 22nd St. 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.002 MACOUPIN COUNTY Nilwood Heaton &DuBois 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 ' i SANGAMON COUNTY Springfield Sewage Plant 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.003

I ' !

I

Station not in operation during year shown + Did not meet minimum statistical selection criteria (See Section 6.1) Primary Annual Standard 0.03 ppm


### 66

### SUMMARY OFPEKIN SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA FROM USEPA's AIRDATA SYSTEM http://oaspub.epa.gov/agspub 1/AOS Annsum.Annua!Summary

Monitor Values Report - Criteria Air Pollutants Geogr:aphle Area: Talewell Co, IL Pollutant: Sulfur Dioxide Yeer: 2007 EPIII Air Quality Standards:; "··"·" ,,.,,.

·•·;:...'·.·-·

Sulfur Dknude: 0.5 ppm {3-hour average), 0.14 ppm (2<1-hour average), 0.030 ppm {annual mean)

..,..,

## ......., ..,...-, 1Ro,...sSeot>oRo.w 

## • '""' l:HourValues '# Ut 1nd Obs Mn**Mll~** c 0 :::; 0 :.1

.. 502. (ppm) 3-Hour**V~lues** 1!it lnd , f!'IIIX M3l" El(c;eecj: ::! :;.. =:!.::;**~.,.** 24-HOu_! \IIIII'I:S Ar>nual Monitor**~:~ ~~e** **b~c,:l** MC!.an**E~c~ed** NuiT\ber o:_; co**~.:~** :sa cc: tio;; S_lt.t!.JD 

# .... Address 1 8,696 0.363 0.339 0.224 0.220 0 0.!1>8 0.133 0,005 0 Qtl OCI 2 171790004**~~~'f** GrMd Total Pl!{le 1 of 1 0 0 ·, -·

...

_

# .. _,.

City County SU.Je**1;1!~ 11**  !!IO c_o: t!D ::1.:.1**Pt':~ln ~~zewel1**  IL OS

Annual Summary Report**..\M~I;"h('f;** YCJr of2007 And State Code of 17 And County COlle or 179 And**l';~mmeter** Code of42401 And**O~rcd** by ((11\lmns**~nnual_**!'Ummary.mcmitor

_ id,nnnual_summary.ycar.snnuat_summnl)'.inL'tl"'l'll_cndc,annual_summary.except_ tlaw_llag

)\.JoniliW ld**Cli~~ing** nn**th~ .~krhn.i**  l'rn vniiW" \1111 rL:Iurn tho.• Sommtry Me1ho<l1 d:rtu rN thO..**unm~11wmm~ry.** Chctins 011**~~~** .\iuflo:cu

..m voluo: l'ill re1um the**~1onknr** d1ta for Vli$ Dnnual**~·IITin•al).**

Annual Sum!llllf)' Report Gn wi·I'A ll.'fflo."**P~F ,\ir"O,,~tl"-'nn.** **P~r** Arml13. 2009**0~:211** PM**t"<~mm..·nt(,**



### (2..o 

### '1- 

# 11 Eyy 3 1Jp**'1-z.~**

# -ocr

### Example Standard Language for Sulfur Oxides, Carbon Monoxide and Nitrogen Dioxide

Section 243.122 Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide) a) Primary Standards. The primary ambient airquality standards for sulfur oxides measured as sulfur dioxide are: I) An anm.al ari:..".metie mean concentration of80 mieregrams per eubie n1eter (0.03 pjlm) The level ofthe annual standard is 0.030 pans per million (ppm). not to be exceeded in a calendar year. The annual arithmetic mean shall be rounded to three decimal places (ll·actional parts equal to or greater than 0.0005 ppm shall be rounded upj; and, 2) 2) A maxi11mm 24 hour eo11eentration notto be eneeeeee mere t17an onee peryear of365 microgramsper**et~bie** meter 

### (0.14 Jlflm) The level of the 24-hour standard is 0.14 parts per million (ppm). not to be exceeded more than once per calendaryear. The 24-hour averages shall be determined from successive nonoverlapping 24-hour blocks starting at midnight each calendar day and shall be rounded to two decimal places (fractional parts equal to or greater than 0.005 ppm. 3) To demonstrate attainment. the annual arithmetic mean and the second-highest 24-hour averages must be based upon hourly data that are at least 75 percent: complete in each calendar quarter. A 24-hour block average shall be considered valid ifat least 75 percent ofthe hourlv averages for the 24-hour period are available. In the event that onlv 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, or 23 hourly averages are available. the 24-hour block average shall be computed as the sum ofthe available hourlv averages using 18, 19. etc. as the divisor. lffewerthan 18 hourly averages are available. but the 24-hour average would exceed the level ofthe standard when zeros are substituted for the missing values. subject to the · rounding rule ofparagraph (b) ofthis section. then this shalt be considered a valid 24-houraverage. In this case, the 24-hour block avemge shall be computed as the sum ofthe available hourly averages divided by 24. b) 

### a) Secondary Standard. TI1e seeeneary ambieEt air Ej\lality s:aneare 

### foF sulfur oJ<iEles**meast~ree** as sulfur**ElioJ~iee** is a maJEinmm 3 l;em eeneentratiennet tel3e eJeeeeEleEl mare tl;an o!lee 13er yearof 

### 1,300 mieargrams Jler eueie meter 

### (Q.5 

## fll*I1t. I) The level ofthe 3-hour standard is 0.5 parts per million (ppm). not to be ' exceeded more than once per calendar vear. The 3-hour averages shall be determined from successive nonoverlapping 3-hour blocks starting at midnight each caler1dar day and shall berounded to 1 decimal place (iractional parts equal to or greater than 0.05 ppm shall be rounded up). 

### ·H;t

_ To demonstrate attainment. the second-highest J-hour average must be based upon hourlv data that are at least 75 percent complete in each calendar quarter. A 3- 

### RtJ 

### 1-tC[ 

## EYL<. 

# 'i

'llF 'f-Z(f-09hour block average shall be considered valid only ifall three hourlv averages for the 3-hour period are available. Ifonlv one ortwo hourly averages are available, but the 3-hour average would exceed the level ofthe standard when zeros are substituted for the missing values. subject to the rounding rule ofparagraph l) ofthis section. then this shall be considered a valid 3-houraverage. In all cases, the 3-hour block average shall be computed as the sum ofth-e hourlv averages divide bv 3. 

### c) Measurement Method. Fordetermining conformance with the sulfur oxide air quality standards, sulfur oxides shall be measured as sulfurdioxide by the pamrosaniline reference method described in 40 CFR 50, Appendix, A, (198?), or by an equivalent method of]JFeefapproved by the Agency.

2

### Section 243.123 Carbon Monoxide a) Standards. The ambient airquality standards for carbon monoxide are: I) A maximum 8-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than onceper year of9 parts per million (ppm)IQ**l'l'lilli~:;rams** 13er E\leie meter (9 fljlm); and, 2) A maximum !-hourconcentrationnot to be exceeded more than onceper year of35 parts per mil.lion (ppm)40 milligrams 13er eBeie meter (35 pJlm). b) Measurement Method. Fordeterminingconformance withthe carbon monoxide air quality standard, carbon monoxide shall be measured by a reference method#w! llEJflaisjlersive iRfrared Sf3eetremetry**teelmi~He** as _described in 40 CFR 50,**Appendix~** C**~36** FeEl. Reg. 22,39l.l'loveA1ber 25, 1971, or by an equivalent method approved by the Agency.



### 3

### Section 243.124 Nitrogen Dioxide 

### J!aL)

__ aa))--Standard. The ambient air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide is; ll_

### an annual arithmetic mean concentration of0.053 parts per million (ppm)+OG mierograms 

### per eHeie meter (Q.G5 

### ppm).**<,)~)._**__ 

### The annual standards are attained when the annual arithmetic mean concentration in a calendar vear is less than or equal to 0.053 ppm. rounded to three decimal places (fractional parts equal to or greater than 0.0005 ppm' must be rounded up). To demonstrate attainment. an annual mean must be based upon hourly datathat are at least 75 percent complete or upon data derived fTom manual methods that are t least 75 percent complete for the scheduled sampling days in each calendar quarter. . b) Measurement Method. Fordetermining conformance with the nitrogen dioxide air quality standard, nitrogen dioxide shall be measured by areference method described in 40 CFR 50. Appendixtl!e eolorimetrie metl!od as deserieee in 36 Feel. Reg. 22,396, J>Joven'leer 15, 1971, orby an equivalent method approved by the Agency.

4 

# I

# 12- IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.- -

1 BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 2 3 IN THE MATTER OF: 4 AIR QUALITY STANDARDS CLEAN-UP: AMENDMENTS TO R09-19 (Rulemaking

- Air) 5 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243 6 7 Proceedings held on April 28, 2009, at 2:04 p.m., at the Illinois Pollution Control Board, 1021 North Grand Avenue 8 East, Springfield, Illinois, before Timothy J. Fox, Hearing Officer. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Reported By: Karen Waugh, CSR, RPR CSR License No: 084-003688 KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY

11 North 44th Street Belleville, IL 62226 (618) 277-0190

Keefe Reporting Company1 APPEARANCES 2 3 Board Members present: 4 Chairman G. Tanner Girard Board Member Andrea S. Moore 5 Board Member Thomas E. Johnson Board Member Shundar Lin 6 7 8 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BY: Mr. Charles E. Matoesian 9 Assistant Counsel Division of Legal Counsel 10 1021 North Grand Avenue East Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 11 On behalf of the Illinois EPA 12 BY: Mr. John J. Kim 13 14 15 16 Managing Attorney Air Regulatory Unit 1021 North Grand Avenue East Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 On behalf of the Illinois EPA

17 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP BY: Mr. Alec M. Davis 18 General Counsel 19 20 215 East Adams Street Springfield, Illinois 62701 On behalf of IERG HODGE DWYER & DRIVER 21 BY: Ms. Monica T. Rios Attorney at Law 22 3150 Roland Avenue 23 24 Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776 On behalf of IERG

Keefe Reporting Company 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 

### 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 INDEX WITNESS Dave Kolaz Examination by Mr. Matoesian Examination by Mr. Davis PAGE NUMBER 10 15' 37 33

Keefe Reporting Company 31 EXHIBITS

' 2 NUMBER INTRODUCED ' ENTERJ<;D 3 Exhibit No. 2 9 10 Exhibit No. 3 10 10 4 Exhibit No. 4 10 10 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

### 24 Keefe Reporting Company 41 PROCEEDINGS 2 (April 28, 2009; 2:04p.m.) 3 HEARING OFFICER FOX: I want to greet 4 everyone with a good afternoon and welcome you to this ' 5 Illinois Pollution Control Board hearing. My name is Tim ' 6 Fox, and I am the hearing officer for this rulemaking 7 proceeding, which is entitled "In the Matter of: Air 8 Quality Standards Clean-Up: Amendments to 35 Illinois 9 Administrative Code Part 243." The board docket number 10 for this rulemaking is R09-19. The Illinois 11 Environmental Protection Agency filed this proposal on 12 December 1, 2008, and the Board accepted it for hearing 13 in an order dated December 18 of 2008. I do note that on 

### ' 14 January 20 of 2009 the Agency filed a motion to amend its 15 rulemaking proposal, and in an order dated February 19 of 16 2009, the Board granted the motion and accepted the 17 Agency's amendments into its proposal. I also note that 18 on April 14 of 2009 the Agency filed its first errata 19 sheet, which proposed, I recall, six specific amendments 20 to the text of the proposed rule. 21 Today we are, for the record, holding the second 22 hearing in this rulemaking. The first hearing took place 23 on March 10, 2009, in Chicago. The hearing dates in this 24 case have been rescheduled pursuant to the Agency's

Keefe Reporting Company 51 motion to reschedule which the Agency filed on January 2 20, 2009, and pursuant also to a hearing officer order 3 dated on January 30 of 2009. 4 I want to take a moment to introduce those 5 persons who are present here from the Board. At my 6 immediate left is Board Member Andrea S. Moore, who is 7 the board member

-- the lead board member assigned t6 8 this rulemaking, and at her left is Dr. G. Tanner Girard, 9 who is the acting chairman, of course, of the Illinois 10 Pollution Control Board. At my immediate right is Board 11 Member Thomas E. Johnson, and at his right is Board 12 Member Dr. Shundar Lin. 13 This proceeding is governed by the Board's 14 procedural rules and pursuant to 35 Illinois 15 Administrative Code 102.1

-- pardon me -- .416. All 16 information that is relevant and that is not repetitious 17 or privileged will be admitted into the record. Please 18 note that any questions today that are posed by the board 19 members or by the Board's staff are intended solely to 20 help develop a clear and complete record for the Board's 21 decision and are not intended to reflect any prejudgment 22 or conclusions on the proposal and its merits. 23 For this hearing, the second, of course, the· 24 Board received one set of prefiled testimony from

Keefe Reporting Company 61 Mr. David J. Kolaz, K-0-L-A-Z, on behalf of the Illinois 2 Environmental Regulat6ry Group, often referred to as!

' 3 IERG. On April 14, 2009, those were filed by Mr. Kolaz. 4 If any other participants do wish to testify, there is a 5 signup sheet just inside the door next to the court 6 reporter's position. Like any other witnesses, those who 7 have not prefiled but would wish to testify today wiil be 8 sworn and will be asked questions about the substance of 9 that testimony. Is there anyone here who was not aware 10 of that sheet and would like to indicate that they wish ll to testify? 12 Seeing no indication that there is anyone wh6 I 13 wishes to do so, we will begin with the testimony of 14 Mr. Kolaz. He may wish to offer a brief introduction or 15 summary of his comments, and that will be followed by 16 questions that other participants, including the Illinois 17 Environmental Protection Agency and any of the board' 18 members, may have for him on the basis of that testimony, 19 and then we will proceed with the testimony of any other 20 person who may later wish to offer testimony. 21 For the court reporter

-- Knowing that many of 22 you have been through a lot of these hearings, for the I 23 court reporter, please speak as loudly as you can so that 24 she has the easiest possible job. We don't have the

Keefe Reporting Company 71 benefit of any sound amplification, but I think based on 2 the number of people here in the room that we should:have 3 no problem making one another pretty clear to one 4 another. Any questions about procedures before we get 5 underway? 6 Mr. Davis, it looks like -- Seeing no indication 7 that there are any questions, Mr. Davis, it looks like 8 we're prepared for the testimony on behalf of IERG. 9 Would it be your wish to have the court reporter go ahead 10 and swear Mr. Kolaz in so that he could begin with his 11 testimony and the questions based on it? 12 MR. DAVIS: I'd like to Sure, we can:do 13 that now, and then I can introduce him. 14 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Perfect. Why don't we 15 go ahead with swearing Mr. Kolaz in at this point, then. 16 (Witness sworn.) 17 18 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Mr. Davis, for you. MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Fox, members·of 19 the Board. My name is Alec Davis. I'm the general 20 counsel of the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group, 21 or IERG. On behalf of IERG, I'd like to thank the Board 22 for providing us the opportunity to participate in 23 today's hearing. With me today and also representing 24 IERG is Monica Rios of the law firm of Hodge Dwyer &

Keefe Reporting Company 81 Driver. Also with me, as you said, is Mr. Dave**Kola~,** 2 and as you mentioned, we prefiled his testimony on 3 April 14. Before I turn it over to Mr. Kolaz, I'd like 4 to move to enter as exhibits the following documents to 5 which Mr. Kolaz refers in his statement. 6 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Very good. If you 7 have copies, Mr. Davis, we can get that process started. 8 MR. DAVIS: I do, and I think I've got 9 enough for everyone here, though it might be a close 10 call. First, I have some select pages from the 2007 11 Illinois Annual Air Quality Report, which was published 12 by the Illinois EPA in December of 2008. 13 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Before entertaining a 14 motion, Mr. Davis, why don't we note that as Exhibit 15 No. 2 since we've already introduced sections from the 16 Code of Federal Regulations as Exhibit 1 in this case. 17 MR. DAVIS: Fine. Thank you. How many· 18 copies would you require? 19 HEARING OFFICER FOX: At the very least one, 20 and a couple would be great. Perfect. Thank you. 21 MR. DAVIS: And the rest. Next I have a 22 document titled "Summary of Pekin Sulfur Dioxide**Dat~** I 23 from USEPA's Air Data System," and finally, a document 24 titled, "Example Standard Language for Sulfur Oxides,

Keefe Reporting Company 91 Carbon Monoxide and**N~trogen** Dioxide. 11 2 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Mr. Davis, thanks for 3 distributing copies of those. It looks like they have 4 made their way around the room and that everyone has had 5 a chance to look at them. Did you have a motion with 6 regard to those three documents, which I have marked 7 preliminarily Exhibits 2, 3 and 4? 8 MR. DAVIS: Yeah. I'd move that they be 9 admitted as exhibits. 10 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Very good. I'm sure 11 everyone has heard the motion by Mr. Davis to admit the 12 three documents that he has circulated as Exhibits No. 2, 13 3 and 4 in this proceeding. Did anyone wish to be heard 14 on the motion to admit those? Neither seeing nor hearing 15 any, Mr. Davis, the motion will be granted. And for the 16 record, Exhibit No. 2 is the 2007 Illinois Annual Air I I 17 Quality Report; Exhibit No. 3 is the, quote, "Summary of I ' 18 Pekin Sulfur Dioxide Data from USEPA' s Air Data System,"

I 19 closed quote, and Exhibit No. 4 is entitled, "Example 20 Standard Language for,Sulfur Oxides, Carbon Monoxide:and 21 Nitrogen Dioxide." Mr. Davis, thank you again. 22 MR. DAVIS: Thank you. That being done, 23 Mr. Kolaz, if you would. 24 MR. KOLAZ: Okay. My name is David Kolaz,

Keefe Reporting Company 101 and I'm here today on behalf of the Illinois 2 Environmental Regulatory Group in the matter of air 3 quality standards clean-up proposed by the Agency. IERG 4 appreciates the efforts of the Board to provide this 5 opportunity to participate in this hearing and have I 6 convenient access to all pertinent documents filed in 7 this regard. 8 IERG supports the efforts of the Agency to update 9 and otherwise clean up the state air quality standards 10 contained in Part 243 of the Board's regulations. We see 11 from the first errata sheet filed by the Agency for 12 today's hearing that the Agency is proposing changes that 13 appear to better conform the Agency's proposed revisions 14 to the USEPA's national ambient air quality standards in 15 order to ensure that such standards are identical in 16 substance. However, as stated more fully in my 17 testimony, IERG believes that changes also need to be 18 made to the State's air quality standards for sulfur 19 oxides, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide. These 20 changes are needed to avoid any possible confusion as to 21 the level and interpretation of these standards. 22 A potential problem of interpretation is not, 23 solely theoretical in nature. It has already occurred in 24 regard to the interpretation of the State's sulfur oxides

Keefe Reporting Company 111 air quality standard,.as I will now more fully explain. 2 The current wording of the averaging period in the 3 State's sulfur oxides air quality standard in 4 Section 243.122 simply states, "A maximum 24-hour 5 concentration not to be exceeded more than once per 6 year." As stated in my prefiled testimony, this wording 7 does not adequately convey the notion that the 24-hour 8 period must use the block averaging convention that the 9 USEPA states has always been intended for use with these 10 standards. 11 In Table l, titled, "Summary of National and 12 Illinois Ambient Air Quality Standards," contained on 13 page 6 of its 2007 Illinois Annual Air Quality Reporf,

' ' 14 which has been admitted as Exhibit 2, the Illinois EPA 15 shows both the state and federal standards for sulfur 16 dioxide, giving the impression they are the same, as we 17 believe is the intent. However, in this same 2007 18 Illinois Annual Air Quality Report, the Illinois EPA 19 reports two exceedances of the State's 24-hour sulfur 20 oxide standard at its Pekin monitoring site based on 21 running averages rather than block averages. Two 22 exceedances represent a violation of both the state and 23 federal air quality standards. Now, these exceedances 24 are noted in Table 88 on page 62 of that same report, the

Keefe Reporting Company 121 2007 Illinois Annual Air Quality Report, again which is 2 part of Exhibit 2. 3 Illinois' 2007 air quality data has been 4 submitted to the USEPA's Office of Air Quality Planning 5 and Standards pursuant to ongoing commitments in that 6 regard. I would draw your attention to the exhibit 7 titled, "Summary of Pekin's Sulfur Dioxide Data from· 8 USEPA'S Air Data System," which has been admitted as. 9 Exhibit 3. Instead of two exceedances of the 24-hour 10 sulfur dioxide standard as tabulated by the Illinois EPA, 11 the USEPA summarized the same data using block averages 12 and concluded there was only one exceedance. Since one 13 exceedance does not constitute a violation according to 14 both the federal and state sulfur oxide air quality 15 standard, the USEPA concluded that the sulfur oxide 16 standard was not violated in Pekin. This differs from 17 the Illinois EPA's conclusion that there was a violation 18 of the state air quality standard based on the two 19 exceedances it tabulated using the running averages. 20 Furthermore, the three-hour averages reported by the 21 USEPA and Illinois EPA do not match. Again, this is 22 because of the discrepancy between block averages and 23 running averages. 24 The final discrepancy I wish to point out is in

Keefe Reporting Company 131 regard to the annual average reported by the Agency and 2 the USEPA. The Illinois EPA reports a value of 0.004 3 parts per million for the annual average at its Pekin 4 monitoring location, as shown on page 63 of its 2007 air 5 quality report. The USEPA using the same data provided 6 by the Illinois EPA reports a value of 0.005 parts per 7 million. This difference could be due to a transcription 8 error in the Agency's report, or it might possibly be due 9 to a difference in rounding convention. In Exhibit 3, 10 USEPA reports the annual average value as 0.0048 parts 11 per million and then rounds it to 0.005 parts per 12 million. The rounding convention in the USEPA rule 13 clearly illustrates how this is to be done, and no such 14 convention exists in the current rule for sulfur oxides, 15 16 17 18 19 nitrogen dioxide or carbon monoxide. In summary, IERG encourages the Board to adopt changes to the Part 243 air quality standards that I • I will remove any possible ambiguity, thereby ensurlng, that the state standards are the same as the USEPA standards, 20 as is the stated intent of the Agency. The Exhibit No. 4 21 that's been admitted contains examples

-- an example of 22 language that IERG believes addresses those concerns. 23 Thank you for your attention, and I welcome the 24 opportunity to answer any questions regarding this

Keefe Reporting Company 141 matter. 2 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Mr. Kolaz, thank you 3 for your testimony and your statement, and as you've 4 indicated, we've reached the point where questions would 5 be in order, whether

-- Mr. Matoesian on behalf of the 6 Agency or any of the other participants, if you would 7 like to pose any questions, please begin to do so. 8 9 MR. MATOESIAN: Thank you, sir. HEARING OFFICER FOX: Sure. 10 EXAMINATION OF DAVE KOLAZ 11 BY MR. MATOESIAN: 12 Q. I have a few questions for Mr. Kolaz. In 13 You mentioned in your prefiled testimony that you were 14 employed at the IEPA for a while. Weren't you the 15 manager of the air monitoring section at one point? 16 17 A. Q. Yes, I was. And approximately when did you become 18 manager of that section? 19 A. Oh, it was I think somewhere near 1980. I 20 don't recall exactly. 21 Q. And how long were you the manager of that 22 section? 23 A. A long time, I know that, but

-- I was in 24 the air monitoring section for sixteen years and I think

Keefe Reporting Company 151 I was the manager for probably ten or twelve of those 2 years. 3 Q. Thank you. And what was your position in 4 the IEPA prior to that? 5 A. I worked

-- I initially started off working 6 in compiling the emission inventory for the first**st~te** 7 implementation plan, and then I worked in a section 8 called

-- after that I worked in a section called the 9 variance section. Variances still exist but they're now 10 handled a different way, so there's not a variance 11 section. I worked in the permit section for a while 12 after that, and then I worked in what's now-- it was 13 called then, I think, the air planning or air monitoring 14 section, worked in the data analysis unit, then 15 ultimately became manager of the air monitoring section. 16 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, in those positions, 17 were you responsible or was your staff responsible for 18 interpreting monitored 802 data for compliance with the 19 air quality standards? 20 21 A. Q. Yes. And how did the Agency interpret monitored 22 802 data for determining compliance with the air quality 23 standards? 24 A. Are you talking about all the standards or Keefe Reporting Company 161 are you talking specifically on sulfur dioxide? 2 Q. 302. 3 A. It was interpreted for a long time as a 4 running 24-hour average. 5 Q. Okay. Thank you. And how long has the 6 Agency used running averages to interpret the S02 7 standard? 8 A. You know 1 I don't have an exact date fo1

' ' 9 you, but I would answer that by saying that initially the 10 monitoring method for sulfur dioxide only allowed in 11 essence a block average because it was a sample 12 collection method that pulled air through a solution, a I 13 saline solution, for 24 hours, so there was no 14 opportunity to gather,anything other than a 24-hour 15 sample. 16 Q. I'm sorry. Were you talking --Are you 17 talking back in the 1970s? 18 A. Yes. I 19 Q. Okay. Didn't the EPA in fact prefer rutining 20 averages back in the 1970s? 21 A. Well, ultimately they 22 opportunity to do running averages did, but there when the sample ' I I
I was I ' 

## -,

I 23 initial sample only collected a 24-hour block**averag~.** ' ' 24 So much like the high-volume sample or particulate

Keefe Reporting Company no the

171 samples that we're familiar with, it pulls the in that 2 case the air is pulled through a filter for 24 hours, so ' 3 there is no opportunity to look at anything less thah a 4 24-hour average,_ but as time went on, the monitoring 5 technology improved and became much more sophisticated 6 and the opportunity presented itself to actually collect 7 one-hour samples and even smaller averaging times if so 8 desired, and at that time when those hourly samples were 9 collected, they were interpreted as running 24-hour 10 samples, and there's no question about that. 11 Q. And when did that occur with the 12 A. It was in the '70s. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. I mean, as you stated, it was somewhere·mid 15 to late '70s. 16 Q. So your proposal would actually change the 17 way Illinois interprets the S02 standards, to use only 18 block averages and not running averages. 19 A. Yes, that's right. It changed their past 20 practice. 21 Q. And in your opinion, when determining 22 compliance with the air quality standards, is the use of 23 running averages more stringent than block averages? 24 A. Yes, it's more stringent.
Keefe Reporting Company 181 Q. And I have a question

-- you stated in your 2 opening statement today that the federal EPA says that 3 you must use block averages; is that correct? Yes. 4 5 A. Q. Isn't a state free under Section 116 of the 6 Clean Air Act to use a stricter standard than the EPA 7 suggests? 8 9 10 to. 11 12 13 14 15 A. Q.

A. Q. A. Q. A. Yes. Oh, yes, they are. So in other words, states aren't**requir~d** They are not. It's just a suggestion by EPA. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Well, it's not a suggestion. I shouldn't 16 have answered that so quickly. I mean, that is the 17 federal standard, is a block average standard. 18 Q. But states are free to do otherwise so iong 19 as it's not less 20 A. As long as it's not less stringent, states 21 can do what they want. 22 Q. And you agree that by using running 23 averages, Illinois is being more stringent than the 24 federal

-- Keefe Reporting Company 191 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. Thank you. 3 A. Oh, yes. 4 Q. So your proposal, then, would represent :a 5 relaxation of the current state standard. 6 A. It would

-- I do not

-- I think in one sense 7 I would disagree with what you're saying. It represents 8 a change in the Agency's past practice, but the standard 9 the way it's written is so vague, it's difficult to 10 determine how to compute those averages. 11 Q. I'm sorry. Is it vague or is it just 12 flexible? 13 A. Oh, it's vague. It's very vague. 14 Q. Does it not just allow you to use whichever 15 method? 16 A. The way the standards are written is there 17 is tremendous what you call flexibility. For**exampl~,** 18 when it comes to the annual average, the federal 19 government says it's a calendar average. The State just 20 says it's an annual average. So does that mean it's a 21 rolling annual average that you run from February to next 22 February? It is not-- It's just not very specific, and 23 the reason, you knowr we're proposing what we're

I 24 proposing is the Agency has testified and stated that

Keefe Reporting Company 201 their intent is to have the same state standards as the 2 federal standards and hasn't presented any testimony to 3 show why those standards should be more stringent. 4 Q. 5 stated that? 6 7 8 A. Q. A. When

-- You're saying the Illinois EPA

Yes. And when did this statement occur? Well, it was with the statement of reasons 9 that were filed in this matter, and it was also brought 10 out at the first hearing through questions that were 11 asked of Mr. Kaleel. 12 Q. Weren't in fact the statement of reasons 13 suggesting that there were several changes as well as 14 general clean-up for certain standards such as PM2.5? It 15 was not a general statement that all should be the same. 16 A. I'd have to look at exactly how it was 17 worded. The implication, the way I took it, was that 18 they were all expected to be the same as the federal 19 and

-- Q. So that was just your interpretation. A. Yeah. Yes, that is. Q. And if -- in the first hearing, didn't 20 21 22 23 24 Mr. Kaleel say affirmatively, we do not intend to change certain standards, such as the 802, carbon monoxide <;md
Keefe Reporting Company 211 nitrogen oxides, I believe? 2 3 A. Q. Yes, he Qid say that. That's why I'm here. What would be the benefit to Illinois to use 4 only the parts per million and not the micrograms per 5 cubic meter? Oh, I'm sorry. I had the wrong question. 6 Your second recommendation regarding S02 is to state,the 7 standards in terms of parts per million and not alsolin 8 micrograms per cubic meter, correct? 9 10 A. Q. Yes. Okay. And don't the current state air 11 quality standards use both units? A. Yes. 12 13 Q. And, now, if you'll

-- sorry I jumped ahead. 14 What would be the benefit to Illinois to use only parts 15 per million and not micrograms per cubic meter? 16 A. Well, I think there's several components to 17 my answer. One is the State has never used micrograms 18 per cubic meter for the standard. I shouldn't say never. 19 Let me just say in as far back as I can recall

-- and 20 I'll refer to sulfur dioxide just as one example of one 21 of the standards. The standard for 24 hours is 365 22 micrograms per cubic meter, but that's never been**us~d** as 23 the standard. A problem that USEPA had run into

-- and 24 so had the Illinois EPA

-- is that when the standard is

Keefe Reporting Company 221 stated as 365 micrograms per cubic meter with the parts 2 per million parenthetically, then it's interpreted that 3 the standard is 365 micrograms per cubic meter. One of 4 the big problems is that in mathematical interpretation, 5 then, the first exceedance of that standard would be at 6 366. Since it's 365 and not 365.0, then you would have 7 your first exceedance. at 366. However, 366**microgra~s** 8 per cubic meter is less than 0.14 parts per million.' 9 It's something-- I'd have to check. It's something like 10 0.137, 0.138, so it's a lesser standard. 11 So it's caused confusion in interpretation. 12 That's why when USEPA has changed their standards, 13 they've done away for sulfur oxides with the microgram 14 per cubic meter. That

-- This came out, by the way, 15 these standards, back in the early '70s when there was 16 a -- for those who were around then, a big push to db 17 everything metrically, and that's why they did it, but I 18 now they're just stating it as parts per million. NOw, 19 there are some of the older some of the standards that 20 have not undergone revision in the last few years, like 21 carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, where they still have 22 kept that, but it's clear that for ozone it's just parts 23 per million, for sulfur oxides it's parts per million. 24 Certainly for the particulate, lead and PM2.5, that is

Keefe Reporting Company 231 done in weight, in micrograms per cubic meter. 2 Q. Now, but isn't it true for modeling purposes 3 as may be needed for preparing attainment demonstration 4 that micrograms per cubic meter are used? 5 A. Well, yeah, that would be the case, and 6 which situation the comparison, if you're comparing it to 7 a federal standard, would be to the microgram per cubic 8 meter equivalent of 0.14 part per million, not

-- you 9 know, not 137, so you shouldn't use-- if you're going to 10 do that, which the Agency does, they should be using 11 something like 370, 373, and not 365. 12 13 Q. A. 365 is the published value, correct? Not for the federal standard. The federal 14 standard for sulfur oxides, it's 0.14. 15 16 17 Q. A. Q. But the state standard, I'm saying. Oh, yes, the state standard is 365. And so --And you're saying that the first 18 exceedance of the standard using parts per million would 19 be at 0.15 parts per million, correct? 20 21 A. Q. Yes. And what does that convert into in 22 micrograms per cubic meter? 23 24 A. Q. 0.15? Yes.
Keefe Reporting Company 241 A. Well, I did not bring my calculator. 2 Q. But it

-- would it be above 365? 3 A. Yes, it would, but and this is where

-- 4 again where there's an element of the standard that needs 5 to be considered, and that is that according to the USEPA 6 standard, the first exceedance would occur at 0.145. 7 0.144 would be rounded down to 0.14, would equal the: 8 standard but not exceed it. When you would hit 0.145, it 9 would be rounded up to 0.15; that would be an exceedance. 10 You'll see in Exhibit 3 we passed out that USEPA 11 generally carries to three decimal places. So does the 12 Illinois EPA. So in Exhibit 3, to kind of point this 13 out, is if you look at the bottom part of that sheet, the 14 middle row, if you go over about to the middle, you'll 15 see "observation count." It says OBS CNT, 365. That 16 signifies 365 days' worth of sample. There were 8,696 17 hourly samples, and, see, they have a max value occurring i 18 on March 2 of 0.168. So even then, USEPA generally 19 carries to three places, so there would not be an 20 exceedance until you got to 0.145. 0.142 would not be 21 over. So the microgram per cubic meter equivalent would 22 be halfway between 0.14 and 0.15. 23 Q. So the Illinois standard would be stricter 24 than the federal standard.

Keefe Reporting Company 251 2 A. Q. Yes, yes. And again, under Section 116 of the Clean 3 Air Act, states are free to make stricter standards than 4 the federal government. 5 6 A. Q. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Is there a company in 7 Illinois named Aventine? A. Right now there is. And where is Aventine located? Pekin. 8 9 10 11 Q. A. Q. And isn't Aventine a member of the Illinois 12 Environmental Regulatory Group that you represent? Yes, they are. 13 14 A. Q. And have there been any recent violations of 15 the state S02 air quality standards at the monitoring 16 site in Pekin? 17 

### 18 19 20 A. Q. A. Q. The State says there has. And state's what we're here about today. Right. Are you aware that the Agency's been in 21 discussions with Aventine about the measured S02 22 exceedances? 23 24 A. Q. Yes. And if the Agency were to interpret S02·
Keefe Reporting Company 261 standards in the way that you have proposed, would it 2 affect the determination of whether or not the S02 3 standard was violated in Pekin? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. And wouldn't this at the same time 6 have the effect of relaxing the S02 standard for all 7 other affected sources in Illinois by changing to the 8 proposal? 9 A. Well, let me answer that

-- I think there's 10 a couple ways to answer that. Reading the air quality 11 standard the way it exists right now, the standard, as 12 I've said before, can be interpreted a variety of ways. 13 When you look at how the Illinois EPA has interpreted 14 that standard for a number of years, they've interpreted 15 it as rolling averages. There hasn't been any situations 16 in a long number of years where that's been an issue, so I 17 it hasn't come to the forefront. I don't know that I I 18 would agree if what you're saying is the air quality' 19 standard the way the Illinois EPA has interpreted it is a 20 proper interpretation of the Illinois air quality 21 standard. The reason is is when the Illinois EPA came 22 forth to propose that standard, just like they have on 23 these new standards they're proposing now, they said, we 24 are not presenting any testimony to support any standard

Keefe Reporting Company 271 other than the federal standard. In essence, they didn't 2 present any health information, nothing else. They 3 simply presented that they were adopting the federal, 4 standards, so -- 5 Q. And I'm sorry. When was this occurring? 6 A. This is back when the standards were 7 first 8 Q. Is this what the federal standard was at 9 that time? 10 A. The federal standard has not changed, 11 according to USEPA. 12 Q. What I'm suggesting is this happened in 13 the '70s or '80s. Since then, the USEPA has changed 14 their interpretation. 15 A. They have not. The USEPA has said they have 16 not changed it, and in my testimony, my prefiled 17 testimony, I gave some citations. In fact, we brought I 18 the Federal Register with us today where USEPA said that 19 is not a different interpretation. 20 Q. And which Federal Register 21 A. So my point is, I would agree that Illinois 22 EPA has interpreted it that way. I would not agree that 23 if someone was to oppose Illinois EPA's interpretation, I 24 suspect they would go.back to the board hearing where

Keefe Reporting Company 281 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 that was adopted and show that the intent was to have the I standard be identical to USEPA standard, and that USSPA ' I standard requires a**b~ock** average. I ' ' Q. Okay. Moving on to N02, then, your

### fir~t recommendation in your prefiled testimony regarding

# ~02 I is to state the standard in terms of parts per and not micrograms per cubic meter, correct? A. Yes. i milli6n I I ' I I ! Q. i And doesn't the current federal air quality 10 standard use both units? 11 A. Yes, it does. 12 Q. What would be the benefit to Illinois to use 13 only parts per million and not micrograms per cubic 14 meter? 15 A. Well, in this case it would actually 16 represent what they do, because in Exhibit 2, you'll see 17 on the second page under the cover page it lists the air 18 quality standards in Illinois, and nitrogen dioxide lS I 19 listed as 0.053, which is neither micrograms per 20 meter or -- nor the standard of 0.05 which is in cubic I I the! 21 board regulation, so it's something else entirely, add 22 what it is is the federal standard of 053. 23 Q. Now, for modeling purposes, isn't it trUe I I 24 that micrograms per cubic meter are used in situatiohs ' Keefe Reporting Company 291 like preparing attainment demonstrations? Again, thls is 2 for modeling purposes. 3 4 A. Q. Well, sure. Yeah, that's correct. So the use of PPM only combined with the 5 rounding conventions you described in your testimony! 6 would be less stringent than the current form of the 7 state standard. 8 9 10 A. Q. A. Yes, it would be. Okay. Thank you. But it's not different than what the 11 Illinois EPA is using for the standard. 12 Q. Now, then going on to carbon monoxide, your 13 first recommendation regarding carbon monoxide is to 14 state the standard in terms of parts per million and not 15 milligrams per cubic meter, correct? A. Right. 16 17 Q. And don't the current air quality standards 18 use both units? 19 A. Yeah, but they reversed them. The primary 20 standard is in parts per million. 21 Q. And what would be the benefit to Illinoi's to 22 use only parts per million and not milligrams per cubic 23 meter? 24 A. To remove any ambiguity, to be clear on what
Keefe Reporting Company 301 the standard is. 2 Q. And isn't it true that for modeling purposes 3 as may be needed for preparing attainment demonstrations, 4 micrograms per cubic meter are used? 5 A. Yes, but I don't think that really has 6 anything to do with the standard since compliance with 7 the standard is determined by monitoring, and monitoring 8 uses parts per million. 9 Q. So the use of only parts per million 10 combined with the rounding convention that you described 11 in your testimony would be less stringent than the 12 current form of the standard in Illinois. 13 

### 14 A. Q. Yes. And here you're actually asking for the 15 Agency to deviate from the federal standard, aren't you? 16 17 18 19 A. Q. A. Q. Yes. Right. And the same for N02, I believe, correct? Right, right. Okay. So you're asking us to deviate on 20 those two but not on S02. 21 A. Right, right, a very specific deviation, as 22 there's no benefit to listing both parts per million and 23 micrograms per cubic meter, or in the case of carbon 24 monoxide, milligrams, because again, when it comes to Keefe Reporting Company 311 monitoring and measuring compliance with the standard, 2 it's all done in parts per million. 3 MR. MATOESIAN: Okay. Thank you. Could you 4 give us a moment? 5 HEARING OrriCER rOX: Yes, absolutely, 6 Mr. Matoesian. 7 MR. MATOESIAN: Okay. Thank you. That:s 8 all the questions we have, then. Thank you, sir. 9 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Mr. Matoesian, thank 10 you. You've indicated that the Agency has concluded with 11 its questions for Mr. Kolaz. That is the one witness who 12 has prefiled testimony. I suspect I know the answer, but 13 it's important to ask whether there was anyone else who 14 wished to ask any questions for Mr. Kolaz on the basis of 15 his testimony. I'm seeing no indication that there is. 16 Were members of the Board wishing to pose a question to 17 Mr. Kolaz? 18 19 MR. DAVIS: If we can have a minute. HEARING OrFICER FOX: Absolutely so, and if 20 we could just go off the record for a moment. Thanks. 21 22 (Off the record.) HEARING OFriCER FOX: To recap, if we're 23 back on the record, Mr. Matoesian, I think you had 24 indicated that the Agency's questions for Mr. Kolaz on Keefe Reporting Company 321 behalf of IERG were complete; is that correct? MR. MATOESIAN: Yes. 

### 2 3 HEARING OFFICER FOX: I had asked for a ·show 4 of hands or other indication that there were questions, 5 and I did not see any. If we can return to you, 6 Mr. Davis, you've given me a signal you might like to 7 speak. 8 MR. DAVIS: Yes. I actually do have one 9 final question for Mr. Kolaz. 10 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Sure. 11 EXAMINATION OF DAVE KOLAZ 12 BY MR. DAVIS: 13 Q. Mr. Kolaz, as you explained, you had a 14 lengthy history in working developing regulations as an 15 employee of the Illinois EPA. Can you tell me, in your 16 experience, was it ever the intent, to your knowledge, of 17 the Illinois EPA to have standards in place in the state 18 of Illinois that differed from the federal standards? 19 A. Well, going back to the time when the 20 standards were first adopted, as I mentioned a little bit 21 earlier, the Agency had never provided testimony showing 22 why the standards should be more stringent than the ' 23 federal government but, more than that, had always sought 24 to adopt the federal standards. It is true that as time

Keefe Reporting Company 331 went by and monitoring technology evolved, the 2 interpretation of those standards changed a little bit, 3 and the Agency had never gone back to clarify the 4 standard, although the USEPA had done so in several of 5 their standards. 6 The standard, of course, that we're really 7 focusing on right now in today's hearing is sulfur 8 oxides, and that is probably one of the most complex 9 ones. There is a very complex litigation history having 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 to do with the sulfur oxides, which we could providelater maybe through comments, but it was a lot of litigation over that standard, over the whole idea of block averaging versus rolling averages, and this is part of what's caused the confusion, and during that time:the Illinois EPA and many other states chose to interpret it using running averages, but the fact of the matter is there was never, ever a -- an effort to codify that in the form of stating that this is the state standard, and I think if the situation exists now where the Agency is saying, well, we're attempting to have the Illinois I standards be identical to the federal standards except for these here, then I believe they should present testimony as to why they should be more stringent. Simply saying they're more stringent and that's good is
Keefe Reporting Company 341 not necessarily adequate. 2 So my point is that I think that we got to w ere 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 we are not by planning purpose but by happenstance, that's why as we ask questions, as Mr. Davis asked ' and I questions at the first hearing regarding the Agency's ' ' ' intent, we really tried to bring out whether or not the I I Agency intended to purposefully have standards more I

i stringent, and hearing that that wasn't the case, that's I ' ' why we came forth today, presenting those other clearl-up changes that would be needed to avoid any type of confusion. And I'll add that while, you know, questions 1were asked of me about the stringency of a, say, carbon monoxide milligram versus PPM and which is more

, .I stringent, it is because they are different.unlts usJJng i different significant digits that make them not**dire~tly** compatible, but the fact is the Agency uses the part**~per** ! 18 million intention, and so what is the point of havind the I ' 19 milligrams or the micrograms, and so the Agency isn't 20 using the carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide**stand~rds** I 21 to be more stringent, although they're appearing to claim 22 that the sulfur oxide standard is purposefully more 23 stringent, but it's not. 24 And again, I'll repeat something I said earlLer.
Keefe Reporting Company I I I 351 It's nowhere better demonstrated than when you look at 2 the annual air quality report and look at the list of 3 state standards and see the Agency lists the state 4 standard as 0.053, but you can look at the state 5 standard. It's not 0,053, but whose standard is 0.053? 6 The federal standard is. So it shows that that is their 7 intent, I think in this

-- except in this one selected 8 case for sulfur oxides where they are choosing to use a 9 different interpretation. 10 It's for all those reasons why we think that we 11 should just be straightforward and clarify this all now, 12 whichever way we go. If the Agency intends sulfur 13 dioxide to be more stringent, it should be more 14 stringent, but even then, even if that was the case, 15 there are many aspects of that standard that need to be 16 clarified; is it an annual calendar average or is it 17 rolling average, what's the significant digits. You'll 18 note in the Exhibit 4 that we gave, the USEPA even says 19 how many hourly values you have to have to compute a 20 twenty-four-hour average or a three-hour average. 21 There's many things in that standard that has to be 22 changed to avoid any confusion, and that's what we're 23 trying to say today. 24 MR. DAVIS: Thank you. Keefe Reporting Company 361 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Any further questions 2 on your part, Mr.**Dav~s?** 3 4 MR. DAVIS. No, I think that's it. HEARING OFFICER FOX: Very good. 5 Mr. Matoesian, any questions for

-- 6 MR. MATOESIAN: Just briefly. 7 FURTHER EXAMINATION OF DAVE KOLAZ 8 BY MR. MATOESIAN: 9 Q. Didn't you in answer to a question earlier 10 note that the Agency has been using running averages 11 since the 1970s? Yes. 12 13 14 15 A. Q. A. So the Agency's position has never changed. No.

16 you. 17 MR. MATOESIAN: Okay. That's fine. Thank

HEARING OFFICER FOX: Very good. It's 18 appropriate to ask once more if anyone else had questions 19 for Mr. Kolaz based on his testimony or his response. 20 Seeing none and knowing, of course, that no other witness 21 had prefi1ed testimony, if the record could reflect that 22 I did check the sheet on which prospective witnesses 23 could indicate that they wished to testify. It is empty. 24 Was there anyone who had not signed this that wishes to

Keefe Reporting Company 371 testify? Seeing no response, we have come to the end 2 both of the prefiled testimony on the part of Mr. Kolaz 3 and the questions based upon it and consequently of all 4 of the testimony in this proceeding. 5 Let me turn quickly, then, to the issue of the 6 economic impact study. Since -- I'm sure many of you 7 know since 1998, Section 27(b), as in boy, of the 8 Environmental Protection Act has required that the Board 9 request that the department now known as the Department 10 of Commerce and Economic Opportunity conduct an economic 11 impact study of proposed rules before the Board adopts 12 rules. The Board must make either the economic impact 13 study or the Department's explanation for not conducting 14 one available to the public at least 20 days before a 15 public hearing, and in a letter dated December 19, 2008, 16 the Board, specifically Acting Chairman Dr. G. Tanner 17 Girard, requested that the Department of**Co~~erce** and 18 Economic Opportunity conduct an economic impact study on 19 this specific rulemaking proposal, and to date, the Board 20 has received nothing from DCEO responding to that 21 request. Is there anyone who would wish to testify 22 regarding to the request from the Board on December 19, 23 2008, to DCEO? 24 Neither seeing nor hearing any indication that

Keefe Reporting Company 381 anyone would like to do so, what I'd like to do, with the 2 court reporter's help, is go off the record just for a 3 few moments and discuss one or two quick procedural 4 issues. 5 (Discussion held off the record.) 6 HEARING OFFICER FOX: In going off the 7 record, the participants discussed the procedural issue 8 related specifically to the filing of post-hearing 9 comments. Consequently, before it takes action on the 10 Agency's amended proposal, the Board will hold open a 11 post-hearing comment period ending 30 days after May 8, 12 2009, when the Board expects to receive the transcript of 13 this hearing, with that comment period thus ending on 14 Monday, June 9 of 2009. I have to correct myself. It's 15 Monday, June 8 rather than the 9th, is the due date for 16 the post-hearing comments. 17 As I mentioned, copies of the transcript are 18 expected to be available at the Board by Friday, May 8, 19 and once it is filed with the Board, the transcript 20 should be available very quickly on the Board's Web site, 21 and to set that post-hearing comment deadline as clearly 22 as possible, I will issue a quick hearing officer order 23 once the Board does receive that transcript, and as I'm 24 sure that I said, even if we receive the transcript a Keefe Reporting Company 391 couple of days in advance of when we expect it, I'll go 2 ahead and reflect the June 9 deadline so that we all 3 have

-- BOARD MEMBER MOORE: June 8. 4 5 HEARING OFFICER FOX: I'm sorry. June 8. I 6 need to be corrected once again. 7 BOARD MEMBER MOORE: I'm sorry. It's just 8 the record's going. 9 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Well deserved. So 10 that we can maintain the same expectation on the 11 deadline. In addition, anyone of course may file written 12 public comments in the rulemaking with the clerk of the 13 board. Those may be filed electronically, and questions 14 about the process of electronic filing should be.directed 15 to the clerk's office. As you all know, the filings with 16 the Board, whether paper or electronic, must also be 17 served on the hearing officer and the service list, and 18 you may always check the status of the service list and 19 the names on it with the clerk's office in Chicago. If 20 anyone has any questions, my contact information is 21 listed on the Board's Web site. We of course have no 22 other hearings now scheduled in this rulemaking. 23 Are there any other issues or questions that we 24 should address before we adjourn? Neither seeing nor Keefe Reporting Company 401 hearing any, we can adjourn, and I thank you, both IERG 2 and the Agency, for your time and your preparation for 3 the hearing. Safe travels. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (Hearing adjourned.)

Keefe Reporting Company 411 STATE OF ILLINOIS 2 COUNTY OF BOND 3 

### ss

4 I, KAREN WAUGH, a Notary Public and Certified 5 Shorthand Reporter in and for the County of Bond, State 6 of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I was present at 7 Illinois Pollution Control Board, Springfield, Illinois, 8 on April 28, 2009, and did record the aforesaid Hearing; 9 that same was taken down in shorthand by me and 10 afterwards transcribed, and that the above and foregoing 11 is a true and correct transcript of said Hearing. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand 13 and affixed my Notarial Seal this 7th day of May, 2009. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Notary Public--CSR #084-003688

Keefe Reporting Company 42

### ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD May8, 2009 INTHEMATTEROF: ) ) 

### AIRQUALITY STANDARDS CLEAN-UP: ) AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) PARTS 243 ) R09-19 (Rulemaking- Air)



### HEARINGOFFICER ORDER JEPA ATTACHMENT

# NO.~ RECEiVED

CLERK'S

### OFFICE



## MAY 082009 STATE OF ILLINOIS 

### Po!!ulion Control Board

The second hearingin thisproceedingtookplace Tuesday, April 28, 2009, in Springfield. TheBoard received the transcript ofthat secondhearing (Tr. 2) on Thursday, May7, 2009, and postedthe transcript to its Web site atwww.ipcb.state.il.us. Underthe Board'sproceduralrules, "[a]nypersonmaysubmit written comments on any proposalwithin 14 days afterthe receipt ofthe hearingtranscript in Board offices unless otherwise specifiedbythe hearing officerorthe Board." 35 

### ll1. Adm. Code 102.108(b). The record ofthe secondhearing states that, "[b]eforeittakes action onthe Agency's amended proposal, the Boardwillhold open apost-hearing commentperiod ending 30days afterMay 8, 2009, whenthe Board expects to receivethetranscript ofthis hearing." Tr. 2 at 38. Anyparticipant in thisproceedingwho wishes to file a post-hearing commentwiththe Board is directed to do so on orbeforeMonday, June 8, 2009. 

### See Tr. 2 at 38-39. The "mailbox rule" at 35 Ill. 

### Adm. Code 101.300(b)(2) does not applyto thefiling ofthesepost-hearing comments. All post-hearing comments, including all electronic or approved facsimile filings, mustbereceivedbythe Clerk's Office no later than 4:30PM onMonday, June 8, 2009. Comments and otherdocuments maybefiled electronicallythrough the Clerk's Office On-Line (COOL) from the Board's Web site atwww.ipcb.state.il.us. 

### In the eventthatthe Boardissues aproposal for first notice, the Board'sprocedural rules provide for an additionalperiod ofpubliccomment. 35 TIL Adm. Code 1 02.108(a), 1 02.604; 

### see 5 ILCS 1 00/5-40(b) (2006). IT IS SO ORDERED.

TimothyJ. Fox Hearing Officer IllinoisPollution Control Board 100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 312-814-6085 foxt@ipcb.state.iLus

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

### PC #1 * * 

### * * * 

# L!J_ IEPA ATiACHMENT NO.


### BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243

TO: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center I00 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 Matthew Dunn, Chief ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### NOTICE R09-19 (Rulemaking

- Air)

Tim Fox, Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center I00 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218

Division ofEnvironmental Enforcement Office ofthe Attorney General Dave Kolaz Alec Davis Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 E. Adams St. 69 WestWashington St., Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 Springfield, IL 62701 Virginia Yang, Deputy Legal Counsel lllinois Department ofNatural Resources One Natural Resources Way Katherine D. Hodge Monica T. Rios Hodge Dwyer & 

### Driver 3150 Roland Ave. Springfield, IL 62705 Springfield, IL 62702

PLEASE TAKENOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Pollution Control Board the POST-HEARING COMMENTS ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency a copy of which is herewith served upon you.

DATED: June 8, 2009 1 021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217.782.5544 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY By: 

### Is/Charles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel



### THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

### PC #1 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243 ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### R09-19 Rulemaking -Air

POST-HEARING COMMENTS NOW COMES the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ("Illinois EPA"), by one ofits attorneys, and hereby submits its post-hearing comments to the second hearing in the above rulemaking proceeding. The Illinois EPA has reviewed the transcript ofthe April 28, 2009, hearing and responds to the information presented as follows: The Illinois EPA proposed the 243 clean-up rulemaking so as to update certain standards that were changed by federal law. These standards included PM 2.5, lead, and 8-hour ozone. In addition, the ]-hourozone standard was revoked and several non-substantive changes were made to the rule as part ofthe "clean up." The rulemaking was always intended to be oflimited scope. Atno time did the Agency claim thatthe purpose ofthe rulemaking was to make all ofthe standards in Part 243 identical to the federal Code offederal Regulations. In the Statement of Reasons theAgency stated:
This proposed rulemaking simply updates the existing regulation and is a result ofnew National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS") adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA"). Originally, the Subpart at issue was adopted to satisfy Clean AirAct ("CAA") requirements. Recent changes by the U.S. EPA require amendments to the Illinois rules to reflect the new NAAQS for both ozone and particulate matter. Statement ofReasons at 1. The Agency further stated, "[i]t incorporates new U.S. EPA air quality standards and has no real impact upon sources as it is currently federal law. These standards are well known to industry and have been thoroughly discussed by the U.S. EPA." ld.

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

## PC #1 * * * 

### * *

at 4. This statement indicates that the Agency did not intend there to be any substantive effect to

sources by proposingthis rulemaking. The Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group's ("!ERG") characterization ofthe rule would have a substantive effect; that ofrelieving one oftheir members from liability by the Illinois EPA. Moreover, the changes lllinois EPA proposes all strengthen existing standards. IERG's proposal would have the affect ofweakening existing standards. In addition, there would probably be far greater participation by stakeholders ifthey knew the scope ofthe changes !ERG is suggesting. In fact, considering that one ofiERGs proposals would reverse apolicy the State has held for 

### 30 years, greater outreach may even have been necessary. The lllinois EPA's intent to keep the changes minimal was further supported by the prefiled testimony ofRobert Kaleel, wherein he stated, "[t]he purpose ofmy testimony is to explain the purpose ofthis proposal, which will amend 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code Part 243 ("Part243") to update Illinois' air quality standards to reflect several revisions ofthe National AmbientAir Quality Standards ("NAAQS") promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA")

...Specifically, the amendments reflectrevised NAAQS for ozone, particulate matter, and lead." Kaleel prefiled testimony, pages I and 2.
At the hearing on March I0, 2009, Mr. Kaleel clearly and repeatedly stated thatthe Agency intended no changes for the S02, 

### CO, and N02 

### related sections ofPart 243. In response to questioning from !ERG'sattorney, Mr. Kaleel repeated for each pollutantthat the Illinois EPA did not intend to seek changes for such pollutants 

### (See Transcript ofMarch 10 hearing, PP. 23, 24, and 25.)

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

### PC #1 * * * * *

Despite this, in their prefiled testimony !ERG states that the Agency wishes to make Part 243 the same as the federal Code ofFederal Regulations. Prefiled testimony ofKolaz, 2. !ERG speaks ofconfusion ifthe Illinois EPA does not change the monitoring system for S02 

### from running to block averaging; but the lllinois EPA's position, that running averaging is required, has not changed in 30 years as Mr. Kolaz admits. (See Transcript ofApril 28, 2009, hearing at 37.) Therefore, it is a change in policythat would cause confusion. Mr. Kolaz states thatthis policy is by mere happenstance, but to make no amendments to a standard for overthirty years while changing other standards in that same Part, evidences some intent. Id. at 34. Actions have meaning, and the Illinois EPAs consistent action with regard to the S02 standard has been to leave it the same. This must be recognized as having value. The debate about running versus block averaging for S02 

### monitoring dates back to the early 1970's, when the S02

### rules were first promulgated. At that time, the federal reference method for monitoring ambient S02 concentrations did not allow for continuous measurements,

so the convention was to report only block averages. By the late 1970's however, new monitoringtechnology allowed for continuous measurements and the determination ofrunning averages. The use ofrunning averages has been !EPA's interpretation ofthe S02NAAQS ever since. This debate about averaging has spawned much litigation. But, as the courts have stated, both forms ofaveraging are allowed. 

### NRDC 

### v. Thomas, 845 F.2d I088, I091 (DC Cir. 1988). Eventually, in 1986, USEPA produced a guidance memo declaringthat it wished states to use block averaging. 

### "BlockAverages in ImplementingS02NAAQS", quotedin Thomas, 845 F.2d at I097. The memo, however, specifically stated that states were free to develop more stringent standards under Section 116 ofthe CAA. !d. Moreover, the USEPA stated in a separate Federal

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

## PC #1 * * * * *

Register posting that the intent ofthis memo was "to confirm the status quo after PPG industries, under which an attainment demonstration may rely on block averages." 54 Fed. Reg. 23479, 23480 (June I, 1989). Running averaging were not, therefore, proscribed.
The guidance in the memo was finally put into a rulemaking memo in 61 Fed. Reg. 25566 (May 22, 1996). In that Federal Register, the USEPA stated that it intended block averaging by its actions and were making it so by regulation. 61 Fed. Reg. at 25576. States are still free, however, to use running averaging under Section 116 ofthe CAA. Running averaging has not proscribed. Section 116 ofthe CAA allows Illinois, like all states, the freedom to enact regulations

more stringentthan federal ones. It

### has long been agreed that running averaging is slightly more stringentthan block averaging. PPGIndustries v. Castle, 659 F.2d 1239, 1250 (DC Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the Illinois EPA is free to use running averaging for the monitoring ofSOz. In fact Illinois EPA has never wavered from its use ofrunning averaging despite the ongoing debate at the federal level. Thus, there has never been any confusion in Illinois about what monitoring method is to be used for S02 

### orwhat would cause a violation ofthe S02 

### standard in Illinois. Indeed, priorto 2007, the state had been in compliance with the S02 

### NAAQS for many years. What has changed is that a member of !ERG located in Peoria, Aventine Renewable Energy ("Aventine"), has violated the S02 standard and is in talks with the Illinois EPA. Aventine's situation is such that ifthe Board were to force the Illinois EPA to use block averagingAventine would be considered in compliance.

In 2007, two exceedances ofthe 24-hour S02NAAQS were recorded at Illinois EPA's monitoring station in Pekin. Using running averages, these two exceedances constitute a

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

### PC #1 * * * * *

violation ofthe NAAQS, but using block averages, they do not. The Illinois EPA has subsequently identified a company in Pekin, Aventine, as the primary contributing source to the violation. The Illinois EPA is in discussions with Aventine, a memberofiERG, to reduce their S02 emissions. By forcing the Illinois EPA to change its longstanding interpretation ofthe S02 NAAQS from running to block averages, the Board would remove the company's obligation to reduce its emissions. Accordingly, the change to the S02 standard suggested by !ERG is not warranted. It would also have the effect ofrelaxing the S02standard for all sources in Illinois. Thus all

sources in Illinois could increasetheiremissions ofS02 leading to an unnecessary increase in pollution.
!ERG further suggests revising the State's airquality standards for S02 , CO, and N02to

remove numerical values expressed as micrograms (ormilligrams) per cubic meter, which in the

case ofCO and N02 would make the standards different from the federal standards. We note that !ERGs recommendation for CO and N02 in this regard is inconsistent from its position regarding S02 . For S02 , !ERG requests that Illinois standards be identical to the federal standard. For CO and N02 , !ERG is recommending that Illinois not follow the federal standard, by removing the numerical standards, expressed as micrograms (ormilligrams) per cubicmeter for these pollutants. The Illinois EPA urges the Board to retain the numerical values using both units, micrograms (or milligrams) per cubic meter and partspermillion, for So2, 

### CO, and N02. 

### Both units are used routinely. Typically parts per million are used when reporting monitoring data, as JERG has pointed out, but micrograms percubic meter are routinely used for modeling S02 , CO, andN02. 

### Federally approved air quality models are designed to calculate micrograms percubic meter, and such models are required for modeling for permits under the Prevention of

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

## PC #1 * * * 

### * 

### *

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, as well as performing attainment demonstrations for these pollutants.

For these reasons, the Board should reject the suggestions by !ERG and adopt the proposal ofthe Illinois EPA. This rulemaking was intended to be a simple updating ofPart 243 to account for new USEPA NAAQS standards. It

### was not intended to encompass substantive changesthat are discretionary for states to impose. Again, Illinois has every right to use running averages and has never swayed from the use ofsuch. To force Illinois to use block averages would relax the S02 standard and increase S02 emissions throughout Illinois, notjustfrom one ofiERG's members. Furthermore, the Illinois EPA urges the Board to retain the numerical values for S02 ,N02and CO using both units, micrograms (ormilligrams) per cubic meter and parts permillion, as both units are used routinely.

DATED: _ ___,J,un....,e'-'8"-=20"""0""9- 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217.782.5544 Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

### Is/Charles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counselc • 

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

### PC #1 * * * * *

STATE OFILLINOIS COUNTY OF SANGAMON ) ) ) 

## ss

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l, the undersigned, an attorney, state that l have served electronicallythe attached POSTHEARING COMMENTS,'upon the following persons: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center I00 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, IL 60601 Virginia Yang, Deputy Legal Counsel 111inois Department ofNatural Resources OneNatural Resources Way Springfield, JL 62702 Matthew Dunn, Chief Division ofEnvironmental Enforcement Office oftheAttorney General 69 West Washington St., Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602

Dated: June 8, 2009 1 021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 217.782.5544 Tim Fox, Hearing Officer 111inois Pollution Control Board James R. Thompson Center I00 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500 Chicago, lL 60601 Dave Kolaz, Alec Davis Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 E. Adams St. Springfield, JL 62701 Katherine D. Hodge, Monica T. Rios Hodge Dwyer & Driver 3150 Roland Ave. Springfield, IL 62705

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Is/Charles E.Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel

# • Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * 

### * PC #2 * * * * 

## *[I r::: \EPA ATTACHMENT NO; _!.J 

### BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD IN THEMATTER OF: AIR QUALITY STANDARDS CLEAN-UP: AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243 ) ) ) ) ) 

### R09-19 (Rulemaking- Air)

NOTICE OFFILING TO: Mr. John C. Therriault Assistant Clerk ofthe Board Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 W. Randolph Street Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 6060I (VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL) Mr. Timothy J. Fox Hearing Oftlcer Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 W. Randolph Street Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 6060I (VIA U.S. MAIL) (SEE PERSONS ON ATTACHED SERVICELIST) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP on behalfofthe Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group, copies ofwhich are herewith served upon you.

Dated: June 8, 2009 Alec M. Davis General Counsel ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP 215 East Adams Street Springfield, Illinois 6270I (217) 522-5512 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Katherine D. Hodge Katherine D. Hodge Katherine D. Hodge Monica T. 

### Rios HODGE DWYER& 

### DRIVER 3150 Roland Avenue PostOffice Box 5776 Springfield, Illinois 62705 (217) 523-4900

THIS FILINGSUBMITTEDONRECYCLEDPAPER

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

### PC #2 * * * * *

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: AIR QUALITY STANDARDS CLEAN-UP: AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODEPART243 

### ) ) ) ) ) 

### R09-19 (Rulemaking- Air)

POST-HEARING COMMENTS OFTHE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group ("!ERG"),by and through its attorneys, Alec M. Davis and HODGE DWYER & 

### DRNER, and submits its Post-Hearing Comments in the above-captioned matter to the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board"), stating as follows: I. INTRODUCTION The Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group ("IERG") would like to thank the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") for the opportunityto submit these comments in regard to the April 28, 2009 hearing, dedicated to the Air Quality Standards Clean-Up rulemaking. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA" or "Agency") has proposed to amend the air quality standards for particulate matter, ozone, and lead codified at 35 Ill. Admin. CodePart 243 ("Part 243") to "

...reflect CUITent national ambient air quality standards established bythe U.S. EPA under the federal Clean Air Act." Statement ofReasons, In theMatter of'Air Quality Standards Clean-Up: Amendments to 

### 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 243, R09-19 at 4 (Ill.Pol.Control.Bd. Dec. I, '2008). The first hearing held in this matter occurred March 10, 2009. As a result of questions raised at thehearing concerning differences between theproposal and the federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS"), the Agency made revisions

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

### PC #2 * * * * *

on April 8, 2009 to more precisely confonn its proposal to the form and substance ofthe United States Environmental Protection Agency's ("U.S. EPA") NAAQS. !ERG supports thedesire ofthe Illinois EPA to adopt standards in Illino"is that are identical in substance to the NAAQS. Since the federal NAAQS were first adopted on April30, 1971, the Illinois EPA and the Board have expressed the intent to adopt Illinois Standards that are substantively identical to the NAAQS. 

### In the Board's opinion in In theMatter of ProposedAir Quality Standards (R72-7), adopted on July 10, 1975, the Board discussed the need for statewide ambient air quality standards, and among otherthings, concluded the following:

...uniformity between state and federal standards is obviously desirable unless there is solidground for disagreement, especially since we have already devised a plan for achieving federal standards. In light ofthe above considerations, the PCB today is proposing adoption ofthe federal standards. "Proposed Air Quality Standards," Board Newsletter #47, cited in 

### In the Malter of ProposedAir QualityStandards, R72-7 at 4-5 (Ill.Pol.Control.Bd. July 10, 1975). The Board then proceeded to adoptthe federal NAAQS. The proposal bythe Agency in this rulemaking appears to continue the espoused policyto maintain uniformitybetween state and federal standards, "

...unless there is solid ground for disagreement.

.." IERG supports the Agency'sproposal, but wouldfurther encourage the Agency and the Board to takethis opportunity to update the standards for sulfuroxides, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide as well. The air quality standards for sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide have notbeen substantivelyrevisedby the U.S. EPA, but important

2

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

### PC #2 * * * * *

clarifications have been adopted in recent years that should be incorporated into Illinois' standards to avoid confusion and possible misinterpretation. Following are more specific comments regarding the Agency's proposal andthe matter ofupdating the standards for sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide. 

### II. PM10 AND PM2.5 

### (SECTION 243.120) !ERG suggests the following changes to the Agency's April 8, 2009 revised proposal for the PM10 and PM2.5 standards: a) PM10 Standards. The primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for PM10 areis a maximum 24-hour average concentration of 150 micrograms percubic meter. The standards are attained when the expected number ofdays per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 micrograms per cubic meter is equal to or less than one, as measured and determined in accordance with subsection (b) below. b) PM.LQ_Measurement Method. Fordetermining conformance with the PM 10 ambient air quality standards, PM 10 shall be measured by 

### l!tfle method described in 40 CFR 50, Appendix 

### J (incorporated by reference in Section 243.108). The standards are attained when the expected number ofdays percalendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 micrograms per cubic meter is equal to or less than one, as determined in accordance with 

### The eem(lutffiioos 

### l!eCeSSBF)' fer BRa]yzing (lBrtieulate matter eata te eetermine attaiameat efthe 

### PM.w staaaaras are Eieserieea ia 

### 40 CFR 

### 50, Appendix K (incorporatedby reference in Section 243.108). c) PM25_Standards. Theprimary and secondary ambient air quality standards for PM2.s are: I) An annual arithmetic mean concentration of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meterj-ftHt! as measured and detennined in confonnance with subsection (d) below. 2) A maximum 24-hourconcentration of35 micrograms per cubic meter, at the 98th percentilevalue, an&-as measured and detem1ined in conformancewith subsection (d) below.



### 3

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

### PC #2 * * * * *
d) PMu_Measurement Method-fuf-P-Mg. For determining conformance with the PM2.5 ambient air quality standards, PM2.5 shall be measured by the method described in 40 CFR 50, Appendix L (incorporated by reference in Section 243.108). Compliance with the standards is detennined using the methods and procedures described in 40 CFR 50, Appendix 

### N (incorporated by reference in Section 243.108). I) The annual primary and secondary PM2

### >standards are met when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as detennined in accordance with40 CFR 50. Appendix N. is less than oregual to 15.0 ug/m3. The eemJ3HlatieBs Beeessary fer aBalyziRg J3artieHiate matter data ta determiRe attaiRmeBI efthe Pl\4;, standards are deseriaed in 40 CFR 

### 50, Ajljlendix 

### t>l (iBeaFjlarated 

### by refereRee ill SeetiaB 243.108). 2) The 24-hour primary and secondary PM, 5 standards are metwhen the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50. Appendix N of this part. is less than or equal to 35 ug/m3. 

### III. 8-HOUR OZONE (SECTION 243.125) !ERG suggests the following changes to the Agency's April 8, 2009 revised proposal for the 8-hourozone standards: a)**Standard~.** The primary and secondary ambient air quality**standard~** for ozone areis 0.075 parts permillion (ppm) daily maximum 8-hour average**concentration~,** measured and determined in accordance with subsection (b) below. b) Measurement Method. Far determiBiBg easfef!llaRee 

### 'liith the ezase airEJHality stasdard, eOzone shall bemeasured byl!tfle reference method specified by40 CFR Patt 50, Appendix D, or an equivalent method as described in 40 CFRPatt 50, Section 50.1, all designated as prescribed by40 CFR Part 53 (2003kThe primaryand secondary ambient air quality standards are met when the 3-year average ofthe annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8- hour average ozone concentration is less than oregual to 0.075 .PJllih.arul-as determined using the InteFjlretatieB aftbeJ>lAAQ8 fer G;,,-40 CFRPart 50, Appendix P, (incomoratedby reference in Section 243.108). 73 Fed. Reg. 

### Hi436 (Marsh 27, 2008). 4

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

## PC #2 * * * 

### * *

IV. LEAD (SECTION 243.126) !ERG suggests the following changes to the Agency's April 8, 2009 revised proposal for the lead standards: a) Standard. Theprimary and secondary ambient air quality standards for lead and its compounds areis 0.1Smicrograms per cubic meter, maximum arithmetic mean over a rolling three calendar month periodaverage measured and detem1ined over a three yearperiod. b) Measurement Method. For determining conformance with the ambient airquality standards for lead and its compounds, lead and its compounds shall be measuredby a reference method based on 40 CFR 50, Appendix G orAppendix 

### 0 and designated in accordance with 40 CFR 53 tlie atemie allseratien Sfleelremetry or an equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR 53, as aeserillea in 4Q Cl'R 5Q**Ap~enEiiees** G aAEI 

### Q, as incorporated by reference in Section 243.108 ofthis Part. Theprimary and secondary ambient air quality standards are metwhen the maximum arithmetic 3-month mean concentration for a 3-year period is less than oregual to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix Rsllall ae aeteffllined in aeeorEianee witll Afl(leHEiil( R ofPart 50 as {incorporated byreference in Section 243.108 ofthis Part}. 

### V. SULFUR OXIDES (SECTION 243.122) The current sulfur oxides standards in Section 243.122 were adopted by the Board

onJuly l0, 1975, and according to the Board, the standards were"

....identical to the federal standards." Board Opinion,

### In theMatter of ProposedAir QualityStandards, R72-7at 14. The U.S. EPA has reviewed and revised the criteriaupon which its sulfur oxides air quality standards are based and has determined that revisions ofthe standards were not warranted, other than several minorteclmical changes. 61 Fed. Reg. 25566 (May 22,

5

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

### PC #2 * * * * *

1996). These changes included restating the primary and secondary standards in tenns of pmis per million rather than micrograms percubic meter, adding explicit rounding conventions, and specifying data completeness and handling conventions. TheU.S. EPA also declared its intention to retain the block averaging convention for the 24-hour, annual, and 3-hour standards, and therefore, added clarifying language to eliminate future confusion in this regard. 

### !d. at 25576. !ERG suggests that Illinois' sulfur oxides standard be stated solelyin terms of parts per million to be consistentwith, and improve understanding of, U.S. EPA's 1996 determination. The State's current standard is expressed in micrograms per cubic meter andparenthetically in partsper million. The number ofsignificant digits is not the same between the twounits ofmeasure, which affects rounding conventions that can result in misinterpretation ofdata. Further, for the purpose ofits own data handling, the Agency measures, interprets, and reports sulfur dioxide data in terms ofparts permillion. At the April 28, 2009 hearing dedicated to this matter, the Agency seemed to be making a case for retaining the standard in micrograms per cubic meter, implying that not doing so would somehow impact its modelingprogram. Hearing Transcript,In theMatter ofAir QualityStandards Clean-Up: Amendments to 

### 35!11. Adm. CodePart243, R09-19 at 24, 29, 31 (IIl.Pol.Control.Bd. April28, 2009) (cited hereafter as "Tr."). IERG believes this

concern to be overstated. The modelingprogram is aplanning tool and is not a recognized protocol for detenniningcompliance with the air quality standards. Whether the State's air quality standards are expressed in parts permillion ormicrograms per cubic meter should have no impact on the Agency's ability to conduct modeling.



### 6

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 

### * * * * * PC #2 

### * * 

### * * 

### * Similarly, !ERG believes that Illinois needs to clearly address the rounding convention in its sulfur oxides rule. The U.S. EPA has amended its rule to clarify that the convention

- to three decimal places (fractional parts equal to or greater than 0.0005 ppm shall be rounded up)- is applicable to the primary annual sulfur oxide NAAQS. 40 C.F.R. 

### §50.4(a) (2008); 

### see also 40 C.F.R. 

### §§ 50.4(b), 50.5(a). Illinois' adoption ofthe

same clarification will not only help avoid confusion, but itwill also result in the codification ofthe method the Agency currently uses. The U.S. EPA has provided further clarification in the sulfur oxides NAAQS by specifying data completeness and data handling criteria. For example, the U.S. EPA specifies that at least 18 of24 hourly values must beavailable to compute a 24 hour average. 40 C.F.R. 

### §50.4(d). It 

### further specifies how missing data and other similar issues areto be handled. 

### !d. IERG understands that the Illinois EPA currentlyuses these conventions. Incorporating them into the State's sulfur oxides standard would simply formalize the current practicethe Agency follows. IERG encourages the Agency and the Board to include the U.S. EPA's data completeness and data handling criteria into the State's sulfur oxides rule. In the November 15, 1994 Federal Register Notice reproposing the sulfur oxides standard, the U.S. EPA addressed the issue ofblock averages versus running averages for the 3-hour, 24-hour and annual standards. 58 Fed. Reg. 58958 (Nov. 15, 1994). In Section V.D., the U.S. EPA stated: Although the wording ofthe original 24-hour, 3-hour, and annual SO 2 standards was ambiguous on the matter, the earliest actions ofthe EPA signifythatthe block averaging convention was intended for these



### 7

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

### PC #2 * * * * *

standards (OAQPS, 1986), and block averages have generally been used in implementing the standards. 

### !d. TheU.S. EPA then stated, "[t]o eliminate any future questions on this aspect ofthe standards, clarifying language is beingproposed in the regulation (40 CFR 50.4 and 50.5)." 

### !d. The NAAQS now reads, inpart: "[t]he 24-houraverages shall be detennined from successive nonoverlapping 24-hourblocks starting at midnight each calendar day

...." 40 C.F.R. 

### § 50.4(b). The standard similarly defines the averaging periods for the annual and 3-hour standards. 

### In formalizing the block-averaging convention, the U.S. EPA also explicitlyrecognized that "the use ofthe alternative, running averages, would represent a tightening ofthe standards

...." 61 Fed. Reg. at 25576. !ERGmaintains thatthe wording ofthe State's sulfur oxides standard in regard to averaging time is ambiguous. Mr. David Kolaz, testifying on behalfof!ERG at the April 28, 2009 hearing, stated thatthe Illinois EPA has been interpreting the State standard as based on a ru1111ing average time period, while the U.S. EPA interprets the same data using block averages. Tr. at 11-14, Exhibits 2 and 3; 

### see also Pre-Filed Testimony of David 

### J. Kolaz, 

### In theMatter ofAir Quality Standards Clean-Up: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part243, R09-19 at 2-3 and Attachment I (Ili.Poi.Controi.Bd. Aprill4, 2009) ("Kolaz Testimony"). At hearing, the Illinois EPA seemed to suggest the discrepancy was irrelevant, as states are permitted to have standards stricter than the federal standards. Tr. at 19-20 and 25-26. lERG does not deny that this is the case. However, upon review ofthe Boardrecords relating to the Illinois sulfur oxides standard, !ERGhas been unable to locate any instance where the Illinois EPA stated thatits intent

was to have a standard for sulfur oxides thatis more stringent than the federal standard. 8

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

### PC #2 * * * * *

Nor is there any apparent record of justification for such a more stringent standard. Rather, as described above, the promulgation ofthe State's sulfur oxides standard was based on being identical to that ofthe U.S. EPA. Because U.S. EPA's standard is based

on a block average interpretation, IERG suggests that Section 243.122 beamended accordingly to remove the ambiguity. In the altemative, should the Agency not concur with the change to a block averaging interpretation, it should be preparedtojustify the need for a more stringent state than federal standard. 

### VI. NITROGEN DIOXIDE (SECTION 243.124) The U.S. EPA's airquality standard for nitrogen dioxide was lastupdated in 1985. 50 Fed. Reg. 25544 (June 19, 1985). The standard includes block averaging, rounding convention, and data completeness and handlingmethodologies similar in conceptto those described in greater detail above for sulfur oxides. The standard is also stated in tenus ofparts permillion and statedparenthetically in micrograms per cubic meter. 

### In stating the parts permillion standard, the U.S. EPA included an additional significant digit, expressing 

### it as 0.053, instead of0.05, parts permillion. As pointed out at the April 28, 2009 hearingbyMr. David Kolaz on behalfof IERG, the Illinois EPA currentlyuses 0.053 pa1ts per million as the State standard in its mmual air qualityreports. Tr. at 29; KolazTestimony at 4-5. Accordingly, IERG recommends that the Agency and the Boardmodify Illinois' codified nitrogen dioxide standard (currently 0.05 ppm) to conform to the NAAQS. IERG would fu1ther recommend that the State standard not include the micrograms per cubic meter parenthetical, as it does nothingto add clarity. The lack ofneed for inclusion ofthe 

### 9

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * 

### * * * 

### PC #2 * * * 

### * *
parenthetical micrograms per cubic meteris further supported by the U.S. EPA'spractice to not express the standards in both parts per million and micrograms per cubic meter for gaseous pollutants since the time the nitrogen dioxide NAAQS was last updated. For example, the !-hourNAAQS ozone standard was stated in parts per million and parenthetically in micrograms per cubic meter when it was published in 1979. 44 Fed. Reg. 8202. The 8-hourNAAQS ozone standard published on July 18, 1997 was expressed solely in parts per million. 62 Fed. Reg. 38856. Also, as mentioned earlier, the sulfur oxides standard revised on May 22, I996 was expressed only in tenns ofparts per million. 61 Fed. Reg. 25566. The latest ozone standard adopted on March 27,2008 is expressed only in parts per million. 73 Fed. Reg. 16436. Clearly, the U.S. EPA is directing attention to reliance on the "parts per million" nomenclature. ForIllinois to delete the micrograms per cubic meter reference for nitrogen dioxide will not create a substantive inconsistencybetween the State and federal standards. VII. CARBON MONOXIDE (SECTION 243.123) The U.S. EPA last made changes to its carbon monoxide NAAQS in 1985, choosingtoexpress the standard in partspermillion and parenthetically in milligrams per cubic meter. 50 Fed. Reg. 37501 (Sept. 13, 1985). This is the reverse ofthe way it is currently expressed in the State standard. At that time, the U.S. EPA also updated the standard to include data completeness and handlingcriteria. Nothing was stated about blockaverages, but the U.S. EPA uses a running non-overlapping approach to interpretingcompliance with the 8-hour standard. IERG advocates expressing the carbon monoxide standard solely in terms ofparts permillion for thereasons specified in the

10

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 

## * * * * * 

### PC #2 * * * * *

above discussions ofsulfur oxides and nitrogen dioxide. We also suggest that the rounding convention and data completeness and data handling components ofthe U.S. EPA rule be incorporated. Lastly, we believethatthe State rule should also specify that the 8-hour standard is determined using non-overlapping running averages. VTII. CONCLUSION In summary, !ERG supports the efforts ofthe Agency to update the State's air quality standards. This effort, however, should be extended beyond the Agency's initial proposal to include clarifications to Illinois' sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide, andcarbon monoxide standards. This will afford the public and regulated community a much clearer understanding ofthe State's air quality standards. !ERG further believes the standards will then more accurately reflect the methods and techniques that the Agencyuses to interpret the standards, with one exception. Unlike its current practice ofinterpreting the sulfur oxides standard on a running average basis, the Agency will need to adopt the block averaging approach.

I l

### Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * * * 

### PC #2 * * * * *

!ERG offers these comments to facilitate achieving the intent ofthe proposed rulemaking- to provide confonnitybetween Illinois' and the U.S. EPA's standards, as stated bythe Board at the time the State's standards were initially adopted. IERG appreciates the opportunityto comment. We will be pleasedto answer any questions that may arise.

Dated: June 8, 2009

Alec M. Davis General Counsel ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP 215 East Adams Street Springfield, Illinois 6270I (217) 522-5512 Respectfully submitted, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP By: Is/Alec M. Davis One oflts Attorneys Katherine D. Hodge Monica T. Rios HODGE DWYER & DRIVER 3150 Roland Avenue Post Office Box 5776 Springfield, Illinois 62705 (217) 523-4900

IERG-00 1/R Dockets/Filings/R09-19/IERG's Post-Hearing Comments

12

### Electronic 

### Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 * * * 

### * * 

## PC #2 * * * * * CERTIFICATE OF 

### SERVICE I, Katherine D. Hodge, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have served the attached POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP on behalfofthe Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group, upon: Mr. JohnT. Theniault Assistant Clerk ofthe Board Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 West Randolph Street Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 via electronic mail on June 8, 2009; and upon: Mr. Timothy J. Fox Hearing Officer Illinois Pollution Control Board 100 W. Randolph Street. Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 6060I Charles E. Matoesian, Esq. Assistant Counsel Illinois Environmental Protection Agency I021 North Grand Avenue East Post Office Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 Matthew 

### J. Dunn, Chief Office ofthe Attorney General Environmental Bureau North 69 West Washington Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Virginia Yang, Esq. Illinois Department ofNatural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, Illinois 62702

bydepositing said documents in the United States Mail, postageprepaid, in Springfield, Illinois on June 8, 2009. Is!

### Katherine D. Hodge Katherine D. Hodge IERG-001\R Dockets\Filings\R09-19\NOF & COS- !ERG'sPost-Hearing Comments