IEPA ATTACHMENT NO.l_ 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD~~~~ lY::I~EIO 

DEC 0 I 2008 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. 

ADM. CODE PART 243 

) 

) 

) 

) 

tJ STATE OF ILLINOIS 

R09- l. J Pollution Control Board 

(Rulemakmg- Air) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF REGULATORY SUBMITTAL 

1. Notice of Filing 

2. Appearance of Charles E. Matoesian, Assistant Counsel for the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency 

3. Proposal of Regulations by Director Douglas P. Scott 

4. Agency Analysis of Economic and Budgetary Effects 

5. Statement ofReasons 

6. Proposed Amendments to 35lll. Adm. Code 243 

7. Technical Support Document for Rule Revisions to Part 243: Air Quality 

Standards, illinois Environmental Protection Agency, September 2008. 

8. Certificate of Service' 

9. Disk in Microsoft WORD containing Agency's Analysis of Economic and 

Budgetary Effects (ECONOMICBUDGET-243.doc) and Proposed Amendments 

to Part 243 (RULE-243.doc) 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

RECEBVED 

CLERK'S OFFICE 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

CLEAN-UP 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. 

ADM. CODE PART 243 

TO: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, TI!inois 60601-3218 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DEC 0 1 2008 

R09- I q STATE OF ILLINOIS 

(Rulemaling - Air) Pollution Control Board 

NOTICE 

Matthew Dunn, Chief 

Division of Environmental Enforcement 

Officr of the Attorney General 

69 Wbst Washington St., Suite 1800 

Chid o, IL 60602 

Virginia Yang, Deputy Legal Counsel 

illinois Department of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, IL 62702 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed ith the Office of the Pollution Control 

Board the REGULATORY PROPOSAL FOR CLEAN- AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. 

CODE PART 243 and APPEARANCE of the lllinois Environmental Protection Agency 

of which is herewith served upon you. 

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 

Assistant Counsel 

Division fLegal Counsel 

THIS FILIN IS SUBMITTED 

ON RECYCLED PAPER 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTIO CONTROL BOARD 

RIECEBVED 

ClERK'S OFFICE 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. 

ADM. CODE PART 243 

) 

) 

) 

) 

\ a DEC 0 l 2DDB 

R09- J 

(RulemaKing- .S.TATE OF ILLINOIS 

PdiiUtJon Control Board 

APPEARANCE 

' 

The undersigned hereby enters his appearance as attorney on behalf of the 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 

DATED: November 25, 2008 

1 021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

217/782-5544 

Resp ctfully submitted, 

ILL OIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PRO ECTION AGENCY 

Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 

·; 

/ 
Rtece:uv 

CU:RK'S OFFI~Efl:) 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTIO 

DEC 0 1 20UB 

STATE OF 

CONTROL BOtflc!lltion Co~~L1N0IS 0 oard 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. 

ADM. CODE PART 243 

) 

) 

) 

) 

R09 -I~ (Rule making -Air) 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT! t AGENCY PROPOSAL OF 

REGULATIONS 

The illinois Environmental Protection Agency moves . hat the Illinois Pollution Control 

Board adopt the attached regulations. 

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 

PROTECTION AGENCY 
Agency: 

Part/Title: 

Agency Analysis of Econo ·c and 

Budgetary Effects of Proposed Rulemaking 

lllinois Pollution Control Board 

Air Quality Standards (35 ill. Adm. Code art 243) 

nlinois Register Citation: -------------+--

Please attempt to provide as dollar-specific responses as po sible and feel free to add any relevant 

explanation. 

I. Anticipated effect on State expenditures and reven es. 

(a) Current cost to the agency for this progra activity. $0 per year 

(b) If this rulemaking will result in an increas or decrease in cost, specify the fiscal 

year in which this change \vill first occur a d the dollar amount of the 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 of the effect. N/A 

(e) Will this rulemaking have any effect on State revenues or expenditures not 

already indicated above? No 

2. Economic effect on persons affected by the rulema ·ng: 

(a) Indicate the economic effect and specify th persons affected: 

Positive _ Negative _ No effect L 

Persons affected: N/A 

Dollar amount per person: 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 or corhpletion of forms? 

The rulemakin should have no indirec effect that rna result in increased 

administrative costs. 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTIO CONTROL BOA~if:CEOVIS:fO 

CLERK'S OFFICE 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

CLEAN-UP 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. 

ADM. CODE PART 243 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DEC 0 l 2008 

STATE OF IlliNOIS 

Pollution Control Board 

( ulemaking- Air) 

STATEMENTOFRE SONS 

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agenc ("Illinois EPA") hereby submits 

""'"'""""' ofR=mo ro llio mm.,;, Pollotioo C+rol Boon! ("Bood~ '""""'' ro 

Sections 27 and 28 of the Environmental Protection rt ("Act")(415 ILCS 5/27 and 28) 

and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.202(b), in support of the ached proposed amendments to 

existing regUlations. Included in this proposal are ~endments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 

243 ("Part 243"), which update the existing Part to in~orporate new federal air quality 

standards. These changes include: amending Sectionl243.125 to the repeal the 1-hour 

ozone standard and replace it with the 8-hour ozone sLdard; proposing a new Section 

243.!20a to incorporate the new particulate matter stLdard (PM2.5); and updating Section 

243.108 to include the new incorporations by referent. This proposal amends the most 

recent version of Part 243 as found on the Board's wlsite. 

I. ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL !'ROT .I!.'-~ tr)N AGENCY PROPOSAL 

This proposed rulemak:ing simply updates the existing regulauon and is a result of 

new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (''NJ S") adopted by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency ("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 ents reflect the new 8-hour ozone 

standard and the revocation ofthe 1-hour standard. T is new standard is set forth in a 

recent posting in the Federal Register, National Ambilt Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone, 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (March 27, 2008). The jbient rur quality standard for ozone 

is 0.075 ppm druly maximum 8-hour concentration, jd is based on the fourth-highest 

daily 8-hour value recorded during a calendar year an~ measured by a reference or 

equivalent method as described in 40 CFR Part 50, sltion 50.1 (2003) and the newly 

created Interpretation of the NAAQS for OJ, 40 CFR lppendix P, 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 

(March 27, 2008). 

Concerning particulate matter, several recent rstings in the Federal Register 

reflect changes to the NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.s. On July 18, 1997, a Federal Register 

posting at 62 Fed. Reg. 386521owered the annual anfetic mean concentration to 15 

micrograms per cubic meter. More recently, in The rtional Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter, 73 Fed. Reg. 61144(0ctober 17, 2006), a maximum 

24-hour concentration of 35 micrograms per cubic me~er was established. This was to be 

calculated at the 98th percentile value, as determined y 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N. 

The posting also updated Appendix L of 40 CFR Part 50, which describes the reference 

method used for the determination of fine particulate alter as PM2.s in the atmosphere. 

Appendix N, meanwhile, was further updated in a sep ate posting, Interpretation of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM 2.5, 4 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, 73 

Fed. Reg. 1497 (January 9, 2008). Finally, Section 2 3.1 07, Reference Conditions, was 

2 
updated to reflect that PM2.s measurements should be ased upon the actual ambient air 

volume measured at the actual temperature and pressu eat the monitoring site during the 

measurement period. This differs from the other air q ality measurements which are 

corrected to a reference temperature of25° C, and to reference pressure of 760 

millimeters of mercury (1013.2 millibars). 

The standard for PM10 was also amended by Je Federal Register posting of 

October 17, 2006. The Federal Register posting revord the annual PM10 standard which 

had been calculated as the annual arithmetic mean co centration of 50 micrograms per 

cubic meter. The posting left the daily PM10 standard nchanged at a maximum 24-hour 

concentration of !50 micrograms per cubic meter, not to be exceeded more than once per 

year. The posting further amended Appendix K of 40 CFR Part 50, which described the 

interpretation of the NAAQS for particulate matter. 

Lastly, the Illinois EPA's proposal involves se era! minor corrections to Section 

243 .I 0 I (Definitions), Section 243 .I 04 (Nondegradatl n), Section 243.122 (Sulfur 

Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide)), and Section 243.126 (Lead). These amendments simply 

hi I d . . . lfi correct typograp ca errors an put citations m proper orm. 

II. GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS AND S · URCES AFFECTED 

Sources throughout the state could be affected by this proposal, but, as stated, the 

proposal simply incorporates the addition of new fed al standards which are currently 

applicable throughout the nation. 

III. PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF HE PROPOSAL 

3 
This proposal is a minor clean-up of Part 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 known to industry and have een thoroughly discussed by the 

U.S. EPA 

IV. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND ECON MIC REASONABLENESS 

The amendments to Part 243 do not impose ne requirements, they merely update 

the State's regulations to reflect current federal law standards. The Illinois EPA 

therefore believes that an analysis oftechnical feasibi ty and economic reasonableness is 

not appropriate. These standards are well known to i bustry and have been thoroughly 

discussed by the U.S. EPA. 

V. COMMUNICATIONWITHINT RESTEDPARTIES 

These amendments are being proposed based jn current national ambient air 

quality standards adopted by the U.S. EPA that must e reflected in Illinois' regulations. 

As the changes are commonly known throughout ind stry, no specific program of 

outreach was implemented. 

VI. CONCL USIO 

-:;-;,_ ~·~:--'- nn' ;:'~">pus.;:> a dean-up of the Je at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 243 to 

update specified provisions and to reflect .... :TP.nt natilnal ambient air quality standards 

established by the U.S. EPA under the federal Clean ir Act. 

4 
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, the Illinois EPA hereby submits 

this regulatory proposal and requests the Board adopt hese proposed amendments to Part 

243 for the State of Illinois. 

DATED: November 25, 2008 

1021 North Grand Ave. East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

B 

. Matoesian 

Assistan Counsel 

Divisio of Legal Counsel 

..-'\ 

5 
TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PR' TECTION 

SUBTITLE B: AIR POLLU ON 

CHAPTER I: 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 

SUBPART A: GENERAL PRO SIONS 

Definitions 

Preamble 

Applicability 

Nondegradation 

Monitoring 

Reference Conditions 

Incorporations by Reference 

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 (Sulfur Dioxide) 

Carbon Monoxide 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

8 Hour Ozone 

Lead 

Rule into Section Table 

Section into Rule Table 

l>ast Compliance Dates 

AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 1v '""''' · y Section 27 of the 

EnvironmentalProtectionAct(Ill. Rev. Stat. 199l,ch. :;' 1/2,pars. 1010and 1027) 

SOURCE: Adopted as Chapter 2: Air Pollution, Part ill: ·r Quality Standards, in R71-

23, 4 PCB 191, filed and effective April 14, 1972; amend din R80-11, 46 PCB 125, at 6 

Ill. Reg. 5804, effective April 22, 1982; amended in R8 -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 as hereinafter stated and unless ad" ferent meaning of a term is 

clear from its context, the definitions oftets used in this Part shall be the 

same as those used in the Environmental P otection Act (ill. Rev. Stat. 

1981, ch. Ill 112, pars. 1001 et seq.)(Ac ). 

All terms which appear in this Part have th definitions specified by Parts 

20 I or 211 of this Subtitle Chapter. 

(Source: Amended at , effective --1-------' 

Section 243.102 Preamble 

a) 

b) 

c) 

Air quality standards are limits on atmosp eric concentrations of air 

contaminants established for the pUipose o protecting public health and 

welfare. The levels of air quality designat d by the standards are designed 

to protect against injury to human, plant orl1 animal life and they are further 

intended to allow maximum enjoyment of ife and property consistent with 

the intent of the Act. l 

The first use of our air resources is to sust · n life. Air entering the 

respiratory tract must not menace health. therefore, the air quality 

standards set must, as a minimum, providej air which will not adversely 

affect, through acute or chronic symptoms the health of the community. 

Adverse health effects include not only th~ possible production and 

aggravation of disease, but also interferenct with bodily functions. The 

standards have also taken into account soiltng, corrosion, vegetation 

damage and other human effects. 

Primary ambient air quality standards defi e levels of air quality which are 

necessary, with an adequate margin of safi , to protect the public health. 

Secondary ambient air quality standards d fine levels of air quality which 

are necessary to protect the public welfare om any known or anticipated 

adverse effects of a pollutant. 

2 
d) The standards are more than goals. They ar legally enforceable 

limitations, and any person causing or cont buting to a violation of the 

standards is subject to enforcement proceed ngs under the Act. The 

standards have also been designed for use Jl a basis for the development 

of implementation plans by State and local gencies for the abatement and 

control of pollutant emissions from existin · sources, and for the 

determination of air contaminant emission 'mitations to insure that 

population and economic growth trends do ot add to the region's air 

pollution problems. 

Section 243.103 Applicability 

The standards in this Part are applicable throughout the St te oflllinois, except as 

otherwise provided in this Part. 

Section 243.104 Non degradation 

Existing ambient air quality which is better than the establ shed OJttalllishee ambient air 

quality standards at the date of their adoption will be maintained in its present high 

quality. Such ambient air quality shall not be lowered unl~s and until it is proved to the 

illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) that s 

1 ch change is justifiable as a 

result of necessary economic and social development and ill not interfere with or 

become injurious to human health or welfare. 

(Source: Amended at , effective-+------' 

Section 243.106 Monitoring 

Pollution levels will be determined by fixed or mobiles piing stations beyond the 

premises on which a source is located. Stations will be Io ated according to the 

guildelines for established monitoring networks as develo ed by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Section 243.107 Reference Conditions 

All measurements of air quality, except PMld> are correct to a reference temperature of 

25° C, and to a reference pressure of760 millimeters of mercury (1013.2 millibars). 

PM2 . measurements shall be based u on the actual ambi t air volume measured at the 

actual tern erature and ressure at the monitorin site d n the measurement eriod. 

(Source: Amended at _______ , effective-+-------' 

3 
Section 243.108 Incorporations by Reference 

The following materials are incorporated by reference. T ese incorporations do not 

include any later amendments or editions: 

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

e) 

t) 

g) 

h) 

j) 

). 

Pararosaniline method, 40 CFR 50, Appen ix A (J 982). 

Non-dispersive infrared spectrometry tee , ique, 40 CFR 50, Appendix C 

(1982), 36 Fed. Reg. 22391, November 2·, 1971. 

Colorimetric method, 36 Fed. Reg. 2239 , November 25, 1971. 

Ozone-ethylene reaction method, 40 CFR 0, Appendix D ( 1982), 36 Fed. 

Reg. 22392, November 25, 1971. 

Lead, 40 CFR 50, Appendix G (1982), 43 ed. Reg. 46258, October 5, 

1978, as amended at 44 Fed. Reg. 37915, June 29, 1979; 46 Fed. Reg. 

44163, September 3, 1981. 

Reference method for the determination o~particulate matter as PM!Q PM-

-Win the atmosphere, 40 CFR 50, Appendix J (1990), 

Interpretation of the national ambient air qhality standards for particulate 

matter, 40 CFR 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 of the national ambient air · ualitv standards for PM2.5 40 

CFR 50 Appendix N 73 Fed. Reg. 149" (Januarv 9 2008). 

Interoretation of the NAAOS for o,, 40 ( FR 50. Appendix P. 73 Fed. 

Reg. 16436 (March 27. 2008). 

(Source: Amended at ______ _, effective --t-------'j. 

SUBPART B: STANDARDS AND MEASUF EMENT METHODS 

Section 243.120 PMtoPM 10 

4 
a ) Standards. The ambient air quality standa ds for PMJQ PM 10 is a 

maximum 24-hour concentration of 150 n icro!!I ams 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 ) Measurement Method. For determining e< • nformance with the PM10 PM-

-l-0 ambient air quality standards, PM 10 m 1 " shall be measured by the 

method described in 40 CFR 50, Appendi J (incorporated by reference m · 

Section 243.1 08). The computations nece sary for analyzing particulate 

matter data to determine attainment of the ~ PM Hl standards are 

described in 40 CFR 50, Appendix K (inc , rporated by reference in Secti on 

243.108). 

(Source: Amended at effective ). 

243.120 a PM2.s 

a ) Standards. The ambient air qualitv 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 of 35 microl!rarns oer cubic · 

meter, at the 98th percentile valud, as determined by 40 CFR Part 

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, effective May 1 I' 1992) 

Section 243.122 Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide) 

a) Primary Standards. The primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur 

oxides measured as sulfur dioxide are: 

1) An annual arithmetic mean concentration of 80 micrograms per 

cubic meter (0.03 ppm); and, 

2) A maximum 24-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than 

once per year of365 micrograms per cubic meter (0.14 ppm). 

b) Secondary Standard. The secondary ambient air quality standard for sulfur 

oxides measured as sulfur dioxide is a maximum 3-hour concentration not 

to be exceeded more than once per year of 1,300 micorgrams per cubic 

meter (0.5 ppm). 

c) Measurement Method. For determining conformance with sulfur oxide air 

quality standards, sulfur oxides shall be measured as sulfur dioxide by the 

pararosaniline method described in 40 CFR. 50, Appendix -Apfr. A, (1982), 

or by an equivalent method of proof approved by the Agency. 

(Source: Amended at effective _______ J 

Section 243.123 Carbon Monoxide 

a) Standards. The ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide are: 

1) A maximum 8-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than 

once per year of 10 milligrams per cubic meter (9 ppm); and, 

2) A maximum 1-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than 

once per year of 40 milligrams per cubic meter (35 ppm). 

h) ~ <P.asurement Method. For determining conformance with the carbon 

monoxi• :~ •ir nuality standard, carbon monoxide shall be measured by the 

nondispersive infrared spe~:;::-,etrv technique as described in 40 CFR 50, 

App. C (1982), 36 Fed. Reg. 22,391, J\c·:•..,..,her 25, 1971, or by an 

equivalent method approved by the Agency. 

6 
Section 243.124 Nitrogen Dioxide 

a) Standard. The ambient air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide is an 

annual arithmetic mean concentration of I 00 micrograms per cubic meter 

(0.05 ppm). 

b) Measurement Method. For determining conformance with the nitrogen 

dioxide air quality standard, nitrogen dioxide shall be measured by the 

colorimetric method as described in 36 Fed. Reg. 22,396, November 25, 

1971, or by an equivalent method approved by the Agency. 

Section 243.125 8-Hour Ozone 

a) Standard. The ambient air quality standard for ozone is 0.075 ppm daily 

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. For determining 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 of the NAAQS for 03, 40 CFR Appendix 50, P. 73 Fed. 

Reg. 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

a) Staneaffi. The ambient air fjeality staneare fer ozone is 0.12 J'l!lffi (235 

mieFOgrams jler seflie meter) maximWR 1 hollF soneeatration net te ee 

eJeseeeeEI en mere than one Elay per year. 

e) Measarement Meilioe!. Per Eleteffllining senfeff!lanee with the ezene air 

fjllality staREiare!, ozone shall he meas11reEI by the 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 compounds is 

are 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter, maximum arithmetic mean average 

over a calendar quarter. 

7 
b) Measurement Method. For determining confonnance 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 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 Compliance Dates 

Except as otherwise noted, compliance with this Part was required June 26, 1973. 

9 
Technical Support Document for Revisions to Part 243: Air Quality Standards 

Purpose 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 

establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants that have 

been deemed harmful to public health and the environment. The six criteria pollutants are ozone, 

particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. The CAA also 

requires that U.S. EPA review, on a periodic basis, new scientific evidence about the effects of 

these pollutants on public health and welfare and to revise the standards as appropriate. On 

October 17, 2006 (effective December 18, 2006), U.S. EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate 

matter, reducing the 24-hour standard for fine particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.

5) 

from 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35 micrograms per cubic meter. On March 12, 2008, 

U.S. EPA also strengthened the NAAQS for ozone, reducing the 8-hour average standard from 

0.08 parts per million to 0.075 parts per million. 

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) is proposing to amend Part 243 of 

Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code to update Illinois' air quality standards consistent 

with those adopted by the U.S. EPA. The Illinois EPA is also proposing to amend Part 243 to 

establish an annual PM2.s standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter, consistent with the Federal 

standard established on July 18, 1997, and to revoke the annual standard of 50 micrograms per 

cubic meter for PMw (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter), consistent with the 

Federal standards as revised on October 17, 2006. 

Background 

The CAA established two types of national air quality standards: primary standards and 

secondary standards. Primary standards are limits for protecting public health, including the 

health of "sensitive" populations (such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly). Secondary 

standards establish limits to protect the welfare of the public, which includes protection against 

decreased visibility, damage to buildings, crops, animals and vegetation. As mentioned 

previously, the CAA established air quality standards for six criteria pollutants: ozone, 

particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. The proposed 

revisions to Part 243 address the recent revisions by U.S. EPA ofthe national air quality 

".....;.;.;;:.:--!~ for ozone and particulate matter. 

Ozone, as it eXlSt> at growl.; ieve1 m .;.._ ~.,.,osphere, has been linked to health effects associated 

with the lungs and respiratory systems. Specihc.;a;:_;, ;t "'lll cause reduced lung function, irritated 

airways, a higher frequency of asthma attacks, inflammation anu uaw.:;;:: '-:> the lining of the 

lungs, and a higher risk of respiratory infections. This can result in greater medication us.o, 

absences from school, and more :frequent doctor visits. In addition, ground-level ozone can have 

detrimental effects on public welfare. Elevated ozone levels can decrease forest growth and crop 

yields, greatly damage the leaves of trees and other plants (which would ruin the appearance of 

1 
urban vegetation, national parks, and recreation areas), and increase the susceptibility of 

sensitive plants to diseases, insects, other pollutantS, and severe weather. 

Ozone is not emitted into the ambient air, but rather is produced in the atmosphere through a 

complex series of chemical reactions involving nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic 

material (YOM) emitted by both man-made and natural emission sources. Significant sources of 

NOx and YOM include a range of industrial processes, motorized vehicles (both on- and offroad), and the use of chemical solvents. 

Particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of particles and liquid droplets that are suspended 

in the atmosphere. Exposure to such matter has been linked to several significant health 

problems. Short-term exposure to particulate matter (in hours or days) can aggravate the lungs 

and cause asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, and could even raise the risk of respiratory infections, 

heart attacks, and heart arrhythmias. Other symptoms include irritation ofthe eyes, nose, and 

throat, shortness of breath, and chest pains. Long-term exposure to high particulate levels can 

lead to the development of chronic bronchitis and reduced lung function, and premature death 

from heart and lung disease. Welfare effects include reduced visibility and soiling of property. 

Particulate matter is emitted from a wide range of emission sources, include fuel combustion, 

high temperature industrial processes, tire and brake wear, and resuspension of dust from roads 

and farm fields. Particulate matter can also be the result of chemical reactions occurring in the 

atmosphere, involving gaseous pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, arrunonia, and 

organic compounds. 

U.S. EPA has established NAAQS for two categories of particulate matter based on the size of 

the particles. Coarse particulate matter, also known as PMw, is defined as particles that are less 

than 10 micrometers in diameter. The PMw NAAQS were originally established in 1987. 

However, effective December 17,2006, U.S. EPA revoked the annual standard forPM10 as more 

recent health studies attributed adverse long term health effects to fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 

U.S. EPA has retained the existing 24-hour PMw standard of 150 micrometers. In 1997, U.S. 

EPA established the fine particulate matter standard, or PM2.s, to address the adverse health 

impacts associated with fme particles that were not adequately controlled by the previous PM10 

standards. On October 17,2006, U.S. EPA strengthened the 24-hour fine particle standard based 

on continuing research on health effects of particulate matter. 

Implementation ofRevised Air Oualitv Standards 

Following promulgation of a new or revised air quality standard, the CAA requires the Governor 

of each state to recommend initial designations of the attainment status for all areas in the state. 

Areas can be classified as nonattainment (does not meet, or contributes to a nearby area that does 

not meet the NAAQS), attainment (meets the NAAQS), or unclassifiable (cannot be classified 

based on available data). 

If a state identifies, through ambient monitoring, that an area fails to meet the NAAQS, the CAA 

requires a state with areas that fail to meet the NAAQS to develop a State Implementation Plan 

2 
(SIP) describing how the state will attain and maintain the NAAQS. SIPs must include control 

strategies or measures to reduce emissions of the criteria pollutant, or its precursors, as needed to 

attain the standards within timeframes prescribed by the CAA. Also, the SIP must include a 

program to enforce the measures specified. The state adopts the SIP only after reasonable notice 

and public involvement, such as a public hearing. The SIP is then sent to U.S. EPA for approval 

or disapproval. 

Subsequent to the 1997 NAAQS revisions, the counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, 

McHenry, Will, and Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy County, and Oswego 

Township in Kendall County in the Chicago area have been designated as nonattainment for both 

the ozone and PM2.s standards. In the Metro-East area, the counties of Madison, Monroe, St. 

Clair, and Jersey have been designated as nonattainment for the ozone standard, and the counties 

of Madison, Monroe, St. Clair, and Baldwin Township in Randolph County are designated as 

nonattainment for PM2.s- The illinois EPA is still in the process of developing Illinois' SIP to 

ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS established in 1997. 

Nonattainment area boundaries have not yet been established pursuant to the 2006 and 2008 

NAAQS revisions, but based on ambient monitoring data, it is expected that the same areas listed 

above will be designated as nonattainment for one or both of the standards. 

The Illinois EPA considers the technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of emission controls 

before control measures are included in the SIP. Specific control measures must be adopted by 

the illinois Pollution Control Board through a State process that provides for the consideration of 

alternate measures through a public process. ·Although the control measures adopted through the 

SIP process may invoke significant costs on emission sources, it is important to note that the 

proposed revisions to Part 243 do not impose new requirements or impose new costs to the 

regulated community. 

G:Jrobl Part 243 Revisions TSD (Sep 08) 

3 
STATE OF ILLINOIS 

COUNTY OF SAN GAM ON 

) 

) 

) 

ss 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served the attached REGULATORY 

PROPOSAL FOR CLEAN-UP AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243 and 

APPEARANCE of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency upon the persons to whom it is 

directed, by placing it in envelopes addressed to: 

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

I 00 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, lllinois 60601-3218 

(First Class Mail) 

Matthew Dunn, Chief 

Division of Environmental Enforcement 

Office of the Attorney General 

69 West Washington St, Suite 1800 

Chicago, IL 60602 

(First Class Mail) 

Virginia Yang, Deputy Legal Counsel 

lllinois Department of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, IL 62702 

(First Class Mail) 

and mailing it from Springfield, lllinois, with sufficient postage 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 

Division of Legal 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) 

IEPA ATTACHMENJ--

On December I, 2008, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a 

proposal under the general rulemaking provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of the Environmental 

Protection Act (Act) (4151LCS 5/27,28 (2006)). Generally, the Agency proposes to amend Part 

243 of the Board's air pollution regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code 243) to incorporate new federal 

air quality standards. 

The Board today accepts the Agency's proposal for hearing and directs the hearing 

officer to expeditiously schedule and proceed to hearing in this matter. 

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL 

In support of its proposal, the Agency submitted a Statement of Reasons (Statement), a 

Technical Support Document (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 of technical 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 at 4; see TSD at 3. 

The Agency states that the Board originally adopted Part 243 in order to satisfy 

requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Statement at 1-2. The Agency further states that 

"[t]his proposed rulemaking simply updates the existing regulation and is a result of new 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards {"NAAQS") adopted by the Unites States 

Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA")." !d. at I. 

First, the Agency proposes that the 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 or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers 

(PM10). 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 of SO micrograms per cubic meter." Statement at 3, citing 

73 Fed. Reg. 6 I 144 (Oct. I 7, 2006). The Agency notes that USEPA maintained unchanged the 

maximum 24'hour PM 10 concentration of I 50 microgram per cubic meter, which is not to be 

exceeded more than once per year. Statement at 3, citing 73 Fed. Reg. 61 144 (Oct. 17, 2006); 

see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 243. I 20(a)(2). 

Third, in response to recent action by US EPA, the Agency proposes to add a Section 

243.120a addressing particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 

nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM2 ;). Prop. at 5; see TSD at 2. The Agency notes that USEPA has 

set the annual arithmetic mean concentration of PM2.s at I 5 micrograms per cubic meter. 

Statement at 2, citing 62 Fed. Reg. 38652 (July I 8, 1997); see Prop. at a5 (proposed Section 

243.120a(a)(l)). The Agency further notes that USEPA has established a maximum 24-hour 

concentration of 35 micrograms per cubic meter, including methods for its calculation and for 

the determination of fine particulate matter as PM2 5• Statement at 2, citing 40 C.F.R. Part 50, 

Appendices L, N; 73 Fed. Reg. 61144 (Oct. I 7, 2006); see Prop. at 5 (proposed Section 

243.120a). 

Fourth, the Agency proposes to amend Section 243.107, which addresses reference 

conditions, "to reflect that PM2.5 measurements should be based upon the actual ambient air 

volume measured at the 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 this proposed provision from other air quality measurements, which provide for 

correction to a reference temperature and pressure. Statement at 3. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the rulemaking proposal meets the content requirements of 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code I 02. The Board accepts this proposal for hearing and directs the assigned hearing 

officer to proceed to hearing under the rulemaking provisions of the 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 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that 

the Board adopted the above order on December I 8, 2008, by a vote of 5-0. 

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 
'I 

·' ' IEPA ATIACHMENT NO.L 

OIS P CONTROL BOARD 

December 19,2008 

Jack Lavin, Director 

Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity 

620 East Adams Street, S-6 

Springfield, Illinois 62704 

~ECEDVED ClERK'S OFFICE 

DEC~, 1 9 2008 

, STATE OF ILLINOIS 

?oJJutJon Control Board 

Re: Request for Economic Impact Study for: Air Oualitv Standards Clean-Uo: 

Amendments to 35lll. Adm. Code Part 243, (R09-10) 

Dear Director Lavin: 

On December 18, 2008, the Board accepted a proposal for hearing in Air 

Ouality Standards Clean-Up: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 243, R09-19. 

This rulemaking was filed with the Board on December 1, 2008, by the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency). Generally, the Agency proposes to 

amend the Board's air pollution regulations to incorporate new federal air quality 

standards. I write to request that your Department conduct an economic impact 

study concerning this proposal. 

Since 1998, Section 27(b) of the Environmental Protection Act has required 

the Board to: 

I) request that the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity 

(formerly the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs) conduct a 

study of the economic impact of the proposed rules. The Department may 

within 30 to 45 days of such request produce a study of the economic impact 

of the proposed rules. At a minimum, the economic impact study shall 

address a) economic, environmental, and public health benefits that may be 

achieved through compliance with the proposed rules, b) the effects of the 

proposed rules on employment levels, commercial productivity, the economic 

growth of small businesses with 100 or less employees, and the State's 

overall economy, and c) the cost per unit of pollution reduced and the 

variability of company revenues expected to be used to implement the 

proposed rules; and 

(2) conduct at least one public hearing on the economic impact of those 

rules. At least 20 days before the hearing, the Board shall notify the public of 

the hearing and make the economic impact study, or the Department of 

Commerce and Economic Opportunity's explanation for not producing an 

economic impact study, available to the public . .Such public hearing may be 
" .. · 

OIS P UTION CONTROL BOARD 

held simultaneously or as a part of any Board hearing considering such new 

rules. 415 ILCS 5/27(o) (2006). 

The Board is in the process of scheduling initial hearings in this rulemaking. 

Although there is no decision deadline in this rulemaking, the Board intends to 

~ra;·¥n.JJ,,co.,"1 proceed expeditiously with this rulemaking, and asks that you respond to this request 

as soon as you conveniently can. If I, or my staff, can provide you with any 

additional information, please let me know. 

Thank you in advance for your prompt response. 

G. Tanner Girard 

Acting Chairman 

Pollution Control Board 

cc: Warren Rib ley, DCEO 

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk of the Board 
-. ) 

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

December 23, 2008 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

AIR QUALITY STANDARDS CLEAN-UP: ) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 

PART 243 ) 

R09-19 

(Rulemaking- Air) 

NOTICE OF HEARINGS 

DATES, TIMES, AND LOCATIONS: 

FIRST HEARING: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2009 

1:00PM 

Madison County Administration Building 

County Board Room #203 

157 N. Main St. 

Edwardsville, Illinois 

SECOND HEARING: TUESDAY, MARCH 10,2009 

9:00AM 

Illinois Pollution Control Board Conference Room 11-512 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 W. Randolph St. 

Chicago, illinois 

PURPOSE OF HEARINGS: Merit and Economic 

ATTENDING BOARD MEMBER: Andrea S. Moore 

HEARING OFFICER: Timothy J. Fox 

HEARING OFFICER ORDER 

I EPA ATIACHMENT NO.-4--

RECii:UVED 

CLERK'S OFFICE 

DEC 23 2008 

STATE OF IWNOIS 

Pollution Control Board 

On December 1, 2008, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed with 

the Board a proposal under the general rulemaking provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of the 

Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/27,28 (2006)). Generally, the Agency 

proposes to amend Part 243 of the Board's air pollution regulations (35 ill. Adm. Code 243) to 

incorporate new federal air quality standards. 

The Board will conduct two hearings in order to allow the proponent and any other 

interested participants the opportunity to present testimony on the merits 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't John Theniault, Assistant Ck:Tk of the Bonrd, at I 00 \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 rulemaking proposaL At hearing, all persons who testify will be sworn in and subject to 

questioning. The Board will also receive any testimony on any economic impact study (EelS) 

conducted by the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) on the proposed 

rules or on DCEO's decision not to perform an EelS. 

In setting hearing dates, the Board has considered and accommodated its general 

workload and the numerous days of rulemaking hearings now scheduled. As indicated above in 

the notice of hearings, the first hearing will take place on Tuesday, February 3, 2009, in 

Edwardsville, and the second hearing will take place on Tuesday, March 10,2009, in Chicago. 

Pre-Filing Deadlines 

Participants who intend to testify at hearing are urged to pre-file their testimony and 

directed to serve any pre-filed testimony on the hearing officer and all persons on the Service 

List. Before filing pre-filed testimony or any other document with the Clerk, please check with 

the Board's Clerk to obtain the most recent version of the Service List. 

Participants who wish to testify at the first hearing are directed to pre-file all oftheir 

testimony and any related exhibits no later than Tuesday, January 20, 2009. Pre-filing deadlines 

for the second hearing will be determined at a later date. 

The "mailbox rule" at 35 TIL Adm. Code 101.300(b)(2) does not apply to the filing of any 

pre-filed testimony in this proceeding. The Board's Clerk must receive these documents before 

the close of business on the specified dates. Although documents may be filed electronically 

through the Clerk's Office On-Line (COOL) from the Board's Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us, 

all electronic or approved fax filings must be received by the Clerk's Office no later than 4:30 

PM on the due date. Any questions about electronic filing through COOL should be directed to 

the Clerk's Office at (312) 814-3629. 

Order of Hearings 

Although Section 27 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/27 (2006)) does not limit the first hearing to 

the testimony of the proponent, the hearing officer intends to begin the first hearing with the 

Agency's presentation of its proposal. For the first hearing, a brief summary of testimony will be 

allowed if a witness wishes to provide one before responding to questions. All pre-filed 

testimony will be entered into the record as if read. See 35 Ill. Adm. c'ode 102.424(£). 

After the Agency has addressed all questions from other participants, and if time pennits 

before the conclusion ofthe first hearing, other participants who have pre-filed testimony may 

then testify. Participants who do not pre-file testimony will be allowed to testify as time permits 

after the conclusion of pre-filed testimony and questions based upon it. 

The hearing scheduled to begin March 10, 2009 will begin with participants who prefiled testimony for the first hearing and were not able to testify at that time. Participants who 

pre-filed testimony for the second hearing will then present that testimony. Participants who do 

not pre-file testimony will be allowed to testify as time permits after the conclusion of pre-filed 
3 

testimony and questions based upon it. All testimony pre-filed for the second hearing will also 

be entered into the record as if read. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code I 02.424(!). 

Any participant who wishes to offer a public comment at either hearing will be allowed 

to do so if time permits at the close of the testimony and questions based upon it. The Board's 

procedural rules also include an opportunity to file post-hearing comments. See 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 102.108(b). The rules also provide that "[t]he Board will accept written comments from 

any person concerning the proposed regulations during the first notice period." 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code I 02.604. 

Service and Notice Lists 

The Service List for this rulemaking is the list of persons who wish to participate actively 

in this proceeding and to receive not only the Board's opinions and orders but also other filings 

such as pre-filed testimony and public comments. The Notice List includes participants who 

wish to receive only the Board's opinions and orders and hearing officer orders. 

Note that interested persons may now request electronic notice of filings by providing 

their e-mail address through COOL under this docket number R09-19. This electronic notice 

includes notice of the filing of documents that are not typically provided to persons on the Notice 

List. In addition, COOL provides links to documents filed with the Board, and those documents· 

can be viewed, downloaded, and printed free of charge as soon as they are posted to the Board's 

Web site. For more information about the option of electronic notice or COOL, please consult 

either the Board's Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us or John Therriault, the Board's Assistant 

Clerk, at (312) 814-3629. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Timothy J. Fox 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

I 00 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 

I EPA 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 

I 00 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

R09-19 

(Rulemaking -Air) 

NOTICE 

Matthew Dunn, Chief 

Division of Environmental Enforcement 

Office of the Attorney General 

69 West Washington St., Suite 1800 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Virginia Yang, Deputy Legal Counsel 

Illinois Department ofNatural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Dave Kolaz 

Jllinois Environmental Regulatory Group 

215 E. Adams St. 

Springfield, IL 62702 Springfield, IL 6270 I 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Pollution Control Board 

the MOTION TO RESCHEDULE THE HEARING FOR RULEMAKING R09-19. 

CURRENTLY SET FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2009, AND SET A NEW SCHEDULE FOR 

PREFILING TESTIMONY and MOTION TO AMEND AGENCY PROPOSAL FOR 

RULEMAKING R09-19 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency a copy of which 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 of Legal Counsel 

THIS FILING IS 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 TO 35 ILL. 

ADM. CODE PART 243 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

R09-19 

(Rulemaking -Air) 

MOTION TO RESCHEDULE THE HEARING FOR RULEMAKING R09-19, 

CURRENTLY SET FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2009, AND SET A NEW SCHEDULE 

FOR PREFILING TESTIMONY 

NOW COMES the Proponent, the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY ("Illinois EPA" or "Agency"), by its attorney, and pursuant to 

35 Ill. Adm. Code I 01.500 and I 02.402, moves that the Illinois Pollution Control Board 

("Board") reschedule the hearing currently set for February 3, 2009. The Agency has no 

concerns over the date of the second hearing (which would now be the first hearing), 

currently scheduled for March 10,2009. Also, because of the need for a new hearing 

date, the Agency asks that the deadline for prefiling testimony be moved to a date 

commensurate with the new hearing date. In support of its Motion, the Illinois EPA 

states as follows: 

On November 25, 2008, the Illinois EPA filed a proposal 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. Code Part 243 ("Part 243"), to update the existing proposal 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 of a 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 may prepare properly for 

the March 10, 2009, hearing. Furthermore, the Agency asks that the Board set a new 

schedule for the prefiling of testimony. 

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 of testimony. 

DATED: January 20, 2009 

I 021 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 of Legal 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 TO AMEND 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 I 01.500 and I 02.402, moves that the lllinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") 

amend 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 243 ("Part 243") to modify Sections 243.108 and 243.126. 

In support of its Motion, the Illinois EPA states as follows: 

On November 25, 2008, the lllinois EPA filed a proposal with the Board to amend 

Part 243, entitled "Clean-up Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 243." Included in 

the present motion are amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 243, which update the 

previous proposal to incorporate a new federal air quality standard for lead. The changes 

include: further amending Section 243.126 to replace the existing standard with the new 

one and amending Section 243.108, Incorporations by Reference, to update the citation to 

the federal Code of Federal Regulations containing the new lead standard. 

This amendment simply updates the previous proposal and is a result of a new 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard ("NAAQS") adopted by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA"). Originally, the Subpart at issue was 

adopted to satisfy Clean Air Act ("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 a recent posting in the Federal Register, National Ambient Air 

Quality Standardsfor Lead, 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 year period 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 this proposed amendment, but, 

as stated, the proposal simply incorporates the addition of a new federal standard which is 

currently applicable throughout the nation. Nor does this amendment impose new 

requirements on sources. Rather, it merely updates the State's regulations to reflect 

current federal law and standards. The Jllinois EPA therefore believes that the proposed 

changes do not affect the existing "Agency Analysis of Economic 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 of the 

following amendments to Part 243 to modify Sections 243.108 and 243.126: 

I) This amendment updates the citation to thefederal Code of Federal Regulations 

to list the new sections which measure ambient lead concentrations. It also adds the new 

Federal Register listing which 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 amendment replaces the existing lead standard with the new lead standard. 

It also replaces the existing measurement meat hod with the new method. Only the 

striking of the word "are" in subsection (a) existed in the original proposal 

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. For determining conformance 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 of this 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 

1 021 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 of Legal Counsel 
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

January 30, 2009 

IN THE MATTER 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 3 0 2009 

STATE OF IWNOIS 

?ollution Control Board 

On December I, 2008, the lllinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed with 

the Board a proposal under the general ru!emaking provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of the 

Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/27, 28 (2006)). Generally, the Agency 

proposes to amend Part 243 of the Board's air pollution regulations (35 lll. Adm. Code 243) to 

incorporate new federal air quality standards. In an order dated December 18, 2008, the Board 

accepted the proposal for hearing and directed the assigned hearing officer to proceed 

expeditiously to hearing in this matter. 

In an order and notice of hearings dated December 23, 2008, the hearing officer 

scheduled two hearings: the first on Tuesday, February 3, 2009, in Edwardsville, and the second 

on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, in Chicago. In the same order, the hearing officer directed any 

participant wishing to testify at the first hearing to pre-file their testimony and any related 

exhibits no later than January 20, 2009. 

Motion to Reschedule Hearing 

On January 20, 2009, the Agency filed a motion to reschedule the February 3, 2009 

hearing as well as the deadline to pre-file testimony (Mot. Reschedule). On the same date, the 

Agency also filed a motion to amend its original ru!emaking proposal (Mot. Amend). The 

Agency states that it seeks to amend "to update the existing proposal to incorporate a new federal 

air quality standard for lead." Mot. Reschedule at 1; see Mot. Amend at 2-3. Specifically, the 

Agency seeks to amend Section 243.126 of the Board's air pollution regulations "to replace the 

existing standard for lead." Mot. Reschedule at 1; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 243.126(a), Mot. 

Amend at 3. The Agency also seeks to update a citation to the Code of Federal Regulations 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, the Agency effectively requests that the 

Board postpone the date of the first hearing to March 10, 2009, which is now the scheduled date 

ofthe second hearing in this docket. Mot. Reschedule at 1-2. The Agency also requests that the 

Board set a new deadline for pre-filing testimony. !d. 

Section 101.500(d) of the Board's procedural rules provides 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 auxiliary aids and se1vice~ shot~ld ~onmct John 'lherriaulr, :\ssistant Clerk of the 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:'8 Jtl<l669. or TDD numhcr 312/~ 14-6!_).\2. livl~ days prior 

to th~ hc.·uing. 
2 

[ w ]ithin 14 days after service of a motion, a party may file a response to the 

motion. If no response is filed, the party will be deemed to have waived objection 

to the granting of the motion, but the waiver of objection does not bind the Board 

or the hearing officer in its disposition of the motion. Unless undue delay or 

material prejudice would result, neither the Board nor the hearing officer will 

grant any motion before expiration of the 14 day response period except in 

deadline driven proceedings where no waiver has been filed. Parties may request 

that the Board grant more time to respond by filing a motion for extension of 

time. 

The Agency filed its motion to reschedule at the deadline for pre-filing testimony, which felll4 

days before the scheduled hearing date. !d. Under these circumstances, allowing a 14-day 

response period to run may require the Agency and other participants to prepare prematurely or 

unnecessarily for the originally-scheduled hearing date. Accordingly, allowing the 14-day 

response period to run would result in undue delay in addressing the Agency's motion, so the 

hearing officer will rule on the motion to reschedule. 

The Agency's motion to reschedule is granted. The first hearing in this proceeding will 

take place on the date, time, and location originally scheduled for the first hearing: Tuesday, 

March 10,2009, at 9:00AM in the Board's Conference Room 11-512 of the James R. Thompson 

Center at 100 W. Randolph in Chicago. Among other business at the hearing on March 10, 

2009, the Board intends to schedule a second hearing and set a deadline for pre-filing testimony 

for it. 

Pre-Filing Deadlines 

Participants who intend to testify at the hearing on March 10, 2009 are urged to pre-file 

their testimony and directed to serve any pre-filed testimony on the hearing officer and all 

persons on the Service List Before filing pre-filed testimony or any other document with the 

Board's Clerk, please check with the Clerk to obtain the most recent version of the Service List. 

Participants who wish to pre-file testimony for the March 10, 2009, hearing are directed 

to pre-file all of their testimony and any related exhibits no later than Tuesday, February 24, 

2009. The "mailbox rule" at 35 III. Adm. Code 101.300(b)(2) does not apply to the filing of any 

pre-filed testimony in this proceeding. The Board's Clerk must receive these documents before 

the close of business on the specified dates. Although documents may be filed electronically 

through the Clerk's Office On-Line (COOL) from the Board's Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us, 

all electronic or approved fax filings must be received by the Clerk's Office no later than 4:30 

PM on the due date. Any questions about electronic filing through COOL should be directed to 

the Clerk's Office at (312) 814-3629. 

Order of Hearings 

As noted in the original notice of hearings, Section 27 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/27 (2006)) 

does not limit the first hearing to the testimony of the proponent, but the hearing officer intends 

to begin the first hearing with the Agency's presentation as the proponent. For the first hearing, 

a brief summary of testimony will be allowed if a witness wishes to provide one before 
3 

responding to question~. All pre-filed testimony will be entered into the record as if read. See 35 

lll. Adm. Code 102.424(f). 

After the Agency has addressed all questions from other participants, and if time permits 

before the conclusion of the first hearing, other participants who have pre-filed testimony may 

then testify. Participants who do not pre-file testimony will be allowed to testify as time pennits 

after the conclusion of pre-filed testimony and the questions based upon it. 

Any participant who wishes to offer a public comment at either hearing will be allowed 

to do so if time permits at the close ofthe testimony and questions based upon it. The Board's 

procedural rules also include an opportunity to file post-hearing comments. See 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 102.108(b). The rules also provide that "[t]he Board will accept written comments [rom 

any person concerning the proposed regulations during the first notice period." 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 102.604. 

Service and Notice List~ 

The Service List for this rulemaking is the list of persons who wish to participate actively 

in this proceeding and to receive not only the Board's opinions and orders but also other filings 

such as pre-filed testimony and public comments. The Notice List includes participants who 

wish to receive only the Board's opinions and orders and hearing officer orders. 

Note that interested persons may now request electronic notice of filings by providing 

their e-mail address through COOL under this docket number R09-19. This electronic notice 

includes notice of the filing of documents that are not typically provided to persons on the Notice 

List. In addition, COOL provides links to documents filed with the Board, and those documents 

can be viewed, downloaded, and printed free of charge as soon as they are posted to the Board's 

Web site. For more information about the option of electronic notice or COOL, please consult 

either the Board's Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us or John Therriault, the Board's Assistant 

Clerk, at (312) 814-3629. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Timothy J. Fox 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

100 W. 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 THE BOARD (by A.S. Moore): 

R09-19 

(Rulemaking- Air) 

I EPA 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 of the Board's air pollution regulations (35 

Ill. Adm. Code 243) to incorporate new federal air quality standards. 

MOTION TO AMEND 

The Agency states that it moves to amend its proposal in order to include in Part 243 a 

new National Ambient Air 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 language that 

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 

year period." 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 of Federal 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 by reference a citation to the provisions 

of the 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 243.1 08(k)). 

The Agency argues that, while the proposed amendment may affect sources throughout 

the state, it "simply incorporates the addition of a 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 

that the Board postpone the first hearing to Tuesday, March 1 0, 2009, which bad been the 

scheduled date of the 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 of its adoption by USEPA, and "is well known to industry." ld. 

DISCUSSION 

Section I 0 I .500( d) of the Board's procedural rules provides in pertinent part that, 

"[w)ithin 14 days after service of a 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 of the 

motion, but the waiver of objection does not bind the Board or the hearing officer in its 

disposition of the motion." 35 Ill. Adm. Code I 01 .500(d). The Board has received no response 

to the Agency's motion to amend its rulemaking proposal. 

The Board grants the Agency's motion to amend and accepts the Agency's amendments 

to its rulemaking proposal. As provided in the hearing officer order of January 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 of the lllinois Pollution Control Board, certify that 

the Board adopted the above order on February 19, 2009, by a vote of 5-0. 

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

March I 0, 2009 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

AIR QUALITY STANDARDS CLEAN-UP: ) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 

PART243 ) 

R09-19 

(Rulemaking • Air) 

NOTICE OF HEARING 

DATE. TIME, AND LOCATION: 

TUESDAY, APRIL 28,2009 

2:00PM 

Illinois Pollution Control Board Conference Room, First Floor 

1021 N. Grand Ave. East 

(North Entrance) 

Springfield, TI!inois 

PURPOSE OF HEARING: Merit and Economic 

ATTENDING BOARD MEMBER: Andrea S. Moore 

HEARING OFFICER: Timothy J. Fox 

HEARING OFFICER ORDER 

I EPA ATTACHMENT NO .• 

RECEIVED 

CLERK'S OFFICE 

MAR I 0 2009 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Pollution Control Board 

On December I, 2008, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a 

proposal under the general rulemaking provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of the Environmental 

Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/27, 28 (2006)). Generally, the Agency proposed to amend Part 243 

of the Board's air pollution regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code 243) to incorporate new federal air quality 

standards. In an order dated December 18, 2008, the Board accepted the proposal and directed 

the hearing officer to proceed to hearing. 

The Board has now held one hearing on the Agency's proposal. That hearing took place 

on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, in Chicago. As required by the Act, the Board will conduct a 

second hearing at the date, time, and location indicated above. 

Pre-Filing Deadline 

Participants who intend to testify at this hearing are urged to pre-file their testimony and 

are directed to serve any pre-filed testimony on the hearing officer and all persons on the Service 

In compliance with the An"Jericans with Disubilities Act 11nd other applicable fedcrnl and St3.te laws, tile.' hearing will be accessible to i11dividuals with 

disabilities. Persons requiring auxiliary Dids and services $hould comact John 111erriault, As~istnnt Clerk of the Board, at 100 West RondQlph St., 

Suite 11 ~500. Chicago, nlinois 60601. nt telephone number 312/814-6931, fa.'\ number 312i814-3669. or TDD number 31 2/814-6032. five days prior 

to the het1ring. 
2 

List. Before filing pre-filed testimony or any other document with the Clerk, please check with 

the Board's Clerk to obtain the most recent version of the Service List. 

Any participants wishing to pre-file testimony for this hearing are directed to pre-file all 

of their testimony and any related exhibits no later than Tuesday, Aprill4, 2009. The "mailbox 

rule" at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(b )(2) does not apply to the filing of any pre-filed testimony 

for this hearing. The Board's Clerk must receive these documents before the close ofbusiness 

on Aprill4, 2009. Although documents maybe filed electronically through the Clerk's Office 

On-Line (COOL) from the Board's Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us, all electronic or approved 

fax filings must be received by the Clerk's Office no later than 4:30PM on Aprill4, 2009. Any 

questions about electronic filing through COOL should be directed to the Clerk's Office at (312) 

814-3629. 

Order of Hearing 

The Board will determine the order for hearing testimony of witnesses who prefile 

testimony on April 28, 2009 before the hearing begins. Pre-filed testimony will be entered into 

the record as if read. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.424(f). A brief summary of testimony will be 

allowed if a witness wishes to provide one before responding to questions. 

Participants who do not pre-file testimony for this hearing will be allowed to testify as 

time permits after the conclusion of pre-filed testimony and questions based upon it. At hearing, 

all persons who testify will be sworn in and subject to questioning. 

Any participant who wishes to offer a public comment will be allowed to do so if time 

permits at the close of the testimony and questions based upon it. The Board's procedural rules 

also include an opportunity to file post-hearing comments. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.108(b). 

The rules also provide that "[t]he Board will accept written comments from any person 

concerning the proposed regulations during the first notice period." 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.604. 

Service and Notice Lists 

The Service List for this rulemaking is the list of persons who wish to participate actively 

in this proceeding and receive not only the Board's opinions and orders but also other filings 

such as pre-filed testimony and public comments. The Notice List includes participants who 

wish to receive only the Board's opinions and orders and hearing officer orders. 

Note that interested persons may now request electronic notice of filings by providing 

their e-mail address through COOL under this docket number R09-19. This electronic notice 

includes notice of the filing of documents that are not typically provided to persons on the Notice 

List. In addition, COOL provides links to documents filed with the Board, and those documents 

can be viewed, downloaded, and printed free of charge as soon as they are posted to the Board's 

Web site. For more information about the option of electronic notice or COOL, please consult 

either the Board's Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us or John Therriault, the Board's Assistant 

Clerk, at (312) 814-3629. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

3 

· Timothy J. Fox 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 

Chicago, illinois 6060 I 

312-814-6085 

foxt@ipcb .state.il. us 
1 ·~ \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 

24 
1 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 

2 
1 

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. 

3 
1 

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 

4 
1 

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 

5 
1 

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? 

6 
1 

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 

7 
1 

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 

8 
1 

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. 

9 
1 

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. 

10 
1 

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 

11 
1 

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? 

12 
1 

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 

13 
1 

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 

14 
1 

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 

15 
1 

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 

16 
1 

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 

17 
1 

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 

18 
1 

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 

19 
1 

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 

20 
1 

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. 

21 
1 

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 

22 
1 

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 

23 
1 

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. 

24 
1 

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 

25 
1 

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 

26 
1 

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 

27 
1 

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 

28 
1 

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, lll inois 60601-3218 

SEE ATTACHED 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 TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Pollution Control Board 

the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FIRST ERRATA SHEET TO 

ITS PROPOSAL TO AMEND 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 243 of the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency a copy of which 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 of Legal 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 PROPOSAL TO 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 of the rules submitted in its proposal to the Board dated 

November 25, 2008: 

1. Amend the contents to reflect the striking of the proposed new Section 243.120a 

and the incorporations of the PM2.5 provisions into the existing Section 243.120. 

This will resolve any questions over the propriety of using an "a" in a section 

number. It will also prevent any cross-citation issues that could arise 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 Hour Ozone 

Lead 

Rule into Section Table 

Section into Rule Table 

Past Com pi iance Dates 

2. Amend Section 243.108 to add 40 CFR 50, Appendix R to the incorporations by 

reference. This is necessary because of the changes made to the lead National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard(" NAAQS"). Appendix R to 40 CFR 50 contains 

the Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead 

Section 243.1 08 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 spectrometry technique, 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 of particulate matter as PM 10 in 

the atmosphere, 40 CFR 50, Appendix J (1990t 

g) Interpretation of the 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 of particulate 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 of the national ambient air quality standards for PMu, 40 

CFR 50, Appendix N, 73 Fed. Reg. 1497 (January 9, 2008). 

J. Interpretation of the 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 of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead, 40 

CFR 50. Appendix R. 73 Fed. Reg. 66964 (November 12. 2008). 

3. Amend Section 243.120 to rephrase the standard so that it more closely tracks 

the provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50. Also, to combine 

the proposed new Section 243.120a with Section 243.120 as new subsections (c) 

and (d). Changes were also made to the provisions of the former Section 

243.120a, so as to more closely track the provisions in the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 50. 

Section 243.120 PM 10 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 

243.1 08). The computations necessary for analyzing particulate matter 

data to determine attainment of the PM1o standards 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 of 35 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 of the PMu standards are 

described in 40 CFR 50, Appendix N (incorporated by reference in 

Section 243.108). 

4. Strike proposed Section 243.120a to combine it with existing Section 243.120., 

It was not clear whether a section ending in an "a" was allowed. Accordingly, 

the easiest way to rectify this problem without creating any potential 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 ar ithmetie me:m eefleefltratiefl ef I 5 mieregrams per ettbie 

meter; anel 

2) A mre<iffittffi 24 l!ettr eefteentr atiefl ef 35 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 (ifleerper atecl by refer enee in Seetieno 243. l08). Tl!e 

eempt>tatieHs neeessary fer aHalyziug pmtiettlate matter clata te cletermifle 

attaiflrneHt ef tile PMH sla11clarcls are cleseribecl ifl 4 9 CFR 59, Appeuclix N 

(iflel'l! per atecl b; refereHee ifl Seetieol 243. I 98). 

5. Amend Section 243.125 to rephrase the standard so that it more closely tracks: 

the provisions 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 CF R ' 

Part 53 (2003), and the Interpretation of the NAAQS for o,, 40 CFR 

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

6. Amend Section 243.126 to rephrase the standard so that it more closely tracks 

the provisions 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. For determining conformance 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 G and Q, as incorporated by ' 

reference in Section 243.108 of this Part. The primary and secondary 

ambient air quality standards shall be determined in accordance with 

Appendix R of Part 50 as incorporated by reference 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 of Legal Counsel 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, April14, 2009 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

COUNTY OF SANGAMON 

) 

) 

) 

ss 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 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 

I 00 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500 

Chicago, IL 6060 I 

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 of Legal 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 

I 00 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500 

Chicago, lL 6060 I 

Virginia Yang, Deputy Legal Counsel 

Jllinois Department of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, lL 62702 

Matthew Dunn, Chief 

Division of Environmental Enforcement 

Office of the Attorney General 

69 West Washington St., Suite I 800 

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 62705-5776 
State 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 

IEPA ATIACHMENT NO. _J.1_ 

; 

i 

I 

' 

·! . ! 

' 

Yearly Exceedance Days - 1 0-year Moving Average 

December 2008 

. f/.,o9- /9 

EXH. 2._ 

TJT 

t-f _ zl?- rJIJ 
Illinois 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 of National and Illinois Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Standard 

Pollutant Averaging Time Primary Secondary I 

Standard units are micrograms per cubic meter (ugim.l) and parts per million (ppm) 

Particulate Matter 

10 micrometers (PM 10) 24-hour 150 ugJm3 Same as Primary 

Particulate Matter 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 

Carbon Monoxide 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 of temperature and pressure rather than 

standard conditions (760 mm and 25 deg C). 

Note: The State of Illinois has not adopted the PM2 5 or 8-hour ozone standards at this time. 

*The ozone 8-hour standard was changed in 2008 to" .075 ppm. 

6 
Table B8 

2007 

SULFUR DIOXIDE VALUES IN EXCESS 

OF THE 24-HOUR PRIMARY STANDARD OF 0.14 PPM OR 

THE 3-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 CENTRAL ILLINOIS 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- KEOKUK INTERSTATE (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 729 Houston 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-TERM TRENDS 

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 OF PEKIN 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) 

..,.., ....... , .. ,...-, 

1 Ro,...s 

Seot>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_ !'U mmary .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 air quality standards for sulfur oxides 

measured as sulfur dioxide are: 

I) An anm.al ari:..".metie mean concentration of 80 mieregrams per eubie 

n1eter (0.03 pjlm) The level of the 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 not to be eneeeeee mere t17an 

onee per year of365 micrograms per 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 calendar year. 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 if at least 75 percent of the 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 of the 

available hourlv averages using 18, 19. etc. as the divisor. lffewer than 18 hourly 

averages are available. but the 24-hour average would exceed the level of the 

standard when zeros are substituted for the missing values. subject to the · 

rounding rule of paragraph (b) of this section. then this shalt be considered a 

valid 24-hour average. In this case, the 24-hour block avemge shall be computed 

as the sum oft he 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 eeneentratien net 

tel3e eJeeeeEleEl mare tl;an o!lee 13er year of 1,300 mieargrams Jler eueie meter (Q.5 

fll*I1t. 

I) The level of the 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 be rounded 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-09 
hour block average shall be considered valid only if all three hourlv averages for the 

3-hour period are available. If onlv one or two hourly averages are available, but the 

3-hour average would exceed the level of the standard when zeros are substituted for 

the missing values. subject to the rounding rule of paragraph l) of this section. then 

this shall be considered a valid 3-hour average. In all cases, the 3-hour block average 

shall be computed as the sum of th-e hourlv averages divide bv 3. 

c) Measurement Method. For determining conformance with the sulfur oxide air 

quality standards, sulfur oxides shall be measured as sulfur dioxide 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 air quality standards for carbon monoxide are: 

I) A maximum 8-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once per 

year of9 parts per million (ppm) I Q l'l'lilli~:;rams 13er E\leie meter (9 fljlm); 

and, 

2) A maximum !-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once per 

year of35 parts per mil.lion (ppm)40 milligrams 13er eBeie meter (35 pJlm). 

b) Measurement Method. For determining conformance with the 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 data that 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. For determining conformance with the nitrogen dioxide 

air quality standard, nitrogen dioxide shall be measured by a reference method 

described in 40 CFR 50. Appendixtl!e eolorimetrie metl!od as deserieee in 36 Feel. 

Reg. 22,396, J>Joven'leer 15, 1971, or by 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 Company 
1 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 2 
1 

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 3 
1 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 4 
1 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 5 
1 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 6 
1 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 7 
1 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 8 
1 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 9 
1 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 10 
1 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 11 
1 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 pre filed 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 12 
1 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 US EPA'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 13 
1 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 14 
1 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 15 
1 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 16 
1 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 know1 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 

17 
1 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 18 
1 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? 

4 Yes. 

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 19 
1 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 20 
1 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 21 
1 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? 

12 A. Yes. 

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 22 
1 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 23 
1 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 24 
1 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 25 
1 

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? 

13 Yes, they are. 

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 26 
1 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 27 
1 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 28 
1 

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 29 
1 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? 

16 A. Right. 

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 30 
1 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 31 
1 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 32 
1 behalf of IERG were complete; is that correct? 

2 MR. MATOESIAN: Yes. 

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 33 
1 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 34 
1 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 

35 
1 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 36 
1 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? 

12 Yes. 

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 37 
1 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 38 
1 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 39 
1 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 --

4 BOARD MEMBER MOORE: June 8. 

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 40 
1 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 41 
1 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 CONTROL BOARD 

May8, 2009 

INTHEMATTEROF: ) 

) 

AIR QUALITY STANDARDS CLEAN-UP: ) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 

PARTS 243 ) 

R09-19 

(Rulemaking- Air) 

HEARING OFFICER ORDER 

JEPA ATTACHMENT NO.~ 

RECEiVED 

CLERK'S OFFICE 

MAY 0 8 2009 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Po!!ulion Control Board 

The second hearing in this proceeding took place Tuesday, April 28, 2009, in Springfield. 

The Board received the transcript of that second hearing (Tr. 2) on Thursday, May 7, 2009, and 

posted the transcript to its Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us. 

Under the Board's procedural rules, "[a]ny person may submit written comments on any 

proposal within 14 days after the receipt of the hearing transcript in Board offices unless 

otherwise specified by the hearing officer or the Board." 35 ll1. Adm. Code 102.1 08(b ). The 

record of the second hearing states that, "[b]efore it takes action on the Agency's amended 

proposal, the Board will hold open a post-hearing comment period ending 30 days after May 8, 

2009, when the Board expects to receive the transcript of this hearing." Tr. 2 at 38. 

Any participant in this proceeding who wishes to file a post-hearing comment with the 

Board is directed to do so on or before Monday, June 8, 2009. See Tr. 2 at 38-39. The "mailbox 

rule" at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 1 01.300(b )(2) does not apply to the filing of these post-hearing 

comments. All post-hearing comments, including all electronic or approved facsimile filings, 

must be received by the Clerk's Office no later than 4:30PM on Monday, June 8, 2009. 

Comments and other documents may be filed electronically through the Clerk's Office On-Line 

(COOL) from the Board's Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us. 

In the event that the Board issues a proposal for first notice, the Board's procedural rules 

provide for an additional period of public comment. 35 TIL Adm. Code 1 02.108(a), 1 02.604; see 

5 ILCS 1 00/5-40(b) (2006). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Timothy J. Fox 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution 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 TO 35 ILL. 

ADM. CODE PART 243 

TO: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

I 00 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 

I 00 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 

Division of Environmental Enforcement 

Office of the Attorney General 

Dave Kolaz 

Alec Davis 

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 

69 West Washington St., Suite 1800 215 E. Adams St. 

Chicago, IL 60602 Springfield, IL 62701 

Virginia Yang, Deputy Legal Counsel 

lllinois Department of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Katherine D. Hodge 

Monica T. Rios 

Hodge Dwyer & Driver 

3150 Roland Ave. 

Springfield, IL 62705 

Springfield, IL 62702 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Pollution Control Board 

the POST-HEARING COMMENTS of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency a copy of 

which is herewith served upon you. 

DATED: June 8, 2009 

1 021 North Grand A venue 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 of Legal 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 of its attorneys, and hereby submits its post-hearing comments to the second 

hearing in the above rulemaking proceeding. The Illinois EPA has reviewed the transcript of the 

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 ]-hour ozone standard was revoked and several non-substantive changes were made 

to the rule as part of the "clean up." The rulemaking was always intended to be oflimited scope. 

At no time did the Agency claim that the purpose of the rulemaking was to make all of the 

standards in Part 243 identical to the federal Code of federal Regulations. In the Statement of 

Reasons the Agency stated: 

This proposed rulemaking simply updates the existing regulation and is a result of new 

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 Air Act ("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 of Reasons 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 proposing this rulemaking. The Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group's ("!ERG") 

characterization of the rule would have a substantive effect; that of relieving one of their 

members from liability by the Illinois EPA. Moreover, the changes lllinois EPA proposes all 

strengthen existing standards. IERG's proposal would have the affect of weakening existing 

standards. In addition, there would probably be far greater participation by stakeholders if they 

knew the scope of the changes !ERG is suggesting. In fact, considering that one ofiERGs 

proposals would reverse a policy 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 of Robert Kaleel, wherein he stated, "[t]he purpose of my testimony is to explain 

the purpose of this proposal, which will amend 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 243 ("Part 243") to update 

Illinois' air quality standards to reflect several revisions of the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards ("NAAQS") promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. 

EPA") ... Specifically, the amendments reflect revised NAAQS for ozone, particulate matter, and 

lead." Kaleel prefiled testimony, pages I and 2. 

At the hearing on March I 0, 2009, Mr. Kaleel clearly and repeatedly stated that the 

Agency intended no changes for the S02, CO, and N02 related sections of Part 243. In response 

to questioning from !ERG's attorney, Mr. Kaleel repeated for each pollutant that the Illinois EPA 

did not intend to seek changes for such pollutants (See Transcript of March 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 of Federal Regulations. Pre filed testimony of Kolaz, 2. !ERG 

speaks of confusion if the 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 of April 28, 2009, hearing at 

37.) Therefore, it is a change in policy that would cause confusion. Mr. Kolaz states that this 

policy is by mere happenstance, but to make no amendments to a standard for over thirty years 

while changing other standards in that same Part, evidences some intent. I d. 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 

monitoring technology allowed for continuous measurements and the determination of running 

averages. The use of running averages has been !EPA's interpretation of the S02 NAAQS ever 

since. 

This debate about averaging has spawned much litigation. But, as the courts have stated, 

both forms of averaging are allowed. NRDC v. Thomas, 845 F .2d I 088, I 091 (DC Cir. 1988). 

Eventually, in 1986, US EPA produced a guidance memo declaring that it wished states to use 

block averaging. "Block Averages in Implementing S02 NAAQS", quoted in Thomas, 845 F.2d 

at I 097. The memo, however, specifically stated that states were free to develop more stringent 

standards under Section 116 of the 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 of this 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 of the CAA. Running averaging 

has not proscribed. 

Section 116 of the CAA allows Illinois, like all states, the freedom to enact regulations 

more stringent than federal ones. It has long been agreed that running averaging is slightly more 

stringent than block averaging. PPG Industries 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 of running 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 or what would cause a violation of the S02 standard in Illinois. 

Indeed, prior to 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 if the Board were to force the Illinois EPA to use block 

averaging Aventine would be considered in compliance. 

In 2007, two exceedances of the 24-hour S02 NAAQS 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 of the 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 of the 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 of relaxing the S02 standard for all sources in Illinois. Thus all 

sources in Illinois could increase their emissions of S02 leading to an unnecessary increase in 

pollution. 

!ERG further suggests revising the State's air quality standards for S02, CO, and N02 to 

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

case of CO 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 (or milligrams) per cubic meter 

for these pollutants. The Illinois EPA urges the Board to retain the numerical values using both 

units, micrograms (or milligrams) per cubic meter and parts per million, 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 per cubic meter are routinely used for modeling 

S02, CO, and N02. Federally approved air quality models are designed to calculate micrograms 

per cubic 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 of the Illinois EPA. This rulemaking was intended to be a simple updating of Part 243 

to account for new USEPA NAAQS standards. It was not intended to encompass substantive 

changes that are discretionary for states to impose. Again, Illinois has every right to use running 

averages and has never swayed from the use of such. To force Illinois to use block averages 

would relax the S02 standard and increase S02 emissions throughout Illinois, not just from one 

ofiERG's members. Furthermore, the Illinois EPA urges the Board to retain the numerical 

values for S02, N02 and CO using both units, micrograms (or milligrams) per cubic meter and 

parts per million, as both units are used routinely. 

DATED : _ ___,J,un....,e'-'8"-=20"""0""9-

1 021 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 Counsel 
c • 

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

* * * * * PC #1 * * * * * 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

COUNTY OF SANGAMON 

) 

) 

) 

ss 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

l, the undersigned, an attorney, state that l have served electronically the attached POSTHEARING COMMENTS,' upon the following persons: 

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

I 00 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Virginia Yang, Deputy Legal Counsel 

111inois Department of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, JL 62702 

Matthew Dunn, Chief 

Division of Environmental Enforcement 

Office of the Attorney General 

69 West Washington St., Suite 1800 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Dated: June 8, 2009 

1 021 North Grand A venue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

217.782.5544 

Tim Fox, Hearing Officer 

111inois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

I 00 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 of Legal Counsel 
• Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 

* * * * * PC #2 * * * * *[I r:::\EPA ATTACHMENT NO; _!.J 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

CLEAN-UP: AMENDMENTS TO 

35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 243 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

R09-19 

(Rulemaking- Air) 

NOTICE OF FILING 

TO: Mr. John C. Therriault 

Assistant Clerk of the Board 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

100 W. Randolph Street 

Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 6060 I 

(VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL) 

Mr. Timothy J. Fox 

Hearing Oftlcer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

100 W. Randolph Street 

Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 6060 I 

(VIA U.S. MAIL) 

(SEE PERSONS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST) 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of 

the Illinois Pollution Control Board POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP on behalf of the Illinois 

Environmental Regulatory Group, copies of which are herewith served upon you. 

Dated: June 8, 2009 

Alec M. Davis 

General Counsel 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

REGULATORY GROUP 

215 East Adams Street 

Springfield, Illinois 6270 I 

(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 

Post Office Box 5776 

Springfield, Illinois 62705 

(217) 523-4900 

THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
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 OF THE 

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 opportunity to 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. Code Part 243 ("Part 243") to " ... reflect CUITent national 

ambient air quality standards established by the U.S. EPA under the federal Clean Air 

Act." Statement of Reasons, In the Matter 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 the hearing concerning differences between the proposal 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 of the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency's ("U.S. EPA") NAAQS. !ERG 

supports the desire of the 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 the Matter of Proposed Air Quality 

Standards (R72-7), adopted on July 10, 1975, the Board discussed the need for statewide 

ambient air quality standards, and among other things, concluded the following: 

... uniformity between state and federal standards is obviously desirable 

unless there is solid ground for disagreement, especially since we have 

already devised a plan for achieving federal standards. 

In light of the above considerations, the PCB today is proposing adoption 

of the federal standards. 

"Proposed Air Quality Standards," Board Newsletter #47, cited in In the Malter of 

Proposed Air Quality Standards, R72-7 at 4-5 (Ill.Pol.Control.Bd. July 10, 1975). 

The Board then proceeded to adopt the federal NAAQS. 

The proposal by the Agency in this rulemaking appears to continue the espoused 

policy to maintain uniformity between state and federal standards, " ... unless there is solid 

ground for disagreement. .. " IERG supports the Agency's proposal, but would further 

encourage the Agency and the Board to take this opportunity to update the standards for 

sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide as well. 

The air quality standards for sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon 

monoxide have not been substantively revised by 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 and the matter of updating 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 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) PM.LQ_Measurement Method. For determining conformance with 

the PM10 ambient air quality standards, PM10 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 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 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 (incorporated by reference in Section 243.108). 

c) PM2 5_Standards. The primary 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-hour concentration of 35 micrograms per 

cubic meter, at the 98th percentile value, an&-as measured 

and detem1ined in conformance with 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 243.1 08). 

Compliance with the standards is detennined using the methods 

and procedures described in 40 CFR 50, Appendix N (incorporated 

by reference in Section 243.1 08). 

I) The annual primary and secondary PM2 > standards are met 

when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as 

detennined in accordance with 40 CFR 50. Appendix N. is 

less than or egual 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 

met when 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-hour ozone standards: 

a) Standard~. The primary and secondary ambient air quality 

standard~ for ozone areis 0.075 parts per million (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 air EJHality stasdard, eOzone shall be measured by l!tfle 

reference method specified by 40 CFR Patt 50, Appendix D, or an 

equivalent method as described in 40 CFR Patt 50, Section 50.1, 

all designated as prescribed by 40 CFR Part 53 (2003k The 

primary and secondary ambient air quality standards are met when 

the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-

hour average ozone concentration is less than or egual to 0.075 

.PJllih.arul-as determined using the InteFjlretatieB aftbe J>lAAQ8 fer 

G;,,-40 CFR Part 50, Appendix P, (incomorated by 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. The primary and secondary ambient air quality 

standards for lead and its compounds areis 0.1 S micrograms per 

cubic meter, maximum arithmetic mean over a rolling three 

calendar month periodaverage measured and detem1ined over a 

three year period. 

b) Measurement Method. For determining conformance with the 

ambient air quality standards for lead and its compounds, lead and 

its compounds shall be measured by a reference method based on 

40 CFR 50, Appendix G or Appendix 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 of this Part. The primary and 

secondary ambient air quality standards are met when the 

maximum arithmetic 3-month mean concentration for a 3-year 

period is less than or egual 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 of Part 50 as 

{incorporated by reference in Section 243.108 of this Part}. 

V. SULFUR OXIDES (SECTION 243.122) 

The current sulfur oxides standards in Section 243.122 were adopted by the Board 

on July l 0, 1 975, and according to the Board, the standards were" .... identical to the 

federal standards." Board Opinion, In the Matter of Proposed Air Quality Standards, 

R72-7at 14. 

The U.S. EPA has reviewed and revised the criteria upon which its sulfur oxides 

air quality standards are based and has determined that revisions of the standards were 

not warranted, other than several minor teclmical 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 per cubic meter, adding explicit rounding 

conventions, and specifying data completeness and handling conventions. The U.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 solely in terms of 

parts per million to be consistent with, and improve understanding of, U.S. EPA's 1996 

determination. The State's current standard is expressed in micrograms per cubic meter 

and parenthetically in parts per million. The number of significant digits is not the same 

between the two units of measure, which affects rounding conventions that can result in 

misinterpretation of data. Further, for the purpose of its own data handling, the Agency 

measures, interprets, and reports sulfur dioxide data in terms of parts per million. 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 modeling program. Hearing Transcript, In the Matter of Air 

Quality Standards Clean-Up: Amendments to 35!11. Adm. Code Part 243, R09-19 at 24, 

29, 31 (IIl.Pol.Control.Bd. April28, 2009) (cited hereafter as "Tr."). IERG believes this 

concern to be overstated. The modeling program is a planning tool and is not a 

recognized protocol for detennining compliance with the air quality standards. Whether 

the State's air quality standards are expressed in parts per million or micrograms 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 of the 

same clarification will not only help avoid confusion, but it will also result in the 

codification of the 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 of 24 hourly values must be available to compute a 24 hour 

average. 40 C.F.R. § 50.4( d). It further specifies how missing data and other similar 

issues are to be handled. !d. IERG understands that the Illinois EPA currently uses these 

conventions. Incorporating them into the State's sulfur oxides standard would simply 

formalize the current practice the 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 of block 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 of the original 24-hour, 3-hour, and annual SO 2 

standards was ambiguous on the matter, the earliest actions of the EPA 

signify that the 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. The U.S. EPA then stated, "[t]o eliminate any future questions on this aspect of the 

standards, clarifying language is being proposed in the regulation ( 40 CFR 50.4 and 

50.5)." !d. The NAAQS now reads, in part: "[t]he 24-hour averages shall be detennined 

from successive nonoverlapping 24-hour blocks 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 explicitly recognized that "the use of the alternative, running averages, would 

represent a tightening of the standards .... " 61 Fed. Reg. at 25576. 

!ERG maintains that the wording of the State's sulfur oxides standard in regard to 

averaging time is ambiguous. Mr. David Kolaz, testifying on behalf of!ERG at the April 

28, 2009 hearing, stated that the 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 the Matter of Air 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 of the Board records relating to the Illinois sulfur oxides standard, 

!ERG has been unable to locate any instance where the Illinois EPA stated that its intent 

was to have a standard for sulfur oxides that is 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 of the State's sulfur oxides standard was 

based on being identical to that of the U.S. EPA. Because U.S. EPA's standard is based 

on a block average interpretation, IERG suggests that Section 243.122 be amended 

accordingly to remove the ambiguity. In the altemative, should the Agency not concur 

with the change to a block averaging interpretation, it should be prepared to justify the 

need for a more stringent state than federal standard. 

VI. NITROGEN DIOXIDE (SECTION 243.124) 

The U.S. EPA's air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide was last updated in 

1985. 50 Fed. Reg. 25544 (June 19, 1985). The standard includes block averaging, 

rounding convention, and data completeness and handling methodologies similar in 

concept to those described in greater detail above for sulfur oxides. The standard is also 

stated in tenus of parts per million and stated parenthetically in micrograms per cubic 

meter. In stating the parts per million standard, the U.S. EPA included an additional 

significant digit, expressing it as 0.053, instead of 0.05, parts per million. 

As pointed out at the April 28, 2009 hearing by Mr. David Kolaz on behalf of 

IERG, the Illinois EPA currently uses 0.053 pa1ts per million as the State standard in its 

mmual air quality reports. Tr. at 29; Kolaz Testimony at 4-5. Accordingly, IERG 

recommends that the Agency and the Board modify 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 nothing to add clarity. The lack of need for inclusion of the 

9 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 

* * * * * PC #2 * * * * * 

parenthetical micrograms per cubic meter is further supported by the U.S. EPA's practice 

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 !-hour NAAQS 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-hour NAAQS 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, I 996 was expressed only in tenns of parts 

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. For Illinois to 

delete the micrograms per cubic meter reference for nitrogen dioxide will not create a 

substantive inconsistency between 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, 

choosing to express the standard in parts per million and parenthetically in milligrams per 

cubic meter. 50 Fed. Reg. 37501 (Sept. 13, 1985). This is the reverse of the 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 handling criteria. Nothing was stated about 

block averages, but the U.S. EPA uses a running non-overlapping approach to 

interpreting compliance with the 8-hour standard. IERG advocates expressing the carbon 

monoxide standard solely in terms of parts per million for the reasons specified in the 

10 
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 8, 2009 

* * * * * PC #2 * * * * * 

above discussions of sulfur oxides and nitrogen dioxide. We also suggest that the 

rounding convention and data completeness and data handling components of the U.S. 

EPA rule be incorporated. Lastly, we believe that the 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 of the 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, and carbon 

monoxide standards. This will afford the public and regulated community a much clearer 

understanding of the State's air quality standards. !ERG further believes the standards 

will then more accurately reflect the methods and techniques that the Agency uses to 

interpret the standards, with one exception. Unlike its current practice of interpreting 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 of the proposed 

rulemaking- to provide confonnity between Illinois' and the U.S. EPA's standards, as 

stated by the Board at the time the State's standards were initially adopted. IERG 

appreciates the opportunity to comment. We will be pleased to 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 6270 I 

(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 behalf of the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group, 

upon: 

Mr. John T. Theniault 

Assistant Clerk of the 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 6060 I 

Charles E. Matoesian, Esq. 

Assistant Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

I 021 North Grand Avenue East 

Post Office Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

Matthew J. Dunn, Chief 

Office of the Attorney General 

Environmental Bureau North 

69 West Washington Street, Suite 1800 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

Virginia Yang, Esq. 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, Illinois 62702 

by depositing said documents in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Springfield, 

Illinois on June 8, 2009. 

Is! Katherine D. Hodge 

Katherine D. Hodge 

IERG-00 1\R Dockets\Filings\R09-19\NOF & COS- !ERG's Post-Hearing Comments